Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (311)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Faith. God does not hear the prayers of protestants because only Catholics are Christian. Heresy and those who espouse such doctrinal errors are the gates of hell, and protestants mislead the masses with promises of salvation through a false god, the protestant version. Convert or you will burn in hell.

  • Sure Alex, "only the best films". Except for Chris Pinto's new film, The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers. I noticed that you're not carrying that one... hhhmmmm... very interesting. Maybe you just don't want to accept the truth about the founding fathers?

  • @maidenak Alex needs to accept the truth that the false left/right paradigm he criticizes is based on the founding of America by Enlightenment Freemasons & Puritanical Protestants, both anti-Catholic. On the Enlightenment Masonic left-wing are Democrats, socialists, liberal academia, freethinkers, & Obama; on the Puritanical Protestant right-wing are Republicans, crony capitalists, evangelicals, & Bush. Both wings are often opposed to the Catholic Church just like America's founders.

  • @fx2py Wow. Somebody needs to get out fo the left/right paradigm, but it isn't Alex.

  • @maidenak Alex has awoken to the fact that there's a left/right paradigm but he doesn't realize it's merely the Masonic/Protestant tradition that was passed on since America's founding by Freemasons & Protestants. Alex is still in the left/right paradigm because he meets the criteria I mentioned: he's capitalist, Protestant & anti-Catholic.

    Secular liberals & Protestant fundamentalists brag & debate whether America was founded by Freemasons or Protestants. Well it was founded by both.

  • @fx2py You need to watch Chris Pinto's trilogy on the beginnings on America. You have to distinguish between which "America" you're talking about. The founding of America is not the same thing as the founding of the United States of America. Protestant Puritan/Pilgrims founded America, but Catholics were right there with them as well. Secular freemasons were the predominant force behind the founding of the United States. So what's the point?

  • @maidenak The point is that Protestants and Freemasons were allies against the Catholic Church since the USA's founding, and they formed the foundation of the false left/right paradigm. They were the ruling class & still are, so they control the opposition between left & right, not Catholics. Protestants were always the majority and had the ability to root out the Freemasons, but they didn't. They just kept voting them back in to office while trying to keep the Catholics out of office.

  • @fx2py Wrong, freemasonry was created by the jesuits who drew from the tradition of the Knights Templar who were a catholic crusader order. Protestantism has ALWAYS been opposed to freemasonry as freemasonry supported HIGH CHURCH politics as opposed to the "Low Church" of Protestantism. Protestantism opposes RITUALISM which is the call sign of the papists and freemasons.

  • Comment removed

  • @fx2py Freemasonry wished to subert Protestant nations as it was to be the Jesuits arm within Protestant nations where the jesuits were mistrusted. You need a real history lesson on freemasonry instead of catholic propaganda.

  • Just type in 'a lamp in the dark exposed' in the search bar. A lamp in the dark is a totally ridiculous movie. It doesn't even give reliable sources for its quotes.

    Also vaticancatholic . com explains what has happened after Vatican II which is not the Catholic Church but the counterfeit church of the last days. That is why you are seeing these anti popes (John XXIII - Benedict XVI) promoting the new world order because they are infiltrated freemasons,

    Visit the website for the answers.

  • @TheLordAwaked Good points. Look at who currently runs the CIA (Catholics in Action) Leon Panetta, now leaving as director of the CIA to Secretary of Defense, trained in RCC schools, graduate from Jesuit priest Edmund Walsh's School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. Also look at our SPY CZAR Gen. James Clapper, new CIA director Gen. Petaeus, old CIA director George Tenet. all form Georgetown Jesuit school of mischief. The CIA is controlled by ROME and the black pope. They kill US Presidents too

  • The higher you go in the Church of Rome the more political a beast she becomes. I hope we can get back to the old Protestant position of Papal Antichrist.

  • Been yelling Vatican New World Order forever but no body wants to listen until now.

  • Hats off to Alex Jones for finally revealing this information. If you notice the Masonic sun worship design of the Vatican, Washington D.C. and the City of London, you see that the papacy and the Jesuits control of the RCC are pagan. In 1776, Jesuit Adam Weishaupt merged the Scottish Rite Free Masons with the banned Jesuits in hiding to create the Illuminati and the New World Order's new plan. The free masons have a headquarters in the Vatican next door to the Jesuit headquarters--same people!

  • It doesn't matter if Athanasius was a Vulcan from the planet Vulcan, it has no bearing on this discussion. The Real Christians were targeted because they brought the real gospel to Roman Catholics. The church was murdering people from 1200 AD to 1800 AD to the tune of over 50 million innocent people up to estimates as high as 68 million. EVIL TO THE CORE. Waldenses were soulwinners and also Anabaptists, Bogomiles, Donatists, Albigenses, so on were targeted.

  • @tgambill

    Of course it has bearing on the discussion. You don't like discussing the Church Fathers because they were Catholic, and you have no Church Fathers to back up your heretical beliefs. You're the one that brought up Antioch, Alexandria, Nicea, and Arianism. You say Antioch is superior to Alexandria for having uncorrupted manuscripts, yet Antioch and Byzantium in the East were the very areas where the early heresies like Arianism arose.

  • @fx2py I don't discuss the church fathers because this is a distraction and have no bearing on the events we are discussing. Church fathers are cloned Popes and will do what they are told or Jesuits will in fact KILL THEM! You are trying to distract but it won't work. What did you do go to a Bishop and get his advice before he went to a black mass? Look, we have enough problems with the TBN, Evangelicals, Prosperity, Jesuit ran Protestant churches and masonic preachers. Word faith heresy etc

  • @tgambill

    The translators of the King James Bible studied the Church Fathers and relied on them when translating it. If the Church Fathers are who you say they are then the method that the translators used by the translators is not so "fail safe" after all.

  • @fx2py OH BS!!!! lol. If that was so the church Fathers are confused and have no idea what they were doing. They influence the KJV tranlators in one dogma and then they sport the Latin vulgate with another. :)) It was fail safe because you lie or you are a poor researcher and brainwashed from kissing the Summi Pontefex's ring too much. As I said you people would lie to your own mothers to hide the truth. nite nite.....

  • @tgambill

    Please be more coherent when making your arguments.

    The King James translators relied on the Church Fathers whom you denigrate and call liars.

  • @fx2py "The King James translators relied on the Church Fathers whom you denigrate and call liars." WRONG!!! they relied on themselves and no church fathers. If they relied on the church Fathers the CF's screwed themselves and apparently are inconsistent with their own Latin Vulgate. WOW, you don't even see the implications of your comments. You just make up the BS as you go along or how your Bishop, Queen or pawn tells you. God Forbid you are a jesuit. If you are, you better repent

  • @tgambill "they relied on themselves and no church fathers."

    King James' instructions to the translators included using the Fathers. The translators quoted the Church Fathers quite extensively in the 1611 preface to the King James Version.

  • @fx2py You just aren't getting it. Its a lose lose for you. Number one what you say indicates either you lie like a jesuit or Mason, or the so called priests, were confused as to which Bible was true.  THE BIBLES ARE MASSIVELY Different. SO, the KJV is the correct one, it is DIFFERENT than the Roman Catholic church's corrupted version. DIFFERENT, hello. What you are saying is not even part of the issue. WAKE UP man.

  • @tgambill

    I have refuted your claim that the translators of the King James Version did not rely on the Church Fathers.

  • @fx2py You never refuted my claim with any evidence except with your words and no evidence and your words are worthless as demonstrated by facts I have presented. You have presented NOTHING. They didn't rely on the church fathers they knew better than the roman Catholic clergy, because the Roman Catholics were using corrupted info.

  • @fx2py See if you can follow these facts. First, they assembled the manuscripts. MUCH material showed up that was the EXACT copies of the manuscripts from Antioch, NOT ALEXANDRIA. This became 98% of the evidence. NOW FOLLOW THIS, "They rejected" both the Old and New Testament that ORIGEN had translated in Alexandria. BECAUSE it was massively CORRUPTED. SO, If you are correct then the Church Fathers WENT AGAINST THE POPE and the Latin Vulgate, Rheims, and Greek Septuagint.Egypt.

  • @fx2py NOW, the KJV didn't change for over 200 years until MASONS by the name of Wescott and Hort organized a Bible changing party and let the changes begin.

  • @tgambill

    The Alexandrian and Catholic Athanasius, along with the Catholic bishops of the Council of Nicea, defeated Arianism and kept it out of the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequently, major heresies continued to arise out of the East in Byzantium, the source of your supposedly uncorrupt manuscripts.

  • @fx2py the King James Bible, 1611 is the infalliable, uncorrupted word of God. End of story. Masons and Vatican corrupted the Roman Catholic bible, the NIV,which is owned by Rupert Murdock, by his ownership of the publishers......ALL OF THEM. 

  • @tgambill

    The King James Bible is neither a perfect nor infallible translation. It was translated by fallible men.

  • @fx2py God who created the universe, visited, inspired, and guided the real men and women in the Bible to pass on his Holy Word to the right people, hide his word in the right time and orchestrated by the Holy Spirit to write his perfect word. This is why the heretical sunworshipping Vatican and Masons, have tried to hide Gods pure word contained in the KING JAMES BIBLE of 1611 by bringing the lying additional translations which are heretical.

  • @fx2py It is perfect, it is infalliable and it is the true word and not the perverted text of the Latin Vulgate. Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea dumbly avoided the true word of God, the manuscripts from Antioch and took the corrupted manuscripts of Egypt.  Thanks to Jerome you and Protestant churches have corrupted versions from Hell itself.

  • @fx2py listen, you and I and the rest of the world who are not in the 13 Illuminati families but also inclusive of them also, ARE BEING LIED TOO. Its like an onion or layers in an onion. The inside layer knows more that they are telling the outside layers.This is carried from generation to generation depending on the famly and the organization and in fact documented objectives, names, and long term planning CONFIRMED BY COURT TESTIMONY.Our churches are lying to us about Jesus, KJV is correct.

  • :)) wow. You know what, I would bet you people, like the masons and their horrific and silly blood oaths, would lie to your own mothers to protect the corrupted church insitution. You have no evidence that they were ALL of the Church of England. If they were ALL FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND then why as history dictates, did they reject both the OT and NT that Origen worked on in Egypt? Inclusive of the R.Catholic Latin Vulgate and Rheims (1582) and Greek Septuagint? try again

  • @tgambill

    Are you denying that the translators were of the Church of England, or are you going to be a sophist and split hairs on the words "ALL" and "MOST"? Some had Puritan leanings but they were overwhelmingly Anglican. Their biographies show that most were clergymen. King James himself was head of the Church of England and they translated it under his authority. In the preface the translators call him the "principal mover and author of the work" and they address him as "Sacred Majesty".

  • @fx2py I will split hairs. They were neutral in the translations and God was also directing this with the Holy Spirit. They were scholars from all over. He was also a real Christian and not a heretic like the Roman Catholic murderers.....Jesuits and Monks. He did not worship Baal like the vatican did. The Catholic schools LIE like the regular education system does in the History and economics and the Political science. It is a well planned Rockefeller foundation operation since 1904

  • @fx2py it doesn't matter if they were anglican, muslim, jew, atheist ......if they take Jesus as Savior, repent and as a consequence follow ALL OF THE King James Bible they are going to Heaven. The truth of the matter is however, that the entire Roman Catholic Dogma is built around Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz, and the worship of Baal masked by the current system. The oblisk and what it signifies is really sick. Word Faith, Charaismatic movement, Prosperty gospel, are all Illuminati made.

  • @tgambill

    From the KJV 1611 Preface:

    "And now at last, by the Mercy of God, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty"

  • @fx2py I don't see that in mine, but some will have it and some will not, so then you would have no problem accepting ALL OF the King James Bible even if it conflicts with the heretical Latin Vulgate. The King James trumps the Latin Vulate designed ole Jerome and corrupted by Masons Westcott and Hort.

  • @anonymoustruther2 yes...co-founder. Evil comes in two. Thanks for clarification.

  • So, Alexia Jones is trying to regain credibility since there has been many observations that Jones protects the Jesuits and Political Zionist. What a worm.

  • @anonymoustruther2 You are right. Constantine was the first Pope. He also worshipped the sun and the occult.

  • @anonymoustruther2

    The pope is the bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter.

    The same Linus mentioned by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21 was also the second pope and bishop of Rome after the Apostle Peter.

    The same Clement mentioned by the apostle Paul in Philippians 4:3 was also the fourth pope and bishop of Rome after the Apostle Peter.

    Polycarp, who was Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John, conferred with Pope Anicetus about the date of Easter.

  • @fx2py Peter was never in Rome, Peter was married, Mark 1: 30....Constantine declared himself the "Summus Pontifex" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Alex is getting 90% good info from a fellow elitest but as usual its not entirely accurate from this segment. Maybe the speaker says later but the cross that Constantine sees before the Battle is the ANKH. Constantine was a sun worshipper and ordered Eusbius to get 50 Bibles. He did from the Alexandriaites and they were preverted.

  • @tgambill

    Please provide proof that Peter was not in Rome. What is your point about him being married? That does not disqualify him from being Pope.

  • @fx2py wow, you got me. there is so much I'm not sure where to start. First of all, Mark 1:30 says Peter was married. Next, it is recorded history that Constantine the Sun worshipper declared himself to be Summus Pontifex around 325 AD, during the council of Nicaea. The shields of the soldiers had the Ankh, Egyptian symbol on them when they fought. Paul never mentioned anything about Peter; Peter never wrote anything about Paul who was in Rome. The Pope lies and used to be a Nazi kid

  • @tgambill

    Nothing of what you posted proves that Peter was never in Rome. You keep referring to Mark 1:30 about Peter being married, but you still haven't explained how this proves he was never in Rome. Peter and Paul did not say that Peter was not in Rome. The Catholic Church does not consider Constantine a saint or a pope. Ratzinger was FORCED into the Hitler Youth because membership was required for all 14-year old German boys.

  • @fx2py Nothing I post would ever convince you even if I had pictures. :)) Paul never mentioned Peter while Paul was in Rome and Peter never mentioned meeting Paul while Paul was in Rome. The Catholic Church LIES and is build on the Occult, sun worship. He was not forced he is as evil as evil can ever be. The vatican worked closely with the Nazi party and today they also work with the Mafia. The Catholic church will be destroyed when the New Age Movement takes hold.

  • @tgambill

    Nothing you post would ever convince me because you will never be able to provide proof that Peter never went to Rome. You just keep repeating the same thing. Peter and Paul not mentioning each other is NOT proof that Peter was not in Rome. Without the Catholic Church, you would not even have a Bible, the same Bible you try to use against the Catholic Church.

  • @fx2py The actual proof is that Paul was in Rome. He never mentions Peter once. If Peter was in Rome he would have mentioned Paul. they would at least have had one coffee in Starbucks outside teh gladiator games. :) It is proof and you don't call the shots so we are even. YOU LIE.....the Latin Vulgate comes from the Alexandraite cult that Eusebius, The Heretic Bishop of Caesarea. He believed as Origen, a Roman version of a Jehovah Witness who saw Jesus as less than God.

  • @tgambill

    Again, that is not proof. I'm not calling any shots; I'm calling you out on your fallacious reasoning. The Bible came from the Catholic Church.

  • @fx2py "Nothing you post would ever convince me because you will never be able to provide proof that Peter never went to Rome."

    ***I'm calling you out on being biased and discrediting you as a truth seeker. SInce you cannot provide any specific evidence to support your claims and you refuse to research on your own you have no credibility. You have painted yourself in a corner. True researchers will see you to lack any credibilty. You cannot provide any proof that Peter did go to Rome lol

  • @tgambill

    Church history and the testimony of the Church Fathers confirm and provide plenty of proof that Peter was in Rome. For example, St. Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons and knew Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, wrote in the 2nd century: "we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." Against Heresies 3:3:2

  • @fx2py Church fathers lie. He was not in Rome. The Reason that they are lying is to cover the declaration that Constantine made himself Summus Pontifex. The Vatican is lying to millions. It is based on an occult sun worship and worship of Baal. The virgin is a cover for Sumiramis. Baal worship was started by Semiramis and Nimrod. By 1950 as a matter of fact the church raised Virgin Mary to goddess level co-redeemer with Christ. Wrong thing to do. Get out now.

  • @tgambill

    I cited Church Fathers who lived prior to Constantine, so how can they be covering for him? You just don't like the fact that they were Catholic so you call them liars. That is an unfortunate position to take. Well it's not surprising - the anti-Vatican & anti-Jesuit Eric Jon Phelps calls the Church Fathers "papal". It is no wonder Protestants and Bible-only Christians seldom study actual Church history and the Church Fathers - it would prove the Catholic Church is the true Church.

  • @fx2py no, Constantine was the first. they are actually lying. They plan on destruction of the church after making a heart wrenching announcement concerning the Disclosure Project; and turning the entire religious system upside down. Keep your eye on the New Age movement taking root in the Druid system, and bringing in the False prophet and anti-christ as the Illumianti families embrace Druidism, and Worship of Lucifer/satan. The only true church is Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with Catholic

  • @fx2py none prior to Constantine. Constantine was the first Summus Pontifex.

  • @tgambill

    Constantine was the first what? Ignatius and Irenaeus lived in the first and second centuries and Constantine in the third and fourth centuries. They were lying about someone that was to be born in the future?

  • @fx2py Ignites and Irene have nothing to do with being church fathers......Constantine was da man.

  • @tgambill

    You're just acting goofy now and not even making any sense. Ignatius and Irenaeus more than qualify as Church Fathers. Irenaeus knew Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle and Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle. I would rather believe them than you.

  • @fx2py Not goofy at all. They don't qualify as church fathers at all. Constantine was the first and this is irrefutable history. He declared himself to be Summus Pontifex, if you don't know look it up. Believe them? Lets see the track record.1. Inquisition murderers between 50-68 million people for their property, jews and Bible believers. 2.Eusebius took the corrupted Bibles from Origen. 3.Jesuits secretly engineered the massacre of St. Bartholomew August 24, 1572.

  • @tgambill

    If Irenaeus of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, do not qualify as Church Fathers, then who does? Can you name any of the real Church Fathers of their time?

  • @fx2py Why should name any clergy, not Fathers, but clergy that are after Constantine your first pope? I shouldn't is the answer and don't care.

  • @tgambill

    The answer is you cannot name any Church Fathers who shared all of your beliefs during the time of Irenaeus of Lyons and Ignatius of Antioch, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXIST, and because THE CHURCH FATHERS WERE CATHOLIC. Of course you don't care. 

  • @fx2py The church daddies were just there.......not significant.  Constantine was the first occult Summus Pontifex.

  • @tgambill

    Not significant? Oh really? At least three of the Church Fathers whom you irreverently call "church daddies" and liars, knew the Apostles. Ignatius, whom you call "Ignites", was a disciple of the Apostle John and was bishop and leader of the Church of Antioch, which you claim is the source of the "true untouched word of God". You must not care about having any credibility either.

  • @fx2py Yes, I irreverently call them church daddies and if they aren't liars they fail on supporting a dogma based on the Occult sun worship. Do the research. The Vatican lies, history is worthless as far as truth. my credibility is fine since I'm not into hero worship. Him being a student of John, big assumption that this is true does not make him a Pope. Constantine, sun worshipper declared himself Summus Pontifex, first Pope. Secondly, if Ign. was a student of John so what?

  • @tgambill "Him being a student of John, big assumption that this is true does not make him a Pope."

    You're attacking a straw man. Who said Ignatius of Antioch was a Pope?

  • @fx2py no, only crows attack strawmen and only flying monkey's in the Wizard of Oz take them apart. Ignatius was not a pope, Constantine was the first Roman Catholic Summus Pontifex or the official name for a Pope. the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. This was at the council of Nicaea thanks to Eusebius who took Greek Manuscripts from Alexandria, then the corrupted Latin Vulgate by Jerome

  • @tgambill

    Of course Ignatius was not Pope. When did I say he was Pope???

  • @fx2py Doesn't matter, Constantine was the first Pope by the title Summus Pontifex.

  • @tgambill "Secondly, if Ign. was a student of John so what?"

    I would rather believe a student of the Apostle John than you and your sophistry.

  • @fx2py who said he was a student. IF he was he didn't learn anything or if he did he changed everything to fit the corrupted Roman Catholic version of Sun Worship, literally. Its actually true. You got to get out of this cultish group, no kidding. Peter was never the first pope, he was never in Rome. I didn't study Ign. however, if his teachings is different than what the king James Bible says, he is wrong or lost his notes as a student.

  • @tgambill

    Ignatius of Antioch kept to the teachings of John and the apostles, and persevered in it to the point that he even accepted martyrdom as testimony to the true faith handed to him.

  • @fx2py good for Ignatius, however, it doesn't change the fact that Contantine was the first Pope and everything else I wrote.

  • @fx2py 4.Around 1875 Westcott and Hort works with the Roman Catholic church to subvert the Bibles. "Pope turned deaf ear when informed about 200 victims of pedophile priest", It isn’t easy to convince Catholics who “eat” the Eucharist-flesh-of-Christ “believe” that those holy-priestly hands are the same priestly-beasts that have sexually abuse the most vulnerable of society, the innocent altar boys and girls?

  • @fx2py The Proof that the clergy presents is made up and used to fit the big lie that Peter was there. We have the same problem with the lying National council of Churches, World Faith Movement and Illuminati Charasimatic movement, Christian Rock heresy....its getting bad. Many of the pastors, ministers et al are Masons or they have Jesuit Handlers keeping them on track. They use the 501 C3 as a club to keep if they are good little pastors or remove it if they are bad.

  • @tgambill

    "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" St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189])

    "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict." Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

  • @fx2py peter was not in Rome. Neither Paul nor Peter mentions either in their writings. The Latin Vulgate is a fraudulent version of the correct Textus Receptus. Eusebius who had a choice of using the Greek Manuscripts from Alexandria or from Antioch (True untouched word of God), to make up the 50 Greek Bibles He chose the books perverted by Origen, who was Arian and the Jehovah Witness of the day. 

  • @tgambill

    I've already proven that Peter was in Rome. You just don't like the testimony of actual Church history nor the Church Fathers.

    The Latin Vulgate, the manuscripts that make up the Textus Receptus, and all other manuscripts came down to us thanks to the the Catholic Church and the Catholic monks who originally copied and preserved them. Not all Catholic Bibles use the Vulgate.

  • @fx2py lol....thats the biggest bunch of bull. COME ON. you are lying big time. The Textus Receptus is a completely different translation stream than the corrupt Latin Vulgate which came from the Alexandria cult, Origen the Arian. Don't even go there. Surely you are more educated than this. ALL Catholic bibles. Thanks to the Catholic Church from 1200 AD to 1800 AD between 50 to 68 million people were murdered as orderd by Pope Innocent III. In comes Dominic.

  • @tgambill

    ALL manuscripts of the New Testament, including the ones that Erasmus used for the Textus Receptus, ultimately came from the Catholic Church. Erasmus himself was a CATHOLIC, and obtained his texts from the CATHOLIC DOMINICANS! The Byzantine texts ultimately came from the Catholic monastic scribes of Byzantium, which was CATHOLIC since the beginning, as well as Eastern Orthodox much later.

  • @fx2py lol..came from the Catholic Church?? What a boldface Liar. Your monks and Satanic Jesuits are worse than radical muslims all through history. The Jesuits secretly engineered the massacre of ST. Bartholomew on August 24, 1572. They used Roman Catholic Troops and Dominican Monkey's I mean Monks for the job. They slaughtered UNARMED Bible believers in Paris. They even thanked the goddess Semiramis you call Virgin Mary another lie, for the victory.

  • @tgambill

    Are you denying that Erasmus was a Catholic and got his manuscripts for the Textus Receptus from the Catholic Dominicans?

  • @fx2py glad you brought that up. Erasmus, edited the Greek text which was later to be known as the Textus Receptus this is true, however he was an embarrassment to the pope and a according to these heretics a poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic.

  • @fx2py Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.

    He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.

  • @fx2py Erasmus did not believe in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion. We see why he worked so hard to find God's preserved words and publish them for all to read. A copy of the second edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament ended up in a school in Wittenberg, Germany, where a monk named Martin Luther found it. That Greek text helped Martin Luther to start the Reformation, which brought us the King James Bible.

  • @fx2py I'm so glad you brought this up....thank you.

  • @tgambill

    Athanasius of ALEXANDRIA was a Catholic and Church Father and is known in history as the champion in fighting against Arianism, which had its original roots in ANTIOCH. Athanasius was instrumental in defeating Arianism at the Council of Nicea.

  • Comment removed

  • @fx2py Peter was not in Rome, nice cover story. You people are either brainwashed or lie just like the masons. WAKE UP MAN!!!!! Snap out of it.

  • @tgambill

    "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy Church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [i.e., he was beheaded like John the Baptist]." Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200])

  • @tgambill

    "This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: Like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter." Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32:2)

    "...what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood." Tertullian (Against Marcion 4,5:1 [A.D. 210])

  • @tgambill

    "If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" Augustine (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]). AUGUSTINE WAS CATHOLIC!

    "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting" 1 Pet 5:13. Babylon was a code-word for Rome. Those who deny he meant Rome and then call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon can't have it both ways.

  • @fx2py If its not in the King James Bible I don't believe any of it and most of the lost books are bunk anyway. The whore of Babylon is an evil world system, controlled by the Antichrist, during the last days before Jesus’ return. The whore of Babylon also has religious connotations – spiritual adultery with the beast being the focus of an ungodly, end-times religious system.

  • @tgambill

    That's a cop-out. Some Church Fathers even knew the apostles, yet you call them liars. The manuscripts that were used for the King James Bible ultimately came from the Catholic Church and the Catholic monks and scribes who preserved them. The canon of the New Testament was compiled and determined by the Catholic Church, and you accept their decision. This makes you a follower of the Catholic Church in that regard.

  • @fx2py No cop out. The copies of the original texts from Antioch was taken to the Alps after the Vatican targeted the Waldenses for death literally. They would burn them to death. If you are serious about what you are saying....then get out. They are lying to you and you need to get out. The Church as you know it is heading for destruction as planned by the Vatican, Illuminati according to "THE PLAN" Anyone reading this can research everything I said and confirm all my postings.

  • @fx2py Now, the facts that are substantiated by historical records that anyone other than you; since you have isolated yourself from any research capability apparently,; can confirm. So, this is presented for anyone besided you to check out on their own. SO, the Bible was written by 40 different eyewitnesses, 66 different books by personal experience or inspiration from God himself. The last true inspiration from God came after John of Patmos completed Revelation between 70-90 AD.  Done!

  • @tgambill

    There are actually 73 books in the Bible, not just 66. You left out 7 books. That is because you have an incomplete Bible.

  • @fx2py NO the other books are not God inspired and do not belong in the real Bible. They have nothing to do with the messiah coming, the prophesy, and salvation. ONLY 66 books, end of story. The King James Bible is the only true word of God and that is non-negotiable. The Book of Enoch is a fraud as we have proven in a detailed study here on youtube and published it.

  • @fx2py So, the original scrolls were copied perfectly over a period of time after 90 AD to 325 AD by several different groups.The Catholic chruch was not even hatched until Constantine marched into Rome around 312 or 313 AD.In 325 he set up the Council of Nicaea and declared himself Dummus Pontifex...oh I'm sorry, Summus Pontifex.or wast that Dummus Pontiflex, he was the first Pope. In Galatians 2:8 God chose Peter to go to the Circumcised, Jews and Paul to gentiles. For Paul, Romans Ch 16

  • @tgambill

    Without the Catholic Church and the Catholic monastic scribes who copied and preserved Scripture throughout the centuries, you would not even have a Bible. Even Martin Luther admitted that the Bible came from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church existed prior to the 4th century as is proven by the writings and teachings of the early Church Fathers, who WERE CATHOLIC.

    "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Apostle

  • @fx2py You're not understanding. The Catholic Church is on its way to being destroyed as well as the other religions. They are conspiring to transition to the Book of Enoch when Disclosure happens. The Vatican is one evil organization behind closed doors. Catholic church is Satans own.  Its built on sun worship. No time to be diplomatic. The Protestant chuches are not moving slowly but surely to the New Age heresy and many ministers are Masons or Jesuits.

  • @tgambill The NWO has targeted all religions using the Book of Enoch to take priority when the Ascended Masters take the main stage. The destruction of all religions will take place once this new Disclosure takes place and to a One world religion. Its already in the makings with the Charter for Compassion. Evil to the core. 

  • @fx2py Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities.2 Timothy 4:3-4 (King James Version) 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

     4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

  • @fx2py Now, Constantine wanted Bibles so he sent Eusebius to get Bibles from Alexandria. He took the corrupted manuscripts of Egypt not the true scriptures from Antioch. The entire Roman Catholic belief system is built on the occult and sun worship right under their very noses. From Queen of Heaven to Semiramis and Nimrod to the Roman Catholic Institution. FACT Catholic Bible, Latin Vulgate. King James from the Textus Receptus. I'm just getting warmed up. You better check this out.

  • @fx2py Now, digest this and I would suggest verifying it, and be prepared to received much more when you get stumped or have any questions about what I just wrote. Bring any and all questions just as soon as you want.

  • @tgambill

    I have a question. You accept the New Testament canon that the Catholic Church compiled. How are YOU able to verify that all the books that make up the New Testament actually belong in the Bible and are inspired? If I took a Bible and made some changes to it, will YOU be able to tell it was changed? Where in the Bible does it say which books belong in the Bible? Or, where in the Bible is there a "Table of Contents"?

  • @fx2py The Catholic church is the Latin Vulgate...end of story. King James authorized the KIng James from the Geneva Bible, Puritians. How, simple, Revelation 22: 18-19 is good enough for me. "If"....you are a little to late to be be doing that. The reality is you are 400 years born too late.

  • @tgambill

    You told me to ask questions, so I did, but you did not give me any direct answers to my direct questions.

    How does Rev 22:18-19 tell you which books belong in the Bible, or show you how to discern which ones are or aren't inspired, or show you how to tell whether or not I changed your Bible?

    Please read my questions again & provide some real answers this time without throwing in any of that pagan Rome, Illuminati, black legend nonsense that have nothing to do with the questions.

  • @fx2py The Bible is the sword of the spirit. The method they used to put together the King James was fail proof. The Holy Sprit and prayer and Gods divine will overrides man. Read Revelation 22:18-19 and its pretty clear. Westcott and Hort conspired to change the Bible by made about 81 new english bibles (All Roman Catholic) based on Origen's corrupted text. Soon there will be one Bible for all which will prepare the way for the Anti-Christ or evil one to rule with the one world religion

  • @tgambill

    I read Rev 22:18-19 as you advised but the answers to my questions aren't there - no list of books & no teaching on how to discern what does & doesn't belong in the Bible:

    18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

    Pls advise

  • @fx2py That is pretty clear, dont' add to or take away from the words contained in the Bible. This was clear in the King James Bible and after 1875 the Masons/Jesuits clearly violated this warning. 2 Tim 3:[16] All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [17] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

  • @tgambill

    But it does not give me a list of the 73 books, or in your case, 66 books, that belong in the Bible. Please advise where I can find this list in Rev 22:18-19 or anywhere in the Bible.

  • @fx2py The 66 books are the only ones inspired by God and the others are either manmade or not inspired to be in the true Bible. The KJV is the only Bible that is centered on the 300+ prophesies of the coming Messiah, the NT that details his ministry and the Revelation of what is to come and the entire Bible is perfectly woven over the 1,600 years. Now, you have all that you need. Take it or leave it, its up to you not me. I know, this is your soul and your spirit you are dealing with.

  • @tgambill

    But that's you telling me that the 66 books are inspired, and you are a man. Am I not supposed to consult the Bible only for all truth, not men? If so, then I would like to know where in the Bible I can find a list of the 66 books that belong in the Bible.

  • @fx2py I just told you, try the Table of Contents. This can be found in the front of every book. If your Bible doesn't have a contents page....you got cheated, ask for your money back.

  • @fx2py Oh, the list of the ONLY TRUE WORD OF GOD is contained in the Bible. Go to Revelation; then, assuming you are using the KJV Bible, read backwards until you reach Genesis and the Books will precede Revelation. Or, if you prefer you can start at Genesis and read to Revelation, there you will find the Books of the Bible, or you can start at Matthew and read to Revelation then go to Genesis and read to Malachi 4:6. Might I suggest the front of the KJV, Table of Contents for the list. :))

  • @tgambill

    The front of the KJV Table of Contents was written by men, after the last book of the Bible was written. Which book of the Bible, including chapter and verse, shows the list of books?

  • @fx2py lol...surely you can't be this dense. I've got to go, don't forget to brush your teeth, say your prayers and then have your mommy turn off your light.  THE BIBLE Is 100% inspired by God through man. Deal with it.

  • @tgambill

    But on previous nights you were up so late replying to my posts? Did you get stumped?

  • @fx2py everything I've written in detail and you come back with this moronic comment. Not quite sure what planet you are on, but you better wake up. First of all the world doesn't revolve aound you. Notice that I have a website, Imagine that. Finally, getting stumped is not remotely an option. I typically am up to all hours. Your posts took but a few minutes to type. Can't waste anymore time here...recommend that you research all that I've written or not. 

  • @tgambill

    What you wrote "in detail" was mostly long-winded, irrelevant and do not answer the questions I asked.

    I just find it funny that before, you would be up so late answering my posts, even past 2 am, quick to reply, taking the time to attack me, and challenging me to ask questions. Then after you got cornered and stumped by my questions, all of a sudden you want to bail out of the discussion, and hurl childish insults. We didn't even spend much time on the questions!

  • @fx2py I answered, but you fail as a respondant. I have not been cornered nor stumpted as this is fabrication coming from your refusal to face reality. I didn't spend much time because its a waste of time trying to caste Pearls before swine. You will find this in the Bible. It will dawn on you later when you wake up.

  • @tgambill

    You told me to "bring any and all questions just as soon as you want". OK, I did, but then you ran off and left me hanging, and now you're calling me swine, for accepting your offer and asking tough follow-up questions? I hope you're not a teacher because I wouldn't want to be your student.

  • @fx2py Yes, you did and I fully answered them.Then it became obvious that your Jesuit games are designed to lie, distract and misdirect truth. You leave yourself hanging by accepting heresy. I never called you swine, I just cited a verse in the Bible. MT 7:6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

    If you are not one of these you have nothing to worry about.

  • @tgambill

    Fully answered them? Not even. The answers you gave were non-sequiturs and a barrage of anti-Catholic myths that have nothing to do with the questions. I stay on topic. You don't. You're all over the map with the anti-Catholic diatribes. Being long-winded is not going to give you credibility.

  • @fx2py yes, even. Fx2Py take the silver spoon from your mouth and realize that you don't call the shots. The pope doesn't even call the shots. The Black Pope calls the shots. If the Pope were to start calling the shots he would also be shot by the elites. You are a shill and are mostly off topic. Being biased and unaware of the true conspiracy around you or worse yet, ignoring facts what others are verifying is silently killing your credibility.

  • @tgambill

    Where was I off-topic? Please show me. I made comments as necessary to call you out on the way you are debating, but that does not make me "mostly off topic".

  • @fx2py You aren't calling anyone out, you are shilling, dodging and weaving, and playing little girl games.

  • @tgambill

    I see that you failed to show where I was off-topic.

  • @fx2py I didn't fail anything........there is no need to talk to a fence post unless you are a lonely cowboy.

  • @fx2py " I hope you're not a teacher because I wouldn't want to be your student."

    I would not want you to be one of my students. FINALLY, we agree on something.

  • @tgambill

    The fact remains that you did not and cannot provide a Bible verse that shows the list of books. It does NOT exist.

    On the verses you cited: in Rev 22:18-19, "this book" refers to the Book of Revelation itself, not the entire Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 does not define what "Scripture" is or say what books belong in it. The Table of Contents is NOT SCRIPTURE. Are you kidding? And reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is NOT a list. Very funny and nice try. Chapter and verse, please.

  • @fx2py The verse refers to the entire Bible. The plan by God to put the Bible goes back over a period of 1,600 years of eyewitness accounts, of which Moses wrote the first five by inspiration from God and knowledge passed on by past generations. The Table of contents tells you the proper books described in the King James Bible that is contained in the book thus the correct books. You should try reading sometime,you might learn something but you fail to do so due to shilling.

  • @tgambill

    Rev 22:18-19 and 2 Tim 3:16 do not list the books that belong in the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Revelation etc. They do not explicitly say they refer to the entire Bible. That's your false assumption. You can't just read whatever you want into it to make it fit your heresy. The Table of Contents is NOT Scripture and was not written by the writers of the Bible. It's external to the Bible, just like the Introduction, Foreward, Appendix, page numbers, publisher, copyright, or ISBN.

  • @fx2py Oh my, those two verses don't mention the table of contents, don't tell me this. I'm shocked. Look up the word association and see how it fits. Oh no, nevermind this might be a task you can't do. No false assumption if you can read. Heresy? try the Latin Vulgate and an institution that was responsible for the murders of over 50 million innocents up to 68 million from 1200 to 1800 AD. The Table of contents lists the books that are inspired by God. God inspired and lead this task.

  • @tgambill

    Well you ought to be shocked, because the table of contents fails your test of what is needed in order to be believed as true, namely, that it must be contained in the Bible - Sola Scriptura. Let me remind you: the table of contents is not Scripture, the Bible does not teach which books belong in the Bible, and the writers of the Bible did not write the table of contents.

    "God inspired and lead this task." And who performed this task?

  • @fx2py I am not shocked at all. I'm not even shocked that you cannot read the list of 66 truely God inspired letters to mankind. The Table of Contents are scriptural because they list the scriptures that were inspired by God. King James and the 54 of the worlds most renowned Bible Scholars and Linguists of the day. Each had a solid grasp on the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages. Each was a Christian man and a passion for the word of God including King James. 47 actually took part.

  • @fx2py the KJV was God inspired as they used a fail safe method. Look the rest up yourself, I have and it is solid. The Bible doesn't teach which books belong in the Bible, the Bible teaches the truth about Jesus, the over 300 prophesies in the OT predicting the coming messiah, The birth of Jesus and fulfilling ALL The prophesies, and the resurrection to the Revelation all God inspiried and orchestrated. Deal with it or remain a sinner.

  • @tgambill

    "the KJV was God inspired as they used a fail safe method. Look the rest up yourself"

    Look it up? OK, but I need the chapter and verse, because this "fail safe method" of translating and compiling the Bible along with the table of contents needs to be taught in the Bible, according to Sola Scriptura, as any other method would only come from the minds of fallible men.

  • @fx2py you don't dictate what needs to be in the Bible. Do some historical research and climb down off your pale green horsey.

  • @tgambill

    "The Bible doesn't teach which books belong in the Bible"

    Then who does teach which books belong in the Bible? If they were men like King James and his men, well those guys were fallible and this fails the test of "Sola Scriptura", that it must be contained in the Bible, and that you should not follow the traditions of men.

  • @fx2py Those guys were lead by the Holy Spirit. You need to wake your sleepy head up. You are way behind the 8 veils of understanding.

  • @tgambill

    You are following the tradition of men if you follow the tradition of King James and his men.

  • @fx2py Following tradition of men? No, the Latin Vulgate was translated from a fraudulent manuscript by Origen. The King James was not only guided by God himself but it is the exact translation from the copies of the actual manscripts as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they compared Isaiah. It was not King James men' the translators were chosen very carefully as history points out. you forget the horrific history of the Vatican and jesuits and the occult root of the Catholics.

  • @tgambill "It was not King James men' the translators were chosen very carefully as history points out."

    The "chosen very carefully" King James Version translators were all members of the Church of England, which is an organized religion. If they were inspired to infallibly translate the Bible, then wouldn't they have also been inspired when they chose the Church of England to be the true Christian faith? If so, then shouldn't you yourself be Anglican too?

  • Comment removed

  • @fx2py The Protestant equals is the heretical Word Faith movement and you can google TBN, watch the short video of the "evangelicals" and for all of them its a line up equal to the FBI's 10 most wanted list of frauds. Many are members of the National Council of Churches, Council of national Policy, CFR, and other New Age lies. Its all about the 10% tithing for the church that they do not use for the needy but for the NCC, and personal funds.

  • @fx2py I'm not wasting any more time with this game you are playing. The sad thing is you have the time and the inclination to play these moronic games. You invite negative retort and response by a cowardly method of debate. This is your problem and a good testament and example of how a person can waste a lifetime of education.Its really sad. Would love to stick around but serious issues are coming deal with your own pool of self pity and heretical theology.

  • @tgambill

    You can't have it both ways. You can't demand that we believe only what is contained in the Bible, while at the same time demand that we believe in the work of the fallible men who translated the King James Version, and that we believe in men who were not the writers of the Bible but were the writers of the "Table of Contents and were the compilers of the canon.

    The men who translated the KJV were fallible. In the end you are relying on and putting faith in them and their work.

  • @fx2py the men who translated the King James were not the same translators who worked with murderers calling themselves Popes, Priests, Monks, and Jesuits. The Nazi party was part of the Vatican as is the Mafia of today.The men tranlating the Latin Vulgate are founded by a system that worships Ra the sun God.So, you are putting your faith in men who were part of a anti-christ system that murdered over 50 million innocent people on the lie that they were heretics. Who were the real heretics