@Bobbyaf

No, both leaders and members committed those evils, and they prospered with it for over 1000 years. Besides, what can an apology do at this point in time to bring back life to those precious souls? How could the true church have done such wicked acts in the name of Christ has been a puzzle to true born-again Christians. Christ never called His church to persecute anyone who weren't prepared to accept the gospel, but He did warn that His church would be persecuted for His name sake. If nothing else this proves the RCC an apostate and counterfeit movement.

My brother, you act as though you are personally affected by what happened during those times.  What do you want the Pope to do so he can placate you (Bobbyaf) for these grave sins.  Oh boy, cry me a river.

From the gospel Jesus tells us that there will be sinners in his Church and that weeds will grow with the wheat until the end of time (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). . . . .In that passage its as though the weeds are equal in number to the wheat.  The implication of that passage is that the nonbelievers and dissenters mixed in with the elect and orthodox will be many, not few.  After all, Matthew 24:10 states that "many will fall away." It would be foolhardy to believe that the transgressions of members of the Church is reason enough to disprove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. God has only us sinful, rebellious humans to work with. Many bishops and priests have been lax in their duty and have engaged in wrongful/sinful acts, and they will stand accountable before God.  In many instances their sins are far worst because they have led the innocent away from God.  The Bible says, "Let not many of you become teachers" (Jas. 3:1).  Jesus assumed this would be the case, and spoke of it frequently (Matt. 3:12; 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:1–14; 24:1–13; 25:14–30). Paul concurs (cf. Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:15–20).

You will find sinners within the true Church. Even Judas was regarded as a true apostle (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; John 6:70–71; Acts 1:17).   At one point the apostles ran away when Jesus was being crucified.  Imagine that, your Lord and savior is being crucified before you and you have the audacity to deny him and flee.  Peter denied Jesus three times.  Before Paul's conversion he persecuted the body of Christ.  He probably killed many Christians.  Even though dissent and corruption are troubling and scandalous of their own accord, the attainment of moral purity is irrelevant with regard to the determination of which Church is divinely established by Christ.  

What of the Corinthians?  Did Paul discount them as part of the true universal (catholic) Church even when he was rebuking its members for exceedingly serious and widespread sins (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1–4; 5:1–2; 6:1–8; 11:17–22; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:2–4). What of the controversy of the Judaizers . . . .would you presume to say that they were not part of the true universal Church on account of their misguided understanding spoken of in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 15:5).  When discussing where and what the one "Church" is, I must draw the line and state that it is the Catholic Church.  1) It has apostolic succession and 2) because it is the only plausible choice that possesses four marks of the Church in their undiluted fullness (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic).

As you asked, the below is some information on the persecutions that Protestants leveled on Catholics and their fellow Protestants:

Persecution by Protestants
In Protestant countries, the persecution of Catholics and other Protestants were carried out with no less zeal than the reverse in the Catholic countries. In Britain, for instance, the persecution of those who were not of the Church of England was constant. The historian William Lecky (1838-1903) summarizes the situation in his book A History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe (1865):

The Presbyterians through a long succession of reigns were imprisoned, branded, mutilated, scourged, and exposed in the pillory. Many Catholics under false pretences were tortured and hung. Anabaptists and Arians were burned alive ,  In Scotland, during nearly the whole period that the Stuarts were on the throne of England, a persecution rivalling in atrocity almost any on record was directed by the English government, at the instigation of the Scotch bishops, and with the approbation of the English church, against all who repudiated episcopacy ,  The Presbyterians were hunted like criminals over the mountains. Their ears were torn from the roots. They were branded with hot irons. Their fingers were wrenched asunder by thumbkins. The bones of their legs were shattered in the boots. Women were scourged publicly through the streets. Multitudes were transported to Barbados, infuriated soldiers were let loose upon them, and encouraged to exercise all their ingenuity in torturing them , [1]

The Protestants in continental Europe were no better than their British counterparts. In Switzerland many Anabaptist [a] were executed by drowning, considered by many a fitting end to these "double baptizers". The Anabaptists were not the only people persecuted by the Calvinists; the freethinker Gentilis was killed by the axe, while the Unitarian Servetus was burned at the stake.

In part-Lutheran and part-Catholic Germany, the Anabaptists were persecuted with equal ferocity by both sides. At the Diet of Speyer in 1529, the Lutheran and Catholic parties agreed that Anabaptists deserved death for their beliefs.

In Holland, where Calvinism was the official religion, things were not much better. In the seventeenth century, there flourished a Christian sect called Aminianism which teaches a modified doctrine of predestination. They were not tolerated by the Dutch Calvinists. The Arminian Barneveldt was beheaded as a traitor in 1619, while another prominet Arminian, Grotius, was sentenced to life imprisonment. [2]

We have thus seen that a fundamental attitude of intolerance permeates all of Christianity. Thus the Calvinists who were persecuted by the Anglican Church in Scotland, were the persecutors of Anabaptists, Unitarians, Arminianisms in Holland and Switzerland.

Another example of a Christian sect that were both the persecuted and the persecutors were the Puritans. Founded during the reign of Elizabeth I (1533-1603) in England, the Puritans, who rejected all forms of episcopacy, were outlawed during her reign. And during the reign of King James I (1566-1625), he adopted harsh measures against the puritans which forced some of them to leave England for Holland and New England. The puritans left in England were treated even worse under the reign of Charles I (1600-1649). The Puritans were imprisoned, scourged and pilloried. Some of them even had their ears cut off and their noses split.

Thus the Puritans that went to New England had first hand experience of religious persecution. One would expect them to be more tolerant of dissent, as they knew what it was like to be on the wrong end of the religious stick. Alas, it was not the case at all. The Puritans in New England were equally zealous in persecuting dissenters. Those who taught deviant doctrines were mutilated (such as having their ears chopped off) or hanged. Catholics and Quakers were also severely persecuted by the Puritans in New England. Thus, at least four Quakers were hanged by the Puritans for their beliefs. The Puritans were also responsible for the execution of twenty people for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts. [3]

Back to the top

Notes
a. Anabaptists are Christians who believed in the baptism of believers who have reached the age of reason. They do not baptize babies and young adults. In effect, many Anabaptists actually experienced a double baptism: once as babies in their original religion, and once after their conversion into the Sect.

References
1. Knight, Humanist Anthology: p113-114
2. Haught, Holy Horrors: p109-111
Knight, Humanist Anthology: p113-114
Robertson, History of Christianity: p206-207
3. Haught, Holy Horrors: p117-124
Knight, Humanist Anthology: p114
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/protestpersecute.html

That is because all you're capable of doing is trivializing the loss. Do you not recall the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France? Did you know that the orders to kill the protestants was given by the court spiritual adviser which incidentally was a Jesuit priest. Why kill innocent people? This is the reason why, The RCC had gotten so much property over the hundreds of years through deception, and had built up so much influence in France, but much to the recession of knowledge and inspiration of the country. Gross darkness had fallen upon those regions, including France,  that were subject to Popery. That is why in that era it was called the dark ages.

This was the result of the concerns of the RC leadership, Suddenly—and without warning—the devilish work commenced. Beginning at Paris, the French soldiers and the Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed  people, and blood flowed like a river throughout the entire country. Men, women, and children fell in heaps before the mobs and the bloodthirsty troops. In one week, almost 100,100 Protestants perished. The rivers of France were so filled with corpses that for many months no fish were eaten. In the valley of the Loire, wolves came down from the hills to feel upon the decaying bodies of Frenchmen. The list of massacres was as endless as the list of the dead!

Yet you have the audacity and gaul to talk about atrocities committed against Catholics, as if you are not the least educated to say why. Persecutions can come upon anyone for different reasons. That is why I ask you to name the time and place so that history and geography will justify why they were persecuted.

How am I trivializing the loss?  I pray that the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace and that they may enter the gates of Heaven to be with our Lord.  And I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the angels and saints to pray for them to the Lord our God.  Amen. . . .

And I guess the above-mentioned organizations wrote history, huh?  Hahahaha!

So you are either a JW or a Seventh Day Adventist.  Funny. . . .was that so hard to state?

They are saints all right, but none that were canonized by popes, and none that are prayed to and asked for intercession like the pagans did, but these were those who came out of great tribulation, some of whom were persecuted by your organization. These were the redeemed that were taken to heaven at the 2nd return of Jesus Christ.

Ok, where is that in the Bible?  Chapter and verse, please. . . .

As for Mary being in heaven shouldn't it even strike you that the very 12th chapter of Revelation doesn't even mention her name? Such an important woman! Such a highly exalted woman! "The Mother of God!" Wow. It has not occured to you either that a few verse down in the same chapter pictures this woman still on the earth being persecuted by the dragon.

Well, the angel Gabriel first praised Mary when he called her, "Hail, full of Grace" and further on in the Gospel of Luke Mary proclaims that all generations will call her Blessed.  So, honoring Mary is very Biblical.  She is the Mother of God (not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit, but God the Son).

How could you people use the first wondrous object that John saw above the earth in vision,  and assume that that means she is in heaven, and not agree with this verse which I will quote below that she didn't go to heaven after her child went to heaven? John also saw this in vision too, "6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."

Did you notice that poster? She went straight into the wilderness right after she had her baby. She had a place prepared of God it says, and she was fed for how long? 1260 days or in prophetic terms 1260 years. Got that poster? 1260 years God's church dwelt in the wilderness, while the counterfeit church flourished. That is what I am talking about. The word of God said that the beast in Revelation 13, or little horn as found in Daniel 7 would rule for a certain time period, and history has made that abundantly clear what that religio-political organization is.

Like I said earlier, the Woman in Revelation 12:1, symbolized 1) the Church; 2) Israel; 3) Eve; and 4) the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Its call typology (see my earlier post).

CONCLUSION! MARY IS ASLEEP IN HER GRAVE AWAITING THE LAST TRUMP OF THE ARCHANGEL.

Soul sleep. . . .a non biblical belief if I ever seen one.  I see you are showing your true colors (I know Seventh Day Adventist people believe this).  Please prove that she is asleep in her grave using the Bible.  Chapter and verse, please.

If there were no Hebrew people through whom God established the promise, there could have been no Messiah. The church through different dispensations existed long before Jesus incarnated. Jesus was symbolized in their worship format. The word church means "the called out ones", and in every generation God always had His "Called-out-Ones" with whom He deposited His divine oracles. How else would an evil and adulturous generation have come to know The Creator of heaven and earth? In fact from the moment our first parents sinned God spoke of the plan of salvation to Adam and Eve, telling them of the conflict to expect between good and evil, and that one day through the church, or woman, the Messiah would come to destroy the works of Satan that serpent.

By your implication. . . . .If there were no Blessed Virgin Mary through whom Christ became incarnate, there could have been no Messiah.

@ Omenuko

My brother, you act as though you are personally affected by what happened during those times. What do you want the Pope to do so he can placate you (Bobbyaf) for these grave sins. Oh boy, cry me a river.

It is not what I want the pope to do that concerns me. The purpose of this thread is to identify the beast of Revelation 13, and the little horn of Daniel 7, by way of its traditions, part of which is the manner in which it handled bible-believing Christians who refused to pay homage to its edicts and dogmas. Its never about me per se. Its about revealing what prophecy foretold hundreds of years ago, and how history has fulfilled such prophecies.

From the gospel Jesus tells us that there will be sinners in his Church and that weeds will grow with the wheat until the end of time (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43).

So this is how infallible people operate like barbaric creatures, huh? These weren't isolated cases at all, or cases that happened at the spur of the moment. These brutal acts continued for hundreds of years on end. The wheat and tares allegory by Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic leadership organizing the slaughter of innocent Christians whose only crime was to be loyal to the word of God.

The implication of that passage is that the nonbelievers and dissenters mixed in with the elect and orthodox will be many, not few. After all, Matthew 24:10 states that "many will fall away." It would be foolhardy to believe that the transgressions of members of the Church is reason enough to disprove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. God has only us sinful, rebellious humans to work with. Many bishops and priests have been lax in their duty and have engaged in wrongful/sinful acts, and they will stand accountable before God. In many instances their sins are far worst because they have led the innocent away from God. The Bible says, "Let not many of you become teachers" (Jas. 3:1). Jesus assumed this would be the case, and spoke of it frequently (Matt. 3:12; 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:1–14; 24:1–13; 25:14–30). Paul concurs (cf. Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:15–20).

Those explanations have nothing to do with what the RCC did to innocent Christians. You're straying from the point. The prophecy concerning what we should look for in identifying the beast, or anti-Christ from both prophetic books, were not designed to discuss general spiritual matters that would have arisen within the general congregations. So when I attempt to reveal the attrocities of the RCC, that is merely one of the identifying marks, albeit one of the most important ones, to fit the jig saw puzzle together. The RCC is not merely guilty of the blood of the saints, but is guilty by the other acts of blasphemies she has committed, some of which were mentioned in the beginning of the thread.

Part of the prophecy in speaking of, and identifying the Anti-Christ, said in Daniel 7:25, "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Revelation 13:5-7 say also, "5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

Both prophets are saying the very same things. Both prophets have given us a list of things to use as a means of identifying the power that would arise to:

1) to speak great things and blasphemies by blaspheming His name that is taking on titles that only belong to God:

Popes claiming to be God on Earth:

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men , Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." - Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

", the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.


Those are just a few,

2) He blasphemes His tabernacle,

The bible says that Jesus is our Mediator, and sole intercessor between us and the Father. The bible says we must confess our sins to Jesus who is faithful to forgive our sins. The RCC comes along with its own brand of intercessory concept to as it were detract from the true atonement in heaven. If that were enough, they have now added saints to the list of intercessory agents, and more recently has added Mary whose job is it to plead to Jesus on our behalf. This takes the cake!

Listen carefully. No other person is faithful enough for us to confess our sins to other than Jesus Himself.

3) To make war with the saints has been highlighted already so I won't rehash that one.

In fact spread across other chapters of Revelation can be found 11 specific prophecies that can be used to identify the Anti-Christ.

Here is the same video link I posted some time ago. Watch it without bias and see the power of God's word come alive.

http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

Hey y'all, i've spent a couple minutes going thru all the posts on this thread.I'm of the opinion that when it comes to religion, just let an individual be.there are so many belief systems in this world that if there ever was a single ONE that led to salvation, I guess the odds wouldn't be good for ANY of us.('bobbyaf' and 'lady' inclusive).The Bible is a collection of books written by inspired people right?, somebody/some group of people did the selection of 'inspired' scriptures to be put in the bible.some books were taken, some were not.for reasons we can't really explain probably political or whatever.How about the Quoran, caballah et al.It's rather myopic for an open minded fellah, to say the Bible is the last bus stop for communication with God.God loves us all, despite what religion you profess.all i'm saying is, the Bible was orchestrated by human's like me and you with their own short-comings and weaknesses, think outside the box.

@ boobyaff,
you are a bloody hypocrite,first you bluntly refused to name your church ,how do u expect us to assess you?


You claimed that the RCC is the LovePeddler mentioned in the bible,yet you agreed that members of the RCC selected the books of the bible.Now where is it in the bible that the LovePeddler of babylon would compose a collection of books that would be the basic foundation of doctrines for the true christians.

Did you study logic courses in school at ll?
If the RCC is evil then do away wit everything that has to do wit them starting from the bible .Stop going to church on sunday as well,revert to the sabath worship,do away wit easter and christmas celebrations as well.

u are very funny you claim a pot is smelling yet you still eat from it .the apostle James asked in James 3:11-12

does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter one from the same opening?

can a fig tree my brethren ,bear olives tree? or a grapevine bear figs

so my dear if the RCC is evil as you said nothing good can come out of it.

The RCC has existed for almost 2 thousand years far above your 1260 yrs and it is still flourishing

Thev history of christianity cannever be seperated from the history of the RCC.
NO MATTER HOW MANY POST S YOU SEND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NO BODY WOULD BE CONVERTED TO YOUR FAKE HIDDEN CHURCH

@ Chukwudi44

@ boobyaff,
you are a bloody hypocrite,first you bluntly refused to name your church ,how do u expect us to assess you?

You claimed that the RCC is the LovePeddler mentioned in the bible, yet you agreed that members of the RCC selected the books of the bible.

An example would be Martin Luther being a Catholic and reformer all at once. He who was a member went as far as calling the RCC the Anti-Christ. Not all Catholics are intent on doing evil, and that is why they usually leave in due time, when all the scales have been removed.

Now where is it in the bible that the LovePeddler of babylon would compose a collection of books that would be the basic foundation of doctrines for the true christians.

That is the irony of it. You won't find a text per se, but the reality is that God despite the prophetic role of the Catholic church found a way in the midst of things to preserve His word.

Did you study logic courses in school at ll?

No, but I have read books on logic and philosophy.

If the RCC is evil then do away wit everything that has to do wit them starting from the bible

The bible wasn't inspired under the RCC. They only collated.

Stop going to church on sunday as well, revert to the sabath worship, do away wit easter and christmas celebrations as well.

Good try!

u are very funny you claim a pot is smelling yet you still eat from it .the apostle James asked in James 3:11-12

does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter one from the same opening?

can a fig tree my brethren ,bear olives tree? or a grapevine bear figs

so my dear if the RCC is evil as you said nothing good can come out of it.

The RCC has existed for almost 2 thousand years far above your 1260 yrs and it is still flourishing

Not necessarily! There are good sincere persons within that must come out before its too late. God is calling them out gradually.

Besides, I am only concerned about the time period that was predicted, that is 1260 years of tyranny and blasphemies.

Thev history of christianity cannever be seperated from the history of the RCC.
NO MATTER HOW MANY POST S YOU SEND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NO BODY WOULD BE CONVERTED TO YOUR FAKE HIDDEN CHURCH

@bobbyaff,

Are u trying to say that God did not see anybody to use among the true christians during the collation of the bible or is is that they simple didn't exist by then.

I am more interested in the hypocrisy contained in the teachings of you proptestants.You peaple say infant baptism is wrong because the kids can't speak for themselves,yet you do take your own kids to your differant churches.

why don't you allow them get up to eighteen years before they can decide whether to go to church or not

Next you people claimed catholics were selling salvation through the sale of indulgences.Today you people preach tithes as necessary for salvation.

Tithing that was jewish rite done once every year(for your family) or every three years(for levites ,orphans,widows and strangers),it never involved money nor was it done every month.Today your greedy pot bellied pastors insist it must be paid every month.using the bible please explain to me how you arrived at monetary and monthly tithing

Tithing is no longer needed for todays salvation ,if you don't agree show me any where in the new testament where Jesus or any of his disciples paid or received tithes.people freely sold thier belongings and laid them at the apostles feet which they shared as everyone had need for it.Ananias and his wife only had to die because they told a lie concerning the value of the property sold.

About your campaign against the RCC my advice forv you is leave the church alone .Allow God to fight his battle.I would close with the word of gamaliel in acts 5

If the teachings of the RCC are of men .it will come to naught,but if it be of God you will not be able to overthrow it,you might even find bur self fighting against God

chukwudi44:

@bobbyaff,

Are u trying to say that God did not see anybody to use among the true christians during the collation of the bible or is is that they simple didn't exist by then.

I am more interested in the hypocrisy contained in the teachings of you proptestants.You peaple say infant baptism is wrong because the kids can't speak for themselves,yet you do take your own kids to your differant churches.

why don't you allow them get up to eighteen years before they can decide whether to go to church or not

Next you people claimed catholics were selling salvation through the sale of indulgences.Today you people preach tithes as necessary for salvation.

Tithing that was jewish rite done once every year(for your family) or every three years(for levites ,orphans,widows and strangers),it never involved money nor was it done every month.Today your greedy pot bellied pastors insist it must be paid every month.using the bible please explain to me how you arrived at monetary and monthly tithing

Tithing is no longer needed for todays salvation ,if you don't agree show me any where in the new testament where Jesus or any of his disciples paid or received tithes.people freely sold thier belongings and laid them at the apostles feet which they shared as everyone had need for it.Ananias and his wife only had to die because they told a lie concerning the value of the property sold.

About your campaign against the RCC my advice forv you is leave the church alone .Allow God to fight his battle.I would close with the word of gamaliel in acts 5

If the teachings of the RCC are of men .it will come to naught,but if it be of God you will not be able to overthrow it,you might even find bur self fighting against God

Chukwudi,

One thing u should know is that when talking about protestants, u can't group them all under one system of belief.This is because they don't all believe or practice the same things.

You talked about protestants promoting tithe paying. Not all protestants believe that paying of tithes is necessary. Some do believe it's necessary and push for it with all vigor.
In so many areas;such as the understanding of Christ's purpose in our lives, the issues of prosperity, the issue of the Holy Spirit, the proper interpretation of certain portions of the bible,the blood of Jesus, etc. ,there are so much disparities in their beliefs.
So u cannot class all protestants under one umbrella in ur analogies.

As regards what u said about Gamaliel's comment; it was just a comment or advice from Gamaliel; a Pharisee. His position cannot be taken as regards issues of faith(except for the fact that we cannot compel anybody by force to follow a particular faith or shun another) because it completely opposes God's position which is: we should speak up against false doctrines,teachers and faiths.
God does not want us to sit down and look when evil or false doctrines are being propagated; he expects us to speak up against them.
Jude 1:3-4, Titus 1:10-16,Romans 16:17-18,Philipians 3:17-19,etc.

For the fact that u too are speaking up against false practices in some protestant churches show that u too are not following Gamaliel's advice.So, don't give an advice that u wouldn't follow urself.

@ Chukwudi44

Are u trying to say that God did not see anybody to use among the true christians during the collation of the bible or is is that they simple didn't exist by then.

As I have been saying from day one, God's church existed underground, or was not in a position to do very much because of its suppression.

I am more interested in the hypocrisy contained in the teachings of you proptestants.You peaple say infant baptism is wrong because the kids can't speak for themselves,yet you do take your own kids to your differant churches.

Children which are not the same as infants, do need evangelism, but baptizing an infant is not the same thing. We aught to develop spiritual values in our children, but how can we baptize infants who do not know what is happening to them? That runs contrary to the real purpose of baptism.

why don't you allow them get up to eighteen years before they can decide whether to go to church or not

Come on Chuk, you can do better than that! How old was Samuel when the Lord called him to service?

Next you people claimed catholics were selling salvation through the sale of indulgences.Today you people preach tithes as necessary for salvation.

Claimed you say? You're in denial! Now as for tithing God says its holy unto Him. Just take a look at those denominations that utilize the system and principle of tithing, if you care to, and compare the level of organization with those who don't.

Tithing that was jewish rite done once every year(for your family) or every three years(for levites ,orphans,widows and strangers),it never involved money nor was it done every month.Today your greedy pot bellied pastors insist it must be paid every month.using the bible please explain to me how you arrived at monetary and monthly tithing

I'd say this much that Jesus never had a problem with it, otherwise He'd have spoken out against it. The New testament obviously doesn't say much about whether or not its good or bad to encourage tithing. I see tithing as a principle of consistent giving from God's people in order to support the ministry. The problem lies in not defining tithing which simply means 1/10th of one's increase, and not what one possesses. If the principle was good then it is good now.

Tithing has its biblical roots long before Moses. There are some who teach that tithing was a Mosaic taxation system designed to support the temple. Nothing is further from the truth. let me take you back to the very first account of tithing.

Genesis 14:18-20 say, "18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he (Abram or Abraham) gave him tithes of all."

From the text it is obvious that tithing was an already established principle. There is no account of it being established right there and then. It is written as if it were a principle. Abraham simply did what was expected of him.

Tithing is no longer needed for todays salvation ,if you don't agree show me any where in the new testament where Jesus or any of his disciples paid or received tithes.people freely sold thier belongings and laid them at the apostles feet which they shared as everyone had need for it.Ananias and his wife only had to die because they told a lie concerning the value of the property sold.

I agree that tithing isn't salvivic, and the NT is often silent on certain issues of importance, but it doesn't follow that absence of proof is proof of absence. Remember that circumstances dictate outcomes and situations. As I said previously, Jesus nor His apostles didn't argue against tithing, and we cannot speculate that because it was not a NT command or teaching that it cannot be applied today.

About your campaign against the RCC my advice forv you is leave the church alone .Allow God to fight his battle.I would close with the word of gamaliel in acts 5

I come not with a sword, but with words, and you say I am troubling the RCC. I have been commissioned by Christ; not Mary; not the pope; to defend truth. Revelation 14 warns against receiving the mark of the beast and the dire consequences that will follow for those who block their ears, and blind their eyes. Revelation 16 describes the nature of the plagues. Go read!

If the teachings of the RCC are of men .it will come to naught,but if it be of God you will not be able to overthrow it,you might even find bur self fighting against God

We will see.

bobbyaff says tithing is right while bobbyaff disagrees ,do we have factions among the "true" christians

@Bobbyaf and co

It is not what I want the pope to do that concerns me. The purpose of this thread is to identify the beast of Revelation 13, and the little horn of Daniel 7, by way of its traditions, part of which is the manner in which it handled bible-believing Christians who refused to pay homage to its edicts and dogmas. Its never about me per se. Its about revealing what prophecy foretold hundreds of years ago, and how history has fulfilled such prophecies.

No, the purpose of this thread is to determine whether “Catholic Tradition is Above the Bible; and if so, determine if its safe or not”.  As has been demonstrated by Lady, Chukwu44, and myself the premise of this thread is a false one.  Catholics use Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (aka the Bible) hand in hand, neither one overcoming or placed above the other.  The Bible teaches us to stay true to the traditions that have been written and to those that were taught orally (1 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Thess. 3:10).  The passage below explicitly states that we are to keep and hold firmly to the written and oral traditions:

2 Thess 2:14-16
14 Through our gospel he called you to this so that you should claim as your own the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  15 Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.  16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father who has given us his love and, through his grace, such ceaseless encouragement and such sure hope,

The passage tells us to keep firm to tradition (Oral and written).  How you guys (Bobbyaf and co) manage to gloss over this passage is beyond me.  To make things more complicated (or not) the Catholic Church used the same Sacred Oral Traditions handed down to us by the apostles to discern the canon of scripture (aka the Bible).  In other words, by condemning the Sacred Traditions held by the Church you are condemning the canon of scripture.  The question should not be whether we should hold on to Sacred Oral Tradition, but rather which oral tradition is authentically true?

For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't… In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments.   He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

As you can see from the above reading, the Pope and the faithful in communion with him (guided by the Holy Spirit) used Sacred Tradition to discern the canon of scripture.  Bobbyaf, how can you claim that the Catholic Church is ‘the LovePeddler of Babylon’ and at the same time conclude that they discerned the canon of scripture (the word of God)?  Can anything good come from evil?

So this is how infallible people operate like barbaric creatures, huh? These weren't  isolated cases at all, or cases that happened at the spur of the moment. These brutal acts continued for hundreds of years on end. The wheat and tares allegory by Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic leadership organizing the slaughter of innocent Christians whose only crime was to be loyal to the word of God.

I like how you forgot to read of the atrocities, I posted earlier, that Protestants committed against Catholics and there fellow Protestants.  (side note, the beginnings of America was sparked by Protestants fleeing Europe because of religious persecutions committed against them by their fellow Protestants; further, those same persecuted Christians that fled to the Americas turned around and began persecuting their brother Christians in America, how ironic).  Please provide proof that these brutal acts were committed by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years.  Bobbyaf, who were the innocent Christians that were persecuted by members of the Catholic Church?  Also, prove to us how these religious persecutions were one sided (e.i., show that they were the only ones being persecuted and that Catholic Christians were not).  Furthermore, the wheat and the weeds analogy has everything to do with what we are talking about.  If it did not, show me were the true Church of God is located.  And if/when you do so, show us that they are without sin and are perfect before the Lord.

The implication of that passage is that the nonbelievers and dissenters mixed in with the elect and orthodox will be many, not few.  After all, Matthew 24:10 states that "many will fall away." It would be foolhardy to believe that the transgressions of members of the Church is reason enough to disprove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. God has only us sinful, rebellious humans to work with. Many bishops and priests have been lax in their duty and have engaged in wrongful/sinful acts, and they will stand accountable before God.  In many instances their sins are far worst because they have led the innocent away from God.  The Bible says, "Let not many of you become teachers" (Jas. 3:1).  Jesus assumed this would be the case, and spoke of it frequently (Matt. 3:12; 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:1–14; 24:1–13; 25:14–30). Paul concurs (cf. Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:15–20).

Those explanations have nothing to do with what the RCC did to innocent Christians. You're straying from the point. The prophecy concerning what we should look for in identifying the beast, or anti-Christ from both prophetic books, were not designed to discuss general spiritual matters that would have arisen within the general congregations. So when I attempt to reveal the attrocities of the RCC, that is merely one of the identifying marks, albeit one of the most important ones, to fit the jig saw puzzle together. The RCC is not merely guilty of the blood of the saints, but is guilty by the other acts of blasphemies she has committed, some of which were mentioned in the beginning of the thread.

What are you talking about?  There are people within the Church that do not want you to go to heaven.  These are not issues of “general spiritual matters”.  On the contrary, issues pertaining to salvation are grave issues and are paramount.  As Christians we are called to be holy and are called to be servants of God.  If someone develops a heretical belief that states Jesus is not God the Son, but is Michael the Archangel (Jehovahs Witnesses) than that is no small matter.  If someone comes up with the ridiculous/heretical belief of “Soul Sleep” (Seventh Day Adventist) than that is no small matter.  If someone dismisses the idea that the Eucharist is not the Blood and Body of Christ, than that is no small matter. 

And as far as the atrocities are concerned, I showed you and provided proof that it wasn’t a one-sided situation.  Both Protestants and Catholics committed wrongful acts in the name of religion.  Both have committed sin.  The Pope has apologized for the sins that members of the Catholic Church have committed.  I ask that you move on,  . . .

Part of the prophecy in speaking of, and identifying the Anti-Christ, said in Daniel 7:25, "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Not again.  I showed you and backed it up with other Bible authorities that the “little horn” is referring to Antiochus IV ( of the Seleucid/Greek Empire) and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways. 

More support:

Criticism of Seventh-day Adventist usage
The day-year principle is used by descendants of the Adventist movement, as well as by Christadelphians (who developed independently of the Adventist movement) and a few others; however it has very few supporters within mainstream evangelical Christianity and institutional Christian churches such as the Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Most theologians from the mainstream Christian denominations do not regard the principle as valid.

Some within the Seventh-day Adventist Church question the validity of the day-year principle. For example, the progressive theologian Desmond Ford challenges the use of the day-year principle in his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine.
A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one. The last redoubt holding out for me was the year-day principle (on which I had written a defense in 1972 for the Southern Publishing Association Daniel volume which was published in 1978). This collapsed when I handled hundreds of books of commentary on Revelation in the Library of Congress stacks and found that the respective authors had in many cases suggested dates that seemed appropriate for their own time but ridiculous later. It became clear that we, as Adventists, had done the same as our predecessors. So when I gave the Forum meeting at Pacific Union College all the problems I had been fighting tumbled out, my rearguard action was over.
– Desmond Ford[8]

In recent years, few others besides Adventists have attempted to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represent 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798 (the Christadelphians are an exception). The majority of historians do not consider this a period of papal supremacy, and it is disputed whether the events which Adventists allege took place in AD 538 did in fact occur in that year. Critics of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation point out that the word "day" does not appear in the Hebrew of Daniel 8:14; instead the phrase "evenings and mornings" is used, indicating that literal days, not symbolic ones, are in view.

It is pointed out that Adventists do not apply the day-year principle consistently. That is, there are other contexts, besides the 1260 and 2300 day prophecies, where the principle is not applied and references to time are taken literally. The decision when to use the principle thus appears arbitrary.
Another criticism is that the Adventist application of the day-year principle to prophetic periods makes it impossible for Christ to have returned prior to the year 1798, when in fact the New Testament church believed themselves to be living in the "last days" (Hebrews 1:2) and expected the second coming of Christ to occur at any moment (Revelation 22:20). Christ himself is noted to have suggested to his followers that his coming could be within their lifetimes (Mark 13:30-37).

Some youtube videos on the falsehoods of Seventh Day Adventism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zwygXK1bBc&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQ2YeVZOno&feature=related

Revelation 13:5-7 say also, "5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

The above passage is referring to the Roman Empire and the emperors Nero (who died from a self inflicted stab wound in AD 68) and Domitian (AD 81 -96).  Domitian forced the Romans to worship him.  Domitian like Antiochus Epiphanies IV (Dan 7, 8, 11, and 25) demanded that he be called divine titles such as “our Lord and god” and “Jupiter”.

Both prophets are saying the very same things. Both prophets have given us a list of things to use as a means of identifying the power that would arise to:

1) to speak great things and blasphemies by blaspheming His name that is taking on titles that only belong to God:

The prophets Daniel (the Book of Daniel) and John (Revelation) are indeed talking of things that have transpired against God’s people.  The former was referring to the persecution of the Jews by the Seulecid king Antiochus IV and the latter was referring to the persecution of the early Christiants/Jews by the Roman Emperors Nero and Domitian.

Popes claiming to be God on Earth:

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ,  Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." - Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895,  pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.

The Pope does not claim to be God.  On the contrary, he needs Jesus Christ like you and me.  After the death of Pope John Paul the Great, I was reading some where that he went to confession just about every week.  Imagine that, the Pope going to confession every week.  He is a sinner just like you and me.  The successor of St. Peter (aka the Pope) receives his authority to lead the Church from Jesus Christ.  St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 16:18-20) and by implication his successors and the bishops in communion with him have this same authority.  The authority is not given to the person per se, but to the person who holds the office; who sits on the chair of St. Peter.

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

", the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

I don’t know where you got these quotes from, but I would say they are quotes taken out of context or fakes; written by anti-catholics to bear false witness against the Catholic Church.

Those are just a few,

2) He blasphemes His tabernacle,

The bible says that Jesus is our Mediator, and sole intercessor between us and the Father. The bible says we must confess our sins to Jesus who is faithful to forgive our sins. The RCC comes along with its own brand of intercessory concept to as it were detract from the true atonement in heaven. If that were enough, they have now added saints to the list of intercessory agents, and more recently has added Mary whose job is it to plead to Jesus on our behalf. This takes the cake!  Grin

Listen carefully. No other person is faithful enough for us to confess our sins to other than Jesus Himself.

The authority to forgive sins was given to the apostles by Jesus himself.  And by implication, the successors to the apostles received the same authority.  As we all know, the successors to the apostles are the bishops and priests within the Catholic Church.

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

You posted

3) To make war with the saints has been highlighted already so I won't rehash that one.

In fact spread across other chapters of Revelation can be found 11 specific prophecies that can be used to identify the Anti-Christ.

Here is the same video link I posted some time ago. Watch it without bias and see the power of God's word come alive.

Well, refer to my earlier post on your take on sins committed by both Catholics and Protestant Christians.  No one is innocent.  Oh, and save that your prophecy video for the less informed and week minded.

No, the purpose of this thread is to determine whether “Catholic Tradition is Above the Bible; and if so, determine if its safe or not”. As has been demonstrated by Lady, Chukwu44, and myself the premise of this thread is a false one. Catholics use Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (aka the Bible) hand in hand, neither one overcoming or placed above the other. The Bible teaches us to stay true to the traditions that have been written and to those that were taught orally (1 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Thess. 3:10). The passage below explicitly states that we are to keep and hold firmly to the written and oral traditions:

If those traditions, as practiced by the RCC were in keeping with scriptures, then we wouldn't be having these discussions. Unfortunately, there is a long list that do not match scriptures. Why has the RC church removed the 2nd commandment that expressly forbids the graving and worshiping of images? Where in scriptures does it say that that was a tradition to continue, since it never started under the church that was established by Jesus? You see, that is the major difference between Catholics and us. The church to which we belong isn't headed by a mere man, but by Jesus Christ Himself who is the chief cornerstone.

* Mary worship? In the Bible you can only find how God hates the Queen of Heaven.
* The eucharist? In the Bible you can only find how God said don't drink blood.
* Purgatory? The word and concept are not in the Bible.
* Co-redemptrix? In the Bible you find there is only ONE Redeemer and Saviour. His name is Jesus.

What does Jesus say about Tradition? "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
--Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:3, 6, 7)

In the above verses Jesus is addressing you. One of your traditions tampered with, and removed one of God's holy commandments. Jesus also said these words, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, "

So which is more important your sacred traditions which were invented by mere men, or God's immutable words?

The passage tells us to keep firm to tradition (Oral and written). How you guys (Bobbyaf and co) manage to gloss over this passage is beyond me. To make things more complicated (or not) the Catholic Church used the same Sacred Oral Traditions handed down to us by the apostles to discern the canon of scripture (aka the Bible). In other words, by condemning the Sacred Traditions held by the Church you are condemning the canon of scripture. The question should not be whether we should hold on to Sacred Oral Tradition, but rather which oral tradition is authentically true?

We are very much familiar with texts like these used by you to attempt to justify your thinking. So you haven't scored anything. Besides, we question whether or not you did receive any oral, or written traditions from the apostles as you have claimed, since none of them seem to match up with the same scriptures that were also written by the apostles. We don't need traditions to save us since Jesus saves. What we have is enough to guide us. It was David who said that "thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" He also said "the entrance of thy word giveth light" If David, the patriarchs, and apostles were saved by their simple faith in Jesus, then we care not for traditions.

As you can see from the above reading, the Pope and the faithful in communion with him (guided by the Holy Spirit) used Sacred Tradition to discern the canon of scripture. Bobbyaf, how can you claim that the Catholic Church is ‘the LovePeddler of Babylon’ and at the same time conclude that they discerned the canon of scripture (the word of God)? Can anything good come from evil?

I do not trust such readings. Besides, discernment doesn't come from traditions, but from God's Spirit. God still uses prevailing circumstances to accomplish His work, despite the situation. Wasn't Nebuchaddnezzar a heathen king? Did God give him a revelation, that normally would have been given to the chosen prophets? Did God pronounce a harlot righteous and placed her name in the halls of fame? The prophecies could only have gone in one direction for the LovePeddler of Revelation, but God's plan to preserve His word under the circumstances allowed members of the church to accomplish His will.

I like how you forgot to read of the atrocities, I posted earlier, that Protestants committed against Catholics and there fellow Protestants.

Who said I didn't read them. Remember that both Daniel's and Revelation's predictions were not only centered around Catholic tyranny and murders, but included other characteristics that point to the RC church. I have listed quite a few in this thread before. Yes other denominations in history displayed similar atrocities, but they wouldn't qualify to fulfill the other prophetic characteristics that reveal the Anti-Christ.

What are you talking about? There are people within the Church that do not want you to go to heaven. These are not issues of “general spiritual matters”. On the contrary, issues pertaining to salvation are grave issues and are paramount. As Christians we are called to be holy and are called to be servants of God. If someone develops a heretical belief that states Jesus is not God the Son, but is Michael the Archangel (Jehovahs Witnesses) than that is no small matter. If someone comes up with the ridiculous/heretical belief of “Soul Sleep” (Seventh Day Adventist) than that is no small matter. If someone dismisses the idea that the Eucharist is not the Blood and Body of Christ, than that is no small matter.

This is not what the prophecy is focusing on. Incidentally, the term archangel is referring to Christ, but not in the sense that some persons see the word. In the encounter with Moses on the mountain, God was referred to as an "angel of the Lord" Archangel doesn't mean in the context in which it is used to mean an angelic creature. It is used to describe Christ's role as Chief messenger. The Greek word for angel also means messenger. Soul sleep is all over the bible. When a person dies they sleep and await the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ said it to Mary when Lazarus died. Paul said it in 1Cor. 15.

Not again. I showed you and backed it up with other Bible authorities that the “little horn” is referring to Antiochus IV ( of the Seleucid/Greek Empire) and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways.

And I logically pointed out that Antiochus IV[/b]could not have ruled for [b]1260 years as the prophecy pointed out. Since the 4th beast was logically Rome, according to almost all historians, from which the little horn grew, it had to be a power that sprang from the demise of pagan Rome. Revelation 13 says, "5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." 42 months = 42X30=1260 symbolic days=1260 literal years.

haba bobbyaff ,when did 42 months become1260 years ,na wa for youoo,

@ Chukwudi44

haba bobbyaff ,when did 42 months become1260 years ,na wa for youoo,

I see you're a slow learner, I guess you didn't realize that the 42 months are symbolic. 42 months have 1260 days in them, which is tantamount to 1260 literal years as was explained in previous posts.

Is it any clearer for you now?

Was St. Peter married?

Bobbyaf:

Was St. Peter married?

was peter a saint?

Can any other person answer the question? Was the apostle Peter married, and since he was, where did the concept of celibacy come from?

@Bobbyaf,

Can any other person answer the question? Was the apostle Peter married, and since he was, where did the concept of celibacy come from?

Because your question is not a serious question. . . .Yes, St. Peter was married, so what? Was Jesus married? Was St. Paul married? Where in the Bible does it say you have to be married to become a priest? For one thing, St. Paul and Jesus saw the merits of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. And no, I'm not saying being married disqualifies one as being able to serve God with the same capacity as a celibate. All I'm saying is that Bible does not condemn celibacy. Being a priest is not by force. . . .

If those traditions, as practiced by the RCC were in keeping with scriptures, then we wouldn't be having these discussions

On the contrary those traditions do keep with the scriptures, you however lack knowledge of what's in scripture and that's why you think they do not line up. I also notice that you failed to answer the questions posted by myself and Omenuko about 1Peter, about where those souls were.

You will have to prove that the RCC removed the 2nd commandment. Show us the commandments by the RCC and tell us how the 2nd commandment was removed.

Mary isn't worshipped, unfortunately you need something to bang your head against, so bang away, you delude yourself only.

The eucharist? In the Bible you can only find how God said don't drink blood.

So when Jesus said "Take and eat, this is my body" and "All of you drink from this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:26-28
He didn't actually mean his body and blood, he didn't actually say his body and blood, he was only joking abi?

He didn't say this is a representation of my body and blood, he said "THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD"

When he spoke of us eating his flesh and drinking his blood, some disciples turned away, they knew exaclty what he was saying, if he didn't mean it that way, why didn't he explain himself to them. Infact he uses literal words. as in literally you will be eating my flesh and drinking my blood. Don't forget that Jesus is the Pashal lamb, what was done with the pashal lamb?

Purgatory? The word and concept are not in the Bible.

So where was the antedilluvians that Christ preached to? An answer is greatly needed, thank you.

What does Jesus say about Tradition? "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
--Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:3, 6, 7)

In the above verses Jesus is addressing you. One of your traditions tampered with, and removed one of God's holy commandments. Jesus also said these words, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

Actually he's talking about you, you guys abandoned the true teachings of Christ and created your own to convenience yourself.
I already showed you how sola scriptura is unbiblical. Next stop, once saved, always saved.

So which is more important your sacred traditions which were invented by mere men, or God's immutable words?

Sacred tradition are God's immutable words.

I do not trust such readings. Besides, discernment doesn't come from traditions, but from God's Spirit

Dude you are shooting yourself in the foot, if discernment comes from God, and the Catholic Church discerned the canon, how can it be the LovePeddler of Babylon?

Who said I didn't read them. Remember that both Daniel's and Revelation's predictions were not only centered around Catholic tyranny and murders, but included other characteristics that point to the RC church. I have listed quite a few in this thread before. Yes other denominations in history displayed similar atrocities, but they wouldn't qualify to fulfill the other prophetic characteristics that reveal the Anti-Christ

oh os u get to decide which one will qualify
ah i see.

One thing u should know is that when talking about protestants, u can't group them all under one system of belief.This is because they don't all believe or practice the same things.

So everybody is just going by their own interpretation and what they think is right?
So which one of you preaches the truth when you all contradict each other and fight each other for the true christians?
So much for bible-believing christians, that contradict each other? If you are all bible-believing christians and your doctrines contradict each other, wouldn't that mean that the Bible is contradictory?

@ lady

On the contrary those traditions do keep with the scriptures, you however lack knowledge of what's in scripture and that's why you think they do not line up. I also notice that you failed to answer the questions posted by myself and Omenuko about 1Peter, about where those souls were.

Either you must be blind, or you don't take the time to follow the thread carefully. Where in the bible does it advocate celibacy for ministers of the gospel?

You will have to prove that the RCC removed the 2nd commandment. Show us the commandments by the RCC and tell us how the 2nd commandment was removed.

Just check your own version and you will see that the 2nd has been removed, and that yours do not line up with the bible's version. In order to make up for the 10 they have divided the 9th into 2 and using the 2nd part as the 10th commandment.

Mary isn't worshipped, unfortunately you need something to bang your head against, so bang away, you delude yourself only.

So why has the church placed her on such high esteem? Why has she been given the status of co-redemtrix when the word of God explicitly stated that Christ alone is our Mediator? Why is there even a statue in your churches where people even bow down to her image.

So when Jesus said "Take and eat, this is my body" and "All of you drink from this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:26-28
He didn't actually mean his body and blood, he didn't actually say his body and blood, he was only joking abi?

So why didn't His disciples take a bite at Him, since no doubt He must have explained to them what they did not yet fully understand? If they didn't understand surely Jesus would have clarified everything wouldn't He? Why would He leave them in the dark? But alas, no one took a bite, or drew His blood for a drink!

He didn't say this is a representation of my body and blood, he said "THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD"

Why would He state the obvious?

When he spoke of us eating his flesh and drinking his blood, some disciples turned away, they knew exaclty what he was saying,

Did they?

if he didn't mean it that way, why didn't he explain himself to them. In fact he uses literal words. as in literally you will be eating my flesh and drinking my blood. Don't forget that Jesus is the Pashal lamb, what was done with the pashal lamb?

Why should He have to when He knew that He was using figurative language?

So where was the antedilluvians that Christ preached to? An answer is greatly needed, thank you.

Go through the thread and see my previous responses.

Actually he's talking about you, you guys abandoned the true teachings of Christ and created your own to convenience yourself. I already showed you how sola scriptura is unbiblical. Next stop, once saved, always saved.

If you had an ounce of honesty within you your response would have been different. Remove your blinders and see the truth for what it is. If I were to make a list of baggage that were added to the pure teachings of Christ and the apostles, it would be endless.

Sacred tradition are God's immutable words.

If what you practice is sacred then why is it priests don't get married while God's priests back then were married? Why is it that Peter was married, and the RC popes and priests, who falsely claim him to be the first pope, deviated from such a natural order, and invented their own order that naturally leads to evil and the most loathsome and abominable acts? Has it ever occurred to you that hundreds of thousands of innocent boys' lives have been destroyed because of the RC church's unnatural order of celibacy? Is that what you call sacred?

Dude you are shooting yourself in the foot, if discernment comes from God, and the Catholic Church discerned the canon, how can it be the LovePeddler of Babylon?

It has evolved into the LovePeddler. It didn't happen over night. Paul predicted the apostasy.

oh os u get to decide which one will qualify ah i see.

I don't decide anything. I only point out the facts. The RCC has fulfilled all the characteristics of the little horn in Daniel 7; the beast in Revelation 13, and the LovePeddler of Revelation 17.

So everybody is just going by their own interpretation and what they think is right? So which one of you preaches the truth when you all contradict each other and fight each other for the true christians? So much for bible-believing christians, that contradict each other? If you are all bible-believing christians and your doctrines contradict each other, wouldn't that mean that the Bible is contradictory?

Anything is likely to happen when there is a devil. Did you expect the truth to go through smoothly? If you had read Jesus' own words you'd have refrained from such nonsensical remarks. Go read Matthew 24.

Because your question is not a serious question. . . .Yes, St. Peter was married, so what? Was Jesus married? Was St. Paul married? Where in the Bible does it say you have to be married to become a priest? For one thing, St. Paul and Jesus saw the merits of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. And no, I'm not saying being married disqualifies one as being able to serve God with the same capacity as a celibate. All I'm saying is that Bible does not condemn celibacy. Being a priest is not by force. . . .

Being a priest is not by force, but they cannot be one until they avoid marriage. You and I know that Jesus' life and ministry was unique. He had to avoid worldly things for my sake as well as yours, seeing the enormous responsibility that rested upon His shoulders.

As for Paul he adopted a personal position, but unlike the RC church he didn't enforce celibacy. So please don't come on this forum and try to make fools out of respondents. Keep your folly to yourself.

@Bobbyaf,

Being a priest is not by force, but they cannot be one until they avoid marriage. You and I know that Jesus' life and ministry was unique. He had to avoid worldly things for my sake as well as yours, seeing the enormous responsibility that rested upon His shoulders.

As for Paul he adopted a personal position, but unlike the RC church he didn't enforce celibacy. So please don't come on this forum and try to make fools out of respondents. Keep your folly to yourself.

Yes, Peter was married.  Does that mean celibacy is bad?  Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacraments (of which there are seven in total).  Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrament -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.  The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church.  The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future.  A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood.  There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).  It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood.  Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).   

Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.  The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God.  What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.  A married person can do everything a priest can do except perform the sacraments (e.g., Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick).  St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

@ Omenuko

Yes, Peter was married. Does that mean celibacy is bad?

Not if you're the Son of God, or like Paul who knew his time was short, and who felt he had a lot to make up for for having persecuted the Christians. You dare not use an isolated case to make a rule of anything.

Look, as far as marriage and the Priesthood, the church recognizes both institutions as very holy; the Catholic Church has elevated them both to the level of sacraments (of which there are seven in total). Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution and sacrament -an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life. The requirement of celibacy for the priesthood has not always been the case in the Catholic Church. The decision can be reversed by the church authority in the future. A celibate priesthood is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Latin rite Church (one of many rites within the Catholic Church) is the only rite within the Catholic Church that has a celibate priesthood. There are other churches and rites within the Catholic Church that have a married priesthood (e.g., Byzantine, Alexandrian, Ge'ez rite based in Ethiopia , Syriac, the Chaldean rite in Iraq, the Malabar rite is based in India, etc.).

So your pope is not really in charge, is he? He does one thing and other rites determine another things. Interesting indeed!

It is only the Latin rite Church (the largest of the rites within the Catholic Church) that everyone sees and lambasts for having a celibate priesthood. Even within the Latin rite, there are some married priests (converts from other denominations who were married before entering the Catholic Church).

Which really hasn't made them any less of a priest, has it? How has marriage lessened their function seeing they were already married? Do you honestly believe that Roman Catholic priests can resist the natural urge for sex? Isn't it an unnecessary burden to have to place on young men? I mean, how in heaven's name can priests be expected to counsel the youth about sex when they themselves are battling with their own issues. LOL

Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not a bad thing.

So why did God introduce a woman to a man in the first instance? If anything, Adam was more than capable of enduring celibacy in his perfect state, yet God in His wisdom saw the need for Adam to have gotten a wife. But, the RC church you see had something to prove. I personally believe that the sex scandal more recently that has rocked the RCC is largely due to that silly notion of celibacy.

The Church does not make it mandatory for people to be celibate to serve God. What is required is celibacy for the priesthood and no one is forced to become a priest.

Listen to me man, do you think I am stupid? If a young man desires to become a priest in the RCC, he will be faced with a choice as to whether to abide by the rule, or not. The fact that he has no choice doesn't give him the freedom.

A married person can do everything a priest can do except perform the sacraments (e.g., Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick). St. Paul teaches us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is good.

Yet a priest can't do everything a married person can do, interesting!

Paul gave his personal recommendation which wasn't based on God's instructions. He himself alluded to that.

Greetings All

Catholics only please. I would like answers from authentic Catholics. I hear and read things ABOUT Catholic practices, hence this approach.

I want to understand what YOU believe and practice about:

1. Mary the mother of Jesus.
2. Images (Saints etc)
3. The Bible (Holy Scriptures) and whether or not You Acknowledge other non-biblical sources such as the Koran, and if so why or why not?

Finally IF one needs to believe and practice as the Catholics do to be saved, what about those born and died/dying to Buddhism, Islam, protestantism etc.

That's all for now just to ensure I can keep good track of the posts.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Most of what you're asking has been addressed in the thread. As to whether or not Catholics will take heed is another story. Let us pray they will.

Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

Thanks for the tips bobbyaf


I am new to this forum. I hope I will quote properly the individual responses here so as not to cause problems because of errors.

Let me repeat this question once more so that our Catholic friends can hear it. Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

I see that our catholic apologists have grown dead silent. Such a pity because I was hoping that they'd have hung around for the long haul.

If your friends had said to you that the church is more then the bible they are so sucked, they are nothing but set of whipped asses that needs cover and if you had believed them its not your fault its because you are not seeing the truth, and he who say the church is a deceiver is a fool who pray for darkness than light because he has forgotten that JESUS told SAINT PETER That On upon you the rock i shall build my church, dont bother asking further questions cus they suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If your friends had said to you that the church is more then the bible they are so sucked, they are nothing but set of whipped asses that needs cover and if you had believed them its not your fault its because you are not seeing the truth, and he who say the church is a deceiver is a fool who pray for darkness than light because he has forgotten that JESUS told SAINT PETER That On upon you the rock i shall build my church, dont bother asking further questions cus they suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for your contribution.