tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post8637439258185833265..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: University or Dead End?Gavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-92142157422013665282007-04-08T08:27:00.000+12:002007-04-08T08:27:00.000+12:00Seems Don Billingsley also wants to play the onlin...Seems Don Billingsley also wants to play the online university wild card. His COG-FF has an online course and it looks similar to the old 58 Lesson ACBCC......<BR/>http://www.acbcconline.usAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-17867997551653506882007-04-01T11:47:00.000+12:002007-04-01T11:47:00.000+12:00LCG Member,Jared is quite correct in this post and...LCG Member,<BR/>Jared is quite correct in this post and also your Ask.com post for "The Real First Pope" has more flaws as well. The article seems to not be able to quote the bible accurately such as Act 8:10-11 under the heading of "Who is Simon Magus?". In this article the author says that in Acts 8:10-11 "Simon is clearly stated as being the one who practiced Magic and Paganism". Now since you blasted me with not reading the article twice or more, i ask you now if you read it and as an added bonus "Checked out the scriptures and secular references"?.<BR/>For some reason i cannot find in Acts 8:10-11 the subject so plainly stated by the author about Paganism.<BR/>In case you need to look up the word - Ask.com has under the heading "Defining paganism" an article that defines the subject and i just cannot seem to find that in the scripture quoted in the article you trumped out to us here. <BR/>Also some of the reasoning given as "proof" in this article can be used to "prove" that you go to heaven when you die! This since when Christ was on the Cross , he stated that one of the other ones being crucified would be with him (Christ) in Paradise.<BR/>So as byker Bob pointed out , You cannot prove from the Bible that Peter was or was not in Rome.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-17699326876826199672007-04-01T11:02:00.000+12:002007-04-01T11:02:00.000+12:00LCG Member said: "At the times the Catholics belie...LCG Member said: "At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere."<BR/><BR/>And when exactly do Catholics believe Peter was in Rome? It's not like there's an official doctrine that says, "In the 40s A.D. Peter was in Rome." The doctrine is that Peter went to Rome, ministered there, strengthened the Church, and directed that his successor bishops in Rome have the primacy that Jesus granted to him. Specific dates are not a part of the doctrine, nor does the doctrine require that St. Peter reside in Rome from 40 A.D. until his death. I know some Catholics who believe that St. Peter didn't arrive in Rome until about 62 A.D.<BR/><BR/>"As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible."<BR/><BR/>St. Clement of Rome, writing around 95 A.D., mentions the martyrdoms of Saints Peter and Paul. He does not say they were martyred in Rome, but the presumption is that it was implied.<BR/><BR/>St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 A.D., sent a letter to the Roman Church in which he refers to the ministries of both Peter and Paul in Rome. Note, he actually told the Romans themselves that Peter and Paul had ministered among them. So, by that time it was taken for granted among Christians that Peter and Paul had ministered and been martyred in Rome.<BR/><BR/>Around 170 A.D., Gaius refers to the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul. This is the first known reference to the tombs of the two most important apostles of the early Church. No other church has ever claimed to have those tombs.<BR/><BR/>So the historical record is pretty solid that Peter was in Rome. Only conspiracy kook fundamentalists deny it.<BR/><BR/>"The Bible account plainly shows that Peter was not in Rome"<BR/><BR/>Really? The last reference to Peter in the Bible is in II Peter, which places Peter in "Babylon." That was a well known code for "Rome." We can rule out the Mesopotamian Babylon and the Egyptian Babylon, since there is no trace of any visit of Peter to those towns. The biblical tradition supports the ancient tradition of Peter's residence and death in Rome.<BR/><BR/>"and whoever the 'catholic peter' was he couldn't have been the Apostle Peter."<BR/><BR/>There was only one Peter in the early Church, and history knows of only one burial place of that Peter. Whether or not you accept the Catholic claims of papal primacy, it's irrational to assert that Peter never went to Rome or isn't buried there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-50300936926829574552007-04-01T10:44:00.000+12:002007-04-01T10:44:00.000+12:00"I wasn't able to spot the article. Can you point ..."I wasn't able to spot the article. Can you point it out Jared?"<BR/><BR/>Northerner, I was able to find both articles with the URLs that I posted. Here's an alternate URL for the CNA story:<BR/><BR/>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/<BR/>new.php?n=8949<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, however, that I have inserted a carriage return in the URL right after the ".com/" because I want to make sure the URL isn't lopped off on the right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-23644453430223348942007-03-31T13:13:00.000+12:002007-03-31T13:13:00.000+12:00LCG member: The Bible does not say that Peter was...LCG member: The Bible does not say that Peter was in Rome, and it also does not say that Peter was not in Rome. <BR/><BR/>There are other reliable historians from the apostolic and early Christian eras, and if you've been around long enough, you might have heard their names mentioned by Doc Hoeh. Clement, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Lactantius, and Ignatius of Antioch are among those who either directly state, or imply, that Peter was most definitely in Rome. <BR/><BR/>One Armstrong tactic has always been to go to outdated reference materials, such as ancient versions of Encyclopedia Brittanica, to do a little proof-texting and make it appear that some valid research has been done. However, these days, with all of the new information coming to us from archaeologists and historians, you want to go to the most recent books on these topics. Inscriptions on Peter's tomb in Rome leave no doubt whatsoever that the Apostle Peter's bones are contained therein.<BR/><BR/>I'd suggest you visit the following site: http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp<BR/><BR/>Evangelicals tend to want to "prove" that Peter was never in Rome for some of the same motives shared with Armstrongites. <BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-18884603628668882072007-03-31T12:52:00.000+12:002007-03-31T12:52:00.000+12:00LCG Member,I forgot in my last post that "Proof Tw...LCG Member,<BR/>I forgot in my last post that "Proof Two" in the Ask.Co. article you wrote about, has in it a reference to Romans 15:16 to show that Paul was "THE Minister to the Gentiles". The article says after this that this proof is so simple to see, how plain etc. EXCEPT my Bible and the one RCM uses the NKJV says "A" not "The" Minister to the Gentiles. I suuppose if you had read these as you said and you said the scriptures were accurate, i wonder how that slipped by you? The simple "A" instead of "The" changes a whole lot in the intended conveyance here in Romans perhaps.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-31788901575097936542007-03-31T12:15:00.000+12:002007-03-31T12:15:00.000+12:00LCG Member,Yes i did read it and under the "proofs...LCG Member,<BR/>Yes i did read it and under the "proofs" it mentions how Simon Peter could not even have anything to do with Gentiles as he was the Apostle to the Jews, I brought up Acts 10 and 11 to counter that.<BR/>And go on down to the other proofs and please show me where the quote from the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica about Simon Magus is mentioned as such therein.<BR/>To quote Romans and Not the other scriptures in the bible that would make the so-called iron clad "proof" about Simon Peter is what i was referring to about using all the scriptures on the subject.<BR/>David Jon Hill wrote a two part GN article years ago on something like the 12 Rules of Bible Study. In this is mentioned what the article you reference on Ask.Com. does and says you cannot and should not approach bible study nor doctrine this way. Thus i will ask you to drag out your old copy, and see if you find anything wrong with David Jon Hill's conclusion in this matter. Ask your minister or Headquarters, i have a friend that has and LCG and surely WCG under HWA thought so and said it is a really good article pertainant to today.<BR/>So you asked me to read it, i did, i found problems with their quotes of a secular source, have asked you to verify their stand on that and ask you to read how to study the bible and showed you what Acts 10 and 11 have to do with the article. I hope that will clear up any confusion. By the way have you wondered why the COG's cannot be honest when they cite a secular source to back up the Simon Magus thing? I mean if they had all the proof just using the bible, why would they resort to the deception, lies and what not? And thus i would not say i am brainwashed as i really do read and "check it out" so not to be brainwashed into accepting just what someone writes or says.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-65261170832951026272007-03-31T03:45:00.000+12:002007-03-31T03:45:00.000+12:00Rod2, Did you even read the article? Acts 10 & 11 ...Rod2, Did you even read the article? Acts 10 & 11 was not brought up because they had nothing to do with what the article was about...Read it! Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council.....At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible. ( The Bible account plainly shows that Peter was not in Rome, and whoever the "catholic peter" was he couldn't have been the Apostle Peter)...Talk about being brainwashed, seems you have done quite a good job on your own self.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-72356623280972750912007-03-30T18:40:00.000+12:002007-03-30T18:40:00.000+12:00Ask.com appears to be simply another search engine...Ask.com appears to be simply another search engine, like Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc. In fact, many of the same sites come up, regardless of the search engine used.<BR/><BR/>Really, in this day and age, there is no excuse for ignorance where Simon Magus is concerned. There are many theories, one of the stranger being that he was a cypher for the Apostle Paul, reflecting the battle between Pauline and Petrine theology.<BR/><BR/>The proto-Catholics regarded Simon Magus as being a Gnostic heretic. He was a Samaritan (everybody know who the Samaritans were and where they came from?), and a magician. His original written works were largely destroyed because they were considered heresy. <BR/><BR/>HWA held him responsible for the shift in direction which Christianity allegedly took, shortly after the lives of the original apostles. Others have held Paul responsible for this, although HWA and his lackeys always attempted to demonstrate that Paul's precepts were in complete harmony with those of the other apostles. It is possible that there really was nothing sinister afoot, just basic differences in standards for the Gentile Christians, as compared to the more rigorous requirements applying to Jewish Christians. <BR/><BR/>I've noticed that it doesn't do a heck of a lot of good for an ex-COGger to post information which conflicts with what HWA taught. Because it's coming from us, and disagrees with "the apostle", it becomes tainted and suspect. So, I'd strongly suggest that anyone who feels that Simon Magus was the first "pope", or founded the RCC, do a little bit of open-minded and independent research. You might be just mildly surprised with what you turn up.<BR/><BR/>What if the Beast power ends up being the final ressurrection of the Ottoman Empire, and Moslems begin enslaving and torturing the non-Moslem world, in an effort to convert everyone to their religion? Under such a scenario, Catholic Christians would be in the same boat as ACOG Christians and might end up helping one another survive!<BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-17914422033182332972007-03-30T14:19:00.000+12:002007-03-30T14:19:00.000+12:00Hey ya'll,Ask.Com has Byker Bob's 666 analogy of t...Hey ya'll,<BR/>Ask.Com has Byker Bob's 666 analogy of the 18 truths, now because LCG member has it as a "know all", it must be true.<BR/>yippie! -Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-73430236815555130222007-03-30T13:38:00.000+12:002007-03-30T13:38:00.000+12:00I went to the Ask.Com webpage and under Herbert Ar...I went to the Ask.Com webpage and under Herbert Armstrong - Pedophile, there were no less than 449 articles including "The History Channel". Open the History channel link and read where Gavin's name is mentioned in this.<BR/>Very interesting what someone started here, maybe a new thread can be mustered up for this one website.<BR/>anonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11298704026915023852007-03-30T12:56:00.000+12:002007-03-30T12:56:00.000+12:00LCG Member,WOW! I am having fun with that wonderfu...LCG Member,<BR/>WOW! I am having fun with that wonderful "ask.com" site you gave me. I typed in "False prophet" It came up with a biblical 7 point test for False Prophets that is --get this---scriptually based----!!!.<BR/>Now these you would agree would apply to the biblical definition and the recognition of a "false prophet" by GOD"s own instruction book.<BR/>Now type in "Herbert Armstrong - False prophet", you get a whopping 6020 entries. Pick and choose away, for the overwhelming fast glances , they were not making old Herb look good in that department. Now Go to "Roderick Meredith" a whopping 31,900 entries and just scroll down a few and read what it says about his supporting the false prophecies of Herb.<BR/>My! oh! My!, i sure am glad you showed me this wonderful reference site .<BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-58508074222977842892007-03-30T12:32:00.000+12:002007-03-30T12:32:00.000+12:00LCG Member,I am soooo sorry, I forgot Acts 15 in m...LCG Member,<BR/>I am soooo sorry, I forgot Acts 15 in my post to you. Especially since we be doing the proof texting.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-30128472847317701602007-03-30T12:11:00.000+12:002007-03-30T12:11:00.000+12:00JIM M,You must know the same minister i do, i was ...JIM M,<BR/>You must know the same minister i do, i was told the same thing as RCM said it was ok to lie as long as it furthered the gospel.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-65041641626613565502007-03-30T12:08:00.000+12:002007-03-30T12:08:00.000+12:00LCG Member,I went there and read it and thought it...LCG Member,<BR/>I went there and read it and thought it was interesting! Only in regards to those so-called "Proofs". WOW! I guess if i only read those "prooftexts" there i would come away with that thought , EXCEPT i believe in putting all the scriptures together on a subject instead of cherry-picking as this was. Since the article you referred me to quoted Acts 12:3-4, why i might ask was not Acts 10,and Acts 11 not brought up?<BR/>I know you have been indoctrinated with this type of "scholarship", but it only leads you down the road to "narrow - mindedness" that the cog's have brainwashed you into. I know i once was and now know better.<BR/>Also if you go to "Ask.com and type in 'Simon Peter', or 'simon Magus' and 'First pope' , see what comes up and read ALL of those instead of cherrypicking as you did to me. Then come back and have a conversation with me.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-37360072615538029502007-03-30T11:55:00.000+12:002007-03-30T11:55:00.000+12:00LCG cannot afford a down payment on a free meal le...LCG cannot afford a down payment on a free meal let alone a University.<BR/><BR/>If by a miracle they do succeed, it will be the U of I the self centered and self-absorbed pronoun problem university. In other words, I know more about God then the average American therefore I must be closer to God then most.<BR/><BR/>How unfortunate that we have been duped to think the more knowledge of God we were taught in COG (I use the term taught loosely) the more righteous we are towards God. When in fact we have allowed this religious knowledge to separate us from God. As I learn about God’s love, mercy and justice that he has towards us I learn to move much further from that preverbal box of religion that I let COG put me in or should I say the Pharisees put me in. <BR/><BR/>I remember when a minister once told me that RCM once said it is ok to tell a white lie when it is to the benefit of his church. So when it comes to the University, I think we just heard yet another white lie. (just my opinion)<BR/><BR/>If this statement is true then I thank God for waking me up.<BR/><BR/>Remember God did not create this COG mess; we let a few men do that for us.<BR/><BR/>God wants us out of the box why do they wantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-14888682953913481622007-03-30T11:34:00.000+12:002007-03-30T11:34:00.000+12:00LCG Member,I will go read it after i post this.Hav...LCG Member,<BR/>I will go read it after i post this.<BR/>Have you read what the church has over the years given as "proof" on this subject? <BR/>If you do would you concede that they have been in gross error?<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-67403169377813354022007-03-30T11:30:00.000+12:002007-03-30T11:30:00.000+12:00Rod2 Do you at least concede the article shows pro...Rod2 Do you at least concede the article shows proof that Simon Magus was the Catholic "simon peter"? Or did you even read it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-22017179400357970772007-03-30T10:40:00.000+12:002007-03-30T10:40:00.000+12:00Oh,LCG Member,I almiost forgot, Dr. Hoeh perpetuat...Oh,<BR/>LCG Member,<BR/>I almiost forgot, Dr. Hoeh perpetuated some of this deceptive "proofing" when he quoted... ... er-- Mis Quoted,William Caves "Primitive Christianity" on the subject of "Peter" and "Simon Magus".<BR/>It seems like the writers since Hoeh and early WCG, have all just assumed Hoeh was on the up and up and would not lie to them all.<BR/>If you have a copy of this book and as well as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, you can check out the references they use yourself. By the way DON'T use the online version of the 1911, because if you compare the real hard copy with this , you will find that Part of the article on Simon Magus is missing and it picks up in the middle of the next article that is about a Simon (NOT Magus Though). This is where LCg evidently got off track, but won't own up to it. So as long as they will continue to Perpetuate the Lie, i will continue hamming my points home.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-32490452071897975582007-03-30T10:31:00.000+12:002007-03-30T10:31:00.000+12:00LCG Member,WHY i might ask did not the writers in ...LCG Member,<BR/>WHY i might ask did not the writers in their articles referenecing Simon Magus, use non-existant sources, quote out of context, etc. if they had the proof you state? It would be simple to just not decieve or outright lie about it. If you think maybe they have just been sloppy in all of this, i would ask you to check it out yourself.<BR/>After all i have some e-mails from a member of LCG (or ex-member probably) dating back several years where he tried in vain to get them yahoo's out there at LCG to change this stuff. If they were unwilling to do so, would show that they are sticking to their guns and keeping the lie going strong.<BR/>So LCG Member, ask your pastor why so much of what LCG writes will not hold up under proper scrutiny? Then when you prove this to yourself , you may just ask the obvious about Why they would use this method of proof?, when "I, LCG Member can go online to 'Ask.com' and come up with the answer so simply?<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-38764518146724765012007-03-30T09:16:00.000+12:002007-03-30T09:16:00.000+12:00ROD 2...What Byker Bob at post 5:19 , said about S...ROD 2...What Byker Bob at post 5:19 , said about Simon Magus is interesting. If one was to read Living Church of God literature on the subject, they will see references that were purely made up to bolster this belief that Simon Magus was the founder of the Catholic Church.The only reason to do this is to deceive. I suppose if i was to take the time and go back the same stuff was being done by Herb / Hoeh and company to come up with the same crap........................................................... ROD 2 please do me a favor and using "ask.com", type in ''The real first pope.( it came up at the top on my search page) It's a pretty long article, so you might want to scroll down to where it says FIRST PROOF...Please read all the proofs then tell me that LCG is wrong about Simon Magus. The article uses mostly Scriptures to prove this. If this isn't proof enough for you, then nothing is...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-69598719380840600122007-03-30T06:36:00.000+12:002007-03-30T06:36:00.000+12:00Anonymous said... It seems to me LCG Member, that ...Anonymous said... <BR/>It seems to me LCG Member, that it is okay to overlook LCG and their "ways" that conflict with God's way because you have not been able to find the "perfect" church. Okay-then why does the same church not tolerate "imperfection" from its members? Or tolerate someone that is "different" and expect them to be perfect before they can come to church services and are baptised and receive the Holy Spirit , that is needed to "overcome" so they will fit in? .............................I don't know where you are coming from,or where you got this info, but It is very obvious that you don't know of which you speak... That is not true.you did not get it from LCG...RM in a sermon a while back spoke about that very subject , telling us to give someone new a chance to "catch up". Although we rather when someone new comes, they know a little of what we believe, so the difference in doctrine won't be a total surprise to them. Lot's of things posted on this site are gossip and, well, lies by those who for whatever reasons try to keep things stirred up against us...There is an old saying, believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. that goes double for those who for some reason want to see someone hurt...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-21642372426626291082007-03-30T02:40:00.000+12:002007-03-30T02:40:00.000+12:00My own notion is that Simon Magus could have ended...My own notion is that Simon Magus could have ended up being the anti-Christ if the time had been right.Northernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04336900493871053436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9452268437196209822007-03-30T00:16:00.000+12:002007-03-30T00:16:00.000+12:00What Byker Bob at post 5:19 , said about Simon Mag...What Byker Bob at post 5:19 , said about Simon Magus is interesting. If one was to read Living Church of God literature on the subject, they will see references that were purely made up to bolster this belief that Simon Magus was the founder of the Catholic Church.The only reason to do this is to deceive. I suppose if i was to take the time and go back the same stuff was being done by Herb / Hoeh and company to come up with the same crap.<BR/>rod 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-36780482762317165152007-03-29T19:07:00.000+12:002007-03-29T19:07:00.000+12:00Thewe awe vewetibwe tweasuwe chests that the ACOGs...Thewe awe vewetibwe tweasuwe chests that the ACOGs fowwow, with the cawwots dangwing in fwont of them.<BR/><BR/>Are those cawwots weawwy weal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com