Revelation to John and the end of the world

[BreadOfLife]

ha

oh please you had to be religious back then, or ppl would kill you lol

Who is "PPL"??

As for the random date of 325 - purely a work of fiction . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

As for the random date of 325 - purely a work of fiction . . .

people, and sorry you lost me there

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was responding to poster DPMartin in post #8.
YOU responded to my post - so I assumed you knew what was being talked about.

If you're going to act confused - then don't interject on other people's conversations.
Go back and read DPMartin's post #8 for a little context . . .

 

[epostle1]

though there can be sound argument for events already happened in the book of Revelation, it is still a prophecy considering much happened after it was written.

another example of this would be the thousand year rule with an iron fist, the catholic church did that very thing starting in 325 purging any opposition to the Catholicism in its influences in the roman empire and what was once roman empire until European societies started out right public disagreements with the church and the sciences was also gaining ground in the 1300's as an alternative set of beliefs. the church dominated kings and kingdoms for that period of time.

1000 literal years from 325 takes you to 1350, which makes no sense. You have no scholarly evidence to support this anti-Catholic myth, "the church dominated kings and kingdoms for that period of time" is an exaggeration. Kings and Popes often quarreled. Roman Emperor Henry IV fought with Pope Gregory VII over the right of the Emperor to consecrate bishops.

Both Popes and Kings were vital to medieval society. Almost all of Europe at that time was Roman Catholic, so despite many people saying that the Popes caused chaos, they actually helped balance the power. The Popes helped to keep the Kings in check, and the Kings helped keep the people and invaders in check. They clashed over some issues. Whatever temporal power or influence the Pope may have had, it did not define the papacy.

Seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.
Authority of the First Popes - Standing on my Head​

The canon of the Bible was completed in 397 AD. Are you suggesting that the Church Fathers took breaks in the middle of discerning the holy books so they could go out and oppress opposition that didn't exist, and then re-convene??? Such is the insanity of anti-Catholic polemics.

You don't have a history of the early church so you have to make it up.

If you had factual knowledge of the early church, or the cultural context of the middle ages, you wouldn't be posting this lunacy. The doctrine of the Trinity was clarified at the CATHOLIC councils of Nicae, Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalcedon to refute a list of heretics, up to 451 AD. The authoritive verdicts are accepted by all 3 main branches of Christianity. How can the truth of the Trinity come from a false Church? And the canon of scripture?