Revelation question (for all eschatological views) [Archive]

spauline

June 11th 2007, 05:04 PM

I would say it has several layers of meaning. Certainly, in preterism, the pagan Roman priests encouraged emperor worship. And in futurism, we are led to believe that just an individual man (St. John the Baptist) heralded the coming of the True Christ, so there shall be an individual human person who will herald the coming of antichrist.

However, I feel that although these layers are legit in their own right, the deeper meaning is an allegorical sense: Christ, the Lamb, has seven horns and seven eyes. He has seven eyes because he sees and knows all truth. He can neither deceive nor be deceived. Also he has seven horns, meaning, just as horns in Daniel represented kings with power, so Christ possesses the fullness of kingship, especially in regards to His Salvation. That is, all Salvific power originates from Christ. But also there are seven sacraments, the primary means (although not exclusive) that Christ redeems us.

Now, I've posted this before, but in the separation of Christian heresy, the heretics lose five sacraments and retain only two, Baptism and Marriage. So it is like the lie of the dragon from the beginning, forming the essence of man's fallen nature, does indeed speak against these realities of Baptism and Marriage in its ultimate sense: hence, just as Baptism calls the person to have faith and believe in what God has said, to repent and stop doing their own will and instead do the will of God, to concede that we depend on God for everything we have, that is, that we are His Child, so the fall denies all these realities: do not believe in and have faith in God and what He has revealed, and refuse to obey Him. Do your own will, not His, and be independent, you don't need His help or love in any sense. You are not His child, but a child of the devil.

Secondly, just as Marriage expresses the highest and most beautiful mystery of Creation, that God has made the Creation to express in symbolism the deeper mysteries of God's Salvation and Love (so that the gift of man to woman and woman to man and the child that comes from it is a symbol of the love the Trinity, the Father and Son mutually giving and receiving and their love becoming the Holy Spirit), so the dragon lied in the beginning that the Creation can be "taken" from God and divorced from the love it signifies, becoming a selfish end unto itself (i.e., look at contrast between the Woman Bride of Christ and the Whore), so that the dragon lies that humanity can fulfill itself merely with created goods as ends in and of themselves instead of as a means to express the love and goodness of God, pointing ultimately to the possession of God Himself.

So, then finally (sorrry for diatribe), the false prophet images the spiritual essence of the dragons's lie in the fall as symbolized by the plagiiarization and evil twisting of the two Sacraments (horns) left in heresy, making it the utlimate heresy.

I have an essay if you would like more.

Zguy28

June 12th 2007, 01:32 PM

Can you cite the historical evidence that it has done so?

Not trying to derail the thread, just curious.The excommunication of the Cathars comes to mind by Pope Alexander III.

Or the Synod of Toulouse with regard to regulations of the Inquisition:
1. BISHOPS must bind under oath when necessary in each parish, within and outside a city, a priest and two or more lay people of good reputation to diligently, faithfully, and often search out heretics in their parishes, individual suspicious houses, subterranean rooms and additions to houses, and other hiding places. If they discover a heretic, follower, patron, or protector of heretics, they must, taking precaution that they do not escape, quickly notify the bishop and mayor of the place or his bailiff so they will be duly punished (command of the episcopal inquisition according to the practice of the synods of Verona, Bourges, Narbonne, and the twelfth general synod). 2. Exempt abbots, who are not subject to episcopal jurisdiction, must act in the same way as the bishops. 3. The governors of the respective districts should order diligent search of country residences, houses, and forests for heretics and destroy their hiding places. 4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment. 5. He also is subject to legal punishment whose property, although without his knowledge but by negligence, has become an abode of heretics. 1. The house where a heretic is found must be torn down and the property must be confiscated. 2. The bailiff who lives in a suspicious place and is not diligent in searching for heretics loses his office and is not permitted to be employed either there or in any other place. 3. In order to prevent an innocent person from being punished or slanderously accused of heresy we command that no one shall be punished as a heretic or follower of heresy before he is so declared by a bishop or other clerical persons. 4. All are permitted to search for heretics in others' territories, and the bailiffs must help them. The king can, accordingly, search for heretics in the territory of the count of Toulouse, and the count of Toulouse in the king's land. 5. If one who is tainted with heresy voluntarily gives up the heresy he is not allowed to remain in the house where he formerly lived in case the house was under suspicion of heresy. He must be moved into a Catholic house which is free from suspicion. Besides, he must wear two crosses on his coat; the one on the right and the other on the left, and of a different color from his coat. Such persons cannot hold public office or be admitted to legal actions unless they are fully re-instated after due penance by the pope or his legate. 11. Whoever has involuntarily returned to the Church, through fear of death or for any other reason, must be imprisoned by the bishop so he can perform his penance or not be able to seduce others. Whoever retains his property must, by order of the prelate, provide for his own necessities. If he possesses nothing, then the prelate must provide for him. 12. All members of a parish shall vow to the bishop under oath that they will preserve the Catholic faith and will persecute heretics according to their power. This oath must be renewed every two years. 13. Males and females who have attained the use of reason must confess their sins to a priest three times a year, or with their priest's permission to another priest. They must perform the imposed penances humbly and according to their strength and receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist three times a year. Whoever does not do this is under suspicion of being a heretic. 14. Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament, only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language. 15. Whoever is accused of heresy or is only suspected of heresy is not permitted to practice his profession as a doctor. When a sick person has received Holy Communion from his priest he must be careful that no heretic or one suspected of heresy visit him, for terrible things have already happened through such visits. . . . 17. No prelate, baron or other superiors shall entrust the office of bailiff or steward to any heretic or follower of heresy, nor keep in his service one who has been condemned or suspected of heresy. 18. He is accused of heresy or is suspected of heresy who has been legally proved by good and honorable people before a bishop of having a bad reputation. .. . 42. Women who own castles or fortresses are not permitted to marry enemies of the faith and the peace. ... 44. Whoever is too poor to employ a lawyer has to be provided with one if necessary by the curia. 45. Pastors must explain these regulations to their parishioners four times a year.
Source: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Inquisition.html

Obviously that is not the case today with current Roman Catholic Church as can be evidenced here (http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#contact_apostates).

Ted

June 13th 2007, 10:22 AM

Zguy28

June 13th 2007, 10:42 AM

ZGuy,

Nice work. What you didn't fill in was the foundation. My time is limited these days. :wink:

spauline

June 13th 2007, 01:26 PM

ZGuy,

Nice work. What you didn't fill in was the foundation.

The beast is presented as an amalgam of Daniel's four beasts (Dan 7). Thus, since those beast represented man's governments from Babylon on, the beast of Rev 13 represents man's governments from Babylon on. The fall of Rome looked like the end of governments. That is, the beast "died." When the "Holy Roman Empire" rose (of course, neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire...) it looked like a resurrection.

This also fits rather nicely with the chronological flow of Rev 13. Thus, the decree against buying and selling, mixed with the death sentence perfectly fits the Roman Catholic inquisition with the death penalty for heretics and Interdict for non-compliant governments.

Spauline,
There are no legitimate "deeper" allegorical meanings. The problem is that allegorization has no rules. When there are true allegorical meanings, they are quite obvious in the text, such as Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the Sower. Otherwise, there are no limits, and contradictory interpretations are the rule. Please study the ECF interpretations of the parable of the Good Samaritan. You will find every flight of fancy imaginable. That's not interpretation, it's pure speculation.

Ted

OK, so let me get this straight. Catholics believe that Christ is God and the Only True Savior of mankind. That essentially all human creatures come into existence with a fallen nature that God has allowed in order that He may redeem them. Catholics believe that it is ontologically impossible to live in the goodness pleasing to God apart from grace, inner renewal. Catholics absolutely condemn secular messianism and teach that the only thing holding back the end of the world is that the Holy Spirit can yet sanctify humanity to a greater degree. Catholics are oppposed to basically all the things that most Christians regard as immoral, including fornication, ABC, divorce and remarriage, drunkenness, materialism.

Catholics believe that every human creature is priceless and called to possess the infinite Love of their Creator forever and forever, amen. Catholics believe that true Christians must worship God on a regular basis, to seek His Will, and to understand Him, what He has revealed, and to seek His aforementioned help and love and life at all times.

But, evidently, Catholics are "children of the devil" because, supposedly, the worship God on the "wrong day".

OK, so like, if we are the children of the devil, utterly against God and totally depraved, under which classification do you put the atheistic materialists and relativistic, hedonistic materialists, who do not give a rat's ass whether God exists in any sense, who would not be caught dead worshippin God on ANY DAY, in ANY church, and who live for nothing but vain material pleasures and accomplishments, who fully embrace lives of the capital sins?

I'm waiting for your response that will enlighten me to the utter darkness that I am evidently in?

spauline

June 13th 2007, 01:31 PM

ZGuy,

Nice work. What you didn't fill in was the foundation.

The beast is presented as an amalgam of Daniel's four beasts (Dan 7). Thus, since those beast represented man's governments from Babylon on, the beast of Rev 13 represents man's governments from Babylon on. The fall of Rome looked like the end of governments. That is, the beast "died." When the "Holy Roman Empire" rose (of course, neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire...) it looked like a resurrection.

This also fits rather nicely with the chronological flow of Rev 13. Thus, the decree against buying and selling, mixed with the death sentence perfectly fits the Roman Catholic inquisition with the death penalty for heretics and Interdict for non-compliant governments.

Spauline,
There are no legitimate "deeper" allegorical meanings. The problem is that allegorization has no rules. When there are true allegorical meanings, they are quite obvious in the text, such as Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the Sower. Otherwise, there are no limits, and contradictory interpretations are the rule. Please study the ECF interpretations of the parable of the Good Samaritan. You will find every flight of fancy imaginable. That's not interpretation, it's pure speculation.

Ted

OK, so like, we admit that the Inquisitions were bad and should have never happened. It was turly sinful and contrary to the will of God. And the recent Pope apologized for these tragedies. OTOH, some other types of Christians did stuff like this too. Like, can we get beyond the sins of our past and try to see that it wasn't just a problem with Catholicism, that it was symptomatic of the general way of thinking in those days. Terrible, unjustifiable, yes. But framing the RCC as the beast because of this? Other Christians killed people too. We don't call Protestants the beast simply because some of them killed Catholics and other types of Protestants.

Please do not post back to back responses to a single post. Campus decorum prohibits this. You have up to 45 minutes after your original response to edit it, and past that time a moderator can assist you in doing so if you contact a member of tha moderation team.

RCNicholas

June 13th 2007, 01:40 PM

The excommunication of the Cathars comes to mind by Pope Alexander III.

Or the Synod of Toulouse with regard to regulations of the Inquisition:
1. BISHOPS must bind under oath when necessary in each parish, within and outside a city, a priest and two or more lay people of good reputation to diligently, faithfully, and often search out heretics in their parishes, individual suspicious houses, subterranean rooms and additions to houses, and other hiding places. If they discover a heretic, follower, patron, or protector of heretics, they must, taking precaution that they do not escape, quickly notify the bishop and mayor of the place or his bailiff so they will be duly punished (command of the episcopal inquisition according to the practice of the synods of Verona, Bourges, Narbonne, and the twelfth general synod). 2. Exempt abbots, who are not subject to episcopal jurisdiction, must act in the same way as the bishops. 3. The governors of the respective districts should order diligent search of country residences, houses, and forests for heretics and destroy their hiding places. 4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment. 5. He also is subject to legal punishment whose property, although without his knowledge but by negligence, has become an abode of heretics. 1. The house where a heretic is found must be torn down and the property must be confiscated. 2. The bailiff who lives in a suspicious place and is not diligent in searching for heretics loses his office and is not permitted to be employed either there or in any other place. 3. In order to prevent an innocent person from being punished or slanderously accused of heresy we command that no one shall be punished as a heretic or follower of heresy before he is so declared by a bishop or other clerical persons. 4. All are permitted to search for heretics in others' territories, and the bailiffs must help them. The king can, accordingly, search for heretics in the territory of the count of Toulouse, and the count of Toulouse in the king's land. 5. If one who is tainted with heresy voluntarily gives up the heresy he is not allowed to remain in the house where he formerly lived in case the house was under suspicion of heresy. He must be moved into a Catholic house which is free from suspicion. Besides, he must wear two crosses on his coat; the one on the right and the other on the left, and of a different color from his coat. Such persons cannot hold public office or be admitted to legal actions unless they are fully re-instated after due penance by the pope or his legate. 11. Whoever has involuntarily returned to the Church, through fear of death or for any other reason, must be imprisoned by the bishop so he can perform his penance or not be able to seduce others. Whoever retains his property must, by order of the prelate, provide for his own necessities. If he possesses nothing, then the prelate must provide for him. 12. All members of a parish shall vow to the bishop under oath that they will preserve the Catholic faith and will persecute heretics according to their power. This oath must be renewed every two years. 13. Males and females who have attained the use of reason must confess their sins to a priest three times a year, or with their priest's permission to another priest. They must perform the imposed penances humbly and according to their strength and receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist three times a year. Whoever does not do this is under suspicion of being a heretic. 14. Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament, only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language. 15. Whoever is accused of heresy or is only suspected of heresy is not permitted to practice his profession as a doctor. When a sick person has received Holy Communion from his priest he must be careful that no heretic or one suspected of heresy visit him, for terrible things have already happened through such visits. . . . 17. No prelate, baron or other superiors shall entrust the office of bailiff or steward to any heretic or follower of heresy, nor keep in his service one who has been condemned or suspected of heresy. 18. He is accused of heresy or is suspected of heresy who has been legally proved by good and honorable people before a bishop of having a bad reputation. .. . 42. Women who own castles or fortresses are not permitted to marry enemies of the faith and the peace. ... 44. Whoever is too poor to employ a lawyer has to be provided with one if necessary by the curia. 45. Pastors must explain these regulations to their parishioners four times a year.
Source: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Inquisition.html

Obviously that is not the case today with current Roman Catholic Church as can be evidenced here (http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#contact_apostates).
First, you know what early Protestant leaders did to those they considered heretics, right?

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

I really don't see how it's that different from the reactions of some medieval Catholics...so fighting heresy really isn't a good reason to label the Papacy the anti-Christ. Plus, you say that the RCC is now different...does that mean, according to your interpretation, that the Papacy used to be the Anti-Christ but now no longer is?

Zguy28

June 13th 2007, 04:32 PM

First, you know what early Protestant leaders did to those they considered heretics, right?

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

I really don't see how it's that different from the reactions of some medieval Catholics...so fighting heresy really isn't a good reason to label the Papacy the anti-Christ. Plus, you say that the RCC is now different...does that mean, according to your interpretation, that the Papacy used to be the Anti-Christ but now no longer is?Historicism believes that Biblical Prophecy is a gradual unfolding throughout history. And who said that the beast from Revelation was/is THE "antichrist"?

I'm saying the papacy does fit the bill for the beast in John's revelation. The very name Vicar of Christ means "substitute" of Christ. Isn't that what the beast does?

What about the words of blasphemy in verse 5? When Jesus was accused of blasphemy, what were the charges? That he claimed to forgive sins, when only God could forgive sins. What does the Papacy claim to do? I would call it blasphemy if a priest or the pope tells you your sins are forgiven. Especially since only God knows the heart.

Ted

June 13th 2007, 08:36 PM

OK, so let me get this straight. Catholics believe that Christ is God and the Only True Savior of mankind. That essentially all human creatures come into existence with a fallen nature that God has allowed in order that He may redeem them. Catholics believe that it is ontologically impossible to live in the goodness pleasing to God apart from grace, inner renewal. Catholics absolutely condemn secular messianism and teach that the only thing holding back the end of the world is that the Holy Spirit can yet sanctify humanity to a greater degree. Catholics are oppposed to basically all the things that most Christians regard as immoral, including fornication, ABC, divorce and remarriage, drunkenness, materialism.

Catholics believe that every human creature is priceless and called to possess the infinite Love of their Creator forever and forever, amen. Catholics believe that true Christians must worship God on a regular basis, to seek His Will, and to understand Him, what He has revealed, and to seek His aforementioned help and love and life at all times.

But, evidently, Catholics are "children of the devil" because, supposedly, the worship God on the "wrong day".

OK, so like, if we are the children of the devil, utterly against God and totally depraved, under which classification do you put the atheistic materialists and relativistic, hedonistic materialists, who do not give a rat's ass whether God exists in any sense, who would not be caught dead worshippin God on ANY DAY, in ANY church, and who live for nothing but vain material pleasures and accomplishments, who fully embrace lives of the capital sins?

I'm waiting for your response that will enlighten me to the utter darkness that I am evidently in?

It's wonderful to see how you "quote" my ideas. I never said that you were a child of the devil by worshiping on Sunday. What I did was exegete the Bible to show that the Sabbath has never been changed.

I'm not worried about the day. Christ is the first step. But we are to "keep his commandments." Unfortunately, He didn't leave them in a list. So with the help of the Holy Spirit and study of the Bible we are convicted of the commandments one at a time. Each of us gets them in a personalized order. God pushes us where we need to be. Some will never see the Sabbath commandment. That's OK. But if you see it and refuse it, you become liable, and will answer to God, not me.

Paul tells us that the totally depraved are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

I never said you were in utter darkness. I implied that you are misinformed. So I informed you. And I have at least twice condemned allegorization in your posts. That is a method without rules, with a near-uniform result of drawing us away from the simple teaching of scripture.

This does not mean that there are no allegorical elements in scripture. Jesus' parables often contain them. But they are quite direct, such as noting that the Father in the Prodigal Son stands parallel to God the Father. But to extend the allegorical elements very far causes problems. We must guard very carefully against that.

Ted

spauline

June 13th 2007, 10:56 PM

It's wonderful to see how you "quote" my ideas. I never said that you were a child of the devil by worshiping on Sunday. What I did was exegete the Bible to show that the Sabbath has never been changed.

I'm not worried about the day. Christ is the first step. But we are to "keep his commandments." Unfortunately, He didn't leave them in a list. So with the help of the Holy Spirit and study of the Bible we are convicted of the commandments one at a time. Each of us gets them in a personalized order. God pushes us where we need to be. Some will never see the Sabbath commandment. That's OK. But if you see it and refuse it, you become liable, and will answer to God, not me.

Paul tells us that the totally depraved are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

I never said you were in utter darkness. I implied that you are misinformed. So I informed you. And I have at least twice condemned allegorization in your posts. That is a method without rules, with a near-uniform result of drawing us away from the simple teaching of scripture.

This does not mean that there are no allegorical elements in scripture. Jesus' parables often contain them. But they are quite direct, such as noting that the Father in the Prodigal Son stands parallel to God the Father. But to extend the allegorical elements very far causes problems. We must guard very carefully against that.

Ted

Well, OK, you are not accusing me of utter depravity, but if I recall correctly, you are saying the beast and false prophet of revelation are more or less synonomous with the papacy and Roman Catholicism. Is this true or not? And if it is, where does that place the atheists and hedonistic relativists? If the papacy and the RCC is the whore/beast/false prophet, where is the symbolism for the people who are far more spiritually deficient than we supposedly are? It wouldn't make sense to me to point the beast and other totally diabolical imagery at a religion that, if you checked into it you would have to agree contains much goodness and love of God in it, when much more serious depravity has gone before it and also followed it.

Zguy28

June 14th 2007, 03:02 PM

Ted

June 14th 2007, 09:12 PM

Well, OK, you are not accusing me of utter depravity, but if I recall correctly, you are saying the beast and false prophet of revelation are more or less synonomous with the papacy and Roman Catholicism. Is this true or not? And if it is, where does that place the atheists and hedonistic relativists? If the papacy and the RCC is the whore/beast/false prophet, where is the symbolism for the people who are far more spiritually deficient than we supposedly are? It wouldn't make sense to me to point the beast and other totally diabolical imagery at a religion that, if you checked into it you would have to agree contains much goodness and love of God in it, when much more serious depravity has gone before it and also followed it.

Please understand that I treat the organization and the individual separately. A Roman Catholic can be a good Christian and be saved. That is individual, between you and God. I don't get to or want to judge that.

The sea beast is man's governments, taken from the imagery of Daniel 7 that is imported into Revelation. The land beast is the Roman Catholic organization, in that it looks like a lamb (Jesus), but speaks like the dragon (Satan). That is, it arrogates to itself the divine prerogative to change divine law and forgive sin. There's more but that will suffice. The horns on the land beast signify the temporal power exercized through human governments, exactly as seen in the Holy Roman Empire's persecution of "heretics."

You asked a fair question, and got a straight answer. You probably won't like that answer, but I won't sugar-coat it.

You've shown a fair amount of exegetical skill, and if you can abandon the false idea that you aren't to question the Roman Church, you have a chance to see what the Bible says for yourself. You also need to abandon the allegorizing methods you sometimes use. Of course, that will make you a Protestant, because when you study, you'll find that the Roman Church is exactly as I have described.

Ted

RCNicholas

June 15th 2007, 02:25 AM

Historicism believes that Biblical Prophecy is a gradual unfolding throughout history. And who said that the beast from Revelation was/is THE "antichrist"?Sorry, should have read that more carefully, didn't realize you meant the beast as opposed to the Anti-Christ. However, I think my initial point still stands. Although historicism may see the events of Revelation as unfolding, does that mean that different people/groups of people fill the roles during different phases of history? If the Papacy is no longer the beast according to your interpretation, what/who is?

I'm saying the papacy does fit the bill for the beast in John's revelation. The very name Vicar of Christ means "substitute" of Christ. Isn't that what the beast does?
The beast causes all people on the Earth to worship him. (see verse 8) The Pope is not to be worshipped by Catholics or anyone else, nor does he have authority over "every tribe, tongue, and nation," (verse7) so right there we see the clear dichotomy.
As far as being the Vicar of Christ, I think this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia may help: " ...the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him."
Notice that the earthly authority that the Pope holds is derived from Christ Himself. It's not a title which elevates the Pope above Christ, or even to the same level as Christ, as the Pope would have no power if it wasn't given to him by Jesus.

What about the words of blasphemy in verse 5? When Jesus was accused of blasphemy, what were the charges? That he claimed to forgive sins, when only God could forgive sins. What does the Papacy claim to do? I would call it blasphemy if a priest or the pope tells you your sins are forgiven. Especially since only God knows the heart.In John 20:23, Jesus told His disciples, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Receiving forgiveness from Christ through the authority of an earthly vessel, (i.e., Church clergy) is hardly blasphemous; it's explicitly Biblical. What does the Papacy claim to do? Exercise the authority given to him by Christ by virtue of his office in the Church. None of that identifies the office as the beast of Revelation.

Zguy28

June 15th 2007, 10:29 AM

Sorry, should have read that more carefully, didn't realize you meant the beast as opposed to the Anti-Christ. However, I think my initial point still stands. Although historicism may see the events of Revelation as unfolding, does that mean that different people/groups of people fill the roles during different phases of history? If the Papacy is no longer the beast according to your interpretation, what/who is? Not necessarily. Prophecy is fulfilled in history, it does not mean that it will occur again.

The beast causes all people on the Earth to worship him. (see verse 8) The Pope is not to be worshipped by Catholics or anyone else, Was that always the case? "O blessed father.." Yuck. He is treated like he's a demigod or something. What about papal infallibility?

nor does he have authority over "every tribe, tongue, and nation," (verse7) Think about what that meant to John who was seeing a vision of the Roman church during it heyday.
so right there we see the clear dichotomy. No its not. Consider the official doctrines versus the day-to-day practice of the church, especially from 605-1870 AD.

As far as being the Vicar of Christ, I think this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia may help: " ...the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him."Again, look at the real-life practices.

Consider this passage and then examine the practices of the RCC.
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.Emphasis mine.

Now when I read that, and then see a video of Pope John Paul II talking to teenage girls on TV..it went something like this:

Teenage girls: "Papa, we love you!"
Pope JPII: [wagging his finger at them] "Ahh...but I love you more."

When I saw that, I was like "what?"

Notice that the earthly authority that the Pope holds is derived from Christ Himself. It's not a title which elevates the Pope above Christ, or even to the same level as Christ, as the Pope would have no power if it wasn't given to him by Jesus. I feel like a broken record. Look at the practices of Roman Catholics. I know many, I am good friends and relatives with many Roman Catholics and I don't have anything personal against them. But, when I walk in their homes, what do I see? Pictures of the Popes everywhere. Idol worship.

In John 20:23, Jesus told His disciples, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Receiving forgiveness from Christ through the authority of an earthly vessel, (i.e., Church clergy) is hardly blasphemous; it's explicitly Biblical. Show me where the Apostles or anybody in the New Testament practiced this. Also show me where it says clergy only have this if it is so?

In fact I would say, the only one who practiced anything remotely close to it in the NT is Stephen when he was dying and called out to God to forgive the Jews who were stoning him.

RCNicholas

June 15th 2007, 10:35 PM

Was that always the case? Yes. Papal worship has never been commanded; to worship the Pope would in fact be idolatry, which is a sin in Catholicism just as much as in Protestantism, as much as some Protestants may not like to admit it.

"O blessed father.." Yuck. He is treated like he's a demigod or something.
You think calling someone "blessed" is idolatry? Or perhaps referring to someone as a kind of spiritual father? I hope you're kidding. The fact that you may not be a fan of the phraseology doesn't mean that the words just mean what you think they mean or want them to mean.

What about papal infallibility?What about it? In 2 Thess. 3:6, Paul says, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."

Sounds like Paul believes in the authority and infallibility of the Church, doesn't it? He calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15, and Jesus in Matthew 18 makes it clear that the final authority on inter-believer disputes is the Church. In Acts 15, during the first Church council in Jerusalem, Peter speaks and everyone falls silent; his declaration is ultimately the one adopted as binding by the Church. None of this very explicit authority places any of these Church leaders above God in your mind, but suddenly when Catholics begin speaking the same language that the fist century Church did, you accuse us of idolatry; that's a double standard.

Think about what that meant to John who was seeing a vision of the Roman church during it heyday.When do you think the Roman Church's "heyday" was?

No its not. Consider the official doctrines versus the day-to-day practice of the church, especially from 605-1870 AD.If everyone judged the validity of a religion based on what individual followers do versus what the religion actually teaches, there would be extremely few Christians, Catholic or Protestant. I suggest that you follow your own advice: look at what the Church actually teaches rather than what individual Catholics may do in ignorance. The Pope is not to be worshipped, period.

Consider this passage and then examine the practices of the RCC.
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.Emphasis mine.

Now when I read that, and then see a video of Pope John Paul II talking to teenage girls on TV..it went something like this:

Teenage girls: "Papa, we love you!"
Pope JPII: [wagging his finger at them] "Ahh...but I love you more."

When I saw that, I was like "what?"
And that's exactly what I'm saying....what? First of all, I'd have to see exactly what was said between the Pope and the girls before making any assumptions. Second, even if the conversation took place exactly as you record it, I have no idea what it has to do with the verse you cited. The Pope travels across the world constantly bringing messages of peace and hope in Christ to all sorts of people (God forbid he would tell anyone he loved them back, goodness...), and this makes you think he's not a servant?

I feel like a broken record. Look at the practices of Roman Catholics. I know many, I am good friends and relatives with many Roman Catholics and I don't have anything personal against them. But, when I walk in their homes, what do I see? Pictures of the Popes everywhere. Idol worship.I have pictures of my mom and dad all over my house...does that mean I worship them? That's a really, really weak example.

Show me where the Apostles or anybody in the New Testament practiced this. Certainly: "retaining" is seen in 1 Cor. 5:1-5, and forgiving is seen in 2 Cor. 2:6-11.

Also show me where it says clergy only have this if it is so?"If it is so"? Do you deny that the Bible is God's Word and entirely true? For a Christian this should not be a question of "If." Second of all, it seems logical that clergy would have this authority because He only said it to a select group of His earliest, closest disciples; that is, the earliest Church leaders. Never is such authority reiterated to the laity. Are you claiming that the laity does? You have the authority given to you personally by Christ to forgive whoever you see fit, and thus it is so in God's eyes?

In fact I would say, the only one who practiced anything remotely close to it in the NT is Stephen when he was dying and called out to God to forgive the Jews who were stoning him I already gave another example with Paul. Why would Jesus give the Apostles such authority if He never intended them to use it? That would make no sense at all.

Armor of God

June 16th 2007, 01:39 AM

"If it is so"? Do you deny that the Bible is God's Word and entirely true? For a Christian this should not be a question of "If."

You're right, it shouldn't be. But then what do you make of the articles stating that the Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible that surfaced a year or so ago?

Lazarus

June 16th 2007, 02:38 PM

Historicist.

The Papacy. The Roman Empire died but came back to life in the Papacy of Rome with all of its civic power and jurisdiction.

As far as buying and selling, how many times has the Roman Catholic Church prohibited commerce and interaction with heretics or non-believers?

Thankfully, that worldly power was pretty much crushed in the 1860's via the Italian Revolution.

Whew! Thank goodness that worldy power has already been crushed. I guess that means the prophecy has already been fulfilled and we can pretty much ignore it from here on out. That's a good thing, too. I thought the prophecy was a warning against television evangelists, but then I realized my ignorance and prejudice were getting the best of me. Thank goodness no one else in this thread has allowed that to happen to them!

RCNicholas

June 16th 2007, 03:58 PM

You're right, it shouldn't be. But then what do you make of the articles stating that the Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible that surfaced a year or so ago?
Not sure what articles you're referring to, you'll have to cite them for me. The Catholic Church fully teaches the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

June 16th 2007, 04:52 PM

What does this have to do with the OP question?

Armor of God

June 16th 2007, 11:12 PM

Nothing. My bad.

Back to the regular programming.

RCNicholas

June 17th 2007, 02:21 AM

What does this have to do with the OP question?Sorry, didn't meant to derail the thread (I had a feeling that might happen); I just get really annoyed when people accuse Catholic Church of being the whore of Babylon, call the Pope the Anti-Christ, the Beast, etc etc etc. (which does relate back to the thread). Ultimately I've found when the arguments of those who espouse such views are examined in any detail, they break down, and that's what I was trying to show. Anyways, sorry for the detour, I'll try to stick to the OP for future responses.

Progeny

June 17th 2007, 02:57 AM

What does this have to do with the OP question?

I was thinking the same thing, the discussion was starting to degrade into a nasty Catholic-bashing brawl.

Now that the thread is back on the rails, I feel safer about speaking. I agree that most points made have been valid, including the historically-based ones, but I'm more inclined to look at it from a Futurist viewpoint.

I've been doing a bit of reading/research on the sign of the beast, and a lot of people are gravitating toward the idea that it could be a personal microchip, surgically imbedded into the wrist, containing your history, financial records, criminal records, etc. It would be like if you took everything in your wallet, compressed it real tight and crammed it into your forearm. The technology exists, and will probably become very common, very fast. It fits the biblical description well enough, and since the chip would likely be used almost like a debit card, you can't buy or sell without it, and you certainly couldn't travel.

So lets just say for a moment that microchips are the sign of beast, or could be at least. What does that make the Beast? Maybe this has been speculated before, maybe even disproven (I'm afraid I haven't studied the scriptures regarding it for a little while, so I may be totally contradicting some descriptions): But I would say that there is a strong possiblity that the Beast OR the Antichrist could be manifested as a computer program. A worldwide super-intelligent program or network of programs, probably those developed and put in charge of the whole chip system or global financial/political systems. Who knows? You may be looking into the face of the future Beast even as we type...

What do you think? Could it happen? Microchips / AI-Antichrist? Or have I become tangled up in sci-fi and misinterpretations?

Zguy28

June 17th 2007, 03:16 PM

Yes. Papal worship has never been commanded; to worship the Pope would in fact be idolatry, which is a sin in Catholicism just as much as in Protestantism, as much as some Protestants may not like to admit it. I'm glad you see that. ANd your right about protestantism being guilty of it too. I had to rebuke somebody the other day for being that way with Billy Graham.

You think calling someone "blessed" is idolatry? Or perhaps referring to someone as a kind of spiritual father? I hope you're kidding. The fact that you may not be a fan of the phraseology doesn't mean that the words just mean what you think they mean or want them to mean. No, I was giving it as an example of people's attitudes and their flattery, not to mention those that use it to put themselves above the laity. God is the only one worthy of praise. We are nothing but filthy rags in his sight, yes even the Pope.

What about it? In 2 Thess. 3:6, Paul says, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." Yes, I heard Peter loved it when people bowed down to him and kissed his gold ring. Comeon.

Sounds like Paul believes in the authority and infallibility of the Church, doesn't it? How about the Apostles, not the church. Hence the canon of the Scriptures. There is a difference.
He calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15, and Jesus in Matthew 18 makes it clear that the final authority on inter-believer disputes is the Church. In Acts 15, during the first Church council in Jerusalem, Peter speaks and everyone falls silent; his declaration is ultimately the one adopted as binding by the Church. None of this very explicit authority places any of these Church leaders above God in your mind, but suddenly when Catholics begin speaking the same language that the fist century Church did, you accuse us of idolatry; that's a double standard. Dude, you're blind or something if you can't see the difference.

When do you think the Roman Church's "heyday" was? 605-1865AD

If everyone judged the validity of a religion based on what individual followers do versus what the religion actually teaches, there would be extremely few Christians, Catholic or Protestant. I suggest that you follow your own advice: look at what the Church actually teaches rather than what individual Catholics may do in ignorance. The Pope is not to be worshipped, period. Obviously, you get no argument from me there. Problem is, every single one I know, and I know a lot because where I live is over 80% Roman Catholic, is like that. So what does that say about what the church is teaching and the example its setting for its members?

And that's exactly what I'm saying....what? First of all, I'd have to see exactly what was said between the Pope and the girls before making any assumptions. Second, even if the conversation took place exactly as you record it, I have no idea what it has to do with the verse you cited. The Pope travels across the world constantly bringing messages of peace and hope in Christ to all sorts of people (God forbid he would tell anyone he loved them back, goodness...), and this makes you think he's not a servant?It was as I said, and I will try to find it. It was arrogant was what it was. It was said in a tone of "I'm better than you." But feel free to not believe me. Seriously.

"If it is so"? Do you deny that the Bible is God's Word and entirely true? For a Christian this should not be a question of "If." My beliefs on the Scripture are in agreement with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Second of all, it seems logical that clergy would have this authority because He only said it to a select group of His earliest, closest disciples; that is, the earliest Church leaders. Who was in the room specifically when Jesus said that?
Never is such authority reiterated to the laity. Are you claiming that the laity does? You have the authority given to you personally by Christ to forgive whoever you see fit, and thus it is so in God's eyes?I'm saying that nobody can forgive whoever they see fit, but God alone. Are you claiming the Roman clergy can absolve anybody they think should be absolved?

I already gave another example with Paul. Why would Jesus give the Apostles such authority if He never intended them to use it? That would make no sense at all.Oh, but they did. It doesn't mean those after them could.
We can proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins for those that place their faith in Jesus Christ, that's all.

Zguy28

June 17th 2007, 03:21 PM

Whew! Thank goodness that worldy power has already been crushed. I guess that means the prophecy has already been fulfilled and we can pretty much ignore it from here on out. That's a good thing, too. I thought the prophecy was a warning against television evangelists, but then I realized my ignorance and prejudice were getting the best of me. Thank goodness no one else in this thread has allowed that to happen to them!Do you deny that the Roman church wielded near absolute secular power from the Dark Ages until after the Renaissance?

Sorry, didn't meant to derail the thread (I had a feeling that might happen); I just get really annoyed when people accuse Catholic Church of being the whore of Babylon, call the Pope the Anti-Christ, the Beast, etc etc etc. (which does relate back to the thread). Ultimately I've found when the arguments of those who espouse such views are examined in any detail, they break down, and that's what I was trying to show. Anyways, sorry for the detour, I'll try to stick to the OP for future responses.Sorry to annoy you. If you don't like it, tough.

I was thinking the same thing, the discussion was starting to degrade into a nasty Catholic-bashing brawl.Hey, we were asked for our views. I gave mine. I don't have a personal vendetta against the RCC, I just call it like I see it.

RCNicholas

June 18th 2007, 12:34 AM

I'm glad you see that. ANd your right about protestantism being guilty of it too. I had to rebuke somebody the other day for being that way with Billy Graham. And I hope you see that the Catholic Church does not worship the Pope, nor are individual Catholics to do so, by the Church's own teaching. As long as you've got that straight, we're on the right track.

No, I was giving it as an example of people's attitudes and their flattery, not to mention those that use it to put themselves above the laity. God is the only one worthy of praise. We are nothing but filthy rags in his sight, yes even the Pope.That's funny, all throughout the Bible I see people being called good, holy, righteous, etc etc etc...unless you're claiming that "filthy rags" can be righteous and good, you apparently have a huge hole in your anthropology.
In Hebrews 13:17, it is seen that we are to respect and honor our spiritual earthly leaders. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, I heard Peter loved it when people bowed down to him and kissed his gold ring. Comeon.Oh, please, so you're claiming that there can be no cultural changes in how leaders are greeted through the ages?? Give me a break, you're grasping for straws. Study a bit about how medieval leaders were greeted; it had nothing to do with worshipping them as God. Again, your example is really weak.

How about the Apostles, not the church. Actually, no, sir, two of the verses I cited explicitly mention the Church. Good try.

Not to mention the painfully obvious fact that the Apostles were the foundation of the Church...you can't separate the two. Are you claiming that the Church somehow lost it's Biblically evidenced authority?
Hence the canon of the Scriptures. There is a difference. The canon of Scripture was formulated by the Church. Nothing about the canon formation cancels the Church's authority; if anything the canon's very existence establishes it.

Dude, you're blind or something if you can't see the difference.I'd say your blind if you can't see the similarity.

605-1865ADWhen during that period did the Church have authority over every known tribe, tongue, and nation?

Obviously, you get no argument from me there. Problem is, every single one I know, and I know a lot because where I live is over 80% Roman Catholic, is like that. Is like what? Worships the Pope? Have you ever bothered to ask any Catholics about this alledged idolatry? Have any of them told you they worship the Pope as God?

It was as I said, and I will try to find it. It was arrogant was what it was. It was said in a tone of "I'm better than you." But feel free to not believe me. Seriously. COnsidering the weakness of the rest of your arguments, I won't hold my breath terribly long. However, even if your example did show arrogance in the Pope and that he talked down to some lay Catholics, it really does nothing to harm the Catholic position, so it's really an exercise in futility. The Pope has the authority to be infallible; that doesn't mean he's impeccable.

My beliefs on the Scripture are in agreement with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Very well. Then you admit that this is not an "If" situation we're speaking of.

Who was in the room specifically when Jesus said that?The disciples assembled in the upper room.

I'm saying that nobody can forgive whoever they see fit, but God alone. Are you claiming the Roman clergy can absolve anybody they think should be absolved? If nobody can forgive sins but God, then you have no explanation for the verse in question, which explicitly states that men do forgive sins, and that when the clergy absolves sins, it is so before God as well (which relates back to the authority to bind on earth and in heaven, as, once again, given to the Church leadership). That is what I'm claiming.

Oh, but they did. It doesn't mean those after them could. Why not? Where in the Bible are you getting that from?

Sorry to annoy you. If you don't like it, tough. Oh, don't feel sorry. It's good that such arguments can actually be examined, because I think if people are exposed to them along with the Catholic counter-responses they'll be able to see how weak those positions really are. Fortunately there's a good number of Protestants out there who can respectfully disagree with Catholic teaching without throwing around the nonsense about Catholicism being Satanic, the beast, the Anti-Christ, yada yada yada.

But, if you want to continue the conversation, we should really do it in another thread or in PM. Our dialogue is basically hanging on to the OP of this thread....by a thread. :smile:

Lazarus

June 18th 2007, 03:02 AM

[QUOTE=Zguy28;1992418]Do you deny that the Roman church wielded near absolute secular power from the Dark Ages until after the Renaissance?

Yep, I sure do. A simple reading of European history will show that there were numerous centers of power in Europe during the era you mentioned, including monarchs. The Papacy was one such center of power, but by no means the only one. Also, the power of the Papacy wasn't as absolute as you seem to think. You merely have to remember the assassination of Thomas a Becket to prove that claim wrong.

Zguy28

June 18th 2007, 07:48 AM

And I hope you see that the Catholic Church does not worship the Pope, nor are individual Catholics to do so, by the Church's own teaching. As long as you've got that straight, we're on the right track.

That's funny, all throughout the Bible I see people being called good, holy, righteous, etc etc etc...unless you're claiming that "filthy rags" can be righteous and good, you apparently have a huge hole in your anthropology.
In Hebrews 13:17, it is seen that we are to respect and honor our spiritual earthly leaders. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. What was Jesus's response when a certain young man called him "good"?

Oh, please, so you're claiming that there can be no cultural changes in how leaders are greeted through the ages?? Give me a break, you're grasping for straws. Study a bit about how medieval leaders were greeted; it had nothing to do with worshipping them as God. Again, your example is really weak. My point on this is more about being a servant leader. Remember the Scripture I quoted where Jesus is talking about being a servant and NOT being like worldly King's who lord their position over their subjects?

Actually, no, sir, two of the verses I cited explicitly mention the Church. Good try. You quoted this:
We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.Us is referring to the Apostles, you know, the Twelve plus Paul.
I don't see it in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 either.
Now 2 Cor 2:6-11 that you quoted does mention the church, but saying that people should forgive someone who did something to them. Were the Corinthians all clergy that they should forgive sins?

Not to mention the painfully obvious fact that the Apostles were the foundation of the Church...you can't separate the two. Are you claiming that the Church somehow lost it's Biblically evidenced authority?
The canon of Scripture was formulated by the Church. Nothing about the canon formation cancels the Church's authority; if anything the canon's very existence establishes it.
Forgive me if I'm Sola Scriptura and don't rely on the traditions of men which can put burdens on men they are unable to shoulder.

When during that period did the Church have authority over every known tribe, tongue, and nation? Look at it from John's point of view. Please.

Is like what? Worships the Pope? Have you ever bothered to ask any Catholics about this alledged idolatry? Have any of them told you they worship the Pope as God? I'm sure they would say no. One can be guilty of idolatry without realizing it. WHether its money, a person, or a church and its traditions, or even the bible.

COnsidering the weakness of the rest of your arguments, I won't hold my breath terribly long. However, even if your example did show arrogance in the Pope and that he talked down to some lay Catholics, it really does nothing to harm the Catholic position, so it's really an exercise in futility. The Pope has the authority to be infallible; that doesn't mean he's impeccable.
See, that's where we will have to disagree. I don't believe any man is infallible. We are all weak creatures.

Very well. Then you admit that this is not an "If" situation we're speaking of. Glad we can agree on something.

The disciples assembled in the upper room. You accuse me of being weak. ??
I ask again, who was in the upper room at this time? Were the Twelve his only disciples? Or the 70?
It is not stated who was there.

But, if you want to continue the conversation, we should really do it in another thread or in PM. Our dialogue is basically hanging on to the OP of this thread....by a thread. :smile:I think we're the only thing keeping this thread going...:wink:

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 18th 2007, 07:50 AM

Futurist here -

Pretty straight forward. This false prophet will work under the authority of the beast and make people get a mark on them in order to barter. :nsm:That's the last two verses of what Muz cited. What about the rest?

Ted

June 18th 2007, 11:22 AM

Do you deny that the Roman church wielded near absolute secular power from the Dark Ages until after the Renaissance?

Yep, I sure do. A simple reading of European history will show that there were numerous centers of power in Europe during the era you mentioned, including monarchs. The Papacy was one such center of power, but by no means the only one. Also, the power of the Papacy wasn't as absolute as you seem to think. You merely have to remember the assassination of Thomas a Becket to prove that claim wrong.

This isn't an either/or choice. As Daniel 2 shows, the Roman Empire fragmented, never to reunify. Thus, Lazarus is right. But ZGuy is also right. The secular heads of Europe were beholden to the Papacy for their legitimacy. Numerous examples could be cited, The classic story of Henry IV standing in the snow for four days in 1077 to get his excommunication lifted to secure his continued rule is perhaps the best. While there were numerous warring kingdoms, the Papacy was supreme over all for over a thousand years.

For you Catholic apologists, please remember that there is a HUGE difference between "preserving the traditions handed to the saints" and creating new ones. It is common to see the phrase "unanimous consent of all the fathers" in RCC dogmas. Let's get real. There are only a couple of things the ECF's unanimously agreed on. Jesus was the Christ. He died on the Cross. He rose on the third day and ascended to heaven. After these central facts, universal agreement becomes very hard to find.

You will not find agreement on Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, or many other dogmas in the ECFs. In fact, the Bodily Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are late inventions. These, and Papal Infallibility require a repository of secret doctrines that are now revealed. And we should note that Tertullian, one of the early fathers, adamantly denied that there was such a repository. This leaves us with one of two possibilities.

Either Tertullian is right, and all these dogmas are false, or Tertullian is wrong, and there is no unanimous consent of the fathers. The RCC is a liar in either case, since it has made both claims in its "infallible" ex cathedra pronouncements.

This is a problem that Roman Catholics need to consider and rationally assess. If their "infallible" authority can't tell the truth, how can they rely on it?

Ted

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

June 18th 2007, 02:20 PM

That's the last two verses of what Muz cited. What about the rest?

:nsm: I really don't have the time to hash it out right now

RCNicholas

June 19th 2007, 11:07 PM

What was Jesus's response when a certain young man called him "good"?

My point on this is more about being a servant leader. Remember the Scripture I quoted where Jesus is talking about being a servant and NOT being like worldly King's who lord their position over their subjects?

You quoted this:
We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.Us is referring to the Apostles, you know, the Twelve plus Paul.
I don't see it in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 either.
Now 2 Cor 2:6-11 that you quoted does mention the church, but saying that people should forgive someone who did something to them. Were the Corinthians all clergy that they should forgive sins?

Forgive me if I'm Sola Scriptura and don't rely on the traditions of men which can put burdens on men they are unable to shoulder.

Look at it from John's point of view. Please.

I'm sure they would say no. One can be guilty of idolatry without realizing it. WHether its money, a person, or a church and its traditions, or even the bible.

See, that's where we will have to disagree. I don't believe any man is infallible. We are all weak creatures.

Glad we can agree on something.

You accuse me of being weak. ??
I ask again, who was in the upper room at this time? Were the Twelve his only disciples? Or the 70?
It is not stated who was there.

I think we're the only thing keeping this thread going...:wink:

ZGuy, I'm happy to continue the conversation, but this thread is not the appropriate place, we're getting too far off track. If you'd like my responses then we need to open a new thread, or I can just give them to you in PM.

Just Some Dude

July 10th 2007, 08:03 PM

I'm with NeilUnreal, with making special mention that the beast of the sea is very easily applied to governments, although I can see how it could apply of any grand-looking power.

jesterbr549

September 26th 2007, 06:13 PM

The problem is this: How do you associate that with the anti-Christ, the beast or the dragon in today's context?

(Or for that matter, any of the events that are supposed to precede it)

Michael

That is exactly the point, isn't it.

Even if it is used to indicate worship of the individual, or used as a Ration Card the question still remains, what, exactly, has the mark got to do with the Antichrist.

The answer is simpler than people realize and, perhaps it is too simple due to lack of faith.

The point is that Cain is the Antichrist and that Mark is referring to the one on his head that Y'hova put there...

Secretary of the Navy Sparko

September 27th 2007, 02:45 PM

Cain?

do you think he is like the Highlander? Immortal wandering the earth?

TyRockwell

September 27th 2007, 02:48 PM

That is exactly the point, isn't it.

Even if it is used to indicate worship of the individual, or used as a Ration Card the question still remains, what, exactly, has the mark got to do with the Antichrist.

The answer is simpler than people realize and, perhaps it is too simple due to lack of faith.

The point is that Cain is the Antichrist and that Mark is referring to the one on his head that Y'hova put there...
The mark of the beast is not visible. Believers are already "marked with the stamp of the seal of the Holy Spirit, Eph.1:13. It is invisible. The antichrist is a spirit, a principality, made up of the three beasts who were stripped of there authority, but allowed to live for a season and a time. Dan.7:12 , after Rome's antichrist spirit was slain. That is why one of the three heads had a fatal wound that was healed. The same blow that slew Rome's principality, would have slain the other three beasts too, only they were "allowed to live." The mark has to do with alliegance to a government system more than, or over the Lord Jesus. If you think government should be the means through which our problems are solved then that is where your alleigance is, and you have received the invisible mark of the beast.

jesterbr549

September 29th 2007, 01:13 PM

Cain?

do you think he is like the Highlander? Immortal wandering the earth?

I know he is.

Before the flood, according to the Constellations of Virgo, Libra, Scorpio and Sagittarius, there was a battle for the Tree of Life (pictured in the hand of Hercules) and according to the mythologies, some of that fruit was obtained and that by Cain and his descendants who ate the fruit and became immortal. That is why Adam included the list of Cain and his descendants in Genesis.

That is why the Antichrist will be able to recover from a mortal head wound in the tribulation and then, even though he is consumed by the Glory of the returning Savior, is then subsequently cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the end of the tribulation.

jesterbr549

September 29th 2007, 01:14 PM

The mark of the beast is not visible. Believers are already "marked with the stamp of the seal of the Holy Spirit, Eph.1:13. It is invisible. The antichrist is a spirit, a principality, made up of the three beasts who were stripped of there authority, but allowed to live for a season and a time. Dan.7:12 , after Rome's antichrist spirit was slain. That is why one of the three heads had a fatal wound that was healed. The same blow that slew Rome's principality, would have slain the other three beasts too, only they were "allowed to live." The mark has to do with alliegance to a government system more than, or over the Lord Jesus. If you think government should be the means through which our problems are solved then that is where your alleigance is, and you have received the invisible mark of the beast.

You want to make a bet?

http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=196

jesterbr549

September 29th 2007, 01:16 PM

Can you say, "Cattle to the Slaughter" ?

http://www.somarkinnovations.com/

TyRockwell

September 29th 2007, 02:54 PM

You want to make a bet?

http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=196
"They gambled for my clothes." --Jesus quoting Psalm 22 on the cross. I don't gamble. I don't fear being left behind after a not-going-to-happen 'rapture' that is nowhere taught in the Bible. It is a made up doctrine. We rise to meet Jesus in the air at his return, going with him to the Mount of Olives, where his feet touch down. Zechariah 14:4 Jesus said of all seven churches, "he who overcomes..." We are to triumph. The future is nowhere near as fearful as men have interpreted prophecy to mean. Peter said that we could speed Jesus' second coming. But we don't speed it by being fearful, or thinking our main goal is to get to heaven because we think the earth is going to be 'burned up.' The earth will be purged by the melting of the evil things, principalities, etc. that make up the invisible realm, which is the heavenlies. There is no 'Cattle to the Slaughter' for Christians who learn how to live by faith.

TyRockwell

September 29th 2007, 03:21 PM

I know he is.

Before the flood, according to the Constellations of Virgo, Libra, Scorpio and Sagittarius, there was a battle for the Tree of Life (pictured in the hand of Hercules) and according to the mythologies, some of that fruit was obtained and that by Cain and his descendants who ate the fruit and became immortal. That is why Adam included the list of Cain and his descendants in Genesis.

That is why the Antichrist will be able to recover from a mortal head wound in the tribulation and then, even though he is consumed by the Glory of the returning Savior, is then subsequently cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the end of the tribulation.
Mythologies is right. There is no person who is the 'antichrist' in Rev.13. John said that antichrists, there are many, are spirits who do not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh. The Revelation 13 'beast' is a composite of parts of the three beasts who were "stripped of their authority, but allowed to live for a season and a time," in Daniel 7:12. In Daniel 7 the surviving beasts are spirits that represent the governments of Babylon, Persia, and Greece. Rome's beast was judged and slain and thrown into hell. The others are three kinds of belief systems that influence governments, Babylonian, with a king-like ruler, Persian, the rule of law, and Greece, decadent majority rule. These spirits are here now and we must use faith armor, Eph. 6:10-18, and sword of the spirit words, Eph 6:17 to overcome them. When all Christ's enemies are made a footstool for his feet, then he will be allowed to return. Until then he waits. So it is up to us to adjust our thinking to God's word to know how, through faith and patience, to subdue kingdoms of darkness.

spauline

September 29th 2007, 04:40 PM

Mythologies is right. There is no person who is the 'antichrist' in Rev.13. John said that antichrists, there are many, are spirits who do not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh. The Revelation 13 'beast' is a composite of parts of the three beasts who were "stripped of their authority, but allowed to live for a season and a time," in Daniel 7:12. In Daniel 7 the surviving beasts are spirits that represent the governments of Babylon, Persia, and Greece. Rome's beast was judged and slain and thrown into hell. The others are three kinds of belief systems that influence governments, Babylonian, with a king-like ruler, Persian, the rule of law, and Greece, decadent majority rule. These spirits are here now and we must use faith armor, Eph. 6:10-18, and sword of the spirit words, Eph 6:17 to overcome them. When all Christ's enemies are made a footstool for his feet, then he will be allowed to return. Until then he waits. So it is up to us to adjust our thinking to God's word to know how, through faith and patience, to subdue kingdoms of darkness.

The beast of Revelation 13 would need to be much broader than that. In the bigger picture, what you have is a diabolical trinity. The dragon is the "father" of lies, he then conceives his seed, that is, his lies, in human history, that is, incarnating his sin in the world, thereby making children of the devil. And the "false prophet" that is spoken between them is the utter antithesis of God's Word, which is love. Hence, a diabolical counterpart to three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. Hence, the dragon sows "anti-Faith", telling humanity they needn't beleive in anything that God has revealed and gives man a false hope, a hope in what this world can give alone, and that man does not need God's help nor God Himself to attain to what he truly needs for fulfillment. And there is no Love in this lie, there is only selfishness. For Love seeks to give and receive in depth and intimacy, selfishness seeks only to get and take and use for what is, in the end, only superficial.

BTW, we as Catholics can beleive that the world might be brought almost totally into the Gospel, but even if this occurs, it cannot last. For, behold, iniquity is working and can only be restrained to a point by the HS, after which no further Redemption is possible (saving the conversion of the Jews). At the very end, there shall be little faith on earth, even if, prior to that final age, nearly all humanity will embrace Catholicism.

Secretary of the Navy Sparko

September 30th 2007, 01:42 AM

jesterbr549

September 30th 2007, 04:34 PM

I don't fear being left behind after a not-going-to-happen 'rapture' that is nowhere taught in the Bible.

The future is nowhere near as fearful as men have interpreted prophecy to mean.

The earth will be purged by the melting of the evil things, principalities, etc. that make up the invisible realm, which is the heavenlies.

There is no 'Cattle to the Slaughter' for Christians who learn how to live by faith.

1) I don't fear anything and, as far as the Pretrib Rapture, "And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." Pretrib Wedding - Postrib Reception - Irrefutable.

2) "Men's hearts failing them for fear of those things that they see coming upon the earth."

3) "The Elements will melt with fervent Heat" - Elements means exactly what it says.

4) "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. "

There will be nominal Christians who think that cause the claim the name of Messiah that they are priviledged and will not be persecuted in the Tribulation and there is a large amount of Pretribbers that think they will be Raptured because they do not realize that participation in the Rapture in not dependant upon ones eternal salvation, but on ones personal sanctification and, because they are luke warm they will be left behind to have their faith purified in the fires of the tribulation.

jesterbr549

September 30th 2007, 04:57 PM

Mythologies is right. There is no person who is the 'antichrist' in Rev.13.

Then how is he destroyed by the Brightness of Appearance of Y'shua and subsequently thrown alive into the Lake of Fire?

TyRockwell

October 1st 2007, 10:38 AM

1) I don't fear anything and, as far as the Pretrib Rapture, "And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." Pretrib Wedding - Postrib Reception - Irrefutable.

2) "Men's hearts failing them for fear of those things that they see coming upon the earth."

3) "The Elements will melt with fervent Heat" - Elements means exactly what it says.

4) "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. "

There will be nominal Christians who think that cause the claim the name of Messiah that they are priviledged and will not be persecuted in the Tribulation and there is a large amount of Pretribbers that think they will be Raptured because they do not realize that participation in the Rapture in not dependant upon ones eternal salvation, but on ones personal sanctification and, because they are luke warm they will be left behind to have their faith purified in the fires of the tribulation.
1)There is no pre-trib wedding; the marriage of Lamb is after his return and is on earth. "How did you get ih here without wedding clothes?" No unreborn person will be there, at the wedding supper, as you suppose, in heaven, to get thrown out because he has no wedding clothes. The analogy has to mean that the wedding is on earth at the close of the tribulation,whic is not a future seven year period, bur began in the Apostles' lifetimes. "Then they will deliver YOU up to tribulation"(the YOU being the Disciples who came to him privately in Matthew 24:3
2)Men's hearts failing them for fear? Believers are not supposed to fear, though you maydo so, if you wish.
3)"The elements will melt with fervent heat." Consult thy dictionary. Elements are defined principally as, (a) the natural or suitable environment for a person or thing. (b) a component part or quality. _Ergo, evil spirits, principalities, etc, that are component parts of the invisible spirit realm, aka, the heavens, the heavenlies.
4)"many will be purified, and made white, and refined," but none of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand." Daniel 12:10 Therefore be wise....if anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God Who gives liberally to everyone who asks..." James 1:5

Paul said that anyone who seeks to do good will suffer tribulation, and that we must go through much tribulation to enter into the kingdom. Still no rapture in your verses quoted, or mentioned.
"Those who are alive and remain," at his Coming will be caught up to meet him, [at his return to earth] in the air. And we will be with the Lord forever." Note that the text does not say, 'in heaven.'

TyRockwell

October 1st 2007, 10:44 AM

Then how is he destroyed by the Brightness of Appearance of Y'shua and subsequently thrown alive into the Lake of Fire?
It is the "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" who is destroyed with the breath of his mouth, and brought to nothing with the brightness of his coming." Still no mention of an antichrist.

jesterbr549

October 1st 2007, 01:42 PM

1)There is no pre-trib wedding; the marriage of Lamb is after his return and is on earth. The analogy has to mean that the wedding is on earth at the close of the tribulation,which is not a future seven year period, bur began in the Apostles' lifetimes.

2)Men's hearts failing them for fear? Believers are not supposed to fear, though you maydo so, if you wish.

3)"The elements will melt with fervent heat." Consult thy dictionary.

4) Those who are alive and remain at his Coming will be caught up to meet him, [at his return to earth] in the air. And we will be with the Lord forever." Note that the text does not say, 'in heaven.'

1) So, the returns to the earth, has the wedding but Peter and the disciples arn't invited?

2) "The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - I already said I don't fear anything and, further, I am a pretribber who knows he is going to go through the tribulation.

3) Consult thy concordance, "The elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

4) That verse does not, but the one in John Gospel in the upper room discourse does when he says that he will return and take "you" the disciples to be where he was - in Heaven.

jesterbr549

October 1st 2007, 01:44 PM

It is the "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" who is destroyed with the breath of his mouth, and brought to nothing with the brightness of his coming." Still no mention of an antichrist.

Ah, I see. Semantics.

Him, well lets see. This man of lawlessness goes around slaughtering Christians, profaning the Name of Y'hova, promoting all sorts of degradation - sex, drugs and rock and roll, so to speak - and you say he ain't the Antichrist?

Well, then what, exactly, is he.

Barney?

TyRockwell

October 1st 2007, 03:09 PM

Look at what is going on at Jesus' Coming, riding on a white horse with the Sword of the Spirit proceeding from his mouth. The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Eph 6:17 The Spirit is "The Breath of God." This is the "the breath pf his mouth" of 2nd Thess 2:8. In the Bible, wind, breath and spirit are all the same word. Jesus' eyes are blazing like fire, Rev. 19:12-15. This verse equates with 2nd Thess. 2:7-8. The context of Thess.2 is the time of wrath in the generation that Jesus said that "all these things shall come upon." It is the time associated with the judgment on Israel (according to the flesh) because of the national rejection of their Messiah. The lawless one was the one who would would commit the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, who went into the temple of God "proclaiming himself as God," in 70 AD. Caesar proclaimed himself to be god. He went into the temple in the person of his representative, Titus, the commander of the armies that were attacking Jerusalem and desecrated the temple. On the Arch of Titus, in Rome today, Titus is depicted with the menora of the temple in his hand. Abomination of Desolation.
When Jesus returns, it is to fight against those armies that are attacking Jerusalem, Zech. 14:2. We see this in Rev.19:14-19. The person who heads the armies attacking Jesus at his return to the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem, see Zechariah 14:4, "as you have seen him go," did not live to be nearly 2000 years old. It is a spirit. A spirit is a person. The spirit of antichrist, the same type of spirit who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. The "man of sin" is the head of the government, or his representative leading his armies, who is being influence or controled by a spirit of antichrist.

jesterbr549

October 1st 2007, 03:38 PM

The "man of sin" is the head of the government, or his representative leading his armies, who is being influence or controled by a spirit of antichrist.

So, ah, exactly what is the stinking difference, may I ask?

As stated, this is just semantics for you have just stated that this person fulfills all the requirements and descriptions of an ultimate Antichrist and, therefore, he is the Antichrist.

A difference that is no difference is no difference...

TyRockwell

October 1st 2007, 08:48 PM

The beast of Revelation 13 would need to be much broader than that. In the bigger picture, what you have is a diabolical trinity. The dragon is the "father" of lies, he then conceives his seed, that is, his lies, in human history, that is, incarnating his sin in the world, thereby making children of the devil. And the "false prophet" that is spoken between them is the utter antithesis of God's Word, which is love. Hence, a diabolical counterpart to three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. Hence, the dragon sows "anti-Faith", telling humanity they needn't beleive in anything that God has revealed and gives man a false hope, a hope in what this world can give alone, and that man does not need God's help nor God Himself to attain to what he truly needs for fulfillment. And there is no Love in this lie, there is only selfishness. For Love seeks to give and receive in depth and intimacy, selfishness seeks only to get and take and use for what is, in the end, only superficial.

BTW, we as Catholics can beleive that the world might be brought almost totally into the Gospel, but even if this occurs, it cannot last. For, behold, iniquity is working and can only be restrained to a point by the HS, after which no further Redemption is possible (saving the conversion of the Jews). At the very end, there shall be little faith on earth, even if, prior to that final age, nearly all humanity will embrace Catholicism.
I appreciate the Catholic positions on Bible prophecy, though not fully. The dragon is satan, whom Jesus called the father of lies. Yes, what is going on in Rev. 13 is a diabolic trinity, but the deception is that the dragon has any authority, at all. Jesus said that he himself had all authority in heaven and on earth. The three parts of the one beast come from Daniel 7:12. The first was the king-like tyrant form of government, Babylon. Second, the Persian form of legalism, like we see in Persia (Iran) today, supposing that a uniformity of the rule of law, in its way of running a government, and society, can bring about conditions for a godly life on earth. The third, the idea that democratic majority rule (from decadent Greek philosophy) can achieve the supply of all humanities' needs. All three propositions are opposed to the kingdom of God, opposed to the rule of our Lord Jesus Christ, through the working of His Holy Spirit. The false prophet espouses the widely held beliefs that God's Kingdom is unattainable, and that his word is either utopian insanity, or a too harsh a bigotry. In other words, the kinds of ideas you see today and hear in liberal acedemia, most of the news media, and the proponents of a strictly nonreligious state. God's rule, His kingdom is not a theocracy, this side of the Second Coming, but God's pattern is as with Joseph in Egypt, and Daniel in Babylon, and even Esther in Persia. God's people are to be 'salt and light' within human government, and society, while the Holy Spirit is to be demonstrated as something that can be seen in signs, wonders and miracles that confirm the good news of the kingdom. Jesus told the Jews, "Unless you see signs and miracles you will not believe." When they do see miracles, it will bring the Hebrews into a belief that the God of the Old Covenant is the same as that of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As to the Universal Church, it is an organism, not an organization. We must not focus on what separates people of faith. Every Christian believes essentially the same truths that are, "the Faith." The greatest mistake of the church in the mid third century was to insert the idea of 'priests' into the church, an office carried over from Judaism. The Bible teaches that every believer is a king and a priest, a royal priesthood. The interjected office of priest set up a hierarchy in the church and departs from what Christ gave, apostles prophets, evengelists, pastors and teachers. We can all speak the truth in love to one another and build each other up, in the faith.

TyRockwell

October 1st 2007, 10:19 PM

1) So, the returns to the earth, has the wedding but Peter and the disciples arn't invited?

2) "The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - I already said I don't fear anything and, further, I am a pretribber who knows he is going to go through the tribulation.

3) Consult thy concordance, "The elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

4) That verse does not, but the one in John Gospel in the upper room discourse does when he says that he will return and take "you" the disciples to be where he was - in Heaven.
1) Who said that Peter and the disciples are not invited to the wedding? You think they stay in heaven? Look at 1st Thess. 4:13-14. "concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not..., even so them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." They return with Jesus.
2) I am a post tribber, and a premillenial returner, who knows that the tribulation started in Daniel 12:2, after Jesus' crucifixion, and Michael the archangel stopped protecting natural Israel. Jesus told his 12 disciples, in Matt. 24:3, who came to him privately, meaning he was talking about THEM, in their lifetimes, that they would be handed over to tribulation, same word as persecution, in the Greek, and distress, or trouble as in Dan. 12:2. Sometimes it has been a bad time for Christians, but it has been mostly worse for natural Israel.
3) It is the 'heavens' that disappear with a roar. Who is roaring? The principalities and powers and evil spirits that fill the heavenlies. Strong's Concordance is Strong's opinion, and does not trump the dictionary. Evil spirits in the heavens will roar and melt. They are the components of that realm. That is why Michael, the archangel had to fight the prince of Persia to get the messenger angel through to Daniel.
4)Jesus, speaking to his disciples in John 14, said that His Father lives in many dwelling places. (read the whole chapter, not just selected verses.) said that he was going to prepare a place for them. He gone three days and three nights. He didn't say he was going to heaven, though some versions inserted the word 'there,' hopefully in italics, so you would know it is inserted. He was not giving his pre-ascension speach. He ascended forty-three days later, forty days after his resurrection. It took him three days and three nights to prepare a place for them, and us. "That where I AM, there you may be also." He already asked them, "Don't you believe I Am in the Father, and the Father is in me?" verse 10 He went on to say, "the Holy Spirit who is with you will be in you." verse 17 then, "On that day you will know that I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I Am in you." That is the place he prepared! When he appeared to them on the evening of the day he arose, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." That is when He 'received them unto himself'! In John 14: 23 he said, "He that loves me will obey my teaching, and My Father will love him and we will come and make our home in him." That is the same place that Jesus was in, with himself in the Father, and the Father in him. That is the place. Jesus hasn't spent nearly 2000 years building dwelling places. In John 16:22, Jesus said, Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. That is what happened in John 20:20 when they saw him and were overjoyed. The whole chapters 14, 15, 16, and 17, are in red if you have a red-letter edition. It was all one monologue. Sometimes the chapter and verse segmentations break up the continuity of thought. But the place was prepared when they saw him again and he blew on them. He wasn't talking about going to heaven, or preparing a 'place' in heaven.