How the Latin Church Grandiose Belief That it was the Supreme Church of Christendom.

R&I – FS


How the Latin Church Grandiose Belief That it was the Supreme 

Church of Christendom.

He is called the Saviour, Christ, Messiah, Jesus and God. Yet he is none of these! Even the Englisce name Jesus can only go back in biblical terms to the KJV Bible translation of 1769. The Gentile Chrestians when they split to go-it-alone from their Jewish brethren probably after the Bar Kochba revolt, which according to the Jewish library ended in 135 CE. Then the brethren were no more, the Jews became the foe, killers of Gentile Jesus. Everything about these Gentile so-called Chrestians (the term Christians were not yet conceived, they had not yet erased the eta to be replaced by an iota to go from Good to Anointed) was about adopting from other religions or using trickery, fakery and forgery to authenticate their early religion. One can say that these Gentiles were hypocrites for they still used the Jewish scripture until at least 367 CE when the 27 books of the New Testament came together. However, even today Christians use their version of the Hebrew Bible, which they call the Old Testament. They were not averse to changing their scripture to fall in line with their new doctrines, which were changing with every Church Synod. The Roman Church or Western Christianity tried on several occasions to add counterfeits canons.  

It was the western church’s grandiose arrogance belief in its supremacy over all churches that began the schism in 1053, by closing all Greek Churches in southern Italy that would not convert to Latin. Which caused the Great Schism/East-West schism of 1054. All because it wrongly and falsely saw itself as the Supreme Church of Christianity! 

Well, The Church of Rome from 1054 could finally boast that it was the Supreme Church—albeit only in the West.

When it comes to forgeries the Church in the West relied on the ignorance of those being duped—namely other Christians. From the early 8th-century, every scriptorium churned out forgeries in every diocese in western Europe, including England where they forged dead king’s Charters for possessions and landed gains.  

We know that the western church was forging from at least 325 CE when they forged their copy of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. One needs to remember that the Roman bishop at the time, Silvester I (314-35) did not attend the Council of Nicaea (325), because of old age (?) or was not invited, however, he did send two priests and two presbyters in his stead. (What is also interesting is that Silvester I, was also absent from the first Council of Arles (314), which was the first representative meeting of Christian bishops in the Western Roman Empire.) The scholar Puller wrote: I submit the case is clear as it is possible for a case to be. It is difficult to understand how, in the face of such crushing fact, Roman theologians and controversialists can persist in maintaining that the Pope, in the time of the Council of Nicaea, was the divinely appointed monarch of the Church.[F.W. Puller (1900), Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p. 172, Longmans, Green, and Co. London]

Also, the clerical (Bishop) scholar Kerr wrote: Reference has been made to the attempts of Pope Zosimus (417-18) and Leo I (440-61) to utilise counterfeit copies of the Nicaea canons. It is noteworthy that just at this period when the papal encroachments on the liberty of the Church began, the forging of authorities also began. The Process rapidly and portentously developed. [William Shaw Kerr (1951), A Handbook on the Papacy, p.208, Marshall Morgan & Scott, Ltd, London—Edinburgh.] the ( ) are mine.

On the western Church claim of Rome’s supremacy over all the churches of Africa and the Apostolic churches of the east, a claim which used a forged section of the Nicaea canon. The Church Council, the highest body within Christianity wrote to the then bishop of Rome. The Council’s letter to Pope Celestine (422-32) goes on to expose the imposition of palming off ( on them, the pretended canons of Nicaea. They quietly write that nothing of the kind is to be found in the authentic letters of that Council which they have received from the Bishops Cyril of Jerusalem and Atticus of Constantinople. [Ibid p. 151] The ( ) bkts are mine.


Today we can debunk everything on Jesus’ Messiahship and Genealogy as well as Paul of Tarsus’ false claims that he was a Pharisee like his father and that he was from the tribe of Benjamin.  All these lies can be exposed in the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament.  The Church forgot that posterity would find their lies out and the powers that be in the church would not acknowledge their wrongdoings at the time. They would never coincide with this otherwise Christianity would collapse, what do you say on Christian forgeries?





Article URL :

%d bloggers like this: