Rome's tactics.

[Mr GLee]

Great point. Catholics should study Catholicism, many would be very surprised at what they would learn.

Yes, shocked in dismay .

 

[Carbon]

Now, more on the antichrist.

The word antichrist consists of two words: anti, which depending on the context, can mean either against, or for, and Christ. So the word antichrist pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ.

There is much proof from the scriptures that the pope of Rome is the antichrist.

 

[makesends]

The word antichrist consists of two words: anti, which depending on the context, can mean either against, or for, and Christ. So the word antichrist pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ.

Not that I disagree about the Pope, but I don't think you can logically arrive at the notion, (from the fact that "anti-" can mean either 'against' or 'for'), that "the word antichrist pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ."

Also note that the idea of 'for' in the use of "anti", at least as I understand it, is not in the sense of being in favor of some thing, (nor contrary to), but of a 'logically complementary' sense to that thing, like a counterpart. In the same way, we have the OT 'types' and the fulfilment of them in the NT, which we call the 'anti-types'.

 

[Mr GLee]

Not that I disagree about the Pope, but I don't think you can logically arrive at the notion, (from the fact that "anti-" can mean either 'against' or 'for'), that "the word antichrist pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ."

Also note that the idea of 'for' in the use of "anti", at least as I understand it, is not in the sense of being in favor of some thing, (nor contrary to), but of a 'logically complementary' sense to that thing, like a counterpart. In the same way, we have the OT 'types' and the fulfilment of them in the NT, which we call the 'anti-types'.

I think of the "anti" is another teaching authority other than the true. False apostles' sent with false prophecy as oral traditions of men .

 

[makesends]

I think of the "anti" is another teaching authority other than the true. False apostles' sent with false prophecy as oral traditions of men .

True. It is at least that.

 

[Mikeuk]

What you mean is, if I don't agree with you, I don't care about truth.

The RCC convinced you ay?

Just because there was a succession of bishops does not mean it's a Christian religion, the RCC does not follow biblical doctrine. Their popes are not biblical, so have as many as you like.

Well, that rules out the priests of the RCC.



You mean the Roman pope?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not.
It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.
Who ALL believed a physical church, a succession of bishops given power to hand on doctrine, and power to resolve disputes.
They believed ( as scripture says) Only those sent can ( be relied) to preach the truth.


And on doctrine
Take they all believed a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession , provable in records decades after Christ.
So who it you suppose apostasized? Jesus? John? Or johns first disciples?( since all succession after that agree with the first)
And how does that square with scripture when Jesus says hell would not prevail against his chuch?

So It matters you disagree with everyone in the first Millenium, and the man you believe - calvin was not sent, he was not prophesied, nor did he perform any miracle to prove his bona fides, all we know for sure is he even disagreed with most other reformers even. , and he uses exactly the same concept the Mormons do for knowing what is scripture.
Not exactly a good imprimateur for you or him.

 

[Mr GLee]

True. It is at least that.

Hi. . .It's something I have been looking at .

Many from my experiences do not distinguish the singular antichrist the one spirit of error (satan) from those he sends out antichrists, many false prophets as false apostles sent by a false god (Satan the antichrist )

In that same way in one example it is shown working between Cain and Abel. Darkness and Light, not redeemed (Cain) and redeemed (Abel)

Genesis 4: 9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

The first recorded lie of mankind

Jesus in John 8 speaks of that deception as murderer from that very beginning

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it

The antichrist as the spirit of error (another teaching authority) sends out false apostles with false prophecy (many anti- christs).

Cain moved by the father of lies "the antichrist" another teaching authority . . . a serial murderer from that very beginning . . .murdered Abel, buried him under (out of sight out of mind a pagan foundation) and the antichrist moved Cain to lie

The first example of false prophecy sent by false apostles as antichrists is in the garden. There Adam to represent the invisible head (Christ) and Eve. . . . . to represent the church or bride of Christ .

Christ prophesied to Adam who was to protect Eve who again who represents the whole church as the one bride . Satan a false god chose the weaker vessel (not the one that received prophecy directly from God ) Eve revealed the prophecy given to her by Adam.(do not eat you will die . Satan gave her lying word as false prophecy that added to the prophecy of God words making the word God to no effect adding neither shall touch it . She touched it and did not die but rather it strengthened her with false prophecy the food of the evil one given tor her to eat it Adam who also ate was deceived to believe the same false prophecy ....Jesus the Som om made those false prophecy to no effect he protected the woman the bruise of Christ born again mankind

Eve the first false apostle sent with false prophecy as a oral tradition of dying mankind.

Genesis 3King James Version3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

[Mr GLee]

It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.
Who ALL believed a physical church, a succession of bishops given power to hand on doctrine, and power to resolve disputes.
They believed ( as scripture says) Only those sent can ( be relied) to preach the truth.

What does the idea of early church fathers dying mankind have to do with, all things written in the law and the prophets. The sword of the Spirit? (sola scriptura)

Did they add their own oral traditions I heard it through the legions of fathers grapevine. . . to it as another kind of teaching authority?

 

[Carbon]

Not that I disagree about the Pope, but I don't think you can logically arrive at the notion, (from the fact that "anti-" can mean either 'against' or 'for'), that "the word antichrist pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ."

I think I understand what you are saying. But as far as the impression he (antichrist) is for Christ is, well look at the pope in the RCC. He acts as if he represents Christ. He is in the place of God, many are deceived.

Also note that the idea of 'for' in the use of "anti", at least as I understand it, is not in the sense of being in favor of some thing, (nor contrary to), but of a 'logically complementary' sense to that thing, like a counterpart. In the same way, we have the OT 'types' and the fulfilment of them in the NT, which we call the 'anti-types'.

Let me think on this. Thanks

 

[Carbon]

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not.

Then stop acting as if it does.

It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.

Ha, they all sure didn't agree with each other on all things. And most of them didn't agree with your RCC.

Who ALL believed a physical church, a succession of bishops given power to hand on doctrine, and power to resolve disputes.
They believed ( as scripture says) Only those sent can ( be relied) to preach the truth.

Not the abuse of your RCC

And on doctrine

The RCC does not practice a Christian doctrine.

Take they all believed a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession , provable in records decades after Christ.

Wrong.

So who it you suppose apostasized? Jesus? John? Or johns first disciples?( since all succession after that agree with the first)
And how does that square with scripture when Jesus says hell would not prevail against his chuch?

Another practice that was finally abused by your RCC

So It matters you disagree with everyone in the first Millenium, and the man you believe - calvin was not sent, he was not prophesied, nor did he perform any miracle to prove his bona fides, all we know for sure is he even disagreed with most other reformers even. , and he uses exactly the same concept the Mormons do for knowing what is scripture.
Not exactly a good imprimateur for you or him.

Haha, you obviously don't know scripture. And it is also obvious your just another Calvinist hater.

 

[Carbon]

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not.
It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.
Who ALL believed a physical church, a succession of bishops given power to hand on doctrine, and power to resolve disputes.
They believed ( as scripture says) Only those sent can ( be relied) to preach the truth.


And on doctrine
Take they all believed a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession , provable in records decades after Christ.
So who it you suppose apostasized? Jesus? John? Or johns first disciples?( since all succession after that agree with the first)
And how does that square with scripture when Jesus says hell would not prevail against his chuch?

So It matters you disagree with everyone in the first Millenium, and the man you believe - calvin was not sent, he was not prophesied, nor did he perform any miracle to prove his bona fides, all we know for sure is he even disagreed with most other reformers even. , and he uses exactly the same concept the Mormons do for knowing what is scripture.
Not exactly a good imprimateur for you or him.

The ECF's are not infallible, even though they were truly our fathers in the faith after the apostles. Also, even though the RCC claims most of them as theirs, it's simple to see that that is not the truth when reading their writings.

 

[Carbon]

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not.
It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.
Who ALL believed a physical church, a succession of bishops given power to hand on doctrine, and power to resolve disputes.
They believed ( as scripture says) Only those sent can ( be relied) to preach the truth.


And on doctrine
Take they all believed a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession , provable in records decades after Christ.
So who it you suppose apostasized? Jesus? John? Or johns first disciples?( since all succession after that agree with the first)
And how does that square with scripture when Jesus says hell would not prevail against his chuch?

So It matters you disagree with everyone in the first Millenium, and the man you believe - calvin was not sent, he was not prophesied, nor did he perform any miracle to prove his bona fides, all we know for sure is he even disagreed with most other reformers even. , and he uses exactly the same concept the Mormons do for knowing what is scripture.
Not exactly a good imprimateur for you or him.

IMO you along with most Catholics are confused. And you claim since I do not agree with the ECF's I am in error. But let me assure you, I do agree with them. You just misunderstand them. Because you are being lied to. Here is one example.

On papal succession, authority and infallibility.
Matthew 16:
13 Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He gave the disciples strict orders that they were to tell no one that He was the Christ.

Here is a major passage that the RC's misinterpret and have been deceiving people with. Also, you will find the RCC is interpreting scripture completely contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the overall church throughout the centuries.


Vatican 1 teaches that the papacy and the rock of Matthew 16, that this was the view of the church from the very beginning. If so we would find this view expressed in the patristic interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. And yet, we do not find such a view. Before the fourteenth century, there is not one word from a Father, doctor, theologian, or canonist in the interpretation of these foundational passages of scripture, that supports the teaching of papal infallibility.

Let's continue on this subject for a bit.

 

[Carbon]

@Mikeuk @GoKart Mozart
Would any RC's like to bring up proof for a pope a succession of Peter? If so. please do.

Be careful though, because you will find it to be a historical fact that the ECF's undermine the claims of Vatican 1. You will find that the Fathers often opposed the bishops of Rome in both its teaching and ruling capacity, for the ECF's refused to submit to their decrees.

Would you like an example?

 

[Carbon]

@Mikeuk @GoKart Mozart
Consider this historical fact to the lack of recognized authority held by the bishop of Rome, by the Council of Carthage in 256 A.D.
Cyprian, along with 86 other bishops formally decreed their steadfast opposition to the teaching of Pope Stephen on baptism. What was so significant about this opposition is that it was made in the context of Stephen applying Matthew 16:18 to himself as Peters's successor, and claiming to be the bishop of bishops in the Church and therefore due implicit obedience to his judgments. His demand, and interpretation of scripture upon which it was based, were soundly and unanimously repudated by the bishops.

Are you familiar with the subject? It was over the question of whether those who had been baptized by heretics and schismatics had to be rebaptized upon the entrance or return to the Catholic Church. Cyprian held that they had to be rebaptized; Stephen insisted they did not. This dispute however had been preceeded by two others. Check them out if you like.

 

[Carbon]

@Mikeuk @GoKart Mozart
Are you familuar with pope Liberius (352-366)?
He was the pope during the Arian controversy. For those who do not know, Arians taught that Christ was a created being and not God. (@Mikeuk so much for you accusing Calvin of having heresy in common with the Mormons, jw's etc... huh?)
The Council of Nicea in 325 officially condemned this teaching and affirmed the truth of the deity of Christ.
Pope Liberius was initially a defender of the Nicene faith and the opponent of Arius' teachings, for which he was disposed and banished by the emperor, Constantius II. In his place, the Roman clergy elected an Arian, Felix II. Eventually Liberius acquiesced to Arian demands by signing an Arianizing confession and agreeing to the excommunication of Athanasius, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy. On those conditions, he was allowed to return to Rome and resume his position as bishop of Rome. If you check this history you will find that he later reversed his position again. But we can't deny that Liberius temporally endorsed at least a semi-Arian confession, and did so as a legitimate pope.
This is all verified by Athanasius, Hilary, and Jerome.

Liberius obviously apostatized for personal and political reasons, but if the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 were correct, and if the Holy Spirit guaranteed that no heresy will inflict the papacy, then this incident would never have occurred.

 

[Carbon]

@all Catholics

In 1302 pope Boniface VIII issued his famous bull, Unam Sanctam.
As pope he authoritatively declared that the papacy has ultimate authority not only over the spiritual affairs of men but also over the temporal powers as well so that they were therefore to be subject to the Roman pontiff. It also declared that for every human being the condition for salvation was submission and obedience to the pope. This was later reconfirmed by Pope Leo X and Vatican 1. Anyone who refused to submit to the pope, in either temporal or spiritual affairs, was a heretic and forever lost.
This was the ex-cathedra declaration (according to RC theology) of an infallible pope, and was a decree especially related to salvation. No one could be saved who refused to submit to the Roman pontiff. Yet today, the official teaching of Vatican II is that non-Catholics can experience salvation, a direct contradiction of Pope Boniface VIII's bull.

I'd say, oh boy! Houston, we have a problem.

 

[Arial]

@all Catholics

In 1302 pope Boniface VIII issued his famous bull, Unam Sanctam.
As pope he authoritatively declared that the papacy has ultimate authority not only over the spiritual affairs of men but also over the temporal powers as well so that they were therefore to be subject to the Roman pontiff. It also declared that for every human being the condition for salvation was submission and obedience to the pope. This was later reconfirmed by Pope Leo X and Vatican 1. Anyone who refused to submit to the pope, in either temporal or spiritual affairs, was a heretic and forever lost.
This was the ex-cathedra declaration (according to RC theology) of an infallible pope, and was a decree especially related to salvation. No one could be saved who refused to submit to the Roman pontiff. Yet today, the official teaching of Vatican II is that non-Catholics can experience salvation, a direct contradiction of Pope Boniface VIII's bull.

I'd say, oh boy! Houston, we have a problem.

O look! An abomination in the temple of the Lord, declaring himself to be God!

 

[Carbon]

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not.
It matters you disagree with all the first Christian’s as witness by the early fathers one generation after apostles.

Why do you not agree with them? I do agree with them. Are you afraid you will no longer be a RC if you do?

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 A.D.)
But what effort is required of us to exert ourselves in such a way that our commemoration may be worthy of the virtue of the apostles? The warmth of our praises does not extend to Simon insofar as he was a catcher of fish; rather it extends to his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole church.

@Mikeuk , do you agree with Gregory of Nyssa?

 

[Mikeuk]

Then stop acting as if it does.

Ha, they all sure didn't agree with each other on all things. And most of them didn't agree with your RCC.

Not the abuse of your RCC

The RCC does not practice a Christian doctrine.

Wrong.

Another practice that was finally abused by your RCC

Haha, you obviously don't know scripture. And it is also obvious your just another Calvinist hater.

You still fail to answer why you provably disagree with all the early church.

And why you trust calvin who wasn’t sent , and doesn’t agree with any of his contemporaries let alone the historic church.
He is the one who apostasized. Turned his back on Jesus’ church. As an academic he was a modern Pharisee. Legal twisting of words, losing the meaning entirely. But then he wasn’t part of the succession so his opinions are irrelevant.

All the rest of your posts are so much smoke and mirrors. Nothing to do with the doctrine of Jesus church.
You will find it in the historic writings, of the first generations.
A physical church with Succession with power to hand down doctrine and arbitrate disputes, the power Jesus gave His church.
You should be glad for them, their decisions gave you your New Testament.

Read them. The early church taught by them is Catholic , certainly not Calvinist, or sola scriptura.

 

[Mikeuk]

I do agree with them.

No you don’t. The physical church. Power to bind and loose. The succession. Eucharist of real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession. You have none of the early church faith, appointed by Jesus,

Like scripture , you cherry pick a single father out of context, to try to support your false faith.
Yet all of the early fathers support the succession of bishops, who are the sole channel of true faith, and Jesus appointedarbiters of truth.

You then claim a single random non entity called calvin somehow has the truth, and that all before him were wrong!!
Your version of Jesus is seemingly too weak to do what he promised to keep the gates of hell from his church.

Yet RCC has outlasted the longest empires , still with all the essential doctrines unchanged, longevity and standing firm is a mark of the true church.
The rest fragment as giant egos and pride like Calvin’s rip them apart. Again. Again.again. Calvinism had fractured into many pieces. Are their many holly spirits in Calvinism guiding you in many directions?

But Nobody appointed calvin foretold him in scripture and he failed to do a miracle to show his bona fides



Spare me the dime shop insults of Catholicism . They may work against the ill informed, but none who have studied the history.
Read Francis de sales - catholic controversy, or Newman , the essay. See just how wrong you are.