Fortunately, the identitifying of who the Antichrist is does not fall upon guesswork or man's opinion. People can say what they like, but scripture remains always remains Rock solid testimony to who the Antichrist is. Did you know that the Antichrist is second only to Jesus himself in getting a mention in scripture? That apart from Jesus, there is no other entity in scripture spoken of more, and described in more detail? The reason the protestant reformers all agreed on the papacy being the Antichrist, was because they recognised that the description in scripture matched perfectly the Catholic church. This can still be proved today... Something that cannot be said of any other person, thing, or institution on the planet.
The Church The Papacy Says You Should Join
- Thread starter Phoneman777
- Start date
-
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 do believe the reformers were wrong and only believed this due to their hatred of the Pope.
I'm not a student of eschatology, but I've read a little bit and some believe the anti-christ will come out of Mecca.
Also, anti-christ is just anyone that is opposed to Christ...You think the Pope is opposed to Christ?
That's funny.
Antichrist
/ˈantɪkrʌɪst/
noun
- (in some Christian teachings) a personal opponent of Christ expected to appear before the end of the world.
"the battle between Christ and the Antichrist"- a person or force seen as opposing Christ or the Christian Church.
plural noun: Antichrists
"St Paul really did have to fear for his life at the hands of an Antichrist named Nero" - a person or thing regarded as supremely evil or as a fundamental enemy or opponent.
- a person or force seen as opposing Christ or the Christian Church.
Is this wrong?
What do I believe?Jesus disagrees with you GG:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" "Yes, LORD," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He answered, "Yes, LORD, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "LORD, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
Peter was made the final decision at the Council of Jerusalem, gave the sermon at Pentecost, always listed first among the Apostles, 2nd only to Jesus as the number of times mentioned by name in Scripture, recognized by the Apostolic and Church Fathers as the leader of The Church after the death of Jesus etc. etc.
Scripture and history teach opposite of what you believe....
I agree with what you've written...
Yes Scott...
I realize that only YOU know God.
Gee. Maybe he's sending YOU delusions?
No need to reply.
What good does it do you if you don't know how to read it? Clearly there is a problem here. The Bible does have some clear passages that anyone can understand without needing someone to explain. Let me start with:
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
We also see Jesus explaining the Scriptures. People needed help, it seems.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
I assure you too that the good people at Berea had read the Scriptures and they also knew there were things they didn't understand. I am always amused when people say the Bereans used the sola scriptura method of deriving truth. They had had the Scriptures but didn't derive truth until something else got said. Yes, I said said. Paul and Silas gave them a "word." Then the Bereans wondered if that could be right and searched the Scriptures to see if it could be so.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
There were Jews too who thought they had the Law of Moses because they had the five written books. They did not. They had written words, and could not discern its true meaning.
Jeremiah 8:8 8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?
They had written books but they did not have the Word of the Lord -- the Living Word -- they had ink on paper.
Ha, ha, there were Jews who had searched the Scriptures over and over and still didn't recognize Jesus when he showed up.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You could read all you want about how to repair cars, but if you couldn't recognize the car parts named in the manual when you see them, it does you no good. You could memorize your entire car manual; but if the battery needed to be replaced and you couldn't recognize a battery when you saw one, what good did the book knowledge do? All you have are words and ideas. You can't relate them to reality. Doing that can make your head spin because you're not in reality -- you can put yourself in some imaginary world.
I've no idea why they would write such a thing since Gentiles were never told to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a gift from God to Israel. He gave it to them, not to Gentiles.
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
What is unclear about this?
The men who wanted Gentiles to keep the laws of Moses were unlearned themselves, bad Jews.
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
What did the Apostles decide with the help of the Holy Spirit?
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
What? No Sabbath observance? No, there was no need for it. They listed four "necessary things." Other than those four would be putting an unnecessary burden on people.
The following is too long to place in the middle of this thread, but it fully answers your question and fully represents my beliefs. I can go into far greater detail about specific prophetic fulfillment, and thus fully justifies my stand regarding the papacy as being the Antichrist. It is not my imagination... Like you I was raised Catholic, so none of this came easy.... My settling into this truth came only after much prayer and study... And a willingness to accept truth whatever the cost.
Halt! Who Goes There? Friend or Foe?
Sooooooo Marymog...to summarize what I SAID...
I FOLLOW Jesus' Teaching and JEWISH MEN and A JEWISH ROMAN man;
THAT Jesus TAUGHT and appointed TO TEACH ME.
And....Sooooooo Marymog...what's your point...."YOU FOLLLOW AFTER TEACHINGS OF MEN, that MEN APPOINTED" ?
Hummmmm.......fascinating!!!
Glory to God,
Taken
People needed help because it was such a radical new idea after Judaism existed for about 1,500 years. (beginning with the Hebrews).
Hey B,
I skimmed through it, not because it's not well-written..it's very good.
But I'm not that interested in eschatology...and FOR ME, it's just too long.
Could I ask you what you mean by the following? You might have explained it in the article,,,I'm sorry that I probably missed it.
Deception is surely a major factor contributing to the confusion and apostasy of Babylon. Are not the abominations in the cup which she holds her deceptions and false doctrines? But of what purpose are these deceptions if they do not relate directly to how we relate to our Creator? Are they not designed to draw us away from a right relationship with God? Yes, assuredly. But more than that, and I cannot stress this enough, Satan seeks to draw us away from the Creator toward himself. Through deception, he has the whole world worshiping the Antichrist, and the whole world believes they are worshiping God. The counterfeit system of worship is so beguiling, so attractive, and presents itself in such a loving, caring, compassionate, Christian way, that the entire world is deceived into accepting her, obeying her dogmas, following her counsel, keeping her man-made commandments.
Are you referring to communion?
I tried to learn a little about the end times and prophecy a few years ago.
That's where I had read about the place being Mecca and not Rome...it made sense to me but surely I can't remember why.
I just couldn't get interested in this....
Not because it's not important or it wouldn't be in the bible.
Here it is again for anyone interested:
Halt! Who Goes There? Friend or Foe?
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thank you GG.OK.
But to be intellectually honest,,,both of us have to admit that Peter was not the first POPE.
The CC goes back AFTER THE OFFICIAL PAPACY was established and gave the title of POPE to ALL the BISHOPS OF ROME, from the time of Peter.
This does not diminish his role in the early church...
but if we could keep history straight,,,it'll help those that argue this to death.
Do you at least know what I'm talking about and could we agree on this?
I love the emoji!!!
I get the gist of what you are saying and I THINK I agree with you. Here is the best way I can explain it to you which I THINK mirrors what you are saying:
The title "Pope" was not given to the Bishop of Rome until the 300's!! The most important thing to remember when reading the next several lines is that the current Pope is still considered The Bishop of Rome.
Peter was, according to historical Christian documents, the first Bishop of Rome.
Irenaeus started the Bishop of Rome list in his writings Against Heresies around 180 AD.
The Liberian Catalogue has a list which is largely dependent on a work of Bishop Hippolytus of Portus (early 200AD).
There are other Christian and secular historical documents that helped compile the list.
So as we can see the list's for the Bishop of Rome is pretty dang reliable. The title (Bishop of Rome) eventually was named Pope (among other names) but the Pope is still the Bishop of Rome. Nothing has changed except for the name.
Soooo the Bishop of Rome has always been Catholic AND the Pope has always been the Bishop of Rome.
Soooo it appears to me the history is straight......
Your thoughts?
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And you appointed yourself over them.....How is that working out for you?
Thank you for proving my point: You believe what you write and think.....not what anyone else writes and thinks. You follow your teachings and believe your teachings are superior to others.....
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Hi GG,
Maybe I misunderstood you when you said, Jesus didn't put Peter in charge for nothing.
I thought that is what you believe since you wrote it. If I misunderstood you....I apologize.
Mary
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And still no answer to my questions......
Are you embarrassed to be associated to the SDA?
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I am not claiming a technical foul. I am flat out saying that you PARTIALLY QUOTED and miss-quoted and twisted Scripture to bolster your argument.
Scripture warns us Christians about people like you.
Mary
Yes, I believe we agree on the history of the title of Pope.Thank you GG.
I love the emoji!!!
I get the gist of what you are saying and I THINK I agree with you. Here is the best way I can explain it to you which I THINK mirrors what you are saying:
The title "Pope" was not given to the Bishop of Rome until the 300's!! The most important thing to remember when reading the next several lines is that the current Pope is still considered The Bishop of Rome.
Peter was, according to historical Christian documents, the first Bishop of Rome.
Irenaeus started the Bishop of Rome list in his writings Against Heresies around 180 AD.
The Liberian Catalogue has a list which is largely dependent on a work of Bishop Hippolytus of Portus (early 200AD).
There are other Christian and secular historical documents that helped compile the list.
So as we can see the list's for the Bishop of Rome is pretty dang reliable. The title (Bishop of Rome) eventually was named Pope (among other names) but the Pope is still the Bishop of Rome. Nothing has changed except for the name.
Soooo the Bishop of Rome has always been Catholic AND the Pope has always been the Bishop of Rome.
Soooo it appears to me the history is straight......
Your thoughts?
Francis is indeed the Bishop of Rome.
The Bishop of Rome quickly became the most influential bishop due to the importance of Rome.
Other important bishops were also called PAPA which is why it was determined that ONLY the Bishop of Rome was to be called PAPA....I believe in was in the 600's,,,but it matters not when.
As a matter of honorary titles and not to cause confusion and have to explain history...
the CC went back and named EVERY BISHOP OF ROME "PAPA----POPE" beginning with Peter.
Personally, I don't have a big problem with this....
All one has to do is know some history.
We can also take this opportunity to say that Popes were picked by existing Popes and they were not ELECTED until, I believe, about the year 1,000 or 1,100 AD.
Do you like this emoji?
Hmmm.
I think I missed all that.
Jesus did not put Peter in charge for nothing...
This means that Jesus put Peter in charge FOR SOMETHING.
Because He wanted Peter to be the head of the church...
Because He trusted Peter for reasons we can only guess with some intelligent knowledge of Peter.
I meant it in a good way.
All good.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,744
- 5,599
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
It also warns of false witnesses, and gives precedence to what and how I have quoted the scripture, even by Christ Himself. And you not seeing it...is nothing new, but exactly what mockers and those who killed the prophets and Christ have always done. Sadly, your actions don't even measure up to that of a Pharisee...at least they did not deny great portions of scripture as you do, nor did they argue when they were quoted back to them.
LOL...You brought up ...
Polycarp, Clement. Luther and others...
No, I did not appoint myself OVER "them"!
No, I do not read their works or consider their works, or Follow "THEM"!
I brought up Jesus and HIS CHOSEN Disciples..
No, I did not appoint myself OVER "THEM".
I Follow JESUS !
I consider the the words of Jesus' Chosen Disciples. I do not Follow Them.
How is THAT ^ working out for me?
Very Good!
LOL...that's FUNNY!
What do YOU DO...think and write ...
What YOU DO NOT BELIEVE?
Anyone Else? LOL Mary!
That would Be your FALSE Assessment!
I have plenty Brothers IN Christ that WE are In Agreement on "Gods Understanding" of His Own Words...that THEY also Receive "Gods Understanding" THE SAME WAY...
Jesus' Chosen Disciples Did...
And the Same Way, I do.
You follow your teachings and believe your teachings are superior to others.....
Already made expressly clear WHOM I Follow...and Absolutely my Teacher Is...
Superior!...
Glory to God,
Taken
Similar threads
