When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[epostle1]

I never said counting words made me right. What I said was that by adding more context (more words) it only made my position stronger. You are the one who wanted to add more words (context), not me.

Ignatius was confronting the practice of people performing religious rites and such without church leadership present because it was leading to divisions in The universal Church. You keep using the words "local church". There were no "local churches" back then that had their own autonomy. They were all led by and answered to The Church in Rome with local bishops and elders as their leaders...just like Ignatius said. Any "local church" that was started without the blessing of the bishop (think Gnostics) was considered heretical. Churches were still small in his day so even if they had a single bishop in charge the bishop nonetheless had a group of elders around him to keep him in check. One of the elders/ bishop's main job was to preserve the traditions of the apostles unchanged to the next generation. The apostolic churches could produce a roll of their elders back to the apostles. This was strong evidence that they taught what the apostles taught' and thus Christ's doctrine.
So Ignatius charged the people to stick close to the bishop and elders. Don't baptize without them; don't eat the Lord's Supper without them; and don't teach what they don't approve. It will keep you in the doctrine of Christ.
Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians

The above is evidence that Ignatius would say, "Hey guys, make sure you go to the "official" RCC church and not Luther's church to be baptized by a guy who isn't "official" .

He is IN FACT telling us Protestantism is wrong (at that time it was Gnostics he was writing about) because their teaching was a separation from the universal Church's teaching.

How do you know if the "local clergy" has abandon the Word of God? Who has the authority to determine that? You?? Ignatius said the bishops have that authority. The bishops had to answer to the universal authority in Rome.

My question still goes unanswered: When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

It's impossible for the Church to ever stop being universal. It's a divine characteristic or attribute, one of the four marks of God:
One,
Holy,
Catholic (Universal) and
Apostolic.
see Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth for more info.
These "marks" are not man made. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, and exercises her teaching authority in the same manner as the Council of Jerusalem. Sure, it's a human institution, warts and all, but superintended by the Holy Spirit like when the canon of the Bible was completed. That authority has never stopped either.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).
(in varying degrees of separation, yet recognized as Christian by the Church)

​

 

[epostle1]

Which means?

It means he has been conned by Dave Hunt (a Whore duh Babble-on psycho) or something similar.
Lies of Dave Hunt #3

 

[OzSpen]

It means he has been conned by Dave Hunt (a Whore duh Babble-on psycho) or something similar.
Lies of Dave Hunt #3

kepha,

With that statement about the late Dave Hunt, you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy.

By that fallacy, you have introduced an irrelevant fact about Dave Hunt, which was an attack against Hunt's character. You wanted this attack on Hunt to be evidence to support your claim. It is false reasoning because:

1. Dave Hunt made a claim about the RCC.
2. You made an attack on the person of Dave Hunt.
3. Therefore, you consider that Hunt's claim is false.

The reason why this Ad Hominem claim is a fallacy is that the character assassination that you made against Hunt has no bearing on the claim you are making. Therefore, you have engaged in fallacious reasoning and thus have committed a logical fallacy, known here as an Ad Hominem fallacy.

So that we can have a reasonable and responsible discussion, I urge you to quit the use of logical fallacies. The use of a logical fallacy aborts any attempt to have a logical conversation on a given topic.

Oz

 

[tom55]

It ceased to be God's church when they went into apostasy through adultery with the kings of the earth.

When did that alleged apostasy occur?

 

[tom55]

kepha,

With that statement about the late Dave Hunt, you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy.

By that fallacy, you have introduced an irrelevant fact about Dave Hunt, which was an attack against Hunt's character. You wanted this attack on Hunt to be evidence to support your claim. It is false reasoning because:

• Dave Hunt made a claim about the RCC.
• You made an attack on the person of Dave Hunt.
• Therefore, you consider that Hunt's claim is false.

The reason why this Ad Hominem claim is a fallacy is that the character assassination that you made against Hunt has no bearing on the claim you are making. Therefore, you have engaged in fallacious reasoning and thus have committed a logical fallacy, known here as an Ad Hominem fallacy.

So that we can have a reasonable and responsible discussion, I urge you to quit the use of logical fallacies. The use of a logical fallacy aborts any attempt to have a logical conversation on a given topic.

Oz

So if Kepha31 would have written, 'It means he has been conned by Dave Hunt or something similar' that would not have been a "ad hominem logical fallacy"? (I think that is what you are saying)

 

[brakelite]

It means he has been conned by Dave Hunt (a Whore duh Babble-on psycho) or something similar.
Lies of Dave Hunt #3

I have never read Dave Hunt. I have read some of the History of the Reformation by Wylie...I have read much of Foxe's Book of Martyrs...I have read books that used well known and trusted historians as sources for their works. Historians such as Wylie, deAubigne, Newton, and yes, even quotes from what many Catholics claim as the "early church "Catholic" fathers", as well as the records that have survived the persecutions and book burnings of the reformers. And yes, I agree that many of the reformers persecuted one another also...I am not holding up anyone as a paragon of virtue.
The Roman church did have its beginnings with the apostles. No one I think can refute that there was a Christian church in Rome by the end of the first century, and without doubt established even before Paul was carried there as a prisoner. The church at that time was persecuted mainly by Jews, but as the Roman hatred for Jews grew, the Christians also came under fire because of their connections to the synagogue as the early church still worshiped communally on Sabbath. You and other Catholic apologists have clamed that Sunday observance was instituted by the apostles, yet history, and even your own church, declares otherwise. This is just one example of many how the church of Rome slid into apostasy. The slide was gradual, but steady. It began in Rome and Alexandria, and over time, as the bishops of Rome found favor with the empire, and through various Empirical decrees such as the code of Justinian, gained civil influence over Rome and found power and influence to their liking, and became corrupted, enforcing Sunday observance over all the churches that decided to surrender to Roman authority, thus leavening the church. This apostasy spread, but where Rome had little or no influence in those early centuries, there were Christian churches independent and continuing to observe the Sabbath.

"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." "The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." "Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

There is historical evidence that as early as the 3rd century there were large Sabbath keeping bishoprics or conferences in the eastern lands from Palestine to India. In later centuries these churches through the spread of the gospel extended as far as Seres (China) and Mongolia. The heresy of Sunday observance was limited to only those churches in the west that bowed their knees to the Roman bishops forsaking the Bible as their only source of spiritual authority.

Ambrose, the bishop of Milan in the 4th century, gave rise to the ancient saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" . In Milan, he observed the 7th day Sabbath. When in Rome, he observed Sunday.

"It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west...For in the Church of Millaine (Milan);...it seems the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme... Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme (Judaism); but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus (Jesus) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." "History of the Sabbath" (original spelling retained), Part 2, par. 5, pp.73, 74. London: 1636. Dr. Heylyn.

In the 4th century...."The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.
Abyssinia - Remnants of Philip's Evangelism
"In the last half of that century St. Ambrose of Milan stated officially that the Abyssinian bishop, Museus, had 'traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres' (China). For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment." Ambrose, DeMoribus, Brachmanorium Opera Ominia, 1132, found in Migne, Patrologia Latima, Vol.17, pp.1131,1132.
Arabia, Persia, India, China
"Mingana proves that in 370 A.D. Abyssinian Christianity (a Sabbath keeping church) was so popular that its famous director, Musacus, travelled extensively in the East promoting the church in Arabia, Persia, India and China."

Council Laodicea - A.D.365
"Canon 16-On Saturday the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be read aloud." "Canon 29-Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day."

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153.

"... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.

''Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.'' C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895.

“Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth" Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

Apostasy is written all across the history of the Roman Church and its written in the blood of the 100s of 1000s of martyrs who gave their lives in defense of truth and conscience. You will claim that "the gates of hell could not prevail against the church", therefore the Catholic Church could not apostatize. The thing though that escapes you is that God's true church...those who did not bow to Roman usurped authority, were not prevailed against. There was always a remnant who did not bow their knees to Baal. Just as there is a remnant today.

 

[OzSpen]

So if Kepha31 would have written, 'It means he has been conned by Dave Hunt or something similar' that would not have been a "ad hominem logical fallacy"? (I think that is what you are saying)

I explained what an Ad Hominem logical fallacy was and how kepha had committed it. I think it's time you learned the nature of logical fallacies. My description of the logical fallacy that kepha used re Dave Hunt was accurate.

 

[epostle1]

I explained what an Ad Hominem logical fallacy was and how kepha had committed it. I think it's time you learned the nature of logical fallacies. My description of the logical fallacy that kepha used re Dave Hunt was accurate.

I humbly accept your exhortation, and will refrain from ad hominum attacks against Dave Hunt. I'll re-word my statement:

People who teach the Catholic Church as apostate or Whore of Babylon are vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots who twist scripture to justify their hatred for the Church and there is nothing Christian about lies and hateful polemics. Brakelite is simply a sorry victim of anti-Catholic trash.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this.
His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists,
and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

I anxiously wait for brakelite's answer to Tom55's question:

When did that alleged apostasy occur?
If he refuses to answer then he should stop slandering the Church.

 

[heretoeternity]

I humbly accept your exhortation, and will refrain from ad hominum attacks against Dave Hunt. I'll re-word my statement:

People who teach the Catholic Church as apostate or Whore of Babylon are vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots who twist scripture to justify their hatred for the Church and there is nothing Christian about lies and hateful polemics. Brakelite is simply a sorry victim of anti-Catholic trash.

[background=#ffffff]Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. [/size][/background]

[background=#ffffff]His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, [/size][/background]
[background=#ffffff]and an examination of them shows why they don’t work. [/size][/background]

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

I anxiously wait for brakelite's answer to Tom55's question:

[background=#ffffff]When did that alleged apostasy occur? [/background]
[background=#ffffff]If he refuses to answer then he should stop slandering the Church.[/background]



[background=#ffffff]

[/background]



Kepka, why are you ashamed of calling the "catholic" church what it is? It is the Roman church...catholic just means universal, and many protestant religions also can claim that word...you obviously want to continue deception of this name...it is the church of Rome, or Roman church plain and simple..I am surprised you did not know this...
You want to mock the word of the Bible, but Revelation 17and 18 describe the Roman church perfectly, whether you agree or not, God will destroy it..read these passages and you will see!

 

[StanJ]

@heretoeternity
The fact is the RCC doesn't call itself that. We use it to differentiate between the different rites and to prevent the equivocation that comes with calling them simply Catholic.

 

[heretoeternity]

Try equivocating Roman church...thats the accurate name by which it is known.

 

[OzSpen]

I humbly accept your exhortation, and will refrain from ad hominum attacks against Dave Hunt. I'll re-word my statement:

People who teach the Catholic Church as apostate or Whore of Babylon are vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots who twist scripture to justify their hatred for the Church and there is nothing Christian about lies and hateful polemics. Brakelite is simply a sorry victim of anti-Catholic trash.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this.
His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists,
and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

I anxiously wait for brakelite's answer to Tom55's question:

When did that alleged apostasy occur?
If he refuses to answer then he should stop slandering the Church.

kepha31,

You continue to engage in the use of an Ad Hominem fallacy with this language, 'vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'.

Please learn what an Ad Hominem fallacy is at The Nizkor Project. Here it is:

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

We cannot have a sensible, reasonable conversation when you attack a person's character with your Ad Hominem fallacies. All you did was reword one Ad Hominem fallacy and replace it with another Ad Hominem fallacy.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

When did that alleged apostasy occur?

It happened over three stages.
In Matthew 12 Jesus declared precisely who He was. God's Priest...God's Prophet...and God's King. Greater than the Temple and all that pertains to it....greater than Jonah....greater than Solomon. In the OT through His Spirit in inspiring the prophets and in life He was God's Prophet, in Hebrews it reveals Him as High Priest, in Revelation it reveals Him as the coming King. There was no specific date I can offer...I am sure God knows when the line was crossed...but a slow deterioration in the purity of the early church through lust for power and prestige led the bishops and ruling class of Rome on a steady journey down into apostasy by usurping those above 3 roles that are solely the prerogative of the Son of God. It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many claim the ‘antichrist’ will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be deceived by such a tactic as this?
In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce.
Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a ‘son of perdition’ is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betrayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle impostor. A counterfeit. An impostor of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.
Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.
The falling away that Paul spoke indeed did take place just as he said. Jesus’ letter to the church of Ephesus (Revelation 2) reveals the beginning of this process. During the ensuing centuries, political instability within the Roman Empire resulted in Germanic barbarian tribes taking over the former territories of the western portion of the empire. Constantine moved the capital to the east, and Rome was left without a leader. This void was filled by the bishops of Rome, many of whom were more politically minded than religious. Power corrupted them, and by the 6th century the apostasy was well under way, the formation of a church/state union which was the vehicle for the introduction of many pagan superstitions and practices entering the church.
Is there a church today who counterfeits the threefold ministry of the true Christ, as Priest, Prophet and King? Is there an entity in the world today who claims to do just this? Is there one like Judas who is betraying the Master with a kiss, all the while claiming to be a friend? Is there in the world today a religious system or religious ruler who claims to be the earthly representative of Christ as His priest, claiming to be a mediator between God and man? Claiming to forgive sin even, which is the sole prerogative of God, and Biblically and in particular applying to Jesus?
Does this entity also claim the prerogatives of a prophet? Does it claim to speak for God in spiritual matters? Does it claim to stand as God’s spokesman on earth and claim that only through it’s authority can salvation be found, and that when speaking officially is considered on a par with scripture, that is infallible?
And finally, does this entity also claim to be a king? Does it claim authority as a secular power? Does it exercise authority and power within the auspices of a church/state relationship?
If there is such an entity, then it answers to the criteria demanded of it as to its true identity, Antichrist. Are you familiar with such an organization?

 

[Mungo]

Try equivocating Roman church...thats the accurate name by which it is known.

That's the name by which Protestants call it.

The full title is the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

The modern (universal) Catechism is the "Catechism Of The Catholic Church"

 

[Mungo]

It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute.

Anti means against. it doesn't mean a substitute.


From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

anti
 preposition opposed to; against.

ORIGIN from Greek anti 'against'.

anti-aircraft
 adjective (of a gun or missile) used to attack enemy aircraft from the ground or a ship.

antibacterial
 adjective active against bacteria.


An anti-aircraft missile acts against an airdraft not substitutes for it.

An antibacterial agent acts against bacteria not substitutes for bacteria.


[SIZE=12pt]If you prefer the Merriam Webster Dictionary[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Definition of anti [/SIZE]
plural antis

1. : one that is opposed

[SIZE=12pt]antiabortion[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Definition of antiabortion [/SIZE]

1. : opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion

 

[heretoeternity]

So no matter how you look at it the Roman church fits the description of an antichrist, as described by Apostle John in his writings....interesting and you still defend it..hmmm

 

[brakelite]

Anti means against. it doesn't mean a substitute.


From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

anti
 preposition opposed to; against.

ORIGIN from Greek anti 'against'.

anti-aircraft
 adjective (of a gun or missile) used to attack enemy aircraft from the ground or a ship.

antibacterial
 adjective active against bacteria.


An anti-aircraft missile acts against an airdraft not substitutes for it.

An antibacterial agent acts against bacteria not substitutes for bacteria.


[SIZE=12pt]If you prefer the Merriam Webster Dictionary[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Definition of anti [/SIZE]
plural antis

1. : one that is opposed

[SIZE=12pt]antiabortion[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Definition of antiabortion [/SIZE]

1. : opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion

473 ἀντί anti an-tee’
a primary particle; prep; TDNT-1:372,61; {See TDNT 75}
AV-for 15, because + 3639 4, for … cause 1, therefore + 3639 1, in the room of 1; 22
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
2a) instead of
2b) for
2c) for that, because
2d) wherefore, for this cause

The Greek word ἀντίχριστος antichristos is a derivative of two words...ἀντί and Χριστός. Yes, the Antichrist is opposed to Christ, just as Judas, the son of perdition, was opposed to Him. But that word anti, is the means by which Jesus was opposed. By being replaced, by being usurped by a counterfeit. Have a look at the following comparisons from the descriptions of the sea beast of Revelation 13 which all Biblical scholars agree is the symbolic form of the matured Antichrist, and the ministry of Jesus, the true Christ.

he sea-beast or antichrist.
Comes from water to begin activity. (13:1)
Resembles dragon. (12:13 13:1)
Ten diadems. (13:1)
Ten horns (13:1)
Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (13:2,4)
42 months of activity in first phase. (13:5)
Was slain (13:3)
Resurrected (13:3)
Receives worship after healing (13:3,4,8)
Now compare:
Jesus Christ
Comes from water to begin ministry (Luke 3:21-23)
Resembles Father (Jn 14:19)
Many diadems (Rev 19:12)
Lamb has 7 horns (5:6)
Receives power throne and authority from His Father (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27 Chapters 4,5)
42 months of ministry in initial phase. (Gospel of John)
Was slain (Rev 5:6)
Was resurrected (Rev1:18)
Received worship after resurrection (Math 28:17)

Now take a look at how the Roman church compares with the above descriptions of the ministry of the sea-beast....
1...Comes from water to begin activity. (Revel.13:1) Rose among the populated nations of western Europe, not a wilderness area of unpopulated lands. (See Revel.17:15)

2....Resembles dragon. (Revel.12:13 13:1) The orginal dragon as per Revel. 12 was of course Satan. But Satan's "executive office" do to speak, his representative upon earth that did his bidding, ws pagan Rome. (Revel. 12:4 last part applies to Herod, Rome's king who attempted to kill Jesus as a child.)

3....Ten diadems. (Revel.13:1) Papal Rome rose up at the same time and among the ten Germanic tribes that rose behind pagan Rome's collapse. (Ten toes on statue Daniel 2 and ten horns on 4th beast Daniel 7)

4...Ten horns (Revel. 13:1) This I believe are future, for Revelation declares another 10 kings shall give their power to the final church/state union , the coming NWO. It is a fact that the world is being divided into ten distinct territories at the head of which shall be placed ten leaders, or 'kings'.

5...Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (Revel. 13:2,4) Papal Rome received its civil power from Pagan Rome...the dragon. The code of Justinian was promulgated in 533, decaring the bishop of Rome civil authority.

6....42 months of activity in first phase. (Revel. 13:5) The above civil authority, although granted in AD533, was not implemented until 538, when Belisarius, under the aegis and authority of Justinian, ousted the Ostrogoths from Rome giving the church exclusive reign prior to this the bishops/popes were appointed or approved on only by the occupying power. Thus it was in 538 that the Roman church finally had autonomy as a civil AND religious church/state power. The prophecy declares 42 months. As everything in the prophecy is symbolic, so also is the 42 months. Working with the day/years principle (See Numbers 14:34 and Ezek. 4:6) the 42 months becomes 1260 years.

7....Was slain (Revel.13:3) The beast was slain at the "end of its life" naturally. When was that? 1260 years from 538 brings us to 1798. What took place to the Roman Catholic Church in 1798 which could signify its death? Genreal Bertier of Napoleon's Imperialist army invaded Rome and took the Pope captive who subsequently died in exile. The papal states were confiiscated, the college of cardinals disbanded, and Rome declared a republic by the occupying power. Diplomats and European leaders all at the time considered the church to have come to an ignominious end. No longer did it have civil power. It was still a church of course, but a church/state union? No more. The beast was dead....

8.....until it was resurrected. Resurrected (Revel.13:3) in 1928 Mussolini reinstated the church as an independent state, having full civil authority over its own affairs, and over its own territory (Vatican City) once again, and thus the beast was made alive once more.

9....Receives worship after healing (Revel. 13:3,4,8) And since that time, the popularity and significance in world affairs of the Vatican has only increased. And in the last two decades has increased exponentially, to the point where today every nation in the world almost has diplomatic relations with the Vatican, "and all the world wonders after the beast". (Revel 13:3)

So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly the ministerial counterfeit of Christ, replacing Christ as the "Vicar of Christ", counterfeiting the true mintry of Chrst in the heavenly scanctuary, setting up a counterfeit sanctuary, a counterfeit priesthood, and a counterfeit confessional, (which significantly has a veil in it which places a boundary between supplicant and priest...a boundary which God Himself rent in two) but matches also the symbolic description of the beast in its history and ministry.

 

[Mungo]

So no matter how you look at it the Roman church fits the description of an antichrist, as described by Apostle John in his writings....interesting and you still defend it..hmmm

And what would our resident pagan know about it?

 

[mjrhealth]

And what would our resident pagan know about it?

Thats the pot calling the kettle black. Hope it al lends soon.

 

[OzSpen]

And what would our resident pagan know about it?

To whom are you referring?