Satanic symbols or is it just me?

[Neo]

Matthew 24:15
You will see ‘The Awful Horror’ of which the prophet Daniel spoke. It will be standing in the holy place. (Note to the reader: understand what this means!)

Is the awful horror standing in the holy place?

The inverted cross symbolizes mockery and rejection of Jesus Christ, this symbol is common among Satanists. Take a look at the inverted cross in these photos of the Pope:

The bent crucifix is a another satanic symbol intended to mock Christ. Here is an example of the bent crucifix and a normal crucifix:

Here is an image of the Pope with the bent crucifix:

2 Thessalonians 2:4
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

“Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me.”
--Pope John Paul II, Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1984

"...We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope]."
--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUM SANCTUM

1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 

[Buzzard]

Lets go thru this with a sharp eye:

--{2 Thes.2:3}--
3 Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come,
<> except there come a falling away first,
<> and that man of sin be revealed,
<> the son of perdition;

4
<> Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
<> or that is worshipped;
<> so that he as God sitteth
<> in the temple of God,
<> shewing himself that he is God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

1st} except there come a falling away first,
Has there been a Falling away from Apostelic Faith ??????

When did this "Falling Away" happen ???


2nd} Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
Does the Papacy Opposeth God {opposition to or a substitute} ????

3rd} Does the Papacy;
--"exalteth himself above all that is called God"-- ????

4th} Now this one is the key
so that he as God sitteth
<> in the temple of God,
Is the St. Peters in Rome; ie:
--"The Temple of God"-- ?????

Conclusion:

1st} If St. Peters in Rome IS the "Temple of God";
<> Then The Roman Church is all she claims for herself:
<> and The Pope IS The Antichrist
<> and all Scripture states of this power would be applicable to Him:

2nd} If St Peters in Rome IS NOT the "Temple of God";
<> Then the Pope IS NOT the "Anti-Christ"
<> And, The Roman Church IS NOT the
--"1st Day Apostelic Church"--
<> And, is only an Imposter:
<> And, all she claims for herself is not true:

Seems to me;
The Cathoilc's have themselves in a delima;

They claim things for themselves;
that makes them the;
Evil Power that was to come
just after Paul:
--"Setting in the Temple of God"--

But then deny;
He that sets there is;
---"The Antichrist"---

God Bless your Studies;
Buzz:

 

[davo]

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
I don't think Catchup is Catholic bashing, but he is bringing up some very questionable practices. I also believe that it is the preterists that are breaking the second rule. They will have much to disagree with on end time events, because their view of end time was 70 AD. So by posting on this forum, they bring confusion. Not to us that know about their beliefs, but to the newcomers who don't. For those of us that are very aware of them, we are constantly having to stop our discussions, and defend and explain very basic truths, only because theys guys can't find the right forum. They are clearly here to divide and argue, and they disrupt the normal flow of us that believe that Christ is still to come. Letting them stay here, is like asking muslims to stay on a jewish forum until they can come to some agreement. It won't happen, but many will leave this forum because it will be bearing very little, or no fruit, which is the goal of the preterists in the first place. They are not here to learn our beliefs, or agree with any end time subject. They also ignore Erwin's request, which he posted at the very top of the first page of the forum. I believe wisdom would move their threads to a different forum, either that or ban them for not following the request of the leadership of this forum. The Catholics have their own forum, and the end times forum is not for always agreeing with the Catholic view.

Thanks rollin' -I see you're still stuck in your narrow-minded sectarian diatribe: dirty dog muslims, dirty dog catholics and dirty dirty dog preterists -next you'll accuse all preterists for world war three. get real!! There wasn't any talk about "prets" on this thread untill you just couldn't contain your ungodly rage

davo

 

[Wolseley]

The inverted cross symbolizes mockery and rejection of Jesus Christ, this symbol is common among Satanists.

Among Catholics, the inverted cross is a symbol of Peter; both Tertullian and Origen attested that Peter was crucified in Rome, upside-down, as was his wish.

The bent crucifix is a another satanic symbol intended to mock Christ. Here is an example of the bent crucifix and a normal crucifix

And what, pray, is a "normal" crucifix? If a crucifix with bent arms is Satanic, how about one with a potent? A fitchee? A pattee? A trefflee? Gloried? Budded? Maltese? Transverse? Pomee? Moline? Fourchee? Quadrate? Avellan? How about Julian? Barbee? Cercelee? Cleche? Millrine? Fleuree? Entrailed? Masely? Frettee? Trononnee? How about an Aiguisee? Patonce? Pheonee? Crenelle? Ragulee? Nebule? Demi sarcelled? Bezant? Lambeau? Fimbriated? Triparted?

I have seen crucifixes in all these patterns; so tell me, which ones are "normal", and which ones are not? Which ones are of Satanic origin, and which are not?

Or could it simply be that whoever came up with the idea that a bent crucifix (the proper name for which, by the way, is Ondulee) doesn't have enough knowledge of Christian iconography to know what he's talking about?

Besides which, many Protestants feel that the image of Christ on a cross is idolatry, so what difference would it make if the cross is bent or not?

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Wolseley
Or could it simply be that whoever came up with the idea that a bent crucifix (the proper name for which, by the way, is Ondulee) doesn't have enough knowledge of Christian iconography to know what he's talking about?

G'day Wolseley . I'm not Catholic, but so what . I think your statment "nailed it."

davo

 

[Didymus]

I thought the *bent* crucifix was just the way the artist chose to depict his work. get a life

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Wolseley

Among Catholics, the inverted cross is a symbol of Peter; both Tertullian and Origen attested that Peter was crucified in Rome, upside-down, as was his wish.

And what, pray, is a &quot;normal&quot; crucifix? If a crucifix with bent arms is Satanic, how about one with a potent? A fitchee? A pattee? A trefflee? Gloried? Budded? Maltese? Transverse? Pomee? Moline? Fourchee? Quadrate? Avellan? How about Julian? Barbee? Cercelee? Cleche? Millrine? Fleuree? Entrailed? Masely? Frettee? Trononnee? How about an Aiguisee? Patonce? Pheonee? Crenelle? Ragulee? Nebule? Demi sarcelled? Bezant? Lambeau? Fimbriated? Triparted?

I have seen crucifixes in all these patterns; so tell me, which ones are &quot;normal&quot;, and which ones are not? Which ones are of Satanic origin, and which are not?

Or could it simply be that whoever came up with the idea that a bent crucifix (the proper name for which, by the way, is Ondulee) doesn't have enough knowledge of Christian iconography to know what he's talking about?

Besides which, many Protestants feel that the image of Christ on a cross is idolatry, so what difference would it make if the cross is bent or not?

I do not know of the other crucifixes, but I do know that the bent cross with the disfigured Jesus is a Satanic symbol.

“Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me.”
--Pope John Paul II, Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1984

Can you explain this blasphemy? I have other examples if you want to see them.

 

[Wolseley]

I do not know of the other crucifixes, but I do know that the bent cross with the disfigured Jesus is a Satanic symbol.

You "just know", huh? Okay, fair enough. I disagree, and I have told you the reasons why. I, at least, have some Christian Patristic sources which I cited. Und Sie?

“Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me.”
--Pope John Paul II, Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1984

Can you explain this blasphemy? I have other examples if you want to see them.

Quote me the whole article, in its entirety, and we'll go from there. One sentence (which may be jerked completely out of context) doesn't prove a thing, especially one coming from a secular news service. So you go look it up, and post it as it was originally published, complete, and we'll see what it has to say. I'll wait.

Oh, and by the way, the on-line search function for the Los Angeles Times website only goes back to January of 1985, so you'll probably have to go to a library and search through the microfiche by hand. Happy hunting.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Wolseley

You &quot;just know&quot;, huh? Okay, fair enough. I disagree, and I have told you the reasons why. I, at least, have some Christian Patristic sources which I cited. Und Sie?

Quote me the whole article, in its entirety, and we'll go from there. One sentence (which may be jerked completely out of context) doesn't prove a thing, especially one coming from a secular news service. So you go look it up, and post it as it was originally published, complete, and we'll see what it has to say. I'll wait.

I'll ask a freind of mine to scan the article, although I don't see how the context will change anything. The fact remains that the Pope committed blasphemy, fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Wolseley]

Like I said, you post the entire article, complete, and we'll go from there.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Subject of thread:
Satanic symbols or is it just me?

It's just you.

Annabel

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Annabel_Lee
Subject of thread:
Satanic symbols or is it just me?

It's just you.

Annabel

The sad thing is, it probably isn't just him who believes that

-Chris

 

[Susan]

That could be satanic symbolism. Who knows? I think that we should watch out for blasphemers and liars whereever they hide.
BTW: Full Preterism (that claims that the Resurrection is already past)is a heresy, according to II Timothy 2:17-19. Read verse 18 especially.

Partial preterism (which claims that some future prophecies have been fulfilled but the Second Coming and Resurrection are still to come in the future) is not a heresy like full preterism; however it is misguided, dangerous (people in it don't prepare for future events), and can open the door to the heresy of full preterism spoken of above.

 

[Mandy]

Please keep posts on topic.
NO BASHING ANYONE!!!
I am going to keep a close eye on this thread.

 

[MissytheButterfly]

Personally, I don't think that Jesus will be coming back and using the Pope's chair for anything..I mean come on..the Pope is a good man most likely but he is just that a man.

Jesus is almighty and powerful by himself and doesn't need to sit in the Pope's chair or anyother man or woman's chair.

As far as the Satanic symbols are concerned, I think Catholics have their own interpretation of what these symbols mean and to me (and I am not Catholic) think Catholics are definitely far from Satanists..that is ridiculous. I mean come on Catholics claim to be THEE CHURCH and even if they aren't THE CHURCH in the end, I don't think their idea will be dicounted in the eyes of God...so please Satanic?..I don't think so.

(Moderator Hat on)

Please be careful of how we judge other Christians..We are all pressing to the mark of the high calling.

Thank you.

Bless you all.

 

[Catchup]

OK, I know this is really tough. It is tough on me and I am not Catholic.

But the explanation about that this inverted cross being the cross on which the Apostle Peter was crucified does not make sense. Indeed, Peter was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord and Savior. However, historical records indicate that, while Peter was nailed on the cross upside down, the cross was set in the ground just the same upright way that the Roman executioners always set it. In other words, the cross was not inverted! Peter was inverted, not the cross.

Would you wear an inverted cross necklace to Mass? At this point the only place they can be puchased is from a Satanic store. If you answer NO!!

Then don't you think that is what the Pope should have said about the Chair?

Sorry
LOVE

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Susan
That could be satanic symbolism. Who knows? I think that we should watch out for blasphemers and liars whereever they hide.
BTW: Full Preterism (that claims that the Resurrection is already past)is a heresy, according to II Timothy 2:17-19. Read verse 18 especially.

Just a quick response to the charge of "Heresy," which is a rather loosely bandied around term and yet a very serious one –and not intending to get into a discussion as this is not the thread or forum for such.

Here's a thought -if Hymenaeus and Philetus were able to over throw the faith of some, there message [though false] carried enough credence to do so.

Is it possible that first century believers expected the Lords return to be something other than "a universe burning, time ending, grave emptying event?" –which today is the popular notion. If that's what they were waiting for then, how could anyone's faith have been over thrown [according to todays popular notion] – all someone simply had to say was "look out side, I see nothing's changed, the graves are intact, we're still all here –where is this 'band new physical world'?"

They didn't, and that's because they weren't expecting one. Paul rebukes Hymenaeus and Philetus' "TIMING" not the "nature" of our Lord's return. 2Thess 2:2 covers this same issue.

PS: as I said I will not be entering into debate on this here -just answering the ad nauseam unjustified charge of heresy

davo

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Catchup
But the explanation about that this inverted cross being the cross on which the Apostle Peter was crucified does not make sense. Indeed, Peter was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord and Savior. However, historical records indicate that, while Peter was nailed on the cross upside down, the cross was set in the ground just the same upright way that the Roman executioners always set it. In other words, the cross was not inverted! Peter was inverted, not the cross.

Hrm, can you explain to me then (given your *ahem* "historical factoids") how Peter's arms were nailed to the cross if the arm-beams were at his feet?

 

[MissytheButterfly]

Originally posted by nyj


Hrm, can you explain to me then (given your *ahem* &quot;historical factoids&quot how Peter's arms were nailed to the cross if the arm-beams were at his feet?

LOL NYJ, couldn't have asked it better myself..Thanks...LOL...

Okay..NYJ and I are waiting for an answer!

 

[davo]

Originally posted by nyj
Hrm, can you explain to me then (given your *ahem* &quot;historical factoids&quot how Peter's arms were nailed to the cross if the arm-beams were at his feet?

come now nyj -you're not getting all "logical" on us are you -I mean that sounds like you're using brain [dangerous around here]

davo