Is the Catholic Papacy an Anti-Christ?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Does that answer your question now?

Yes it does and thanks

 

[Secundulus]

From what I understand of the RC's view, they believe the 2nd advent happens AFTER the 1000yr period.
I find that a rather "odd" view myself. What are the Lutherans view?

The Catholic belief is that there is no 1000 year period as it is defined in dispensational eschatology. Jesus will come and then - the end.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

.

This is a "split" off of another thread that was seriously side-tracked....


Is the RCC and/or it's Pope or the Catholic Papacy the or an anti-Christ?


Some of MY thoughts....


1. This is an HISTORIC position of some Protestant denominations. It is ONE of many common assertions of the Reformation five centuries ago.


2. It is MY humble, fallible, personal opinion that there are several statements that are best left to ancient history, and MUST understood in the light and milieu of the age in which they were produced. The Catholic Church's "Unam Sanctum" and these Protestant assertions are AMONG them. There are, sadly, lots of examples. I remember, many years ago, when I quoted Unam Sanctum to a Catholic friend. He became quite offended, insisted it was a lie and that NO Catholic believes that and the RCC NEVER believed such a "stupid thing" (his words, not mine). Dig up a lot of these things and I think the common response is not dissimilar.


3. I personally WISH each tradition would just apologize for them and drop them, but that doesn't seem to be how it goes. The more typical approach is to either "reinterpret" them (sometimes 180 degrees differently than what the words actually say) or simply to ignore such in hopes that it will be forgotten (fat chance) or (in a way I would somewhat support) by noting the historic milieu.


4. As I discussed this at length with my Lutheran pastor, he noted that the basis of this was that the BIBLE defines "anti-Christ" as a denial of Jesus as THE Christ, THE Savior. Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and generally 16th Century Protestants understood (correctly or not) that the RCC taught that OUR works play at least SOME role in our salvation. Thus, there IS a certain 'logic' in arguing that THEREFORE, for the RCC, Jesus is not THE Christ, THE Savior but rather PART Christ, PART Savior or maybe A Christ, A Savior. We'd also be a Christ, a Savior. Now, we could argue until Jesus comes back what the relative percentages are (99% Jesus, 1% me, whatever) but it's moot to the point. IF our works have ANY role, then we are at least partly the Christ, the Savior and therefore Christ is not - at least not fully. Now, maybe Luther (who had a doctorate in Catholic theology from a Catholic university) misunderstood and that was not the Catholic position, but in any case, that was the understanding and the basis for the assertion. Whether the RCC did or still does teach that OUR works are necessary for salvation is another issue for another day and thread. MY point here is: that was the Protestant understanding and perspective 500 years ago.


5. No one denies that the Popes of recent times have been man of GREAT faith, piety and morality. I GREATLY honor and respect and hold in high esteem those that have held that Office in my lifetime. But we need to remember that the situation was different for those Reformers. Read about the life of Pope Alexander VI - the one Luther grew up under - and you'll get the milieu of his day. ONE of the many, many blessings of the Reformation, IMHO, is that the RCC radically changed how and whom it choose as the Holy Father.


6. I PERSONALLY view this as, at least, unnecessary and counterproductive. As I have stated elsewhere, I do not affirm the papacy or the RCC as an anti-Christ. I just don't think that accomplishes anything and hurts much. We DO need to talk about Justification, however.


What are your thoughts?


Pax


- Josiah




.

If the Catholic Church has apostatized then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and Jesus's promise is nullified.

Secondly if the Church is error-ed then so is our New Testament, considered the canon of the NT was decided on by the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church.

The Apostolic Church will never go into error because it has the guarantee of Christ and the Holy Spirit. That dosen't mean there are problems in the Church and bad corrupt people, but the Church in itself is guarded by the promises of Christ.

To claim a reformation and restoration is needed would be to claim God has done it wrong and needs MANS help the restore and reform the Church. If reform was needed God would reform INSIDE the Church, rather than split and divide his own faithful believers and turn them against each other.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is a "split" off of another thread that was seriously side-tracked....


Is the RCC and/or it's Pope or the Catholic Papacy the or an anti-Christ?


Some of MY thoughts....


1. This is an HISTORIC position of some Protestant denominations. It is ONE of many common assertions of the Reformation five centuries ago.


2. It is MY humble, fallible, personal opinion that there are several statements that are best left to ancient history, and MUST understood in the light and milieu of the age in which they were produced. The Catholic Church's "Unam Sanctum" and these Protestant assertions are AMONG them. There are, sadly, lots of examples. I remember, many years ago, when I quoted Unam Sanctum to a Catholic friend. He became quite offended, insisted it was a lie and that NO Catholic believes that and the RCC NEVER believed such a "stupid thing" (his words, not mine). Dig up a lot of these things and I think the common response is not dissimilar.


3. I personally WISH each tradition would just apologize for them and drop them, but that doesn't seem to be how it goes. The more typical approach is to either "reinterpret" them (sometimes 180 degrees differently than what the words actually say) or simply to ignore such in hopes that it will be forgotten (fat chance) or (in a way I would somewhat support) by noting the historic milieu.


4. As I discussed this at length with my Lutheran pastor, he noted that the basis of this was that the BIBLE defines "anti-Christ" as a denial of Jesus as THE Christ, THE Savior. Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and generally 16th Century Protestants understood (correctly or not) that the RCC taught that OUR works play at least SOME role in our salvation. Thus, there IS a certain 'logic' in arguing that THEREFORE, for the RCC, Jesus is not THE Christ, THE Savior but rather PART Christ, PART Savior or maybe A Christ, A Savior. We'd also be a Christ, a Savior. Now, we could argue until Jesus comes back what the relative percentages are (99% Jesus, 1% me, whatever) but it's moot to the point. IF our works have ANY role, then we are at least partly the Christ, the Savior and therefore Christ is not - at least not fully. Now, maybe Luther (who had a doctorate in Catholic theology from a Catholic university) misunderstood and that was not the Catholic position, but in any case, that was the understanding and the basis for the assertion. Whether the RCC did or still does teach that OUR works are necessary for salvation is another issue for another day and thread. MY point here is: that was the Protestant understanding and perspective 500 years ago.


5. No one denies that the Popes of recent times have been man of GREAT faith, piety and morality. I GREATLY honor and respect and hold in high esteem those that have held that Office in my lifetime. But we need to remember that the situation was different for those Reformers. Read about the life of Pope Alexander VI - the one Luther grew up under - and you'll get the milieu of his day. ONE of the many, many blessings of the Reformation, IMHO, is that the RCC radically changed how and whom it choose as the Holy Father.


6. I PERSONALLY view this as, at least, unnecessary and counterproductive. As I have stated elsewhere, I do not affirm the papacy or the RCC as an anti-Christ. I just don't think that accomplishes anything and hurts much. We DO need to talk about Justification, however.


What are your thoughts?


Pax


- Josiah




.

If the Catholic Church has apostatized then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and Jesus's promise is nullified.

1. Where did I mention "apostasy?"

2. Where did I mention anything about the "gates of hell" prevailing anywhere, against anything or anyone?

3. Of course, Jesus never promised the Catholic Church anything. About anything.

Secondly if the Church is error-ed then so is our New Testament, considered the canon of the NT was decided on by the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church.

1. It is possible for an individual person, congregation or denomination to be right about SOMETHING but not therefore be infallible/unaccountable about everything, so your whole "logic" falls. I suspect you agree with me about SOMETHING, but you don't acknowledge me as the infallible/unaccountable spokesman on all issues - you feel quite able to note that I may be right at times and wrong at times.

2. The RCC had nothing to do with the canonization of the NT. NO denomination (including the RCC one) did ANYTHING about this issue until the entire subject was pretty much resolved (thus AFFIRMING the canon, not DECIDING the canon, as my priest noted) and it did not officially embrace it until the 16th century at Trent.

The Apostolic Church will never go into error because it has the guarantee of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Read your Bible. No one ever promised the RCC or EO or OO ANYTHING. About anything. For anything. Nope.

To claim a reformation and restoration is needed would be to claim God has done it wrong and needs MANS help the restore and reform the Church. If reform was needed God would reform INSIDE the Church, rather than split and divide his own faithful believers and turn them against each other.

1. Where did I claim either?

2. I think you may have Protestantism confused with Restorationism.

3. No one thinks GOD did anything wrong. People, however, can. And do.

4. Attempts to reform WITHIN the RCC are impossible since the RCC itself alone claims that the RCC itself alone is INCAPABLE of error (in matters of faith and morals) and thus "reform" is moot - or so it alone so claims for it alone.

5. Luther DID attempt to reform from within. But that's hard to do with one is kicked out. At least he didn't meet the fate of many of those befoe him (thanks to German princes).



Now, back to the discussion of this thread....




.

 

[BrightCandle]

.

This is a "split" off of another thread that was seriously side-tracked....


Is the RCC and/or it's Pope or the Catholic Papacy the or an anti-Christ?


Some of MY thoughts....


1. This is an HISTORIC position of some Protestant denominations. It is ONE of many common assertions of the Reformation five centuries ago.


2. It is MY humble, fallible, personal opinion that there are several statements that are best left to ancient history, and MUST understood in the light and milieu of the age in which they were produced. The Catholic Church's "Unam Sanctum" and these Protestant assertations are AMONG them. There are, sadly, lots of examples. I remember, many years ago, when I quoted Unam Sanctum to a Catholic friend. He became quite offended, insisted it was a lie and that NO Catholic believes that and the RCC NEVER believed such a "stupid thing" (his words, not mine). Dig up a lot of these things and I think the common response is not dissimilar.


3. I personally WISH each tradition would just apologize for them and drop them, but that doesn't seem to be how it goes. The more typical approach is to either "reinterpret" them (sometimes 180 degrees differently than what the words actually say) or simply to ignore such in hopes that it will be forgotten (fat chance) or (in a way I would somewhat support) by noting the historic milieu.


4. As I discussed this at length with my Lutheran pastor, he noted that the basis of this was that the BIBLE defines "anti-Christ" as a denial of Jesus as THE Christ, THE Savior. Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and generally 16th Century Protestants understood (correctly or not) that the RCC taught that OUR works play at least SOME role in our salvation. Thus, there IS a certain 'logic' in arguing that THEREFORE, for the RCC, Jesus is not THE Christ, THE Savior but rather PART Christ, PART Savior or maybe A Christ, A Savior. We'd also be a Christ, a Savior. Now, we could argue until Jesus comes back what the relative percentages are (99% Jesus, 1% me, whatever) but it's moot to the point. IF our works have ANY role, then we are at least partly the Christ, the Savior and therefore Christ is not - at least not fully. Now, maybe Luther (who had a doctorate in Catholic theology from a Catholic university) misunderstood and that was not the Catholic position, but in any case, that was the understanding and the basis for the assertion. Whether the RCC did or still does teach that OUR works are necessary for salvation is another issue for another day and thread. MY point here is: that was the Protestant understanding and perspective 500 years ago.


5. No one denies that the Popes of recent times have been man of GREAT faith, piety and morality. I GREATLY honor and respect and hold in high esteem those that have held that Office in my lifetime. But we need to remember that the situation was different for those Reformers. Read about the life of Pope Alexander VI - the one Luther grew up under - and you'll get the milieu of his day. ONE of the many, many blessings of the Reformation, IMHO, is that the RCC radically changed how and whom it choose as the Holy Father.


6. I PERSONALLY view this as, at least, unnecessary and counterproductive. As I have stated elsewhere, I do not affirm the papacy or the RCC as an anti-Christ. I just don't think that accomplishes anything and hurts much. We DO need to talk about Justification, however.


What are your thoughts?


Pax


- Josiah




.

Josiah: Let me start by saying this: Those who do not learn from the errors of history, are doomed to repeat those same mistakes. We live in an age now where political correctness rules the day. Identifying the Antichrist is not politically correct by any means! However, as Christians we cannot ignore this prophetic figure. Remember, how Jesus warned the disciples many times in the Gospels about the danger of being deceived? Remember, how dense the disciples were when it came to them comprehending his warnings? Well we have same problem in Christianity and the world at large today! One the BIG reasons is that people don't value truth, and they don't study history much at all. Why do you think Jesus inspired the Bible writers to write the books of Daniel and Revelation? For our entertainment? I don't think so! He didn't want his true followers to be deceived by the satanic spirits that would go out into all the world in the last days to deceived all the world if possible. The reason there is so much confusion nowadays regarding who is the Antichrist, is because of two prophetic views (Preterism & Futurism), which were created by two different Jesuits during the counter Reformation, have now been embraced by Protestants and Evangelicals! If we would reject the deceptions of the Papacy and go back and build upon the work that great men from Wycliffe to Spurgeon (500 years) left us, there would be no question as to who is the Antichrist.

 

[Stryder06]

Josiah: Let me start by saying this: Those are do not learn from the errors of history, are doomed to repeat those same mistakes. We live in an age now where political correctness rules the day. Identifying the Antichrist is not politically correct by any means! However, as Christians we cannot ignore this prophetic figure. Remember, how Jesus warned the disciples many times in the Gospels about the danger of being deceived? Remember, how dense the disciples were when it came to them comprehending his warnings? Well we have same problem in Christianity and the world at large today! One the BIG reasons is that people don't value truth, and they don't study history much at all. Why do you think Jesus inspired the Bible writers to write the books of Daniel and Revelation? For our entertainment? I don't think so! He didn't want his true followers to be deceived by the satanic spirits that would go out into all the world in the last days to deceived all the world if possible. The reason there is so much confusion nowadays regarding who is the Antichrist, it because most the two prophetic views (Preterism & Futurism) created by two different Jesuits during the counter Reformation have been embraced by Protestants and Evangelicals! If we would reject the deceptions of the Papacy and go back and build upon the work that great men from Wycliffe to Spurgeon (500 years) left us, there would be no question as to who is the Antichrist.

 

[BrightCandle]

No.
They do not deny that Jesus Christ is come in flesh.
It is stupid to claim that they do.

However, they do claim that Jesus was given unfallen sinless flesh from Mary, which makes Jesus out to be a "superman" in his human nature compared to billions of human beings that have lived on planet that all had a fallen human nature. This one area where the RCC shows that it is indeed the Antichrist, because the RCC doesn't teach that Jesus came to earth with the same flesh that we have.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

However, they do claim that Jesus was given unfallen sinless flesh from Mary, which makes Jesus out to be a "superman" in his human nature compared to billions of human beings that have lived on planet that all had a fallen human nature.
This one area where the RCC shows that it is indeed the Antichrist, because the RCC doesn't teach that Jesus came to earth with the same flesh that we have.

Oh boy. I will have to let the RCs answer that one

 

[Secundulus]

However, they do claim that Jesus was given unfallen sinless flesh from Mary, which makes Jesus out to be a "superman" in his human nature compared to billions of human beings that have lived on planet that all had a fallen human nature. This one area where the RCC shows that it is indeed the Antichrist, because the RCC doesn't teach that Jesus came to earth with the same flesh that we have.

We believe that Mary was born without original sin. We believe that all of us are reborn without original sin at Baptism. In this respect Mary is no different than any of us except that God in effect Baptised her at conception to make her fit to be the New Ark of the Covenant - The human Mother of the Living and Eternal God.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

However, they do claim that Jesus was given unfallen sinless flesh from Mary, which makes Jesus out to be a "superman" in his human nature compared to billions of human beings that have lived on planet that all had a fallen human nature. This one area where the RCC shows that it is indeed the Antichrist, because the RCC doesn't teach that Jesus came to earth with the same flesh that we have.

that's what i was on about a while back.. the sinless nature of Mary, breaks the link in the fall, and the human nature of Jesus. I did get this from Steve Wohlberg.. his book 'end time delusions'. However i dont think the papacy adds up to the factors needed to qualify for antichrist status.. as they do not (until very recently) deny the Father and Son, as outlined in the letters of John.
Historically they cannot be the antichrist, as they maintained the orthodox religion throughout the ages, along with the Coptic and Greek churches. The various creeds are the standard of orthodox religion, and until recently the protestants have also maintained the standard creed.

 

[BrightCandle]

that's what i was on about a while back.. the sinless nature of Mary, breaks the link in the fall, and the human nature of Jesus. I did get this from Steve Wohlberg.. his book 'end time delusions'. However i dont think the papacy adds up to the factors needed to qualify for antichrist status.. as they do not (until very recently) deny the Father and Son, as outlined in the letters of John.
Historically they cannot be the antichrist, as they maintained the orthodox religion throughout the ages, along with the Coptic and Greek churches. The various creeds are the standard of orthodox religion, and until recently the protestants have also maintained the standard creed.

The Papacy boasts that is hasn't changed its fundamental doctrines in 2,000 years, as proof of it being the only true Christian church, this alone should tell you that the doctrines that caused scores of men from Wycliffe to Spurgeon to identify the Papacy as the "man of sin", "beast", and "Babylon" is still as true now and back in the 16th century. What other professed Christian organization has a 2,000 record like the Papacy? I suspect that you feel as you do because you have been influenced by Preterism and Futurism, both of which were developed by Jesuits to move the focus away from the Papacy, and it has worked! Now the majority of Protestants and Evangelicals have bought into the Jesuit views of Antichrist! It has to be the deception of the millennia!

 

[BrightCandle]

We believe that Mary was born without original sin. We believe that all of us are reborn without original sin at Baptism. In this respect Mary is no different than any of us except that God in effect Baptised her at conception to make her fit to be the New Ark of the Covenant - The human Mother of the Living and Eternal God.

Yikes! I did not realize how close the Anglicans are to the Roman Catholics when it comes the human nature of Mary and Jesus. Anglicans are very close to Rome.

My question where in the Bible does it say that Mary had a human nature that was any different from you and I have? Or for that matter the billions of other human beings that have lived on earth for the last 6,000 years? Its clear that Jesus never elevated Mary to that level. Your view makes out Jesus and Mary to be "wonderwoman" and "superman", and how then could they have any idea of what its like for the rest of us poor fools who are stuck with a fallen human nature?

 

[Secundulus]

Yikes! I did not realize how close the Anglicans are to the Roman Catholics when it comes the human nature of Mary and Jesus. Anglicans are very close to Rome.

Most Anglicans don't believe that. I am speaking for myself in a specific Anglican sub-denomination which is actively seeking communion with Rome. Most Anglicans are as solidly anti-Rome as you are.

My question where in the Bible does it say that Mary had a human nature that was any different from you and I have? Or for that matter the billions of other human beings that have lived on earth for the last 6,000 years? Its clear that Jesus never elevated Mary to that level. Your view makes out Jesus and Mary to be "wonderwoman" and "superman", and how then could they have any idea of what its like for the rest of us poor fools who are stuck with a fallen human nature?

Immaculate conception does not change Mary's nature any more than any other Christian's nature is changed at baptism. And as you already know, this is not stated in the Scripture.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The Papacy boast that is hasn't changed it fundamental doctrines in 2,000 years as proof of it being the only true Christian church, this alone should tell that the doctrines that caused scores of men from Wycliffe to Spurgeon to identify the Papacy as the "man of sin", "beast", and "Babylon" is still as true now and back in the 16th century. What other professed Christian organization has a 2,000 record like the Papacy? I suspect that you feel as you do because you have been influenced by Preterism and Futurism, both of which were developed by Jesuits to move the focus away from the Papacy, and it has worked! Now the majority of Protestants and Evangelicals are bought into Jesuit views of Antichrist! It has to be the deception of the millennia!

I was influenced by futurism, coming from various protestants.. but i was always rather preterist. I am a historicist.. very opposed now to dispensationalism.. which got me, when i moved towards the protestant, from catholic background. I am back to the older church opinions now. I still think that 'the man of sin' is and was the papal system, but i do not think that the letters of John are talking about the papacy.. as it dosn't add up to it specifically. I dont believe the beast is the papacy or Obama etc.. the beast i think is the anglo-american empire of the last days, as outlined in Revelation. I dont think there is an 'antichrist' figure at all.. that is about various antichrists and the spirit of antichrist, and a feeling that there would appear an antichrist in those early days. I am aware of the Jesuit conspiracy to create futurism and preterism, and i agree, it has worked perfectly in the modern, american evangelical churches, but i think it was all helped along by the american dispensation'ists. An antichrist would also be the founder of Islam.. that is a rather perfect person in that regard, and is without doubt a true antichrist.. the popes were not true antichrists,.. only the recent pope John Paul 2 would be of that ilk, with Ratszinger being less so.. it's more of the 'universal salvation' that is being pushed by the recent heretical popes.. and that's part of the new-age agenda of the last days.

 

[BrightCandle]

I was influenced by futurism, coming from various protestants.. but i was always rather preterist. I am a historicist.. very opposed now to dispensationalism.. which got me, when i moved towards the protestant, from catholic background. I am back to the older church opinions now. I still think that 'the man of sin' is and was the papal system, but i do not think that the letters of John are talking about the papacy.. as it dosn't add up to it specifically. I dont believe the beast is the papacy or Obama etc.. the beast i think is the anglo-american empire of the last days, as outlined in Revelation. I dont think there is an 'antichrist' figure at all.. that is about various antichrists and the spirit of antichrist, and a feeling that there would appear an antichrist in those early days. I am aware of the Jesuit conspiracy to create futurism and preterism, and i agree, it has worked perfectly in the modern, american evangelical churches, but i think it was all helped along by the american dispensation'ists. An antichrist would also be the founder of Islam.. that is a rather perfect person in that regard, and is without doubt a true antichrist.. the popes were not true antichrists,.. only the recent pope John Paul 2 would be of that ilk, with Ratszinger being less so.. it's more of the 'universal salvation' that is being pushed by the recent heretical popes.. and that's part of the new-age agenda of the last days.

I agree with you regarding the USA as being morphed into the "lamb like beast" that ends up speaking like a "dragon", as recorded in Revelation 13. The American Republic was born with a "lamb like" character, namely, offering unknown freedoms to persecuted immigrants, but now in the 21st century its starting to speak as a "dragon", by attacking other countries that have not directly attacked us, and by restricting individual freedoms. However, in Rev. 13, it describes the lamb like beast and the "first beast" working together to achieve their goals, and note this key phrase in Rev. 13:12 "It (USA) exercises all the authority of the first beast (Papacy) in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed." If we are wise, will be watching the moves of Washington and Rome in the near future.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I agree with you regarding the USA as being morphed into the "lamb like beast" that ends up speaking like a "dragon", as recorded in Revelation 13. The American Republic was born with a "lamb like" character, namely offering unknown freedoms to persecuted immigrants, but now in the 21st century it starting to speak as a "dragon", by attacking other countries that have not directly attacked us, and by restricting individual freedoms. However, in Rev. 13, it describes the lamb like beast and the "first beast" working together to achieve their goals, and note this key phrase in Rev. 13:12 "It (USA) exercises all the authority of the first beast (Papacy) in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed." If we are wise, will be watching the moves of Washington and Rome in the near future.

That's already started to happen.. when Reagan got into power, then Clinton. Reagan was the first US president to invite the pope into the country.. Reagan was also the one who ripped the solar panels off the white-house.. but that's about the way politics has been going in general, after the Reagan-Thatcher wrecking crew arrived, and it's all been down-hill since then. I think that getting the world to worship the beast of the fist beast is about getting the world to worship satan.. and the US eventually draws the power from the old empires of the old world, Rome and the papacy, which sits on all the other world empires in ancient times. I think as the popes of the latter days become more heretical, they will destroy the basic Christian religion, and merge with the new-age luciferian power structure, that is now showing itself in America.. as it was always hiding, but subdued, under the surface of the American power structure.

 

[BrightCandle]

That's already started to happen.. when Reagan got into power, then Clinton. Reagan was the first US president to invite the pope into the country.. Reagan was also the one who ripped the solar panels off the white-house.. but that's about the way politics has been going in general, after the Reagan-Thatcher wrecking crew arrived, and it's all been down-hill since then. I think that getting the world to worship the beast of the fist beast is about getting the world to worship satan.. and the US eventually draws the power from the old empires of the old world, Rome and the papacy, which sits on all the other world empires in ancient times. I think as the popes of the latter days become more heretical, they will destroy the basic Christian religion, and merge with the new-age luciferian power structure, that is now showing itself in America.. as it was always hiding, but subdued, under the surface of the American power structure.

I wish we could expose the dark powers that are working day and night to end up supreme masters of this planet sooner than we think. Its going to be ugly when they make their final move, those who dissent will not be popular for sure.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I wish we could expose the dark powers that are working day and night to end up supreme masters of this planet sooner than we think. Its going to be ugly when they make their final move, those who dissent will not be popular for sure.

'nothing anyone can do about it.. it's all already written.. just hope that it's much later than sooner, and we can avoid it.. that's what i am hoping for.. that it wont happen for another 50 years at least.. (the final showdown)

 

[stranger]

First off, what is everyone's view of who/what the AC is in Revelation? Is he Roman, Greek, Jewish?

Since, according to Jesus' revelation ,all the world eventually worships the beast in a united religion denying the real Christ/Messiah and worshiping one in his place ['antichristos' in Greek means one in place of the annointed Christ/Messiah] , then the beast and antichrist must surely both be Jews else they would not be accepted by the Jews as their messiah and chief rabbi.

As to the pope at the time [if there is one], he will still claim the papal title of Vicar of Christ which means exactly 'one in place of Christ' ,exactly the same title as 'antichristos' in Greek ... but this may only signify that the antichrist unites the RCs into the worldwide religion of the false Christ prophesied by Jesus.

The evidence of apostasy of all religion from the scripture is overwhelming , it is not just RCs , it is mainline Judaism and alll mainline Christianity ... one proof is logical in that God is not divided but religion is deeply divided by dogmas of men , and Jesus prophesied that religion not only will but must fall away from God's truth ... so why close the eyes when we can see the divisions in religion and the countless differences from scripture ?

Unity of faith worldwide might seem a great achievement indeed and it is clear that it takes Satan to unite the world as one against the few remaining saints of the time [perhaps a couple of thousand, since Jesus said that in all there would be 144,000 saints only in this earth] ... but consider the implication for modern chrsitianity , it means that almost all people alrady worship a false image of Christ ... one can verify that by comparing the religious image to the scriptural one , they are nothing like each other.

the falling of RC for Satan's wiles is the least of the earth's problems since all other religions will do the same in coming to a united world religion of faith in a saviour , a king [Christ, Messiah], but it will not be the real one...

This is an expositional discussion of the implications of scripture, it is no criticism of religion since as Jesus said, it MUST be so ... it is not the fault of anyone that it is so , this is just the way scripture indicates that God tells us it will go in our future ... In fact there are movements already to unify not only Christianity, but also other religions with Christianity .

 

[BrightCandle]

'nothing anyone can do about it.. it's all already written.. just hope that it's much later than sooner, and we can avoid it.. that's what i am hoping for.. that it wont happen for another 50 years at least.. (the final showdown)

I hear you, but don't you want Jesus to return soon? Don't you think that we have been here on planet earth long enough? Its already been about 6,000 years sin, suffering, and death. Enough already!