Is the Catholic Papacy an Anti-Christ?

LittleLambofJesus · May 1, 2009

TraderJack said:
You may want to cover the tremendous impact that the medieval forgeries had on the development of papal civil and ecclesial power, particularly, "The Donation of Constantine", which led to the "Donation of Pepin" of the papal states, and the "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" on forwarding the fraudulent claim of Roman papal supremacy.

Oddly enough, William of Ockham, as well as most theologians prior to Unam Sanctum, denied that the popes of Rome had any civil authority at all, but then Rome created the "Two Swords" doctrine codified in Unam Sanctum and backed up with forgeries to make it appear they had authority from antiquity that they never had.

Hi TJ. You still have this thread over here on the CH board. From what I can see, not many visit that board........

http://www.christianforums.com/t6857735/
Roman popes and forgeries

NumberOneSon · May 1, 2009

TraderJack said:
You may want to cover the tremendous impact that the medieval forgeries had on the development of papal civil and ecclesial power, particularly, "The Donation of Constantine", which led to the "Donation of Pepin" of the papal states, and the "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" on forwarding the fraudulent claim of Roman papal supremacy.

True, those forgeries were appealed to by various popes throughout the Middle Ages in order to bulwark their claims of temporal sovereignty. In my opinion, this fact makes the historicist’s fixation on the Justinian Code even more untenable, because if Justinian’s legislation truly did grant the papacy “legal civil” authority over the Western Empire then there wouldn’t have been any need for the forgeries in the first place; all the popes would have had to do was whip out a copy of the Corpus Civilis and say “see!”.

Also, the Byzantine emperor was quite upset over Pepin’s donation, and insisted that the re-conquered territory be returned to him. Now why would a Byzantine emperor be upset that territory in the Western Empire was handed over to the papacy if Byzantine law had already awarded civil authority of the Western Empire to the Roman See?

TraderJack said:
Oddly enough, William of Ockham, as well as most theologians prior to Unam Sanctum, denied that the popes of Rome had any civil authority at all, but then Rome created the "Two Swords" doctrine codified in Unam Sanctum and backed up with forgeries to make it appear they had authority from antiquity that they never had.

Well, to be fair, the “Two Swords” doctrine can generally be traced as far back as the 5th Century with one of Pope Gelasius’ letters to Emperor Anastasius, although the concept was certainly expanded and refined by Pope Gregory VII and some of his successors.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

BrightCandle · May 1, 2009

stranger said:
A quarter of the world's people live in China, that they can largely feed themselves without help from machines is a great bonus in a world where oil production is declining steadily at 3%/year where there is no prospect of new wells bringing in even a quarter of what is being lost as old wells dry out and die... it is the US economy that is in terminal decline through over-dependence [70%] on oil that it can no longer afford [nor does anyone want to give US their oil because USA has deserved world reputation as a bully, most nations are fed up with having weapons waved in their faces and cry no tears as America drops to its knees , still trying to pretend it is a player as its currency prepares to die from hyperinflation caused by profligate over-spending ...sadly the only way left to continue the old sad myths is to wage war and vainly hope that USA ca hang on to control in the Middle East , but it lost decades ago the economic war and when the dollar ends it very evil life of world deceit then so will the the USA lose the Middle East ... China ,India and Africa hold three quarters of the world population and all will in turn need the last reserves of oil in the world held under the sand in Muslim Arab countries , only China has already readied itself for the move and has no opponent who will stand against her once the dollar fails ... the 'inscrutable' Chinese started planning for this decades ago , and all they have to do is wait for the inevitable , then move down their new motorway to claim in prize ... Islam will doubtless continue its guerilla war , and there is enough red mercury from Russia's economic crisis for a few well-known cities to disappear off the map , but it makes no difference , it is small potatoes and the world by then will have bigger concerns over the demise of nature and increasing world starvation [as prophesied in scripture] because we thought money represented and could buy everything of value and forgot that we need nature healthy to be able to eat.

Acquiring worthless US treasury bills [that can never be paid on , with built-in default] is a pretty shrewd move by China to make sure that USA never challenges her ... China has no need to export , it just suits her todo so, she is far from dependent upon worthless US currency , she has so much money that she 'loans' it out with no prospect of repayment, just to keep USA quiet and assure that at any time China can 'pull the plug' if USA does anything to try to upset China's plans... a massive insurance of her vastly superior long-term strategy that is about to reap its reward , as the USA just kills itself and becomes seen to be the desperately poor nation she is , with a insufficient economy to support her absurdly extravagant and world-harming way of life.... it does end because it must, the world has had enough of US greed and bullying , the lesson is hard and final...

Again, it must amuse the Chinese immensely that USA s crippling itself with a remote war using up almost all its forces fighting the few that would actively oppose China's move into the Middle East , they must rock back in their chairs an laugh themselves silly... USA needs China, not the other way around ,and the price of that is the Middle East , losing which only seal America's fate of complete decline.

As for Islam, it is still divided , but prophesied to unite when the world moves to one world government and religion [which the international bankers who already own half the world and most of its resources and government steadily move toward, as inexorably as China moves toward the oil in the Middle East] ... there is certainly some big wars to be fought before then and tactical nuclear weapons are rather inevitable , however everyone now knows about nuclear winter, it is in no-one's interest to make the whole earth uninhabitable with all-out nuclear war , there could be no winner, only losers ... it is probably enough to stop even fundamentalists , but ironically we have broken the web of life in the name of mechanised 'progress' already , we are just waiting for the consequences to kill all mankind in any case.

As for USA's wars, one cannot fight without oil and the world is finally fed up with sabre-rattling , no-one has yet finished laughing about Vietnam, and soon the huger joke of Afghanistan and Iraq will be revealed ... what a con job by international bankers, but they have to keep pulling off bigger and bigger stunts cos their ways demand endless exponential growth ['progress' measured by empty money with nothing behind it]... God always said this was all one big trap for Satan , we just watch , USA is the last to see they have been suckered in and bled dry just to increase the world power of a few private individuals from Europe ... Goldmann Sachs is the power behind the front-man Obama, as he keeps the myths rolling out ... just what people want to hear as the slump bites ten times deeper by the end of this year [making only bankers richer at expense of devastation of the many] ... it is a big game now, big enough to appear in prophecy and for anyone who cares to to read about the endgame according to God, not spin of professional sinners.

It's only obvious, no-one can pretend to be the Jewish Messiah [Christ] without being a Jew , the scripture states the tribe, Judah.

The whole of divided religion shows that the powers of Satan are already at work, as indeed does the world situation and even USA's laughable wars [which have drawn in Europe... and even France is rejoining NATO] ... far from blinding people , people blind themselves because they don't want to see ...its pretty painful to watch the world tear itself and nature apart all at once, in worship of machines doing the work although we know the oil that runs them is irreplaceable and running dry in wells all over the world, last of all in the Middle East ... we could have used the oil to make an alternatve convenient source of energy, instead we use it to fight over it in wars until there is none left and everyone loses... I mean mankind is pathetic when it comes to long-term thinking, stupid, inane , deliberately blind - cos' a few see where it is leading but they are not the ones doing the leading... and God told us where it ends up and why... none so blind as those who refuse to see... but nothing can stop the blindness because it is integral to God's plan, Satan is defeated and dies, but USA is his tool in the completely one-sided 'fight', not God's , European international bankers have completely controlled USA for over eighty years and engineered this world slump , just as the engineered 9/11 to get USA up tight about a mnor threat of 'terrorism' and the to cover up the theft of the gold below the twin towers... USA gave up its civil rights, it freedom from autocracy, in the 'Patriot Acts' with scarcely a murmur ... the consequences are big indeed , the opposition to any plan can be silenced silently under the law now, the individual has lost much of his say , the truth cannot be said in many more places ]

yeah the papacy was involved from the beginning and runs secret societies, but it is even bigger than that , the largest identifiable force is the 227 families in international banking, mostly Jewish, who surreptitiously own half the world already , the most valuable half , and have changed laws to make it leagl for them to own all the world whilst the world remains in ever-increasing unpayable debt to them (for nothing they ever had!) ...

It is an unbelievable con trick, which is why few even notice we are working
ever harder to be in ever-greater debt ...clearly it has to end soon, but no-one can stop it, it has to crash itself, taking the banks and stock markets with it, crippling industry and agriculture [but sadly too late to save nature] ... a world crippled by finally realising money has been worthless for some time now, created from nothing on demand , whist bankers take interest on 'loaning' what they never had... and make sure no-one can pay the interest , let alone repay the loan, without repossession of some unfortunate somewhere else ...the money to pay interest is never created , it has to come from yet more loans of nothing ... the world long ago mortgaged its future and bankers buy u the world in repossession at low prices with interest from what they never had ... it is easy money gone crazy and not even governments exercise the power to stop them [even presidents get assassinated for trying , the power of evil that wil destroy us all is just too big already for one man to break it ... so Satan made his plan to rule the world, but it is a dead world he eventually all-but-rules, and Jesus returns only to take the saints who will rule the new earth... sinners are left to reap the consequences of going along with Satan for so long ...it is the wrath of God not to save sinners from the trap, the end of this earth takes a while, the bible calls it the worst time anyone ever lived through and in the end the earth and heavens are destroyed ... billions die sinners, but to start again freed of sin in the new earth, where te kingdom is established and the few rue and minister in justice, equality, sharing, love ... bizarrely though some still follow Satan after his resurrection to trial the many , even then many follow the 'easy' way that leads to long-term disaster and a second death for sin :-

China 'outflanked' the rather childish US plan in the Middle East even before it was created over twenty years ago ... only US and Britain are so pompous about their powers as to not notice that they lost [long-term] even before they began ... the irony then is that when China takes her prize of that oil, the only ones who will continue the fight are the very ones uSA and Britain [and increasingly Europe] are fighting now... I mean that is
utterly hilarious [at least if one is Chinese and doesn't instead weep about the inanity of mankind's absurdly foolish greed and inequality, our unlovingness, our sin against God law of love that buys us wages in (mass) death]

USA was formed by trampling the native population into the ground... it is still happening, they are still being persecuted, lied to, robbed by government, trampled on, killed by inequality ... this has never been a 'lamb' except in propaganda of the greedy, those whose god is Satan who like to pretend they respect the God of love... no different from those Jesus justly called hypocrites...

Stranger: I will say it again, the scenarion that you are proposing is based on the Jesuit inspired countereformation theory of futurism. Basically, its the "Left Behind" scenario. Why is it so dangerous? Becuase it takes away the focus from the BIG prophetic players who have been around for a long time, and who are still to this day activea and well, and are making their final moves in the global struggle for supremacy. While futurism puts the focus on a mysterious evil character to arise in the future. That is the fatal deception of futurism. We can already see the two BIG beasts of Revealtion in 2009: The first beast of Revelation 13--the Papacy, the second beast--the USA.

BrightCandle · May 2, 2009

Acts6:5 said:
I'm afraid you are quite mistaken about this. Justinian never gave the papacy legal "civil and religious authority" over the Western Empire, not in 538AD nor in any other year for that matter. In the rare instance that the Justinian Code addressed the papacy, it only touched on the Roman See's ecclesiastical authority over the Church; it never gave the papacy any proposed temporal authority over the Roman Empire. That idea is a myth.

The fact is that when Justinian had the opportunity to grant the papacy overarching civil authority over the West he failed to do so every time. In 540AD he gave the administration of Italy over to Alexander the Logothete, not the pope; then after the end of the Gothic War, instead of turning the civil government over to the papacy, Justinian created the Exarchate of Ravenna, gave full civil authority to the Exarch Narses, and kept Ravenna as the capital of Italy. Justinian's many successors did not grant your proposed authority to the Roman See either.

“Justinian sent a civilian, Alexander the Logothete, to govern Italy, hoping that his financial arrangements would render the new conquest a source of revenue to the imperial treasury. The fiscal administration of the new governor soon excited great discontent.”
(Greeks Under the Romans, George Finley pg. 244)

“The Emperor’s governors, called Exarchs, ruled the whole peninsula from their capital, Ravenna. Narses, the conqueror of the Ostrogoths, was the first and greatest of the Exarchs, and ruled Italy from A.D. 554 to A.D. 568.”
(Library of Universal History, Israel Smith Clare, pg. 1538)

The growth of the papacy's civil authority during the Middle Ages had practically nothing to do with Justinian's legislation, and had everything to do with the Lombard invasion of Italy, which led to weakened Byzantine control over Italy in general, which led to more autonomy for the papacy, which led to the papacy turning to the Franks for protection, which led to the Donation of Pepin in the 8th Century. The papacy's civil authority was due to circumstance, not Justinian's legal code.

If Justinian's law code spelled out the papacy's legal civil authority over the Western Empire then please provide the text from the Code that specifically states this, otherwise there is no textual evidence for that claim. Justinian's 533AD "headship" letter to Pope John II does not say anything about temporal power over the Empire, so where in the Code does he grant the legal transfer of civil power of the West to the papacy? The truth is he didn't, a fact that is firmly cemented when we look at the men he actually selected to run the government of the West in his stead.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Acts 6:5,

Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "civil" that way that I did in the sentence in question regarding the Papacy. I was thinking about Justinian's Civil Code, and the legal authority that Justinian gave to Pope John II, which is very important, in that it was the first time that the Papacy was legally given supreme religious authority over all the Western and Eastern Empire, and it was never legally cancelled or annulled.

Here is the translated quote from Justinian's 131st Novella:

"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of the Councils, we order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all the other sees." (Scott's translation)

This decree became effective generally in 538 A.D., by the freeing of Rome from the Ostrogothic siege. What is really thrilling about this, is that exactly 1,260 years later Napoleon's General Berthier took the Pope captive and took away his legal authority in civil and religious matters in 1798! This is one of the most remarkable events in Bible prophecy and is proof positive that the historicist view of prophecy is truly inspired. That is why the Papacy developed futurism and preterism to obscure the past and present, so that people will not understand the signs of the times when they are happening right before their very eyes!

NumberOneSon · May 2, 2009

BrightCandle said:
Acts 6:5,

BrightCandle said:
Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "civil" that way that I did in the sentence in question regarding the Papacy.

Ok, that’s fine. I must say that I am a bit surprised that you're correcting your word usage because I’ve seen a number of historicists claim the very same thing, that Justinian’s Code granted the papacy temporal sovereignty over the West. So it's not just you. But I’m glad you at least recognize that that wasn't the case.

BrightCandle said:
I was thinking about Justinian's Civil Code, and the legal authority that Justinian gave to Pope John II, which is very important, in that it was the first time that the Papacy was legally given supreme religious authority over all the Western and Eastern Empire, and it was never legally cancelled or annulled.

But that wouldn't matter because the Visigoths, Lombards, and Franks used their own law codes throughout the Middle Ages, and those codes were based on earlier Roman Law, not Justinian’s. Justinian’s Code also legally recognized the Ostrogoths as “devoted confederates” of the Roman Empire, and “decorated with honors”, and that decree was never legally cancelled or annulled either, but what good did that do them? The Eastern Church must have annulled the papacy’s headship at some point because they rejected papal primacy on several occasions throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods.

The reality is that just 2 years after Justinian wrote the “headship” letter, the emperor threatened to exile Pope Agapetus for disagreeing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a decade later Pope Vigilius was bullied, arrested, and dragged through the streets of Constantinople by a rope around his neck because he resisted the will of the emperor and the Eastern Church. The “headship” letter that Pope John II received in 533AD looked good on paper, but in reality it did very little to change the position of the papacy; Same as Emperor Valentian’s 445AD edict declaring the pope as the ruler over the whole church body, or that “whatever the authority of the Apostolic See decrees or shall decree, be accepted as law by all”. Both decrees ended up being toothless documents that were ignored in the East and tramped on in the West.

BrightCandle said:
Here is the translated quote from Justinian's 131st Novella:

BrightCandle said:
"Hence, in accordance with the provisions of the Councils, we order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all the other sees." (Scott's translation)

this decree became effective generally in 538 A.D., by the freeing of Rome from the Ostrogothic siege.

I'm afraid you are mistaken about this as well. The 131st Novel was promulgated on March 18, 545AD, seven years after the siege of Rome ended (Scott’s translation does not provide the date of authorship for each law, and this has led some historicists to simply assume that it was written before 538AD, which it wasn't. However, Fred Blume's translation provides the dates). And eight months after this legislation was enacted, the “Most Holy Pope” was dragged from Rome by Byzantine soldiers at Justinian’s request and forced to spend the rest of his pontificate as a religious/political prisoner of the emperor and the Eastern Church.

And I must reiterate that there is absolutely no historical basis to suggest that Justinian’s “headship” decree “became effective generally in 538AD”. This is an historicist fallacy, not a fact of history. Before the war with the Goths, Justinian had no problem sending the Pope the 6th Novella on April 14th, 535AD, demanding that the Roman See “extend the benefit of this law to the Catholic Churches of the entire East; and to those parts of the West in which they have any possessions”. So the pope could extend the benefits of the 6th Novel to all of the churches in 535AD, but he couldn’t act as “head of all churches” until 538AD? That makes absolutely no sense. Then once the war with the Goths commenced, Justinian did not put the Corpus Civilis into force in the re-conquered regions of Italy until issuing the Edictali Programma of 540/541AD and the Pragmatic Sanction of 554AD. He made no such enactment in 538AD, so the historicist claim surrounding 538AD is based on little more than the desire to create a prophetic fulfillment where one does not exist.

BrightCandle said:
What is really thrilling about this, is that exactly 1,260 years later Napoleon's General Berthier took the Pope captive and took away his legal authority in civil and religious matters in 1798!

But in 1798 the papacy’s ecclesiastical authority was not based on Justinian’s “headship” letter, but rather on Church law and tradition. I’ve read a number of books on the subject of the papacy’s temporal power during the Middle Ages, and I can’t recall a single instance in which the papacy based his legal authority in civil/religious matters on the Justinian Code. The Donation of Constantine? Certainly. The Justinian Code? Not once. But if you know of any examples I will certainly take a look at them.

BrightCandle said:
This is one of the most remarkable events in Bible prophecy and is proof positive that the historicist view of prophecy is truly inspired.

Only if we change history to suit our interpretations. Like I’ve mentioned to you in the past, prior to 1798 not one Protestant commentator put any significance in the year 538AD, or claimed that Justinian’s Code was put into effect in that year; they marked other years for that event. It was only after 1798 that some commentators conveniently began to retroactively claim that the “headship” decree was put into effect in 538AD.

BrightCandle said:
That is why the Papacy developed futurism and preterism to obscure the past and present, so that people will not understand the signs of the times when they are happening right before their very eyes!

And you are certainly welcome to that opinion. If the historicist view was a little more honest with it's use of history I might be more open to it.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

stranger · May 2, 2009

BrightCandle said:
Stranger: I will say it again, the scenarion that you are proposing is based on the Jesuit inspired countereformation theory of futurism. .

It ain't based on anything but reading the scripture and watching the world, like Jesus said ... I have no knowledge of 'Jesuits','counetreformations', or 'futurism' , I just us prayer/meditation on scripture , no sects, no denominations, no religion, no sinners' teachings.

So you are mistaken...

brakelite · May 2, 2009

Acts6:5 said:
And I must reiterate that there is absolutely no historical basis to suggest that Justinians headship decree became effective generally in 538AD. This is an historicist fallacy, not a fact of history. Before the war with the Goths, Justinian had no problem sending the Pope the 6th Novella on April 14th, 535AD, demanding that the Roman See extend the benefit of this law to the Catholic Churches of the entire East; and to those parts of the West in which they have any possessions. So the pope could extend the benefits of the 6th Novel to all of the churches in 535AD, but he couldnt act as head of all churches until 538AD?
Acts6:5

Just a query; Justinian's demand that the pope extend the benefit of this law to the Catholic Churches of the entire East; and to those parts of the West in which they have any possessions. was given to said pope in 535AD. Was the pope actually able to do so however, or were the Goths at the time, restricting the popes ability to implement this 'demand ' of Justinian's, until Rome was freed from them in 538AD?

LittleLambofJesus · May 2, 2009

Originally Posted by BrightCandle That is why the Papacy developed futurism and preterism to obscure the past and present, so that people will not understand the signs of the times when they are happening right before their very eyes!

I see no signs that are different than any other time since the Cross. Every generation crains their next into the sky looking for signs and it will be like that for many generations after we are long gone back "home"
But hey, I think the SDA's keep eschatology interesting for those that are still futurists........

CaliforniaJosiah · May 2, 2009

.

ONE more try, lol.....

As it has been explained to ME, the Lutheran Church Fathers did not relate this in terms of Eschatology. The line of thought was as follows:

The "anti-christ" is mentioned like 4 times in the Bible: 3 in First John, 1 in Second John. It defines that such is one who denies that Jesus IS THE Christ. At the time that these Epistles were written (maybe the 90's), there were ALREADY MANY anti-Christs. So it was not a future thing, not a single thing - there WERE ALREADY MANY anti-Christs, ie, those denying that Jesus is THE Christ.

The issue became: Does the RCC teach that Jesus is THE Christ/Savior - or does it deny such? It was the view of some Lutheran Church Fathers all of whom were trained in the RCC (correctly or errantly) that in the 16th century, the RCC taught that OUR works play a role in OUR salvation, thus Jesus is not THE Christ/Savior but rather PART Savior or A Savior - we are also Savior (how much it's Jesus and how much it's us is moot to the point - it denies that Jesus IS THE Savior). That was the point.

Now, I'm on record that I don't agree. And I think the title was unfortunate and contraproductive - although I think the purpose was to draw attention to the issue of justification and to whether we are justified by Jesus or by some combo of Jesus' works + our works.

.

visionary · May 2, 2009

Figure out the theology of the anti-christ and then look around for who are following it...

CaliforniaJosiah · May 2, 2009

visionary said:
Figure out the theology of the anti-christ and then look around for who are following it...

Simple, IMHO....

John tells us that an anti-Christ is any that deny that Jesus is the Christ/Savior. There were already lots of such when he wrote of this in the 90's.

So, ask: Does this teacher (person, denomination, whatever) teach that Jesus is THE Savior, or do they teach that some other is (such as we ourselves), or do they teach that Jesus was PARTLY the Savior but so are we (as one Mormon told me: "Jesus opened the way, but we have to do - He made Salvation possible but we have to do it").

.

brakelite · May 2, 2009

I haven't read every post in this thread, but thought the following might offer another perspective. It is rather long, and there is much scripture references, but hey, that's what is required to search for truth right?

Before we look at the antichrist, I want to look at the real Christ. Who is He? Let us go to the scriptures to find out what and Who He claimed to be.

Mathew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words.

38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted an entire city of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. Nineveh. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon.

In the three startling claims as shown above, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus. Priest, prophet, and King.

It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti- as in antichrist, according to Strong's concordance, and like other words having the prefix 'anti', means at it's most basic form "in the room of", "instead of", or "in the place of".
In other words, 'antichrist' stands as a substitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many would claim the 'antichrist' will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be decieved by such a tactic as this?
In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce.
Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a 'son of perdition' is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle imposter. A counterfeit. An imposter of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.
Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.

Satan has many counterfeits. Now counterfeits are almost identical to the true. You do not get counterfeit 99$ notes. You get counterfeit 100$ notes. And unless you get trained and disciplined to know intimately the true 100$ note, you will not recognise the false. It has been estimated that every person in America who has regularly handled 100$ notes, has had pass through their hands a counterfeit at least 4 times a year! And not known it!!!! Unless you are intimately acquainted with the true Jesus, how will you recognise the counterfeit?

In Revelation 14 God has the final message of warning that His peaople must deliver before He comes. It is shown as being preached by 3 angels, This is figurative, for it is the responsibilityof the church to preach the gospel. It however can be understaad that angels are directing and overseeing the preaching. Satan however has a counterfeit message. We see this in
Revelation 16:13,14. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

This is a threefold message of demons opposing and decieving the world at the time of the end.
Another counterfeit is the trinity. We see the two trinities opposing one another throughout the book of Revelation. On the one side the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On the other, the dragon or Satan, the sea-beast or antichrist in Rev 13, and the land-beast or false prophet of the same chapter. Let us look at some of the paralells, with particular interest on the sea-beast.

Dragon/Satan.
His place in heaven (Rev 12:3,7,8.)
He has a throne. (Rev 13:2, 2:13)
Gives throne, power, and authority to sea-beast. (13:2,4.)
He is worshipped. (13:4a)
Destroyed forever. (20:9,10)

Now compare:
God the Father
Dwelling in heaven (Rev 4,5)
He has a throne. (4:5; 7:9-15; 19:4)
Gives throne, power and authority to Jesus. (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27; 3:21; chapters 4,5.)
Is worshipped. (Rev 4:10; 15:4)
Lives and reign forever. (4:9; 5:13; 11:15)

The Land-beast or false prophet.
Called the false prophet because he decieves people with regards to religious matters. (16:13; 19:20; 20:10)
Lamb-like. (13:11)
Exercises all authority of sea-beast. (13:12a)
Directs worship to sea-beast. (13:12b,15)
Performs signs. (13:13; 19:20)
Brings fire down from heaven (13:13)
Gives breath/life to beasts image (13:15)
Applies mark of beast. (13:16)

Now compare:
The Holy Spirit
Called the Spirit of truth guiding people. (Jn 16:13 Rev 22:17)
Christ-like. (Jn 1426; 16:14)
Exercises authority of Christ (Jn 16:13,14)
Directs worship to Christ (Acts 5:29-32)
Fire from heaven at Pentecost (Acts 2)
Instills life to us, the image of Christ. (Romans8:11,29)
Applies seal of God. (2 Cor 1:22 Eph 1:13 4:30 Rev 7:3,4.)

The sea-beast or antichrist.
Comes from water to begin activity. (13:1)
Resembles dragon. (12:13 13:1)
Ten diadems. (13:1)
Ten horns (13:1)
Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (13:2,4)
42 months of activity in first phase. (13:5)
Was slain (13:3)
Resurrected (13:3)
Receives worship after healing (13:3,4,8)

Now compare:
Jesus Christ
Comes from water to begin ministry (Luke 3:21-23)
Resembles Father (Jn 14:19)
Many diadems (Rev 19:12)
Lamb has 7 horns (5:6)
Receives power throne and authority from His Father (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27 Chapters 4,5)
42 months of ministry in initial phase. (Gospel of John)
Was slain (Rev 5:6)
Was resurrected (Rev1:18)
Received worship after resurrection (Math 28:17)

So how does the above sea-beast or antichrist counterfeit the threefold ministry of the true Christ, as Priest, Prophet and King? Is there an entity in the world today who claims to do just this? Is there one like Judas who is betraying the Master with a kiss, all the while claiming to be a friend? Is there in the world today a religious system or religious ruler who claims to be the earthly representative of Christ as His priest, claiming to be a mediator between God and man? Claiming to forgive sin even?
Does this entity also claim the prerogatives of a prophet? Does it claim to speak for God in spiritual matters? Does it claim to stand as God spokesman
on earth and claim that only through it's authority can salvation be found?
And finally, does this entity also claim to be a king? Does it claim authority as a secular power? Does it exercise authority and power within the auspices of a church/state relationship?

The answer my friends to all the above questions is a firm yes.There is an entity in the world today who claims all the above Godly prerogatives which belong only to Jesus Christ. Priest, prophet and king.This entity has set itself up as counterfeit and thus can be affirmatively identified as the antichrist, the impostor and impersonator of the true. And this entity can be found in the Roman Catholic church system

stranger · May 2, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Simple, IMHO....
John tells us that an anti-Christ is any that deny that Jesus is the Christ/Savior. There were already lots of such when he wrote of this in the 90's.

Not so simple my friend , the whole world will worship Satan [Rev 13:3-10] bar a couple of thousand saints ... that includes all major religions including those who think they they believe in Jesus now...

One must thus carefully examine if they do in fact follow what the Jesus of scripture says or other doctrines ...

That Christianity is divided actually shows immediately that it is not following one truth by the holy spirit , many diverse doctrinal 'faiths' cannot be one truth...

But by examining Jesus' words one finds not just the differences from modern religion adapted to include continual sinners but that he predicted this apostasy of the religion .

Thus the Jesus of scripture bears no resemblance to the altered image of Jesus in modern religion.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 2, 2009

Actually, anti-Christ is only mentioned FOUR times in the Bible: 3 in First John and 1 in Second John. The ONLY issue of this thread is anti-Christs, not all the other issues interjected here.

John himself gives the definition of the term: it's a denial of Jesus as the Christ. How many anti-Christs are around? Well, in the 90's when John wrote this, there were already many. Already. Many. That were denying Jesus as the Christ. Nothin' about anything else, denying Jesus as the Christ.

Now, the issue of this thread is that some in the 16th Century regarded the RCC and/or the Papacy thereof to be an anti-christ, meaning, SPECIALLY and SOLELY, a rejection of Jesus as THE Christ/Savior by virtue of their understanding that the RCC taught that we are not saved by Christ's works but by His works + our works - making us also a Savior or perhaps part Savior.

Now, were these 16th century Catholic trained theologians correct on this specific singular point? I tend to think not; in any case, I think the label unfortunate and unconstructive. But I DO think it's important to see how they meant it - and it was NOT in the sense that so many TODAY use the term and think of it: it was SOLELY in the sense that St. John used it the 4 times that he did. Nothin' more.

.

Justducky · May 2, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

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

.

I hope not-even though I disagree with The Church on many issues-there are some lovely saints who are certainly an example.

I will be pleased when Mother Teresa is made a saint. She is an example who is universal to all faiths.

stranger · May 3, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Actually, anti-Christ is only mentioned FOUR times in the Bible: 3 in First John and 1 in Second John. The ONLY issue of this thread is anti-Christs, not all the other issues interjected here.

John himself gives the definition of the term: it's a denial of Jesus as the Christ. How many anti-Christs are around? Well, in the 90's when John wrote this, there were already many. Already. Many. That were denying Jesus as the Christ. Nothin' about anything else, denying Jesus as the Christ.

Now, the issue of this thread is that some in the 16th Century regarded the RCC and/or the Papacy thereof to be an anti-christ, meaning, SPECIALLY and SOLELY, a rejection of Jesus as THE Christ/Savior by virtue of their understanding that the RCC taught that we are not saved by Christ's works but by His works + our works - making us also a Savior or perhaps part Savior.

Now, were these 16th century Catholic trained theologians correct on this specific singular point? I tend to think not; in any case, I think the label unfortunate and unconstructive. But I DO think it's important to see how they meant it - and it was NOT in the sense that so many TODAY use the term and think of it: it was SOLELY in the sense that St. John used it the 4 times that he did. Nothin' more.

.

Well, there was [is?] this guy ,Sai Baba in India who thinks he is the Christ , has over a million followers ...

But the issue with the whole of Christianity [bar the true saints] is that the image of Jesus , his gospel, and the new covenant , has been changed [starting with Rome]... by worshiping a false Jesus image, they are worshiping a false Christ ...

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2009

stranger said:
Well, there was [is?] this guy ,Sai Baba in India who thinks he is the Christ , has over a million followers ...

But the issue with the whole of Christianity [bar the true saints] is that the image of Jesus , his gospel, and the new covenant , has been changed [starting with Rome]... by worshiping a false Jesus image, they are worshiping a false Christ ...

Can you give some examples of who the "they" might be?
What about those of the religions of Judaism and Islam that also worship a false image of YHWH? :wave:

NumberOneSon · May 3, 2009

brakelite3 said:
Just a query; Justinian's demand that the pope

brakelite3 said:
“extend the benefit of this law to the Catholic Churches of the entire East; and to those parts of the West in which they have any possessions”. was given to said pope in 535AD. Was the pope actually able to do so however, or were the Goths at the time, restricting the popes ability to implement this 'demand ' of Justinian's, until Rome was freed from them in 538AD?

Excellent question. The answer is, no, the Goths were not restricting the pope’s ability to implement that law at the time it was enacted. You describe Rome as being “freed” from the Goths in 538AD, but the Gothic kings had allowed the papacy to govern the Church as it wished, and almost always stayed out of ecclesiastical matters unless the clergy sought their council. It was in the Gothic kings’ best interests to foster good relations with the papacy and the Romans in general, and for the most part they succeeded.

Allow me to provide some context; King Theodoric passed edicts protecting freedom of religion for Catholics as well as every other religion within his realm, stating that, “We cannot command the religion of our subjects, since no-one can be forced to believe against his will”. He even participated in a ceremony that implied that he recognized the pope’s authority over the Church and the City of Rome. I can only think of one instance during his 30+ year reign where he mistreated the papacy (but the papacy suffered far worse under the Byzantine emperors). Theodoric was succeeded by King Athalaric, who passed edicts that increased the power of the papacy and gave it jurisdiction over judicial cases involving clerics. Athalaric was then succeeded by King Theodahad, whose only fault against the church was that he pushed a pro-Gothic papal candidate (Pope Silverius) onto the throne, but he only did that as a last ditch effort to try to stave off war (and Justinian would be guilty of forcing a papal candidate of his own on the Romans 19-years later). Theodahad was very much a Romanized-Goth and did nothing to persecute the Church; he wasn’t much interested in anything other than studying Greek classicists, overtaxing his subjects in Tuscany, and covering his own hide.

So from my previous study of that time period, I don’t know of any reason why the Goths would have restricted the pope from implementing the law in question since it was ecclesiastical in nature. The fact that the kings were Arians isn’t a valid reason because these same kings had given the Church an unparalleled amount of freedom to govern it’s own affairs for 40 years, more freedom than it would enjoy under direct imperial supervision. Some of the greatest, early examples of papal primacy and authority were exhibited by popes like Gelasius, Symmachus, and Hormidas, and those pontiffs reigned at the time the Ostrogoths governed Italy. Like I said to TraderJack earlier in the thread, the “Two Swords” doctrine that culminated with the Unam Sanctum can generally be traced back to one of Pope Gelasius’ letter to Emperor Anastasius, and Gelasius was a pope who reigned during the Ostrogothic occupation.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

visionary · May 3, 2009

The only other example of a 'son of perdition' is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle imposter. A counterfeit. An imposter of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.

Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.

Never thought of Judas as an anti-christ because he wanted Christ to grab the reigns of Kingship before it was time. He was a man with an agenda, but thought He was doing God a favor. It was not until the full impact of the betrayal settled in his mind, did he realise what he had done, in which immediately he tried to undo, and failing that, committed suicide because he could not bear the shame.

That does not sound like the actions of the acti-christ. But I will give it some more thought. It just might be that the anti-christ actually thinks that he is doing God a great service, not realising whom he is really serving.

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2009

visionary said:
Never thought of Judas as an anti-christ because he wanted Christ to grab the reigns of Kingship before it was time. He was a man with an agenda, but thought He was doing God a favor. It was not until the full impact of the betrayal settled in his mind, did he realise what he had done, in which immediately he tried to undo, and failing that, committed suicide because he could not bear the shame.

That does not sound like the actions of the acti-christ. But I will give it some more thought. It just might be that the anti-christ actually thinks that he is doing God a great service, not realising whom he is really serving.

John 14:30 is an interesting verse.
Judas may have felt remorse giving Jesus up to the apostate muderous Judean rulers, but they did not feel any remorse after giving Jesus over to the Romans to crucify/murder.

But the Scriptures had to be fulfilled :wave:

John 14:30 "Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736), the of the world, this, Chief and in Me not he is having anything.

John 18:3 Judas, therefore, having taken the band and officers out of the chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-Come/ercetai <2064> (5736)thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;

Is the Catholic Papacy an Anti-Christ?

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads