Religion

[mike_lang]

  the first pope...CLEMENT...went to this school of alexandria.  he was called 'clement of alexandria.' 

I'm afraid you are mistaken, my dear - Pope Clement and Clement of Alexandria were two different persons.  St. Clement of Alexandria was a theologian, not a pope.

From EWTN:

ST CLEMENT, POPE, MARTYR (A.D. 100)
Feast: November 23
[See Tillemont, t. ii. p. 162; Ceillier, Wake, Pagi ad an. 100, n. 2. Schelstrate, Ant. Illustr. Diss. 3, c. 2, p. 340. Adnotatores in Anast. Bibl. t. ii. p. 55, ed. an. 1723. Orsi, t. i. lib. ii.]
St Clement, the son of Faustinus, a Roman by birth, was of Jewish extraction; for he tells us himself that he was of the race of Jacob. He was converted to the faith by St. Peter or St. Paul, and was so constant in his attendance on these apostles, and so active in assisting them in their ministry, that St. Jerome and other fathers call him an apostolic man; St. Clement of Alexandria styles him an apostle; and Rufinus, almost an apostle.

[ahinton]

You know, it took a great deal of self-control to keep that bottle of Pape Clément 1982 where it has been quietly lying since I acquired it in 1983; for the record, even the present amount of pianistimation did not deflect me from my determination to save it for another day...

Speaking of which, a Frenchman (who else!) once urged me to accept that if I wished to derive the ultimate joy and pleasure from a fine wine, I must first believe in God; I told him that I would certainly bear this in mind...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

it's easy to want to confuse popes because they often have several names.  i am referring to clement I  - who studied in alexandria, took simon magus as a travelling companion, wrote many books (such as the farcical 'clementines' which speak of peter on a 'death bed' when he was supposedly crucified upside down) - and also, mentions witnessing the 'duel' of peter and simon magus far from where it happened. 

this guy was a fraud from the start.  he was actually a 'consul' in the roman government.  he was DOMINITIAN's (the emperor's) cousin!  so - now we get 'the rest of the story.'  he was high up in roman government.  why else would a religion keep on going?  it had to be POLITICAL.

ok.  so he has to write the clementines to 'prove' to everyone else that peter gave him successorship to the 'holy see.'  but, his book has to tell many lies because once you start with one - you have to make up others.

the only truth here is that he was actually THE FIRST POPE!  there was nobody before him because he lived at the time and was a contemporary - although worked in different circles.  why? because he was from eastern thought and his focus was not on the gospel and christianity - but on sophism and gnostic thought.

if you want the truth - read history.  even some of his own works - tell you when he lived when he died.  if he was born 10 AD  - he wasn't going to be the fourth pope!  his father was faustinias (?) and mother matthidias  -he had twin bros 'faustus' and 'faustinianus.'

this guy was truly strange.  no wonder they lost some of his books!  even the second book of clement isn't really believable by most to be something 'religious.'  it's like a duel between ideas.  Jesus Christ is pretty much out in open waters.

'pope' clement I called simon magus 'a counterpart to st. paul and the left hand of God.'

[mike_lang]

Dear Pianistimo,

As I have said, you confuse the pope, Clemens Romanus, a.k.a. Pope St. Clement I, with the theologian, Titus Flavius Clemens, a.k.a. St. Clement of Alexandria.

Pope St. Clement I, born in 10 A.D., was the Archbishop of Rome from 88 until 99 A.D.  The fourth pope, he was preceded by Popes Linus and Cletus.  He was martyred ca. 102 A.D.

Best,
Michael

[pianistimo]

notoriously some 'popes' are supposedly martyred.  did you know that pious the XI was killed by mussolini's doctor because of not doing what he wanted him to? 

and why - down through all these ages has no pope wanted to call himself peter?  they're all called paul.  maybe they know peter never started this whole thing!  and, never gave any authority whatsoever to any other 'successors.'

did you know in the bible ONLY peter was given the keys.  there is no mention that he should choose successors to be in line to hold these keys.  whatever is loosened and bound is completely in the jewish line of David until today.  the throne will always be with the line of David.  the king/priest line - is not emperor/pope. 

how can any roman force - hold a religious line to religion that started with 12 jewish apostles?  especially one that is the FIRST pope - and a cousin of an emperor. it's preposterous.  also, that he learned first in the east and not from peter in jerusalem.

[pianistimo]

benedict XIV struck clement I's name out of calendar of saints.

[mike_lang]

btw, there are several clements of alexandria.  true, there was another after him.  but, he was first called clement of alexandria and then - clemens romanus.  a roman pope.  although he was technically greek.

From NewAdvent.org: "...it was the custom to identify the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian..."

I believe you are twisting the facts toward the recovery of your long lost central argument.  Clement I was of Jewish descent, and was most certainly born in Rome.

[pianistimo]

prove it.  if he was jewish he would not have been the cousin of domitian.

my central argument is that clement I lived in the time of the apostles but was closest to simon magus (his travelling companion to the east - for mystical purposes).  domitian was in his 10th year around 80 AD - only 14 years after nero in his 12th (66 AD).

[mike_lang]

benedict XIV struck clement I's name out of calendar of saints.

His feast day is November 23rd.

[mike_lang]

prove it.  if he was jewish he would not have been the cousin of domitian.

In his Epistle to the Corinthians, he states that he is "of the race of Jacob."

[pianistimo]

he did not die for belief in Jesus ressurrection.  he had no jewish blood whatsoever.

[mike_lang]

  he had no jewish blood whatsoever.

Did you read my last post?

he did not die for belief in Jesus ressurrection.

For what then, pray tell, did he die?

[pianistimo]

what he says and what history says about him are two different things.  he was a pope romanus.  the whole idea of 'pope' comes from rome and eastern thought.  it is mystical and comes from the ideas of the east.  it started with simon magus who thought that 'the life is in the blood' - meant literal blood.  just because they drank the apostle peter's blood doesn't mean they have 'life'  or can grant the Holy Spirit.

do you realize how apostate the idea of being a pope is to christianity anyways?  it's wierd.  how can one claim to be 'the father.'  God is our only Father.

[mike_lang]

what he says and what history says about him are two different things.  he was a pope romanus.  the whole idea of pope comes from rome and eastern thought.  it is mystical and comes from the ideas of the east.

It comes from the primacy given to Peter over the other apostles (not to mention, he often spoke for the apostles: see Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69), and to the traditional primacy of the Archbishop of Rome.

[pianistimo]

peter never granted successorship to the REAL first pope which was clement I.  he lived in the appropriate times.  how come the 'book' lists three others first.  who were these guys? and how can peter EVER be claimed a pope?  he was sent to the people of circumcision and not the gentiles.  paul was sent to the gentiles and started the church in rome.  read 'romans' of the bible.  he says he would never build upon another man's foundation.  how could peter have founded rome's church?  it was SIMON PETER MAGUS.  the magician.  the fraudster.

how do i know?  deducing and reading history books (manY).  clement claims that peter gave him successorship on his deathbed.  peter was never ON a deathbed if he was crucified upside down.  also, he says that he witnessed the duel between simon magus and peter and nero  -farrr away from where it supposedly happened.  that is because he was either in the east or busy as 'consul' for rome.

i don't doubt, however, that simon magus peter gave him successorship and also the 'keys' of his magic.  i believe that today under st. peter's basilica are the bones of simon peter magus or 'simoni deo sancto' (which is/was actually on a statue in the tiber) 

[mike_lang]

do you realize how apostate the idea of being a pope is to christianity anyways?  it's wierd.  how can one claim to be 'the Father.'  God is our only father.

We already had this conversation, yet you continue to spam.  It is an expression of his duties as the servant of the servants of God, as a priest, as a bishop.  I'm sorry to be so vulgar, but this must be put in capital letters: THE TITLE OF FATHER IS NOT LITERAL.

[pianistimo]

spam is when someone writes something that cannot be proven.  i can prove what i am saying.  in fact, i'll start putting in where i am finding it.  some of it is in your own catholic encyclopedias.  in fact, clement I has yet to be reinstated as a saint - unless i am mistaken and he has been in the last few days.

now, why cannot you saint your own first pope?  were some of his writing spurious even to the catholic church?  how about to a first century christian.  blasphemous is what he was to them.  modern scholars don't seem to fully accept the second book of clement. 

maybe because clement I was secretary to simon peter magus?  and succeeded him?  you see, nero was very fond of simon peter magus.  and not so much of st. peter.  anything that would threaten the foundations of the government would not be tolerated.  that is how 'popes' survived.  through much politization.

now clement was already in government (being a cousin of domitian) and consul - of the emperor.  convenient, i'd say.  and, he wasn't jewish.  the emperor's didn't like that.

[mike_lang]

now, why cannot you saint your own first pope?

Clement I is indeed St. Clement I, dear Susan.  Where have you found evidence to the contrary?

[pianistimo]

why did he die in exile?  did domitian execute clement?  usually the symbols around clement I have an anchor.  it is said that he was weighted and cast overboard.

now, if he was sainted - his letters to the corinthians showed him inept to stop the sexual immorality that the corinthians were known for.  i suppose that it wasn't all his fault - but half of his letter to the corinithians sounds like a poor second to paul's own sincere letters.  i think he and simon magus were 'wanna -be's' and died for that instead of for true faith.

that is because they sought power.

[mike_lang]

why did he die in exile?

Are you going to answer the preceding question before you ask another?  When one rocket is found to be a dud, do you launch another?

Do you think it unlikely that he was viewed as a revolutionary, a political threat?  Do you believe that what he and the Christians did was quiet and unobtrusive?

[pianistimo]

why did clement seek the crown too?  wasn't he satisfied with being pope?

[mike_lang]

why did clement seek the crown too?  wasn't he satisfied with being pope?

"Objection, your honor!  Relevance!"
-Sam Waterston, as Jack McCoy (Law and Order)

Tell me more about this alleged lust for power; we shall digress for a moment.

[pianistimo]

I clement 25:1 - starts in about 'the east' and the phoenix bird that lives 500 years.  this guy was a lunatic from the start.  this was eastern thought and part of simon magus teachings.  that is why he was sunk with a boat anchor.  the phoenix bird was part of egyptian teachings and sun worship.  a combining of egyptian immortality thoughts with christian.  it is plain in the writings of clement that he is a philosopher/mystic and not a true christian.  he twists scripture.  read paul's letter to the corinthians where he first explains who he is.  the letter from clement never even says who is speaking.  hmmm.  wonder why he didn't want to say who wrote this?

ok.

michael - i think we both agree to disagree.  your pope was not a saint to me.  neither was he jewish.  i think he was roman.  and, i think that he was unsaintly enough to be fairly unremembered in the list.  in fact, put fourth - when he should have been second - if his story about being told directly by peter that he was the next 'bishop' (not pope - mind you) .  if peter told him directly - how could there have been 2-3 other popes in between.  were they sharing a bed?

he was young enough at the time of Christ's death - to be truly remorseful for either the christians or the romans - but i think he decided to save his life temporarily and went for the roman side.  ie because nero, vespatian, and domitian hated jews.  if he was around 23 at the time of Christ's death - he would have been around 56 after 12 years of nero and 66 after 10 years of vespatian - and 76 (if not killed before) after 10 years of domitian.  now - to survive into his 60's at least - meant #1 he's not jewish.  #2 he's not christian in the sense of believing in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ  #3 he was willing to worship the emperor until he defied him.  wanting god-like worship himself.  i don't think he was a saint - otherwise - there would have been several years of persecution in there somewheres. 

[mike_lang]

i don't think he was a saint

That is immaterial; he is a saint.  Of note: your construction should use the present tense, not the imperfect.  The pronouncement of sainthood declares that a soul is in Heaven, after an extended "sainting" (as it is called colloquially) process.

[pianistimo]

is that in the catholic bible?  it's not in the king james.  'the soul that sins - it shall die.'  there is no immortal soul here.  that's where the ressurrection of Jesus comes.  how can anyone have been raised before Him and how can anyone be raised from the dead without Him raising them at His second coming when that great trumpet blast will sound and the dead 'shall be raised...incorruptible.'

this is where sophism and mystical thought from egypt and alexandria come into play.  did you know clement changed several passages in the bible to fit his trinitarian thought.  splitting a verse to say , Father, Lord, and Holy Spirit?  he wanted people - for sure - to doubt God instead of believe Him.  to make philosophy and religion so convoluted that they wouldn't really know what they believed and to rely on someone else to constantly be telling them what to believe - as a mystery.

did you know that he even finished his letters (clementine letters) with a threat?  and to only let portions of the letters go out at a time?  he was basically attempting to imitate the apostles -but the true christians saw right through him.

[wotgoplunk]

I think this thread is proof that religion does nothing except cause arguments 

Let's all become secular Humanists and be happy! 

[mike_lang]

'the soul that sins - it shall die.'  there is no immortal soul here. 

This refers to the loss of divine grace - to die is to be cut off from the source of life.  What is to sin, but to cut oneself off from God?  Nevertheless, grace can be regained, since God forgives.  You speak of two different types of mortality of the soul in your two sentences.  One is temporal, one is final.

that's where the ressurrection of Jesus comes.  how can anyone have been raised before Him and how can anyone be raised from the dead without Him raising them at His second coming when that great trumpet blast will sound and the dead 'shall be raised...incorruptible.'

Those who have died in Christ are received in Heaven, after they have been purged of all impurity, but it is their bodies that they do not receive until the end of the age.  At the end of time, the body is resurrected and we are to inhabit glorified - incorruptible - bodies in Heaven (or Hell).  It is not that the soul cannot enter Heaven (indeed, Christ died so that this could happen), but that the body remains, decaying, until he comes again.

[pianistimo]

instead - why not attempt to read history and compare it with the bible.  the times and places and dates are all proven archeologically and by other writings.  when you compare other 'church histories' they are convoluted and many things are left to the imagination and become swollen over time.

i'm not saying that even the apostles lives were not blown up - but hey, they never asked to be venerated - let alone their tombs disturbed.  they didn't want people saying prayers over them.  they already committed their spirits to God.  why do people think they can gain anything by praying near, in, or around a 'sacred place.'  what makes anything sacred?  God.   God is everywhere. 

you don't need to journey to mecca, jerusalem, timbucktoo. you just need to pray directly to Jesus Christ your high priest and expect an answer.  fatima is a fatuous idea. 

regarding heaven -there is no place in the bible that says anyone 'goes to heaven.'  if you inherit an incorruptible body in HELL - you are immortal. this is what the devil said.  you shall NOT SURELY DIE.

[mike_lang]

you just need to pray directly to Jesus Christ your high priest and expect an answer.

Are you saved, sister?  I say, are you SAVED?

[wotgoplunk]

instead - why not attempt to read history and compare it with the bible.  the times and places and dates are all proven archeologically and by other writings.  when you compare other 'church histories' they are convoluted and many things are left to the imagination and become swollen over time.

Not necessarily. Outside the Bible and related religious scripture, what proof do we have that Jesus ever existed? Also, archaeology does NOT point to the Bible. Unless Rubidium-Strontium dating is 4.4999 billion years off

you don't need to journey to mecca, jerusalem, timbucktoo. you just need to pray directly to Jesus Christ your high priest and expect an answer.  fatima is a fatuous idea.

You know, no matter how many times I ask him, he doesn't seem to respond. What did I ever do to him? 

Fatima was a delusion of the masses. Hmm...


Ugh, I feel like such a hypocrite posting here.

[pianistimo]

well, i wasn't baptized as a baby - but rather an older age.  like Jesus Christ. he was baptized at 30.  i was at 24.  perhaps it was too young, still.  i'd never allow my children to be baptized until they made their own choice.  otherwise - you're trying to save someone who hasn't consciously thought it out - thus condemning them to hell if they don't want it.

as i see it - i don't even think that people who are baptized as babies are confronted with any sort of ill will by God.  i think he views infant baptism as a mere bath and nothing more.  our God saves people from every sort of imaginable false teaching and error by showing himself truthful when people seek Him out.

if you are seeking Him - you will truly find Him.

[mike_lang]

But I say, sister, are ya SAVED? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

condemning them to hell if they don't want it.

What?

[wotgoplunk]

But of course, you'd bring them up in a distinctively Christian household, therefore nulling their will to choose. 

(In most cases. I became an Atheist from a long line of Roman Catholics)

[pianistimo]

the definition of 'saved' to some means a 'ticket' in hand.

i never felt a ticket put into my hand.  however, i have felt the peace of God from a young age.  sometimes just going out for walks by myself in the quiet and peace of nature.  i could hear and see God in His creation.  even though i was sometimes doubtful - i would ask Him to prove himself in my life - and He did.  i became more and more confident (probably as yourself michael - as i do not doubt your sincerity - nor your belief in God).  what made me confident was not attending church so much as seeing the love of God working in my life.  i felt guided at times to do or say things according to the Word of God instead of my own decisions which would be according to my own nature and not necessarily God's. 

of course, i have had many times where i didn't always think of the Word first - and lose touch and feel distance.  but, after baptism - even those times of distance were learning curves.  i became able to see that no matter if we sin or don't sin - we are not less loved.  He is all just - and all forgiving.  it is our hearts that have to turn and be pointed at Him in full concentration and repentance.  if we truly love God - we want to be close to Him and He senses our hearts and turns to us as well.

just as with music - sometimes you hear love in silence as well.  it is timed silence.  God gives each of us time to think.  time to ponder.  time to ask questions.  then we wait.  wait for God.  some do not like to wait very long.  sometimes you have to wait years.  joseph was literally in prison seven years.  why didn't he give up.  job lost his entire first family.  why didn't he blaspheme God as his wife suggested - and die?  what gives people this strength?  it is from God's own Holy Spirit that he teaches patience.  it is one of the first virtues and certainly not the least.

about being 'saved.'  there is someplace in the bible that warns against 'falling away.' if this is not possible - then it wouldn't be mentioned.  so i believe that it is possible to fall away.  and much harder to renew one's faith afterwards.  better to repent.

[mike_lang]

i became able to see that no matter if we sin or don't sin - we are not less loved.  He is all just - and all forgiving.  it is our hearts that have to turn and be pointed at Him in full concentration and repentance.  if we truly love God - we want to be close to Him and He senses our hearts and turns to us as well.

Well said.

ML

[pianistimo]

michael - you have a lot of patience already.  perhaps way more than myself.  i appreciate your correcting me on 'clement of alexandria.'  i take your crit and realize that catholic history is best told by you, probably.  i have my own understanding of it - and feel less connected to it.

have a good night. susan

[ahinton]

michael - you have a lot of patience already.  perhaps way more than myself.  i appreciate your correcting me on 'clement of alexandria.'  i take your crit and realize that catholic history is best told by you, probably.  i have my own understanding of it - and feel less connected to it.

have a good night. susan

It took you such a long time to get there, did it not?! A little clemency at last! But now, after all that duetting, you are seeming to say that you don't want to play the same game any more and attempting to duck certain issues by implying that Catholic history and Christian history are incompatible one with another; were that true, it would surely threaten to undermine the practice of Christianity everywhere. Messiaen composed an opera on St. Francis; don't anyone look to me to do the same for St. Clement after all this...

Best,

Alistair

[pianochick93]

and despite at least 2 people posting about the irony about this thread. It still continues to be ironic.

[ahinton]

and despite at least 2 people posting about the irony about this thread. It still continues to be ironic.

Might it not occur to you that the reason for this may be that certain of its contributors have seemed largely to ignore most of its others and continued an exchange almost independently of any other potential or actual contributor?...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

alistair, i appreciate your acts of peacemaking.  actually, the most ironic thing is that when Jesus Christ arrives on the scene the first shall be last.  so i suppose - whoever is actually a peacemaker is going to be first in line.  i would say you have a good chance at that if you don't push your luck.

wotogoplunk has reservations about religion in general - basically- because of the strife.  but, interestingly Jesus Christ himself said 'i have not come to bring peace, but a sword...'  what he meant by that was that the roman government was not according to God's law.  so we have a conflict of interest.  this is not our world yet.  JEsus Christ was tempted by satan and told that he could have power (over all the world) if he would bow down and worship Satan.

now - what i find disturbing is that we have basically another 'holy roman empire.'  we have a religion in place,  we have a pope that is going to UN meetings,  we have government officials promoting (even on tv as we speak) citizenship in the european union rather than our own democratic countries.

so - if you want to be forced into a certain 'mold' - join in!  otherwise - stand out and die.  i take patrick henry as my man - and basically say 'give me liberty or give me death.'  i don't want the euro as my dollar.  and i don't want to be told that my country can only mint coins and not dollars.  i don't want to be told what religion is the best or the government favored one.  i don't want to see workers from every country coming into my country without MY country deciding they are wanted and not terrorists.  the eu will provide a way for countries to LOSE SOVEREIGNTY.

now - this is the connection that people should realize when politics, religion and the maastrich treat of feb 7, 1992 - are converging just like the holy roman empire.  watch it happen in the next few years.  if you don't fight - you're a sitting duck for some fat squasher.  here in the usa we've had an interesting television commercial lately.  it is promising happiness, peace, etc - for the price of joining the eu.  who is behind these commercials.  the catholic church!  wopee.  it's not the first time they've become involved in world politics.  if someone identifies them as paying for the commercials - they'll blame it on the eu - which will then admit that they are promising many things in return for sovereignty.

this is the time the bible spoke of  - 'do not trust a neighbor....'  you do not know who of your neighbors is a patriot of your country or of a world empire.  interestingly, not only governments but schools and even smaller groups within the schools are PROMOTING a one -world system.  they have been for the last 50 years.  the children automatically will be assumed to take it easily.  are they just waiting for the next generation?  or, will it suddenly come - a sudden takeover.  just as president george washington saw in his vision.  a huge force coming across the atlantic.  don't worry about vladimir putin's crazy advances - because the euro is stronger than russia right now.  and, the way it will exert more pressure is through the church.  the eastern and western church will unite.  in our lifetime i believe.  perhaps they already have.

[pianistimo]

interestingly the parentage of clement of alexandria puts into doubt when he was actually born.  perhaps he lived through 100ad but was born before then?  perhaps he was studying at the 'catechetical school at alexandria' and claiming that school was begun by st. mark? was propounding a new religion through the school at the same time as having been the first 'pope' (my theory).   i am not certain of clement of alexandria's lineage though it is spoken of as GREEK.  what his dates were - and certainly the dates of his supposed teacher 'pantaenus' should be found.

in the roman empire - wherever you were is what you were - wasn't it?  i  mean he could have been consul in rome - moved to greece and basically been a roman in greece.  ultimately, he was a roman citizen (this was not granted without accepting the emperor as a god).

btw, about this 'catechetical school':  if mark supposedly began the school and he was a contemporary of Jesus - this clement would have been very familiar with the true gospel and probably spoken to him.  he would have been around 23 when Christ died - and so in his later years able to speak not only of history but the true gospel.  also, his dates and information that he gives would follow the persecution of said mark, peter, paul - and he should have been giving information about what was happening to them precisely - just as josephus.  wouldn't a disciple care about his own apostles?  this is supposing that he was not in 150 ad - but rather around the next successor at the school AFTER MARK (if mark was there heading the school?).

clement romanus - clement of alexandria - we have similar stuff going on here.  now where he was thrown overboard and what exactly for?  i haven't gotten that far.  i am supposing that it was infighting between which church reigned supreme.  you see - when he was under domitian - the center of the church would be rome.  but if he wanted to wrest control - he would go to alexandria or jerusalem.  although , jerusalem wouldn't have been the best choice.  he may have been thrown overboard simply because he wanted the emperor's position as well as the pope.  you know - complete control.

'we are in the same boat'  - pope clement to the church at corinth
https://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/clement_i_a001.htm  clement of alexandria's date of birth and death seem to be unknown - and yet his writings seem to carry a strange similarity to clement I.

[pianistimo]

fragments of various texts say that their origins could have been much earlier.  why did clement of alexandria write that the foundations began at golgotha?  was he more familiar with it than he let on?  https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.ii.html

[ahinton]

alistair, i appreciate your acts of peacemaking.  actually, the most ironic thing is that when Jesus Christ arrives on the scene the first shall be last.  so i suppose - whoever is actually a peacemaker is going to be first in line.  i would say you have a good chance at that

That is surely very kind of you, Sister Susan.

if you don't push your luck.

I'm not so sure that this is very kind of you at all!

wotogoplunk has reservations about religion in general - basically- because of the strife.  but, interestingly Jesus Christ himself said 'i have not come to bring peace, but a sword...'

Yet you just said that, according to Christ, the peacemakers will be first in line...

what he meant by that was that the roman government was not according to God's law.  so we have a conflict of interest.  this is not our world yet.  JEsus Christ was tempted by satan and told that he could have power (over all the world) if he would bow down and worship Satan.

now - what i find disturbing is that we have basically another 'holy roman empire.'  we have a religion in place,  we have a pope that is going to UN meetings,  we have government officials promoting (even on tv as we speak) citizenship in the european union rather than our own democratic countries.

so - if you want to be forced into a certain 'mold' - join in!  otherwise - stand out and die.  i take patrick henry as my man - and basically say 'give me liberty or give me death.'  i don't want the euro as my dollar.  and i don't want to be told that my country can only mint coins and not dollars.  i don't want to be told what religion is the best or the government favored one.  i don't want to see workers from every country coming into my country without MY country deciding they are wanted and not terrorists.  the eu will provide a way for countries to LOSE SOVEREIGNTY.

now - this is the connection that people should realize when politics, religion and the maastrich treat of feb 7, 1992 - are converging just like the holy roman empire.  watch it happen in the next few years.  if you don't fight - you're a sitting duck for some fat squasher.  here in the usa we've had an interesting television commercial lately.  it is promising happiness, peace, etc - for the price of joining the eu.  who is behind these commercials.  the catholic church!  wopee.  it's not the first time they've become involved in world politics.  if someone identifies them as paying for the commercials - they'll blame it on the eu - which will then admit that they are promising many things in return for sovereignty.

Which "government officials" of which countries are you talking about? Where is located this new "holy Roman empire" of which you write? Your country does certain things to discourage illegal immigrants and terrorists just as do the countries of the EU, to varying degrees, but not everyone in US or EU shares the same views, desires and aspirations about immigration. We have plenty of immigration in UK but we also have increasing emigration.

this is the time the bible spoke of  - 'do not trust a neighbor....'  you do not know who of your neighbors is a patriot of your country or of a world empire.  interestingly, not only governments but schools and even smaller groups within the schools are PROMOTING a one -world system.  they have been for the last 50 years.  the children automatically will be assumed to take it easily.  are they just waiting for the next generation?  or, will it suddenly come - a sudden takeover.  just as president george washington saw in his vision.  a huge force coming across the atlantic.  don't worry about vladimir putin's crazy advances - because the euro is stronger than russia right now.  and, the way it will exert more pressure is through the church.  the eastern and western church will unite.  in our lifetime i believe.  perhaps they already have.

Susan, either you're writing utter nonsense again or you have some pretty peculiar things being broadcast on the American television channels that you watch. No one is seriously suggesting that America drops the dollar and adopts the euro! Even 15 out of the 27 EU countries haven't adopted it! Your country comprise a group of states whose governmental infrastructure operates on more than one level. Ostensibly, at least, that group of states is nevertheless more integrated than are the countries of the EU. Despite certain laws being different from state to state, does anyone ever accuse Washington of seeking to undermine the sovereignty of Texas?! Even Scottish law is not precisely synonymous with English law, just as the laws of North carolina are not precisely identical to those of Philadelphia but, again, this is hardly an issue of flinging sovereignty on some kind of sacrificial altar. Can you seriously prove beyond doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is funding US TV commercials promising peace and happines for the price of joining the EU? I've never heard such nonsense! No American politican is seeking, let alone promoting, the absorption of US into EU and the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is behind such promotional advertising is frankly beyond risible!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

then i want to know more about this advertisement which promises 'everything you want' - and even has a red seal in the pic - that looks strikingly similar to the seal of the holy roman emperors.  it's wierd i know - but i've seen it three times.  if it is not the catholic church who is providing this untitled 'how to get happiness ad' - it is someone who is promising the wind right now - and no real information about how to get it.  i feel it is a series - and warming people up to the idea of buying the euro.  you can laugh all you want - but that's what people are doing here anyways - to my CONSTERNATION.

do you want to see free countries dissolve in days?

ok. back to clement I.  interestingly about him is that his book to the corinthians was written in greek.  therefore - he probably was knowledgeable about greek.  this is what i have learned about him.  back in the times that he lived - if you were a greek and a 'libertinus' of some roman citizen - you would be known by the cognomen of your patron (and a descendant of a libertinus would have a roman cognomen).  so - titus flavius clement would have been a name associated with the flavian family.  he could still be greek AND roman.  this follows the idea that his sophist thoughts (greek in nature) could be understood within his consul position in the roman empire - and basically his word in the church was like law.

ok.  so we know domitian married a flavius and even took on the name 'titus flavius domitianus.'  now the supposed clement of alexandria (supposedly 150 ad) would have had the similar name of his co-ruler 'titus flavius clement' because of working together.  so the timing of this would have been along domitian's rule which was MUCH EARLIER.  (81-96 ad).  if the dating was wrong - then clement of romanus and clement of alexandria - were basically one and the same - thus explaining how trajan did him in (trajan ruling from 96-101 ad).  clement I was possibly co-presbyter with linus and anacletes - and possibly banished under trajan to the taurian chersonesus - and thrown overboard along the way.

his two epistles are in the british museum in the alexandrian codex.  this also explains how and why the other books (of clement of alexandria) find no dating and no real history or parentage of clement of alexandria.  oh. dates are assigned to them - but to prove the dates?  in fact, the codex puts them near the back after the apocalypse and apostolic epistles - therefore -the value is shown to be speculative.  gnosticism is promoted as you can witness by reading extracts here (scroll down halfway through it - and he starts into gnostic thought without a doubt): https://www.theosophical.ca/WritingsOfClementAlexandria.html  this gnostic/sophic idea of the Holy Spirit being the mother of Jesus Christ at the beginning of the world.  nowhere is this mentioned in the bible - but it is mentioned by clement I.

[pianistimo]

this whole story of clement the first bishop (as no mention of him as pope truly) stems from the fact that he was, in fact, a part of the roman royal family flavius.  his father, marcus arrecinus terullus clemens was a prefect of the praetorian guard at 41 AD.  therefore - he could have learned what happened at golgotha from his own father who probably spoke to none other than the guards who had witnessed JEsus Christ's crucifixion less than ten years earlier.

now, in 70 AD the temple was destroyed.  so we know that whomever took over both church and state was not going to be jewish.  i believe Clement was truly a greek and adopted at an early age by tertulla (grandmother of vespatian) and his family had been titled 'flavius.' 

btw, my source is josephus.

now clement I had a daughter 'arrecina tertulla' who was the first wife of the emperor titus (named after the grandmother?)  he also had a sister 'plautilla.' 

now in his own recollections his father's name was faustus (H), faustinianus (R), and faustinus (liber pontificalis) and his mother matthidia.  i find it most interesting as to the greek name of his daughter - arrecina.

following the faustian line - i then turned to a writer by the name of 'lightfoot' who mentions that the church of st. clement in rome is not older than 1059 and is the third building on the site.  underlying the second is the basilica mentioned by jerome and the first shows signs of worship of mithra.  another interesting fact is that there was no monarchical government in the church (whether roman or jewish) before anicetus (156 or 166). 

the sophist doctrines as evidenced by clement I and II (books) may have been written by clement - but obviously contained heretical material both to the catholic church and to christian thought.  that is - imo, why he was not sainted.  his day may be remembered - but too little is saintly about him.  a father that was a prefect of the roman guard or faustinius (according to clement?)  - neither sounds saintly.  i believe him calling himself faustinius is referring to being adopted within the emperors who were all a bit crazy in the head.  his daughter being a wife of emperor titus? domitian's bro?  they were so cruel and inhumane.  had he been a christian - wouldn't he have whisked his sister away from them and taken her to safety?  and what about domitians second wife that was killed in her 20's by an abortion? was this one of the first caesareans? whew.  these emperor's were mad.

[pianistimo]

this time of the supposed first pope's was tumultuous in the church.  basically, after all the apostles were imprisoned and executed - anything went.  so - who was controlling clement from saying whatever he wanted?  certainly sophist and gnostic doctrine are part of the books of clement.  do catholics READ THIS?

[ramseytheii]

regarding heaven -there is no place in the bible that says anyone 'goes to heaven.'  if you inherit an incorruptible body in HELL - you are immortal. this is what the devil said.  you shall NOT SURELY DIE.

I'm confused, and probably not doing myself any favors by pointing that out.  But you spent a large portion, a very large portion I might add, of a previous thread trying to insist to me in all possible ways that there is not eternal existence in hell.  One by one of course I was able to disprove your theories not using Catholic doctrine but literal Biblical passages, and now you seem to have come over to my point of view finally - that condemnation to hell does in fact mean an eternity, a "flame that shall not be quenched," and a "worm that shall not expire."

Am I too pompous in giving myself a small bit of credit for this remarkable conversion?

Many thanks,
Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

That is surely very kind of you, Sister Susan.
I'm not so sure that this is very kind of you at all!
Yet you just said that, according to Christ, the peacemakers will be first in line...
Which "government officials" of which countries are you talking about? Where is located this new "holy Roman empire" of which you write? Your country does certain things to discourage illegal immigrants and terrorists just as do the countries of the EU, to varying degrees, but not everyone in US or EU shares the same views, desires and aspirations about immigration. We have plenty of immigration in UK but we also have increasing emigration.
Susan, either you're writing utter nonsense again or you have some pretty peculiar things being broadcast on the American television channels that you watch. No one is seriously suggesting that America drops the dollar and adopts the euro! Even 15 out of the 27 EU countries haven't adopted it! Your country comprise a group of states whose governmental infrastructure operates on more than one level. Ostensibly, at least, that group of states is nevertheless more integrated than are the countries of the EU. Despite certain laws being different from state to state, does anyone ever accuse Washington of seeking to undermine the sovereignty of Texas?! Even Scottish law is not precisely synonymous with English law, just as the laws of North carolina are not precisely identical to those of Philadelphia but, again, this is hardly an issue of flinging sovereignty on some kind of sacrificial altar. Can you seriously prove beyond doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is funding US TV commercials promising peace and happines for the price of joining the EU? I've never heard such nonsense! No American politican is seeking, let alone promoting, the absorption of US into EU and the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is behind such promotional advertising is frankly beyond risible!

Best,

Alistair

It's too bad we have to defend against more racist anti-Catholic tripe, though I suppose it is refreshing to hear theories of Catholic world dominance than Jewish cabals.

A lot of the rhetoric we've heard in Amerika in the past 10 years is decidedly anti-European, and if ever the EU were to force the euro on the Amerikan population, it would be a massive failure of the politicians spreading that hateful rhetoric in order to get the fanatic vote.  And those are the very people the fanatics elected to keep them safe!

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

not only rhetoric from leaders but doctors!  did you know that catholics also bargained for a potential explosion of advertisements for catholic medical associations to help people have supposed happiness and health in the new union in exchange for whatever!  there's always a deal in there.  is this what the pope proposed?  i have no idea - but i'm not going for it.  i want to choose my own doctor from a wide assortment - not a pre-picked few and certainly not through any eu compromise.  i'd rather be shot.

https://www.fiamcbarcelona2006.org/fiamc.asp?IDIOMAPAG=EN
https://www.feamc.org/English/Frame_page.htm
https://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/AboutGuild/MainAbout.htm

ramseytheii, - there IS NO agenda of jews for the world.  banking has gone to brussels incase you haven't noticed.  and, the poor state of israel will become a further mess if the pope intervenes and splits it up.  well, i can't see the future - but i'm sure the pope (being a religious sort) will attempt some 'peace negotiations.'

what i'm talking about is absolute control of eu and catholics in it.  do you know how much complicity was between these two in mussolini and hitler's time.  read 'hitler's pope.'

in terms of world agendas - we have the catholics, we have the european union, we have the illuminati, and various other thngs working in complete cooperation it seems.  banking.

[pianistimo]

as i see it - if one medical association has precedence over another - who is to control how the government uses this.  will they use this for implanting chips - or other technological devices to track people.  using one medical association is VERY convenient.

the only 'problem' right now for the catholics is that the eu is convincing many nations to not have anti-abortion laws.  also, they recently put down a vote against man and woman being the only married state, and of course, battling in slovakia first with issues such as :

conscientious objection (if you don't belong to a seminary - consider your objection invalid and you go in the military anyways), abortion, fertilization, experimenting with human organs, embroys, cell research, euthanasia, cloning, sterilization.

now, if i am a christian and object to any or all of it - will this be included in the 'human rights act' of the eu?  of course, not.  they define the rights in a very limited manner.  even catholics have to swallow hard.  you see, it's a deal they are working out.  evil for evil.

i heard in the netherlands there are children who are in critical stages of health that are routinely euthanized.  what about the elderly?  what about mentally unstable.  this happened in the late 30's before the war and into the atrocities of WWII.  it's convenient because the world economy supposedly cannot handle all these people.  but, God is on His throne and He wouldn't make any more people than we can feed if we followed his precepts and gained blessings.