"Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Faith" - Has 500 Years Taught Us Nothing?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

B

brakelite

Guest
well...there are problems with that i guess though, even if it seems apparent?
Yeah maybe, but like you posted earlier, faith intrinsically means trust. And if you cannot trust what God says, what else can you trust Him for?
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exactly. There are numerous verses in scripture that describe the earth... That is the entire planet as reverting to what it once was before creation...an abussos... Wherein the is no man.
Based on what we know or understand as to what takes place at the second coming, I see no other possibility. God's people are taken away. Those resurrected...glorified. Those remaining alive...changed and glorified.
The wicked who are alive are all destroyed by the glory of the appearing of Christ. Who else is left to populate anything that remains? Demons.
Nothing in scripture suggests even remotely that anything at that time is repaired, in fact, quite the opposite. The dead bodies are left as "dung upon the ground, they will not be gathered , buried, nor lamented"... "All the cities of the earth are broken down"..."there is no man left"...
Islands have disappeared. Mountain chains have fallen. Great plains are riven with chasms. The seas are blood...the fountains of waters polluted...the land uninhabitable. There is no word anywhere that any of the damage, the death, and chaos the plagues and final wars and the second coming inflicted on this lost planet was healed...the remnants of that destruction is to be fully and completely cleansed and swept away, including the resurrected wicked, the fallen angels and the devil, at the end of the millennium after they desperately attack the New Jerusalem.
There is no way any of the above, which does take place, can be fitted into any other time frame.

Ok, well here's the problem in my opinion. The immediate context wherein Zechariah 14:16 is found is Armageddon.

"And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance. And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." (Zechariah 14:12-19)

If you are putting 1,000 years between verses 12 and 16, I have to tell you honestly that that is inserting a 1,000 year gap into a text that in no way insinuates it, Brakelite. It is an extremely unnatural reading, and few in scholarship would consider it to be credible (aside from those already deeply colored by a preconceived eschatological scenario).
 
D

Dave L

Guest
Not being picky here, but I think the demons know Jesus better than most. After all, it was Jesus who threw them out of heaven to begin with. The demons recognised Jesus when he came. "Have you come to torment us before our time?"


Worse also because they purportedly believe in freedom of conscience.


Faith in God, at least to me, means faith or trust in what he says. If you don't believe what he says, it can hardly be said that you have faith.


Add to that the Metropolitan of Asia based in Baghdad... Had 1000s of bishops under him and entire kingdoms which had converted to Christianity until Tamerlane. The Roman bishop who claimed Universal dominion and authority couldn't convince them to submit. So they became"heretics", similar to the Celtic church and the Albigenses and Waldenses.

Taxes though are horrendously high, so they do pay for it all in the long run.


No. That happens at the end of the millennium after the new Jerusalem is surrounded by the redirected wicked. That destruction is their sentence.
There is no millennium. Jesus taught a spiritual kingdom only.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Ok, well here's the problem in my opinion. The immediate context wherein Zechariah 14:16 is found is Armageddon.

"And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance. And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whosoever will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." (Zechariah 14:12-19)

If you are putting 1,000 years between verses 12 and 16, I have to tell you honestly that that is inserting a 1,000 year gap into a text that in no way insinuates it, Brakelite. It is an extremely unnatural reading, and few in scholarship would consider it to be credible (aside from those already deeply colored by a preconceived eschatological scenario).
Not so difficult if one takes the perspective unacceptable to all dispensationalists, that Israel is the church, Jerusalem the final remnant, (such as Jerusalem was the final remnant under Hezekiah after Sennacherib has destroyed all the other cities of Judah) and Armageddon being not a war between the nations of the world and Israel, but between the nations of the world against the church. The final 'remnant' who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. The war between those who have accepted the mark, and those who refused it. Between Babylon and Jerusalem. It has always been a tale of two cities. Egypt, prophetically and symbolically has always represented spiritualism and atheism. That same context can be carried into Daniel 11 with the war between the king of the north and the king of the south. Until NT times, they were literal nations. But after the cross, and as the Christian age emerged, they became spiritual entities...the king of the north the Papacy, a church/state union which enforced her religion throughout the previous 1260 years until 1798 when France took the pope captive, and the king of the south which was atheism enforced by the state during the French revolution, the 3 and 1/2 days representing 3 nd 1/2 years the French revolution, denounced Christianity in all its forms, banned Bibles, murdered thousands of Christians of all faiths, exalted atheism as the religion of the nation, and gave birth to atheistic communism in Russia and like nations. That war between the papacy and atheism came to a climax with the fall of communism in Russia.
Now there is much more detail and many scriptural references I could offer in support of the above, but just letting you know that there is another way of interpreting scripture prophecy which is consistent and complete. You and I are comparing two different hermeneutics by attempting to dovetail the details...can't be done. I cannot harmonise your understanding of prophecy because I look at it from a different perspective, and vice versa.
Just as an added point. in Matthew 24 Jesus said...
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

The above is not about Israel at the end of time before His second coming. It is about the church. When Jesus said nation shall rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom, the world is divided utterly...no unity...just constant war and violence everywhere. We see evidence today in families even...in our streets...even in our churches. Then natural disasters. These are the beginning of sorrows. After that, sorrow itself sets in. Things change radically. The world undergoes a tremendous turn around. It unites. The 'they' in verse 9 refers to the nations previously divided against each other, coming together for the first time since Babel...uh oh...does that ring a bell? Is Babylon the Great now forming in the guise of ecumenism which will result in a world super-church riding upon the back of the state beast? Anyway, back to Matthew. 'They' are united, but to what purpose? Fight against Israel and Jerusalem? NO! "They shall deliver YOU up to be afflicted...and shall kill YOU..and YOU shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake! Israel will not be hated because they exalt the name of Jesus. The final scenario before Jesus comes is Armageddon. But it is not a war over a little block of land in the Middle East...it is Satan's final all out war to destroy God's people...
Rev.12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
 

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
:
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name."

You obviously quoted that because you believe it.
I probably do too..:) ( we listened to many of @brakelite's videos lol, my husband is STILL listening to more or them...)

My only concern is that people settle there...deep within me I believe it is that, but also much MORE!!

I cannot go with the 'one man' thing...I think all of them be they Beast, Whore, Anti-christ, False Prophet ...are all systems of...not individual people.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not being picky here, but I think the demons know Jesus better than most. After all, it was Jesus who threw them out of heaven to begin with. The demons recognised Jesus when he came. "Have you come to torment us before our time?"
NOT the same kind of knowledge that a true follower of Christ must have.

A demon indeed has a “gnosis” or an “oida”of Christ. A baptized, born again follower of Christ has an EPIGNOSIS of Christ. This is a full, experiential and relational knowledge – much like a person has of their spouse.

Demons BELIEVE in Christ because they know WHO He is and they are afraid of Him (James 2:19).
Christians have FAITH in Christ because they know WHO He is and serve Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mmmm. Amazing the number of people I have met who were good Catholics, but are now good protestants.
No, they were ignorant Catholics.
"Good" Catholics are too informed about their faith to fall for a cheap imitation . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't want you to go BOL. I want you to stop accusing everyone of lying simply because they disagree with you or your church. And there aren't that many here lying about your church. If any. There may be some who don't understand the depths of Satan, but they are just mistaken. Not lying. None are intentionally trying to mislead others regarding the principles behind the papacy. Nor are they intentionally trying to mislead anyone regarding the history of the papacy. Current or past. They just read different history books I guess. The decision to be made is to decide who are the more reliable historians. Are we lying concerning indulgences? Praying to the dead for the dead? The church being the final authority on faith and practice because it is the church that decided ultimately what scripture means?
Now I know you defend the Catholic practice of praying to statues because they representa real person right? So in your mind it isn't worshipping a statue, but the person the statue represents. But is that still not idolatry? I could go on I guess but we are getting off topic.
I ONLY tell somebody that they are lying when they tellLIES about what Catholics supposedly teach and believe. These are people that have been repeatedly corrected yet continue to spread the SAME falsehoods.

I’ll tell you what, my DISHONEST friend:
Show me ONE post where I accused ANYBODY of “lying” simply because they “disagreed” with me – and I will leave the Catholic Church TODAY and join YOUR sect.

HOWEVER - if you CAN’T find one – then YOU will leave YOUR sect and join the Catholic Church.

DEAL??
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just Google "Historicism".

Historicism was and is the eschatological interpretation of the Protestant Reformation - which central idea is that the papacy is the Antichrist beast of prophecy. Once Historicism became widely distributed it caused a mass exodus of catholics from the papacy, which led to the famous "Council of Trent" aka "the Counter-Reformation" in which the Jesuits were organized and two Jesuits were commissioned to find another interpretation of prophecy which would exonerate the papacy. And that is where the modern ideas about an Antichrist who came in the past (Jesuit Preterism) or which will come in the future during the "last seven years of tribulation Antichrist" (Jesuit Futurism).

Since the time of Luther and for three hundred years following, EVERY single Protestant man, woman, child, infant, fetus, and zygote believed and taught that the papacy is the Antichrist. It is only in the last 100 years that a "last seven years of tribulation" Antichrist began to be taught instead.

Spurgeon:
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name."

John Wesley, Commentary on Revelation 13:
"The beast (the first beast of Revelation 13) is the Romish Papacy."

If you think the Antichrist has yet to come, you might as well join the catholic church because it's a Jesuit idea from Jesuit priest Luis Alcazar.

The Antichrist: Were the Protestant Reformers Correct?
Ummmmmm, first of all, Einstein – St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Society of Jesus in 1541. It is a PRIESTLY ORDER – and NOT some “level” to be attainted in the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent took place between the years of 1545 and 1563 – so your moronic assertion that the Jesuits were “organized” during this period is a flat-out LIE.

The notion that 2 Jesuit priests were chosen to “redefine” prophecy is ALSO a ridiculous and unsubstantiated LIE. If it were true – then you would be able to supply me with the NAMES of these two men. CAN you do that?
I didn’t think so, Einstein . . .

Finally – as to your pathetic reach that EVERY Protestant taught that the Pope was the Anti-Christ – the onus is on YOU to prove it. Simply quoting s FEW of them doesn’t bolster your case because YOU went so far as to state that EVERY Protestant “man, woman, child, infant, fetus and zygote” was taught this.

Words matter, Einstein . . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog
B

brakelite

Guest
Show me ONE post where I accused ANYBODY of “lying” simply because they “disagreed” with me – and I will leave the Catholic Church TODAY and join YOUR sect.

HOWEVER - if you CAN’T find one – then YOU will leave YOUR sect and join the Catholic Church.
If you are willing to leave your sect for such a shallow reason, I wonder why you stay anyway?
The notion that 2 Jesuit priests were chosen to “redefine” prophecy is ALSO a ridiculous and unsubstantiated LIE. If it were true – then you would be able to supply me with the NAMES of these two men. CAN you do that?
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), from Salamanca, Spain. Ribera was a brilliant student who specialized in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He received a doctorate in theology from the University of Salamanca and joined the Jesuit Order in 1570 when he was just 33 years old. This Jesuit scholar capitalized on the incomplete views of the Early Church fathers. In 1590 he published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse where he expounded the prophecies of Revelation using the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism.
Ribera assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world–and all in this brief space of three and onehalf years.

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (born in the year 37 A. D.), believed that the little horn of Daniel 8 (perhaps also the little horn of Daniel 7, though we are not sure) was Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who governed from 174 till 163 B. C. In this, Josephus shared the view of the LXX and many other Jewish scholars of his day..
In the second century A. D., an enemy of Christianity whose name was Porphiry, corresponded with Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, trying to persuade him that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.
Luis de Alcazar, Jesuit from Seville, Spain, picked up on the idea of Josephus and the LXX. From 1569 onward he worked on counteracting the Protestant view of the prophecies. He wrote a 900-page commentary on the book of Revelation, titled: Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi [Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse]. The book was published posthumously in 1614.
The main thrust of Alcazar’s book was to relegate the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past. This system of prophetic interpretation became known as preterism. According to Alcazar, the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first six centuries of the Christian Era. For him, Nero was the predicted Antichrist. By relegating the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past, Alcazar argued that they could not apply to the Papacy in the 16th century.
If Alcazar’s view was true, then the preaching of the Protestants was gravely wrong. Alcazar established a rival method of interpreting prophecy which removed the incriminating finger from the Papacy and pointed it at Antiochus and Nero!!
 
B

brakelite

Guest
As an explanation to the significance of the above Jesuit names, I here offer some background. One of the criteria for the "little horn" in Daniel 7 is that he would change times and laws.
The Changing of the Times: A Historical Perspective
The Protestant reformers held the almost unanimous view that the Papacy was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy. They shared several theological concepts:
1) The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is imperial Rome.
2) The “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 is the Roman Empire.
3) The Antichrist is not an individual, but rather a succession of popes who, taken together, constitute an apostate religious system.
4) The time periods in symbolic prophecy are to be understood figuratively, not literally.
5) The “temple” in which the Antichrist sits is not the literal Jerusalem temple, but rather, the Christian Church.
6) The word “Antichrist” does not denote a blasphemous individual who openly denies and defies God, but rather, one who opposes Christ by posing as the vicar of Christ.
7) Though not unanimous, most Protestant reformers believed that the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Catholic Papal system.

When we think of the Protestant Reformation, expressions such as sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone) come to mind. However, all these “solas” grew out of a realization that the Roman Catholic system was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy.
You see, the Protestant reformers knew for certain that in the prophetic flow, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Medo-Persia), the leopard (Greece), and the dragon (Rome) had already ruled the world. They also knew that Rome had been divided into ten kingdoms when the Barbarians carved up the Empire. They also knew that the predicted Antichrist was to arise among these ten kingdoms of Western Europe. They saw clearly and distinctly that they were living in the time of the little horn.
The historicist hermeneutical method made it quite simple. A correct understanding of Bible prophecy gave them the unmistakable mandate to unmask this system which had usurped the prerogatives of Christ and adulterated the truth of God!!

There is much evidence in written form of the almost unanimous view of the reformers that the RCC was indeed the antichrist. For the sake of space I will not quote them here, but can provide quotes if desired.

Bear in mind that those who pointed the finger at the Papacy as the great Antichrist were highly educated individuals. They could not be accused of being ignorant and unlearned. Many reached their own conclusions independently of others. Their expositions were saturated with quotations from Daniel 7 (the little horn), Revelation 13 (the beast), Revelation 17 (the harlot), II Thessalonians 2 (the Man of Sin), and Matthew 24 (the abomination of desolation). And their testimony was almost unanimous and covered the entire Continent of Europe!!

The Papacy knew it could triumph only by turning away the incriminating finger of Bible prophecy. But, how could it do this when the evidence was so clear and overwhelming? The Papacy saw that in order to be successful, it must change the method Protestants had used to interpret prophecy. Only by obliterating the method of historicism could the Papacy deflect the accusing finger!! And the Papacy laid out a carefully devised plan to do just this!!
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church called a church council which was held at Trent. The avowed purpose of the Council of Trent was to arrest the growing Protestant Reformation. The council lasted until 1563 (the longest church council in the history of the Roman Catholic Church). No major decisions were reached with respect to Bible prophecy but the Papacy did reaffirm categorically the dogmas of the Church and pronounced an anathema upon anyone who taught otherwise.
Just eleven years before the Council of Trent, St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Jesuit Order (in 1534). Besides providing the Papacy with a formidable secret police force, the Jesuits also trained an elite of theological scholars whose avowed purpose was to overthrow Protestantism. In fact, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, there is a statue of Loyola trampling Protestants underfoot!!
Loyola’s Jesuit Order would eventually spawn two able scholars whose views would not only arrest the growth of Protestantism but actually conquer it. The above two Jesuits began two separate hermeneutics that has since divided Protestantism, and apart from one major denomination, has deceived Protestantism and blinded them to what the Reformers had almost unanimously agreed on.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
I cannot go with the 'one man' thing...I think all of them be they Beast, Whore, Anti-christ, False Prophet ...are all systems of...not individual people.
Not many see that. It is one of the curiosities of modern so-called scholarship that recognises the national or rather empirical significance of beasts in OT scripture, (eg lion=Babylon...Bear=Media-Persia...Leopard=Greece...dragon like beast=Rome), but for some strange and peculiar reason ascribe the beasts in revelation to be individuals as if God changes his symbolism system half way through the game. God is not so inconsistent to do that. Nor does he offer the symbols to confuse us, but on the contrary, that by their consistent use and consistent interpretation we may fully understand and identify the systems that, and let us be real here, are the most dangerous to our spiritual and physical welfare.
And because those systems are equally aware of their significance, have gone to great lengths to obscure, blind, and confuse those who by discovering the truth, would become potential enemies of that system. Such as what precisely took place through the counter-reformation. Protestantism no longer understands. Blinded by futurism the beast, for the most part, remains unmolested by most Protestants who today are vainly looking to Israel and an individual to waltz into an imaginary temple there and proclaim himself god and by this "deceive the whole world"? Even if the Pope himself, or a Jewish rabbi born in the Ukraine etc etc etc... was to do just that, who is going to be deceived by that? Will that not in fact completely uncover the deception if true?
No, the very fact that Protestantism is now returning to Rome and no longer teaching and exposing the real antichrist, is evidence itself of the way Satan has successfully deceived nearly the entire planet, for most other religions are also kneeling and bowing before the Roman pontiff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,533
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ummmmmm, first of all, Einstein – St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Society of Jesus in 1541. It is a PRIESTLY ORDER – and NOT some “level” to be attainted in the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent took place between the years of 1545 and 1563 – so your moronic assertion that the Jesuits were “organized” during this period is a flat-out LIE.

The notion that 2 Jesuit priests were chosen to “redefine” prophecy is ALSO a ridiculous and unsubstantiated LIE. If it were true – then you would be able to supply me with the NAMES of these two men. CAN you do that?
I didn’t think so, Einstein . . .

Finally – as to your pathetic reach that EVERY Protestant taught that the Pope was the Anti-Christ – the onus is on YOU to prove it. Simply quoting s FEW of them doesn’t bolster your case because YOU went so far as to state that EVERY Protestant “man, woman, child, infant, fetus and zygote” was taught this.

Words matter, Einstein . . .
1)
You obviously quoted that because you believe it.
I probably do too..:) ( we listened to many of @brakelite's videos lol, my husband is STILL listening to more or them...)

My only concern is that people settle there...deep within me I believe it is that, but also much MORE!!

I cannot go with the 'one man' thing...I think all of them be they Beast, Whore, Anti-christ, False Prophet ...are all systems of...not individual people.
I agree as well. It is amazing to me how few of us understand that the twin pillars of the Protestant Reformation are "salvation by grace through faith alone - not a pope or priest - and also that the papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy aka "Protestant Historicism". The founding fathers of every single mainline Protestant church had in their charters and statements of faith Historicism as their accepted theology, but but over the years the Jesuit ideas of Futurism and Preterism have replaced Protestant Historicism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,533
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Council of Trent took place between the years of 1545 and 1563 – so your moronic assertion that the Jesuits were “organized” during this period is a flat-out LIE.
It's true the Jesuits organized as an "order" BEFORE the Council of Trent aka the "Counter Reformation" convened, but up until that point their work centered around ministry for the sick, the poor, converting Muslims, etc. However, after the Counter Reformation began, the Jesuits "organized" against the cause of the Reformation, as evidenced by such activities as concocting false interpretations of end times prophecy and also a pledge to that which is contained in the Jesuit Oath which is available for anyone to read online, which you will no doubt deny existed and was made up by mean, hateful anti-catholics.

The notion that 2 Jesuit priests were chosen to “redefine” prophecy is ALSO a ridiculous and unsubstantiated LIE. If it were true – then you would be able to supply me with the NAMES of these two men. CAN you do that?
I didn’t think so, Einstein . . .
I. Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera concocted "Jesuit Futurism" aka "Futurism" (future one-man Antichrist, 70th week of Daniel ripped from the OT and sent down to the end of time as the "last seven years of tribulation", rebuilt Jewish temple, brokered peace treaty between Arabs/Jews, etc.) which was popularized by Hal Lindsay's "Late Great Planet Earth" and the blockbuster "Left Behind" series by Lahey and Jenkins.

II. Jesuit priest Luis Alcazar
concocted "Jesuit Preterism" aka "Preterism" (basis for the modern Bible saga by Hannigraff, "The Last Disciple" , "The Last Sacrifice" and "The Last Temple") in which Alcazar claimed the Antichrist already appeared on Earth in the first century (probably Nero) - a series which Lahey and Jenkins saw as a betrayal to "the truth" of their own series, not realizing that both were Jesuit deceptions designed to get Protestants to look to the past for Antichrist, the future for Antichrist - ANYWHERE but to Rome where the papal Antichrist to this day sits well established as the Whore of Babylon that she is.

Finally – as to your pathetic reach that EVERY Protestant taught that the Pope was the Anti-Christ – the onus is on YOU to prove it.
Demanding proof for the three centuries of the totality and universality of Protestant Historicism during the Protestant Reformation is as asinine as demanding proof that your great great grampa's farts stank.

It's simply a matter of history.

Put down that stupid Satanic dead bread, throw out that stupid Satanic catechism book and open up a history book, for goodness' sake.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Willie T
B

brakelite

Guest
Keep that in mind when we are accused of Mary worship
You pray to Mary and expect favours because you believe she is more loving and amenable to your requests than is God. After all, she is your "mother", and more compassionate...more understanding...more merciful...than God right? And that isn't worship?
works salvation
When Protestants claim Catholics rely on works in order to be saved...perhaps not quite right...but they do rely on their attendance and/or participation of sacramental rituals in order to be made righteous, when the Bible teaches that God, through the shedding of Christ's blood, declares us righteous, regardless of what we do or claim. Which in effect works out o be a works based salvation but obscured by foramalism and ritualism.
Trusting in relics is idolatry. See also above re Mary.
This is a no brainer. Catholicism is rife with paganism throughout its history. It is well known that she accepts pagan practice and condones it through symbolism and practice in all the cultures she has invaded, and in some cases blatantly incorporated it into her own system. There are far too many examples to mention.
misrepresentations, false charges and false histories but you say BoL is uncivil
But it isn't paganism that is the worst feature. It is the copying of God...the counterfeiting of God Himself within Catholicism that is the greatest sin. I offer the photograph below as the only evidence I need to prove my case. Anyone faliliar with the Biblical description of the throneroom of God will recognise the significance of the picture. And speaking of misrepresentations, accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being 'anti-catholic', while no where near being on a par with the pic below, is a misrepresentation nonetheless.
Pope%20Francis%20Throne%202sm.jpg
2Th 2:4 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Amid ceremonies last year marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, one of Protestantism’s leading branches has officially said it now agrees with the Vatican on the main issue at the root of its split from the Roman Catholic Church half a millennium ago. Thus, the signing of the "Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Faith" by Catholics and Protestants:

Together we confess: "BY GRACE ALONE, IN CHRIST'S SAVING WORK and not because of any merit on our part,” its key passage said, “we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works."

The Protestant world rejoiced. But, ignorance and the desire to set aside doctrine is the reason why so many Protestants are blind to the fact that if there ever was an example of diabolical deception from the pits of hell, it is the above JDDJ statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. "BY GRACE ALONE" IS NOT THE SAME AS "BY FAITH ALONE"

IF YOU'RE A PROTESTANT...
...what is "grace" and from where is it obtained? Grace is God's forgiveness for our sin and empowerment to live the Christian life, which is made possible ALONE by the atoning death of Jesus on the Cross. It's obtained ALONE through the sinner's exercise of Jesus' faith (Revelation 14:12), of which God has dealt to every man a measure (Romans 12:3). The Protestant looks to God to supply everything:

"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that (both grace and faith) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

IF YOU'RE A CATHOLIC...
...what is "grace" and from where is it obtained? Grace is deliverance from Purgatory made possible ALONE by the "merit" of the good works of Mary, Jesus, the saints, etc., and is obtained ALONE through the pope and the priesthood through the granting of an indulgence. Grace is obtained through the church ALONE by faith in the "works of Jesus". What "works"? Read on:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. "IN CHRIST'S SAVING WORK..." IS NOT THE SAME AS "IN CHRIST'S ATONING SACRIFICE"

IF YOU'RE A PROTESTANT...
...Christ's atoning death and resurrection is ALONE the means by which God is able to pardon sinners, for His divine justice demands death to the sinner, and by the shedding of Christ's precious blood ALONE God can now be both Just for condemning the unjust and also the Justifier of them who by faith repent and claim His promise that He will make them just.

IF YOU'RE A CATHOLIC...
...it is the life and the works of Christ prior to Calvary which ALONE is important, for two reasons:

1) Christ's life of "good works" is what prompted God to arbitrarily grant the power to the catholic priesthood to forgive sins apart from the need for any atoning sacrifice and anyone seeking forgiveness need only go to the priesthood and confess their sin, and...

2) Christ's life of "good works", along with those of Mary and the saints, provides a bottomless "bucket of merit" from which the grace for deliverance from Purgatory that the priesthood grants to the faithful stems.
According to Catholicism, God has granted forgiveness for the sins of the faithful through the priesthood, but the faithful are still required to pay for those sins - in Purgatory - because Catholicism teaches Christ never paid the penalty for the sins of the faithful and that His death was an act of love, not payment.


"With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from Hell, of making them worthy of Paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution...The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it." - St. Peter Damian.

From the online Catholic Courier:
"One theory, sometimes referred to as "substitution," "satisfaction" or "ransom" theology, was championed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. He believed that Christ's sacrificial death was necessary in order to liberate humanity from sin and restore communion with the Father, that the blood of Jesus was "payment" to God for human sin. (The manner of Christ's death reflected Old Testament sacrifices, where a lamb was burnt in offering and then later consumed by the worshippers.)

(By this, St. Anselm was a true Protestant in the making!)

"Anselm's theology prevailed, even though it was challenged by scholars such as Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, who insisted that Christ's death on the cross had been an act of love, not payment. Even St. Augustine, 700 years before, had reservations and asked in his De Trinitate: "Is it necessary to think that being God, the Father was angry with us, saw his son die for us and thus abated his anger against us?

(Can an institution which has historically denied the most central doctrine of our Creator - "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" - really trace its roots all the way back to the time when our Creator was made flesh?)

"A fair number of modern-day scholars, too, find the satisfaction theology (that Jesus had to shed His blood to atone for our sins) bothersome because of the way it images God. What kind of loving God, they argue, would demand such horrific suffering from his own Son in order to secure divine justice?

(To exoterics, the objection is for how "Blood Atonement" makes God appear to them as unloving, but to esoteric papists, it has to do with robbing Lucifer of the opportunity to worshiped as god, which these Luciferian Antichrists cannot abide. Should Protestants be part of any joint declaration with an institution which to this day yet denies the centrality and integrality of Jesus' blood atonement for sin?)

"What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely."
How can Protestantism endeavor to participate in anything "joint" with Catholicism when Catholicism has never changed its historic position on this and other things like infant baptism, the Immaculate Conception, Christ alone as Mediator, etc.? How can the Protestant world rejoice today, as if the monumental blasphemies of 500 years ago that divided us are now irrelevant? Only through monumental ignorance. Please get educated:
Love the BOLD type and underlined words. You have learned from the master.....@BreadOfLife ...;)

Let me get this straight. As long as the Catholic Church changes it's 2,000 years of teachings and adopts the 500 year teachings of Protestantism or teachings that are approved by YOU then life would be good for all Christians? Fascinating......o_O

What about the Protestant Churches that have some Catholic teachings? i.e. infant baptism

Do they have to conform to YOUR teaching also before you will approve of them?

Curious Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We joined Christ in his death and we can only resurrect because he is the first resurrected from the dead.

Catholicism dwells on his death. They still put Christ on the cross.

What is more important, the death of Christ or His resurrection?
You are right. Catholics "dwell on his death". Catholics follow scripture (1 Corinthians 11:26): For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Since somewhere in the world every day we Catholics "eat this bread and drink the cup" (Acts 2:46) we Catholics DO proclaim His death.....Just like scripture says!!! ;)

Why don't you follow scripture?

Tell me friend. When you see an empty cross is it the cross of the thief that went to paradise with Jesus or the other thief that died the same day? When you see a cross with a man on it that has no broken bones, a hole in his side, a crown of thorns and a sign above his head saying "King of the Jews"......who's cross is that? One of the thief's that died with Jesus that day or is it Jesus's cross? An empty cross could be that of one of the two thieves or Jesus cross or any of the thousands of people that the Romans crucified. You pick an empty cross that could have been the cross of any of the thousands killed by the Romans. Catholics choose a cross that is His cross. It's called a crucifix.

To be honest there is nothing wrong with either symbol (cross or crucifix) for as we Catholics know scripture says that He was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25) and that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3).


Bible study Mary
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are right. Catholics "dwell on his death". Catholics follow scripture (1 Corinthians 11:26): For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Since somewhere in the world every day we Catholics "eat this bread and drink the cup" (Acts 2:46) we Catholics DO proclaim His death.....Just like scripture says!!! ;)

Why don't you follow scripture?

Tell me friend. When you see an empty cross is it the cross of the thief that went to paradise with Jesus or the other thief that died the same day? When you see a cross with a man on it that has no broken bones, a hole in his side, a crown of thorns and a sign above his head saying "King of the Jews"......who's cross is that? One of the thief's that died with Jesus that day or is it Jesus's cross? An empty cross could be that of one of the two thieves or Jesus cross or any of the thousands of people that the Romans crucified. You pick an empty cross that could have been the cross of any of the thousands killed by the Romans. Catholics choose a cross that is His cross. It's called a crucifix.

To be honest there is nothing wrong with either symbol (cross or crucifix) for as we Catholics know scripture says that He was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25) and that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3).


Bible study Mary
1 Peter 1:3 New International Version (NIV)
Praise to God for a Living Hope
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
...we Catholics DO proclaim His death.....Just like scripture says!!!
Re-sacrificing Christ by means of sinful priests (frequently predators) is not proclaiming Christ's death, but making a mockery of it.