Wait a minute, if the Beast has...

[Barraco]

That is a very generalized statement that you made about the history. I am not sure what you meant to dispute by saying the times were "extremely difficult."

Wealth was centralized with the 'lord' or 'fiefs' and life expectancy was much shorter, especially among the majority (whom were poor.) On top of that, medicine wasn't as advanced and then there was the problem with the invading Islamic forces. And also the disputes between kingdoms. Just wars and wars. That was a difficult setting to come into and try and sort out. That was the goal of the Roman Church. In the process, all kinds of monstrous deeds occurred.

No, it does not make prophecy illegimitate, but it does indeed call into question your particular interpretation of prophecy and the ways in which you try to make medieval history fit it.

Historicism makes up for what preterism and futurism lack. Preterism says that everything in prophecy, save for Christ's physical return, had occurred in the first century. That was one key interpretation that Rome used in the Counter-Reformation to combat the accusations it received from Protestants. Futurism is lacking because it ignore the last 2,000 years of history as if to say that God had nothing to say for them and the tribulations they went through, but instead insists that everything is reserved for a seven year period in the future. Preterism and Futurism do not work. I used to hold to them, but they lack a strong enough argument and draw on 'secret' fulfillments rather than obvious fulfillments (such as a secret rapture, or the return of Christ manifested in the rule of the Church of Rome, etc.)

Of course, I don't agree with Adventist historicism either. I'll explain why later in the post.

Yeah, what of it? Rome was in a long line of kingdoms and rulers to rule other nations with an iron fist. Just because one hates Roman Catholicism does not mean that a prooftext speaks about a specific era of Roman history. It can be made to appear to be such, but most people who know their history will recognize it as an artificial attempt at making it fit one's eschatological presuppositions.

I disagree. By that logic, interpretations cannot be made because anyone can be wrong. If that applies to the past, then it applies to the future. That means that preterism is the strongest argument for Revelation and one must be forced to spiritualize the long delayed return of Christ in the same manner that the Church of Rome did. The point of eschatology is to interpret them. I'd argue further to say that the point of eschatology is to encourage and/or correct people according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't hate Roman Catholicism. I just don't agree with it.

That is another nice attempt at self-justification. However, Pagan Rome does not equal the Roman Catholic Church, despite how much one might want it to. See my comments in the second post above.

Huh? I don't think you understood my argument. I wasn't talking about pagan Rome. I was talking about Catholic Rome.

I really would not expect you to admit that you do know of it, not to mention actually believe it is real history. I would not expect you to admit to anti-Catholicism, either. "Praying to Mary rather than Jesus" is just a rhetorical trope thrown in for added effect. It does not help you any. I would substitute "presuppositions" for "conscience" in your last sentence.

No, I'd say conscience. Every time I attend mass with my family, I try to pray with the community up until they mention prayer from Mary. My conscience starts screaming at that point and I stop praying.

Yes, but it does not seem like you have any problem pronouncing doom over Roman Catholicism and then gloating over it.

In what manner did I gloat? What did I say that demonstrated any kind of gratification from saying that? If Rome is in trouble, I think it is the business of the Catholics to know.

You might want to reconsider your language, biblical, and historical interpretations if you do not want to appear as such. It does not differ much from the typical, run of the mill anti-Catholicism that is tossed about in GT on a daily basis.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

LOL...nothing new there. Her = Roman Catholicism; Mystery Babylon = Roman Catholicism; harlot of Babylon = Roman Catholicism. It is all the same kind of smug, gloating self-justification for one's theological and ecclesiological choices.

Well, I wouldn't call it smug, gloating, or self-justification. As a historicist, I am of the belief that Christ was actively involved with the Church from the point he ascended, all throughout history, and will continue to be up until the point He returns. Jesus has the authority. All we were commanded to do was witness, baptize and teach. Not govern the world. If one is open to the idea, then perhaps that would be one less person that gets caught up in a bloody conflict in Rome.

Seriously? Have you read Cyprian, for example?

I was hoping that you'd quote some for me instead of making me go out and find it.

Oh, sorry, one would not think that you would actually want to portray Byzantine Christianity in a positive light since it is too "Catholic" and cannot be grandfathered in as proto-Protestantism.

I've never heard of proto-Protestantism before. Anyway, there is a problem with worshiping icons. That is why Rome was so opposed to it. It was not worship in truth or in Spirit. It was worship according to tradition.

"Worshiped objects" is just another rhetorical trope on par with "praying to Mary rather than Jesus."

What do you call it when someone prays to a picture?

LOL...so I suppose here is the point where you say that you are not Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox but merely follow Jesus and the Bible? Being a lonewolf Christian beholden to one's own interpretations and presuppositions is much worse. This is what every anti-Catholic and lonewolf Christian says to try to justify their choices, once again.

I'm not a lonewolf Christian. I strongly believe in Christian community, in Church, in prayer, worship, and having everything in common. I'm not out to separate myself from Church. I'm out in search of a Church that worships in Spirit and in truth. I haven't found it in Rome, in Protestantism, in Adventism, or in Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is the harlot of Babylon trope, just like I said. You may not be Adventist, but I have seen the very same type of anti-Catholic rhetoric and justifications spouted by some of the resident Adventists. What is holding you back from becoming one? Are they daughters of the harlot, too?

Back in early 2006, I began attending Adventist seminars about prophecy. That is where I learned about historicism and departed from futurism. However, the more I attended the service and got the gist of what they believed, I began to notice several things wrong about their views.

First, their eschatology was too exact and was outdated by almost 200 years. It made more sense to say that the ten horns of the beast of Revelation 13 were not ten literal Barbarian kingdoms that came out of the Roman Empire (since there were more than ten) but represented the division of a kingdom like the ten tribes separated from the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom and formed their own Northern kingdom. Therefore, the Western Empire was divided among many kingdoms while the Eastern Empire maintained that it was the 'true' Roman Empire.

Second, they were a church established by a woman (and others) who claimed to have visions and prophecies, and some didn't come true (especially concerning the unfulfilled prophecy of Christ's return in...what was it...1844?) Their answer to this flop? It was a conditional prophecy. Of course it was.

Third, their accusation that the mark of the beast was Sunday worship was just as legalistic as first century Judaism was. In fact, they observed Jewish law as a means of justification, which is antiChristian according to the New Testament, especially according to Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Fourth, they were evidently anti-Catholic. But not just anti-Catholic, but anti-anything-not-Adventist. I didn't like that. They claimed to be the true Church and that everyone else was doomed. The only resolution? Observe the Saturday Sabbath. They (at least that church) were strongly opposed to Catholicism. I actually like the conservative and patient love of the Catholic community (as opposed to the liberalness and nationalistic conservativeness of Evangelicals.) I like the strong compassion that they have on the poor and afflicted. I like that they don't argue over petty matters that cause nothing but division. I just don't agree with the Roman papacy and many of its doctrines. I don't feel like I should have to follow such practices to call myself a Catholic. From this perspective, I love and admire Catholics, but am not obligated to be subjected to the authority of the Roman Papacy. If great tribulation is headed towards Rome, I want Catholics to know.

If what I'm saying is correct, Rome is going to be devastated within the next four years or so. That means that I have a chance to warn people. That's it. I'm not a theological authority or anything like that. I just want to look out for my peeps. If I'm wrong, then it's back to the books for me. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding on some of my beliefs a little.

 

[Tzaousios]

1) I would like to see you chastize many of your Protestant brethren who consider the Crusades to be a good thing because they were an attempt to keep Muslims out of Western Europe and take back the Holy Land (initially) for the Byzantines. Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune now if you were in a condition of dhimmitude.

Not sure what you mean.

What didn't you understand about what I wrote? There are plenty of Protestants on here who constantly praise the Crusades despite the fact that they were led by Catholic Christians. They do that out of one side of their mouths and then condemn the RCC as "The harlot" out of the other.

I guess I'm not much of a Protestant. I'd probably want to fight that one. I think its evident that Christ didn't commend any kind of bloodshed at the hands of his followers.

Okay, I am glad to see that you repudiate the atrocities perpetrated specifically by Protestants over specifically Protestant doctrinal opinions. You might want to contemplate why it was specifically Protestant doctrinal opinions which drove them to commit murder and destruction against Catholics in the first place. Unfortunately, the ideal does not conform to reality.

I guess you can put me in the camp of those who want the Church to be like the one of the first three centuries, before politics and primacy were really problem. They were really of one Spirit and they were the same no matter where you went (I'm not including the heretics in this.)

Seriously, do you think you are the only one who places themselves in that camp? Come on, everyone does it, whether Protestant or not, in order to justify and legitimate their community over others. Protestants have their fair share of employing that rhetoric and failing miserably to live up to that as well as history itself. You appear to be rhetorically labeling the standard negative protestant view of Roman Catholicism as "like the first three centuries." That would be glaringly anachronistic.

Politics and primacy logically follows when any institution grows and expands its boundaries. They are not something instrinsically "bad" or "evil" in some kind of Manichean sense. The question is, what is the correct approach to, and understanding of, it?

But, once Christianity became legalized, a fight for control over the Church began and Spirit was substituted for semantics and tradition. This was seen in the evident conflict that Constantine had in trying to get the pagan citizens to convert to Christianity. He went as far as to march his soldiers through the river on the their way to battle as a method of Baptism.

"Semantics and tradition" gave you the definition of the Trinity and the natures of Christ that you (assumingly) accept today as an orthodox Christian. Belittling what the church fathers suffered and died to defend as "medieval" and "pagan" invention is a bit hubristic.

When was the last time that you actually allowed yourself to be taught from history and to question some dearly-held Protestant interpretations based upon what you learned? Here it only seems that you are interested in history to plunder it for incidents that you can rhetorically reconfigure to justify your own choices.

When it comes to Rome (at least Medieval Rome), it is not opinion.

My point was to say that it could be called "False Interpretations and Opinions" in a comparable sense to Protestant beliefs.

It is law, especially since the First Vatican Council claimed that the Pope was infallible. That's a problem because, if someone is infallible, and he claims to be the leader of the Church, then his opinions often become doctrine. Therefore, priests are not allowed to marry, prayers are offered to angels, saints, and Mary, sacraments are added, Canon Law is expanded and with it the indulgences to lessen the temporal punishment, and much more.

These appear to be mearly assumptions that have not been examined critically or outside the Protestant box of self-justification. Some of them may be wrong, but not by blanket statement. The Pope was only declared infallible when speaking ex cathedra. The sacramental nature of the Church and intercessory prayer is attested long before Constantine "messed things up."

Nobody knows what true community is now because every claims to be the true one, either based on their tradition or their interpretation. I don't know what the true community is. All I do know is that it doesn't need to be based on Roman tradition.

LOL...did you even read this before you posted it? Obviously you have declared for yourself what the true community is to the extent that you toss out Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy for a decidedly Evangelical brand of Protestantism. Seriously, man, examine your faith!

I guess the prophets commanding and judging the Israelite kings do not count here for some suspicious reason? The fact that Biship Ambrose fulfilled much the same role against Theodosius is somehow discounted because Ambrose was "Catholic" and the prophets were not.

Judging unrighteousness and fighting to control kings are two different things. Telling someone that they are wrong for adultery is not the same as telling someone they are wrong for not subjecting their authority and spirituality to your authority. The Church of Rome wasn't just convicting sin, she was ruling nations.

No, there was no distinction between the two from late antiquity on. The authority of bishops was backed up by consensus and apostolic succession. Ambrose, as bishop of Milan, held it by authority of the Church and the Apostles that it was right to condemn Theodosius' crime, in addition to demanding that he should submit to the authority of the Church as emperor. For them, declaring a king unrighteous and demanding that he submit was firmly within the OT prophetic tradition, the objections of Protestants 1,400 years later notwithstanding.

I see. So, you're saying that I'm slandering in order to promote my eschatology. Am I correct in how I interpret your response?

Yes, it did appear as though you were demonizing both Roman Catholicism and those who disagree with your usage of history by associating them fallaciously with Nazis.

So, you're saying that I'm being biased for pointing out the flaws of the Church of Rome (and that its wrong), yet it's okay to use bias as an argument? I'm confused. Did Foxe have a point or not?

He has a point if one was to take his opinion on Catholicism and adopt it as his presupposition. To others, who go through the difficult and paradigm-wrenching process of studying history for the truth (rather than self-justification of choices and presuppositions), Foxe's is to be taken as a primary source document that has its own context and corresponding prejudices.

Good for them. The early church never had this problem because councils were mainly convened to dictate what was heretical against the Gospel of Christ and what was not. Those councils had nothing to do with establishing universal primacy or which papacy was the correct one.

Incorrect. The early church and the councils were extremely interested in declaring orthodoxy from heresy. They used Scripture, to be sure. However, since many of them were Gentiles coming from a Greek philosophical tradition, they used principles from that tradition to help elucidate these things even more accurately. What is more, from Nicaea on there were discussions at the councils concerning primacy and the jurisdiction of the patriarchates.

There is no Manichean, dualistic distinction between what was "Greek" (i.e. evil, pagan) and what was "Hebraic" (i.e. good, spiritual); both the Jews and the Greeks were beholden to their Hellenistic contexts to a certain degree. This distinction is largely made by modern non-denominational and so-called "Hebrew root" Christians who have an interest in rhetorically demonizing Gentile Christianity (RCC and EO) in favor of their own judaizing and ethnically-bigoted interpretations.

 

[Tzaousios]

Wealth was centralized with the 'lord' or 'fiefs' and life expectancy was much shorter, especially among the majority (whom were poor.)

What material are you reading for your medieval history?

It was arguably the feudal warlords who re-established something for disenfranchised small-holding farmers to live for. They worked estates for a cut of the produce and received protection from lords. In the Byzantine Empire, the situation was entirely different. The emperors took it upon themselves as both their imperial and Christian duties to act as benefactors to the poor. There are many examples of individual emperors making great provisions and charity to the downtrodden.

Of course, there are negative examples too, which were usually met with hostility by the Church. Are you familiar with the church decrees of the Peace of God and the Truce of God?

On top of that, medicine wasn't as advanced and then there was the problem with the invading Islamic forces. And also the disputes between kingdoms. Just wars and wars. That was a difficult setting to come into and try and sort out.

What do you mean? Of course there were places where medical knowledge was primitive, but relative to what? There were also many other places such as southern France, Italy, and Byzantium where the sophisticated Greco-Roman and Islamic medical traditions flourished.

That was the goal of the Roman Church. In the process, all kinds of monstrous deeds occurred.

It does not help your argument to set up the Roman Catholic Church as some kind of shadowy Illuminati entity which pulls the strings in some kind of nefarious Hegalian dialectic to create and manipulate problems for its temporal control.

I disagree. By that logic, interpretations cannot be made because anyone can be wrong.

No, it means that any old Joe Schmoe offering up his own or typical interpretation of prophecy and apocalyptic does not have a monopoly on spiritual truth or correct interpretation no matter how much he might appeal to the Holy Spirit. Thus, he cannot declare unilaterally that his detractors are "spiritually blind" or "do not have ears to hear/eyes to see," as is common in this particular subforum.

I'd argue further to say that the point of eschatology is to encourage and/or correct people according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well, little of that happens in this subforum or when self-appointed prophets offer up their interpretations as the truth because they claim the Holy Spirit told them. They probably do not have any business trying to interpret Revelation at all.

I wasn't talking about pagan Rome. I was talking about Catholic Rome.

Oh? It seemed to me that you were trying to tag the RCC with all sorts of "paganism" that it supposedly accepted from Constantine et al. Even if you did not mean it the tone of the rhetoric suggest an association between the two.

No, I'd say conscience. Every time I attend mass with my family, I try to pray with the community up until they mention prayer from Mary. My conscience starts screaming at that point and I stop praying.

Or, is it the choices you have made in terms of theology/ecclesiology and the subsequent presuppositions you have formed which do the screaming? It appears you might be afraid to face that possibility.

In what manner did I gloat? What did I say that demonstrated any kind of gratification from saying that? If Rome is in trouble, I think it is the business of the Catholics to know.

Your usage of history and the rhetoric you employ belies a certain degree of triumphalism and hubris concerning the aforementioned choices. You might reconsider these things.

All we were commanded to do was witness, baptize and teach. Not govern the world. If one is open to the idea, then perhaps that would be one less person that gets caught up in a bloody conflict in Rome.

When exactly did the Papacy "govern the world?" That is a phrase borne of Dan Brown sensationalism rather than an honest, critically-focused assessment of history. There were times when its power and influence increased and ebbed. The fact is, the earthly, historical church which we all experience has a context and a place in space and time. It does not disembody itself into some kind of dualistic, spiritualized ideal to which people can appeal when they want to label the RCC as "wordly" and "carnal."

I was hoping that you'd quote some for me instead of making me go out and find it.

I figured you would have already have read Cyprian, not only because of his early date, but also because you have projected what you think to be a certain amount of historical knowledge and authority into this discussion.

Nevertheless, what could I hope to accomplish by digging up some Cyprian quotes for you?

I've never heard of proto-Protestantism before. Anyway, there is a problem with worshiping icons. That is why Rome was so opposed to it. It was not worship in truth or in Spirit. It was worship according to tradition.

Obviously you have not read or paid much critical attention to the ways in which Icons were used in the practice of the Church. Rather, you have made another fallacious association with a decidedly aniconic Protestant bent which equivocates the use of icons with "saint worship," "idolatry," and the "worship" of wood and paint.

Also, Rome was not opposed to the use of icons, but accepted it as an orthodox practice of the Church. Read about the period of Iconoclasm in Byzantine history and the position which Rome took during it and the subsequent councils which decided on Icons.

I'm not a lonewolf Christian. I strongly believe in Christian community, in Church, in prayer, worship, and having everything in common. I'm not out to separate myself from Church. I'm out in search of a Church that worships in Spirit and in truth. I haven't found it in Rome, in Protestantism, in Adventism, or in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, that is not the impression that you have given here. It has seemed that you wish unilaterally to condemn Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism as Mother and harlots while propping up some kind of pristine, spiritualized protestantism which you have found on your own but call "the early church before Constantine."

From this perspective, I love and admire Catholics, but am not obligated to be subjected to the authority of the Roman Papacy. If great tribulation is headed towards Rome, I want Catholics to know.

If what I'm saying is correct, Rome is going to be devastated within the next four years or so. That means that I have a chance to warn people. That's it. I'm not a theological authority or anything like that. I just want to look out for my peeps. If I'm wrong, then it's back to the books for me. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding on some of my beliefs a little.

That's all fine and dandy. However, I will save you the trouble because most Catholics will see it as no different than what those who have hated Rome and its authority have been saying for centuries to justify their rejection and their own authorities. What is more, they will probably consider the "great tribulation" a product of naive, Dispensationalist rhetoric which has its beginnings in the late nineteenth century in a Protestant context.

 

[Barraco]

What didn't you understand about what I wrote? There are plenty of Protestants on here who constantly praise the Crusades despite the fact that they were led by Catholic Christians. They do that out of one side of their mouths and then condemn the RCC as "The harlot" out of the other.

I guess I never praised the Crusades, nor have I known anyone who has. Fighting in a government's military is one thing. Fighting for a religious cause is another.

Okay, I am glad to see that you repudiate the atrocities perpetrated specifically by Protestants over specifically Protestant doctrinal opinions. You might want to contemplate why it was specifically Protestant doctrinal opinions which drove them to commit murder and destruction against Catholics in the first place. Unfortunately, the ideal does not conform to reality.

It is sad that such was the case. It reminds me of the author's intention in writing the book of Daniel. Many scholars believed that it was written slightly before the eve of the Maccabean revolt, to encourage the Jews to suffer their persecution with dignity and witness to God by waiting on his deliverance. The reality, however, was that the Jews revolted and went to war. The result was a new order that became subject to two disputing schools of thought (and one left to itself) that caused so much having among the Jews that it resulted in the destruction of the Jewish nation. Sadly, its the similar story with the Christians. They went to war over their religion and schismed not too long after that.

Seriously, do you think you are the only one who places themselves in that camp? Come on, everyone does it, whether Protestant or not, in order to justify and legitimate their community over others. Protestants have their fair share of employing that rhetoric and failing miserably to live up to that as well as history itself. You appear to be rhetorically labeling the standard negative protestant view of Roman Catholicism as "like the first three centuries." That would be glaringly anachronistic.

I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not defending the Protestants. And I seems like you like the word anachronistic. I've never heard of it until today. However, its another argument that is being left out: Is the Church of the first three centuries the standard? If not, are you saying that the papal corruptions of the medieval ages simply just a natural evolution of the Church?

Politics and primacy logically follows when any institution grows and expands its boundaries. They are not something instrinsically "bad" or "evil" in some kind of Manichean sense. The question is, what is the correct approach to, and understanding of, it?

I'm not speaking about dualism here. And I get your point; that it is 'correct' to understand what has happened, rather than judge what has happened. However, as an evaluator, I look for trends of the past and present to determine future action. That is how my mind works. IF something was wrong is important to me. Its not just understanding what happened, but also what went wrong.

"Semantics and tradition" gave you the definition of the Trinity and the natures of Christ that you (assumingly) accept today as an orthodox Christian. Belittling what the church fathers suffered and died to defend as "medieval" and "pagan" invention is a bit hubristic.

So you mean to say that one cannot read Colossians 1 today and come to the conclusion that Jesus is God? Paul asked us to search out what is the length, width, breadth, and depth of the richness of knowledge of the Gospel. We can't do that if we ever say that we have 'arrived' at a complete understanding of God's nature. So I'm not belittling them for their suffering or their studies. I'm grateful. But, as my friend Jason constantly says, "I guess we move on from the question, 'What Now?' Defining the Trinity did not define the papacy. The papacy, in the fact that it is a legitimate kingdom, and not just an organization, was not a result of the contribution of defining orthodoxy. It was a result of political favors.

When was the last time that you actually allowed yourself to be taught from history and to question some dearly-held Protestant interpretations based upon what you learned?

All the time. My buddy Jason and I have looking into Universal Reconciliation, much to the dismay of our Protestant Evangelical opponents.

Here it only seems that you are interested in history to plunder it for incidents that you can rhetorically reconfigure to justify your own choices.

Justify my choices? I look back to know what action to take when I move forward. I don't merely read history for entertainment or just for gee-wiz.

My point was to say that it could be called "False Interpretations and Opinions" in a comparable sense to Protestant beliefs.

I see. So you're assigning equal value to both positions. Protestants don't have an authority to go by other than Scripture (which is likely why there are so many interpretations.) Catholicism, however, is no better in that it uses obviously outdated and questionable traditions to establish orthodoxy. It's like the classic case of Pharisees, whom relied upon a long trail of noble ancestors, against the Sadducees, whom relied upon the written word for direction. When Jesus came, both were proven wrong by Him.

These appear to be mearly assumptions that have not been examined critically or outside the Protestant box of self-justification. Some of them may be wrong, but not by blanket statement. The Pope was only declared infallible when speaking ex cathedra. The sacramental nature of the Church and intercessory prayer is attested long before Constantine "messed things up."

What do you mean by self-justification? When I hear of justification, my mind goes to theological arguments about righteousness. I would like to get on the same communicative level as you so I can understand what exactly you're getting at.

LOL...did you even read this before you posted it? Obviously you have declared for yourself what the true community is to the extent that you toss out Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy for a decidedly Evangelical brand of Protestantism. Seriously, man, examine your faith!

I never said that. I wasn't praising Protestantism, especially the modern Evangelical brand. My faith is not in the papacy or in Protestantism, but in Christ Himself.

No, there was no distinction between the two from late antiquity on. The authority of bishops was backed up by consensus and apostolic succession.
Ambrose, as bishop of Milan, held it by authority of the Church and the Apostles that it was right to condemn Theodosius' crime, in addition to demanding that he should submit to the authority of the Church as emperor. For them, declaring a king unrighteous and demanding that he submit was firmly within the OT prophetic tradition, the objections of Protestants 1,400 years later notwithstanding.

Where, in the OT, does it condone a priest to rule over a king?

Yes, it did appear as though you were demonizing both Roman Catholicism and those who disagree with your usage of history by associating them fallaciously with Nazis.

If such a thing never happened, then it never happened. But if it is true, which many argue is, then it is true. To say that Rome deported Jews to Hitler is no more anti-Catholic than saying the Jews turned their Messiah over to be crucified over false accusations. I don't hate Jews for what they did to Jesus and I don't hate Catholics for what they did to the Jews. Each is responsible for his own actions, I believe.

He has a point if one was to take his opinion on Catholicism and adopt it as his presupposition. To others, who go through the difficult and paradigm-wrenching process of studying history for the truth (rather than self-justification of choices and presuppositions), Foxe's is to be taken as a primary source document that has its own context and corresponding prejudices.

That isn't really an argument then. Basically you're saying that a Catholic would not hold Foxe's view, but a Protestant may. That's like saying a football will like Football will attempt to rebut arguments from a baseball fan. Obviously. Why a baseball fan thinks football isn't the best sport is the argument that matters.

Incorrect. The early church and the councils were extremely interested in declaring orthodoxy from heresy. They used Scripture, to be sure.

I wasn't arguing that point. But orthodoxy was embraced even before Christianity was legalized. The disputes between heretics and those who embraced orthodoxy were settled without bloodshed without the help of the state.

However, since many of them were Gentiles coming from a Greek philosophical tradition, they used principles from that tradition to help elucidate these things even more accurately. What is more, from Nicaea on there were discussions at the councils concerning primacy and the jurisdiction of the patriarchates.

Patriarchates? The council of Nicea happened AFTER the legalization of Christianity. The unfortunate downside to the emperor legalizing Christianity and clarifying what is orthodox is the bloodshed that occurs as a result of the State's demand for unity.

There is no Manichean, dualistic distinction between what was "Greek" (i.e. evil, pagan) and what was "Hebraic" (i.e. good, spiritual); both the Jews and the Greeks were beholden to their Hellenistic contexts to a certain degree. This distinction is largely made by modern non-denominational and so-called "Hebrew root" Christians who have an interest in rhetorically demonizing Gentile Christianity (RCC and EO) in favor of their own judaizing and ethnically-bigoted interpretations.

I don't see how you picked up a Manichean tone in my response. I wasn't attempting to call one better than the other. I was interpreting prophecy. Whether some did right or wrong in their time, they will be judged by and rewarded by God. Eschatology, however, looks for fulfillment of prophecy. The arguments against me were asking me to justify my position. I wasn't trying to push my position. I was trying to interpret prophecy.

 

[Tzaousios]

Bumped for Barraco. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply in post #43. Thanks!

 

[Tzaousios]

Ya' there, Barraco?

 

[Barraco]

Ya' there, Barraco?

yep, here. Ive been busy lately. Ill respond when things slow down a bit

 

[Bible2]

Barraco said in post #13:

The number of the beast's name comes from the fact that gematra is not used . . .

Gematria is used (see post #8). The "wisdom" given in Revelation 13:18 is that 666 is the number of the Antichrist's name (Revelation 13:17c-18), and the "understanding" referred to in Revelation 13:18 as being required to properly "count", to add up, the number of his name, is having an understanding of gematria, which scripture itself uses with the three Greek letters at the very end of Revelation 13:18 (in the original Greek Textus Receptus), and which scriptural gematria, sadly, many Christians today are either completely unaware of, or, even if they know about it, they simply refuse to employ it, mistakenly thinking that it's occult numerology/divination.

V I C A R I U S F I L I I D E I

Now eliminate the non-numerical letters:

V I C I U I L I I D I

5 + 1 + 100 + 1 + 5 (112) 1 + 50 + 1 + 1 (53) 500 + 1 (501)

Added together, these equal 666.

The Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast), during his future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), won't support Catholicism (in its past and current form), insofar as Catholicism affirms that Jesus is the Christ, whereas the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). And Catholicism affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, whereas the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2:22b). And Catholicism affirms that Christ is in the flesh, whereas the Antichrist (like the Gnostics) will deny that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7). And Catholicism affirms that the God of the Bible (YHWH) is the true God, whereas the Antichrist (like the Gnostics) will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). And Catholicism affirms that the only man who is God is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whereas the Antichrist will say that he's God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And Catholicism affirms that Lucifer (Satan) is evil, whereas the Antichrist will bring the world into the worship of Lucifer (the dragon) (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9). So the religion of the Antichrist during his future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign won't be Catholicism in its past and current form, but a blend of Luciferianism and Gnosticism.

Nonetheless, before Lucifer gives the Antichrist power over all nations (Revelation 13:4-7), the Antichrist, and the man who will be his False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) (who could be a future, apostate pope), could at first pretend to wholly support Catholicism in its current form (as well as Christianity generally, and also Islam), in order to start gaining a worldwide following.

 

[Bible2]

derek W L said in post #15:

maitreya

The Antichrist's religious claims could include the claim that he's Maitreya (the bodhisattva prophesied by Buddhism, the fifth incarnation of Buddha in the present kalpa), but "Maitreya" won't be the Antichrist's regular name. For the gematrial number of the Antichrist's regular name will add up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18), whereas the gematrial number of the name "Maitreya" adds up to 1,046:

M=40
A=1
I=9
T=200
R=90
E=5
Y=700
A=1

Total = 1,046

Mem 40 Yowd 10 Tav 400 Resh 200 He 5 Yowd 10 Aleph 1
maitreya in Hebrew 666

In transliterating "Maitreya" into Hebrew, why was the first "A" skipped but the second "A" included? Also, why was the English letter "I" transliterated into the Hebrew letter "Yod" instead of into the alternately-possible Hebrew letter "Aleph", like, for example, how the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is transliterated into the English letter "I" in words such as "Ish-Bosheth" and "Ithamar"? Also, why was the English letter "E" transliterated into the Hebrew letter "He", which instead is equivalent to the English letter "H"? Why wasn't the English letter "E" transliterated into the Hebrew letter "Aleph", like how the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is transliterated into the English letter "E" in words such as "El" (God) and "Israel"? The actual name "Maitreya" doesn't seem to have been transliterated into Hebrew, but the non-existent name "Mitrhya", an invention specially fiddled with until it equaled 666:

M -- Mem = 40
A -- [Skipped, should be Aleph = 1]
I -- Yod = 10 [or can be Aleph = 1]
T -- Tau = 400
R -- Resh = 200
E -- He = 5 [can be Aleph = 1]
Y -- Yod = 10
A -- [Not Skipped] Aleph = 1

Total = 666 [sic, should be/can be = 654]

Also, why even try to transliterate "Maitreya" back into ancient Hebrew (or, for that matter, back into ancient Greek, the original language of Revelation 13:17c-18), when there are competing possibilities of how to transliterate it, and one can intentionally fiddle with one's transliteration until it becomes a non-existent name that adds up to 666? Why not just leave "Maitreya" in English and employ English gematria to determine the gematrial number of "Maitreya"? (See the "English" part of post #8)

 

[Douggg]

The RCC is most likely the harlot riding the beast in Revelation 17. The holy roman empire is something that can't be gotten around as far as the RCC and the politicians being in bed with each other. That relationship exists today by the Vatican's influence with the European Politicians. That the woman in Revelation 17 sits on seven mountains (Rome the city of the 7 hills) and that the ten kings who ally themselves with the Antichrist beast, it only makes sense that when he declares himself to be God, their accommodation to appease the Vatican will no longer be a political necessity and they will burn the Vatican to the ground.

What I want to know from you, is what is that obelisk doing in St. Peters' square?

Doug

 

[Douggg]

From Top 10 Most Wicked Popes



Due to the King of France (Philip IV) taxing the clergy of the Church to help finance his wars, Boniface VIII released one of the most important papal bulls of Catholic History: Unam Sanctum. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
​

This is considered to be an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. Philip retaliated against the bull by denying the exportation of money from France to Rome, funds that the Church required to operate. Boniface had no choice but to quickly meet the demands of Philip by allowing taxation only “during an emergency.” Philip’s chief minister declared that Boniface was a heretic, and in return, Boniface excommunicated the King. On September 7, 1303 an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna of the Colonna family surprised Boniface at his retreat in Anagni. The King and the Colonnas demanded that he resign, to which Boniface VIII responded that he would ‘sooner die’. Boniface was beaten badly and nearly executed but was released from captivity after three days. He died a month later, on October 11, 1303.

 

[Douggg]

oops, double post.

 

[derek W L]

,,

 

[derek W L]

i come to the conclusion no mater what i say i will be disagree on

 

[derek W L]

iM sorry for the way my post turn out with the big fat black words i hope no one is confused, if someone can make it look Decent i appreciate it

 

[Douggg]

To bible2 there are 6 many ways Maitreya adds up to 666 in hebrew, MUM 40, ALEPH 1, TAV 400, RUSH 200, YOD 10, YOD 10, HEI 5 666, MUM 40, YOD 10, TAV 400, RUSH 200, ALEPH 1, YOD 10, HEI 5 666,, MUM 40, ALEPH 1, YOD 10, TAV 400, RUSH 200, YOD 10, HEI 5 666,, MUM 40, YOD 10, TAV 400, RUSH 200, YOD 10, ALEPH 1, HEI 5 666,, MUM 40, YOD 10, TAV 400, RUSH 200, YOD 10, HEI 5, ALEPH 1 666,, MUM 40, ALEPH 1, TET 9, TAV 400, RUSH 200, YOD 10, HEI 5, ALEPH 1 666,

Go back edit your post (advanced edit). Drag your mouse across the large text highlighting it. Then where it says "fonts" and "Sizes", change the size to "2".

Doug

 

[derek W L]

i come to the conclusion no mater what i say i will be disagree on

 

[derek W L]

Go back edit your post (advanced edit). Drag your mouse across the large text highlighting it. Then where it says "fonts" and "Sizes", change the size to "2".

Doug

thanks for trying to help but i still cant make it look nice thats ok maybe one day i will

 

[Barraco]

From Top 10 Most Wicked Popes

Due to the King of France (Philip IV) taxing the clergy of the Church to help finance his wars, Boniface VIII released one of the most important papal bulls of Catholic History: Unam Sanctum. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope's jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
This is considered to be an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. Philip retaliated against the bull by denying the exportation of money from France to Rome, funds that the Church required to operate. Boniface had no choice but to quickly meet the demands of Philip by allowing taxation only "during an emergency." Philip's chief minister declared that Boniface was a heretic, and in return, Boniface excommunicated the King. On September 7, 1303 an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna of the Colonna family surprised Boniface at his retreat in Anagni. The King and the Colonnas demanded that he resign, to which Boniface VIII responded that he would 'sooner die'. Boniface was beaten badly and nearly executed but was released from captivity after three days. He died a month later, on October 11, 1303.

Good catch Dougg. What do you think? Is Rome the mother of harlots in Rev. 17-18? Is the executive role of the pope the mouth of the first Roman beast in Rev. 13?

 

[Douggg]

Good catch Dougg. What do you think? Is Rome the mother of harlots in Rev. 17-18? Is the executive role of the pope the mouth of the first Roman beast in Rev. 13?

Even though I think the woman, the harlot, is the Vatican. I don't think that Rome or the RCC is the mother of harlots. The inscription on her head just informs where the harlot got her traits. Babylon, mother of harlots, goes back to the tower of Babel imo.

The pope is not the mouth of the first beast in Revelation 13. The mouth in Revelation 13:6 hurling blashemy against God and those in heaven, is the mouth of the little horn person in Daniel 7:8 and 7:19.

That person is not the Pope. The beast in Revelation 13 is the Antichrist in the fourth and final stage of his career. The four stages progress as follows.

1st stage - little horn politician to come on the scene in Europe rising among ten other kings.

2nd stage - some of his political actions regarding the perceived rescue of Israel will garner him to be thought of as Israel's prophesied great king. This is his Anti (in lieu of Jesus as the real king who the Jews crucified) Messiah stage.

3rd stage - without warning, he goes into the temple and declares that he is God, revealing himself as the Son of perdition, Man of Sin. The Jews will drop him like a hot potato as being their messiah. He will be killed shortly after entering this stage.

4th stage - Antichrist beast, resurrected from being dead and incarnated
by the beast from the past who was associated with the tower of Babel, Nimrod (nephilim) imo, he rules the world as Babylon, once again in total rebellion against God. The ten kings of Europe will side with the Antichrist beast, and no longer needing the Vatican as a political necessity will burn the Vatican to the ground in resentment for having to accommodate her for all this time.

It is not possible to tell what is going to happen regarding the Pope or the hierarchy. Only that the Pope will not be the first beast, his mouth, or the second beast.


Doug