Historical Church Leaders Call Pope Antichrist

[topcare]

Why are you capitalizing the name rock when referring to Peter? That in itself is blasphemy

Baloney. Capitalization is a societal thing and is neutral

 

[patricius79]

I agree completely!

Unfortunately, that teaching office job was already taken by the Holy Spirit...

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

Right. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Vicar of Christ.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Right. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Vicar of Christ.

I would ask you for scripture to back that statement but I know there is none.

The Holy Spirit speaks to everyone individually... not to one particular person or group.

 

[patricius79]

I would ask you for scripture to back that statement but I know there is none.

I don't think the Bible says that. Catholic Tradition is the Word of God, and is the historic source of the N.T. Canon.

3 xNow when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”yJohn the Baptist, others say zElijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” a“You are bthe Christ, cthe Son of dthe living God.” e“Blessed are you, fSimon Bar-Jonah! For gflesh and blood has not revealed this to you, hbut my Father who is in heaven.iyou are Peter, and jon this rock2 I will build my church, and kthe gates of lhell3 shall not prevail against it.mthe keys of the kingdom of heaven, and nwhatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed4 in heaven.”oThen he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.


Yes, the Holy Spirit speaks to everyone, but that doesn't mean that we, as individuals can discount the Word of God.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I don't think the Bible says that. Catholic Tradition is the Word of God, and is the historic source of the N.T. Canon.

3 xNow when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”yJohn the Baptist, others say zElijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” a“You are bthe Christ, cthe Son of dthe living God.” e“Blessed are you, fSimon Bar-Jonah! For gflesh and blood has not revealed this to you, hbut my Father who is in heaven.iyou are Peter, and jon this rock2 I will build my church, and kthe gates of lhell3 shall not prevail against it.mthe keys of the kingdom of heaven, and nwhatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed4 in heaven.”oThen he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.


Yes, the Holy Spirit speaks to everyone, but that doesn't mean that we, as individuals can discount the Word of God.

We disagree on the authority that the Papacy claims... Why, for example, would God's church choose a name "Roman" when all that Rome stood for was pagan and anti Christian? Who was Peter's successor during the time of persecution by Diocletian? Can you list the apostolic successors?

 

[Dorothea]

Thanks for clarifying that, I just didn't get the militant (as self applying) given the definition, like why that would be chosen.

The way I understand it is the Church Militant is we Christians on earth still running the race, fighting the spiritual warfare, while those in heaven - the Church Triumphant, have finished the race and thus have triumphed (won their crowns) over the enemy. Hope that makes sense.

 

[visionary]

How many believe Jesus was a failure?

In his Sept. 24 vespers homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, addressing a group of priests and religious, Pope Francis said:

We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management, and outward success which govern the business world.

Not that these things are unimportant!

We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.

To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus . . . and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That kind of heresy is alright with RC... apparently... didn't you read the tract? lol

 

[Fireinfolding]

The way I understand it is the Church Militant is we Christians on earth still running the race, fighting the spiritual warfare, while those in heaven - the Church Triumphant, have finished the race and thus have triumphed (won their crowns) over the enemy. Hope that makes sense.

Hi Dorothea, long time no see, hope you and yours are doing well.

It was idea of militant even as expressed here (the definition)

The definition of the word itself (found outside the scripture) speaks to being combative and agressive along with that typically favoring the extreme, or violent in confrontational methods

Whereas being a soldier of Christ seems to have more the suffering of hardship attached to it, or the arming oneself with a mindset (towards suffering) and seems to express the opposite of what is coined militant.

Although taking the helmet of salvation (pertaining to the hope thereof) and the sword of the Spirit (the word of God) would (in my mind) along with the breastplate (of love and faith) and shodding ones feet (which might pertain to peace) are things (in the area of armor) that seem to speak contrary to what is called church militant. That is why I had asked earlier if that kind of wording come about the time of the bloody inquisitions or something, because I wouldnt know (I could only guess).

I didnt know, how (out of) the scripture (such a word adopted into the same) concerning the church could be set forth (while using the kinds of armor good soldier's in Christ might also put on). Or even how they meshed with the above definition is all. Since it does seem to include favoring the extreme, violent or confrontational methods in political and social causes.

Sometimes words (and their definitions) when I look outside the scripture and how they are used by the world wont typically give me any insight. Bringing those into them seem more confusing (to me) as to how one idea can be incorporated into what you have to work with inside the other.

For me it makes it difficult to follow what others might mean by things and trying to mash them into the words of God and make the defintion of the one work with how (something similiar) in scripture is worked through, especially when the idea (as followed through) isnt defined that way at all. It might contain a foriegn concept, or an idea, and through a choice of words that seems difficult to an idea set forth in Christ Jesus sometimes.

And so I will have difficultly recconciling some of their ideas which is why I sometimes ask where something is in scripture (and how is that word as defined) and how can it be adapted into how the scripture might speak on something similar. Like a soldier, and where the other word's definition can fit into the whole "soldier idea" as it is laid out in there.

That type thing.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Don't forget though that we are engaged in spiritual warfare with the enemy so the common connotation would apply in a sense.

 

[patricius79]

We disagree on the authority that the Papacy claims... Why, for example, would God's church choose a name "Roman" when all that Rome stood for was pagan and anti Christian?

I think the correct name for the Church is "the Catholic Church", as it has been called since the 100s. "Roman Catholic" was a sort of mild slur used by Protestantism, which began in the 1500s.

Who was Peter's successor during the time of persecution by Diocletian? Can you list the apostolic successors?

According to the list in the front of my Bible: St. Marcellinus, then St. Marcellus, then St. Eusebius, then St. Melchiades

 

[Fireinfolding]

Don't forget though that we are engaged in spiritual warfare with the enemy so the common connotation would apply in a sense.

How?

 

[Fireinfolding]

In the other sense, it mostly shows standing, and after taking that whole armour, and having done all to withstand to stand, or where it shows to resist him, even resist (stedfast in the faith) until he flees from you (as you are submitting yourself unto God)

I see sober and viligant not sober and militant

 

[concretecamper]

I for one consider it an honor that the people the OP listed consider the Vicar of Christ antichrist. Really...what else do you expect from Satan's minions.

 

[bugkiller]

Here are some quotes that show that all the protestants and even some catholics considered the papacy to be the antichrist:

Eberhard II, archbishop of Salzburg (Roman Catholic)
"stated at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg in 1240 (some scholars say 1241) that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope antichrist." -LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, 4 vols. (Wash DC: Review and Herald publishing assc, 1950-1954)

John Wycliffe
"When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: "two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them." -Ibid

Martin Luther (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

Cotton Mather (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Wesley (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Ellen G. White (Seven Day Adventists)
"This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of "the man of sin" foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power--a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.

Thomas Cranmer (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

Roger Williams (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

1689 London Baptist Confession
Chapter 26: Of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )

John Knox (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox.
John Calvin (Presbyterian)
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from Institutes by John Calvin.

So what.

bugkiller

 

[Bible2+]

EastCoastRemnant said in post 1:

Historical Church Leaders Call Pope Antichrist

Note that they were mistaken. For the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "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, while the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). And Catholicism affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, while the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2:22b). And Catholicism affirms that Christ is in the flesh, while 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, while 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, while the Antichrist will say that he (the Antichrist) is God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And Catholicism affirms that Lucifer (Satan) is evil, while the Antichrist will bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (Satan, the dragon) (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9). So the Antichrist's religion during his 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 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), the Antichrist, and the man who will be his False Prophet (Revelation 19:20), could at first pretend to support Catholicism (as well as Christianity generally, and also Islam), in order to start gaining a worldwide following.

-

The beast which comes up out of the earth in Revelation 13:11-16 represents the individual man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13). He could be a secretly-apostate pope who at some point during his tenure will make a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Are we not all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What is more important than this?"

He could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "a Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the bad reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, a pope could come to hold high positions of power in 2 religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the 2 horns of the False Prophet lamb (Revelation 13:11). This would be similar to how the 7 horns of the true-Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent the true Jesus holding 7 positions of power at the same time (cf. Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). The False Prophet could even say that he is Jesus. (But he won't say that he is Christ, for the False Prophet and the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ, and will deny that Christ is in the flesh: 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7.)

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and which still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

-

If a secretly-apostate pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 19:20, and Revelation 16:13), adherents of Catholicism will have to decide what their ultimate source of truth is: Is it the pope and the RCC, or God and the Bible? Many adherents of Catholicism who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their ultimate source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of a False Prophet pope. Such adherents of Catholicism could demand that he be removed for heresy and apostasy, and that the cardinals elect a new pope. But other adherents of Catholicism, including many cardinals, bishops, and priests, could be deceived (along with most of the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet pope's false doctrines, because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20; cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the RCC. Compare the Akita prophecy: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops". Many adherents of Catholicism could follow the False Prophet pope, while other adherents of Catholicism could reject him and eventually even elect their own, new pope (or reinstall a former pope who is still alive), whom they could declare to be the "True pope". But this new (or reinstated), "True pope" could then be murdered, along with many of his followers, by the False Prophet pope's soldiers. Compare the 3rd Secret of Fatima: "he [the pope] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions". Could the soldiers firing "arrows" be the Vatican's Swiss Guards, whose weapons and colorful uniforms hark back to the Middle Ages?

After this slaughter, the False Prophet pope could manage to retain the papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) cardinals, bishops, and priests, retain full control of all RCC cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against true, Biblical Christians (whether they are adherents of Catholicism or not) throughout the world, and will physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

It is only when the Antichrist has completely broken all the physical power of the true church (which consists of all true believers, whether they are adherents of Catholicism or not: Ephesians 4:4-6) that the future tribulation will end (Daniel 12:7b) and Jesus' 2nd coming will immediately occur, at which time he will physically resurrect and rapture (gather together) the church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). And at his 2nd coming, Jesus will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so he/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43). For he/God won't share this glory with the church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

EastCoastRemnant quoted Luther in post 1:

[Luther:]

I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.

Regarding "his throne is that of Satan himself", Revelation 13:2b refers to when Lucifer (Satan, the dragon, Revelation 12:9) will give the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) Satan's own earthly throne (seat) and power, so that the Antichrist will have power over all the nations of the earth (Revelation 13:7). This is what Satan offered Jesus, if he would worship Satan (Luke 4:5-7). In the 1st century AD, Satan's earthly throne was in the city of Pergamum (in what is now Turkey) (Revelation 2:12-13). Satan's earthly throne could be the Great Altar of Pergamum, also called the Pergamon Altar, which in ancient times was sometimes included as one of the 7 wonders of the world.

It may not be just a coincidence that shortly after the Pergamon Altar was moved to Berlin around 1900 AD, both World Wars were started from Berlin, or that "the Nazi-era architect Albert Speer used the Pergamon Altar as the model for the Zeppelintribüne, 1934-37. The Führer's pulpit was in the center of the tribune" (Pergamon Altar - Wikipedia) (quote has been deleted for some reason). When the Antichrist is given power over the whole earth (Revelation 13:7), his throne could be located in the center of the actual Pergamon Altar, which he could move from Berlin to a main temple to himself (and to Lucifer/Satan) in the literal, rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq). For a temple to "wickedness" will be built in Shinar (Babylonia) (Zechariah 5:8,11), and the Antichrist is called "that Wicked" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Also, the dragon has been the god worshipped in the city of Babylon since ancient times.

-

The 7 heads of Revelation's "beast" in its empire aspect (Revelation 13:1, Revelation 17:3) represent 7 different empires (Revelation 17:9-10): Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and (possibly) Islam. The first 5 had fallen by the time of John the apostle in the 1st century AD: "five are fallen" (Revelation 17:10, Revelation 1:1b-2). The 6th (Rome) existed at the time of John: "one is" (Revelation 17:10). The 7th (possibly Islam) had not come by the time of John: "the other is not yet come" (Revelation 17:10). The empire of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) will be a different, still-future, 8th head (Revelation 17:11), which will be a revival of one of the 5 empires which had fallen by the time of John (Revelation 17:8,10,11). It will be a revival of the empire of Babylon. The Antichrist will transform the present-day, rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq) into the capital of his world empire, only to see his city of Babylon ultimately destroyed at Jesus' 2nd coming (Isaiah 13).

Before the 2nd coming, when the world is brought into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist, during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), the Antichrist could claim to be Nebuchadnezzar returned, and so reinstitute the system which Nebuchadnezzar set up whereby everyone had to worship an image or be killed (Daniel 3, Revelation 13:15). The Antichrist may also claim to be, at the same time, the return of Nimrod (the founder of Babylon: Genesis 10:8-10), and Hammurabi, and Asoka, and other famous rulers of the past. For he may claim that he has had many different "past lives" as various "enlightened" rulers.

Besides building a main temple in Babylon, the Antichrist will also sit (at least one time) in a future, 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and declare himself God there (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31, Matthew 24:15, Revelation 11:1-2). The Antichrist could also sit (at least one time) in other religions' holiest shrines, and declare himself to be God there as well. For example, he could also sit in Islam's Kaaba in Mecca, in the Sikhs' Golden Temple in Amritsar, in Catholicism's St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, etc.

EastCoastRemnant quoted Calvin in post 1:

[Calvin:]

(Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.

Actually, they are capable of another interpretation. For the Antichrist will fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 after he by force takes control of a future, 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem, stops the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have restarted in front of it, and has the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15).

The Antichrist could then make quite a show of his sitting himself in the temple and declaring himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31). In a television and internet spectacle which will be seen live by the world, he could first be shown entering the temple's most holy place in magnificent golden robes. He could then step up to the Ark of the Covenant (which could have been discovered, and placed in the temple by the Jews) and lift the Mercy Seat off the Ark, showing it to be empty. He could then look into the camera and say: "Where is YHWH? He is not here! He is a distant fraud! His power on this earth is as hollow as this empty Ark!" (The Antichrist will utterly revile YHWH: Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36.)

Then the Antichrist could raise the Mercy Seat high above his head only to suddenly smash it down violently to the ground, breaking it into pieces. The piped-in sound of crowds roaring with approval could then be heard in the background. Then the Antichrist could place his hands on the Ark and stare into the camera: "WE can do better than this". He could then knock over the Ark and stamp it with his foot, bashing in its side. Two of the Antichrist's followers in robes could then quickly come in and clear away the rubble of the Mercy Seat and the Ark, while 4 strong men in robes carry into the temple's most holy place a magnificent golden throne and place it right where the Ark had been before. The men could then bow down and motion with their arms for the Antichrist to sit on the throne. He could then grandly take his seat upon it.

Glorious symphonic music could then swell as the sound of crowds roaring with approval increases. Then the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) (who could be an apostate pope) could enter the temple's most holy place and approach the Antichrist carrying a majestic golden crown encrusted with large diamonds and all kinds of precious stones. The Antichrist could take the crown from the pope's outstretched hands. And as the Antichrist is placing the crown on his own head, a camera could zoom in on his face as he says: "I AM THAT I AM. I AM YOUR GOD. WORSHIP ME, ALL YE NATIONS OF THE EARTH!"

(cf. Revelation 13:8, Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4)

*******

EastCoastRemnant said in post 4:

Don't worry though, we are going to get into the next level of identifying who the beast, the scarlet harlot, the little horn, etc. is...

Regarding "the scarlet harlot", note that while the corrupt aspects of the papacy (as of the leadership of all other churches) are included in what Revelation's symbolic "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) represents, it represents much more than just the corrupt aspects of the papacy. For the papacy just by itself doesn't reign over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18). Nor is the papacy the only institution that buys merchandise (Revelation 18:11). Nor is the papacy responsible for the death of all martyrs who have ever been killed (Revelation 18:24). Nor has the papacy just by itself corrupted the entire world (Revelation 18:3). Nor has the papacy been continuously supported by the empires of fallen man throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10). Instead, Revelation's symbolic "Babylon" represents all of mankind's corrupt political (Revelation 17:18), economic (Revelation 18:11), and religious (Revelation 18:24) systems throughout the earth (Revelation 18:3), and throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10).

The 10 kings of the Antichrist's empire will destroy with fire what Revelation's "Babylon" represents (Revelation 17:16-17) when they destroy the cities of the nations (Revelation 16:19), probably with nukes (and probably with Fission-Fusion-Fission, "FFF", or "666", nukes, "F" representing the number six in English gematria), at the time of the 7th vial (Revelation 16:17,19), which will be the final event (Revelation 16:17) of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:2 to 20:6, Matthew 24:29-31). They could do this under the direction of Lucifer/Satan (Isaiah 14:17,12), who could want to leave only a literal "scorched earth" for Jesus to return to.

Near the very end of the future tribulation, Lucifer (employing the ancient lies of Gnosticism) could say to the Antichrist and his 10 kings something like: "Our great battle against the evil, tyrant god YHWH is about to begin [Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19], a battle which we will win, and so we will be able to escape YHWH's prison house, this material universe, and return to the wholly-spiritual Pleroma [i.e. Heaven]. So let us now destroy this prison cell, this foul planet, and let us, as it were, burn up all the gewgaws which we have hung upon our cell walls. Let us burn up all our great cities, all our magnificent systems. Let us break all our chains of attachment to this vile physical realm, that we might more freely ascend back to our rightful place in the Pleroma [cf. Isaiah 14:13-14]".

Of course this will be a lie. For at his 2nd coming, Jesus (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) will completely defeat the world's armies, arrayed against YHWH (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19-21). And Jesus will have Lucifer bound in the bottomless pit during the subsequent 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-6, Isaiah 14:15). And Jesus will restore ruined parts of the earth and make them like the Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 36:35, Isaiah 51:3). And after the 1,000 years and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15), God will create a new heaven (a new 1st heaven, a new sky/atmosphere for the earth) and a new earth (a new surface for the earth) (Revelation 21:1). And then God will descend from the 3rd heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with saved humanity on the new earth (Revelation 21:2-4).

 

[Bible2+]

patricius79 said in post 85:

Christ giving him the name "Rock", always listing his name first among the Apostles, being mentioned far more than the other 12, being told that the Church would be founded on him . . .

Matthew 16:18 meant that the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, which is Jesus himself (Matthew 16:16b,18b), the rock/stone on whom the church/New Covenant Israel is built (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18b; 1 Peter 2:6), the rock/stone who was rejected and crucified (Romans 9:33, Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:4,8), the same rock/Christ who followed Old Covenant Israel/the church in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4-5, cf. Acts 7:38), and the same rock/Christ revered by New Covenant Israel/the church (1 Peter 2:4-10).

That is, Matthew 16:18 was prophesying of when the literal gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against Jesus (Psalms 107:16), when, after his resurrection, he went down and liberated the souls of the dead Old Testament saints from Hades (1 Peter 4:6; 1 Peter 3:18c-19, Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).

patricius79 said in post 85:

. . . and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, etc.

Note that the principle in Matthew 16:19 doesn't apply only to Peter, but to the entire church which Jesus would build on himself the rock (Matthew 16:18-19, Ephesians 2:20). For the same principle is repeated later in Matthew 18:18, where it is addressing plural people (see the Greek) and where it can apply to everyone in the church, just as its context principles apply to everyone in the church (Matthew 18:17-20).

In Matthew 16:19, in the original Greek, the "thee" and the two "thou" verbs are singular, while in the original Greek of Matthew 18:18, the "you" and the two "ye" verbs are plural.

 

[Bible2+]

Fireinfolding said in post 115:

I see sober and viligant not sober and militant

Maybe militant only in the realm of ideas, not physically?

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . .

And yet still not militant in any personal way against individuals holding mistaken ideas?

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Maybe militant only in the realm of ideas, not physically?

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . .

And yet still not militant in any personal way against individuals holding mistaken ideas?

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I am speaking of the word militant used in relation to the church after the dictionarys definition here

I cannot find the definition of militant (as it might be applied to the church) expressed in the scripture, whether one is being a soldier for Christ (enduring hardship). Or whether standing, resisting, or quenching the firey darts of the devil. Not in any respects as far as arming ourselves (and in what mind we might) or in actions such as bringing our own thoughts down to the obedience of Christ as that also which exalts itself over the knowledge of God. The word just isnt fitting in my understanding as something that can be incorporated (given the definition) to have it make sense in the area of millitary ( or the kind of armour and warring which pertains to the church).

I can get how the world uses it and it makes perfect sense there, without question, and if its for a worldly church I would think it fits perfectly.

 

[Meowzltov]

I didn't ask who it referred to. I asked why rock would be capitalized. No one thinks that Christ literally went around calling Peter "Rock" for the rest of their time together ("You will deny me, Rock." "Get thee behind me, Rock" LOL)

He certainly did. ROCK is a translation of Peter.