To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Dominic Salvatore Gentile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dominic Salvatore Gentile
DGentile.jpg
Don Gentile on the wing of his P-51B, Shangri-La
Nickname(s) "Don"
Born (1920-12-06)December 6, 1920
Piqua, Ohio
Died January 28, 1951(1951-01-28) (aged 30)
Forestville, Maryland
Buried Saint Joseph Cemetery, Lockbourne, Ohio[1]
Allegiance Canada
United States
Service/branch Royal Canadian Air Force (1940–43)
United States Army Air Forces (1943–47)
United States Air Force (1947–51)
Years of service 1940–1951
Rank Major
Unit No. 133 Squadron RAF
336th Fighter Squadron
Battles/wars World War II
Awards Distinguished Service Cross (2)
Silver Star
Distinguished Flying Cross (8)
Air Medal (4)
Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom)

Dominic Salvatore "Don" Gentile (December 6, 1920 – January 28, 1951) was a World War II USAAF pilot who surpassed Eddie Rickenbacker's World War I record of 26 downed aircraft.[2] He later served in the post-war U.S. Air Force.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    3 345
  • The Christian Church Did Not Exist Before 135 AD

Transcription

[Translations by Google Translate] [Tsiyon Truth Point TSIYON.ORG] [I am YHWH your Elohim, who has separated you from among the nations.] [...BEWARE not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars ... and be drawn away and worship them and serve them.] [Tsiyon] [Presents] [The Christian Church Did Not Exist Before 135 A.D.] [By] [Eliyahu ben David] [Voice of Eliyahu ben David] If you take a look at the slide that I am showing right now it might seem kind of strange to you. Maybe not, because you might be a little more advanced in your understanding. But to many people, it would look quite ridiculous to even suggest that the Christian church did not exist before 135 A.D. Many people would reject that idea out of hand. Really, for us to suggest this, some people might be insulted. They might be thinking we are saying "Well, if you are a christian you are not really saved." Or, they might extrapolate what we are saying, to mean something different than simply that we are talking about history here. So, in talking about this we are not attacking Christians, we are not telling you "You are not saved if you are a christian." We simply are talking about history. Well, why are we doing that? Because we want to know how things really happened. It is as simple as that. You know, history gets changed a lot. Now, I will give you an example of how this happens. In the summer of 2015 the supreme court, changed the definition of a word that has meant a certain thing for 6,000 years. That word is marriage, and it always meant from the book of Genesis forward, "the union of a man and a woman together in matrimony." However, the supreme court changed the definition of the word so that now it can mean "the union of people of the same sex." So 100 years from now, were Messiah not to return before then, which He will, when people heard the word marriage, what would they think that meant? You see, the word would be changed in their mind. Would it not? Then, when they read about people being married, for instance in the Scriptures they are thinking that word includes things that really, the word in the Scriptures, does not include. Well, changing words, changing the perception of history, this serves the benefit of certain groups who want to convince people of certain things. So, actually the idea of things that we accept as history being different than the way that we have always thought about them, really is not that strange. If you think about it. To go back and know what the truth is sets us free from deceptions and helps us know what is really going on.So that is what we are talking about here. You know, I think this particular subject is a lot like that story of the new clothes of the Emperor. where basically, in that story, if you have read it, the emperor is purported to be wearing new clothes. But, only the enlightened elite people can see the clothes. So, when people see the emperor and even the emperor himself, and he is completely naked, they all agree that his new clothes look fantastic. Because none of them want to look stupid, and they all think "Well, the smart people think this. The smart people see the clothes. I want to be one of the smart people so I am going to agree with it too." Well tonight, who I am is I am the little kid that is saying "Hey, wait a minute, the emperor is not wearing any clothes!" That is basically it on this. So, let us take a look at this now. We are talking about the Christian church system, and it did not exist before 135 A.D. Not only that but the Christian church is not built on the foundation of the apostles at all since it came later. Now you might be wondering, you might be thinking "That can not be true because in the New Testament, we read about the Apostles, we read all about the message." Yeah, we really do. But, what I am going to talk about tonight is the fact that that is a completely different group of people, than the gentile Christian church Now, we are going to look at documents that are going to help to prove that, that are going to basically show you that "the emperor is wearing no clothes." Well, as we look at this, let us start with Peter. Now, as you look at this picture, do you really think Peter looked anything like that? You know, Peter was a Jewish fisherman. Do you have a recollection of any fishermen you have ever seen wearing gaudy jewels, and royal clothing, perhaps holding a golden key? Is that what a fishermen looks like? No, what you are looking at in this picture is revisionist history is it not? This is the Catholic Peter, not the Biblical Peter. The Catholic Peter, we are told was the first Pope, and really in that economy the Catholic church has an unbroken succession, apostolic succession from Peter forward. There are some problems with that though. Paul says that Peter had a mission and apostleship to the Jews. Not to everybody, to the Jews. Not only that, scholars recognize that James was the leader of that early group, not Peter. In fact there is no claim in the New Testament or anywhere that Peter was ever even in Rome. Not until you get to dubious writers from the middle of the second century or later. So think about this, during Peter's lifetime, from that period and the lifetime of people following Peter, nobody says that Peter was ever in Rome. It is only later when it served the purpose of trying to sustain this idea that Peter was the first Pope that anybody actually ever said this. Well, if Peter did not supply the Apostolic authority for the Christian church, some others might say "Well, actually it was Paul that did that. Paul was the one that brought Christianity to the gentiles." Well, what about that? What about Paul? Was Paul really the first Christian? In fact we ask the question here "Was Paul a Jew or a Christian?" Well, a lot of people would assume Paul was a Christian right? Is that not what you think or thought at one time? Well, as we look more closely in the New Testament, in Acts 13:9 we have his actual name Saul in other words the Hebrew Sha'ul who is called Paul. So what was his actual name Saul or Paul? Paul was just a nickname. Sha'ul was his real name. The scripture doesn't even tell us that the name Paul came from God or Messiah. It was just a nickname. So his actual name was a Hebrew name, Sha'ul. As we read more in the New Testament. We find that Saul never says "I am a Christian." He always says that he is a Jew, and there are numerous verses where he claims to be a Jew. In second Timothy it says that he worshiped as his forefathers did. Again, claiming to be an Israelite. As we go through the book of Acts we find him regularly attending not the Basilica, or the Church building, but the synagogue. The book of Acts tells us that he believed the Torah and the Prophets, and it even says that he kept the Torah. He taught those of both Jewish and Gentile ethnicity to keep the Commandments. All of this is in the New Testament. You can look up the verses. Paul, in his work never dreamed of the idea that he was starting a new religion. You can look at these verses, Romans 11, Ephesians 2, and many other places. He was advocating entry into renewed Israel, through faith in the Messiah of Israel not starting a new religion. That is why the Jewish religious leaders were angry with Paul, because they saw him as the leader of a competing Jewish sect which was called by them the sect of the Nazarenes. In fact, this term Nazarenes or Nazareans is applied to this same group of people not just in the first century but for many centuries, several centuries at least all the way into the fourth century. These Nazareans did not conceive of themselves as part of the Christian church. They conceived of themselves as part of renewed Israel. Well, here is a recent book. It is written by a Bible scholar for Bible scholars. It is entitled "Paul within Judaism" and the description of the book says "In these chapters a group of renowned, international scholars seek to describe Paul and his work from within Judaism." This is how scholars see Paul, within Judaism. A review there at Amazon says "Paul, as a second-Temple Jew, did not see himself as creating a new religion." Why is there such a big disconnect between what the Apostles are said to have represented and what they really did represent, and especially regarding Paul How come the lay people in the Christian church are given to believe that Paul spread Christianity, while the scholars know that that really is not true, that he was not creating a new religion, and that he was a Messianic Jew? Do you know that the scholars have been talking about this among themselves, have been writing books about this, for one another, for over 30 years, and still in the pews, in the churches, in popular books and material that are written for the lay level Paul is continued to be represented as spreading Christianity? I ask you is it really honest for the scholars to know this, but not to tell the people this? At any rate, the truth is we cannot look to Paul as the source of the Christian church. You can not find anyone, actually, in the New Testament that you can point to that actually created this separate entity from Israel which we refer to as "the Christian Church". Well, this is the claimed link between the Apostles and the Christian church. This is what Apostolic succession hangs on. You probably have heard about the church fathers. Have you not? Maybe you have read some of that material, but you know the truth is most of us have not. We just assume that there is this historical information from people back in the first few centuries that established this history of the Christian church. Actually when you look at the name of this group "the Apostolic Fathers" that would suggest to you that they are connected with the Apostles right? Then, we have the list. These are the sources that are agreed by virtually all scholars to be part of the Apostolic fathers. There are some other sources from this same period, now this is the end of the first century and the first half of the second century essentially the generation following and overlapping with the Apostles. There are a few other writings that purport to be from this time, but these are the ones that are agreed upon as being a part of this witness to the Christian church as the Apostolic fathers. Really, this is all they have to try and connect the Christian church to the first century Apostles. We are going to look at each of these sources briefly and we are going to see if they actually do connect the Christian church to the Apostles. Now You might be looking at this right now and thinking, if you are a Christian "Well, 'the Apostolic Fathers,' this is going to prove this guy wrong. This has to show there is a connection between the Christian church and the Apostles. They are called the 'Apostolic Fathers!" Well, do not get your hopes up too much. Here is what one scholar who is actually teaching these books has to say "The term 'Apostolic Fathers' is applied to the writings of the late 1st and early 2nd century, and might be construed to imply that the so-called 'fathers' were men who had actually known the apostles personally, and therefore represented the first generation of post-apostolic leadership in the church." You know why it might be construed that that is the case? Why you might believe that? Well, why are they called the Apostolic fathers? Is it not to imply that? Not only that, it is very possible, if you are sitting in a pew in church, they are going to mention the apostolic fathers as being this connection. However, this particular man cannot say that to you here, because this is part of his training course in the apostolic fathers. Which means he knows that as he is teaching this you are going to actually be reading it, and as you read it, you are going to find out, this does not connect the church to the Apostles. So, right here what he is doing is lowering your expectations for that. He says "Actually, with some exceptions there is not much evidence of such personal acquaintance with the apostles." So, really there is very little connection between the Apostolic fathers and the apostles. It is a complete misnomer, but it is all they have got to make this connection. He goes on and says "We must not think of the Apostolic Fathers as an organized group who consciously carried on the writing and teaching traditions of the apostles." Now I want to ask you something, if the Apostles intended that there should be an Apostolic succession to carry forward the leadership of the Christian church as claimed, would there not be an organized group that did that? Would they not have commissioned an organized group to carry that forward to write about it, and to see to it that that continued to be carried forward through the generations? Why is it that when we look at the best they have available in the Apostolic Fathers, that is completely missing. There is no evidence of apostolic succession in these sources. Should not the very fact that that is missing tell us something? That the apostles really did not provide some kind of apostolic succession, and if that is true what was the leadership? Well, we are going to get into that later but I bring this up right now because as we go through this we need to see that they are trying to make a case here with the Apostolic Fathers to prove something that really is not proven by the Apostolic Fathers and that really does not exist. As a matter of fact in this source this scholar tells us that all we have got with the Apostolic Fathers is a collection of fragments, not much proof at all. Well, let us look at these sources and see what we have got. Here is a picture I am using to represent Clement of Rome, and he was a writer. He wrote his first epistle, it is believed to be around the end of the 1st century- 96 to 99 A.D. This is the time period of John the Apostle when he was still alive, near the end of his life. "Clement is known for his epistle to the churches in Corinth," and according to Wikipedia "he asserts the apostolic authority of the bishops/presbyters as rulers of the church." It tells us this "has been cited as the first work to establish Roman primacy, but most scholars see the epistle as more fraternal than authoritative." Well, the whole reason why they seize on this is because Clement was a bishop in Rome, and in the list of Popes they have included Clement as one of the Popes. So therefore they look at this letter; "the Pope wrote this" whereas if you do a little reading of this letter yourself as if you do a reading of this letter yourself I think you will see that Clement is writing as one among many bishops at that time, basically sharing information with others. In this authentic epistle of Clement, 1st Clement, what he is actually explaining here is how the authority works that originates in Jerusalem, and he explains the functioning of the Hebraic form of government that had been established in every congregation of the believers by the apostles. Really what he is explaining is exactly what you find in the New Testament. It is not something else, it is not in anyway laying a foundation for the Roman Catholic church whatsoever. However, the reason that they include Clement in the apostolic fathers is because there is another letter of Clement. This other letter makes him out to support Catholic doctrine. How likely is that? Well, in first Clement here is some things we learn about Clement. Clement honors Israel, Clement honors the Commandments and the Ordinances of the Torah, and Clement observed Torah Holy Days, and encourages others in his book to do the same. Does that sound anything like the Roman church to you? So, actually scholars are pretty much agreed that this other letter of Clement is spurious in other words a forgery that was written later to put words into Clement's mouth making him support apostolic succession from Peter for the Roman church, and none of that is true. Well, the next person cited among the apostolic fathers is Ignatius of Antioch. He is believed He is believed to have lived until about 117 A.D. overlapping the apostles. This is a rather bizarre picture of Ignatius. He is said to be a martyr eaten by wild beast, and you have him here in Catholic garb. He has a pagan nimbus around his head. Of course all of this is from later, not from his time period. It shows part of what I am talking about how the ideas of a certain generation about someone can be projected back into history and can be used to change the perception of the people about that person. Well, there is more that we can say about Ignatius. He was claimed to be the third bishop of Antioch. He was claimed to be a student of John the apostle, and there are a series of letters with his name on them that uphold doctrines of the Catholic church. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia under Saint Ignatius of Antioch says this "Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said that, quote, "the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles." Now, is this not remarkable? Before 117 AD you have this writer Saint Ignatius and the entire framework of the Catholic church is in his letters. Surely that proves what I am saying to be wrong, and here we have evidence that the Christian church did exist, there is apostolic succession, Peter was the first Pope, in fact look at this list of doctrines and this is only a partial list friends. "The Church was Divinely established as a distinct visible society. The catholicity and infallibility of the Church is affirmed in the letters of Ignatius." "The Sacrament of the Eucharist is affirmed in these letters of Ignatius. How about this one? "The supernatural virtue of virginity," and there you have And of course the last one is my favorite "The primacy of the See of Rome." Yes, the primacy of the Pope, that is in there too. Well, I could quit right Now, some of it might of been written by Ignatius, updated and embellished so to get those Catholic doctrines in there, and to make it a little more interesting, with the martyrdom of Ignatius we actually have a postmortem reappearance of Ignatius. Yes, so that is exciting. However, unfortunately it is all spurious from the fourth and fifth century, not from before 117 A.D. Yet, Ignatius is included among the Apostolic fathers. It was forged later, in the fourth century. disciple of the Apostle John. and he was martyred along with other believers. Well let us find out some things about Polycarp. The sole surviving work attributed to Polycarp is Polycarp's letter to the Philippians. It is not terribly long you can find it online and read it. When you read it, it is going to read to you a lot like, possibly, the letter of James in the Scriptures Yet, Ignatius is included among the Apostolic fathers. Is that not amazing? to the Gospels, all of that, all as one revelation. They cannot afford to. Because if you take out Ignatius, seriously, you have got nothing left that supports them. the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passover." Yes Polycarp kept the Passover, and he kept it according to the Scriptural date. There is more. Polycarp was a Sabbath keeper. these were believers who were in this area where Polycarp was a leader. So they had been under his training, and they are reporting what happened with his martyrdom. They say that "on the day of the preparation" that is when the pursuers came to get Polycarp. and he was martyred along with other believers. Well let us find out some things about Polycarp. The sole surviving work attributed to Polycarp is Polycarp's letter to the Philippians. It is not terribly long you can find it online and read it. When you read it, it is going to read to you a lot like, possibly, the letter of James in the Scriptures and the work that he did in Asia continued with believers for generations. In the third century we have a writing about elder Pionius and his companions from the same area of Smyrna, and in this reference we see that they kept the Sabbath and they abstained from unclean foods. They kept the commandment of God, that is the reason they did it, they said. So my question is how can you cite Polycarp as being part of the Christan church when Polycarp did all the things that later on the Christian church called "heretical." and Polycarp kept the Biblical holy days. For example, a later historian said that he How is it then that Polycarp could represent them? this is it is bizarre, and it was not even written in the period that we are talking about. Yes Polycarp kept the Passover, and he kept it according to the Scriptural date. There is more. Polycarp was a Sabbath keeper. The letter "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" which was written by the Smyrnaeans, these were believers who were in this area where Polycarp was a leader. So they had been under his training, and they are reporting what happened with his martyrdom. They say that "on the day of the preparation" that is when the pursuers came to get Polycarp. The preparation day is the day before Sabbath. They were using that terminology, and then it tells us that Polycarp was killed "on the day of the great Sabbath." So I ask you, did Polycarp and these disciples keep the Sabbath? It is clearly in the record that they did. As a matter of fact, Polycarp was a faithful Nazarene. A faithful follower of Messiah, and the work that he did in Asia continued with believers for generations. In the third century we have a writing about elder Pionius and his companions from the same area of Smyrna, and in this reference we see that they kept the Sabbath and they abstained from unclean foods. They kept the commandment of God, that is the reason they did it, they said. So they were all Torah keepers. So my question is how can you cite Polycarp as being part of the Christan church when Polycarp did all the things that later on the Christian church called "heretical." They threw people out of the church because they kept Passover, because the kept the Sabbath, because they kept the Torah. How is it then that Polycarp could represent them? Interesting question, actually Polycarp is an example for us of the Nazarene of that era, of his lifetime, not of the Christian church. Well, then they include this rather strange work "The Shepherd of Hermas" and all I can say about this is it is bizarre, and it was not even written in the period that we are talking about. It was written after about 140 A.D in the 2nd century. So it does not even represent the period we are talking about, they did not know who the author was, and it says "It's Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament or with those of contemporary theologians." In other words, what is said in the shepherd of Hermas about Messiah or Christ in the Greek, does not square with what the Christian church says and it does not square with what the Nazarenes said, and it does not square with the New Testament. It is heresy. So why are they including heresy as part of the Apostolic fathers? It is just strange is it not? As you look at this, there is nothing here that represents actual apostolic fathers, with the possible exception of the first letter of Clement, and Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, which if accepted do show a link with the Apostles, but not to the Christian church, to the Nazarenes! Then we have one more thing. This is called the Didache, and that is Greek for 'teaching'. It was written in the late first century and friends the best information we have shows that is really was written then. Very early Scholars say it is essentially Jewish. Here is the first line of the book, "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve apostles". What this book actually seems to be, is a Hebraic based manual for new Gentile converts. As I say, scholars view it as essentially Jewish. It is not a representative of the Christian church We are going to look at this a little more. The first section of the Didache begins, "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways." Does that sound familiar at all? Well certainly Messiah spoke of two ways, did He not? But He is not the one that originated the idea. The two ways is a Jewish idea, that originates even before Messiah that He was drawing on in teaching us, about the narrow way. Evidence of the Jewishness of the Didache. Now another thing that is interesting about this, where it starts out teaching about the two ways. This is very different than modern conceptions of Christianity. What Christianity very often will tell you, this is not universal in Christianity, but it is in some of Christianity, is you get saved first and then you might think about how you live. You might not, too. Because really, if salvation is by grace and works are bad, not going to think about works very much are you? But the Didache, in talking about two ways, starts right out preparing new converts with how they are going to walk, with how they are going to live, with works! Throughout this two way's teaching, there are many Old Testament quotes. These are quotes also that are shared with the gospels. The first chapter opens with the shema. "You shall love God, it includes the great commandments, 'love your neighbors as yourself', and a version of the golden rule. This admonition is given, "you must not forsake the Lord's commandments, neither adding nor subtracting." Now this is a paraphrase from the Torah, about the Commandments of the Torah. This is brought right in with these Gentile converts teaching them not to forsake the Commandments of the Torah. This agrees with Messiah, who said "not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the Torah..." So this is very representative of the Nazarene way of thinking, but entirely different than the Christian church way of thinking. There is more in the Didache, and really I am just scratching the surface to give you an idea of what is here. You could read it and I think you would be amazed at some of it. "Concerning the Lords supper," the Didache says "give thanks this way. "First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant. Which you made known to us through Iesus your servant" That is the Greek pronunciation. "To you be the glory forever..." Now this is interesting because here they are giving thanks for the Holy Vine of David that is revealed by Messiah. So they are using this term 'The Holy Vine of David' to at once signify the blood of Messiah, which is the blood of the Covenant, but the term 'Vine of David' is talking about the house of David. The Davidic line. It is really a veiled meaning of the Davidic Covenant dynasty that Messiah established that was then leading all the believers. Why did they not just come right out and say 'Thank you for the Davidic leadership of our group'? Well I am thinking they did not want the Romans to come and kill their Davidic leaders. So they did not say it that way. But they did include that in their thinking. They are thinking like Israelites, they are thinking about the Davidic Covenant here and they are including it in this Lords supper commemoration. Look at this. "Concerning the breaking of the bread" this is the part of the prayer, "Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was gathered together, and became one, so let your assembly be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom." Well, anybody that knows the Prophets would read that and think 'This is a clear reference to the gathering of the Remnant of Israel as spoken of in all the Prophets.' This is in the Didache, supposedly, one of the apostolic fathers. Well just to sum this up about the Didache, this work includes a Nazarene version of a Jewish prayer. Not only does this prayer include blessing God for sustaining the universe, for His gifts of food, earth, and the Covenant by the way. But it also includes a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem. So I ask you, is this an example of the Nazarene believers during that period? Or the Christian church? How do you like my little picture here? Saint Peter the Jedi goes to Rome. You know it really is not hard to revise history. It is very interesting, as soon as you paint a picture in somebody's mind, then it changed their perception. I think it is very possible, if you ever see this statue of Peter again you might even remember him holding this Jedi sword. Even though he never did. This is what has happened with history. This is called revisionist history. One historian says, "A Conscously-falsified or distorted interpretation of the past to serve partisan or ideological purposes in the present." Another source tells us why people do this, why they revise history. "In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as: "Presenting forged documents as genuine; "Attributing conclusions to books and sources that actually report the opposite; "And even deliberately mis-translating texts." Do we actually have revisionist history here? Is that really what we are talking about? Well, let us look at the list again, of the apostolic fathers. Clement of Rome. We have an actual Nazarene letter in 1 Clement. But then we have a fourth century forgery putting words into Clements mouth that are nothing like the Clement who wrote the Nazarene letter. Totally supporting apostolic succession of Peter and the primacy of the Roman Church. Of course it was written in the fourth century and that is when the Catholic church really crystallized under Constantine. They needed to have a legitimate authority, so, forge something. Then we have Ignatius of Antioch and his material is thouroughly corrupted with forgeries, embellishments, changes, again to support the doctrines of the Roman church. We have Polycarp of Smyrna, which actually, his letter is from an early date and there is information about him that could not be obfiscated because it was already too well known. Showing that he was a Nazarene Torah keeper. He kept the Sabbath, he kept the Passover, he kept the Commandments and he taught others to do the same. He is not anything like the Christian church. The Shepherd of Hermas is included here, which is a heretical vision of spurious date, with strange doctrines about Messiah. I think that one just got in there because they needed to have a number of these. Then finally we have the Didache, and the Didache, is actually Nazarene Torah instruction for Gentiles. How could that possibly represent the Christian church? Well, as we get to the end of this presentation, we have a few questions. One is, are the "Apostolic Fathers" used to falsify history? Is this revisionist history? Or does this actually show there is a connection with the apostles? Well take the term 'Apostolic Fathers', does not the term itself imply a direct connection with the apostles if not even succession from the apostles? Then the material itself is actually lacking any such support. Is not even the term 'Apostolic Fathers' then a misrepresentation? Is not the term itself revisionist history? Well then we have seen that Second Clement and the letters of Ignatius, though first claimed to be from an early date, and genuine, are now seen by significant scholars as forgeries or tamperings, from the fourth century, not from the time period claimed. Is this an attempt to falsify history? What else could it be? When we look at it, we have to ask, well why? Why did they need to produce this false literature proving an apostolic connection with the Christian church? Why did they need that? Why did they have to have these forgeries? Well, we saw that these forgeries and tamperings attempt to establish the later doctrines and authority of the Roman church. As if originating with the apostles. Clearly these were falsified because there are no genuine documents that prove that. So they had to supply them. So in this critical time period, the generation following the apostles, the generation where you have to have that link with the apostles, they did not have one, and so they made stuff up. It changed history. Then we have First Clement and we have Polycarp and we have the Didache, and all of these give support to Torah keeping and to Nazarene theology. Not to the theology that is associated with the Christian church. As a matter of fact, clearly anybody that reads these documents is going to recognize in them teachings that were later on rejected by the Christian church. So, if these writers, Clement, Polycarp, and the Didache, include this adminition of Torah keeping, keeping the Sabbath, keeping Passover and so on, and this was rejected by the Christian church why do they point to these people as representatives of the Christian church? If what they are trying to say by that is that these people are a connection with the apostles, would that not mean that the apostles have a different doctrine than the Christian church? How does this help them? I do not see it. So why do they even include this? Well here is their problem, these are authentic documents. They existed before the Christian church existed. They were already well known and they were well circulated. So the church could not forge them, they could not really change them, everybody would know it kind of like this Jedi sword here. You look at the picture immediately, you know 'Oh that is not real.' Everybody would know it right? That it is not real. So they had to include them but their tact here is to explain away the Jewish connection. Basically saying, well, later on the church got more enlightenment but early on they had these beliefs. So it is okay that they believed like that because back then we did not know everything we know now. Actually, in reality, the original Nazarene movement that started with Messiah, that continued on with His family, and with the apostles, did believe all these things. They did keep the Torah, they did keep the days. They did keep the Commandments. The Christian church broke away from that true movement. This is what they do not want to admit. So they have to invent fake sources to suggest that they are the true descendants of the apostles. When really, they are the descendants of the apostates. That is the truth. Now this is not to condemn every Christian today as an apostate, because most of us do not know this. Any person who sincerely from the heart, approaches Messiah, puts their faith in Him, they are going to be saved. So this does not undermine anybodies salvation. But what happens after they are saved? If they are part of an organization, of a system, that is really not from the apostles, if it is really from an apostasy, a schism that happened, then can you rely on the teachings of that group? You see, this is the problem is it not? So, people might really be saved but then if they are putting their trust in something that really is not well founded, then it is going to lead them into a lot of problems. Of course does this not explain why the Christian church has had so many problems through the centuries? So many distortions, through the centuries? Because it really does not have an apostolic foundation, that is really the truth of it. You know the actual facts of history bear out what I am saying. The Christian church would be something very different than it is right now, if it really did have an apostolic foundation. But unfortunately, it does not. So as we look at the picture here, what in this picture represents real historical events? The answer of course is, none of it. Peter was never known as Saint Peter, in biblical times, of course Peter was never a Jedi. I just thought that was kind of fun to put that in there. It does kind of help to illustrate the point though, right? Except in spurious documents, there is no record that Peter was ever in Rome. Really, why would he be since he was apostle to the Jews? That is what the Scriptures tell us. Peter then never was the Pope, and there never was apostolic succession. For the Christian church, from Peter, or actually from any other apostle. It is just the facts. But wait, there is still more. I am not talking about the Ginsu knives. Again, while personal salvation is always available to every person, so we are not undermining that. Nevertheless, the Gentile church never did have apostolic authority. Their attempt at proving that, through the 'Apostolic Fathers', when you examine it, proves exactly the opposite. They cannot produce the goods to show they even existed during that time. So, if there really was no apostolic succession, providing leadership for the generation after the apostles, then what was the legitimate leadership during that period that all of this revisionist history was meant to cover up? You see, this is the problem is it not? If actually the Gentile church began as a schism, breaking off from the true believers, then do they not need to cover that up to be accepted? To do that, do they not have to then obfuscate, cover up over, the real movement and the real leadership? So this is why they wrote these false things, these forgeries, these embellishments. To make it appear like they were the ones that had the apostolic sanction, they they did not. Well the people they are covering up here, is the original Israelite Nazarene movement that we find in the New Testament. That is nothing like the Christian church. That historically that we see from their very own documents, okay? That they are claiming are the 'Apostolic Fathers'. That group was keeping the Sabbath, they were keeping Passover, they were keeping the Torah Commandments. That is not the Christian church friends. That is the Nazarenes. These Nazarenes did not move forward through the centuries under apostolic leadership. You know what? That was never the plan. The original twelve apostles are a unique group. There is no succession from them, there never was meant to be. The original Nazarenes recognized the Davidic Covenant. This was restored by Messiah. It was really the Davidic relatives of Messiah who provided the leadership moving forward after the generation of the apostles. It is this Davidic leadership that was the legitimate leadership that the later Gentile church actually abandoned and broke away from. This is very easy to show because the thing is about the Nazarenes, they continued on. Well after the first century, that group continued on, the original group. So how could that happen, you cannot say then that they became the Christian church because they did not. The continued on. So you have to say about the Christian church, that it was a schism away from that group. As a matter of fact, one of their own historians, Eusebius, from a later time when they did not perceive the Nazarenes as a threat anymore, they did not preceive the desposyni or the Davidic relatives of Messiah, as a threat anymore, wrote about them. This very time period we are talking about, the generation after the apostles, the end of the first century the beginning of the second century, speaking of them it says, "They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord." Notice then who had the leadership in the assemblies, it was the desposyni. The Davidic relatives of Messiah. It goes on and it says, "The Ecclesia up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness." You see at that time the leadership of the believers was firmly in the hands of the desposyni who faithfully taught the Scriptures and so, even if there were apostates, they were not successful in apostatizing and leading the majority away. But it goes on and it says "But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and then the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers..." This friends, is the source. This is the beginning of The Great Gentile Schism. [Are you ready for the events that will be happening in the near future? Eliyahu ben David's seminar on the book of Daniel will give you further insight into what is going on in the world today and help you develop an action plan to prepare for the judgement that will soon take place on the earth. Come sign up today at tsiyon.net and watch Eliyahu ben David's free seminar on the book of Daniel. [Free Signup tsiyon.net] [The Christian Church Did Not Exist Before 135 A.D.] [With: Eliyahu ben David] [This video has been produced by: The Tsiyon Team] [Visit us online: www.tsiyon.org] [Watch us on YouTube: www.youtube.com/TsiyonTabernacle] [Music used in this production: Elysian Fields By: Omri Lahav] [Fair Use Notice] [Copyright 2015 Tsiyon.org]

Biography

Gentile was born in Piqua, Ohio,[3] the son of Italian immigrants[4] Patsy and Josephina Gentile, who immigrated in 1907.[5] After a fascination with flying as a child, his father provided him with his own plane, an Aerosport Biplane. He managed to log over 300 hours flying time by July 1941, when he attempted to join the Army Air Forces.

The U.S. military required two years of college for its pilots, which Gentile did not have, so he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force and was posted to the UK in 1941. Gentile flew the Supermarine Spitfire Mark V with No. 133 Squadron, one of the famed "Eagle Squadron" during 1942. His first kills (a Ju 88 and Fw 190) were on August 19, 1942,[6] during Operation Jubilee.[7]

In September 1942, the Eagle squadrons transferred to the USAAF, becoming the 4th Fighter Group. Gentile became a flight commander in September 1943, now flying the P-47 Thunderbolt. Having been Spitfire pilots, Gentile and the other pilots of the 4th were displeased when they transitioned to the heavy P-47. On 16 December 1943 Gentile claimed a third-share destroyed Ju-88, and a Fw-190 west of Tours on 5 January 1944. Two Fw-190s were claimed on 14 January and another on 25 February.

By late 1943, Group Commander Col. Don Blakeslee pushed for re-equipment with the lighter, more maneuverable P-51 Mustang. Conversion to the P-51B at the end of February 1944 allowed Gentile to build a tally of 15.5 additional aircraft destroyed between March 3 and April 8, 1944.[8]

His first victory flying the P-51 was on 3 March, when he claimed a Do 217 in the Wittemburg area.

After downing 3 Fw-190s on April 8,[9] he was the top scoring 8th Air Force ace when he crashed his personal P-51, named "Shangri La", on April 13, 1944 while stunting over the 4th FG's airfield at Debden for a group of assembled press reporters and movie cameras. Blakeslee immediately grounded Gentile as a result, and he was sent back to the US for a tour selling war bonds. In 1944, Gentile co-wrote with well-known war correspondent Ira Wolfert One Man Air Force, an autobiography and account of his combat missions.

His final tally of credits was 19.83 aerial victories and 3 damaged,[8] with 6 ground kills, in 350 combat hours flown. He also claimed two victories while with the RAF.

Note in the accompanying color photograph, that the shroud, normally surrounding the six exhausts for smoother air flow, has been removed. This was a common practice for pilots in "the heat" of combat, where any extra cooling to the engine was helpful towards performance.

After the war, he stayed with the Air Force, as a test pilot at Wright Field, as a Training Officer in the Fighter Gunnery Program, and as a student officer at the Air Tactical School. In June 1949, Gentile enrolled as an undergraduate studying military science at the University of Maryland.

On January 28, 1951, he was killed when he crashed in a T-33A-1-LO Shooting Star trainer, AF Ser. No. 49-0905, in Forestville, Maryland, leaving behind his wife Isabella Masdea Gentile Beitman (deceased October 2008), and sons Don Jr., Joseph and Pasquale.

Gentile Air Force Station in Kettering, Ohio was named in his honor in 1962. The installation closed in 1996.

Winston Churchill called Gentile and his wingman, Captain John T. Godfrey, Damon and Pythias, after the legendary characters from Greek mythology. He was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1995.[10]

References

  1. ^ Find a grave
  2. ^ Johnson, Richard Riley (1995). Twenty Five Milk Runs (And a few others): To Hell's Angels and back. Victoria, Canada: Trafford Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 1-4120-2501-X. Retrieved October 30, 2009. 
  3. ^ Video: American Army Women Serving On All Fronts Etc. (1944). Universal Newsreel. 1944. Retrieved February 21, 2012. 
  4. ^ , Salvatore John LaGumina, The Humble and the Heroic: Wartime Italian Americans (2006) p.182
  5. ^ Philip Kaplan, Two-Man Air Force: Don Gentile & John Godfrey World War Two Flying Aces (2006) p.7
  6. ^ "Major Dominic S. Gentile – 4th Fighter Group". AcePilots.com. Retrieved October 30, 2009. 
  7. ^ Beitman, Isabella Gentile (June 2, 2007), letter from Don's widow  (transcribed by Johnson, p. 4)
  8. ^ a b USAF Historical Study No. 85: USAF Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft, World War II, Air Force Historical Research Agency, p. 70.
  9. ^ "Dominic Gentile". National Aviation Hall of Fame. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved October 30, 2009. 
  10. ^ "Enshrinees". National Aviation Hall of Fame. Retrieved April 6, 2011. 
  • Jablonski, Edward (1971). Airpower. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.  4 volumes–I: Terror from the Sky (pages 1–168), II: Tragic Victories (pages 1–192), III: Outraged Skies (pages 1–136), IV: Wings of Fire (pages 1–218)
  • Gentile, Don (1944). One Man Air Force. New York, NY: L.B. Fischer Copyright held by North American Newspaper Alliance. 

External links

This page was last edited on 9 December 2017, at 01:33.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.