Is the Roman Papal System the Antichrist system?

[Jude3b]

The Greek word (anti) in scripture most nearly denotes something that is "in place of" another thing. The root meaning is, "instead of" or "in place of." It is not the original but a substitution, not Christ but a substitute for Christ. Instead of Christ a false Christ an Antichrist.
The early Christian church was persecuted heavily for the truth. Christians were publicly crucified, given to the Lions to be eaten and burned. The year 311 AD, the persecution ended, when Constantine became the Roman emperor, he embraced Christianity. This was the falling away of the church of God. The churches that began in homes disappeared as churches were built for worship, bishops and preachers received good salaries from the State. Now it was an honor to become a Christian, pagans were turned into Christianity not because of true repentance but to gain honor and popularity. Before the church of God was called Catholic, meaning the true universal church of God, the body of Christ. It was the ekklesia, or the "called out ones of God." Now the church began to be ruled by Rome and became the Roman Catholic, the apostate church.
Does 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, John 14:16&17; and John 16:7,13,14 indicate that the Roman Papal System is the Antichrist system?
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Tell me Jude: Should we abandon the Trinity, seeing as how it was defined as dogma at the First Nicean Council, which was held by the Catholic Church, and started by Constantine? :ahem:

[Jude3b]

Dear SpL: By no means should Christians abandon the teaching about the Trinity. Christians should not abandon any doctrine that is Biblical. Obviously the Trinity is clearly taught througout the Bible. It can even be seen as far back as the book of Genesis. It is however much more easily understood in the New Testament. Sincerely, Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Dear SpL: By no means should Christians abandon the teaching about the Trinity. Christians should not abandon any doctrine that is Biblical. Obviously the Trinity is clearly taught througout the Bible. It can even be seen as far back as the book of Genesis. It is however much more easily understood in the New Testament. Sincerely, Jude 3b

How do you know that it is Biblical and Arianism or Modalism is not?

[John Reece]

The Greek word (anti) in scripture most nearly denotes something that is "in place of" another thing. The root meaning is, "instead of" or "in place of." It is not the original but a substitution, not Christ but a substitute for Christ. Instead of Christ a false Christ an Antichrist.
The early Christian church was persecuted heavily for the truth. Christians were publicly crucified, given to the Lions to be eaten and burned. The year 311 AD, the persecution ended, when Constantine became the Roman emperor, he embraced Christianity. This was the falling away of the church of God. The churches that began in homes disappeared as churches were built for worship, bishops and preachers received good salaries from the State. Now it was an honor to become a Christian, pagans were turned into Christianity not because of true repentance but to gain honor and popularity. Before the church of God was called Catholic, meaning the true universal church of God, the body of Christ. It was the ekklesia, or the "called out ones of God." Now the church began to be ruled by Rome and became the Roman Catholic, the apostate church.
Does 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, John 14:16&17; and John 16:7,13,14 indicate that the Roman Papal System is the Antichrist system?
Sincerely, Jude 3b

Jude 3b,

Short answer to your question: No.

Longer answer:

1) 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 does not contain any reference that fits the biblical definition of "antichrist" (found in 1 & 2 John).

2) The man of lawlessness/sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 proclaims himself to be God. To say that the Pope proclaims himself to be God is gross and grievous slander.

2 Thessalonians 2

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (ESV)

3) I do not see how John 14:16-17 and John 16:7,13,14 support your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church is an antichrist system.

John 14

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

John 16

7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (ESV)

The scriptures you have quoted do not support your thesis, and your insistence that they do strikes me as fanatical.

Blessings,

John

[Jude3b]

"anti" means against or opposed to. The Papacy places itself as the head of the church. It is not the head. Only Christ is the head. "And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..." (Col. 1:18)
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

Jude, I'm so tired of this.

Did your mom like make you go to CCD against your will or something? Is that why you're this angry at Catholicism?

[rocketman]

Jude, for the last time, the Pope is not the head of the Church. Jesus is. The pope has divine authority to guide the Church in matters of faith, morals, and doctrine until Jesus returns to the world.

[Rev John Hansen]

Dear Rocketman:
DON'T YOU BELIEVE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM?Say what you want, but the Catechism states:
"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Page 234, #882). "The Roman Pontiff...as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful..." (Page 235, #891). "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (Pg. 246,
#937).
Wonder why God didn't tell us in the Bible that He was sending the pope as the Vicar of Christ? Why does the Roman Catholic church want the pope to be your teacher instead of the Holy Spirit of God?
Luv ya........

[Twilly Spree]

882
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Have to look at the entire thing there chief. Same with #891, you conviently took out the entire middle of that line. #937 from the summary section again. You can't just pull out a few quotes from the Catchism and start assuming things. I can pull out quotes from anywhere and make them say things they don't mean. It's alot of fun. For example I could quote you:

DON'T YOU BELIEVE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM?

Taken out of context it looks like YOU believe the Catechism.

[rocketman]

John/Jude, nowhere does it say "The Pope is the Head of the Church". He does guide the earthly church, and he upholds and preserves its teachings. But he is not the head. The Catechism never says he is.

[rocketman]

Danke, Twilly.

[Jude3b]

You all can play with words - but supreme pastor of all the church sounds like the head guy to me!

How about some Biblical support for a Pope. Do you have any?

Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

We can play with words?!?! Dude Jude you're like the king of word play! That's all you do there chief. I still think you have some repressed feelings coming through here.


No problema Rocketman, you're knowledge blows me away. I can just point out the obvious stuff :teeth:

[Jude3b]

It's time to get this thread back on the topic and question asked!!! Here we go:
The woman in Revelation chapter 17 was "arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and DECKED with gold and precious stones and pearls." The religious system symbolized by this woman does know some truth, but how much do her members live? Yes, she has some truth stuck on here and there, in an effort to appear as the true bride of Christ, and she has deceived many. Even John marveled when he saw her.
In verse five John tells us, "Upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTER, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Now it is not my desire to hurt people or to say harsh cutting words, but we must be true to the Word of God. Regardless of how much Roman Catholic people feel this religious system, symbolized by this woman, has done, it still remains a fact that she is an abomination to the peoples of this world! She has not been a blessing, she has not done the people good; she has not led people to the true Christ; she has not held up the standard of truth (the Bible); she is not the true church of God; she is empowered by the spirit of the mystery of iniquity Paul spoke of, which was already at work in his day. She is guilty of fornication (spiritually). She is guilty of the death of saints. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (verse 6). Her power went to her head, as it were, and she became drunk with her power and influence with the religious and civil leaders. She is not only responsible for the death of saints, but she is guilty of millions being lost eternally. Who is she? THIS WOMAN IS A SYMBOL OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Just as the pure holy woman in Revelation 12 is a symbol of the true church of God, so this vile, wicked woman is a symbol of a false, sinful church.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

It's time to get this thread back on the topic and question asked!!! Here we go:
The woman in Revelation chapter 17 was "arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and DECKED with gold and precious stones and pearls." The religious system symbolized by this woman does know some truth, but how much do her members live? Yes, she has some truth stuck on here and there, in an effort to appear as the true bride of Christ, and she has deceived many. Even John marveled when he saw her.
In verse five John tells us, "Upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTER, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Now it is not my desire to hurt people or to say harsh cutting words, but we must be true to the Word of God. Regardless of how much Roman Catholic people feel this religious system, symbolized by this woman, has done, it still remains a fact that she is an abomination to the peoples of this world! She has not been a blessing, she has not done the people good; she has not led people to the true Christ; she has not held up the standard of truth (the Bible); she is not the true church of God; she is empowered by the spirit of the mystery of iniquity Paul spoke of, which was already at work in his day. She is guilty of fornication (spiritually). She is guilty of the death of saints. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (verse 6). Her power went to her head, as it were, and she became drunk with her power and influence with the religious and civil leaders. She is not only responsible for the death of saints, but she is guilty of millions being lost eternally. Who is she? THIS WOMAN IS A SYMBOL OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Just as the pure holy woman in Revelation 12 is a symbol of the true church of God, so this vile, wicked woman is a symbol of a false, sinful church.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

You are quite wrong.

The woman in Revelation chapter 17 is not a symbol of the Roman Catholic Church.

The woman in Revelation chapter 17 is a symbol of Jerusalem (circa AD70).

[Jude3b]

Please tell me why or how you know the woman there is a symbol of Jerusalem (AD 70)??

[John Reece]

Please tell me why or how you know the woman there is a symbol of Jerusalem (AD 70)??

Biblical exegesis.

[Jude3b]

Biblical exegesis? Ok, thats nice, Would you be willing to share with me or explain a little further how your Biblical exegesis leads you to the conclusion that you have stated?
Thank you, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Biblical exegesis? Ok, that’s nice, Would you be willing to share with me or explain a little further how your Biblical exegesis leads you to the conclusion that you have stated?
Thank you, Jude 3b

I'd be happy to do that. However, it will take some time. I'm old and weakened by health problems; it takes very little reading and writing to tire me out.

Basically, in this case, the exegetical process is a matter of following the cross-references in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and a few additional cross-references provided by means of lexical references. It's a matter of letting scripture interpret scripture.

Just to leapfrog far enough ahead to give the basic thrust, Revelation 17:6 has a cross-reference to Revelation 18:24, which has a cross-reference to Matthew 23:35, 37, which brings us to words spoken by Jesus. The prophecy of Jesus in terms of those words is the linchpin for the exegesis of Revelation 17 & 18:

Matthew 23

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth (thV ghV = the land), from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Lament over Jerusalem

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (ESV)

In the above text, Jesus prophesied an ultimate judgment upon the leaders of Jerusalem within their lifetime. That prophecy was fulfilled in AD70.

There are a number of cross-references linking Jerusalem to texts in Revelation 17 & 18. Let me know if you are interested in seeing them posted.

[Jude3b]

Yes I am, because so far you have not shown that the woman is Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D.. Instead of the apostate church - as I have indicated. Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Yes I am, because so far you have not shown that the woman is Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D.. Instead of the apostate church - as I have indicated. Sincerely, Jude 3b

O.K., I'll do it, with the understanding that it may require a number of posts to complete, given the quantity of material and my inability to handle much at a time.

Revelation 17

The Great Prostitute and the Beast

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute (pornh) who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality (porneiaV = cognate of pornh) the dwellers on earth have become drunk." 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes (pornwn = plural of pornh) and of earth's abominations." 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. (ESV)

The following scriptures are cross-references to the text quoted above:

Jeremiah 25

The Cup of the LORD's Wrath

15 Thus the LORD (YHWH), the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them."
17 So I took the cup from the LORD (YHWH)'s hand, and made all the nations to whom the LORD (YHWH) sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day; 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, all his people, 20 and all the mixed tribes among them; all the kings of the land of Uz and all the kings of the land of the Philistines (Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); 21 Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon; 22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastland across the sea; 23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who cut the corners of their hair; 24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed tribes who dwell in the desert; 25 all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of Media; 26 all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And after them the king of Babylon shall drink.
27 "Then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD (YHWH) of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.'
28 "And if they refuse to accept the cup from your hand to drink, then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD (YHWH) of hosts: You must drink! 29 For behold, I begin to work disaster at the city that is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, for I am summoning a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth, declares the LORD (YHWH) of hosts. (ESV)

The above scripture presents a precedent for devastating judgment upon Jerusalem.

Matthew 24

The Abomination of Desolation

15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place [= the Temple in Jerusalem -JR] (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (ESV)

Note the fact that, in the text above, the locus of judgment is Judea and the Temple in Jerusalem. Here is Luke's version of the same prophecy given by Jesus:

Luke 21

Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. (ESV)

In the text above, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

Isaiah 1

The Unfaithful City

21 How the faithful city
has become a whore (LXX: pornh),
she who was full of justice!
Righteousness lodged in her,
but now murderers. (ESV)

In the text above, "the faithful city" is Jerusalem, which is identified as a whore/harlot, just the same as in Revelation 17-19.

Jeremiah 3

Faithless Israel Called to Repentance

6 The LORD (YHWH) said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore (LXX = eporneusan = verbal cognate of pornh)? 7 And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. 9 Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree." (ESV)

In the text above, Israel is identified as a whore/harlot, just the same as in Revelation 17-19.

That will have to do for a start.

[Jude3b]

While you are showing that Israel has been called some of the same names as are used in the book of Revelation. It still does not proove that the book of Revelation is referring to Israel, instead of the apostate church.
Keep going, lets see what else you have.
Thanks, Jude 3b

PS and this really has nothing to do with our discussion. Please tell me what church you attend or what is your theological background?

[John Reece]

While you are showing that Israel has been called some of the same names as are used in the book of Revelation. It still does not prove that the book of Revelation is referring to Israel, instead of the apostate church.
Keep going, lets see what else you have.
Thanks, Jude 3b

PS and this really has nothing to do with our discussion. Please tell me what church you attend or what is your theological background?


O.K., I'll keep on. More later (tomorrow).

Regarding your off-topic question:

I am related to two local churches: a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) that is within walking distance from my house, and a non-denominational Charismatic church two towns away, the leaders of which are my closest spiritual brothers.

I spent two years studying Greek and Hebrew exegesis at Duke University, and I am a graduate of The Presbyterian School of Christian Education and Union Theological School in Virginia. In the latter two schools, as well as at Duke, my only real interest was biblical exegesis - I took just enough of other courses to meet the requirements for graduation.

[Jude3b]

Did You Ever Get To Take Any Classes In Church History?

[John Reece]

Did You Ever Get To Take Any Classes In Church History?

Of course. But one does not need academic courses to read and study history. On the other hand, it was essential and of irreplaceable value for me to personally (face to face) interact with master scholars (over a period of 5 years of full-time study) in terms of learning Hebrew and Greek and applying those languages in exegetical studies.

Now, back to the Harlot in Revelation 17.

In Galatians 4, Paul compares two Jerusalems:

Galatians 4

Example of Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband."
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (ESV)

So also, in Revelation 17-22, John compares two Jerusalems: Jerusalem the Harlot and Jerusalem the Bride.

In Revelation 17:1-6, one of the seven angels carried John away in the Spirit into a wilderness, where he saw a woman identified by the angel as Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations. And he saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

The Babylon the great in Revelation 17:1-6 is apostate Jerusalem, in an even worse state than when Isaiah prophesied against her in Isaiah 1, saying "How the faithful city has become a harlot!" The charge that Isaiah brought against Jerusalem in Isaiah 1 was true (and then some) regarding Jerusalem in the days in which Jesus spoke the words linked in cross-references by several verses in Revelation 17-19 :

Matthew 23

29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Lament over Jerusalem

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (ESV)

That prophecy spoken by Jesus is alluded to in the following verses in Revelation:

Revelation 17

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. (ESV)

Revelation 18

24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints,
and of all who have been slain on earth." (ESV)

Revelation 19

Rejoicing in Heaven

1 After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out, "Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2 for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants." (ESV)

In the English versions, Jesus in Matthew 23:35 spoke of "all the righteous blood shed on earth", and in Revelation 19:2 the text speaks of "the great prostitute who corrupted the earth". In both verses, the word rendered "earth" is gh, which can bear the sense of "earth" or "land", depending on the context. In the context of Matthew 23, the reference is to the land of Israel, and I submit that it is the same in Revelation 19:2, which alludes to Matthew 23:35.

I am presenting exegesis (incomplete so far) indicating that what Jesus predicted in Matthew 23 is referred to as fulfilled in Revelation 17-19.

Do you assert that the prophecy of Jesus was not fulfilled just as he predicted? If that is not your assertion, when and how was the prophecy spoken by Jesus fulfilled, and where in scripture is there any reference to that fulfillment?

[Jude3b]

Did you ever consider that sometimes symbols and types work together?

[John Reece]

Did you ever consider that sometimes symbols and types work together?

Yes.

[Jude3b]

If yes, have you considered that many symbols "of Israel" are types "of the church and churches"??

[John Reece]

If yes, have you considered that many symbols "of Israel" are types "of the church and churches"??

That’s a rhetorical question that’s too general to be answered “Yes” or “No”. If you were to refer to specific texts, I might be able to answer, after studying the context and the cross-references to other scriptures - to get enough breadth and depth of perspective to understand what the texts actually say, and do not say.

Continuing with your request that I demonstrate how biblical exegesis leads to my understanding of the Harlot in Revelation 17 to be apostate Israel, here is another of a number of texts in which God identifies Israel as a Harlot/Whore/Prostitute (LXX & GNT = pornh):


Ezekiel 16

The LORD's Faithless Bride

1 Again the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, 3 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.
6 "And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' 7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.
8 "When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. 9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. 11 And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. 12 And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. 14 And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord GOD.
15 "But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his. 16 You took some of your garments and made for yourself colorful shrines, and on them played the whore. The like has never been, nor ever shall be. 17 You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself images of men, and with them played the whore. 18 And you took your embroidered garments to cover them, and set my oil and my incense before them. 19 Also my bread that I gave you--I fed you with fine flour and oil and honey--you set before them for a pleasing aroma; and so it was, declares the Lord GOD. 20 And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter 21 that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them? 22 And in all your abominations and your whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, wallowing in your blood.
23 "And after all your wickedness (woe, woe to you! declares the Lord GOD), 24 you built yourself a vaulted chamber and made yourself a lofty place in every square. 25 At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself to any passerby and multiplying your whoring. 26 You also played the whore with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, multiplying your whoring, to provoke me to anger. 27 Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you and diminished your allotted portion and delivered you to the greed of your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd behavior. 28 You played the whore also with the Assyrians, because you were not satisfied; yes, you played the whore with them, and still you were not satisfied. 29 You multiplied your whoring also with the trading land of Chaldea, and even with this you were not satisfied.
30 "How lovesick is your heart, declares the Lord GOD, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute, 31 building your vaulted chamber at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every square. Yet you were not like a prostitute, because you scorned payment. 32 Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband! 33 Men give gifts to all prostitutes, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from every side with your whorings. 34 So you were different from other women in your whorings. No one solicited you to play the whore, and you gave payment, while no payment was given to you; therefore you were different.
35 "Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the LORD: 36 Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, 37 therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. 39 And I will give you into their hands, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places. They shall strip you of your clothes and take your beautiful jewels and leave you naked and bare. 40 They shall bring up a crowd against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords. 41 And they shall burn your houses and execute judgments upon you in the sight of many women. I will make you stop playing the whore, and you shall also give payment no more. 42 So will I satisfy my wrath on you, and my jealousy shall depart from you. I will be calm and will no more be angry. 43 Because you have not remembered the days of your youth, but have enraged me with all these things, therefore, behold, I have returned your deeds upon your head, declares the Lord GOD. "Have you not committed lewdness in addition to all your abominations?
44 "Behold, everyone who uses proverbs will use this proverb about you: 'Like mother, like daughter.' 45 You are the daughter of your mother, who loathed her husband and her children; and you are the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. 46 And your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. 47 Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. 48 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. 51 Samaria has not committed half your sins. You have committed more abominations than they, and have made your sisters appear righteous by all the abominations that you have committed. 52 Bear your disgrace, you also, for you have intervened on behalf of your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you. So be ashamed, you also, and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.
53 "I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in their midst, 54 that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them. 55 As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state. 56 Was not your sister Sodom a byword in your mouth in the day of your pride, 57 before your wickedness was uncovered? Now you have become an object of reproach for the daughters of Syria and all those around her, and for the daughters of the Philistines, those all around who despise you. 58 You bear the penalty of your lewdness and your abominations, declares the LORD.

The LORD's Everlasting Covenant

59 "For thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, 60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you take your sisters, both your elder and your younger, and I give them to you as daughters, but not on account of the covenant with you. 62 I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, 63 that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD." (ESV)

[Jude3b]

These verses in Ezekiel do obviously represent lost Israel. But they could also be a type of the Roman Catholic church and her daughters. I still do not see how the passage in Revelation is describing lost Israel instead of Romanism.
Might I also ask you, my frined what is your Escahatological position. I mean are you a Dispensationalist, Pre-Mil, Post-Mil, Amil???
Thank you, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

These verses in Ezekiel do obviously represent lost Israel. But they could also be a type of the Roman Catholic church and her daughters. I still do not see how the passage in Revelation is describing lost Israel instead of Romanism.
Might I also ask you, my friend what is your Eschatological position. I mean are you a Dispensationalist, Pre-Mil, Post-Mil, Amil???
Thank you, Jude 3b

John,

Texts that I have posted on this thread indicate that there are in Revelation 17-19 allusions to the prophecy spoken by Jesus in Matthew 23.

What I have posted is the tip of an iceberg: Revelation is about God's covenant with Israel. The judgment predicted in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 is described as fulfilled in Revelation 17-19:5 - a judgment that was consummated circa AD70. The fulfillment of the positive promises and predictions re God's covenant with Israel (fulfilled in Christ) are described in Revelation 19 and 21.

You have made many assertions about Revelation being about church history subsequent to biblical times, but you have not presented any exegetical/textual indications to support your assertions.

My exegetical perspective is that of N. T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God, which is also that of R. T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament.

In other words, my perspective is that of an orthodox preterist, insofar as the interpretation of the Gospels and Revelation is concerned.

With specific reference to Revelation 17-19 and 21, the two commentators with whom I most agree are Milton S. Terry (Biblical Apocalyptics) and J. Massyngberde Ford (The Anchor Bible: Revelation).

Blessings,

John

[Jude3b]

Revelations is about church history
In Rev. 1:4, "John, to the severn churches..."
In Rev. 1:19, "Write the things wihich you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." John was told by Jesus to write the things which John had seen during his lifetime, the things which were happening at the time Jesus was giving the Revelation to John and the things which will take place after this.
Now the church of God can be said to have started during the time when John the Baptist pointed to Jesus, the lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. "The law and the prophets were until John..." At least by the day of Pentecost, we can say the church of God was fully established. John was alive at that time and he writes down the revelation (history of that time and prophetic history from there on until the return of Jesus).
That is why we see the Revelation addressed to the churches: Rev. 2:1 "To the angel of the church of Ephesus," Rev 2:8, "And to the angel of the church of Smyrna..." etc. etc.
In Rev. 3:9: "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (who is being spoken to here? It is addressed to the church in Philadelphia) Yes, Israel is spoken of, but not the "Israel of God - the church" - but rather the fact that the lost Jews were not part of the church of God in Philadelphia.
In Rev. 3:12, 13: "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. He who has an ear, let him HEAR WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS TO THE CHURCHES."
I must apologize John that I am really not familiar with the term "Preterist" or the authors that you mentioned. What is a "Peterist?"
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Revelations is about church history
In Rev. 1:4, "John, to the seven churches..."

Seven specific churches in seven specific locations, all in Asia. You can't legitimately take a truncated part of a verse and use it to assert that Revelation is about more than and other than what the text indicates.



In Rev. 1:19, "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." John was told by Jesus to write the things which John had seen during his lifetime, the things which were happening at the time Jesus was giving the Revelation to John and the things which will take place after this.
Now the church of God can be said to have started during the time when John the Baptist pointed to Jesus, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. "The law and the prophets were until John...” At least by the day of Pentecost, we can say the church of God was fully established. John was alive at that time and he writes down the revelation (history of that time and prophetic history from there on until the return of Jesus).
That is why we see the Revelation addressed to the churches: Rev. 2:1 "To the angel of the church of Ephesus,” Rev 2:8, "And to the angel of the church of Smyrna...” etc. etc.
In Rev. 3:9: "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (who is being spoken to here? It is addressed to the church in Philadelphia) Yes, Israel is spoken of, but not the "Israel of God - the church" - but rather the fact that the lost Jews were not part of the church of God in Philadelphia.
In Rev. 3:12, 13: "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. He who has an ear, let him HEAR WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS TO THE CHURCHES."

You are reading into the text more than and other than what it actually says.

With regard to the specification of time, you have disregarded the introduction and conclusion, in which the time of fulfillment is specified:

Revelation 1

Prologue

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (ESV)

Revelation 22

Jesus Is Coming

6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place."
7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." 10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (ESV)

I must apologize John that I am really not familiar with the term "Preterist" or the authors that you mentioned. What is a "Preterist?"

A Preterist is one who does not project into the distant future what the scriptures indicate was predicted to be fulfilled in the near future / within the life-span of the people to whom the scriptures were addressed.

Blessings,

John

[rocketman]

Just wanted to jump in and say thanks to John Reece. This is interesting stuff.

[Jude3b]

Dear John:
Now I am really confused. Based on your definition of a Preterist and the verses you quoted about "Jesus coming soon" - are you implying that Jesus has already returned?
Sincerely, Jude 3b
PS - Any teachings that I have ever heard or read up to now on the churches mentioned in the first few chapters of Revelation, are mentioned as a type of all the churches.

[John Reece]

Just wanted to jump in and say thanks to John Reece. This is interesting stuff.

Thanks, rocketman


Jude 3b:

Dear John:

Now I am really confused. Based on your definition of a Preterist and the verses you quoted about "Jesus coming soon" - are you implying that Jesus has already returned?

In the sense that was meant in the relevant texts in Revelation, the answer is "Yes".


Jude 3b:

PS - Any teachings that I have ever heard or read up to now on the churches mentioned in the first few chapters of Revelation, are mentioned as a type of all the churches.

Insofar as what is written in Revelation regarding the 7 churches may be true of any church at any time, that may be a valid application of the truth that was spoken. But that fact is not a license to make more of what the texts say than what they actually say.

Blessings,

John

[Jude3b]

Dear John:
Please tell me more about what you mean when you say "in the sense .. in Revelation .. Yes JESUS HAS ALREADY COME AGAIN" - Please explain exactly what do you mean? And I know this is sort of changing the subject, but can you elaborate more on the Eschatalogical position or belief that you hold as a Preterist? You have to understand, I do not know that I have ever personally known or discussed anything with a Preterist. Thanks,
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Dear John:
Please tell me more about what you mean when you say "in the sense .. in Revelation .. Yes JESUS HAS ALREADY COME AGAIN" - Please explain exactly what do you mean?


John,

:smile: You remind me of a newspaper editor who interviewed me some years ago, putting between quotation marks words supposedly spoken by me. I said "Yes". The words in bold print in your quote were provided by you. Not a problem and not a big deal; however, I'm careful about what I say and how I say it, and that should be refected whenever quotes are attributed to me.

You are responding to this quotation of scripture (and the fact that I take it to mean what it says):

Revelation 1

Prologue

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (ESV)

Revelation 22

Jesus Is Coming

6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place."
7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." 10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (ESV)

The text is very emphatic about the time of the coming of Jesus that was predicted in the texts above.

Re the nature of the coming, the prophecy (i.e., Revelation) is about judgment in terms of God's covenant with Israel and fulfillment in terms of His promises, so I take it that his coming was what he did to carry out the judgment and fulfill the promises.

You seem taken aback by my taking the scriptures at face value regarding a coming of Jesus circa AD70.

Jesus told his Disciples that they would live to see whatever he meant by these scriptures:

Matthew 10

23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (ESV)

Matthew 16

28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (ESV)

Matthew 24

The Abomination of Desolation

15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

The Coming of the Son of Man

29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The Lesson of the Fig Tree

32 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

Matthew 26

59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?" (ESV)

Contexts indicate that Jesus referred to more than one coming, and more than one kind of coming, in the texts quoted above. The one thing that they all have in common is the time frame: within the life-span of the people to whom Jesus spoke.

To take at face value the scriptures quoted above violates presuppositions held dearly by most Christians. But if one looks at the scriptures sans such presuppositions, he sees that Jesus repeatedly and emphatically made predictions not unlike the ones made in Revelation: predictions of comings in the near future / within the life-span of those to whom he spoke.



Jude3b:

And I know this is sort of changing the subject, but can you elaborate more on the Eschatological position or belief that you hold as a Preterist? You have to understand, I do not know that I have ever personally known or discussed anything with a Preterist. Thanks,
Sincerely, Jude 3b


I do not hold any eschatological position. A position is something one has a vested interest in defending. I have an eschatological perspective, which I expressed in these words in a prior post:

A Preterist is one who does not project into the distant future what the scriptures indicate was predicted to be fulfilled in the near future / within the life-span of the people to whom the scriptures were addressed.

I share, to a large degree, the perspective of Preterists, but I have no stake in the position per se, so I have no interest in defending it, nor in defining it beyond what I have said.

For more re Preterists, do some research in the Eschatology forum, where you will find a number of threads posted by Preterists.

Blessings,

John

[Jude3b]

Dear John: It sure is different from anything I've ever read or studied. Let me ask you this. If Jesus came in 70 A.D., where is He now. Is He coming again than, a third time or not, in your understanding of end times?
Thank you, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Dear John: It sure is different from anything I've ever read or studied. Let me ask you this. If Jesus came in 70 A.D., where is He now. Is He coming again than, a third time or not, in your understanding of end times?
Thank you, Jude 3b

:smile:

John,

You have not carefully read what I have already written on this thread:

Contexts indicate that Jesus referred to more than one coming, and more than one kind of coming, in the texts quoted above. The one thing that they all have in common is the time frame: within the life-span of the people to whom Jesus spoke.

So, it is not accurately responsive for you to ask about Jesus coming "a third time", as though I had asserted that there was a single coming within the AD30-70 time frame.

With regard to "the end times", I do not know of any scripture the puts what that refers to in our future. The only "last days" I see in the New Testament are the days in which the writers of the NT were living:

Hebrews 1

The Supremacy of God's Son

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (ESV)

Regarding the present location of Jesus, he is where the scriptures indicate he is:

Ephesians 1

Thanksgiving and Prayer

15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (ESV)

The scriptures indicate that Jesus is seated at the Father's right hand, and he is in his Body/the Church.

Blessings,

John

[Jude3b]

John: What do you consider 2 Peter 3: 1-13 to be about? Jude 3b

[John Reece]

John: What do you consider 2 Peter 3: 1-13 to be about? Jude 3b

I consider 2 Peter 3:1-13 to be symbolic language about the transition from the old phase of the biblical story, to the new phase of the biblical story: from the last days of natural Israel with its Temple located in earthly Jerusalem, to the new phase in which Israel, the Temple, and Jerusalem are transformed and transcendent realities manifested in Christ and his Body/the Church.

[Jude3b]

Dear John, YOU DO? WHY?

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

Dear John, YOU DO? WHY?

Sincerely, Jude 3b

A bunch of reasons, which are way off topic and would require more work to explain than I feel like doing at this time and on this thread.

[Jude3b]

Ok, lets get back on the topic:
"LET US REJOICE THEN AND GIVE THANKS THAT WE HAVE BECOME NOT ONLY CHRISTIANS, BUT CHRIST HIMSELF. MARVEL AND REJOICE: WE HAVE BECOME CHRIST." (Page 210, #795 of the Roman Catholic Catechism)

"FOR MANY SHALL COME IN MY NAME, SAYING, I AM CHRIST; AND SHALL DECEIVE MANY." (Matthew 24:5)

So, is the Roman Catholic religion CHRIST, or is it an "anti" - Christ system?

[Benedict]

Or we could quote in context.

Paragraph 795 in the Catechism refers to Christ as the Head of the Church and the Church as the Body of Christ. We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). To continue where you left off quoting,

"For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members." St. Augustine

[John Reece]

Or we could quote in context.

Paragraph 795 in the Catechism refers to Christ as the Head of the Church and the Church as the Body of Christ. We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). To continue where you left off quoting,

"For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members." St. Augustine

:yes:

:thumb:

[Jude3b]

The Roman Catholic religion is not the body of Christ. This unbelievable doctrine suggests that every Roman Catholic is, in fact, Jesus Christ and/or part of His body.
In reality only true Christians are part of the body of Christ. Only the saved have been added to the church of God (Acts. 2:47b). Rome still insists it is the "one true church" - but it is only a counterfiet, an apostate church.
All the saved from every generation are the body of Christ. Romanism is not!

[spl_cadet]

The Roman Catholic religion is not the body of Christ. This unbelievable doctrine suggests that every Roman Catholic is, in fact, Jesus Christ and/or part of His body.

And how does your doctrine that all true Christians are a part of the Body of Christ not teach that if you assert such a literal meaning?


Rome still insists it is the "one true church" - but it is only a counterfiet, an apostate church.

Define apostate for us please.

[Jude3b]

First, only true born-again Christians make up the true body of Christ, the church of God. The church of God is the people of God. Romanism is a religion. There might be some Romanists that are born-again Christians, but that is in spite of Rome, not because of it. When they come to actually know who they have become in Christ, they need to come out of Rome. "Come out of her my people."

Second, you ask what is an apostate church? When your looking at Romanism, your looking at it. Its foundation stone is teaching that Roman Catholicism is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word. If the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic church are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible would concur with that teaching. Unfortunately for Roman Catholicism, it does not. In fact, quite the contrary is true. God declares in the Bible that His written Word always has been, and always will be -- perfect:
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7).
The Bible boldly declares that it is the only final authority: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17).
In the book of Revelation, God delivers this blistering warning, to groups like Roman Catholicism, about tampering with His written Word:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19).

[Jude3b]

This is my prayer for all dear Roman Catholic People:
"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened..." (Ephsians 1:17-18).
Cordially, Jude 3b

[Jude3b]

By design, dear Roman Catholic people are in bondage to the Roman Catholic church from shortly after birth at baptism until the moment of their death when they receive the Last Rites. Thats an anti Christ system.

The Bible declares that Jesus died to set us free from bondage.

[Jude3b]

"For therre shall arise false Christs, and false prophets..." (Matthew 24:24).

The admonition of Jesus is to avoid being deceived by people, religious groups, denominations who make this erroneous claim: "Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ..." (Luke 21:8).

When Romanism states that salvation is to be found in her and her only - it is setting itself up as a false Christ, an AntiChrist. Because true salvation is to be found in Christ and Christ alone! Amen

[Jude3b]

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (I John 2:18).

The Roman Catholic system of popery did not start until A.D. 270 and was not fully developed until 530 A.D.. The Roman Catholic church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.

By Rome attempting to rewrite history and claiming that it is the church that Jesus founded, they are prooving that they are one of the many antichrists that should come. They are a deceiver. A deceiving religion and not the church of God that Jesus founded and is the head of.

[Ruth Serra]

Jude, I'm so tired of this.

Did your mom like make you go to CCD against your will or something? Is that why you're this angry at Catholicism?

I think that's what happened to my husband. He hates it all. :o(

[Jude3b]

I think that's what happened to my husband. He hates it all. :o(

Hi, I do not "hate" the Roman Catholic Religion, although it is fully corrupt and an antichrist system of religious works. I do feel pity for the poor religious souls still trapped in it, like I was for 27 years. I am so thankful that God saved me by the blood of Jesus Christ and set me free from the law of sin and death and that false religious system.

I reach out with the Love of Christ and long to see every Roman Catholic come to Christ and be set free from that false religious system. Amen.

[Lion]

It is sometimes necessary to digress from the subject of the papacy in order to make a point. But don’t worry, we will come back soon.

The seventh chapter of Daniel presents a parade of animals. Babylon is represented by a winged lion, a bear represents Medo-Persia a four headed, four winged leopard represents Grecia. ]

Dan. 7:7 “After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

This beast without doubt represents Rome. Rome was the most fearsome conquering power It came to power in 168 BC at the battle of Pydna. It was a fearsome power and it seemed nothing could stand against it.

But fall it did, and the problem with Rome was internal rot and corruption. By 476 AD, the Roman senate had ceased to meet and the army had ceased to exist. It was easy pickings for an invader from the north, the Heruli, with Odoacer as king. He ruled from Rome. But the pope was not happy because Odoacer was aryan. The aryan doctrine had been spreading since the council of Nicea in 326. To the term barbarian was added Heretic. The vast Gothic population was largely pagan but those few Christians were now heretics..

In 483 , pope Simplicus died and the people assembled to elect a new pope, when Basilius entered the conference and declared all that had been don was null and void and demanded that a pope favorable to the aryans be selected.

Meanwhile, Zeno, emperor of the east, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy. So he persuaded Theodoric, of what is now Yugoslavia, to attack Odoacer. Odoacer was killed and Theodoric took the throne in Italy. The only problem was, Theodoric was also Aryan and left the laws favorable to Aryans in place.. While the Catholics in Italy were suffering from persecution, violent persecution was erupting from the Aryans in north Africa, sardinia and Corsica. Theodoric finally ordered the pope out of italy, not to return until he carried out the will of the king.

Justinian issed a decree making the pope head of all churches in the west but the decree could not be carried out as long as Theodoric was in power. In 533 Justian’s general Belisarius started a five year campagn to rid the area of Aryanism. By 538 he had won, from which date the period of papal supremacy is to be calculated.

Dan. 7:8 “While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.

There were three kings uprooted, the Heruli, under Odoacer, the Ostrogoths under Theodoric , and the Vandals in north Africa. This little horn had eyes, intelligent eyes like a man, and a mouth that uttered great boasts.

Dan. 7:9 ¶ “I kept looking Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool.
His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
Dan. 7:10 “A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat, And the books were opened.

Notice that the little horn was the papacy that uprooted three kings, the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. The papacy got others to do the dirty work. But notice what heavenly court thought about the boastful words the horn was speaking.

Dan. 7:11 “Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

We know the Roman Church tries to deflect the indictment, saying that some other power was at fault. We will let history speak for itself. But there is more to the story than that. Daniel wanted to know more.

Dan. 7:13 ¶ “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
Dan. 7:14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Jesus often referred to himself as the Son Of Man. Here Daniel sees a being called a son of man approaching God, the ancient of days and he was given dominion, power and Glory and a kingdom that will never be destroyed. All the beasts representing kingdoms were temporary, but the kingdom of the son of man would never be destroyed.

Dan. 7:15 ¶ “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within me, and the visions in my mind kept alarming me.
Dan. 7:16 “I approached one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things:

Daniel wanted to know the meaning of all that had passed through his mind.

Dan. 7:17 ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.
Dan. 7:18 ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’

Daniel wasn’t satisfied with that explanation.

Dan. 7:19 ¶ “Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet,
Dan. 7:20 and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates.

The ten horns and the little horn that grew larger, that had eyes and a boasting mouth worried Daniel.

Dan. 7:21 “I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them
Dan. 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom.

The little horn that grew large was persecuting the saints. Was this to continue? No, the saints would possess the kingdom.

Dan. 7:23 ¶ “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

Dan. 7:24 ‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.
Dan. 7:25 ‘He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

We have already seen how the papacy caused three kingdoms to be destroyed. But now we come to a bit of a puzzle. For a long time the three and a half times, or three and a half years was a puzzle. Three and a half years is not a long time in the grand sweep of history.

The puzzle was solved by two texts, Ezek 4:6 and Num 14:34.

Ezek. 4:6 “When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year.

Num. 14:34 ‘According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.

This was no problem when the interpreters came to Daniel 9, the seventy weeks prophecy. This was understood to be weeks of years, 490 years.

In fact, there are seven texts that refer to a period of persecution, Dan 7:25, Dan 12: 7, Rev 11:2,3, Rev 12:6, 14, and Rev 13:5, all referring to the period as time, times and a half, twelve hundred sixty days, or forty two months.

Let us see how this works out. and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. Applying the day for a year idea, from the time the papacy had overcome the three Aryan powers, adding 1,260 years to 538 brings us to 1798. In February that year the French general Berthier marched on Rome and took the pope prisoner and he died in exile. The French also took 350 wagon loads of gold, jewels, and objects of art to France. The power of the papacy as a persecuting power was broken.

But there is more. The papacy would:

Dan. 7:25 ‘He will speak out against the Most High

The pope claims to be the vicar of God, the representative of God.

and wear down the saints of the Highest One, a persecuting power.

and he will intend to make alterations in times; The Catholic church boasts of changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
quoting from a catholic catechism
THIRD COMMANDMENT

Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
1. What day was reserved for God under the old law?
Saturday, or the Sabbath, a word signifying repose.
2. What day is reserved for God under the new law?
The first day of the week, called Sunday, or Lord's day.
Why did the Apostles substitute Sunday for Sabbath Day?
Because Sunday is the day on which Jesus Christ arose from the dead, and the day on which the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.


and in law

The catholic church has eliminated the second commandment which forbids bowing to images

1. What is the Decalogue?

The Decalogue is the code which, under the head of ten commandments, comprises all the duties and natural rights of man.
1 . I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
(The catholic church has eliminated the second commandment which forbids bowing to images, however the law in Ex 20 is correct)
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
By eliminating the second they divided the tenth to preserve the number ten.

and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. We have already covered this.

[Jude3b]

It is sometimes necessary to digress from the subject of the papacy in order to make a point. But don’t worry, we will come back soon.

The seventh chapter of Daniel presents a parade of animals. Babylon is represented by a winged lion, a bear represents Medo-Persia a four headed, four winged leopard represents Grecia. ]

Dan. 7:7 “After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

This beast without doubt represents Rome. Rome was the most fearsome conquering power It came to power in 168 BC at the battle of Pydna. It was a fearsome power and it seemed nothing could stand against it.

But fall it did, and the problem with Rome was internal rot and corruption. By 476 AD, the Roman senate had ceased to meet and the army had ceased to exist. It was easy pickings for an invader from the north, the Heruli, with Odoacer as king. He ruled from Rome. But the pope was not happy because Odoacer was aryan. The aryan doctrine had been spreading since the council of Nicea in 326. To the term barbarian was added Heretic. The vast Gothic population was largely pagan but those few Christians were now heretics..

In 483 , pope Simplicus died and the people assembled to elect a new pope, when Basilius entered the conference and declared all that had been don was null and void and demanded that a pope favorable to the aryans be selected.

Meanwhile, Zeno, emperor of the east, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy. So he persuaded Theodoric, of what is now Yugoslavia, to attack Odoacer. Odoacer was killed and Theodoric took the throne in Italy. The only problem was, Theodoric was also Aryan and left the laws favorable to Aryans in place.. While the Catholics in Italy were suffering from persecution, violent persecution was erupting from the Aryans in north Africa, sardinia and Corsica. Theodoric finally ordered the pope out of italy, not to return until he carried out the will of the king.

Justinian issed a decree making the pope head of all churches in the west but the decree could not be carried out as long as Theodoric was in power. In 533 Justian’s general Belisarius started a five year campagn to rid the area of Aryanism. By 538 he had won, from which date the period of papal supremacy is to be calculated.

Dan. 7:8 “While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.

There were three kings uprooted, the Heruli, under Odoacer, the Ostrogoths under Theodoric , and the Vandals in north Africa. This little horn had eyes, intelligent eyes like a man, and a mouth that uttered great boasts.

Dan. 7:9 ¶ “I kept looking Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool.
His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
Dan. 7:10 “A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat, And the books were opened.

Notice that the little horn was the papacy that uprooted three kings, the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. The papacy got others to do the dirty work. But notice what heavenly court thought about the boastful words the horn was speaking.

Dan. 7:11 “Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

We know the Roman Church tries to deflect the indictment, saying that some other power was at fault. We will let history speak for itself. But there is more to the story than that. Daniel wanted to know more.

Dan. 7:13 ¶ “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
Dan. 7:14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Jesus often referred to himself as the Son Of Man. Here Daniel sees a being called a son of man approaching God, the ancient of days and he was given dominion, power and Glory and a kingdom that will never be destroyed. All the beasts representing kingdoms were temporary, but the kingdom of the son of man would never be destroyed.

Dan. 7:15 ¶ “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within me, and the visions in my mind kept alarming me.
Dan. 7:16 “I approached one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things:

Daniel wanted to know the meaning of all that had passed through his mind.

Dan. 7:17 ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.
Dan. 7:18 ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’

Daniel wasn’t satisfied with that explanation.

Dan. 7:19 ¶ “Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet,
Dan. 7:20 and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates.

The ten horns and the little horn that grew larger, that had eyes and a boasting mouth worried Daniel.

Dan. 7:21 “I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them
Dan. 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom.

The little horn that grew large was persecuting the saints. Was this to continue? No, the saints would possess the kingdom.

Dan. 7:23 ¶ “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

Dan. 7:24 ‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.
Dan. 7:25 ‘He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

We have already seen how the papacy caused three kingdoms to be destroyed. But now we come to a bit of a puzzle. For a long time the three and a half times, or three and a half years was a puzzle. Three and a half years is not a long time in the grand sweep of history.

The puzzle was solved by two texts, Ezek 4:6 and Num 14:34.

Ezek. 4:6 “When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year.

Num. 14:34 ‘According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.

This was no problem when the interpreters came to Daniel 9, the seventy weeks prophecy. This was understood to be weeks of years, 490 years.

In fact, there are seven texts that refer to a period of persecution, Dan 7:25, Dan 12: 7, Rev 11:2,3, Rev 12:6, 14, and Rev 13:5, all referring to the period as time, times and a half, twelve hundred sixty days, or forty two months.

Let us see how this works out. and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. Applying the day for a year idea, from the time the papacy had overcome the three Aryan powers, adding 1,260 years to 538 brings us to 1798. In February that year the French general Berthier marched on Rome and took the pope prisoner and he died in exile. The French also took 350 wagon loads of gold, jewels, and objects of art to France. The power of the papacy as a persecuting power was broken.

But there is more. The papacy would:

Dan. 7:25 ‘He will speak out against the Most High

The pope claims to be the vicar of God, the representative of God.

and wear down the saints of the Highest One, a persecuting power.

and he will intend to make alterations in times; The Catholic church boasts of changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
quoting from a catholic catechism
THIRD COMMANDMENT

Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
1. What day was reserved for God under the old law?
Saturday, or the Sabbath, a word signifying repose.
2. What day is reserved for God under the new law?
The first day of the week, called Sunday, or Lord's day.
Why did the Apostles substitute Sunday for Sabbath Day?
Because Sunday is the day on which Jesus Christ arose from the dead, and the day on which the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.


and in law

The catholic church has eliminated the second commandment which forbids bowing to images

1. What is the Decalogue?

The Decalogue is the code which, under the head of ten commandments, comprises all the duties and natural rights of man.
1 . I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
(The catholic church has eliminated the second commandment which forbids bowing to images, however the law in Ex 20 is correct)
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
By eliminating the second they divided the tenth to preserve the number ten.

and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. We have already covered this.

Dear Lion:

So, is it your point that the book of Daniel is a proof text that shows the Papacy is the Antichrist system?

[Lion]

Most emphatically YES

[Jude3b]

Most emphatically YES

Dear Lion:

May I ask you a question? Are you a 7th Day Adventist?

[Rushing Jaws]

You all can play with words - but supreme pastor of all the church sounds like the head guy to me!

How about some Biblical support for a Pope. Do you have any?

Jude 3b

## Depends what's being asked for :smile:

There is Biblical warrant for a Petrine office.

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that God acts through human beings to get His work done

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that men share some at least of Christ's attributes or qualities:

He is "the Light of the world" - they are lights in the world

He is the "Episkopos...of our souls" - they too can be episkopoi

He is anointed with the Spirit - so are Christians

He holds "the keys of death and Hell" - Peter holds keys too

He is the Elect - so are Christians elect.

He is the Beloved of the Father - Christians are "holy and beloved"

He is the King of Saints - they are saints

He is a King - they are kings

He is a Priest - they are priests

He is Son by nature - they are sons by adoption

He crushes the serpent's head - they trample satan underfoot

He is tempted - they are tempted

He took up His Cross - they must take up their crosses

He has "seen the Father" - they shall see God "face to face"

And so on - there is a good deal in common between Christ and His members; in fact, just about everything.

So what is said of His authority, can be said of that of His members. His unique dignity as God and man is the sole foundation, not only for all authority in the Church, but for every grace we receive. In neither case is He wronged.

There can be teaching with authority in the Church, only because He taught with authority in the synagogue.

Which clears the way a bit to see the place of Peter more clearly, one hopes.

The Papacy will not be required in Heaven - any more than faith or hope will be. But the Church will have the same Head as ever - for no Pope is more than "ministerial head", deputising for Christ, for so long as there are Christians on earth. And because all Christians are prone to error and sin, they are granted the Holy Spirit, through the agency of Whom, Christ, the Teacher of His Church, teaches "in the midst of [His] Church".

The Pope differs from the rest of Christians by the duties and responsibilities he has - it is impossible for a mere man to replace Christ or the Spirit of Christ. ##

[Jude3b]

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church - not some man that Roman Catholics call the pope.

The supreme teacher of the church of God is the Holy Spirit, not some pope!
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

[Rushing Jaws]

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church - not some man that Roman Catholics call the pope.

The supreme teacher of the church of God is the Holy Spirit, not some pope!
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)## 1. Divine Authority does not abolish human authority: the Kingship of Christ is not a reason - still less an excuse - to reject authority exercised by frail human beings. Not in the state: so why in the Church ?

If the having of human teachers in the Church (1 Corinthians 12) and human episkopoi (Acts 20) in the Church does not conflict with the authority of Our Lord as Teacher and Episkopos: why should the headship of the Pope conflict with that of Christ ?

If being Episkopos and being Teacher in and of the Church does not rule out the existence, in the Church, of Christians with these functions - it is not clear that the Headship of Christ cannot also be found exercised in the Church by men.

2. We know from Scripture that there are human teachers (for example) in the Body of Christ. The headship of the Pope is, by contrast, not mentioned by name in the NT: but what the Bible says about:

the position of Christ;

the place of Peter in the Church;

the keys held by Christ and conferred by Christ on Peter;

the pattern of God's electing purpose from Adam to Abraham to David (to go no further, though probably we can); and later, in the NT;

the application of Christ's titles to His disciples in the NT;

the union of Christ with His Father, and of both with the Holy Spirit;

The union of Christians with Christ and with each other;

all helps to suggest, that the having of a pope in the Church is, in principle, in accord with Scripture. It is possible to put together recurring themes in the Bible - such as those listed above - which, taken together, suggest that the function of the Pope is part of a pattern.

IOW, the argument for a Papacy is cumulative: put the Biblical data together, and the result is a picture of the function of the Pope in the NT Church - that is, of a Petrine office in the Church, modelled upon the teaching and the actions and attitudes of Christ.

And "argument" is the word - not "proof". It is perfectly possible to find a hundred arguments against the Papacy, all Scriptural. But it is also perfectly possible to find a hundred arguments from Scripture against the Deity of Christ; or just about anything believed in by Christians. There is no point in trying to "prove" something from Scripture, IMO - ISTM that all any Christian can do is put forward the Biblical grounds for the beliefs he holds; whether these grounds are convincing to someone of a different religion or a different Christianity, is something that is beyond the Christian's control. God is the converter of hearts - not us. But that is BTW.

AFAICS, the Biblical argument for a pope in the Church is not in principle any weaker than the Biblical argument for the Trinity. There is no passage anywhere saying that there is to be a Pope; there is no passage saying that there is a Trinity (BTW, both - not just the Papacy - are vulnerable to the "objection from pagan origins". But that is a different kettle of fish).

3. None of this is intended to be a formal argument for the rightness of having a Papacy; let alone as a knock-down proof that it is Biblical. This post is little more than a suggestion that there are indications and hints and analogies which suggest that Christ intended the Papacy to be an element in the make-up of His Church. Even if such an argument could be given adequately in a single post, there would be the other objections: from history, from the difference between the perfect holiness of Christ and the imperfections of popes, from all kinds of sources and arguments and reasonings. But there is AFAICS a "Christian pattern", so that Christianity is specifically Christian instead of being something else not specifically Christian; and ISTM that the notion of a Petrine office forms part of this pattern. ##

[Jude3b]

While the Roman Catholic Antichrist system elevates the pope to the position of "supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful," (i.e. Pope), God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26).

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" (John 14:16).

The pope of Romanism has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:11).

The man of sin - the Pope of Romanism is not the infallible teacher of the church of God. The Apostle Paul reiterates that the Holy Spirit of God, not a man, is the infallible teacher of all true Christians:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." (I Cor. 2:12-13)

[Jude3b]

Just wanted to jump in and say thanks to John Reece. This is interesting stuff.

It may be intersting stuff, but the fact remains that The evangelical Church today does not want to expose the deceitfulness and false teacings of Roman Catholicism. Many in the church of God - the body of Christ, have become like a politician, wanting to live in peace with everyone.

We must never forget that the heart of this dispute between Romanism and Biblcal Christianity is over the way of salvation. Rome has a different plan of salvation - than that revealed in the Word of God. That makes it an Antichrist system.

There is only one way of salvation. In John 14:6, Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Rome absolutely denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone, pronouncing it is an anathema (Divine curse) upon those who hold to this principle (9th canon of the Council of Trent).

[Jude3b]

Or we could quote in context.

Paragraph 795 in the Catechism refers to Christ as the Head of the Church and the Church as the Body of Christ. We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). To continue where you left off quoting,

"For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members." St. Augustine

That all sounds swell. Let me ask you this:

Is the body of Christ - the ekklesia, the church of God that we read about in the New Testament? Or is the body of Christ the Roman Catholic religion?

Who are members of the body of Christ? Are there any "unsaved people" in the body of Christ?

[scholasticus]

"The pope of Romanism has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill"

Ho, ho, ho... merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too!

OK, seriously man, the Catholic Church doesn't think that the Pope replaces the Holy Spirit. That's Ultramontanism, which the Church roundly condemns.

We just take seriously some other stuff that the Bible says on the subject, such as "...but we have the mind of Christ" (one of Paul's letters). Or how about "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us"? (in the book of Acts - and who said that anyhow?).

Or take this doozie from the book of Revelation: "the Spirit and the Bride say..." - come on man! There is clearly a sense in which Scripture comes close to identifying the ***official voice of the Church*** (i.e. the solemn pronouncements on faith and morals, jurisdictional matters and also in solemn worship as in Revelation) with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Take the moment when Peter pronounces the sentence over Ananias and Sapphira. Whether we take that event as literal history or not, it shows that the Apostles certainly enjoyed a rather close relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I'm not contradicting my opening point here, but rather trying to clarify: if the Church really has the gift of the Spirit and the Spirit has never gone AWOL, then it stands to reason that her official teachings (in a strictly defined sense, not just any old words a Bishop happens to say in private) must enjoy a certain help from the Holy Spirit, so much so that we could even say:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." (I Cor. 2:12-13)

Paul was a mere man, just as we are, yet claimed to speak *by* the Holy Spirit. The early Church claimed that he also had the power to write new inspired Scripture!!! The same - in a more limited sense! - goes for the claims of Catholic (and Orthodox?) bishops, the successors of the Apostles.

Peace

Keir

[Jude3b]

"The pope of Romanism has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill"

Ho, ho, ho... merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too!

OK, seriously man, the Catholic Church doesn't think that the Pope replaces the Holy Spirit. That's Ultramontanism, which the Church roundly condemns.

We just take seriously some other stuff that the Bible says on the subject, such as "...but we have the mind of Christ" (one of Paul's letters). Or how about "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us"? (in the book of Acts - and who said that anyhow?).

Or take this doozie from the book of Revelation: "the Spirit and the Bride say..." - come on man! There is clearly a sense in which Scripture comes close to identifying the ***official voice of the Church*** (i.e. the solemn pronouncements on faith and morals, jurisdictional matters and also in solemn worship as in Revelation) with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Take the moment when Peter pronounces the sentence over Ananias and Sapphira. Whether we take that event as literal history or not, it shows that the Apostles certainly enjoyed a rather close relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I'm not contradicting my opening point here, but rather trying to clarify: if the Church really has the gift of the Spirit and the Spirit has never gone AWOL, then it stands to reason that her official teachings (in a strictly defined sense, not just any old words a Bishop happens to say in private) must enjoy a certain help from the Holy Spirit, so much so that we could even say:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." (I Cor. 2:12-13)

Paul was a mere man, just as we are, yet claimed to speak *by* the Holy Spirit. The early Church claimed that he also had the power to write new inspired Scripture!!! The same - in a more limited sense! - goes for the claims of Catholic (and Orthodox?) bishops, the successors of the Apostles.

Peace

Keir

First, Romanism does not have any bishops that are successors of the Apostles. The Apostles had all died or been martyred for many years before there ever was any Roman Catholic religion.

Secondly, no one may add to the Word of God or take away from it, without incurring the wrath of God upon themself.

[scholasticus]

Dear Jude,

"First, Romanism does not have any bishops that are successors of the Apostles. The Apostles had all died or been martyred for many years before there ever was any Roman Catholic religion."

>>> I never met a Romanist, so I wouldn't know about that ;p But as regards the concept of "succession" - would you not agree that it is definitely in Scripture? Take for example, Paul's command to Timothy to "appoint faithful men" and other similar bits - do you think that Timothy (and Timothy's disciples) just ignored Paul's exhortation and left it up to Scripture?

Secondly, no one may add to the Word of God or take away from it, without incurring the wrath of God upon themself.

>>> OK, I agree with that. But what do you think of my points which you quoted in the post above? Does the fact that you didn't address them at all imply that you agree? ;p

Peace

Keir

[Jude3b]

Dear Jude,

"First, Romanism does not have any bishops that are successors of the Apostles. The Apostles had all died or been martyred for many years before there ever was any Roman Catholic religion."

>>> I never met a Romanist, so I wouldn't know about that ;p But as regards the concept of "succession" - would you not agree that it is definitely in Scripture? Take for example, Paul's command to Timothy to "appoint faithful men" and other similar bits - do you think that Timothy (and Timothy's disciples) just ignored Paul's exhortation and left it up to Scripture?

Secondly, no one may add to the Word of God or take away from it, without incurring the wrath of God upon themself.

>>> OK, I agree with that. But what do you think of my points which you quoted in the post above? Does the fact that you didn't address them at all imply that you agree? ;p

Peace

Keir

Dear Keir:

Paul did say that to Timothy. That is correct. But that has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is not even mentioned in Scripture. If you notice - Paul addressed his letters "To the church of God" in Corinth, Galatia, etc. He was not writing to any Roman Catholic churches which did not exist for another two hundred plus years.

As far as your posting of some scriptures. That is nice. But No - I do not agree with your post. You think those verses are about and to Roman Catholic congregations. No so, Romanism had not started yet. It did not start until about 270 A.D. and did not become an official religion until 312 A.D.. Therefore you need to go back and read the verses and see exactly who they are written to. They are written unto and about Christians and the church of God - not to Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic religion.

[scholasticus]

Jude Dude,

Paul did say that to Timothy. That is correct. But that has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is not even mentioned in Scripture.

>>> I'm not personally mentioned in Scripture. Does that mean I don't exist?

>>> The point was that he said to appoint successors. So where are these successors now? When did the command go out of date?

If you notice - Paul addressed his letters "To the church of God" in Corinth, Galatia, etc. He was not writing to any Roman Catholic churches which did not exist for another two hundred plus years.

>>> Oh, my goodness!!! Thanks for pointing that out. In all these years of reading the Bible cover to cover, I never noticed that the Letters weren't actually personally addressed to our local Bishop, Frank Gibson. I just kind of assumed... Oh, well. Looks like I'll have to tell him to stop having them read out every Sunday. Why on earth should he think they have anything to do with him? They're none of his business. They're out of date. By, like 2000 years.

As far as your posting of some scriptures. That is nice. But No - I do not agree with your post. You think those verses are about and to Roman Catholic congregations. No so, Romanism had not started yet. It did not start until about 270 A.D. and did not become an official religion until 312 A.D.. Therefore you need to go back and read the verses and see exactly who they are written to. They are written unto and about Christians and the church of God - not to Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic religion.

>>> As I said, since all the people those letters were written to died 2000 years ago, I'll speak to the Pope and tell him to stop having them read out publically ever day of the year in the local language in publicly accessible buildings worldwide. Pretty stupid of those Bishops to want to read out someone else's letters in the first place, huh?

>>> OK, sarcasm over. I watched Third Rock from the Sun this morning, and that's my excuse.

Peace

Keir

[Jude3b]

Jude Dude,

Paul did say that to Timothy. That is correct. But that has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is not even mentioned in Scripture.

>>> I'm not personally mentioned in Scripture. Does that mean I don't exist?

>>> The point was that he said to appoint successors. So where are these successors now? When did the command go out of date?

If you notice - Paul addressed his letters "To the church of God" in Corinth, Galatia, etc. He was not writing to any Roman Catholic churches which did not exist for another two hundred plus years.

>>> Oh, my goodness!!! Thanks for pointing that out. In all these years of reading the Bible cover to cover, I never noticed that the Letters weren't actually personally addressed to our local Bishop, Frank Gibson. I just kind of assumed... Oh, well. Looks like I'll have to tell him to stop having them read out every Sunday. Why on earth should he think they have anything to do with him? They're none of his business. They're out of date. By, like 2000 years.

As far as your posting of some scriptures. That is nice. But No - I do not agree with your post. You think those verses are about and to Roman Catholic congregations. No so, Romanism had not started yet. It did not start until about 270 A.D. and did not become an official religion until 312 A.D.. Therefore you need to go back and read the verses and see exactly who they are written to. They are written unto and about Christians and the church of God - not to Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic religion.

>>> As I said, since all the people those letters were written to died 2000 years ago, I'll speak to the Pope and tell him to stop having them read out publically ever day of the year in the local language in publicly accessible buildings worldwide. Pretty stupid of those Bishops to want to read out someone else's letters in the first place, huh?

>>> OK, sarcasm over. I watched Third Rock from the Sun this morning, and that's my excuse.

Peace

Keir

Dear Keir:

Since you are going to speak to the Pope, please ask him these questions also:
1) Why didn't God tell us in the Bible that He was sending the pope as the Vicar of Christ? (Isaiah 42:8)
2) Why does the Bible insist that Jesus is still the head of the church, if He isn't? (Ephesians 5:23)
3) Why does the Roman Catholic church want the pope to be the final authority instead of Jesus? (John 16:13)
4) Why does the Roman Catholic church want the pope to be your teacher instead of the Holy Spirit of God? (John 14:26)

[Lion]

Is the Roman pontiff the representative of God on earth. NO, most emphatically NO.

You said the apostles were all long dead before the Catholic church began in about AD 312. How come the church claims Peter was the first pope? Something is rotten here. The apostle Paul speaks of a falling away before the coming of Christ.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2Thess 2:1-4

I read a book by Malachi Martin, a Catholic priest, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Church, that exposes the history of the Catholic church in exquisite detail. It outlines the false doctrines and crimes of the church so powerfully I wrote to him asking why he left the church. I was astonished to get a reply from his secretary stating he was still a priest. That was just a few months before his death. I suggest you find a copy of the book. It is long out of print, but I found it in the public library.

I found it incredible anyone could write such a powerful testimony against the Catholic church and still be a priest. But I have learned that the church has such a powerful hold on priests most of them are threatened with death if they leave.

[Jude3b]

Is the Roman pontiff the representative of God on earth. NO, most emphatically NO.

You said the apostles were all long dead before the Catholic church began in about AD 312. How come the church claims Peter was the first pope? Something is rotten here. The apostle Paul speaks of a falling away before the coming of Christ.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2Thess 2:1-4

I read a book by Malachi Martin, a Catholic priest, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Church, that exposes the history of the Catholic church in exquisite detail. It outlines the false doctrines and crimes of the church so powerfully I wrote to him asking why he left the church. I was astonished to get a reply from his secretary stating he was still a priest. That was just a few months before his death. I suggest you find a copy of the book. It is long out of print, but I found it in the public library.

I found it incredible anyone could write such a powerful testimony against the Catholic church and still be a priest. But I have learned that the church has such a powerful hold on priests most of them are threatened with death if they leave.

Dear Lion:

Can you tell us what some of the false doctrines and crimes of the Roman Catholic church are that Mr. Martin reveals in his book?

You mention "the church (I assume you mean Roman Catholism) has such a powerful hold on priests most of them are threatened with death if they leave" - do you have any factual information to back up that statement?

[Lion]

The Cathoic church's false doctrines, to name a few:
Confession to a priest instead of directly to God.
Immortality of the soul.
The Mass, where the priest supposedly transfoms the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ.
That Mary is a co-redeemer with Christ.
Purgatory and limbo
An eternally burning hell where the lost burn erternaly without dying.
Christmas as the birthday of Christ. It is actually a pagan holiday celebrating the return of the sun after the winter solstice.
Lent. Actually lent was a period of mournimg for Tammuz. It was followed by the feast to the goddess Ishtar (0r oestar) the goddess of fertility. the most fecund animal is the rabbit and the symbol of fertility is the egg. That's how easter eggs and bunny rabbits got into easter.

[Jude3b]

The Cathoic church's false doctrines, to name a few:
Confession to a priest instead of directly to God.
Immortality of the soul.
The Mass, where the priest supposedly transfoms the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ.
That Mary is a co-redeemer with Christ.
Purgatory and limbo
An eternally burning hell where the lost burn erternaly without dying.
Christmas as the birthday of Christ. It is actually a pagan holiday celebrating the return of the sun after the winter solstice.
Lent. Actually lent was a period of mournimg for Tammuz. It was followed by the feast to the goddess Ishtar (0r oestar) the goddess of fertility. the most fecund animal is the rabbit and the symbol of fertility is the egg. That's how easter eggs and bunny rabbits got into easter.

Dear Lion:

Ok thank you for that list.

Did you find the factual information that indicates that priests are afraid to leave Roman Catholicism for fear of being killed???

[Constantine]

Did you find the factual information that indicates that priests are afraid to leave Roman Catholicism for fear of being killed???

Of course not. I have it very well hidden.

:wink:

About Fr. Malachi Martin.....

Anyone ever listen to Art Bell? Fr. Martin was one of his guests back in 1997. The following link will take you to a webpage about Planet X. You know, the one thats going to crash into earth in 2003? Anyway according to Martin the Vatican built an observatory to keep track of it.

http://www.planetxvideo.com/fathermalachimartin.htm

Yup thats the guy I'll go to for the facts.

[Jude3b]

Of course not. I have it very well hidden.

:wink:

About Fr. Malachi Martin.....

Anyone ever listen to Art Bell? Fr. Martin was one of his guests back in 1997. The following link will take you to a webpage about Planet X. You know, the one thats going to crash into earth in 2003? Anyway according to Martin the Vatican built an observatory to keep track of it.

http://www.planetxvideo.com/fathermalachimartin.htm

Yup thats the guy I'll go to for the facts.

Dear Constantine:

I was actually asking a serious question. A statement was made that is significant about Roman Catholic Priests being afraid of leaving the Roman Catholic church for fear of being killed. I was just asking if there is any actual facts to back up such an accusation.

[Constantine]

I was actually asking a serious question. A statement was made that is significant about Roman Catholic Priests being afraid of leaving the Roman Catholic church for fear of being killed. I was just asking if there is any actual facts to back up such an accusation.

I'm sorry Jude3b I did not mean to mock you. I was just trying to lighten things up.

I appreciate you asking for the facts first though. But do you really think the Catholic Church has the intent, the will, or the resources to hunt down wayward Priests? If they did wouldn't Fr. Martin be long since dead?

I know you don't like the Catholic Church but don't you think a conspiracy of cloak and dagger murder is a little over the top?

[Jude3b]

I'm sorry Jude3b I did not mean to mock you. I was just trying to lighten things up.

I appreciate you asking for the facts first though. But do you really think the Catholic Church has the intent, the will, or the resources to hunt down wayward Priests? If they did wouldn't Fr. Martin be long since dead?

I know you don't like the Catholic Church but don't you think a conspiracy of cloak and dagger murder is a little over the top?

Dear Constantine:

I hope we will get the source of the accusation about the statement that some Roman Catholic priests are afraid to leave the Roman Catholic church for fear of being put to death. I am reserving jujgement on that until the facts are presented.

To partially answer your question. I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic church had a policy of murder and torture towards those who would disagree with them (especially wayward Priests) - back in the years between 900 A.D. on up to 1600 A.D... (i.e. Inqusition, etc.)

[Lion]

As for the Catholic Church making death threats against priests that leave the priesthood, I cannot say it is policy of the church of Rome. But I have in front of me as I write a book by Walter M. Montano who was a priest in Peru who had to hide for a long time after he left the church because of death threats. He finally left the continent and labored in Panama.

[Jude3b]

As for the Catholic Church making death threats against priests that leave the priesthood, I cannot say it is policy of the church of Rome. But I have in front of me as I write a book by Walter M. Montano who was a priest in Peru who had to hide for a long time after he left the church because of death threats. He finally left the continent and labored in Panama.

Dear Lion:

I have spoken with missionaries who worked in Brazil and other countries of South America back in the early 1980's and they were attacked and treated very badly by the Roman Catholic priests in the area and by members of their RC congregations. They were very threatened by the people who were converting from Romanism and becoming born-again. So, it would seem that it is quite possible that those same Roman Catholics would persecute someone who got saved and left their flock.

[David Hayward]

To partially answer your question. I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic church had a policy of murder and torture towards those who would disagree with them (especially wayward Priests) - back in the years between 900 A.D. on up to 1600 A.D... (i.e. Inqusition, etc.)The Church of England has had its own policy of murder and torture towards those who would disagree with them, especially in Tudor and Elizabethan times. As for other denominations (with the exception of peaceful Quakerism) I do not have the knowledge to comment, except I understand persecution in general was commonplace at the time; but no doubt you will know whether persecution, murder and torture are part of the ancestry of your own denomination, and whether the pot is calling the kettle black in this respect.

David

[Jude3b]

The Church of England has had its own policy of murder and torture towards those who would disagree with them, especially in Tudor and Elizabethan times. As for other denominations (with the exception of peaceful Quakerism) I do not have the knowledge to comment, except I understand persecution in general was commonplace at the time; but no doubt you will know whether persecution, murder and torture are part of the ancestry of your own denomination, and whether the pot is calling the kettle black in this respect.

David

Well this thread is about the Roman Papal System being the Antichrist system. It is not about the Church of England. However, in many respects the Church of England is like a Roman Catholic church without a Pope.

As for membership in a denomination. Sorry, I stopped that when I left the Church of Rome. I was steeped in Romanism for 27 years, until I was saved and came out of her to stand in freedom from sectarianism. I am a Christian and a member of the church of God - the body of Christ that we read about in the New Testament. I automatically became a member of the body of Christ - the New Testament church of God - the day I was born-again, (Acts 2:47).

I do not find any verses in the New Testament to indicate that any member of the New Testament church of God - the body of Christ ever tortured or killed anyone. However millions of members of the body of Christ - the church of God have been murdered and killed over the 2000 years that the church has existed, by members of Religious groups such as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Paganism, Atheism, etc.

[Jude3b]

I'm sorry Jude3b I did not mean to mock you. I was just trying to lighten things up.

I appreciate you asking for the facts first though. But do you really think the Catholic Church has the intent, the will, or the resources to hunt down wayward Priests? If they did wouldn't Fr. Martin be long since dead?

I know you don't like the Catholic Church but don't you think a conspiracy of cloak and dagger murder is a little over the top?

A sense of humor is a good thing! We need one, especially here in the Ecclesiology threads.

I do not personally think that the Roman Catholic church is doing very much hunting down of wayward Priests today. At least not in the United States.

[Jude3b]

And how does your doctrine that all true Christians are a part of the Body of Christ not teach that if you assert such a literal meaning?



Define apostate for us please.

APOSTATE = "fallen away" or "backslidden"

The Apostolic church of God - The New Testament Body of Christ was a pure and holy and the people of God. They had the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as their teachers.

When the church fell into apostasy and started to backslide - men became more religious and set up "man-rule" and replaced to the two witnesses (the Holy Spirit and the Word of God) with doctrines of men and traditions of men.

[Lion]

APOSTATE the dictionary definition is to leave one’s faith or principles. The Catholic church apostatized when she began leave the pure doctrines of the apostles and began to adopt pagan rituals. Constantine led the church far into paganism when he was nominally converted to Christianity i say nominaly because he never was converted. He was a pagan until his dying day. He had a problem, to keep Christians and pagans from fighting. He thought of a way, take pagan celebrations and give them Christian sounding names.

The pagans didn’t know why the sun made its annual southward swing, so they had a celebration on December 25 to celebrete the return of the sun. He called it the birth of Christ.

The Jews had passover. It was the time when Christ died. It was in the fourteenth day of the Jewish month but the Hebrew calendar didn’t match our caleandar, so one of the popes set the date as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This was to give more moonlight for the pilgrimage to Rome.

The origin of easter goes back to Nimrod mentioned in Gen. 10:8,9 His wife was Oeastar, or Ishtar. Nimrod died and Ishtar said he had gone to be the god of the sun. Some time after, too long for a normal pregnacy, Ishtar said she was pregnant by the god of the sun. She gave birth to a son, Tammuz, who is mentioned in Ezek 8:14, as women weeping for Tammuz. The story is that Tammuz was hunting and was killed by a wild boar. Ishtar decreed a period of forty days of mourning for Tammuz.

In Ezek 8 the prophet was shown several abominations, one of which was the women weeping for Tammuz. If God callls something an abomination nobody can make it sacred.

The mourning for Tammuz was followed by the celebraton of spring. The symbol of fertility is the egg, and the rabbit is the most fecund animal is the rabbit. That’s how eggs and bunny rabbits got conected with easter. Lent is the period of mourning for Tammuz.

So that’s how the abominations of paganism got absorbed into the Christian religion. The revelry of Mardi Gras, or Carnival came from that source, Carne Vale means farewell to the flesh.

There are many other things the Catholic church absorbed from paganism. One thing that is right is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

[Jude3b]

APOSTATE the dictionary definition is to leave one’s faith or principles. The Catholic church apostatized when she began leave the pure doctrines of the apostles and began to adopt pagan rituals. Constantine led the church far into paganism when he was nominally converted to Christianity i say nominaly because he never was converted. He was a pagan until his dying day. He had a problem, to keep Christians and pagans from fighting. He thought of a way, take pagan celebrations and give them Christian sounding names.

The pagans didn’t know why the sun made its annual southward swing, so they had a celebration on December 25 to celebrete the return of the sun. He called it the birth of Christ.

The Jews had passover. It was the time when Christ died. It was in the fourteenth day of the Jewish month but the Hebrew calendar didn’t match our caleandar, so one of the popes set the date as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This was to give more moonlight for the pilgrimage to Rome.

The origin of easter goes back to Nimrod mentioned in Gen. 10:8,9 His wife was Oeastar, or Ishtar. Nimrod died and Ishtar said he had gone to be the god of the sun. Some time after, too long for a normal pregnacy, Ishtar said she was pregnant by the god of the sun. She gave birth to a son, Tammuz, who is mentioned in Ezek 8:14, as women weeping for Tammuz. The story is that Tammuz was hunting and was killed by a wild boar. Ishtar decreed a period of forty days of mourning for Tammuz.

In Ezek 8 the prophet was shown several abominations, one of which was the women weeping for Tammuz. If God callls something an abomination nobody can make it sacred.

The mourning for Tammuz was followed by the celebraton of spring. The symbol of fertility is the egg, and the rabbit is the most fecund animal is the rabbit. That’s how eggs and bunny rabbits got conected with easter. Lent is the period of mourning for Tammuz.

So that’s how the abominations of paganism got absorbed into the Christian religion. The revelry of Mardi Gras, or Carnival came from that source, Carne Vale means farewell to the flesh.

There are many other things the Catholic church absorbed from paganism. One thing that is right is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

Dear Lion:

This might come as a shocker, but I like Constantine. Here is why. He really risked his own neck and fought to allow the Christians to have freedom of worship and he stopped the slaughter/murder of Christians by Rome. He did good when He did that.

It is quite possible that Constantine was not fully converted himself. We won't know for sure until we get to heaven and we can get the true story and motivations of all that went on. It is also possible that he was converted but just didn't know what to do. Romanism had started in 270 A.D. and was really strong by 311 A.D. when Constantine stopped the killing of Christians. Romanism has a way of confusing a lot of peoples thinking.

I don't blame Constantine or even the individual Popes for creating the Roman Papal AntiChrist system. Our enemy is Satan.

Think about this for a minute. Satan tried killing off believers starting way back when, shortly after Genesis 3:15 - to stop God. Every time he thought a Messiah had come, he tried to have that person killed. Look what he did to John the Baptist and look what he had Herod do to the children he killed - trying to make sure he could kill and stop Messiah. That shows you how dumb old Satan is, he actually thought he could stop God. Dumb! Dumb!

Anyway, to get back to my point. Satan was unable to stop the church of God - the body of Christ from spreading. He would have thousands upon thousands killed by pagan Rome and he could not stop the church and he never will be able to stop it. (Matt. 16:17-19)

So Satan had to come up with something new. You know what he did? He joined the church (symbolically speaking) and it grew more and more apostate, until it grew into full blown Roman Catholicism. As time went on - it became more and more corrupt - so much so that true Christians were outside the church of Rome, the book of Revelation says they were in the "wilderness." The true church of God - the body of Christ still existed but it was in a state of isolation, and it was only a "remnant" until the Reformation - some 1260 years after the Roman Catholic religion got started in 270 AD.

Satan was not only successful in joining the Christian church and creating Romanism, he is responsible for every false religion - from Atheism to Mormonism to Islam to Buddhism. You can name over a 1,000 of them - cults and false sects - all started by Satan. Honest men and women for the most part - deceived by old Satan - started teaching false doctrines that were not in the Bible - and look at the results. Over 1 billion Muslims, over 1 billion Roman Catholics, Mormons growing by leaps and bounds. Men are very religious and if they are not told the truth with an open heart - they will fall for the lies of the devil everytime.

So I don't blame Constantine, I blame Satan!

[Lion]

I borrowed a book from the library a while back called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, by Malachi Martin. He was a priest, and had been in Rome and had access to the archives of the church.

You are partly right in that Constantine did manage to stop the killing of Christians for a while, but only for a while.

One of the chapters in the book is “The curse of Costantine.” Another is “Enter the Snake.” The problem with Satan is that he seems to have had a master plan. It was called, “If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em.” Satan never works openly. He gets people to do his dirty work.

By joining the Christians he was able to introduce all kinds of errors in doctrine he couldn’t otherwise introduce. It was a stealth attack. He could get by stealth what he couldn’t do by frontal attack.

One of the errors was the idea of transubstantiation, that the priest changes the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. That the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday. The adoration of Mary, the bowing to mages, forbidden by the second comandment. I could go on and on about the errors in doctrine.

I was surprised at Malachi’s forthright exposure of the errors and open violation of Christian principles. I wrote to him, expressing surprise and wondering what caused his break with Rome. I got a reply from a woman who said she was his secretary. I really wonder who she was, because I learned a few weeks later he had died.

[Jude3b]

I borrowed a book from the library a while back called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, by Malachi Martin. He was a priest, and had been in Rome and had access to the archives of the church.

You are partly right in that Constantine did manage to stop the killing of Christians for a while, but only for a while.

One of the chapters in the book is “The curse of Costantine.” Another is “Enter the Snake.” The problem with Satan is that he seems to have had a master plan. It was called, “If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em.” Satan never works openly. He gets people to do his dirty work.

By joining the Christians he was able to introduce all kinds of errors in doctrine he couldn’t otherwise introduce. It was a stealth attack. He could get by stealth what he couldn’t do by frontal attack.

One of the errors was the idea of transubstantiation, that the priest changes the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. That the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday. The adoration of Mary, the bowing to mages, forbidden by the second comandment. I could go on and on about the errors in doctrine.

I was surprised at Malachi’s forthright exposure of the errors and open violation of Christian principles. I wrote to him, expressing surprise and wondering what caused his break with Rome. I got a reply from a woman who said she was his secretary. I really wonder who she was, because I learned a few weeks later he had died.

Dear Lion:

We seem to be in agreement on most of what we are both saying.

Do you know if there are any books that were written by Mr. Malachi?

[Lion]

The name is Malachi Martin, The book I had was the decline and fall of the Roman Church. Another is The Keys of the Kingdom.

[Jude3b]

The name is Malachi Martin, The book I had was the decline and fall of the Roman Church. Another is The Keys of the Kingdom.

Dear Lion:

Thank you, I will look for those books.

[Jude3b]

We can play with words?!?! Dude Jude you're like the king of word play! That's all you do there chief. I still think you have some repressed feelings coming through here.


No problema Rocketman, you're knowledge blows me away. I can just point out the obvious stuff :teeth:

No dear Twilly Spree:

My feelings are not repressed, but rather expressed! And Bible based too!

[Lion]

That hasn't got anything to do with the papal antichrist system. Stay on the thread.

[InChristAlways]

It's time to get this thread back on the topic and question asked!!! Here we go:
The woman in Revelation chapter 17 was "arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and DECKED with gold and precious stones and pearls." The religious system symbolized by this woman does know some truth, but how much do her members live? Yes, she has some truth stuck on here and there, in an effort to appear as the true bride of Christ, and she has deceived many. Even John marveled when he saw her.
In verse five John tells us, "Upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTER, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Now it is not my desire to hurt people or to say harsh cutting words, but we must be true to the Word of God. Regardless of how much Roman Catholic people feel this religious system, symbolized by this woman, has done, it still remains a fact that she is an abomination to the peoples of this world! She has not been a blessing, she has not done the people good; she has not led people to the true Christ; she has not held up the standard of truth (the Bible); she is not the true church of God; she is empowered by the spirit of the mystery of iniquity Paul spoke of, which was already at work in his day. She is guilty of fornication (spiritually). She is guilty of the death of saints. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (verse 6). Her power went to her head, as it were, and she became drunk with her power and influence with the religious and civil leaders. She is not only responsible for the death of saints, but she is guilty of millions being lost eternally. Who is she? THIS WOMAN IS A SYMBOL OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Just as the pure holy woman in Revelation 12 is a symbol of the true church of God, so this vile, wicked woman is a symbol of a false, sinful church.
Sincerely, Jude 3bHi. Actually the parable of the Rich Man[house of Judah] and Lazarus[Lost sheep of Israel/gentiles] show who the woman is. Note in the OT that Judah was described as a "woman" and in Jeremiah 17 Judah has lost his heritage and burns in God's anger forever, much like the smoke of her burning is going up "forever"[reve in revelation.Hard to relate that to the catholic church toiday, no matter how hard I look at it. Revelation 19:3 Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" Jeremiah 3:8 "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. LUKE 16:19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day." (NKJV)

We begin by scrutinizing the description Christ gives us of the rich man. First, he tells us that this man is clothed in purple and fine linen. This type of clothing would not have been out of the ordinary for one of considerable wealth during this time period. However, this raiment also has symbolic meaning. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says: "The wearing of purple was associated particularly with royalty . . ." ("Purple," p. 863). In addition, the New Bible Dictionary tells us: "The use of linen in OT times was prescribed for priests (Ex. 28:39). The coat, turban and girdle must be of fine linen." ("Linen," p. 702).

So we see that the garments worn by this rich man were symbolic of royalty and the priesthood. With that in mind, let's see what God told Moses just before giving the Israelites the Law on Mount Sinai.

EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel. (Brenton's LXX)
The clothing of the rich man identifies him symbolically with the people of Israel, who God chose to be a special people but the house of Judah/levi were its rulers.

[Lion]

Actually, I answer that identical question in another thread about the whore of rev 17.

[stutzman]

InChristAlways,

I found your reply to be very informing, especially in identifying the nation of Israel as the harlot.

I confess that it is troubling to me to see some Christians naming other groups of Christians "antiChrist." While not Catholic myself, I know Catholics who know a live out the true gospel of Jesus. There are also Catholics who do not know the gospel. In fact, every church has members that are faithful and others that are nominal. I also know that Jesus truly desires that his church be unified in spirit (John 17). It is hard to see how implying that certain Christian groups are the antichrist builds Christian unity.

God is king of all the earth (Psalm 24). Hallelujah! HE WILL BE VICTORIOUS! THE RESURRECTION PROVES IT!do not think that

[stutzman]

oops...

As we continue to proclaim the truth in Jesus name, his Kingdom will come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As the gospel has spread throughout the nations, Christians have formed themselves in different types of communities with different authority structures. Each has strengths and weaknesses.

I am glad that you, Jude 3b, have grown closer to Christ in your experience outside of Roman Catholicism. Yet would it not be more beneficial for us to work alongside them for Kingdom good rather than pit ourselves as against them? Would this be an example of us wrongfully judging, of us failing to see the log in our own eye while trying to fix the speck in our neighbors. I don't know.

Finally, I must confess that I don't have all the answers and that I feel within myself a tension between the call to not judge and the harsh language that I know Jesus did use toward Pharisees. May the Lord continue to guide us as we seek to faithfully serve him!

[stutzman]

Finally, I think we should all be in prayer for the Catholic church as they are now in an important time of transition. Let us pray for the collective body of Christ, and that the new pope, whoever it may be, would be a faithful servant of Christ, a leader who will help to translate the gospel to the 21st century world. And, maybe most applicable to this topic, a bishop who will help people to see that the church is the living body of Christ, not a dead institution, and that salvation is made possible through Christ.

[Lion]

Stutzman; I agree with yu that there are many god fearing people in the Catholic communion. At the same time I am convinced that those sincere believers have been deceived ad don’t realize it. Those are the ones described in Rev 18:4

Rev. 18:1 ¶ After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
Rev. 18:2 And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev. 18:3 “For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality.”
Rev. 18:4 ¶ I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;

Come out of her MY PEOPLE. God has a people still in Babylon. Babylon is not the Catholic church alone. She has some daughters.

[Jude3b]

oops...

As we continue to proclaim the truth in Jesus name, his Kingdom will come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As the gospel has spread throughout the nations, Christians have formed themselves in different types of communities with different authority structures. Each has strengths and weaknesses.

I am glad that you, Jude 3b, have grown closer to Christ in your experience outside of Roman Catholicism. Yet would it not be more beneficial for us to work alongside them for Kingdom good rather than pit ourselves as against them? Would this be an example of us wrongfully judging, of us failing to see the log in our own eye while trying to fix the speck in our neighbors. I don't know.

Finally, I must confess that I don't have all the answers and that I feel within myself a tension between the call to not judge and the harsh language that I know Jesus did use toward Pharisees. May the Lord continue to guide us as we seek to faithfully serve him!

Dear stutzman:

Thank you for your comments.

Please believe me when I write and tell you - my greatest love is for dear Roman Catholic people. I myself was a Roman Catholic for 27 years. Having attended Catholic schools from the 1st grade on through high school and served for a number of years in the church as an Altar boy. In school we had a daily religion class, which grounded us fully in the Roman Catholic teachings.

At age 27 - God called me to "Believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ" and I was saved (just like we read about in Acts 16:30 and 31). I was added that moment to the true church - the body of Christ, just like it states in Acts 2:47.

Once I was "born-from-above" (i.e. born-again) - I became a "Student of the Word" and it quickly became clear to me that Roman Catholicism is not the same as Christianity. When you compare the 803 pages of the Roman Catholic Catechism - with the 2000 plus pages that we find in most Bibles - we quickly can see that the two disagree on many points. The most important areas of difference involve over 30 major doctrines that Roman Catholicism has heretical teachings on, especially involving salvation and the nature of the church of God - the body of Christ. These false teachings of Romanism are what make it part of the Antichrist system. You see Romanism has "another Jesus" - and this is why it is not really a part of Christianity any longer.

My hearts desire for every Roman Catholic is that the devil will not be able to deceive them any longer.

Dear Roman Catholic, please, won't you turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set you free from the bondages of religion. God bless you as you experience true salvation in Jesus Christ:

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5-6)

[Jude3b]

## Depends what's being asked for :smile:

There is Biblical warrant for a Petrine office.

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that God acts through human beings to get His work done

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that men share some at least of Christ's attributes or qualities:

He is "the Light of the world" - they are lights in the world

He is the "Episkopos...of our souls" - they too can be episkopoi

He is anointed with the Spirit - so are Christians

He holds "the keys of death and Hell" - Peter holds keys too

He is the Elect - so are Christians elect.

He is the Beloved of the Father - Christians are "holy and beloved"

He is the King of Saints - they are saints

He is a King - they are kings

He is a Priest - they are priests

He is Son by nature - they are sons by adoption

He crushes the serpent's head - they trample satan underfoot

He is tempted - they are tempted

He took up His Cross - they must take up their crosses

He has "seen the Father" - they shall see God "face to face"

And so on - there is a good deal in common between Christ and His members; in fact, just about everything.

So what is said of His authority, can be said of that of His members. His unique dignity as God and man is the sole foundation, not only for all authority in the Church, but for every grace we receive. In neither case is He wronged.

There can be teaching with authority in the Church, only because He taught with authority in the synagogue.

Which clears the way a bit to see the place of Peter more clearly, one hopes.

The Papacy will not be required in Heaven - any more than faith or hope will be. But the Church will have the same Head as ever - for no Pope is more than "ministerial head", deputising for Christ, for so long as there are Christians on earth. And because all Christians are prone to error and sin, they are granted the Holy Spirit, through the agency of Whom, Christ, the Teacher of His Church, teaches "in the midst of [His] Church".

The Pope differs from the rest of Christians by the duties and responsibilities he has - it is impossible for a mere man to replace Christ or the Spirit of Christ. ##

OK Rushing Jaws, it is obvious from your answer and lack of any Biblical texts in your answer that there is no Biblical Support for anyone known as "The Pope!"

[Jude3b]

APOSTATE the dictionary definition is to leave one’s faith or principles. The Catholic church apostatized when she began leave the pure doctrines of the apostles and began to adopt pagan rituals. Constantine led the church far into paganism when he was nominally converted to Christianity i say nominaly because he never was converted. He was a pagan until his dying day. He had a problem, to keep Christians and pagans from fighting. He thought of a way, take pagan celebrations and give them Christian sounding names.

The pagans didn’t know why the sun made its annual southward swing, so they had a celebration on December 25 to celebrete the return of the sun. He called it the birth of Christ.

The Jews had passover. It was the time when Christ died. It was in the fourteenth day of the Jewish month but the Hebrew calendar didn’t match our caleandar, so one of the popes set the date as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This was to give more moonlight for the pilgrimage to Rome.

The origin of easter goes back to Nimrod mentioned in Gen. 10:8,9 His wife was Oeastar, or Ishtar. Nimrod died and Ishtar said he had gone to be the god of the sun. Some time after, too long for a normal pregnacy, Ishtar said she was pregnant by the god of the sun. She gave birth to a son, Tammuz, who is mentioned in Ezek 8:14, as women weeping for Tammuz. The story is that Tammuz was hunting and was killed by a wild boar. Ishtar decreed a period of forty days of mourning for Tammuz.

In Ezek 8 the prophet was shown several abominations, one of which was the women weeping for Tammuz. If God callls something an abomination nobody can make it sacred.

The mourning for Tammuz was followed by the celebraton of spring. The symbol of fertility is the egg, and the rabbit is the most fecund animal is the rabbit. That’s how eggs and bunny rabbits got conected with easter. Lent is the period of mourning for Tammuz.

So that’s how the abominations of paganism got absorbed into the Christian religion. The revelry of Mardi Gras, or Carnival came from that source, Carne Vale means farewell to the flesh.

There are many other things the Catholic church absorbed from paganism. One thing that is right is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

Thank you for sharing these historical facts with us.

Satan could not destroy the church of God - the body of Christ by killing off the early Christians. Every time he'd kill one, 10 more got saved. So, he went back to his old tricks and encouraged religious spirits that brought in doctrines of demons, and they evolved the visible church into Roman Catholicism.

[Jude3b]

And how does your doctrine that all true Christians are a part of the Body of Christ not teach that if you assert such a literal meaning?



Define apostate for us please.

When the a large part church of God (the body of Christ) "backslid" - it became apostate. Out of this apostasy grew religion and by 270 A.D. - Romanism was starting to flourish and grow into the Antichrist system.

antichrist! Yes!

According to Vine's Expository Dictionary it can mean either against Christ or instead of Christ or perhaps combining the two, one who assuming the guise of Christ opposes Christ.

So the word antichrist means either against Christ or instead of Christ or perhaps when you combine the two together, assuming the guise of Christ, one assumes the guise of Christ or opposed to Christ.

And so, John is speaking about the antichrist of his day and he said, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us."

When Roman Catholicism came into its fulness and claimed that it and it alone was the "one true church" - it set aside the Body of Christ - the church of God, which is the church that Jesus was referring to, when he said, "I will build my church." Therefore this apostate religion known as Roman Catholicism is an antichrist which is opposed to the true Christ and the true church of God - the body of Christ.

[Jude3b]

## Depends what's being asked for :smile:

There is Biblical warrant for a Petrine office.

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that God acts through human beings to get His work done

There is Biblical warrant for the idea that men share some at least of Christ's attributes or qualities:

He is "the Light of the world" - they are lights in the world

He is the "Episkopos...of our souls" - they too can be episkopoi

He is anointed with the Spirit - so are Christians

He holds "the keys of death and Hell" - Peter holds keys too

He is the Elect - so are Christians elect.

He is the Beloved of the Father - Christians are "holy and beloved"

He is the King of Saints - they are saints

He is a King - they are kings

He is a Priest - they are priests

He is Son by nature - they are sons by adoption

He crushes the serpent's head - they trample satan underfoot

He is tempted - they are tempted

He took up His Cross - they must take up their crosses

He has "seen the Father" - they shall see God "face to face"

And so on - there is a good deal in common between Christ and His members; in fact, just about everything.

So what is said of His authority, can be said of that of His members. His unique dignity as God and man is the sole foundation, not only for all authority in the Church, but for every grace we receive. In neither case is He wronged.

There can be teaching with authority in the Church, only because He taught with authority in the synagogue.

Which clears the way a bit to see the place of Peter more clearly, one hopes.

The Papacy will not be required in Heaven - any more than faith or hope will be. But the Church will have the same Head as ever - for no Pope is more than "ministerial head", deputising for Christ, for so long as there are Christians on earth. And because all Christians are prone to error and sin, they are granted the Holy Spirit, through the agency of Whom, Christ, the Teacher of His Church, teaches "in the midst of [His] Church".

The Pope differs from the rest of Christians by the duties and responsibilities he has - it is impossible for a mere man to replace Christ or the Spirit of Christ. ##

Pray tel, what biblical support is there for the papacy?

[M.A.]

I have entered in this discussion late so far.
I only would like to ask to those who believe Catholicism is against Christ:

- Can you believe mother Theresa was not a good christian?
- Do you know Catholic church is responsible of most social aid and fight against poverty in most of the countries it has a good presence?
- Can you believe Catholic church is against Jesus when it finances more than 80% of the whole healthcare system in Africa ? The same for the 60% of education in this continent...

Christians should be brothers in Christ, not enemies. We should forget our differencies in order to make this world a better place. Love is the message of Catholic church, as was the message of Jesus.

What's wrong with the Pope? Johannes Paulus II contributed strongly to the end of comunism, for example. He was a man engaged to Jesus, to His message, to His love... Of course, he was not Christ but it was a good example of life for all the christianity.

[Jude3b]

I have entered in this discussion late so far.
I only would like to ask to those who believe Catholicism is against Christ:

- Can you believe mother Theresa was not a good christian?
- Do you know Catholic church is responsible of most social aid and fight against poverty in most of the countries it has a good presence?
- Can you believe Catholic church is against Jesus when it finances more than 80% of the whole healthcare system in Africa ? The same for the 60% of education in this continent...

Christians should be brothers in Christ, not enemies. We should forget our differencies in order to make this world a better place. Love is the message of Catholic church, as was the message of Jesus.

What's wrong with the Pope? Johannes Paulus II contributed strongly to the end of comunism, for example. He was a man engaged to Jesus, to His message, to His love... Of course, he was not Christ but it was a good example of life for all the christianity.

Dear M.A.:

Thank you for posting. Mother Teresa did indeed do many good things. She is one of my heros. However, who she was and what she did has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of this thread.

The question is not whether Roman Catholics do good works. No one here has ever posted that they don't, as far as I have read. Yes, they do multiple good works. Thats never been in question here.

The question here - is "IS THE ROMAN PAPAL SYSTEM THE ANTICHRIST SYSTEM? Keep in mind that the number one meaning of the word "ANTI" used in the sense of this question is this: Does the Roman Papal System place itself in the place of the Christ?

MA., the Bible does warn us of false Christ's, false Gospels, deceivers.
It even warns us like this:
"And no wonder! For Satan himself transfors themselves into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14 & 15).

"their works" here has nothing to do with how many hospitals they open or how many hungry people they feed. All Christians should do those kind of good things to help our fellow man. But what about the false works of preaching a false gospel? What about the bad works of telling people that salvation only exists within a certain religion - when the truth is that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and No one comes to the Father except through Him! (John 14:16). You see salvation is not found in religion. It is only found "in Christ!"

Ask yourself, is the pope truly the vicar (substitute) of Christ on the earth, wielding universal power over the whole church?

The Roman Catholic Catechism, says he is: "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (The Roman Catholic Catechism Page 234, #882).

The Roman Catholic religion elevates its pope to the position of "supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful," (The Roman Catholic Catechism, Page 235, #891).

God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jesus speaking in John 14:26).

The Roman pope has assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit, It is a position that no man can fill.

So who really is the head of the church? Is it the Roman pope or is it Jesus Christ? "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." (Ephesians 5:23).

"And he (Christ, not the Roman Catholic pope) is the head of the body, the church..." (Col. 1:18)

God bless you and may you search the Scriptures and find the truth.

[M.A.]

What I was trying to say it is not possible to have an 'antichrist system' to a church that promotes good works, like those of John Paul II.

Anyway, to give a short answer to your question: Matthew

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So the Pope is Peter, not Christ, and he is never pretending to be Him. Jesus, in Matthew 16,19 gives power to Peter to represent Him on earth.

I will post more later, when I arrive home and take a look to the Roman Catholic Catechism.


Dear M.A.:

Thank you for posting. Mother Teresa did indeed do many good things. She is one of my heros. However, who she was and what she did has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of this thread.

The question is not whether Roman Catholics do good works. No one here has ever posted that they don't, as far as I have read. Yes, they do multiple good works. Thats never been in question here.

The question here - is "IS THE ROMAN PAPAL SYSTEM THE ANTICHRIST SYSTEM? Keep in mind that the number one meaning of the word "ANTI" used in the sense of this question is this: Does the Roman Papal System place itself in the place of the Christ?

MA., the Bible does warn us of false Christ's, false Gospels, deceivers.
It even warns us like this:
"And no wonder! For Satan himself transfors themselves into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14 & 15).

"their works" here has nothing to do with how many hospitals they open or how many hungry people they feed. All Christians should do those kind of good things to help our fellow man. But what about the false works of preaching a false gospel? What about the bad works of telling people that salvation only exists within a certain religion - when the truth is that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and No one comes to the Father except through Him! (John 14:16). You see salvation is not found in religion. It is only found "in Christ!"

Ask yourself, is the pope truly the vicar (substitute) of Christ on the earth, wielding universal power over the whole church?

The Roman Catholic Catechism, says he is: "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (The Roman Catholic Catechism Page 234, #882).

The Roman Catholic religion elevates its pope to the position of "supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful," (The Roman Catholic Catechism, Page 235, #891).

God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jesus speaking in John 14:26).

The Roman pope has assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit, It is a position that no man can fill.

So who really is the head of the church? Is it the Roman pope or is it Jesus Christ? "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." (Ephesians 5:23).

"And he (Christ, not the Roman Catholic pope) is the head of the body, the church..." (Col. 1:18)

God bless you and may you search the Scriptures and find the truth.

[Jude3b]

What I was trying to say it is not possible to have an 'antichrist system' to a church that promotes good works, like those of John Paul II.

Anyway, to give a short answer to your question: Matthew

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So the Pope is Peter, not Christ, and he is never pretending to be Him. Jesus, in Matthew 16,19 gives power to Peter to represent Him on earth.

I will post more later, when I arrive home and take a look to the Roman Catholic Catechism.

Dear MA.

It most certainly is possible to have an "anti-Christ" system that does so-called "good works" and you have not given one single bit of evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, the verse you quoted does not in any way indicate that Peter is a pope. There is not a single verse in scripture that says anything about popes.

In Matthew 16 we read about how Peter received a revelation of who Jesus Christ really was. That revelation was that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior of the World, the very Christ.

Elsewhere throughout the Bible we know for a fact that the church of God, the body of Christ is built upon Christ himself. Jesus in Matthew 16 is telling Peter that the Holy Spirit has revealed to him (Peter) who Jesus is, that He is the Savior. Upon that revelation of who Jesus is - the church of God, the body of Christ is built.

When you or I or anyone else get a revelation of who Christ really is and we accept that revelation and believe it, we are born-again, (i.e saved) and become part of the body of Christ, the church of God which Christ has been building ever since John the Baptist - pointed to Christ and said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World."

As men, women, boys and girls, understand and receive Jesus Christ as their savior - they are saved, born-again and made part of the one true church - the body of Christ, the church of God.

Any other systmen is "anti-Christ" because it is placing something above or instead of the one true Christ and the one true Gospel.

[Jude3b]

As for the Catholic Church making death threats against priests that leave the priesthood, I cannot say it is policy of the church of Rome. But I have in front of me as I write a book by Walter M. Montano who was a priest in Peru who had to hide for a long time after he left the church because of death threats. He finally left the continent and labored in Panama.

Dear Lion:

I doubt that the Roman Catholic church is making very many death threats against priests that leave the priesthood today.

But I will say that the Roman Catholic church has done some strange things in the past. Especially troublesome have been the activities of some of the Jesuit Priests in the past.

You probably know that the prevalent Protestant belief, up until about 100 years ago, was that the Pope is the antichrist.

In my studies I have even read that a book written by two Jesuit Priests by the names of Ribera and Alcaser were commissioned by the Pope to pulish a teaching that would counteract the prevalent Protestant belief that proclaimed the Pope as the Antichrist. Eventually this book fell into the hands of a man named Irving and from its interpretation of the Bible Dispensationalism was born. Present Day Dispensationalism is said to have originated in England about the year 1840. Mr. Irving, Mr. Maitland, and J.N. Darby were among the first ones to preach and publish articles and books on the subject. A natural question is, "Whee did J.N. Darby and his group discover the doctrine of Dispensationalism? It appears it was from the book that the two Jesuit Priests had written on the subject at the request of the Pope.

[Jude3b]

## 1. Divine Authority does not abolish human authority: the Kingship of Christ is not a reason - still less an excuse - to reject authority exercised by frail human beings. Not in the state: so why in the Church ?

If the having of human teachers in the Church (1 Corinthians 12) and human episkopoi (Acts 20) in the Church does not conflict with the authority of Our Lord as Teacher and Episkopos: why should the headship of the Pope conflict with that of Christ ?

If being Episkopos and being Teacher in and of the Church does not rule out the existence, in the Church, of Christians with these functions - it is not clear that the Headship of Christ cannot also be found exercised in the Church by men.

2. We know from Scripture that there are human teachers (for example) in the Body of Christ. The headship of the Pope is, by contrast, not mentioned by name in the NT: but what the Bible says about:

the position of Christ;

the place of Peter in the Church;

the keys held by Christ and conferred by Christ on Peter;

the pattern of God's electing purpose from Adam to Abraham to David (to go no further, though probably we can); and later, in the NT;

the application of Christ's titles to His disciples in the NT;

the union of Christ with His Father, and of both with the Holy Spirit;

The union of Christians with Christ and with each other;

all helps to suggest, that the having of a pope in the Church is, in principle, in accord with Scripture. It is possible to put together recurring themes in the Bible - such as those listed above - which, taken together, suggest that the function of the Pope is part of a pattern.

IOW, the argument for a Papacy is cumulative: put the Biblical data together, and the result is a picture of the function of the Pope in the NT Church - that is, of a Petrine office in the Church, modelled upon the teaching and the actions and attitudes of Christ.

And "argument" is the word - not "proof". It is perfectly possible to find a hundred arguments against the Papacy, all Scriptural. But it is also perfectly possible to find a hundred arguments from Scripture against the Deity of Christ; or just about anything believed in by Christians. There is no point in trying to "prove" something from Scripture, IMO - ISTM that all any Christian can do is put forward the Biblical grounds for the beliefs he holds; whether these grounds are convincing to someone of a different religion or a different Christianity, is something that is beyond the Christian's control. God is the converter of hearts - not us. But that is BTW.

AFAICS, the Biblical argument for a pope in the Church is not in principle any weaker than the Biblical argument for the Trinity. There is no passage anywhere saying that there is to be a Pope; there is no passage saying that there is a Trinity (BTW, both - not just the Papacy - are vulnerable to the "objection from pagan origins". But that is a different kettle of fish).

3. None of this is intended to be a formal argument for the rightness of having a Papacy; let alone as a knock-down proof that it is Biblical. This post is little more than a suggestion that there are indications and hints and analogies which suggest that Christ intended the Papacy to be an element in the make-up of His Church. Even if such an argument could be given adequately in a single post, there would be the other objections: from history, from the difference between the perfect holiness of Christ and the imperfections of popes, from all kinds of sources and arguments and reasonings. But there is AFAICS a "Christian pattern", so that Christianity is specifically Christian instead of being something else not specifically Christian; and ISTM that the notion of a Petrine office forms part of this pattern. ##


Jesus promised that an infallible teacher would abide with us (true Christian believers) forever:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;" (John 14:16).

The pope has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:11).

The Apostle Paul reiterates that the Holy Spirit of God, not a man, is the infallible teacher of all true Christians:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." (I Cor. 2:12-13).

[Jasta]

If I were Satan, how would I attempt to mess with God's plan? I can see it from both (RCC and otherwise) positions, in a way. One can assume Satan understands clearly all the prophecy in the OT, knows truth when he sees it, but needs to serve his pride in opposition to God by perverting this truth in the minds of men in any way he can.

I can see how setting up a political organization to centralize 'official' Christianity would be advantageous for a demon who has centuries to twist slightly here, pervert slightly over there, until Christiandom resembles God's intent only in name. People following mislead people, arranged in a naturally corrupting heirarchy of power, encouraged by the occasional proddings of demon influence... it seems like an easy plan. Set up a machine and let it run.

Alternatively, if one assumes that the RCC is truly the one true Church, impervious to demonic influence (where it counts), then it can be argued that a splintering of Christiandom would be a victory for Satan. The acceptance of a doctrine that allows anyone to read and absorb the Word for themselves in their own way allows the minions of Satan to turn men from truth in tens of thousands of different ways. Chaos and confusion.

The simplicity of the Gospel is the key for me. The continuing complexification of the message and method suggested by the RCC confounds even most of its supporters when asked critical questions. In debate, they appeal to "reason" in strange ways when cornered. When asked about the teaching of a sinless Mary, I've heard; "Do you really think that God would allow himself to be carried in the womb of a woman tainted by sin?" What kind of arguement is that? "Do I really think...?" The ONLY people Jesus hung out with were sinners, even sharing drinks with them, abomination! If God had reason to be sure he was born from an untainted womb, does that mean he has reason to fear corruption? Is God corruptable? Of course not.

And if Mary were sinless, she didn't need a sacrifice to make her right with God, she didn't need a Messiah. To that I hear a different type of thin arguement device in common use by amateur Catholic apologists, an analogy; "She DID need God, imagine her almost stepping into a pothole and God being there to lift her foot past it." ...ok so what about when Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." To that I get a third type of dance, the 'splitting scriptural hairs' dance: "Jesus was partly human and he didn't sin, so Paul couldn't have meant 'ALL.'" ... ok so we're going to impune the accuracy of Paul (and in doing so, throttle a third of the New Testament) to prop up an extra-biblical teaching.

I'm sorry but none of that stands up to scrutiny. Extra-biblical supportive teachings are one thing (and not necessarily harmful), but teachings that contradict plain-faced scripture that pre-dates the teaching and require logic dances to explain away just smack of distortion and deception to me. Then to read that JPII credited Mary with saving his life in that failed assassination attempt just sealed it in my mind.

The Helper is here for a reason. The Helper screams in my head when I hear these kinds of things. A sickening aversion to, even a clear fear of kneeling before statues and praying to ANYONE but God. The Helper is evidence of how God intends to interract with us. God is our personal God, he knows you by name. He helps, teaches, guides, and tests in a custom way for every individual. God interracts with us on a personal level, but encourages us to gather in his name to support each other. God does NOT restrict his attention to the select few clergymen who he then expects to dictate to the nameless/faceless others. The structure of how he interracts with us is representative of how we are meant to interract with him. Not through intermediaries and intercessors, but personally and (more often than not) privately.

ok it's late and I'm rambling. If you've read this far, thanks :(

[VFarris01]

If I were Satan, how would I attempt to mess with God's plan? I can see it from both (RCC and otherwise) positions, in a way. One can assume Satan understands clearly all the prophecy in the OT, knows truth when he sees it, but needs to serve his pride in opposition to God by perverting this truth in the minds of men in any way he can.

I can see how setting up a political organization to centralize 'official' Christianity would be advantageous for a demon who has centuries to twist slightly here, pervert slightly over there, until Christiandom resembles God's intent only in name. People following mislead people, arranged in a naturally corrupting heirarchy of power, encouraged by the occasional proddings of demon influence... it seems like an easy plan. Set up a machine and let it run.

Alternatively, if one assumes that the RCC is truly the one true Church, impervious to demonic influence (where it counts), then it can be argued that a splintering of Christiandom would be a victory for Satan. The acceptance of a doctrine that allows anyone to read and absorb the Word for themselves in their own way allows the minions of Satan to turn men from truth in tens of thousands of different ways. Chaos and confusion.

The simplicity of the Gospel is the key for me. The continuing complexification of the message and method suggested by the RCC confounds even most of its supporters when asked critical questions. In debate, they appeal to "reason" in strange ways when cornered. When asked about the teaching of a sinless Mary, I've heard; "Do you really think that God would allow himself to be carried in the womb of a woman tainted by sin?" What kind of arguement is that? "Do I really think...?" The ONLY people Jesus hung out with were sinners, even sharing drinks with them, abomination! If God had reason to be sure he was born from an untainted womb, does that mean he has reason to fear corruption? Is God corruptable? Of course not.

And if Mary were sinless, she didn't need a sacrifice to make her right with God, she didn't need a Messiah. To that I hear a different type of thin arguement device in common use by amateur Catholic apologists, an analogy; "She DID need God, imagine her almost stepping into a pothole and God being there to lift her foot past it." ...ok so what about when Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." To that I get a third type of dance, the 'splitting scriptural hairs' dance: "Jesus was partly human and he didn't sin, so Paul couldn't have meant 'ALL.'" ... ok so we're going to impune the accuracy of Paul (and in doing so, throttle a third of the New Testament) to prop up an extra-biblical teaching.

I'm sorry but none of that stands up to scrutiny. Extra-biblical supportive teachings are one thing (and not necessarily harmful), but teachings that contradict plain-faced scripture that pre-dates the teaching and require logic dances to explain away just smack of distortion and deception to me. Then to read that JPII credited Mary with saving his life in that failed assassination attempt just sealed it in my mind.

The Helper is here for a reason. The Helper screams in my head when I hear these kinds of things. A sickening aversion to, even a clear fear of kneeling before statues and praying to ANYONE but God. The Helper is evidence of how God intends to interract with us. God is our personal God, he knows you by name. He helps, teaches, guides, and tests in a custom way for every individual. God interracts with us on a personal level, but encourages us to gather in his name to support each other. God does NOT restrict his attention to the select few clergymen who he then expects to dictate to the nameless/faceless others. The structure of how he interracts with us is representative of how we are meant to interract with him. Not through intermediaries and intercessors, but personally and (more often than not) privately.

ok it's late and I'm rambling. If you've read this far, thanks :(
Excellent first post!!! :thumb: (I read it all.)

How about a post here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57907

Ok, you might have to read a couple of pages to catch up... however, I think the opening post and page 7, post 108 should do it do it for you...

[Jasta]

Excellent first post!!! :thumb: (I read it all.)

How about a post here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57907

Ok, you might have to read a couple of pages to catch up... however, I think the opening post and page 7, post 108 should do it do it for you...

:blush:
Thank you sir! I'll check it out.

[Jude3b]

If I were Satan, how would I attempt to mess with God's plan? I can see it from both (RCC and otherwise) positions, in a way. One can assume Satan understands clearly all the prophecy in the OT, knows truth when he sees it, but needs to serve his pride in opposition to God by perverting this truth in the minds of men in any way he can.

I can see how setting up a political organization to centralize 'official' Christianity would be advantageous for a demon who has centuries to twist slightly here, pervert slightly over there, until Christiandom resembles God's intent only in name. People following mislead people, arranged in a naturally corrupting heirarchy of power, encouraged by the occasional proddings of demon influence... it seems like an easy plan. Set up a machine and let it run.

Alternatively, if one assumes that the RCC is truly the one true Church, impervious to demonic influence (where it counts), then it can be argued that a splintering of Christiandom would be a victory for Satan. The acceptance of a doctrine that allows anyone to read and absorb the Word for themselves in their own way allows the minions of Satan to turn men from truth in tens of thousands of different ways. Chaos and confusion.

The simplicity of the Gospel is the key for me. The continuing complexification of the message and method suggested by the RCC confounds even most of its supporters when asked critical questions. In debate, they appeal to "reason" in strange ways when cornered. When asked about the teaching of a sinless Mary, I've heard; "Do you really think that God would allow himself to be carried in the womb of a woman tainted by sin?" What kind of arguement is that? "Do I really think...?" The ONLY people Jesus hung out with were sinners, even sharing drinks with them, abomination! If God had reason to be sure he was born from an untainted womb, does that mean he has reason to fear corruption? Is God corruptable? Of course not.

And if Mary were sinless, she didn't need a sacrifice to make her right with God, she didn't need a Messiah. To that I hear a different type of thin arguement device in common use by amateur Catholic apologists, an analogy; "She DID need God, imagine her almost stepping into a pothole and God being there to lift her foot past it." ...ok so what about when Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." To that I get a third type of dance, the 'splitting scriptural hairs' dance: "Jesus was partly human and he didn't sin, so Paul couldn't have meant 'ALL.'" ... ok so we're going to impune the accuracy of Paul (and in doing so, throttle a third of the New Testament) to prop up an extra-biblical teaching.

I'm sorry but none of that stands up to scrutiny. Extra-biblical supportive teachings are one thing (and not necessarily harmful), but teachings that contradict plain-faced scripture that pre-dates the teaching and require logic dances to explain away just smack of distortion and deception to me. Then to read that JPII credited Mary with saving his life in that failed assassination attempt just sealed it in my mind.

The Helper is here for a reason. The Helper screams in my head when I hear these kinds of things. A sickening aversion to, even a clear fear of kneeling before statues and praying to ANYONE but God. The Helper is evidence of how God intends to interract with us. God is our personal God, he knows you by name. He helps, teaches, guides, and tests in a custom way for every individual. God interracts with us on a personal level, but encourages us to gather in his name to support each other. God does NOT restrict his attention to the select few clergymen who he then expects to dictate to the nameless/faceless others. The structure of how he interracts with us is representative of how we are meant to interract with him. Not through intermediaries and intercessors, but personally and (more often than not) privately.

ok it's late and I'm rambling. If you've read this far, thanks :(

Dear Jasta:

Good job. I enjoyed reading something here, for a change, that makes sense. Welcome to TWEB. Keep on posting please.

[Jude3b]

"The pope of Romanism has clearly assumed a position reserved for the Holy Spirit of God. It is a position no man can fill"

Ho, ho, ho... merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too!

OK, seriously man, the Catholic Church doesn't think that the Pope replaces the Holy Spirit. That's Ultramontanism, which the Church roundly condemns.

We just take seriously some other stuff that the Bible says on the subject, such as "...but we have the mind of Christ" (one of Paul's letters). Or how about "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us"? (in the book of Acts - and who said that anyhow?).

Or take this doozie from the book of Revelation: "the Spirit and the Bride say..." - come on man! There is clearly a sense in which Scripture comes close to identifying the ***official voice of the Church*** (i.e. the solemn pronouncements on faith and morals, jurisdictional matters and also in solemn worship as in Revelation) with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Take the moment when Peter pronounces the sentence over Ananias and Sapphira. Whether we take that event as literal history or not, it shows that the Apostles certainly enjoyed a rather close relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I'm not contradicting my opening point here, but rather trying to clarify: if the Church really has the gift of the Spirit and the Spirit has never gone AWOL, then it stands to reason that her official teachings (in a strictly defined sense, not just any old words a Bishop happens to say in private) must enjoy a certain help from the Holy Spirit, so much so that we could even say:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." (I Cor. 2:12-13)

Paul was a mere man, just as we are, yet claimed to speak *by* the Holy Spirit. The early Church claimed that he also had the power to write new inspired Scripture!!! The same - in a more limited sense! - goes for the claims of Catholic (and Orthodox?) bishops, the successors of the Apostles.

Peace

Keir

Dear Keir:

Thank you for your opinions.

Here is my opinion on the subject:

The greates principle of false doctrine that originated with Roman Catholicism, and one that has been transferred to many Protestant denominations as well, is, that a human organization is necessary to complete the church of Christ, the church of God - the body of Christ, on earth.

[Jude3b]

And how does your doctrine that all true Christians are a part of the Body of Christ not teach that if you assert such a literal meaning?



Define apostate for us please.


Dear spl_cadet:


First, it is not my doctrine that all true Christians are part of the Body of Christ. It is Bible. When one is saved Christ Himself adds them to his body - the church of God, see Acts 2:47 which says, "..and the LORD added to the church daily, such as should be saved."

Second, Romanism is a an Apostate religion in that it is not Christian. It is a Counterfeit and it has "another Jesus" and "false doctrines" and a "false system of religious works salvation" - it is the perfect example of the apostasy that the Apostle Paul said would take place, where on a wholesale basis numerous so-called Christians left their first love and turned their hearts unto doctrines of devils! That is apostasy, that is Romanism!

Satan could not defeat and destroy the church of God - the body of Christ through murder and martydom, so he did the next best thing - he joined the church and made it religious. He is the father of Romanism, the father of the apostasy.

[Joe Gofish]

If I were Satan, how would I attempt to mess with God's plan? I can see it from both (RCC and otherwise) positions, in a way. One can assume Satan understands clearly all the prophecy in the OT, knows truth when he sees it, but needs to serve his pride in opposition to God by perverting this truth in the minds of men in any way he can.

I can see how setting up a political organization to centralize 'official' Christianity would be advantageous for a demon who has centuries to twist slightly here, pervert slightly over there, until Christiandom resembles God's intent only in name. People following mislead people, arranged in a naturally corrupting heirarchy of power, encouraged by the occasional proddings of demon influence... it seems like an easy plan. Set up a machine and let it run.

Alternatively, if one assumes that the RCC is truly the one true Church, impervious to demonic influence (where it counts), then it can be argued that a splintering of Christiandom would be a victory for Satan. The acceptance of a doctrine that allows anyone to read and absorb the Word for themselves in their own way allows the minions of Satan to turn men from truth in tens of thousands of different ways. Chaos and confusion.

The simplicity of the Gospel is the key for me. The continuing complexification of the message and method suggested by the RCC confounds even most of its supporters when asked critical questions. In debate, they appeal to "reason" in strange ways when cornered. When asked about the teaching of a sinless Mary, I've heard; "Do you really think that God would allow himself to be carried in the womb of a woman tainted by sin?" What kind of arguement is that? "Do I really think...?" The ONLY people Jesus hung out with were sinners, even sharing drinks with them, abomination! If God had reason to be sure he was born from an untainted womb, does that mean he has reason to fear corruption? Is God corruptable? Of course not.

And if Mary were sinless, she didn't need a sacrifice to make her right with God, she didn't need a Messiah. To that I hear a different type of thin arguement device in common use by amateur Catholic apologists, an analogy; "She DID need God, imagine her almost stepping into a pothole and God being there to lift her foot past it." ...ok so what about when Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." To that I get a third type of dance, the 'splitting scriptural hairs' dance: "Jesus was partly human and he didn't sin, so Paul couldn't have meant 'ALL.'" ... ok so we're going to impune the accuracy of Paul (and in doing so, throttle a third of the New Testament) to prop up an extra-biblical teaching.

I'm sorry but none of that stands up to scrutiny. Extra-biblical supportive teachings are one thing (and not necessarily harmful), but teachings that contradict plain-faced scripture that pre-dates the teaching and require logic dances to explain away just smack of distortion and deception to me. Then to read that JPII credited Mary with saving his life in that failed assassination attempt just sealed it in my mind.

The Helper is here for a reason. The Helper screams in my head when I hear these kinds of things. A sickening aversion to, even a clear fear of kneeling before statues and praying to ANYONE but God. The Helper is evidence of how God intends to interract with us. God is our personal God, he knows you by name. He helps, teaches, guides, and tests in a custom way for every individual. God interracts with us on a personal level, but encourages us to gather in his name to support each other. God does NOT restrict his attention to the select few clergymen who he then expects to dictate to the nameless/faceless others. The structure of how he interracts with us is representative of how we are meant to interract with him. Not through intermediaries and intercessors, but personally and (more often than not) privately.

ok it's late and I'm rambling. If you've read this far, thanks :(
JUDE again you have another Bible verse WRONG,You must know what all is telling us ,does all mean babies,children under the age of reson,peole that are insane ,the mentally disordered. It looks like you are still off your meds ,how long are you going to keep bashing the Church?
Jude can you please tell me why the gosple of Peter and Thomas are not in the bible and how they got left out,I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of REv 22:18-19 you have the guts to keep bashing the Church but you don't have the guts to answer a question Hmmmmm.Jude Please don't tell people you are a Catholic now or in the past because that my good man is a out and out lie.

[Jude3b]

JUDE again you have another Bible verse WRONG,You must know what all is telling us ,does all mean babies,children under the age of reson,peole that are insane ,the mentally disordered. It looks like you are still off your meds ,how long are you going to keep bashing the Church?
Jude can you please tell me why the gosple of Peter and Thomas are not in the bible and how they got left out,I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of REv 22:18-19 you have the guts to keep bashing the Church but you don't have the guts to answer a question Hmmmmm.Jude Please don't tell people you are a Catholic now or in the past because that my good man is a out and out lie.


Dear Joe GoFish:

The post was from Jasta, not me. Do you even bother to read posts, before you make your statements???

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Jasta:

Good job. I enjoyed reading something here, for a change, that makes sense. Welcome to TWEB. Keep on posting please.
ok it's late and I'm rambling-it does not have to be always "late" JUDE just loves to rambling and ranting and raving he is the NEW JIM JONES

[Joe Gofish]

Tell me Jude: Should we abandon the Trinity, seeing as how it was defined as dogma at the First Nicean Council, which was held by the Catholic Church, and started by Constantine? :ahem:
YES That is jude's thinking if its not in the Bible it can't be and the word trinity is not in the Bible and the word Pope is not in the Bible so both must go.Tahts is how jude does all he thinking,If its not in the Bible it did not happen,but JN 21-25 is not one of the verse jude pick,he love to pick and choose

[Jude3b]

ok it's late and I'm rambling-it does not have to be always "late" JUDE just loves to rambling and ranting and raving he is the NEW JIM JONES

Dear Joe GoFish:

My reply was to Jasta, not you!

[BibleMan]

The Greek word (anti) in scripture most nearly denotes something that is "in place of" another thing. The root meaning is, "instead of" or "in place of." It is not the original but a substitution, not Christ but a substitute for Christ. Instead of Christ a false Christ an Antichrist.
The early Christian church was persecuted heavily for the truth. Christians were publicly crucified, given to the Lions to be eaten and burned. The year 311 AD, the persecution ended, when Constantine became the Roman emperor, he embraced Christianity. This was the falling away of the church of God. The churches that began in homes disappeared as churches were built for worship, bishops and preachers received good salaries from the State. Now it was an honor to become a Christian, pagans were turned into Christianity not because of true repentance but to gain honor and popularity. Before the church of God was called Catholic, meaning the true universal church of God, the body of Christ. It was the ekklesia, or the "called out ones of God." Now the church began to be ruled by Rome and became the Roman Catholic, the apostate church.
Does 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, John 14:16&17; and John 16:7,13,14 indicate that the Roman Papal System is the Antichrist system?
Sincerely, Jude 3b



They are not the only one. Any religion that would stand in the place of Christ and make itself "final authority" - instead of or in place of Christ and His Word would be considered "anti-Christian."