Look and see who it is...
'Revelation 13:5 says this first beast would also blaspheme God. Luke 5:21 reads, “
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”
Today in the Catholic Church they allege that every Priest has power to forgive sins. Catholic Quote: “
To pardon a single sin requires all the omnipotence of God... The Jews justly said: ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ But what only GOD can do by His omnipotence, the PRIEST can ALSO do by saying ‘Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis’ [I absolve you from your sin].” — Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, pages 34-35.
What part of "
But what only GOD can do by His omnipotence" don't you understand???
No man on Earth can forgive sins.
John 20:21 – before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 – the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 – Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 – this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
No man on Earth can forgive sins, and we agree, without God's authority. Your cult teaches priests forgive sins on their own authority.
As for power, Elizabeth I defied the Pope and he sent word to all Catholics in England not to obey the Queen. Henry of Germany offended the Pope and he had to stand barefoot in the snow for three days to pay penance to the Pope before he would forgive him.
Another unproven SDA invention.
The Papacy also regularly make claims to take the place of God on Earth, which is clearly according to the Word of God blasphemous. John 10:33 says, “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, makest thyself God.” As stated previously, the beast makes many blasphemous claims and this is another Biblical definition for blasphemy and criteria for identifying the beast enforcing the mark.
Remember that the apostle John demonstrated that antichrist came from the early Church and he also demonstrated that antichrist was in place of God. Does the Pope put himself in place of Christ, and hence match the definition of antichrist?
“We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty.” — Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.
“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of human flesh.” — Catholic National, July 1895.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous.”....
But
if the above citation is accurate, this would, of course, not be an equation of the pope with Jesus (which is absurd and blasphemous and which has never been taught by the Catholic Church), but a reference to the notion of
alter Christus or
little Christ — which means that the pope acts as a
representative of Christ in his priestly function (as all priests do). The pope is also referred to as
Peter sometimes; again, not literally, but in the sense of “successor.”
Each priest at Mass is re-creating the scene at the Last Supper, of Jesus offering the first Holy Communion and saying,
this is My body. But in no sense is that any sort of equality with Christ.
1) The
symbolic equation of Christ and His disciples (even all of mankind) is a most biblical concept:
John 13:20 (NRSV) . . . whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. (cf. Lk 9:48, Mk 9:37, Mt 18:5)
Matthew 25:35, 40 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink [etc.] . . . just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.
2) Also, the disciples speak and act in Jesus’ name (the very name Christian implies that): Mk 10:39, 41; Lk 10:17-20; Jn 14:13-14; 16:23-24; Acts 4:10, 18; 5:28, 40-41; 9:15; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Thess 3:6; many more).
3) Furthermore, the disciples were given the power to bind and loose in Jesus’ name (impose penance and offer absolution of sins, from God): Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23. This is the priestly function.
4) In Scripture there is often taught a mystical (but almost literal) identification of the Body of Christ (the Church: 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; Col 1:24) with Christ Himself. Jesus equated Paul’s persecution of the Church with persecution of Him (Acts 9:5; cf. 8:1, 3; 9:1-2). This is incarnational theology, and poorly understood by Hobie.
2 Corinthians 4:10 (RSV) Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. (cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7)
Philippians 3:10 That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. (cf. Gal 2:20)
Colossians 1:24 . . . in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. (cf. 2 Cor 11:23-30; Gal 6:17)
5) The prophets spoke in God’s name, in the first person (read the prophetic books of the OT for numberless examples). This might appear to an outsider as an equation with God, but as we all know, they were merely speaking for God.
6) The same would hold for the NT writers in certain instances. If men can write God’s own “God-breathed” words, then certainly they can speak for God, not as directly (in the case of the pope), but as His representative. The President’s press secretary is not the President, but he speaks for him. Papal legates speak for popes. Ambassadors speak for the countries they represent. Again, context is crucial, that the SDA plays games with.
So 666 is the number of a mans name and Revelation says that this man is the head of this antichrist beast power. Since the beast power is the Papal Church, blah, blah, blah...
Question: “What are the letters supposed to be in the Pope’s crown, and what do they signify if anything?”
Answer: “The letters inscribed in the Pope's mitre are these: Vicarius Filii Dei, blah, blah, blah...
Vicarius Filii Dei was never a title for the Pope, it's another SDA invention. Also "vicar" means ambassador or representative. Anglicans call all their bishops "vicar" but you don't attack them... no, wait..., the SDA attacks all of Protestantism.
Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or
any Antichrist)
. The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However,
the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.
For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist.
Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.
Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.
As for you other quotes, they are taken out of context, if not fabrications altogether. That's why you post snippets that can't be verified on line. A typical
dishonest SDA tactic.
