Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
General Garibaldi was a hero, unlike many of your popes, who were the worst sort of villains. Dante was right to locate several of them in Hell.LOL!!!
Dude stop bringing up this Italian dude with the wounded foot. It is hilarious and making me laugh.
"General" Garibaldi... LOL
Also I am not aware of any Pope becoming wealthy from being a Pope so your assertion of grasping for wealth makes no sense to me.
The power thing probably has a ring of truth to it though but I am not judging.
General Garibaldi was a hero, unlike many of your popes, who were the worst sort of villains. Dante was right to locate several of them in Hell.
No, you read it again. James rendered the decision, not Peter, the rotting fictions of Rome not withstanding. Furthermore:
Galatians 2:9-10
...and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.
Who is listed first by Paul? James, not Peter. Also, Paul refers to pillars, not pillar.
I would think even you know that we are not to judge anyone in such a way. That said, I would not be proud of Dante assigning anyone to Hell. I think that job goes to Jesus and those he chooses to help him and that will be at the end of time and not in Dante's writings.
Sorry if this Italian dude is a hero of yours but the wound in the foot when he tries to attack the Pope is just too funny. I can imagine God making a fool of this Garibaldi guy for trying such a thing. LOL
God works in mysterious ways...
We are discussing who lead the Jerusalem Council, and the evidence points to James the Just, not Peter. Peter took the lead in other instances but not this one.OK...
So you are saying all the Apsotles are pillars? I agree.
But what matters where Paul places Cephas in the list of the three names?
If it is a matter of primacy and you are saying Paul is placing James higher then Peter because james is mentioned first then "OK". Now look at all the times Peter is placed first. I amsure the number is far greater and that Peter's primacy will far overshadow any other Apostle in scripture.
Yet, the "God" of the popes was curiously absent when Pius IX lost the Papal States and Rome due to the efforts of General Garibaldi and King Vittorio Emanuele II. The true God works in mysterious ways, indeed.
We are discussing who lead the Jerusalem Council, and the evidence points to James the Just, not Peter. Peter took the lead in other instances but not this one.
And yet the Vatican and the Catholic Church have survived. Funny how you lend some kind of credibility to the wounded foot hero of yours when his nemesis is alive and well and over a Billion strong throughout the world. As it is written so it shall be. [bible]matthew 16:18[/bible]
And yet the Vatican and the Catholic Church have survived.
Funny how you lend some kind of credibility to the wounded foot hero of yours when his nemesis is alive and well and over a Billion strong throughout the world.
Peter led the 1st council in Jerusalem and a quote stating the three Apostles are pillars with James listed first hardly changes that.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years...
The Catholic Church is today...the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race...
You are welcome to add that fantasy to your stockpile but repeating it ad nauseam does not make it true, sorry.
I assure you, his nemesis, Pius IX, is quite dead. Speaking of whom, when Pius IX was generously offered the Leonine City, which is more extensive than the Vatican, he peevishly refused, to the benefit of Italy and the world.
Among those "many people" are the popes of the past, who grasped at temporal power and wealth.
"It is in vain that my enemies try to make me out an atheist. I believe in God. I am of the religion of Christ, not of the religion of the Popes. I do not admit any intermediary between God and man. Priests have merely trust themselves in, in order to make a trade of religion. They are the enemies of true religion, liberty, and progress; they are the original cause of our slavery and degradation, and in order to subjugate the souls of Italians, they have called in foreigners to enchain our bodies. The foreigners we have expelled, now we must expel those mitered and tonsured traitors who summoned them. The people must be taught that it is not enough to have a free country, but that they must learn to exercise the rights and perform the duties of free men. Duty! duty! that is the word. Our people must learn their duties to their families, their duties to their country, their duty to humanity"
--General Garibaldi
I thought it was much more than Pope Pius IX for what did you quote earlier?
Like I said earlier...
And yet the Vatican and the Catholic Church have survived.
Funny how you lend some kind of credibility to the wounded foot hero of yours when his nemesis is alive and well and over a Billion strong throughout the world.
As it is written so it shall be.
[bible]matthew 16:18[/bible]
Here is another scripture for you that is far more fitting:
Apocalypse 17:3-6
3So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; 5and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.’ 6And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus.
I've already read that weak apologia. The suggestion that the Vatican is in the poorhouse because they run a budget deficit is laughable. Perhaps if the RCC did not have to pay out so much for shielding so many child molesters it could balance its budgets. I suggest selling some of their tiaras and expensive costumes for a start.I bet that you are sharing the falsehoods taught by Dave Hunt that appear to hold water yet on closer inspection you will find his theories and others like his are actually full of little holes. Not surprising since all the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism have been the same for Protestants as they were for the heretics the 1400 plus years before they even existed. If you wish to have the full truth without the falsehoods and misdirections then there is only one road to that Truth and it always leads to the Catholic Church.
LINK
#2: "Babylon"—What’s in a Name?
Hunt notes that the harlot will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great."
The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."
"The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the] Lord was crucified."
Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.
This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.
#3: Commits Fornication
Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘harlot’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."
Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual harlot, suggesting that the harlot might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).
To identify the harlot as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy."
He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).
#4: Clothed in Purple and Red
Hunt states, "She [the harlot] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.
Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.
Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.
The purple and scarlet of the harlot are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the harlot should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the harlot may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).
Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.
It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.
Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).
#5: Possesses Great Wealth
Hunt states, "[The harlot’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.
Can we read some of your apologia? I mean, a guy like you who says everyone else is "deluded" and "weak", surely you have published some inspired tome we can all be enlightened by.I've already read that weak apologia. The suggestion that the Vatican is in the poorhouse because they run a budget deficit is laughable. Perhaps if the RCC did not have to pay out so much for shielding so many child molesters it could balance its budgets. I suggest selling some of their tiaras and expensive costumes for a start.
Can we read some of your apologia? I mean, a guy like you who says everyone else is "deluded" and "weak", surely you have published some inspired tome we can all be enlightened by.
?
I've already read that weak apologia. The suggestion that the Vatican is in the poorhouse because they run a budget deficit is laughable. Perhaps if the RCC did not have to pay out so much for shielding so many child molesters it could balance its budgets. I suggest selling some of their tiaras and expensive costumes for a start.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?