What's Wrong With The KJV Bible?

Bill
Bill

February 3rd, 2017, 1:41 pm #111

I think nitpicking churches have split over such "issues" as what kind of carpet to put in the sanctuary, but not over the "differences" between LORD and Lord. Perhaps Donnie's "technical" is his PC term for "nitpicking."
Quote
Share

Sarge
Sarge

February 3rd, 2017, 2:15 pm #112

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]It's not agonizing to me at all, Bill. It's just an observation by a technical person.

When you get a chance to research this.... It just may provide an answer [???] to the issue of: (1) the Father is God and (2) "Jesus is God."

Now, if we can find out more about "the Lord Holy Spirit."

Interestingly, the expression "LORD God" occurs 533 times in the Old Testament of the KJV.[/color]
Editorials

PRECIOUS MOMENTS

Discover What This 10 Year Old Girl Found Out About Her Bible That Will Shock You!

The other night I was writing the copy for the last editorial, "Some Call It Heresy". My 10 year old daughter, who we named Precious, came into the room and sat down at the table. She said, "What are you writing dad?"

I said, "Honey I am writing a story about the lies people are telling about the King James Bible. They want us to think the newer modern Bibles, like the NIV and the New King James Bible (NKJ), are better."

I told her, The King James Bible is a lot like water. God gave both the King James and water to us for our needs. Modern Bibles are much like cola. They were both sold to us by man. To get us to accept either one they have to lie about how much better they are than God's original. You and I know that cola doesn't quench your thirst like water.

Precious said, "Daddy what about my Bibles? They are both New King James Bibles!"

I said, "No honey, I've looked at your bibles and I think they are King James Bibles."

Precious said, "No dad, they are New King James!"

I said, "Ok honey bring your Bibles in here and let's take a look."

Well, a few seconds later plunked down on the table before me were two of the cutest little girl Bibles you have ever seen. My wife had bought both of them at a yard sale, and Precious has been using them since.

Across the front of the Bible it said "Precious Moments Bible". Down the spine, sure enough, it said New King James Version.

As I opened the front cover I recognized the "Triquetra". That is an ancient mark the publisher says represents the Trinity. In actuality there is more evidence it represents Satan. The "Triquetra" has been used for centuries by pagans and witches, and it's still in use today!

I circled the two marks in both Bibles, and told Precious about them. I told her we would have to get her a new Bible.

Precious retired to her room, and I continued my writing.

A few minutes later Precious returned, and proclaimed that she had found a page on the internet that said just what I had been telling her! What's this? Is my daughter testing what her dad tells her?

I said honey let's take a look at what you have found. As soon as I saw it, I recognized it as a page that I had read while doing my research. It is in fact a very good page to tell you what's wrong with the New King James. Click on the "Triquetra" below, to examine the web page that my daughter found while "testing" her dad.

I returned to my writing at the kitchen table. In a little while Precious returned. This time she had a bottle of cola in her hand, and she proceeded to pour it out in the kitchen sink.

I said, "Precious, What are you doing?"

Precious said, "When I started really tasting the cola, I realized how bad it really tasted. I am only drinking water from now on."

Precious' New Bible

A night or two later the family was out when we decided it would be a good time to stop by the book store and get Precious a new Bible.

After a quick tour of the Bible department it was determined that a pretty new blue King James was to be Precious' new Bible. I did examine it carefully to make sure it was a King James. I had been studying this subject long enough to know that tricks and lies in the Bible publishing business are enough to put most businesses to shame.

When we got home Precious couldn't wait to get her new Bible unwrapped, and to bring it to me to further express her appreciation.

As I looked at the new Bible I noticed something that I did not catch when we bought the Bible. It was published by Zondervan! How depressing! I have just warned others in one of my last editorials (NIV, Alert Level-5, link below) about Zondervan. Now here I am buying a Zondervan product for my little girl.

Of course I started doing all the normal rationalizations. 1. Zondervan is a big publisher. They publish a lot of books, and of course it only makes sense that they publish a King James Bible. 2. As long as it's a King James Bible what else is there to worry about?

I have to tell you that the more I rationalized the more this bothered me. Why you ask? Well Zondervan is the exclusive publisher of the N.I.V., which is one of the worst Bibles to have corrupted the word of God. (An opinion shared by smarter people than myself.) Zondervan's parent company publishes the Satanic Bible. Now think about it. If these people cared about the word of God, do you think they would publish the Satanic Bible? No, their goal is not a Holy one.

Precious' new Bible needs another examination!

Inside the front cover we find this copyright;
KJV Gift and Award Bible, Revised
Copyright 2000 by The Zondervan Corporation

Three pages further we find a section called; How The Bible Came To Us

According to Zondervan this is how we got the Bible;

"The Old Testament was first written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. About 250 years before Jesus' birth, it was translated into Greek (this text was called the Septuagint). All of the New Testament was written in Greek. About 350 years after Jesus' death, Jerome, who was a leader in the early church, translated the Bible into Latin, the language commonly spoken by many people at that time. Several hundred years later, most people no longer spoke Latin. But even so, Jerome's translation, called the Vulgate, was the official Bible in Western Europe for more than 1,000 years."

There is a problem here. This is false! Yes, the whole paragraph is false.

What they are giving us is the path of the corrupted modern versions, not the King James Bible. They want us to think the King James came from the same corrupted Greek text the newer modern versions came from.

1. The Septuagent was written by Origen in Egypt. It was a corrupted version of the Old Testament. . The Old Testament of the King James came from the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text.

2. Jerome was hired by the Catholics to write "Jerome's Bible" which is the official Catholic Bible Not only did he use the corrupted Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he used the "minority text" from the Origen and Eusebius Bible for the New Testament. This is the basis for the Westcott-Hort Greek Text of 1881, which itself is the basis for all modern Bible versions, including the NIV, NASB, the New King James Version, and others.

It's no wonder why the modern Bible versions conform to the Catholic Bible.

The New Testament in the King James Bible came from the 'Majority Text'. It has also been referred to as the 'Traditional Text' and it is also called 'The Textus Receptus'.

3. If this wasn't already bad enough, what else they don't tell you is the reason Jerome's Bible was the official Bible for 1,000 years. This period was during the Dark Ages, when the Catholics had the official Bible (Jeromes's Bible), and they persecuted and murdered anyone that had the true Bible.

If you have managed to stay with this story, which is true by the way, then you are faced with the same questions I had some 10 months ago.

What is the history of the Bible, and the Bible versions?

If this information is new to you like it was to me several months ago, here are some things to think about;

1. Do you believe a multimillion dollar Bible publisher?
2. Do you believe me ?(a self confessed Bible illiterate)
3. Or do you do what a 10 year old can do in about 10 minutes? ..Test it, ..to see if it's true!

David Rhoades
A Daddy and A ConcernedMember

STUDY LINKS
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

February 3rd, 2017, 3:38 pm #113

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]It's not agonizing to me at all, Bill. It's just an observation by a technical person.

When you get a chance to research this.... It just may provide an answer [???] to the issue of: (1) the Father is God and (2) "Jesus is God."

Now, if we can find out more about "the Lord Holy Spirit."

Interestingly, the expression "LORD God" occurs 533 times in the Old Testament of the KJV.[/color]
Donnie,
I am more offended by an adult who ACTS like a two year old that slings personal immature responses. Calling someone a trinitarian with your pope laced adjectives is just downright childish. But you knew that already.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 4th, 2017, 4:38 am #114

I think nitpicking churches have split over such "issues" as what kind of carpet to put in the sanctuary, but not over the "differences" between LORD and Lord. Perhaps Donnie's "technical" is his PC term for "nitpicking."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Here's a good example of technicality in a serious study of Bible translations: John 1:1.

Trinity-influenced translators omitted the definite article "the" from the second clause: "and the word was with the god" in order to make it conform to the third clause: "and the word was god" [a.k.a. tampering with the N.T. Greek text].

Trinity version applying English capitalization: "... and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

N.T. Greek text without capitalization: "... and the word was with the god and the word was god."

Before the Word became flesh (as a man), "the Word" was neuter in form, just as "the spirit" of God was/is neuter gender.

Keep in mind that God's spirit cannot become flesh. That's why God's LOGOS (WORD) became (was made) flesh -- God did NOT become flesh; it was His LOGOS that became flesh.

Your "carpet" illustration is irrelevant and nonsensical.

Bill, it's much more serious than just following the creed that the Pope decreed.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 4th, 2017, 4:46 am #115

Editorials

PRECIOUS MOMENTS

Discover What This 10 Year Old Girl Found Out About Her Bible That Will Shock You!

The other night I was writing the copy for the last editorial, "Some Call It Heresy". My 10 year old daughter, who we named Precious, came into the room and sat down at the table. She said, "What are you writing dad?"

I said, "Honey I am writing a story about the lies people are telling about the King James Bible. They want us to think the newer modern Bibles, like the NIV and the New King James Bible (NKJ), are better."

I told her, The King James Bible is a lot like water. God gave both the King James and water to us for our needs. Modern Bibles are much like cola. They were both sold to us by man. To get us to accept either one they have to lie about how much better they are than God's original. You and I know that cola doesn't quench your thirst like water.

Precious said, "Daddy what about my Bibles? They are both New King James Bibles!"

I said, "No honey, I've looked at your bibles and I think they are King James Bibles."

Precious said, "No dad, they are New King James!"

I said, "Ok honey bring your Bibles in here and let's take a look."

Well, a few seconds later plunked down on the table before me were two of the cutest little girl Bibles you have ever seen. My wife had bought both of them at a yard sale, and Precious has been using them since.

Across the front of the Bible it said "Precious Moments Bible". Down the spine, sure enough, it said New King James Version.

As I opened the front cover I recognized the "Triquetra". That is an ancient mark the publisher says represents the Trinity. In actuality there is more evidence it represents Satan. The "Triquetra" has been used for centuries by pagans and witches, and it's still in use today!

I circled the two marks in both Bibles, and told Precious about them. I told her we would have to get her a new Bible.

Precious retired to her room, and I continued my writing.

A few minutes later Precious returned, and proclaimed that she had found a page on the internet that said just what I had been telling her! What's this? Is my daughter testing what her dad tells her?

I said honey let's take a look at what you have found. As soon as I saw it, I recognized it as a page that I had read while doing my research. It is in fact a very good page to tell you what's wrong with the New King James. Click on the "Triquetra" below, to examine the web page that my daughter found while "testing" her dad.

I returned to my writing at the kitchen table. In a little while Precious returned. This time she had a bottle of cola in her hand, and she proceeded to pour it out in the kitchen sink.

I said, "Precious, What are you doing?"

Precious said, "When I started really tasting the cola, I realized how bad it really tasted. I am only drinking water from now on."

Precious' New Bible

A night or two later the family was out when we decided it would be a good time to stop by the book store and get Precious a new Bible.

After a quick tour of the Bible department it was determined that a pretty new blue King James was to be Precious' new Bible. I did examine it carefully to make sure it was a King James. I had been studying this subject long enough to know that tricks and lies in the Bible publishing business are enough to put most businesses to shame.

When we got home Precious couldn't wait to get her new Bible unwrapped, and to bring it to me to further express her appreciation.

As I looked at the new Bible I noticed something that I did not catch when we bought the Bible. It was published by Zondervan! How depressing! I have just warned others in one of my last editorials (NIV, Alert Level-5, link below) about Zondervan. Now here I am buying a Zondervan product for my little girl.

Of course I started doing all the normal rationalizations. 1. Zondervan is a big publisher. They publish a lot of books, and of course it only makes sense that they publish a King James Bible. 2. As long as it's a King James Bible what else is there to worry about?

I have to tell you that the more I rationalized the more this bothered me. Why you ask? Well Zondervan is the exclusive publisher of the N.I.V., which is one of the worst Bibles to have corrupted the word of God. (An opinion shared by smarter people than myself.) Zondervan's parent company publishes the Satanic Bible. Now think about it. If these people cared about the word of God, do you think they would publish the Satanic Bible? No, their goal is not a Holy one.

Precious' new Bible needs another examination!

Inside the front cover we find this copyright;
KJV Gift and Award Bible, Revised
Copyright 2000 by The Zondervan Corporation

Three pages further we find a section called; How The Bible Came To Us

According to Zondervan this is how we got the Bible;

"The Old Testament was first written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. About 250 years before Jesus' birth, it was translated into Greek (this text was called the Septuagint). All of the New Testament was written in Greek. About 350 years after Jesus' death, Jerome, who was a leader in the early church, translated the Bible into Latin, the language commonly spoken by many people at that time. Several hundred years later, most people no longer spoke Latin. But even so, Jerome's translation, called the Vulgate, was the official Bible in Western Europe for more than 1,000 years."

There is a problem here. This is false! Yes, the whole paragraph is false.

What they are giving us is the path of the corrupted modern versions, not the King James Bible. They want us to think the King James came from the same corrupted Greek text the newer modern versions came from.

1. The Septuagent was written by Origen in Egypt. It was a corrupted version of the Old Testament. . The Old Testament of the King James came from the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text.

2. Jerome was hired by the Catholics to write "Jerome's Bible" which is the official Catholic Bible Not only did he use the corrupted Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he used the "minority text" from the Origen and Eusebius Bible for the New Testament. This is the basis for the Westcott-Hort Greek Text of 1881, which itself is the basis for all modern Bible versions, including the NIV, NASB, the New King James Version, and others.

It's no wonder why the modern Bible versions conform to the Catholic Bible.

The New Testament in the King James Bible came from the 'Majority Text'. It has also been referred to as the 'Traditional Text' and it is also called 'The Textus Receptus'.

3. If this wasn't already bad enough, what else they don't tell you is the reason Jerome's Bible was the official Bible for 1,000 years. This period was during the Dark Ages, when the Catholics had the official Bible (Jeromes's Bible), and they persecuted and murdered anyone that had the true Bible.

If you have managed to stay with this story, which is true by the way, then you are faced with the same questions I had some 10 months ago.

What is the history of the Bible, and the Bible versions?

If this information is new to you like it was to me several months ago, here are some things to think about;

1. Do you believe a multimillion dollar Bible publisher?
2. Do you believe me ?(a self confessed Bible illiterate)
3. Or do you do what a 10 year old can do in about 10 minutes? ..Test it, ..to see if it's true!

David Rhoades
A Daddy and A ConcernedMember

STUDY LINKS
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Sarge,

Thanks for posting "PRECIOUS MOMENTS" from ConcernedMembers.

Here's the link:[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

February 4th, 2017, 3:23 pm #116

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Here's a good example of technicality in a serious study of Bible translations: John 1:1.

Trinity-influenced translators omitted the definite article "the" from the second clause: "and the word was with the god" in order to make it conform to the third clause: "and the word was god" [a.k.a. tampering with the N.T. Greek text].

Trinity version applying English capitalization: "... and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

N.T. Greek text without capitalization: "... and the word was with the god and the word was god."

Before the Word became flesh (as a man), "the Word" was neuter in form, just as "the spirit" of God was/is neuter gender.

Keep in mind that God's spirit cannot become flesh. That's why God's LOGOS (WORD) became (was made) flesh -- God did NOT become flesh; it was His LOGOS that became flesh.

Your "carpet" illustration is irrelevant and nonsensical.

Bill, it's much more serious than just following the creed that the Pope decreed.[/color]
If the pope and the Catholics believe that Jesus is God, they believe the Scriptures regarding that issue, because the Scriptures in their own way teach that Jesus is God. But some folks are so strongly biased against the Catholics that they'll deny anything the Catholics believe, even if that belief happens to be scriptural. Now there are many doctrines in the Catholic church that members of the CofC rightly do not accept, but it is nonsensical, foolish, and fanatical to deny what the Scriptures teach about Jesus being God just because the Catholics happen to believe it as well. Should we deny Jesus' virgin birth because the Catholics also believe in His virgin birth?

I am always amused at the numerous PC terms that have arisen over the years that attempt to make certain "conventional" terms either glamorous or gender-neutral. For example, "sanitation engineer" is now PC for "garbage man"; "flight attendant" is PC for "stewardess"; "earth interment specialist" is PC for "grave digger" and so forth.

The PC mindset can even be found on "religious" message boards. For example, some who deny that Jesus is God take a magnifying glass to John 1:1 (and other verses showing that Jesus is God) in vain and desperate attempts to find imaginary "flaws" in the use of individual words or in translation. Their imaginations having run amuck, these folks declare, "Aha! Jesus is not God, because of my technical [AKA obviously biased] examination!" These folks would label themselves "religious technical advisors," which is nothing more than a PC term for "religious nitpickers."


Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 4th, 2017, 7:29 pm #117


I have always believed in KJV Bible and never questioned it. In recent years, I was shocked that some people on this site find the KJV Bible to be in error. I request the Moderators of this site to identify and list the errors so others may be aware. I would ask that the moderators simply list the errors in this post and we can discuss in detail in future individual posts.

Thanks.
God is LIGHT and that
LIGHT was REFLECTED in the face of Jesus as God's only begotten SON.

God is WORD in the same "family" as LIGHT Neither LIGHT nor WORD are names of Gods.

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness,
.....to bear witness of the LIGHT,
.....that all men through him might believe.
John 1:8 He was not that LIGHT,
.....but was sent to bear witness of that LIGHT.
John 1:9 That was the true LIGHT, ,
.....which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:10 HE, was in the world,
.....and the world was made by him [LIGHT],
.....and the world knew him not.
John 1:11 He [LIGHT],
.....came unto his own, and his own received him LIGHT, not.
John 1:12 But as many as received him,
.....to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
.....that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
.....but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son [LIGHT] into the world
.....to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:
.....but he that believeth not is condemned already,
.....because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.[LIGHT]
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation,
.....that LIGHT is come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil HATETH the LIGHT,
.....neither cometh to the LIGHT,
.....lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the LIGHT,
.....that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

God sent His SON into the world as WORD, TRUTH, LIGHT, GRACE: those who claim that the Son is the Father must deny the testimony of God:

John 3:32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
John 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [Metron means musical meter so Jesus SPEAKS the Logos or Regulative Principle] unto him.
John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


Sorry about that Bill but you are OF the World or earth born. Jesus was sent only for a tiny group of Lost Spirits who are NOT OF this World. Jesus doesn't PRAY for the World but only those who are IN the world order but not OF this world. In the morning you will see the frenzied antics of those--according to Jude--know that they are OF this world. The kingdom of God does not come with OBSERVATION meaning any legalistic sound and fury signifying nothing. The School of Christ will be in the UMBRELLICUM or SAFE HOUSE so that the WOLVES can't find them.

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of Mn cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Ex. 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

February 4th, 2017, 8:58 pm #118

I know that Donnie has taken a lot of hits concerning having being a Catholic and therefore opposed to its dogma.

But as an outsider, my opinion is that we are not qualified to judge his attitude toward their doctrine, and his reluctance to get even close to it. That is because we never lived under that dogma. Creedalism is not much different from what Paul called the "bondage of the law."

Once a church gets bottled into a creed, it's very difficult to work its way out of it. One reason for that difficulty is that the Catholic Church puts its entire defenses in favor of the creed. Doctrine in the Catholic Church comes from not just the Scriptures but also from church tradition. That is the canon, although "closed" [that is no other books can be added to their Bible], is just one foundation for their dogma. The other foundation is tradition.

One striking item about Churches of Christ, many of them appear to be so eager to reveal their love for the Trinity Dogma, and strangely so. I think sometimes we are embarrassed to be any different from those around us. More knowledge about the religious world around us, and more knowledge concerning foundations in our history, should make us a little less timid and much less embarrassed.

It took the three or four centuries in the Christian era to develop this dogma, so let's give a little credit to the victims of the persecution that comes under the name "Trinity."




Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

February 5th, 2017, 12:24 am #119

The person called "Scripture" implies that Donnie is a former Catholic. Never knew that before, but it certainly does shed much light on why Donnie spurns everything the Catholics believe, including their few beliefs that are in fact scriptural, which would include the scriptural fact that Jesus is God. Now let me see if I can do a little reconstructing here: prior to dropping Catholicism, Donnie had been brought up believing that his former "mother church" originated the "dogma" that Jesus is God; then when he received his "epiphany," he cast away all things Catholic in blanket rejection, including some scriptural truths that he had originally ascribed solely to Catholic tradition, like the fact that Jesus is God. Yes, that does explain so very much.

I am glad that Donnie saw the light to cast off Catholicism, but it does seem that he has gone overboard in his rejection of all things Catholic to the point of rejecting the scriptural truth that Jesus is God.

It's correct to reject the mythical dogmas of Purgatory, Limbo, transubstantiation, that Mary was assumed into heaven, that the pope is "infallible," that dead saints can hear prayers and intercede, and other Catholic nonsense. However much we reject Catholicism, let's be sure not to be so overly zealous that we reject scriptural truths, one of which is the FACT that Jesus is God.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 5th, 2017, 1:05 am #120


I have always believed in KJV Bible and never questioned it. In recent years, I was shocked that some people on this site find the KJV Bible to be in error. I request the Moderators of this site to identify and list the errors so others may be aware. I would ask that the moderators simply list the errors in this post and we can discuss in detail in future individual posts.

Thanks.
People who refuse to read history are bound to repeat the folly. It was Constantine who called and controlled the council to write a creed to stop the literal bloodshed against Arius. Those who believed the creeds confessed to keep their jobs but there was no general agreement. The real folly came in our lifetime by theologians who know only what other theologians thought. The total and fatal apostates oozed out of Lipscomb University and H. Leo Boles and spread through the "preachers" and the Gospel Advocate Sunday School material which is usually a way ot keep the people ignorant of the WORD as it has been taught.

When the church was captured by Rome about the year 600? the burning stake commanded uniformity. However, the church was not "universal" in any sense since there were other major centers of teaching. One should never think that the mumbo-jumbo of priests or preachers represent the historic Scholars who are now available to most ony through the "muddied streams of prelatel pride." A preacher is the Greek kerusso which means a HERALD. A herald takes the SEALED letter from the king to the commander in the field: he does not open it or tamper with it or charge on the receiving end. Therefore, Ephesians 4 fails to mention a preacher but includes the evangelist who GOES with the good news and does not stop to build a nest for himself. By virtue of telling the Holy Spirit OF Christ to go hang himself by corrupting the Word meaning "prostitution or selling learning at retail" he will ONLY be able to speak strong delusions and hold legalistic self-exhibiting operations which are "Lying Wonders."

Augustine died in the year 430 and in Faith and Creed wrote:



<font face="arial" size="4">Those unable to face the LIGHT slander God by saying that He did not have the power to express His THOUGHTS without another "god" person to BREATH FOR HIM. And the Spirit God was unable to articulate the WORD without Jesus of Nazareth.

The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[25]

The title "pope" was not reserved in the west solely for the bishop of Rome until the 11th century but is now applied to all Bishops of Rome beginning with the first. The pope is declared to be the "the chief of all the holy priests of God" and Rome "the source of all priesthood." A landmark in the growth of the papacy's actual authority was the edict of Valentinian III, in 445, declaring the bishop of Rome to be the supreme head of the Western Church because of the primacy of Peter, the dignity of the city, and "the decree of a holy synod". Just what holy synod had voted this decree, the emperor didn't say. Leo I was perhaps the first bishop of Rome who can be called pope without reading back.
</font>
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on February 5th, 2017, 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share