"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message

You have to understand clown, that TROLLS are readily identified, and

most

often ignored.

I simply replied to reinforce in people's minds, exactly what your

purpose

is.

The reasons are somewhat different to what you claim, my OP is ignored
because those who support the claims that I have opposed have no
evidence to counter mine.

You respond because the truth hurts, and you cannot present anything
that can counter my evidence, and that is why you attack me and my
faith as opposed to defending the Protestant claims.

Have you ever heard the song, "Cry me a River"??
We listen TROLL, cry me a fucking river.

How can simply presenting the facts directly from those sources and
providing the necessary links be considered garbage by any stretch of
the imagination?

Because it is by a cath0_lick clown who can't vary from what his idiotic
church tells him.
It's a fact clown, you start with a faulty premise, you end with one also!!

Can't you get it through your little mind, that no cares if the bible

says

Rock, Stone, Pebble or Chocolate Bar!!

None of that has anything to do with who was the foundation of the

church.

Everyone, except for ursurper cath0_licks, knows that there is only one
foundation for the church.

And you are right, Peter did tell us what it was -

Matthew 16: 16 - THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

The foundation of the church.

This verse doesn't prove that Jesus was the foundation of the church
in any way.

Just like any of your verses prove nothing.
You are fucking amazing.

You quote Strongs and the KJV, and offer that as proof.

I offer verses from the bible, and ancient texts, and because they collide
with your idiotic beliefs, I still have to prove something.

And all one needs for evidence that Peter meant exactly that, is covered

in

1 Peter 2. Where Peter tells us that he was one of the lively stones

that

make up the church. And Jesus was the cornerstone, the PURE FOUNDATION,

as

prophesied in Isaiah.

Because Jesus made a word play on that, and cath0_licks in their abject
ignorance miss that, do you really think protestants care??

So now you are claiming it is all just a play on words, prove it.

You prove it isn't. You are a fucking Joke. You keep saying prove it, when
you have proved nothing.

Which would mean that your whole precious Protestant faith is based on
lies.

Ohhhhhh, now it comes out. We have a fucking rabid cath0_lick who is letting
his preconceived notion show, The Protestant faith is based on lies.

***** didn't Benny just say something like that. All other faiths are
wounded??

Hey we all laughed at that also.

Just like we are all laughing at you.

Exactly, by your own admission you are on here to bait protestants,

which is

what TROLLS do!!

How can presenting the bare facts be trolling, by definition a troll
posts messages that are deliberately incorrect as well as provocative.
I have not posted anything that is incorrect, deliberately or
otherwise, so I say again I am not to blame for your reaction to the
facts.

But you have posted deliberately false information. You're just to stupid to
see it.

The whole problem is that it is your definition of TROLL, and it is your
definition of incorrect.

And once again you prove my point!!

Again, you have presented no evidence of anything. THE KJV and Dr.

Strong

mean nothing, if you don't know how to use them.

Are you attempting to suggest that I don't know how to use a Bible and
a Concordance?

Hey it was your own words. You said the KJV and Strongs are protestant
sources!! So tell us one more time how a cath0_lick knows more about
Protestant sources than the Protestants.

Or TROLL some more. Smile.

And further when confronted with facts, like Theodoret telling us

that

the

PAGAN EMPEROR CONSTANTINE had 50 copies of the bible printed at

least 60

years before your date, you offer nothing, but a few Alexandrian

bishops

who

had a running feud with Theodoret, as saying he was untrstworthy.

Fact, Constantine was a practising Christian for many years, and death
bed baptism was a common practise amongst the Christians of Rome, so
are you going to tell me that all those Christians were pagans before
they were baptised?

Just because he financed some religious activities does not mean that he

was

a christian. Did he not have some of his own family killed?? Is that a
christian act??

Many people who have been Christians have killed on countless
occasions throughout history. Adolf Hitler, the Emperor Charlemagne,
the Spanish Inquisition, the Christian armies of the Crusades, Henry
VIII (who also set himself up as the head of the Anglican Church
because the pope wouldn't annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon).
There are many more God-fearing Christians throughout history that
have killed (supposedly in God's name on occasions).

I find it interesting that all were cath0_lick other than Henry!!

And you find that killing other humans is christian??

I'm so glad that Gustavus Adolphus kicked your cath0_lick asses out of
northern Europe, and made it free for Protestants.

Otherwise you clowns would still be burning heretics at the stake and
pretending it was a christian thing to do!!

Does the fact that they killed far more people than the Emperor
Constantine make them non-Christians?

Hey, claim Hitler as one of your own if you like!!

We all know that he was a cath0_lick and his hatred of the Jews came from
the cath0_lick teachings. Didn't your cath0_lick crusaders start in the
Jewish section of the city as kind of a warm up??

The fact that he used the church for his own means, has nothing to do

with

being a christian.

And why not tell us how an ARIAN bishop can make anyone a christian??

Or do you still believe the fable that Sylvestor baptized Constantine.

I'm sure if I was to search the web, I could find you a picture of
Sylvestor, the bishop of Rome, baptizing Contantine.
And everyone now knows that it is fiction!!

Did you look up that picture, or do you need some help with it??

Just like your claiming Constantine was a Christian is fiction!!

Prove it.

Prove he was a christian!! Tell us how being baptized by an Arian (heretic)
Priest made him a christian in the eyes of your cath0_lick faith.

Or do you still believe Sylvestor baptised him??

Hehehehehehehehehehe!!

Show me evidence that any of the Bibles compiled from the fourth
century AD onwards are based on this alleged Constantine Bible and
that this Bible was at any time used in the Western Roman Empire and I
will conceed that this compilation was the first Bible.

Fine -

Constantine ordered Eusebius to prepare a bible!!

Wrong he ordered a compilation of scriptural documents, nowhere in the
accounts of either Eusebius or Theodoret does the word "bible" get
mentioned.

And you pretend not to know what word play is all about??
Let's see what does bible mean??

Bible - The sacred book or writings of ANY RELIGION!!

What was it Theodoret said again??

I mean, of course, copies of the Holy Scriptures

WHAT?? Holy scriptures??

A compliation of holy scriptures is not a bible to you??

What a novel, yet amusing concept!!

Eusebius just happened to leave us a list of his canon.

Here clown read it -

.. the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of

the

Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul;

next

in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of
Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems

right,

the Apocalypse of John, .....

Sound at all familiar??

Ooops!! Did he leave some out??

Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority,
there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of

Jude;

and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second

and

Third of John, ....

Tell us cath0_lick clown?? How close is Eusebius to the new testament??

You claimed it was a Bible, by definition a Christian Bible should
contain the works of the OT as well as the NT.

Can you prove it did not have OT books in it??

Oops, seems you can't prove anything. Isn't it fun when one reverses the
tables??

You still haven't provided evidence that shows that this compilation
was used to construct any of the Bibles from the fourth century AD
onwards in the Western Roman Empire. Close but no cigar.

And you have provided no evidence that it wasn't.
So, like me, you are close but no cigar!!

And that dear, is called TROLLING!!

Trolling is the posting of messages that are deliberately incorrect
and designed to provoke a reaction.

My posts are not incorrect as this would imply that the Protestant
source materials that I used are also incorrect.

That is what is called a logical fallacy - You assume that protestant

source

materials are correct, therefore you also have to be correct.

The fact that the source is correct, does not mean that you are using it
correctly.

How have I used the source materials incorrectly? All I have done is
present what I found in those sources, as evidence against Protestant
claims that are not founded in scripture or proven by the concordance.

You have used the sources with a cath0_lick premise that Protestants are
wrong, thus making all your conclusions invalid, as you have started with a
faulty premise.

In fact, any protestant will tell you that you are wrong.

How about you prove that I am wrong rather than banging on about it.

I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right, and
you have failed miserably. You are just too stupid to see that!!

Evidence to prove me wrong, properly presented with links I can go to
would be appreciated.

Evidence to prove you are right, Should be your fisrt priority, and if you
think for one minute that I am going to give you sources, which you will
only reject with word play, like you have with Theodoret, hardly makes it
worth my time.

As I have said, you continuing to yell, prove it, to me, when you have
proved nothing, just shows us all your cath0_lick double standard.

You assume that becasue your church says it is so, it is!!

Protestants have debuked that theory for 500 years.

And if your senile, old pope, in trying to use his Hitler Youth experince of
Ein Fuhrer, Ein Gott, und Ein Reich, to translate into one Fuhrer, one God
and one Church, just doesn't do it for anyone but idiot cath0_licks so be
it!!

Thus, we arrive back at the beginning.

You admitting that you post to only Protestant groups to get a reaction.

And dear, that is called TROLLING!!

I am not admitting to anything of the sort, as I have said before
trolling involves the posting of a message that is deliberately
incorrect, and all I have posted in my OP here are the facts straight
from the Bible and from the Concordance, unaltered in any way, shape,
or form.

Only in your opinion!! Other opinions have you being intentionly dishonest
in your posts, and as you ahve already admitted, you have not posted this to
cath0_lick groups as your whole purpose is to bait Protestants.

It matters little of your definition. You are a TROLL.

Do we care if you admit it. Not fucking likely.

A rant?? You are the one that can't accept evidence. I pointed out time

and

time again, that THE PAGAN EMPEROR had prepared the first bible. I have

now

presented evidence to you of what was in it.

You are ranting, you call me a troll, a clown etc, you post in
capitals which is "shouting", you haven't proved that the Emperor
Constantine was a pagan or that while a pagan he prepared the first
bible.

Only in your little mind.

Go back to what Roger Pearse, even while he was busy bashing me, he had to
admit that Theodoret said that Constantine prepared a bible.

Just because you have been indoctrinated with cath0_lick *****, hardly
proves anything you say!!

And if he was a pagan and his bible formed the basis of all other
bibles produced in latter times then what would that say of the whole
of the Christian faith?

That it is pagan based, because once he had given power to the church, part
of the deal was to compromise with the pagans.

Take some of your church festivals if you need evidence.

The Saturnalia becomes Xmas, etc. etc. etc..

But will you accept it?? Or course not. Some cath0_lick clowns have told

you

the first bible was prepared by your church in 393AD. And like a

cath0_lick,

you cannot go against what your church has bullshitted you with for

years.

Now that is not what I told you. I told you that the first official
canon of the Bible was compiled by the Council of Hippo in 393 AD,
that is a historical fact.

NO, that is not correct. You only think that, becasue the cath0_licks had
decided at that point that they wanted to include some books that were never
canon.

You can scream historical fact all you want.

And the first official Bible was ordered by Pope Damasus I and
compiled by St Jerome and his team.

Cath0_lick *****. We have an earlier bible, and evidence of it from an
ancient text.

All Bibles from that point onwards until the Protestant Reformation of
the early 16th Century AD contained all the books of that canon
compiled in 393 AD (including those removed by Martin Luther)

WOW!! And when the Cathars came along with a different bible, your church
declared a crusade agianst them, and burned them at the stake??
All bibles you say??

OH, sorry, you must have meant, all cath0_lick bibles!!

Smile.

And even Martin Luther acknowledged that without the Catholics (whom
you seem to hate so much) the Protestants wouldn't have any knowledge
of the Bible.

What did dear old Martin know?? I guess Nag Hammadi was after Luther's
time??

Thus you deny, deny, deny.

I have presented evidence that in Peter's own writings, he tells us that

he

was one of the lively stones making up the church, while Christ is the
foundation.

Wrong he calls Jesus the cornerstone, that is not the same as a
foundation stone.

Ah, word play once again.
Listen clown, your opinion is noted.

And unfortunately rejected.
Just like we rejected your church 500 years ago.

But will you and your usurper buddies accept that??

Not on your life. And that we all find amusing!!

If you find it so amusing why do you use profanities, why do you
insult me, and why do you attack the Roman Catholic Church?

Because I have no patience with idiots. It does not get any simpler!!

You are so full of hatred and venom that I cannot imagine how you can
claim to be a Christian.

Kind of like you, so full of *****, it's hard to even believe you are a
human!!

It's like the idea that cath0_licks have that Mary was somehow born

without

sin.

Yet the bible tells us that Mary took a turtle dove to the synagogue to

have

sacrificed as a sin offering for her.

But you cath0_licks pretend Mary was too stupid to know if she has

sinned or

not.

A fine smokescreen, but it doesn't divert me from the fact that you
have failed to prove my position to be wrong.

And you have failed miserably to prove that you are right.
In you ignorant opinion you have proved your point, and now you can run back
to a good old cath0_lick newsgroup, and tell them all about your great
victory over the protestants.

Or you can continue to TROLL, and give us all a laugh!!

Hey your choice cath0_lick boy.

TROLL and be laughed at, or get the ***** out!!

Smile.

I sure hope you will be able to confess of these sins to God and Jesus
before you go to sleep.

Perhaps you can show me exactly what sin I have committed. Chapter and verse
will do.

Or NOT, if you have nothing!!

Are you still here TROLL!!

Be gone!!