Ignatius Of Antioch Syria - The Religious Reich Lie

[ChildofYeshua777]

This is the guy who started Christianity.

[gtepp031387]

@ChildofYeshua777 Ignatius did not start Christianity, he sure was a main pillar of it, and anyone who claims to be Christian should not speak with disrespect to this holy man of the spirit, who died willingly for the faith, even begging the Christians at Rome not to try to stop his martyrdom, wanting in ever aspect to follow Christ and the apostles.

[ChildofYeshua777]

@gtepp031387 I'm a Netzari, a follower of Yeshua HaMoshiach. Christianity is an evil, pagan religion.

[gtepp031387]

@ChildofYeshua777 Are ye not a follower of the Christ? Are you saying St Luke was a pagan?

[ChildofYeshua777]

@gtepp031387 Jesus Christ is a pagan sun-god created by Constantine. Luke was a Gentile follower of the JEWISH Messiah. Everyone's a saint in the Catholic Church. Praying to people is idol worship. Fuck the pope. Rome is Mystery Babylon in the book of Revelation.

[gtepp031387]

@ChildofYeshua777 Luke used the word Chistian in his writtings. The name "Jesus" comes from the Latin translation of "lesus" from the greek "Iesous" the l in latin is pronounced y with an e behind it. And early english j made a y sound, that few today realize...I could go on if you wish...

The pope is the sucessore of Peter, and the "great city" in Rev is clearly Jerusalme as seen clearly in Rev 11:8

[gtepp031387]

@ChildofYeshua777 oh and we don't pray to people we pray to the holy body of "Χριστός"(Khristós, or in modern english Christ) knowing that it is impossible to seperate what GOD has joined together, namley the holy Saints(the very body of Christ)and the LORD.

[ToBeSaltnLight]

I thought your video was interesting, but you should slow down the rate that the words scroll by (too fast). Also, some of the words were hard to read because they blended into the pictures in the background (i.e. Nazi pictures were in black and white and the font color you used was white).

[julzabro]

Interesting.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

Act 15:20, Act 15:29, Act 21:25 reiterated kashrut among Gentile converts. This inlcuded the customary consumption of "Pork" which was called "unclean thing" (Lev 5:2 ), and referenced in the NT ( Rev 17:4 ) There is no example of anyone in the NT eating pork. Act 11:8 was a vision about fellowshipping with a Gentile convert, not a literal pig. NT Judaism was rejected at the Nicene council citing the desire, not to "be like the Jews". The opinion violated the NT teaching - 1Jn 2:19, Joh 4:22

[Terneyah]

Umm... gentiles were not teached neither encouraged to uphold kasruth-law. Pork was allowed, everything. Only blood was prohibited.. so wtf? Do you write the bible anew?

[benjaminz6]

I am praying for your soul. You are bearing false witness against these holy men

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. - Paul

What is ashame is that you have never really been told the gospel, despite your great love for religion.

[1Hope4All]

RFJ, I'm not saying you are ashamed of the gospel. When I said "shame on you" I said it because you have NO shame in what you did on this video to mock the Franciscan priest and you put down the Catholic faith which was started by Jesus and His Apostles!! SHAME on YOU!!

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

You believe what you believe and have been indoctrinated to be insultated from reason and logic concerning those beliefs. Nothing typed here will change that. Those of us who have not been indoctrinated by Rome do not share your circular reasoning. Factually and historically speaking, Jesus was Jewish and did not start your church which came hundreds of years later. It handpicked a few murky historical characters and layered centuries of document frauds onto them. Vatican history is fraud.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

In your Church, lying and fraud that encourages "faith" in the Roman Church is treated as acceptable, even encouraged. To outsiders who do not begin with the assumption Rome is the measure of all things, it is a particularly sinister deciet that victimizes everyone including it's own adherents, as welll as society. Jesus did not approve of lying for religion. Joh 4:24 If Jesus started your Church you would be doing the things he commanded. Not their opposite.

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

If you ever read Ignatius of Antioch, you would find the very same Catholic Christianity, you claim was invented hundreds of years later.....unless you are illiterate.

Why should listen to you over a man that was friends with the Apostle St John and ordained by St Peter? Really??? LOL

Why do all the Church Fathers, alive during the time of the Apostles, teach Catholic Doctrine not Protestant ones? Ever wonder why? Of course not, you never read any! Get behind me Satan!

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus - I did read Ignatius, and your own comment is contradicted by the Vatican's own claim that Ignatius introduced the Mass. The innovation was approved and adopted by Rome, despite it clear rejection of what Christ had commanded the Apostles. So, if it is claimed that Ignatius "knew" John and was "ordained" by Peter, then someone wrote everything wrong down in the New Testament documents they authored, because they are at odds at several points. U choose Ignatius rather than the NT

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

Can you tell me where I can read this claim by the Vatican, that Ignatius introduced the Mass? Would love to read it for myself.

Can you tell me what Early Church Father is in line with your interpretations of the Bible? I mean some of these writings must have survived, since even the heretical Gnostics writings and other forms of Christianity survived. If, as you say, the RCC came to be in 313AD, why do we only find Catholic doctrine before 313AD, not Protestant ones?

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

We are not at odds with the NT at all, only if you interpret the Bible with Protestant Glasses on. In order to know if your interpretations are correct, one must read the Apostolic Fathers, then you'll know.

If the Protestant version of Christianity were correct, you'd be one, and all would agree on every doctrine, but this not the case. There's tens of thousands of denominations, all with different beliefs, with no proof of these beliefs in ancient writings. Don't Jive.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus -

(1) INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI, May 2007, "Fathers of Christian antiquity as St Irenaeus, St Ambrose, St Cyril of Jerusalem, and St John Chrysostom"

(2) No actually, as required by the normative process of historical research, you have to take off the glasses of these "Legends" and "myths" and look at your earliest source documentation (which is the NT)

(3) External conformity demonstrates nothing but dictatorship, not discipleship. Peter & Paul even "disagreed".

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

No, for starters, the letters of Clement of Rome 80AD, one of the Apostolic Fathers, is older than some of the NT , Revelations 95AD, Gospel of Luke 85AD. These men were no "Myths", but friends and Disciples of the Apostles. The real "Myth" is that the Catholic Church was founded in 313AD. Just remove the 1 in the middle and you get the correct date 33AD. Peace.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus - Clement of Rome, the genius who thought the Tower of Babel was "the Church"? ... and his brother writing the garbage to that effect, was writing "Scripture"? Clement's writings have been proliferated with fraud. So what it goes to 80 AD? So did every heretic in the New Testament, including the Nicolaitan syncretists, the Baalamites, and the Nag Hammadi Gnostics. The "Standard" is still the New Testament, not what some esteemed heretic in Rome, thought he could twist it into.

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

ST Clement of Rome, is the same Clement St Paul speaks of in the Bible [Philippians 4:3] "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life".

He was converted and taught by the Apostle Peter, and was a friend of St Paul. If you think your Propaganda Ministers have more authority then him, you're sadly mistaken and confused.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus - Clement being mentioned in a list by Paul is irrelevent, if Clement is attributed with demonic doctrines that contradicted everything Paul actually taught, which Clement of Rome actually does. The fact these two things are contradictory, is essentially the same problem Rome has with all it's other false claims. It's easy to create phony history, when you have an empire behind you to do it, but you cannot re-write the texts already in mass possession. This creates anomolies.

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

1) Sir, the problem is, these writings date to pre 313AD, before the Empire approved Christianity. These writings have been studied as original writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries. You're comments are not based on facts, but propaganda.

2) These church fathers DO NOT contradict scripture, nor any Catholic Doctrine, but only contradict Protestant interpretation of scripture. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

[clarkbailey1973]

@hockeyrulesus Amen Amen Amen

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus

(1) Your claim about the "date" of "these writings" is ambigious & inaccurate

(2) Most do not. In fact, the vast majority have been identified as complete frauds, the others shot through with interpolations. From the Clementine letters all the way to the "Donation of Constantine".

(3) Not only do these "Latin Fathers" openly contradict Apostolic writing, but the RCC even contradict them. Your belief otherwise, is due to the fact, you are not familiar with the Biblical text.

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

1) Who identified what writings as fraud? In fairness, only a secular scholar, can be credible in this kind of debate, all others are biased.

2) You're stating things, but aren't giving me your proof. What Apostolic Fathers, contradict the Bible and Catholic Doctrine??????

[gtepp031387]

@RadioFreeJerusalem 1) The date of Ignatous' writting are questioned only if they where written between the late first or early second century.

2) We have 7 authentic letters of Ignatius, there where forgeries, but the early church rooted them out very early on....The early church acknowledged that Celment wrote 5 books, but we have only one that survives today that is completely authentic.

3) There is no contridiction in the letter of Ignatius with scripture, in fact without his..cont..

[gtepp031387]

@RadioFreeJerusalem ...cont..approval and usage your scripture would look much different today. Remember the bible was put together using holy tradition, Ignatius' use and approval of certain books and not others was a pillar on which the bible(biblia) was formed.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

@hockeyrulesus - (cont) one of the most blatent examples of this open rejection of Apostolic doctrine and tradition was the command to keep the passover as "the blood" of the "New Testament" mentioned consistently in all 4 gospel accounts, and practiced among the desposnyia for 300 years (outlawed by the Nicene council, openly explained as a rejection of "Jews") Meaning; The Mass is not the Blood of Christ, but a rejection of it, created by 'those who say they are Apostles, and are not" -Re2:2

[hockeyrulesus]

@RadioFreeJerusalem

Give me the source of your claim the Catholic Church claimed Ignatius introduced the Mass. Take about deception....

[1Hope4All]

To RFJ, SHAME on you!! You know not of what you speak!!!!

[RicoRicanNYC]

One million stars

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

FYI - "Eucharist" Apologists claim because Christ observed the Passover before the Rabbinical Jewish date for Passover occured 2 days later, it was not the Passover, even though that is what the text calls it. This difference is due to the fact that the Rabbinical calendar was different from the Biblical calendar instructed by Moses.

[RadioFreeJerusalem]

(cont) Christ was keeping the Biblical calendar date (a/k/a Jewish Karaite calendar) , not the Rabbinical one. The difference between the Biblical Passover Date and the Rabbinical Date for 2009 - 2 days. The difference observed int he New Testament - 2 Days. This is simply accidental as the difference will vary from year to year, both before and after, but the variation is usually by a couple of days, just as is observed in the New Testament.