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!
I'm only quoting his own church, what can he complain about?@Backlit ... me thinks BOL is not going to be HAPPY with you.... HAHA....
That my friend is absolute TRUTH.....I'm only quoting his own church, what can he complain about?
When one considered the broad and overarching agenda of the Catholic Church and her power hungry goals to rule the world with a system that is anti Christian, anti Bible, and Antichrist, it is little wonder that God pleads with His own people to "come out of her and be ye separate".
Let us remember this well . Let no man , woman or child put a chip in themselves . MEMBER THAT .Especialy this promotion of Sunday and his co-opting of Protestantism into the plan, is the prophetic culmination of the whole controversy between Satan and Christ... The man made pagan day of the sun against the true Lord's Day.
That's nothing new. God has always allowed scourges to inflict the Church because of laxity. For example, the American government is increasingly making it illegal to be Catholic.YEP.... and YEP AGAIN.... The Catholics have indeed perverted the Gospel.... and once again... I delight in saying that GOD sees all... knows all and someday will deal with ALL the darkness and wickedness.... He is beginning to do so now.
Really???YEP.... and YEP AGAIN.... The Catholics have indeed perverted the Gospel....
Ummmmm - this, coming from the same dishonest person who posted the following manure.I am fully aware that my thoughts and opinions of the Roman Catholic Church are not positive. I have learned to keep my thoughts to myself for the most part.
YEP.... and YEP AGAIN.... The Catholics have indeed perverted the Gospel.... and once again... I delight in saying that GOD sees all... knows all and someday will deal with ALL the darkness and wickedness.... He is beginning to do so now.
It blesses me that there are some... like yourself... who understand the truth of what the Roman Catholic church really is and stands for.
I do NOT know what the punishment will be for those who have perverted the Gospel and prostituted the truth... but I am ever so grateful that I stepped out of and away from it all.
Sorry there... but... I HATE the Roman Catholic Church...
I am aware of CATHOLIC LIES that infiltrate this corrupt institution... Have a lovely day... I just needed to make my point... I will not argue with a practicing CATHOLIC who defends the church. It is a waste of time to do so.
WRONG.So you admit that "vicarius filii dei" is an official title. Vicar of the Son of God. Interesting that the value you speak of is in the original Latin...
Any English application is just nonsense.
why would she, is irrelevant.
See above.
No - apparently, NOT everyone knows.Oh, everyone knows why the church claims Sunday is now sacred. But it isn't scriptural. Jesus Himself told us what day He was Lord of. The Sabbath. Your church has, by designating another day as His, lied.
1Cor16:2 says nothing about a change in the day for corporate worship, or rest, or abandonment of the Sabbath, or the exaltation of the first day. Folk got paid on the Friday... The day of preparation for the Sabbath. Paul wanted to help the Christians in Jerusalem who were in desperate need. So he asked that when they counted their money and budgeted for the week, they lay some aside for this donation. This naturally would take place in the first day of the week because they wouldn't do such a menial task on the Sabbath... Which they were still observing.
As for Revelation 1:10, as I mentioned above, the Lord's day was the Sabbath.
KJV Luke 6:5
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
KJV Exodus 20:10
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
WRONG again.It is true that Col.2:16-17 speaks is Sabbaths that are shadows.
The seventh day is not a shadow.
The following verse says that those ordinances mentioned in verse 16 are… “a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” –verse 17. Now a shadow points to something, whether forward or backwards. Which way did the seventh day Sabbath point? Take a look:
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
The Sabbath points backwards, and not forward. It was set up in creation week as a memorial of creation, showing all living inhabitants of the earth that it was he who made all things and is the true God. It was not a shadow… “of things to come” as verse 17 says, but rather of things past… the creation. That the Seventh day of creation week is the same Sabbath day of the fourth commandment is crystal clear.
Your own church, in written and testifiable prose, has admitted on numerous occasions throughout the centuries that it was she, as an institutional body, who changed the day of corporate worship from the 7th day to the first. She did this, as she herself claims, in recognition of her own assumed authority to set aside even the commandments and precepts of God. She also admits that such a change was not based on any biblical mandate or direct instruction by either the Lord Himself or any of the apostles, nor of any writing in the NT or old.
Not only so, but in order to justify her acceptance and teaching of tradition in contradiction to scripture, in order to counter the Protestant reformation which rebuked her for placing tradition over scripture, at the council of Trent bishop of Reggio correctly rebuked the Protestant churches for agreeing with the Catholic Church in following her tradition of Sunday observance rather than doing what they claimed to exalt, Sola scriptura.
Sabbath observance is not nonsense. It is the only correct response to biblical Christianity in obedience to the scriptures. Your own church teaches that. Your own church admits that. I am a biblical Christian. Not a traditionalist in the vein of Catholic pagan Sunday observance. Don't teach me the Bible son, until such time as you personally are willing to obey it.
Of ALL of your idiotic posts - this HAS to be one of the dumbest . . .Especialy this promotion of Sunday and his co-opting of Protestantism into the plan, is the prophetic culmination of the whole controversy between Satan and Christ... The man made pagan day of the sun against the true Lord's Day.
We probably disagree there, since the Bible does teach that a believer can fall away by willfully going back to a sinful lifestyle, become reprobate, and not remain in Christ. Or even stop believing, since Jesus said that some believe for awhile and then fall away.The reason I made the comment about being a heretic is because according to your definition which I found interesting ( never thought of it in that light )... you would be correct in that a protestant is someone who has left the Catholic faith... thus protest(ant). That made logistical sense to me.
I am a former Catholic... and so according to the church.... because I ONCE KNEW the TRUTH... and have abandoned the faith... I am going to hell.
Two days after my mother died in 2007... I made an appointment to see the priest that resided over her funeral and told him I wanted his blessing to NEVER have to step into a Catholic church AGAIN... He was gracious enough to tell me that if the Church had hurt me that deeply that I felt the need to leave... that YES I could in good conscience do so without the risk of hell. I know his words were empty and without AUTHORITY... but it is after this that my FREEDOM came.... the next step for me was battling the lies of the legalists... who would dare tamper with the security of my Salvation... I have just RECENTLY found complete freedom in WHO I AM in CHRIST... and it is GLORIOUS.
@BreadOfLife .... I should have known better than to take you off ignore... me and my soft heart.@Backlit ... me thinks BOL is not going to be HAPPY with you.... HAHA....
Indeed it is a well known forgery. Vicarius Filii Dei was also enshrined in the Decretum Gratiani (Gratian’s Decretum), which first appeared in 1140 and became the basis for teaching Catholic canon law. Included in it, not by the original author but by his successors, was the Donation of Constantine and that title. For centuries the Decretum was copied multiple times and, after Gutenberg had invented the means for doing so, printed abundantly, over and over again. Together with other church legislation, it became an important part of Canon Law. The Decretum was first printed in 1500 (from 1586 onward as part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici (Collection of Canon Law), which continuously remained in force for more than another three hundred years, until 1917, when it was replaced by the Codex Iuris Canonici, which omitted the Decretum.WRONG.
Of the EIGHT (8) official title for the Pope - "Vicarius filii dei"is NOT one of them.
As I indicated to you in my last post - your false prophetess/goddess, Ellen White got this false title from a false document - "The Donation of Constantine" - which is a well-known forgery.
Because the English letters, derived as they are from Rome and in general having Roman numerical value, have a 'u' and a 'w', letters which Latin never had. So the forcing of the 666 upon an English name with a 'w' , and giving it a value of 10 , the equivalent of two 'v's, is a nonsense.As to your moronic claim that "Ellen Gould White" is an English name and not Latin - WHY would this even be an issue??
Hey - it doesn't matter to me if you hate Christ's Church. That's between Him nd YOU.@BreadOfLife .... I should have known better than to take you off ignore... me and my soft heart.
You seem to have a real problem with me talking to others on this thread and NOT to you.... but since you are obsessed with quoting me... the above quote is one that you forgot.... LOL...
Like I said... you do not in the least intimidate me... I have seen bullies like you in REAL LIFE.
I do not start conversations about Catholicism... and for the most part I have stayed away from controversy...
I have responded to a few posts made by @Backlit ... and have completely AGREED with what he has called the Catholic Church.... I believe the Catholic Church is the Mother of Harlots....with the same PASSION that you insist in "claiming" that she is SNOW WHITE.
You seem to NEED reminding that you are not the THOUGHT police... so.... BACK on IGNORE you go... and this time you are going to stay there... as truly... your arrogance is too much for me to digest.
I can assure you.... you do NOT want to tango with me.
I take accountability for my words... I HATE the Catholic Church. Quoting me on this statement does NOTHING to change my mind... LOL
Have a nice day.
Careful - your ignorance is showing again.Indeed it is a well known forgery. Vicarius Filii Dei was also enshrined in the Decretum Gratiani (Gratian’s Decretum), which first appeared in 1140 and became the basis for teaching Catholic canon law. Included in it, not by the original author but by his successors, was the Donation of Constantine and that title. For centuries the Decretum was copied multiple times and, after Gutenberg had invented the means for doing so, printed abundantly, over and over again. Together with other church legislation, it became an important part of Canon Law. The Decretum was first printed in 1500 (from 1586 onward as part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici (Collection of Canon Law), which continuously remained in force for more than another three hundred years, until 1917, when it was replaced by the Codex Iuris Canonici, which omitted the Decretum.
Reacting to the sixteenth-century Reformation, after the Council of Trent, Pius V (1504–1572, reigned from 1566) in the year when he became pope appointed a commission to revise the Canon Law. This work was completed in the time of the next pope, Gregory XIII (1505–1585, reigned from 1572). The Decretum formed part of the then official Corpus Iuris Canonici, published at Rome in 1582. It included the Donation with the words vicarius Filii Dei.
So your suggestion that because it was a forgery it doesn't count, is patently ridiculous when successive Popes over many centuries used that forgery for gaining power and land, included it in canon law until the 20th century, and therefore accepted the title as their own.
Not only so, that title was used and translated by Catholic writers in other languages such as Spanish and German throughout that same time period. So your assertion that this idea was E G White's is way too generous. Other Protestant writers knew it this title and wrote of it as far back as the beginning of the 17th century. Likely with free access to the Vatican libraries one may discover a lot more... Those in the public sphere having been destroyed by the Catholic cancel culture.
Because the English letters, derived as they are from Rome and in general having Roman numerical value, have a 'u' and a 'w', letters which Latin never had. So the forcing of the 666 upon an English name with a 'w' , and giving it a value of 10 , the equivalent of two 'v's, is a nonsense.
Oh my goodness!!!! Ellen White is the Antichrist!!! How could we all miss that???? You know, I honestly didn't think she looked that old, to be alive from Roman times all the way to the second coming...oh wait...the second coming has happened already???Careful - your ignorance is showing again.
Time for a Bible, history and linguistics lesson . . .
First of all - E. G. White's "beast of 666" is not the number of a title - it's the number of its NAME as Rev 15:2 explicitly states:
“…and those who had overcome the beast and its image and the ‘number of its NAME…”
So - even IF "Vicarus fili Dei" was a title of the Pope - which it is NOT - this wouldn't apply.
HOWEVER - "Ellen Gould White" is a NAME that adds up to "666":
ELLEN = L+L=100,
GOULD = U+L+D=555,
WHITE = a double ‘U’ = 2 ‘V’s +1 =11
And, as for your ignorant objections to the letter "W" - perhaps, you should do a little research . . .
The Romans adopted the second form (comparing Greek and Phoenician) for the "U" and "W" sounds, simplifying its shape to "V". As its name indicates, the letter "W" is in origin a "double U" (VV). We see it used in inscriptions from around the first century A.D. representing the "W" sound in Celtic and Germanic names.
CHECKMATE.
Nope.Oh my goodness!!!! Ellen White is the Antichrist!!! How could we all miss that???? You know, I honestly didn't think she looked that old, to be alive from Roman times all the way to the second coming...oh wait...the second coming has happened already???
Of course, the 666 thing aside, there are so least 10 other identifying characteristics of the Antichrist given in scripture. The fact that the entity identified as the only viable candidate also used a blasphemous name in a forged document, and equivalent renditions of that same name on numerous other documents, recognised by biblical scholars from 400 years as being the 666 identity, seems to have passed your notice. In other words, while Catholic apologists since the 17gh century came up with numerous names that did add up to 666, none of them, including Ellen White, added up to 666 in all the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin used at the time the book of Revelation was written. Except for vicarius filii dei.Nope.
Just showing how patently asinine she was for declaring to the world that the Pope was, based on the numerology of a completely invented title.
She DOES have a lot of perverted doctrine and instances of bearing false witness to answer for, though . . .
And once again, Einstein - "Vicarus Fili Dei" is NOT a title of the Pope - and more importantly, it is not his NAME, NOR is its "equivalent" found on "numerous" other documents.Of course, the 666 thing aside, there are so least 10 other identifying characteristics of the Antichrist given in scripture. The fact that the entity identified as the only viable candidate also used a blasphemous name in a forged document, and equivalent renditions of that same name on numerous other documents, recognised by biblical scholars from 400 years as being the 666 identity, seems to have passed your notice. In other words, while Catholic apologists since the 17gh century came up with numerous names that did add up to 666, none of them, including Ellen White, added up to 666 in all the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin used at the time the book of Revelation was written. Except for vicarius filii dei.
In other words, the idea wasn't an invention of Mrs White's. The 666 name was first discovered and published in books in the early 1600s and was repeated at later times by other eminent scholars.
AMEN! Are you an UNwatered nondenominationalist? Biblical?Paul says things like denominations is division in the body of Christ. Being nondenominational I am neither Catholic or Protestant, I am biblical.
what say you?