Bobbyaf:

Posted by: bindex

First of all don't compare populations of different nations today as against what they were over 2000 years ago. It so happened that Europe then at the time the RCC was developing was the most centered place. They were the most dominant of nations. That was the place to be so to speak.

But let's say for argument sake that there were other crowded regions, it still wouldn't affect the prophecy that the RCC came out of a more populated region at first, than say the US which came out of a less populated region. The chapter says that the lamb-like beast came out of the earth signifying a less populated region.

Sorry, we were looking at it from very different perspective, while you were looking at it from a prophetic angle I was looking at it the other way round. Sorry for intruding you guys should carry on with your debate.

Sorry, we were looking at it from very different perspective, while you were looking at it from a prophetic angle I was looking at it the other way round. Sorry for intruding you guys should carry on with your debate.

No problem at all Bindex. And please don't see it as an intrusion. You had a genuine query.

@Bobbyaf,

If you ask any Catholic friends at what point did the now Roman Catholic denomination became universal it would be interesting to hear what is said. The bible predicted the arrival of the false church that would dominate and persecute. Are you Catholics aware that the Roman Catholic organization has fulfilled every iota of Bible prophecy since its official inception?

It looks like we have another JW (Jevoha's Witness) or some sort in the house.  Did you ever bother reading Church history and the writings of the early Church leaders.  My friend, all of the Bishops of the early church were Catholic bishops.  Since the time of the apostles, most the Christians (well at least the orthodox ones) were Catholic.  This same Church spread to India (the Malankora Church), Africa (Coptic and Geez Churches, etc.), middle east (Syrian, Chaldean Churches, etc.), Asia (Russia, Ukraine Churches, etc.), Europe (Greece and Rome Churches, etc.).  This nonsense that you are posting is just twisting and currupting the passages of the Bible to fit your 'off the wall' notions and insinuations.  The proper name of the Church is the 'Catholic Church' and it is comprised of many different faith traditions or rites, the Latin (Roman) rite being one of them (and largest in terms of population).

A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, without ever changing their essential form and matter. The early Church sought to evangelize in the major cultural centers of the first centuries A.D. These centers were Rome, Antioch (Syria), and Alexandria (Egypt). All the rites in use today evolved from the liturgical practices and ecclesiastical organization used by the churches in these cities.

Daniel 7; Revelation 12,13,17 all spoke of a power that would arise to oppose God's teachings and God's people. Histroy is on our side. It so happens that the RCC fits the characteristics of the prophecies.

Daniel:7 1-27 describes a vision that Daniel has concerning worldly kingdoms and is similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the preceding chapters (Daniel 2).  It primarily concerns the four succeeding world kingdoms (the known world at that time) of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece and how they were opposed to and contrary to the messianic kingdom of the people of God.  It does not apply to the Catholic Church or to the apostolic teachings.  On the contrary it is a vision of how the followers of God will be persecuted by these kingdoms.  The imagery of the Daniel passage is also used extensively in Revelation (Rev. 12, 13, 17), where St. John applies it to the Roman Empire (Babylon) and how it will/did persecute the body of Christ (the early Christians), the Church.  Again, this does not refer to the Catholic Church. 

This constant argument about the RCC being responsible for the preservation of the bible is debatable, but even if it were it doesn't take away from the truth that God could have still allowed His word to be preserved despite the evil intentions of the opposing body.

Thanks for giving the Catholic Church credit for the canon of scripture.  FYI see below:

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.  The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.  Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.  The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.  Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.  The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.  The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.   Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.  The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

And also, there was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

I'd be the first to acknowledge that not all the priests and officials in the then Catholic church were evil. The bible says God has His people in all denominations, but they will be exposed to truth and forced to make a decision for truth in its entirety.

I would be the first to acknowledge as well that not all the pastors in your church/denomination/no-denomination/fellowship or whatever you follow or belong to are evil.  Tis true, followers of Christ are found in all faith traditions.  The evil ones will be exposed by the light of Christ.  But, it will not be me or you that will judge them, only God can do that.

The prophecies are as plain as day, and the history to support them couldn't be plainer. In a nutshell let me summarize:1. Daniel 2 starts with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image in 4 metal parts hinting at 4 world kingdoms starting with his own kingdom of babylon to be followed by Media-Persia, Greece, and finally Rome.

2. Daniel 7 repeats the king's vision but the symbols used were 4 beasts namely a 2-winged lion; a lap-sided bear; a 4-winged leopard; and an undescript beast that confused Daniel.

3. This non-descript beast that resembled nothing ever witnessed by humans, including Daniel, represented Rome which was the 4th kingdom to rule the world.

My friend see above. . . .the fourth kingdom that ruled the world (the known world at the time) was the Alexandrian/Greek Empire (the Seleucid kings).  It was this kingdom (the Seleucids) that primarily concerned the author (presumably Daniel).  My friend Bobbyarf, try to read more world history and keep the scriptures within context.

4. Because Daniel 7 was an extension of Daniel 2, God revealed additional information to the prophet concerning the 4th beast Rome. Daniel noted that the 4th beast had 10 horns which in themselves symbolized 10 kingdoms.  Daniel also noticed that 3 of those horns were rooted up as an 11th horn grew.  Daniel went on to describe this 11th horn that had:

The ten horns represented the kings of the Seleucid dynasty (the Greek Hellenistic Empire).  The little horn that took the place of the three horns that were torn away (Daniel 7 verse eight) represented Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 BC), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.

It is this 11th horn that represents Papal Rome or Vatican which sprang up among the 10 barbarian tribes, or what we now call European nations, as soon as pagan Rome went into demise. History reveals that as soon as the Papacy established itself it used crusades to annhilate from the fac of the earth 3 of the original 10 kingdoms, and these were:

1. the Astrogoths

2. the Heruleans

3. the Vandals

I don't know whether to take the above seriously or not.  The 10 horns represented the Seleucid kings and the 11th horn (the little one that took the place of the three horns that were torn away) represents the Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see above) who took the throne by force.

These kingdoms were destroyed because they disagreed with the RCC on the nature of Christ. Once again religion became the dominant force for conflict and bloodshed.

These kingdoms (Astrogoths, Heluleans, and Vandals) were absorbed into the Roman Empire (basically became roman citizens themselves) and are present day French, German, Spanish, and Italian people (basically western Europe).  It does not relate to the four kingdoms discussed in Daniel 7 (e.i., Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece/Seleucids)

Revelation 12 and 13 are basically reminders of what Daniel previously predicted. In these books similar, as well as additional information is given about the opposing body that comes in the form of a church. The Popes and Pontifs are no different in intentions from the former Roman Caesars.

No, in Revelation 12, 13, and 17 St. John is describing the Roman Empire (pagan Rome) and how it persecuted the early Christians.  It does not refer to the Catholic Church (see above).  And the Pope is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Christians (nothing more nothing less).

So the RCC officially began in AD538 and came to a temporary end in AD1798 when Napolean Bonaparte under the revolution brought the church to its knees. Its pope was placed into exile and eventually died. Revelation 13 predicted that one of its head would have been wounded, and it became so in AD 1798, exactly 1260 years according to bible prophecy.

No, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  Even if you can't or don't accept the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, you cannot wish away history and disregard the teachings and testimony of the early Christian bishops who were all Catholic (lets even start from after the last apostle died, John).  All the writings of the early church fathers, bishops, and faithful Christians professed to be members of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope).  I think it is very disingenuous of you to arbitrarily claim and argue that the Catholic Church stared in 538 AD and ended in 1798 AD.  Helloooooo, the Catholic Church is still standing.

But didn't the prophecy also say that the deadly wound would have been healed? Yes. Italy under Moussilini re-established the RCC, and gave it the vatican city which according to the prophecy would rest on 7 hills. Its all there.

The prophecy goes on to say that this persecuting body in the form of a church will once again dominate not just Europe, but the whole world under a New World Oder that is being worked out as we speak.

You are a joke. . . .If you want to talk about new world order it is not the Catholic Church, it is the USA.  It is the USA that is currently dominating world politics and world affairs and not the Pope.  Please, stop posting this trash.

Dear bible believers time is not on our side. We need to study God's word and live for Christ. We need to carry the saving grace of Jesus Christ to a dying world for sooner than you think Jesus will come again.

Amen

If you want more specifics about the prophecy I will be glad to share more details.

Please, don't bother yourself.  Where do you get this stuff?  All this anti-catholic nonsense your posting is ridiculous. . . .

I see I have been gone for too long, I shall be back to speak on them.

It is really foolish for people to not research the sources of those who have information on the Catholic Church.
If you take what bobbyaf showed here as solid then you certainly don't care for your beliefs.

Bobbyaf, before I open your yansh and lies please tell us the sources of the quotes you posted for me in the first page.

I will give you the chance to come clean first o.

@ Omenuko

It looks like we have another JW (Jevoha's Witness) or some sort in the house. Did you ever bother reading Church history and the writings of the early Church leaders. My friend, all of the Bishops of the early church were Catholic bishops. Since the time of the apostles, most the Christians (well at least the orthodox ones) were Catholic. This same Church spread to India (the Malankora Church), Africa (Coptic and Geez Churches, etc.), middle east (Syrian, Chaldean Churches, etc.), Asia (Russia, Ukraine Churches, etc.), Europe (Greece and Rome Churches, etc.). This nonsense that you are posting is just twisting and currupting the passages of the Bible to fit your 'off the wall' notions and insinuations. The proper name of the Church is the 'Catholic Church' and it is comprised of many different faith traditions or rites, the Latin (Roman) rite being one of them (and largest in terms of population).

Firstly, I am a witness of Jehovah but not a Jehovah's Witness. Secondly I have bothered to read church as well as secular history. In the early centuries of the church there were no Catholics, but as you correctly said bishops. At what stage may I ask was the church universal? What you ascribe to the Catholic church is what I ascribe to the pure church of Jesus Christ. If there is any twisting of the scriptures it is when priests, friars, prelates, popes decieve the people with titles that only belong to God. I am afraid the twisting takes place when a dead woman is called Queen of heaven and placed in the exalted position as co-redemtrix of God.

You really have the gaul and nerve to talk about twisting the scriptures.

A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, without ever changing their essential form and matter. The early Church sought to evangelize in the major cultural centers of the first centuries A.D. These centers were Rome, Antioch (Syria), and Alexandria (Egypt). All the rites in use today evolved from the liturgical practices and ecclesiastical organization used by the churches in these cities.

Did our Lord and apostles celebrate the ordinances with such extravagance and pomp as do the priests today? Did they persecute anyone who refused to celebrate it the Catholic way?

Daniel:7 1-27 describes a vision that Daniel has concerning worldly kingdoms and is similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the preceding chapters (Daniel 2). It primarily concerns the four succeeding world kingdoms (the known world at that time) of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece and how they were opposed to and contrary to the messianic kingdom of the people of God.

I am afraid you're guilty of the ignorance you accuse others of. History shows without a doubt that the line up of kingdoms are Babylon, Medes/Persia, Greece, Rome. It would be of interest if you gave a source of your line up of kingdoms, and the duration of each kingdom. For your information the Medes and Persians did not serve as separate kingdoms. The prophecy makes that absolutely clear by the very description of the bear in Daniel 7. it stood higher on one side symbolizing that Persia was the more dominant kingdom of the twin kingdoms.

It does not apply to the Catholic Church or to the apostolic teachings. On the contrary it is a vision of how the followers of God will be persecuted by these kingdoms. The imagery of the Daniel passage is also used extensively in Revelation (Rev. 12, 13, 17), where St. John applies it to the Roman Empire (Babylon) and how it will/did persecute the body of Christ (the early Christians), the Church. Again, this does not refer to the Catholic Church.

That is not what Daniel said. He pointed to the little horn that grew among the 10 smaller kingdoms that came out of the 4th beast. if we go back to Daniel 2 we would know that the iron metal found in the legs truly represent Rome, since history has it that all those kingdoms used those metals to represent them. The Greeks were associated with the age of bronz, and Rome was associated with the age of iron. It is logical to think that since the visions are parallel then the 4th beast would correspond with the metallic iron in the image. The major difference between the two visions was that God showed Daniel additional information in chapter 7 about the 4th kingdom that drew Daniel's attention. Daniel was concerned about the extent to which that little horn would continue doing so much wrong.

If we take all factors into consideration then the time given for this power to reign could not have excluded the timing of the Roman Catholic church. The timing of the prophecy fits perfectly the timing of the start and temporary end of the RCC.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

The fact remains there could not have been a canon without the word of god. As I have said if some didn't do it God would have found others to do it, so no big deal. This thread is not about the canonization of scriptures. It is about the RCC's attempt to ignore God's clear teachings via its traditions. History has revealed the evil intent of the church, or how else would you explain the millions of killings against those who were prepared to stand for the bible and not the RCC's traditions. You seem to have blinded your eyes and senses to the stark reality that God's church was never called to persecute people, but to lead them to Jesus Christ.

And also, there was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible.

So where did Jesus preach from? So where did Paul direct Timothy to when he said that "all scripture is given of God by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, "?

All you guys did was to simply collate, , kudos to you all.

The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible.

I couldn't agree more! You're exactly right. The RCC is not the church of the bible.

It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Really! So if the church didn't create the canon then who did? And if there were no known scriptures then how did the church grow and feed spiritually? It also proves that there were no catholics according to your own words, yet you all boast that there has never been a break in the apostles chain that commenced with Peter, wow!

My friend see above. . . .the fourth kingdom that ruled the world (the known world at the time) was the Alexandrian/Greek Empire (the Seleucid kings). It was this kingdom (the Seleucids) that primarily concerned the author (presumably Daniel). My friend Bobbyarf, try to read more world history and keep the scriptures within context.

If I were you I'd be scared to reveal such un-researched material on such a powerful fora as this. Just do a simple google and spare yourself the embarrassment.

The ten horns represented the kings of the Seleucid dynasty (the Greek Hellenistic Empire). The little horn that took the place of the three horns that were torn away (Daniel 7 verse eight) represented Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 BC), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.

This is debatable. When one is a bible student of prophecy it pays to put all the pieces together. As I have alluded all the fingers point to the RCC as the LovePeddler of Revelation 17, and the beast of Revelation 13. Ephiphanes lived before the demise of Rome. The prophecy points to events that would have occurred after Rome came off the scene. This is why the RCC seeks to point people away from the true historical facts by introducing confusing data.

I don't know whether to take the above seriously or not. The 10 horns represented the Seleucid kings and the 11th horn (the little one that took the place of the three horns that were torn away) represents the Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see above) who took the throne by force.

For your sake you'd better.

These kingdoms (Astrogoths, Heluleans, and Vandals) were absorbed into the Roman Empire (basically became roman citizens themselves) and are present day French, German, Spanish, and Italian people (basically western Europe). It does not relate to the four kingdoms discussed in Daniel 7 (e.i., Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece/Seleucids)

You mean after Rome dispatched crusades to destroy them! , Where on earth are you getting your information from?

No, in Revelation 12, 13, and 17 St. John is describing the Roman Empire (pagan Rome) and how it persecuted the early Christians. It does not refer to the Catholic Church (see above). And the Pope is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Christians (nothing more nothing less).

So if Daniel and John said that the RCC would rule for 1260 years before the deadly wound, then how could you attribute Rome to such a long existence, when Rome existed between BC169 to AD476? That is less than 650 years. That is why I said before that understanding bible prophecy means putting all the pieces of the prophecy together instead of isolating verses and making a mess of things. We must apply line upon line, and a little here and a little there in accordance with scriptures.

So as I have said previously the RCC officially began in AD538 and came to a temporary end in AD1798 when Napolean Bonaparte under the revolution brought the church to its knees. Its pope was placed into exile and eventually died. Revelation 13 predicted that one of its head would have been wounded, and it became so in AD 1798, exactly 1260 years according to bible prophecy.

No, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. Even if you can't or don't accept the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, you cannot wish away history and disregard the teachings and testimony of the early Christian bishops who were all Catholic

If Jesus were here today He'd be rebuking the RCC and its follies, just as He did the corrupt Jewish church.

(lets even start from after the last apostle died, John). All the writings of the early church fathers, bishops, and faithful Christians professed to be members of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope). I think it is very disingenuous of you to arbitrarily claim and argue that the Catholic Church stared in 538 AD and ended in 1798 AD. Helloooooo, the Catholic Church is still standing.

Go back and reread my posts. I said that it came to a temporary end and was re-installed by Mussulini in 1929, and given the Vatican city.

You are a joke. . . .If you want to talk about new world order it is not the Catholic Church, it is the USA. It is the USA that is currently dominating world politics and world affairs and not the Pope. Please, stop posting this trash.

And who do you think is controlling the US?

@ Lady

I see I have been gone for too long, I shall be back to speak on them.

I really missed seeing you. Welcome back,

It is really foolish for people to not research the sources of those who have information on the Catholic Church.
If you take what bobbyaf showed here as solid then you certainly don't care for your beliefs.

I am afraid those quotes came directly from your own organization.

Bobbyaf, before I open your yansh and lies please tell us the sources of the quotes you posted for me in the first page.

The sources are right in the quotes. Probably the sources have been destroyed, but you can copy what you see and consult your bishop. Or better yet read some of those old Cathechisms.

I will give you the chance to come clean first o.

As far back as St. Paul it was noticeable that an apostate movement was in the making. Listen to what he hinted at in this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:4 says, ", Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Take a look at the following titles that have been attributed to Pontiffs and Popes.

* "Most Divine of all Heads."
* "Holy Father of Fathers."
* "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
* "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
* "Pastor of Pastors."
* "Christ by Unction."
* "Abraham by Patriachate."
* "Melchisedec in Order."
* "Moses in Authority."
* "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
* "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
* "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
* "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
* "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
* "Vicar of Christ."
* "Vicar of the Son of God."
* "Sovereign Priest."
* "Head of all the Holy Churches."
* "Chief of the Universal Church."
* "Bishop of Bishops."
* "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
* "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
* "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
* "Physician of Souls."
* "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
* "Infallible Pope."
* "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
* "Chief bridge maker"

Information on some of the titles:

Pontifix Maximus is a papal title meaning in Latin "chief bridge maker" between earth and heaven. However, Jesus Christ is the only One who can claim this title because "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. This was a title of the Roman Caesars and of the Roman Emperors of paganism.

Holy Father is a title the pope claims for himself. However, this title occurs only once in the Bible, and used when Jesus addresses His Heavenly Father in John 17:11 in His great prayer before His betrayal, arrest and crucifixion.

Father is a title that every Roman Catholic priest claims for himself and expects to be called. Jesus warns in Matthew 23:9 "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father which is in heaven." The catholic priest is not regarded in Scripture to be anyone's spiritual father. None of the chosen apostles ever addressed themselves as fathers.

Monsignor This means "my Lord", and this clearly is a title belonging only to God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Reverend is a title of many Roman Catholic priests and Protestant ministers. This is also a title for God in Psalms 111:9 "Holy and Reverend is his name." It is blasphemy for any man to take to himself a title of God.

"Mother of God" - Title given to Mary which denotes blasphemy, as it diverts worship to Mary. Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ's in His humanity. She simply served as a vessel for the Christ, and nothing more.

The RCC declares its hatred for bible believers:

"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)

"There was no village of the Vaudois valleys but had its martyrs. The Waldenses were burned; they were cast into damp and horrid dungeons; they were smothered in crowds in mountain caverns, mothers and babes, and old men and women together; they were sent out into exile in the winter night, unclothed and unfed, to climb the snowy mountains; they were hurled over the rocks; their houses and lands were taken from them; their children were stolen to be indoctrinated with the religion which they abhorred. Rapacious individuals were sent among them to strip them of their property, to persecute and exterminate them. Thousands of heretics" or Waldenses, "old men, women and children, were hung, quartered, broken upon the wheel, or burned alive and their property confiscated for the benefit of the king, and Holy See." - Thompson - The Papacy and the Civil Power

"That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history . . . It is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings." -- W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, p. 32, 1910 edition. (An excellent though lengthy article describing in detail the right of the Roman Catholic Church to do this, will be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 266.)

Has the RCC changed in any form or fashion? The only thing that has changed about the RCC is her tactics. If given the opportunity, which is about to be given her soon, she will resort to the very same monstrous murderous acts she leveled at bible-believing Christians in the past, and in the not-so-distant past.

As President Reagan once said, when speaking of the Berlin wall ", tear down that wall" so must true bible-believing Christians be prepared to defend the truth with their lives. The time is coming when the bible will no longer be seen as the frame of reference for truth, for attempts are being made to neutralize God's words with nice-sounding fables.

How many parents are unnecessarily exposing their children to the RCC's pagan practices without even realizing it. How many kids have been indoctrinated in a subtle way to look to Santa Clause instead of Jesus.

By the way were you aware that Santa Claus is really St. Nicholas, and that innocent parents are exposing their children to the worshiping of a Catholic saint called St. Nicholas? You may think its just an innocent game and that the kids will out grow Christmas, but think again.

There is more Catholic tradition to come,

Pope st,clement 1,fouth bishop of rome(AD88-97) in 96 AD settled adiagreement over leadershiop in the corinthian church.It will interest you to know that christians of corinth sent the matter to clement 1,bishop of rome when John the last apostle to die was still bishop of ephesus ,a nearby diocese.This shows that the first generation of christians recognised the primacy of peter over that of an apostle .Clement's name is mentioned in sts paul's letter to the philipians 4:3

Firstly, I am a witness of Jehovah but not a Jehovah's Witness.   Secondly I have bothered to read church as well as secular history. In the early centuries of the church there were no Catholics, but as you correctly said bishops. At what stage may I ask was the church universal? What you ascribe to the Catholic church is what I ascribe to the pure church of Jesus Christ.  If there is any twisting of the scriptures it is when priests, friars, prelates, popes decieve the people with titles that only belong to God. I am afraid the twisting takes place when a dead woman is called Queen of heaven and placed in the exalted position as co-redemtrix of God. 

You really have the gaul and nerve to talk about twisting the scriptures.

Well, if you bothered to read early Church history as well as secular history corresponding to those times (1st and 2nd centuries AD) you would know that the Church leaders were bishops and priest of the Catholic Church.  The lay faithful followed the teachings of these same bishops and priests who intern received their teachings from the apostles themselves.  The term ‘Catholic Church’ was the general term used by members of the Church to distinguish them from heretics and followers of false gospels.  The majority of early Church Christians were members of the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope and bishops in communion with him.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Like I said in my previous posts I believe the Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ.  The term ‘Catholic Church’ was not customarily used until false gospels and teachings began to surface in the first century and the term began to be used to allow the faithful to know where orthodox teaching is found.  The Catholic Church was not founded in 538 AD and did not temporarily end in 1798 (only a fool would claim such nonsense).

Did our Lord and apostles celebrate the ordinances with such extravagance and pomp as do the priests today? Did they persecute anyone who refused to celebrate it the Catholic way?

Yo, if you disagree with the way Catholics perform certain rituals or traditions, fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  But, don’t act like members of the Catholic Church were the only ones that participated in persecutions.  Members of Protestant groups (i.e., Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.) also participated in persecuting Catholics and other Christians who disagreed with their teachings, so please, quite with this ‘holier than thou’ crap.  No one is innocent.  Jesus established the Catholic Church.  Scandals have always existed in the Church (Judas, Peter, etc.) just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time (Matt. 13:24-30).  But like Jesus said the gates of hell/death will never prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18). 

I am afraid you're guilty of the ignorance you accuse others of. History shows without a doubt that the line up of kingdoms are Babylon, Medes/Persia, Greece, Rome. It would be of interest if you gave a source of your line up of kingdoms, and the duration of each kingdom.  For your information the Medes and Persians did not serve as separate kingdoms. The prophecy makes that absolutely clear by the very description of the bear in Daniel 7.  it stood higher on one side symbolizing that Persia was the more dominant kingdom of the twin kingdoms.

Yes, I’ll say it again. . . .You are twisting scripture to fit this nonsense idea of yours.  The four kingdoms Daniel (and Nebuchadnezzar) are referring to are Babylon (Neo-Babylon 626-539), Medes (625 BC – 549 BC), Persia (550 BCE – 330 BCE) and the Greek Empire (312 BC – 63 BC). H. H. Rowley (1935). Darius the Mede and the Four World empires in the Book of Daniel. p. 97. 

The 10 Seleucid (Greek Empire) kings are:
1. Alexander the Great
2. Seleucus I Nicator,
3. Antiochus I Soter,
4. Antiochus II Theos,
5. Seleucus II Callinicus,
6. Seleucus III Ceraunus,
7. Antiochus III the Great,
8. Seleucus IV Philopator, (assassinated by the following)
9. Heliodorus,
10. Seleucus IV’s infant son Antiochus (puppet for Heliodorus).

The last three "horns" had to fall to make way for the "little horn" Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his arrival on the throne, effectively by usurpation. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Bromiley, 145

That is not what Daniel said. He pointed to the little horn that grew among the 10 smaller kingdoms that came out of the 4th beast. if we go back to Daniel 2 we would know that the iron metal found in the legs truly represent Rome, since history has it that all those kingdoms used those metals to represent them. The Greeks were associated with the age of bronz, and Rome was associated with the age of iron. It is logical to think that since the visions are parallel then the 4th beast would correspond with the metallic iron in the image. The major difference between the two visions was that God showed Daniel additional information in chapter 7 about the 4th kingdom that drew Daniel's attention. Daniel was concerned about the extent to which that little horn would continue doing so much wrong.

See above.  If you don’t agree with the historical interpretation than that’s your beef, don’t petty this nonsense idea of associating the Catholic Church with your so called biblical truths or prophecy.  If you had associated it with the Roman Empire, I might have let it slide; but associating it with the Catholic Church shows that you are following falsehood and being misled.  Furthermore, how do you know that the Greeks and the Romans were associated with the ages of Bronze, and Iron, respectively?  FYI. . . .  Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient Iran, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages): well before the Roman Empire or even before the coming of Christ.

The fact remains there could not have been a canon without the word of god.  As I have said if some didn't do it God would have found others to do it, so no big deal. This thread is not about the canonization of scriptures. It is about the RCC's attempt to ignore God's clear teachings via its traditions. History has revealed the evil intent of the church, or how else would you explain the millions of killings against those who were prepared to stand for the bible and not the RCC's traditions. You seem to have blinded your eyes and senses to the stark reality that God's church was never called to persecute people, but to lead them to Jesus Christ.

Yes, this thread is not about the canon of scripture, but give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that it was the Catholic Church (with the help of the Holy Spirit) that discerned the canon of the bible and translated it into the vernacular (Latin) and propagated the gospel of Christ. 
Please, provide documentation of the so called ‘millions’ that were killed by members of the Catholic Church.  I acknowledge that grave wrongs have been committed, like I said before, no one is innocent in persecuting fellow Christians (i.e., both Protestants and Catholics are guilty of this).

So where did Jesus preach from? So where did Paul direct Timothy to when he said that "all scripture is given of God by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, "?  All you guys did was to simply collate,   , kudos to you all.

What are you arguing exactly?  Are you saying that Jesus and the apostles had the Bible in hand when they were preaching gospel?  The bible is the Old and New Testament.  How can Jesus and the apostles preach from the New Testament when it wasn’t even written yet?  Jesus and the apostles used the Jew scriptures and holy books to preach.  In addition, the also preached by way of the Holy Spirit that guided them.  They did not have the Bible, because it wasn’t completely compiled until the 3rd century AD.

Really! So if the church didn't create the canon then who did? And if there were no known scriptures then how did the church grow and feed spiritually? It also proves that there were no catholics according to your own words, yet you all boast that there has never been a break in the apostles chain that commenced with Peter, wow!

See above.  When did I say there were no Catholics?  The leaders of the Church (Catholics) used apostolic tradition (Sacred Tradition), the Jewish scriptures, and the Holy Spirit to preach about the gospel of Christ.  And as far as apostolic succession, the evidence is there. . . .there has never been a break in the chain of apostolic succession.

. . . . When one is a bible student of prophecy it pays to put all the pieces together. As I have alluded all the fingers point to the RCC as the LovePeddler of Revelation 17, and the beast of Revelation 13.  Ephiphanes lived before the demise of Rome. The prophecy points to events that would have occurred after Rome came off the scene. This is why the RCC seeks to point people away from the true historical facts by introducing confusing data.

Bible student of nonsense. . . .go and take what I have written and recompile your prophecy so that it is within context.  If you had associated this prophecy with the Roman Empire and not the Catholic Church I would not have had a problem with it.  The goal and objective of the Catholic Church is to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is Lord.

These kingdoms (Astrogoths, Heluleans, and Vandals) were absorbed into the Roman Empire (basically became roman citizens themselves) and are present day French, German, Spanish, and Italian people (basically western Europe).  It does not relate to the four kingdoms discussed in Daniel 7 (e.i., Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece/Seleucids)

You mean after Rome dispatched crusades to destroy them!   , Where on earth are you getting your information from?

Again with your unfounded notions.  The crusades were called upon to fight off the followers of Muhammad (Islam) when they took control of the Holy Land (which was initially Christian).  The crusades have never been associated with driving out the Germanic tribes (e.g., Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths, etc.) from Europe.  The present day Italians, Germans, French, and Spanish are decedents of these same Germanic tribes.

So if Daniel and John said that the RCC would rule for 1260 years before the deadly wound, then how could you attribute Rome to such a long existence, when Rome existed between BC169 to AD476? That is less than 650 years. That is why I said before that understanding bible prophecy means putting all the pieces of the prophecy together instead of isolating verses and making a mess of things. We must apply line upon line, and a little here and a little there in accordance with scriptures.

So as I have said previously the RCC officially began in AD538 and came to a temporary end in AD1798 when Napolean Bonaparte under the revolution brought the church to its knees. Its pope was placed into exile and eventually died. Revelation 13 predicted that one of its head would have been wounded, and it became so in AD 1798, exactly 1260 years according to bible prophecy.

Where does Daniel say the Catholic Church will rule for 1260 years?  For you to arbitrarily state that the Catholic Church started in 538 AD and temporarily ended in 1798 is utter nonsense and idiotic.  You, who claim to be a Bible student of prophecy…onye zuzu.

Will continue. . . .

@ Omenuko

Well, if you bothered to read early Church history as well as secular history corresponding to those times (1st and 2nd centuries AD) you would know that the Church leaders were bishops and priest of the Catholic Church.  The lay faithful followed the teachings of these same bishops and priests who intern received their teachings from the apostles themselves.  The term ‘Catholic Church’ was the general term used by members of the Church to distinguish them from heretics and followers of false gospels.  The majority of early Church Christians were members of the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope and bishops in communion with him.

And we are simply saying that those church bishops, and priests went contrary to what the original apostles taught. We are not denying that they were bishops and priests, be they self-proclaimed, but that they were already fulfilling Paul's prediction that there would be a falling away first, or apostasy, based on his letter to the Christians in Thessanolica.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Which is subject to interpretation. That certainly didn't mean global.

Like I said in my previous posts I believe the Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ.

And the scriptures say differently.  Take a hard look at what the RCC teaches and honestly tell us that that was the church that Christ started.

The term ‘Catholic Church’ was not customarily used until false gospels and teachings began to surface in the first century and the term began to be used to allow the faithful to know where orthodox teaching is found.  The Catholic Church was not founded in 538 AD and did not temporarily end in 1798 (only a fool would claim such nonsense).

And guess who that false apostate church happened to have been? You're correct, the beginnings of the RCC that inserted pagan teachings in order to appease the Romans. Let me brief you as to when the RCC was officially incorporated as head of all Christianity throughout all of Rome. I should have been more specific about the time period, without giving the impression that the church started that time. So now that we have it cleared up let us get back to the meat of the whole thing.

Let me summarize a bit. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

To cut the story short it was not until AD538 that John Bishop of Rome was finally acknowledged as Pope of the RCC. This occured before the Astrogoths were finally uprooted from Italy in AD539 that proved a threat to Rome, and who challenged the Pope's authority. As I have told you before it took a crusade to have completely anhilated the barbarian and up coming kingdom of the Astrogoths. It so happened that the Vandals and Heruleans as up-coming kingdoms were meted out the same fate.   

So in keeping with bible prophecy the RCC started its reign of terror in which it was not prepared to tolerate anyone who thought to oppose its new effort to establish the kingdom of God on earth, which was a direct anti-thesis to what was already taught by Christ and His apostles. 

You see your attempt to divert the truth about who the little horn truly represents doesn't hold water, because the historical timing is off. First you attempted to deceive the forum into making us think that Rome could not have been any of those 4 kingdoms in the line up of kingdoms from the prophecy of Daniel & by dividing the Medes and Persians as two successive kingdoms. Your line up went like this:

Babylon, Medes, Persia, and Greece which is ludicrous, because that line up does not fit the prophecy. Historically speaking the Medes were never a kingdom that ruled dominantly, but were dominated by the Persians, which in light of the prophecy of chapter 7 only one kingdom waged war with Greece and that was Persia.

It is important to notice that the image of Daniel 2 showed a chest and 2 arms laden with silver.  The 2 arms represent both the unity of the Medes, and the Persians. The bear in Daniel 7 is higher on one side signifying that Persia was the stronger of the twin kingdoms. Notice also that there are 2 other metals of silver and Iron that represent both Greece and Rome.

So in accordance with the metallic image the Gold represents Babylon; The breast and arms of silver represent Medes/Persia; the bronze represents Greece; and the iron represents Rome. If we were to line up the 4 beasts in Daniel 7 then the lion would represent Babylon; the bear would represent the combined Medes/Persia; the leopard would represent Greece; and the non descript beast would represent Rome.

It is now easier to see why your line up of the the 10 Seleucid (Greek Empire) kings wouldn't fit into the prophecy of the 10 horns of the 4th beast in chapter 7. If you had read the prophecy instead of merely ferreting information from some website showing erroneous historical dates and data about the Grecian empire, you would have noticed how long Daniel said that this little horn power would have ruled for. In short it was to rule for 1260 years.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes by every logic in the book could not have reigned for 1260 years. It had to have been a system that would have been in place that long.

So from AD538 until AD1798 the RCC ruled and dominated. It was not so much that there was not a Catholic church before that period in question, but what the Catholic church would have done during that special period of time. If I confused you I am sorry.  My emphasis on the period of 1260 years was to show the accuracy of the prophecy that the the RCC would be doing certain things during that time period, as emphasized by Daniel.

What are you arguing exactly?  Are you saying that Jesus and the apostles had the Bible in hand when they were preaching gospel?

In a sense yes. They had a compilation of some parts of the OT writings. They had scriptures from which Jesus often taught in the temple.

The bible is the Old and New Testament.  How can Jesus and the apostles preach from the New Testament when it wasn’t even written yet?  Jesus and the apostles used the Jew scriptures and holy books to preach.  In addition, the also preached by way of the Holy Spirit that guided them.  They did not have the Bible, because it wasn’t completely compiled until the 3rd century AD.

I am aware of that, I meant scriptures, not the bible.

Again with your unfounded notions.  The crusades were called upon to fight off the followers of Muhammad (Islam) when they took control of the Holy Land (which was initially Christian).  The crusades have never been associated with driving out the Germanic tribes (e.g., Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths, etc.) from Europe.  The present day Italians, Germans, French, and Spanish are decedents of these same Germanic tribes.

No way! The dates prove me right. Justinian In preparation for the acceptance of John bishop of Rome as Pope, helped the RCC anhilate the three opposing kingdoms of the Vandals, Heruleans, and lastly the Ostrogoths, because they opposed the RCC doctrinally when they started teaching Arianism, which confronted the RCC's doctrine of the Trinity.

This fits nicely with Chapter 7 that correctly shows what would happen when the little horn, or Papacy would have been rising to power.  Besides, when you tie in all the other characteristics that point to the Papacy, and which is brought up in Revelation 13, no one in all honesty can attribute to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who lived in another dispensation, what rightly belongs to the Papacy.

Where does Daniel say the Catholic Church will rule for 1260 years?  For you to arbitrarily state that the Catholic Church started in 538 AD and temporarily ended in 1798 is utter nonsense and idiotic.  You, who claim to be a Bible student of prophecy…onye zuzu.

It is we who attribute the RCC to that time period of reign of terror, based on Daniel's prophetic code.  History is the fulfillment of prophecy, and we have used history to help us decipher that puzzle.

Will continue. . . .

I am looking forward to it.

@Bobbyaf

And we are simply saying that those church bishops, and priests went contrary to what the original apostles taught. We are not denying that they were bishops and priests, be they self-proclaimed, but that they were already fulfilling Paul's prediction that there would be a falling away first, or apostasy, based on his letter to the Christians in Thessanolica.

Bobbaf, speak for yourself when parading about with this crap you call Bible prophecy.  Who is this “we…” you are talking about?  These same bishops and priests of the 1st century Church (who you claim fell away) were the disciples and followers of the apostles themselves.  How can you sit there and say that soon after the apostles passed away there disciples and followers (1st century bishops and priest of the Catholic Church) apostatized? 

And where did you get the below list of titles attributed to the Pope?  What website or book put this together? 

*  "Most Divine of all Heads."
    * "Holy Father of Fathers."
    * "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
    * "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
    * "Pastor of Pastors."
    * "Christ by Unction."
    * "Abraham by Patriachate."
    * "Melchisedec in Order."
    * "Moses in Authority."
    * "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
    * "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
    * "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
    * "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
    * "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
    * "Vicar of Christ."
    * "Vicar of the Son of God."
    * "Sovereign Priest."
    * "Head of all the Holy Churches."
    * "Chief of the Universal Church."
    * "Bishop of Bishops."
    * "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
    * "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
    * "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
    * "Physician of Souls."
    * "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
    * "Infallible Pope."
    * "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
    * "Chief bridge maker"

Well whoever gave you the list is mistaken.  Why not go to the source and find out what the titles of the Pope are; instead of going to second and third hand sources?  The actual titles of the Pope are:

-His Holiness The Pope;
- Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
- Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
- Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
- Patriarch Of The West;
- [size=15pt]Servant Of The Servants Of God[/size] (I like this one the most);
- Primate Of Italy;
- Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
- Sovereign Of Vatican City State.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Which is subject to interpretation. That certainly didn't mean global.

Jesus commissioned his apostles with the words, "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).The early Church understood Jesus’ words. What good was an invisible, theoretical, impractical unity? For the world to see a catholic unity, the oneness of the Church must be a visible, real, and physical reality. All of this the Catholic Church is. Since the earliest centuries Christians have confessed that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." One because there is only one, visible, organic, and unified Church; holy because it is called out of the world to be the Bride of Christ, righteous and sanctified; catholic because it is universal and unified; apostolic because Christ founded it through his apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18), and the apostles’ authority are carried on through the bishops. Through the centuries, this creed has been the statement of the Church.

In regards to the first recorded usage of the term Catholic, history informs us that Peter was the bishop of Antioch (before heading to Rome) before Ignatius; in fact, Church Fathers claim that Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles.

In the existing documents that have come down to us, Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans .

Let me summarize a bit. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

More crap. . . .I looked up the information and dates corresponding to this time period and discovered that Vigilius was Pope in 539 and not John.  The Catholic Church has always had a Pope.  For your benefit I have posted the list of Popes that correspond to the time period in question (413-560ish) and you will see that there has never been a break in the chain of succession.

•  St. Zosimus (417-18)
•  St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
•  St. Celestine I (422-32)
•  St. Sixtus III (432-40)
•  St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
•  St. Hilarius (461-68)
•  St. Simplicius (468-83)
•  St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
•  St. Gelasius I (492-96)
•  Anastasius II (496-98)
•  St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
•  St. Hormisdas (514-23)
•  St. John I (523-26)
•  St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
•  Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
•  John II (533-35)
•  St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
•  St. Silverius (536-37)
•  Vigilius (537-55)
•  Pelagius I (556-61)

To cut the story short it was not until AD538 that John Bishop of Rome was finally acknowledged as Pope of the RCC. This occured before the Astrogoths were finally uprooted from Italy in AD539 that proved a threat to Rome, and who challenged the Pope's authority. As I have told you before it took a crusade to have completely anhilated the barbarian and up coming kingdom of the Astrogoths. It so happened that the Vandals and Heruleans as up-coming kingdoms were meted out the same fate.

You still have not posted any sources or links to your stories. . . .The below is what I found on wikipedia.org and it gives a short explanation on what happened to the Ostrogoths.  The Catholic Church did not call a crusade to defeat them.  I told you before; the crusades were only called upon to defeat the Muslims in the middle east.  Go and read the history of the crusades.

Byzantine emperor Justinian I. had always strived to restore as much of the West Roman Empire as he could and certainly would not pass up the opportunity.  In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths.  Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy where he captured Naples and Rome in 536 and then marched north, taking Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540.

With that final defeat,the remaining Ostrogoths went back north and (re)settled in south Austria. The Ostrogothic name wholly died,  The nation had practically evaporated with Theodoric's death. "The leadership of western Europe therefore passed by default to the Franks. Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe", for Theodoric had made it "his intention to restore the vigor of Roman government and Roman culture".[12] The chance of forming a national state in Italy by the union of Roman and Germanic elements, such as those which arose in Gaul, in Iberia, and in parts of Italy under Lombard rule, was thus lost. As a result the Goths hold a different place in Iberian memory from that which they hold in Italian memory: In Italy the Goth was but a momentary invader and ruler, while in Iberia the Goth supplies an important element in the modern nation. That element has been neither forgotten nor despised. Part of the unconquered region of northern Iberia, the land of Asturias, kept for a while the name of Gothia, as did the Gothic possessions in Gaul.

wikipedia.org

Babylon, Medes, Persia, and Greece which is ludicrous, because that line up does not fit the prophecy. Historically speaking the Medes were never a kingdom that ruled dominantly, but were dominated by the Persians, which in light of the prophecy of chapter 7 only one kingdom waged war with Greece and that was Persia.

The lineup doesn’t fit the prophecy, eeh kwa?  What do you think I’ve been telling you?  This, your prophecy is total garbage and nonsense.  Since history doesn’t fit your prophecy you then bend the scriptures and make up pseudo history so that it does. . . tufiakwa (God forbid).  The Medes were an actual kingdom and they were a separate people from the Persians (fact).  The only relation between Medes and Persia is that they both originated from present day Iran.

It is important to notice that the image of Daniel 2 showed a chest and 2 arms laden with silver.  The 2 arms represent both the unity of the Medes, and the Persians. The bear in Daniel 7 is higher on one side signifying that Persia was the stronger of the twin kingdoms. Notice also that there are 2 other metals of silver and Iron that represent both Greece and Rome.

So in accordance with the metallic image the Gold represents Babylon; The breast and arms of silver represent Medes/Persia; the bronze represents Greece; and the iron represents Rome. If we were to line up the 4 beasts in Daniel 7 then the lion would represent Babylon; the bear would represent the combined Medes/Persia; the leopard would represent Greece; and the non descript beast would represent Rome.

According to the so called Bible student of prophecy, Bobbyaf.

It is now easier to see why your line up of the the 10 Seleucid (Greek Empire) kings wouldn't fit into the prophecy of the 10 horns of the 4th beast in chapter 7. If you had read the prophecy instead of merely ferreting information from some website showing erroneous historical dates and data about the Grecian empire, you would have noticed how long Daniel said that this little horn power would have ruled for. In short it was to rule for 1260 years.

Ok, let me ask you again.  Where does Daniel say this empire will rule for 1260 years?  Chapter and verse, please.

So from AD538 until AD1798 the RCC ruled and dominated. It was not so much that there was not a Catholic church before that period in question, but what the Catholic church would have done during that special period of time. If I confused you I am sorry.  My emphasis on the period of 1260 years was to show the accuracy of the prophecy that the the RCC would be doing certain things during that time period, as emphasized by Daniel.

Now you want to back peddle and say that the Catholic Church started before 538AD. . . .It looks like common sense is slowly reaching you.  As far as the 538 AD date, (I will say it again) if you bothered to read history you will know that the Roman Emperor ruled the Roman Empire (later the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) during that time period and not the Pope.

No way! The dates prove me right. Justinian In preparation for the acceptance of John bishop of Rome as Pope, helped the RCC anhilate the three opposing kingdoms of the Vandals, Heruleans, and lastly the Ostrogoths, because they opposed the RCC doctrinally when they started teaching Arianism, which confronted the RCC's doctrine of the Trinity.

See above.  The germanic tribes (Ostrogoths and co.) where not annihilated, yes they were defeated in battle, but they were not annihilated.  They settled in present day France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain and influenced the cultures of the respective countries.

This fits nicely with Chapter 7 that correctly shows what would happen when the little horn, or Papacy would have been rising to power.  Besides, when you tie in all the other characteristics that point to the Papacy, and which is brought up in Revelation 13, no one in all honesty can attribute to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who lived in another dispensation, what rightly belongs to the Papacy.

Go and re-prophecy your so called prophecy, please.  And Revelations 13 is referring to the Roman Empire (pagan Rome > Bablyon) and not the Catholic Church.

Below are some of the traditions and doctrines placed besides or above the gospel (Word of God)

[list]
[li]Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 AD
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950 [/li]
[/list]

Can anyone show us where Jesus or the Apostles practiced or taught any of these traditions or doctrines?

@OLAADEGBU

Below are some of the traditions and doctrines placed besides or above the gospel (Word of God)


Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 AD
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950


Can anyone show us where Jesus or the Apostles practiced or taught any of these traditions or doctrines?

Source please. . . .

deleted

@ Omenuko

Bobbaf, speak for yourself when parading about with this crap you call Bible prophecy.  Who is this “we…” you are talking about?  These same bishops and priests of the 1st century Church (who you claim fell away) were the disciples and followers of the apostles themselves.  How can you sit there and say that soon after the apostles passed away there disciples and followers (1st century bishops and priest of the Catholic Church) apostatized?

There is no need to be angry Omenuko

If the bishops didn't fall away as Paul had predicted then how do you explain the obvious and glaring variation of Catholic doctrines from Holy Scriptures. Its one thing to make a claim that the bishops did this, and the bishops did that, but when one compares what is being taught and practiced in the RCC then and now, there can be no misunderstanding that even in Paul's days he could see what was about to develop.

And where did you get the below list of titles attributed to the Pope?  What website or book put this together?

Some of them if not most of them were taken from past and near past Catholic Cathechisms and literature, besides those that came from x-priests and others who came to their senses and left the organization. If you examine some of the older versions of Cathechisms you will find some. I have access to some from former Catholics, and I have made it my duty to source them. I believe you of all persons have access to Catholic literature. You aught to know what is going on.

Quote
*  "Most Divine of all Heads."
   * "Holy Father of Fathers."
   * "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
   * "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
   * "Pastor of Pastors."
   * "Christ by Unction."
   * "Abraham by Patriachate."
   * "Melchisedec in Order."
   * "Moses in Authority."
   * "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
   * "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
   * "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
   * "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
   * "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
   * "Vicar of Christ."
   * "Vicar of the Son of God."
   * "Sovereign Priest."
   * "Head of all the Holy Churches."
   * "Chief of the Universal Church."
   * "Bishop of Bishops."
   * "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
   * "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
   * "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
   * "Physician of Souls."
   * "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
   * "Infallible Pope."
   * "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
   * "Chief bridge maker"

Well whoever gave you the list is mistaken.  Why not go to the source and find out what the titles of the Pope are; instead of going to second and third hand sources?  The actual titles of the Pope are:

-His Holiness The Pope;
- Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
- Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
- Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
- Patriarch Of The West;
- Servant Of The Servants Of God (I like this one the most);
- Primate Of Italy;
- Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
- Sovereign Of Vatican City State.

Jesus commissioned his apostles with the words, "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

Yet in all honesty do you believe that the Catholic church has observed all that Jesus commanded? How could that be when the RCC has continued to violate the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ as the only High Priest, by attempting to replace it with an earthly man-made ministry, in which Christ in His own words has countered when He said in John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me, "

So when your organization describes Mary as queen of heaven, and Co-Redemtrix to the Godhead, is that how one heeds Christ's gospel commission?

The early Church understood Jesus’ words. What good was an invisible, theoretical, impractical unity? For the world to see a catholic unity, the oneness of the Church must be a visible, real, and physical reality. All of this the Catholic Church is. Since the earliest centuries Christians have confessed that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." One because there is only one, visible, organic, and unified Church; holy because it is called out of the world to be the Bride of Christ, righteous and sanctified; catholic because it is universal and unified; apostolic because Christ founded it through his apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18), and the apostles’ authority are carried on through the bishops. Through the centuries, this creed has been the statement of the Church.

In theory that sounds wonderful, but in practice the true church was always suppressed. Paul said "all that live godly must suffer persecution"  Paul also reminded the congregations in Thessallonica that there would be a falling away first before the second coming of Jesus. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

In regards to the first recorded usage of the term Catholic, history informs us that Peter was the bishop of Antioch (before heading to Rome) before Ignatius; in fact, Church Fathers claim that Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles.

All that is debatable. Its funny how history makes the claim, which in itself doesn't sound all that certain, but the bible mentions nothing about Peter taking on such a role.

In the existing documents that have come down to us, Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans .

Its not the use of words that makes a church. Ignatius indeed was a good soldier of Christ, and history bears that out, but if Ignatius were alive today I am sure he'd not recognize the RC church as that church that he grew accustomed to in its simplicity and purity, whose doctrines were still closer to that which was taught by the 1st century apostles of Christ.  

Let me repeat the original summary again. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel's metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

More crap. . . .I looked up the information and dates corresponding to this time period and discovered that Vigilius was Pope in 539 and not John.  The Catholic Church has always had a Pope.  For your benefit I have posted the list of Popes that correspond to the time period in question (413-560ish) and you will see that there has never been a break in the chain of succession.

If we go back to the 5th century we would notice that the rise of the bishop of Rome to the pinnacle of power rested upon the extermination of the Arian kingdoms that controlled Rome. The last of the western Roman emperors were disposed in AD476, but Italy was ruled at the time by an Arian king named Odoacer who subjected the catholic bishops' activities. Theodoric the Ostrogoth who was also an Arian king overthrew Odoacer in AD 493, and this prevented Catholic supremacy from being fully realized. As long as this Ostrogothic kingdom ruled, the less promising it looked for the church.

It so happened that there was another Arian kingdom in Carthage who controlled the Mediterranean whose presence also prevented catholic supremacy. In the year AD533 emperor Justinian from the east  issued a document that recognized the bishop of Rome as head of all the holy churches, thus settling the religious questions once and for all. In AD534 he sent an army Belisarius' command that destroyed completely the Vandals. The army then turned toward Rome where they eventually drove out the Ostrogoths.

The Ostrogoths under Witiges carried out a seige upon Rome in AD537 that they maintained for a year, but a second armed force rose up against them and finally crushed them.

The year AD538 begins the first time that Rome was freed of Arian kings and the Catholic bishop of Rome held undisputed authority in the west. It is this year that we use to mark the beginning of the 1260 years of unbroken supremacy of the Papacy. The Catholic church then was to take a significant turn in how it affected history in the light of bible prophecy. The events that would unfold would be seen as those describing the very things that Daniel and Revelation spoke of.

Is it co-incidental that exactly 1260 years after AD538 that the pope would have been killed in exile, and the church's property and possessions taken by Napolean Bonaparte? The Catholic church in 1798 was literally brought to its knees, and exposed for all the wrongs it had committed? John the apostle said that the beast would have received a deadly wound. In February of 1798 the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, and took the pope prisoner. The pope died in France shortly thereafter. Although a new pope was later elected, the papacy had lost its power. Its glory days were over; its supremacy had come to an end.

"The object of the French directory was the destruction of the pontifical government, as the irreconcilable enemy of the republic. . . . The aged pope [Pius VI] was summoned to surrender the temporal government; on his refusal, he was dragged from the altar. . . . His rings were torn from his fingers, and finally, after declaring the temporal power abolished, the victors carried the pope prisoner into Tuscany, whence he never returned (1798), The territorial possessions of the clergy and monks were declared national property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place." - --George Trevor, Rome: From the Fall of the Western Empire (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1868), pp. 439, 440.

The texts that point to the prophecy of the 1260-year period are as follows:

Daniel 7:25, "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."

The he refers to the little horn power that arose out of the 10 barbarian kingdoms after Rome's demise in AD476.
       
Revelation 11:2, "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

John speaks of the heavenly court, and the holy city, and how it would be trodden under foot for 42 months which is equal to 1260 symbolic days pointing to 1260 literal years. The Catholic doctrine of the priesthood has attempted to obscure the pure teachings of scriptures which point to our Heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ, who alone stands between human sinners and God the Father who is judge of all the universe.
     
Revelation 11:3, "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

The two witnesses are both the OT and NT. Both testaments point to the same time period of 1260 symbolic days, or 1260 literal years. During the 1260 years the RCC persecuted bible-believing Christians, suggesting that both OT and NT were neglected and replaced with church traditions and dogmas.
     
Revelation 12:6, "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."

As was pointed out earlier in previous discussions, the woman in Revelation 12 represented the pure church of Jesus Christ, through whom He came. In other words the church gave birth to Jesus Christ. Verse 6 points out that this same body of believers would have been protected by God Himself. So while the Catholic church was predominant, the true church was underground hiding because of the persecution.
     
Revelation 12:14, "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

Here John uses the same expression "time, and times, and half a time" that was used by Daniel, that point to the same time period of 1260 years. God kept and nourished His church during this turbulent time period.
     
Revelation 13:5, "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."

The same time reference is provided as to how long this power would continue to blaspheme God's name and temple.

You still have not posted any sources or links to your stories. . . .The below is what I found on wikipedia.org and it gives a short explanation on what happened to the Ostrogoths.  The Catholic Church did not call a crusade to defeat them.  I told you before; the crusades were only called upon to defeat the Muslims in the middle east.  Go and read the history of the crusades.

So who influenced Justinian the eastern emperor in the first place to have crushed three separate Arian kingdoms that were from the original 10 barbarian kingdoms?

Byzantine emperor Justinian I. had always strived to restore as much of the West Roman Empire as he could and certainly would not pass up the opportunity.  In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths.  Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy where he captured Naples and Rome in 536 and then marched north, taking Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540.

With that final defeat,the remaining Ostrogoths went back north and (re)settled in south Austria. The Ostrogothic name wholly died,  The nation had practically evaporated with Theodoric's death. "The leadership of western Europe therefore passed by default to the Franks. Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe", for Theodoric had made it "his intention to restore the vigor of Roman government and Roman culture".[12] The chance of forming a national state in Italy by the union of Roman and Germanic elements, such as those which arose in Gaul, in Iberia, and in parts of Italy under Lombard rule, was thus lost. As a result the Goths hold a different place in Iberian memory from that which they hold in Italian memory: In Italy the Goth was but a momentary invader and ruler, while in Iberia the Goth supplies an important element in the modern nation. That element has been neither forgotten nor despised. Part of the unconquered region of northern Iberia, the land of Asturias, kept for a while the name of Gothia, as did the Gothic possessions in Gaul.

The point is there is no trace of these kingdoms anymore, and that is exactly what the prophecy said, that the Papacy by whatever means would have exterminated them just so it could rule for the time period allotted. There is no going around the events.

Quote
Babylon, Medes, Persia, and Greece which is ludicrous, because that line up does not fit the prophecy. Historically speaking the Medes were never a kingdom that ruled dominantly, but were dominated by the Persians, which in light of the prophecy of chapter 7 only one kingdom waged war with Greece and that was Persia.

The lineup doesn’t fit the prophecy, eeh kwa?  What do you think I’ve been telling you?

You've been making some attempt to change the course of history when its obviously clear that no historical document will ever support your argument.

This, your prophecy is total garbage and nonsense.  Since history doesn’t fit your prophecy you then bend the scriptures and make up pseudo history so that it does.

My prophecy?    You're giving me way too much credit.

. tufiakwa (God forbid).  The Medes were an actual kingdom and they were a separate people from the Persians (fact).  The only relation between Medes and Persia is that they both originated from present day Iran.

But were later absorbed into the Persian kingdom, where Persia became the dominant one. How else would you explain one bear being used as a symbol to represent one kingdom in Daniel 7. If you read Daniel 8 it goes on to tell you of the battle between the joint forces of the Medes and Persians being represented by a single animal the ram, versus Greece that was represented by the He goat. It doesn't mention a war between the Medes and the Persians. It strengthens my argument that both the Medes and Persians became one force, and fought against Greece.

Daniel 8:20,21, "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king."

Ok, let me ask you again.  Where does Daniel say this empire will rule for 1260 years?  Chapter and verse, please.

I have provided a list above.

Now you want to back peddle and say that the Catholic Church started before 538AD. . . .It looks like common sense is slowly reaching you.  As far as the 538 AD date, (I will say it again) if you bothered to read history you will know that the Roman Emperor ruled the Roman Empire (later the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) during that time period and not the Pope.

Nothing has changed as far as the developments are concerned. I should have made a better comparison between the status the catholic church before AD538, and the same church between AD538 through AD1798. Please don't try to score points on my error because it really doesn't lessen the truth as to the role the catholic church played before the period and between the period. .

See above.  The germanic tribes (Ostrogoths and co.) where not annihilated, yes they were defeated in battle, but they were not annihilated.  They settled in present day France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain and influenced the cultures of the respective countries.

So where are the modern names for those three barbarian kingdoms may I ask? We can account for the continuation of the remaining 7, but the three Arian kingdoms that stood in the way of the church before AD538.

Go and re-prophecy your so called prophecy, please.  And Revelations 13 is referring to the Roman Empire (pagan Rome > Bablyon) and not the Catholic Church.

So what was the mark and number of pagan Rome may I ask?

Omenuko:

@OLAADEGBU

Source please. . . .

Before you ask for my source are you disputing the facts that I allege about the traditions, doctrines and dogmas that I listed? or are you saying that the dates given are not correct? If so, can you please refute these allegations with the appropriate information? or rather justify these claims as being taught by Jesus and His Apostles from the Scriptures.

The is the story of an ex priest of how the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was established in 1854.

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head: silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome. A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The Supreme Pontiff answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St. Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes! We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . . There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired. The last act of the most ridiculous and sacrilegious comedy the world had ever seen, was over; the doors of heaven were forever shut against those who would refuse to believe the anti-scriptural doctrine that there is a daughter of Eve who has not inherited the sinful nature of Adam.

She was redeclared exempt when the God of Truth said, “There is none righteous; no, not one: for all have sinned!” (Rom.3:10,23)

No trace of this teaching is found in the first centuries of the Church.”

Source:
(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])

lol, I see some people are still deluded, they can't answer questions and they can't post their sources, why? Because they know they are being deceitful.

Bobbyaf and Olaadegbu, tell the truth and shame the devil.

Like I have said so many times before, if you don't know about the Church's teachings ask. Don't go to any random website and feed yourself with nonsense and come here and spew crap.

If anyone follows what you two have said without questioning it then they are placing you as God and do not care for their salvation.

Anyway, Omenuko, I love you, Jesus Loves you, Mary loves you, the Church loves you, and we will never fall, as Christ said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
Thank you for dealing with this crap

They think they're the first to try, newsflash, you're information is nothing new and it has been shown to be false. SO try something else.

Olaadebu, you still haven't added compilation of the Bible to that list of yours, why?

Your information is wrong and you know it, I already showed it to you, and I remember you running away with shame. Don't embarass yourself again o.

There I have stated it now state your source and explain how each item was introduced. If you will make a claim you should be able to back it up, put your money where your mouth is.

Nonsense, you guys know very well that this is the internet and you can disappear for a while and this thread will disappear after your foolishness has been shown. I like having conversations like this in person, too many people have apologised for their disrespect of the Church, that's right the True Church of God, and the rest have converted. Truth will always be truth whether you like it or not.
Can you handle this conversation in person? I bet you not.

Why can't you guys answer questions? Is it because you know you are wrong?

Oh by the way guys, the Jews don't believe in Sola Scriptura and here's them telling you guys how wrong you are.

Sola scriptura - Solely scripture. Scripture alone and nothing else. This is the rallying cry of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity accepts no divine message other than the one that they believe to be recorded in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Consequently, Protestant Christianity rejects any component of the national Jewish tradition that is not recorded in the books of scripture.

Earlier in this work we articulated the Jew’s rejection of this position. The same medium that informed the Jew that the Jewish scripture is an authentic document also informs him that there is more to the teachings of Moses. If God expected us to accept one portion of the testimony of our ancestors, there is no reason to assume that He wants us to reject the other portion of that same testimony. Furthermore it is only by means of the unwritten teachings of Moses, that the Jewish scriptures were canonized. So the Protestant insistence on rejecting any unwritten message from God is not very rational.

The missionary activity of Protestant churchmen belies the Protestant’s loyalty to the axiom of Sola scriptura.  If the missionaries truly accepted the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, their methodology would be entirely unlike the methods they actually use. If scripture is truly the only authorized divine communiqué as the missionary would have us believe, they would limit themselves to distributing copies of scripture and would do nothing more. If the principle of “Sola Scriptura” is the factual basis for Protestant Christianity, a plain reading of scripture should teach the reader everything there is to know about Christianity. All one would have to do is to pick up a copy of the scriptures, and read them from cover to cover. The fact that the missionaries find it necessary to go beyond the distribution of Bibles, tells us that they feel that something is lacking in the axiom - “Sola Scriptura
Our analysis of scripture will begin with the very basis of Protestant Christianity. Sola Scriptura. This principle that rejects any unwritten directive from God, has no scriptural foundation. In fact, an examination of scripture will reveal that God truly does use instruments of communication, outside of the written words of scripture.

Probably the most important difference separating Christianity from Judaism, is the Christian assertion that one Jesus of Nazareth ought to be worshiped as a god. Judaism considers the Christian deification of Jesus to be a form of idolatry. Christianity considers this same activity to be the highest moral imperative. The basis of the Jewish position is the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The revelation at Mt. Sinai revealed to the Jewish people whom it is they are to worship. At the same time the Jewish people were taught whom it is they should not be worshiping. The revelation was all-inclusive. God showed them that there is no other divine entity. “To you it was shown in order that you know that the Lord is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is none else” (Deuteronomy 4:35). The fact that the Jewish people do not report seeing Jesus at Mt. Sinai, tells us that he is not deserving of worship. 

Protestant Christianity refuses to rely on the Jewish nation’s report of that momentous event. The fact that the Jewish nation’s understanding of God was impacted by that event means nothing to the Christian. The Protestant rejection of the national Jewish testimony stands in direct contradiction to the words of the Jewish scriptures.

Scripture records that God directed the Jewish people – “you should make it known to your children and to your children’s children. The day that you stood before the Lord you God at Horeb (another name for Mt. Sinai)” (Deuteronomy 4:9,10). It is clear from the words of scripture that God expected the Jewish people to preserve the message of this revelation. When God talks to the later generations, He uses the revelation at Mt. Sinai as a point of reference. Scripture identifies a false god by a negative comparison to this national revelation. God uses the terms “that which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3) or “those that your fathers did not know” (Deuteronomy 13:7) in order to make reference to a false god. God is directing the later generations that they look to their father’s testimony in order to recognize the false gods.

The words of scripture clearly testify to the fact that God uses the collective memory of the Jewish nation as a medium of communication. Scripture tells us that God trusts the testimony of the Jewish nation, and that God requires of us to do the same. The Church position that would have us ignore the testimony of the Jewish nation, is clearly refuted by the words of scripture.

The living legacy of the Jewish nation is commissioned by God not only to preserve the basic understanding of God’s oneness. God also utilizes the national Jewish testimony to deliver to the later generations many details of the Law that Moses did not record in the Five Books. It is only through the living testimony of the Jewish nation that we can understand the spirit of Sabbath, the practical application of the laws of kosher, as well as a host of other scriptural directives. Christianity refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Jewish nation’s testimony concerning any of these matters. The Church would have us believe that in the forty years Moses lived among the Jewish people, he said not a word more than was recorded in the Five Books. Again, it is the scripture that the Christians revere, that testifies to the falsity of the Christian position.

Scripture records the divine directive to observe the holiday of Passover. Any Jew who eats leaven during this seven-day holiday is threatened with the heavenly penalty of having his soul cut off from the midst of his nation. Scripture tells us that this holiday takes place, from the fourteenth day until the twenty-first day of the first month. Scripture does not tell us when this first month is supposed to begin. In fact, scripture says nothing about the construction of a calendar. If we assume, as the Church proposes, that Moses taught nothing more than the words he recorded in the Five Books, we will find ourselves facing a serious problem. How are we to know when the holiday of Passover is to begin?

Similar questions can be asked concerning most of the scriptural commandments. At what age is a person considered responsible for the practice of the Law? What exactly is meant by the term “betrothal” mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:23? What is the court procedure to be followed in a case where capital punishment is to be applied? What are the necessary qualifications required of the judges presiding over such a court, and who elects these judges? The scriptures provide no information on these matters, yet it is obvious from the words of scripture that these laws are to be observed by a living nation. Could it really be as the Christian argues? Is it possible that Moses said nothing more on these matters? How could a nation be held accountable to a Law that is so vague and ambiguous? How could people be threatened with divine penalties for violation of a Law that leaves so much unsaid?

It is quite evident that Moses did provide instructions outside of scripture’s terse terminology. Clearly Moses guided the people in the practical application of the Law. God expected that these instructions be available to the last generation. The only medium that God provided for the transmission of this information, is the living testimony of the Jewish nation. This living chain, which travels along the generations, father to son, teacher to disciple, is the means through which God elected to transport His holy Law to the end of time.

Christianity refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the rabbinical courts. The Church position is then, that no man is authorized to render judgment in matters relating to the divine directives of Moses. Scripture explicitly repudiates this Christian contention.

Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy records Moses’ injunction to the people that they consult with the judges and the priests. The verse goes on to say that the decisions of these men are to be followed. One who blatantly ignores the court’s decision is to be put to death. Chapter 19 of second Chronicles vividly describes how the righteous King Jehosaphat established courts throughout his kingdom. Jehoshaphat makes reference to two leaders to whom the judges can turn to with their questions. One of these leaders was to direct the courts in matters pertaining to the Laws of God, while the other officer guided the judges in matters relating to civil law. Scripture leaves the reader with no doubt that these men were authorized to pronounce judgment in the application of the Law of Moses.

Chapters 13 and 17 of Deuteronomy document Moses’ directives to the people in regard to idolaters. If a comprehensive investigation reveals that an individual or a community is truly guilty of idol-worship, the transgressors must then be killed. Scripture directs the entire nation to participate in the execution of these idolaters. It is obvious from the context of these passages that the guilt of these men was determined by a court of qualified judges. Still, all the people must take part in the implementation of their decision.

It is abundantly clear that not only does God authorize people to make decisions in the application of his holy Law, but God also commands His people to abide by those decisions. Scripture openly contradicts the Christian assertion that no human is authorized to render judgment in matters concerning the divine Law. The Christian position is not based on the words of scripture. Instead the Christian doctrine stands in direct conflict to the clear words of scripture.

Furthermore it is only by means of the unwritten teachings of Moses, that the Jewish scriptures were canonized

It is only by means of the unwritten teachings of the apostles, that the Christian scriptures were canonized.

[size=20pt]Without sacred tradition there would be no Bible. Got that?[/size]

Source: http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=408

Recognise:


@Bobbyaf (m)
@OLAADEGBU

Good can of worms opened up here and shared.

Trust me you're depositing instalments into your accounts in the heavenly treasury.

Make no mistake, when a shoe is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

I am not surprised that die-hard partisans and/or sympathisers are digging in heels and refusing to let go uncovering the veil of spiritual blindness and falsehood.

Could it be down to ignorance (i.e. unawareness) blantant foolishness, deception, ego or pride?

Proverbs 14:5;25
⁵A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
²⁵A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.

Proverbs 15:32 King James Version(KJV)
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul:
but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding
OR
Proverbs 15:32 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
You hurt only yourself by rejecting instruction,
but it makes good sense to accept it.

This is a good observation on your part as we are now seeing it unfold on this thread. May the Lord deliver those who are ignorant of the idolatory that they have been trapped in and open their eyes to the lies of the devil and bring them to the knowledge of truth.

This is a good observation on your part as we are now seeing it unfold on this thread. May the Lord deliver those who are ignorant of the idolatory that they have been trapped in and open their eyes to the lies of the devil and bring them to the knowledge of truth.

May God open your eyes so you can actually stop fighting your own belief

Recognise:


Make no mistake, when a shoe is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

The sources are right in the quotes. Probably the sources have been destroyed, but you can copy what you see and consult your bishop. Or better yet read some of those old Cathechisms.

The sources are not there, anyone can create a paragraph and attribute it to a book, the thing is did the book contain those things? Nope absolutely not. So now it is for you to back up your claim that those things came from the book, especially the one about Mary being omnipotent and all, it is even told in the catechism that she isn't omnipotent, she cannot take the place of Jesus and it has always been so. Read the actual vatican documents and you will see that.

So until you provide us with the sources, what you posted will be counted as fallacies and lies and meant to be deceitful. Afterall you just posted them, they shouldn't have been destroyed so soon. Within a day of you posting they were detroyed? Comon, source please.

", the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth, At the command of Mary all obey, even God, God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands, Yes Mary is opnipotent, " - Glories pp 154-156

This can't be found, why?

Catholic leadership declares: "The pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and on earth" - Pope Pius V ,

Please I am begging you to provide this papal document, I want you to do so with your hands so that people can see the deceit in this. Every source that has this is an anti-catholic site, and yet they all couldn't provide the actual document stating this. Why?

Could it be that it doesn't exist?

"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.

When a King is absent from his throne who sits on it, and what does that person do?

@ Lady

As I have said most of the quotes came from your very own literature, and especially the older Catechisms.

Not sure if you're too young to remember about the article that came out in the Time Magazine about the Co-Redemptrix status of Mary. Aren't you even aware of your organization's doings?

Do you even stop to think of the implications of such an attempt of exaltation being conferred on a dead woman? If that 5th Marian dogma comes to pass, and assuming she is alive, it simply means she would be exalted to the level of another member of the Godhead. If she is dead it makes it even worse for Catholics to be worshiping a dead woman.

Note:

ZENIT reports on a letter sent by five cardinals, inviting prelates worldwide to join in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma, proclaiming Mary as Mother of humanity, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for the human race.

This letter was sent on January 1, 2008 and sent by five cardinal co-sponsors of the Fatima Symposium, and sent to the world's bishops and cardinals asking them to sign a petition that asks pope Benedict XVI to proclaim Mary as the spiritual mother of humanity. I must laugh.

The fact that this is even being contemplated speaks to the heights of blasphemy against God.

Revelation 18:4 warns you thus, "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

There is far more than meets the eyes Lady. Don't place the organization before God. Follow Martin Luther's example, that great reformer and leave before the 7 great plagues of God begin to fall.

Not sure if you're too young to remember about the article that came out in the Time Magazine about the Co-Redemptrix status of Mary. Aren't you even aware of your organization's doings?

oh so you think the co-redemptrix status of Mary is wrong abi? No wonder, you lack basic understanding of the christian faith. Lol@ you thinking that if I saw co-redemptrix status of Mary that would make me leave the Church.

Um did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one that is wrong? That you are the one that doesn't understand the Bible? That you are incorrectly interpreting the Bible? That you miss a lot of what the Bible says?

If you think you know all about the Bible, then I would say you are from the devil because you are too proud. The problem is not that we don't know what the Church teaches, the problem is that you don't understand your own faith. The problem is that you are fighting your own beliefs.

If I ask you questions will you be willing to answer, because those questions will get you to see that you believe in what the Church teaches too, you just don't know it.

The difference between Catholics and Non-Catholics, is that Catholics believe in sacred tradition and know it, non-catholics believe in sacred tradition and don't know it. I pray that one day you will realise what you believe. You believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it yet. That's why I laugh at you guys a lot.

@ Lady

oh so you think the co-redemptrix status of Mary is wrong abi? No wonder, you lack basic understanding of the christian faith. Lol@ you thinking that if I saw co-redemptrix status of Mary that would make me leave the Church.

Well show us a passage of scripture that matches up with sacred tradition saying that Mary didn't see death but went straight to heaven. If you're bent on accepting an assumption, no puns intended, having gotten not an iota of evidence in scriptures, to prove or back up Catholic tradition, then what do you expect me to think?

Um did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one that is wrong? That you are the one that doesn't understand the Bible? That you are incorrectly interpreting the Bible? That you miss a lot of what the Bible says?

How did the bible say you should interpret it? Didn't the very one you said became the first pope instructed us how not to do it? Let me give you a little reminder.

2 Peter 1:20 says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

In other words no one person is allowed to interpret the scriptures in a way that will suit his or her fancy. One is not allowed to put a slant to the meaning of scriptures so as to suit oneself. Many persons have introduced teachings based on one passage alone, without fully grasping the context in which such a passage was derived.

There are many professed Christians who handle venomous serpents based on a gross misunderstanding of what Mark said and have taken a literal approach to that particular passage of scriptures.

Your case is somewhat different. You have ignored the scriptures all together, and have adopted Catholic traditions that don't even come close to what the scriptures teach. Not once have I gotten a Catholic to show from scriptures where it says that Mary didn't see death, but was taken to heaven before she died.

If you think you know all about the Bible, then I would say you are from the devil because you are too proud.

So all-of-a-sudden I know all about the bible,

The problem is not that we don't know what the Church teaches, the problem is that you don't understand your own faith. The problem is that you are fighting your own beliefs.

And I will say this much that the church to which I belong uses the bible as the rule of faith and practice. We look to Jesus' life and ministry as the perfect example. We dare not look to men as examples. The apostle Paul says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. John says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Is it any wonder to you and the world for that matter that big grown men in robes are raping off little boys, and that men of the cloth are smoking and drinking and having no remorse about it whatsoever. Is that what you call not understanding the faith?

If I ask you questions will you be willing to answer, because those questions will get you to see that you believe in what the Church teaches too, you just don't know it.

Of course you're free to ask as long as those questions are bible related? Don't forget we are not on the same boat. We are from two different worlds.

How come you've never answered why would the true church, which you believe is the RCC, kill and maim millions of Christians just because they simply preferred following the bible rather than RC tradition?

The difference between Catholics and Non-Catholics, is that Catholics believe in sacred tradition and know it, non-catholics believe in sacred tradition and don't know it.

Well, name the traditions that you think we have in common.

I pray that one day you will realise what you believe. You believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it yet. That's why I laugh at you guys a lot.

And I pray that one day God will convict you to leave before its eternally too late. Remember our days are numbered. We don't have much time left.

@ bobbybaff
you make me laugh with your wrong intepretation of prophet's Daniel's prophecy.The antichrist is going to reign for 1260 days(3.1/2 years or 42 months) not 1260 years.please go and read your Bible again.check Dan 7:25.9:27,Rev 11:12,12:6,12:14,13:5

This prophecy refers to the end of the world.At the end of this 1260 days Jesus is supposed to appear to gather the saints and condemn the evil ones.The RCC did not start in AD 538 nor did it end in 1798.Am sorry for you you are deluded

@ chukwudi44

@ bobbybaff
you make me laugh with your wrong intepretation of prophet's Daniel's prophecy.The antichrist is going to reign for 1260 days(3.1/2 years or 42 months) not 1260  years.please go and read your Bible again.check Dan 7:25.9:27,Rev 11:12,12:6,12:14,13:5

This prophecy refers to the end of the world. At the end of this 1260 days Jesus is supposed to appear to gather the saints and condemn the evil ones.The RCC did not start in AD 538  nor did it end in 1798.Am sorry for you you are deluded

Do us all a huge favour, make sure you read through Daniel 2, 7, and Revelation 12, 13, 17 then we can have an intelligent discussion. [quote][/quote]

@Bobbyaf,

Sorry for not getting back sooner, lets go. . . .Oh, Lady thanks for the shout out.

If the bishops didn't fall away as Paul had predicted then how do you explain the obvious and glaring variation of Catholic doctrines from Holy Scriptures. Its one thing to make a claim that the bishops did this, and the bishops did that, but when one compares what is being taught and practiced in the RCC then and now, there can be no misunderstanding that even in Paul's days he could see what was about to develop.

That's the thing. . . .that's why I'm Catholic and you're not.  I don't see any glaring variation between Catholic teaching and the Holy Scriptures.  If I did I wouldn't be Catholic, now would I.  The Catholic Church has apostolic succession, so if Paul were alive today and were to point to the Church founded by Jesus he would point towards the Catholic Church.

Some of them if not most of them were taken from past and near past Catholic Cathechisms and literature, besides those that came from x-priests and others who came to their senses and left the organization. If you examine some of the older versions of Cathechisms you will find some. I have access to some from former Catholics, and I have made it my duty to source them. I believe you of all persons have access to Catholic literature. You aught to know what is going on.

Quote
*  "Most Divine of all Heads."
    * "Holy Father of Fathers."
    * "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
    * "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
    * "Pastor of Pastors."
    * "Christ by Unction."
    * "Abraham by Patriachate."
    * "Melchisedec in Order."
    * "Moses in Authority."
    * "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
    * "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
    * "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
    * "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
    * "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
    * "Vicar of Christ."
    * "Vicar of the Son of God."
    * "Sovereign Priest."
    * "Head of all the Holy Churches."
    * "Chief of the Universal Church."
    * "Bishop of Bishops."
    * "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
    * "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
    * "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
    * "Physician of Souls."
    * "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
    * "Infallible Pope."
    * "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
    * "Chief bridge maker"

I asked where did the list come from and you provided no link or source.  So, I will assume the list was made up by some anti-catholic of sorts.

Yet in all honesty do you believe that the Catholic church has observed all that Jesus commanded? How could that be when the RCC has continued to violate the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ as the only High Priest, by attempting to replace it with an earthly man-made ministry, in which Christ in His own words has countered when He said in John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me, "

So when your organization describes Mary as queen of heaven, and Co-Redemtrix to the Godhead, is that how one heeds Christ's gospel commission?

I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are true and orthodox.  How has the Catholic Church violated the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ.  The priesthood was instituted by Jesus Christ by giving his disciples the authority to preach and lead in His name (Matt. 10:1,40;16:19; 18:18; Luke 9:1; 10:19; etc.).  Priests have what is called apostolic authority by way of apostolic succession which is exemplified in Acts 1:15-26.  The first thing Peter does in that passage, after Jesus ascends into heaven, is implement apostolic succession.  Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.   He is given the authority to preach and lead, by way of the apostles.  Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (Acts. 6:6, ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.  By this way do we know that the bishops are the successors of the apostles.

As far as Mary being given the title 'queen of heaven', what Catholics mean by that is that she is the Queen Mother or "Gebirah"(1 Kings 2:18).   In the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's (in our case Jesus Christ) followers.   Since we are brothers (and sisters) of Christ, she (the Blessed Virgin) is our mother by way of Chist as well (John 19:26).  We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary intercedes on our behalf to her Son, Jesus Christ.  Because she was most pure, we believe that her intercessory prayers (and those of other righteous people/saints alive and/or with Christ) have powerful effects (James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29).  God hears the prayers of the righteous and upright.

In theory that sounds wonderful, but in practice the true church was always suppressed. Paul said "all that live godly must suffer persecution"  Paul also reminded the congregations in Thessallonica that there would be a falling away first before the second coming of Jesus. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

My friend, I can use the same scripture passage to describe you and your church.  Paul may have said there will be a falling away, but this was not in regards to the Church because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.  Like you, the Church preaches that many people will not accept God’s free gift of salvation.  But, acknowledging that not everyone will be saved is not the same thing as saying the Church will be overcome by the evil one because if that were the case then Jesus' promise in Matt 16:18 would have all been for not, for he said:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

We believe this Church is the Catholic Church.

Its not the use of words that makes a church. Ignatius indeed was a good soldier of Christ, and history bears that out, but if Ignatius were alive today I am sure he'd not recognize the RC church as that church that he grew accustomed to in its simplicity and purity, whose doctrines were still closer to that which was taught by the 1st century apostles of Christ.

Oh, earlier you said that the 1st century bishops and priests of the Catholic Church aposticized.  Now you are claiming that St. Ignatius (a first century bishop) was a good soldier of Christ.   I’m assuming that this affirmation of yours stating that Ignatius was a “soldier of Christ” means that you believe he did not aposticize as you stated earler.  Ok, well let me post some of Ignatius' writings in regards to what he believed and thought about the church at Rome (headed by the bishop of Rome aka the Pope). 

"From IGNATIUS, whose other name is Theophorus: To her who has found mercy in the greatness of the All Highest Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, to the church beloved and enlightened in her love to our God Jesus Christ by the will of Him who wills all things; to the church holding chief place in the territories of the district of ROME--worthy of God, worthy of honour, blessing, praise, and success; worthy too in holiness, foremost in love, observing the law of Christ, and bearing the Father's name."

It was never your way to grudge anyone his success. You have been a SOURCE OF INSTRUCTION to others; all I want is for the principles which you expound by your teaching to hold good now

"However, I am not issuing orders to you, as though I were a Peter or a Paul. They were Apostles and I am a condemned criminal."

"Letter to the Romans." 107 AD

As you can see from the above quotes, St. Ignatius expressed high respect, honor, veneration, and deference towards the church at Rome.  In the quote St. Ignatius alludes to the unique authority of the church at Rome and if he were alive today even he would know where the Church of Christ is; that is the Catholic Church.

Let me repeat the original summary again. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel's metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Source please. . . .

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

I just posted the listing of Popes for that time period and showed you that Vigilius was the Pope in 539 AD and there was no break in the chain of succession.   Where are you getting your information from?   Are you saying that John was bishop in 539 and soon after there was no Pope.  Or, are you saying before John became Pope there were no Popes.  What time period did we not have a pope?

If we go back to the 5th century we would notice that the rise of the bishop of Rome to the pinnacle of power rested upon the extermination of the Arian kingdoms that controlled Rome. The last of the western Roman emperors were disposed in AD476, but Italy was ruled at the time by an Arian king named Odoacer who subjected the catholic bishops' activities. Theodoric the Ostrogoth who was also an Arian king overthrew Odoacer in AD 493, and this prevented Catholic supremacy from being fully realized. As long as this Ostrogothic kingdom ruled, the less promising it looked for the church.

This copying and paste thing you are doing is not answering any of my questions.  Why do you keep saying Catholic supremacy?  The Roman Empire had a Roman Emperor (Not the Pope).   The Roman Emperor was the one who had the power.  Like I've been saying all along, the Pope (bishop of Rome) was/is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. 

And since you are bringing up the heresy of Arianism, do you know what Arianism is?  Are you saying that Arianism is orthodox belief?   Do you believe in Arianism?  I would have you know that Arianism[b] is the belief that Jesus and ‘God the Father’ are NOT one[/b].  Basically it was declared a heretical belief by the Church well before AD 539.  See below. 

Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250––336), a Christian priest, who was first ruled a heretic at the First Council of Nicea, later exonerated and then pronounced a heretic again after his death. Arius lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicted with other christological positions held by Church theologians (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches).

Is it co-incidental that exactly 1260 years after AD538 that the pope would have been killed in exile, and the church's property and possessions taken by Napolean Bonaparte? The Catholic church in 1798 was literally brought to its knees, and exposed for all the wrongs it had committed? John the apostle said that the beast would have received a deadly wound. In February of 1798 the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, and took the pope prisoner. The pope died in France shortly thereafter. Although a new pope was later elected, the papacy had lost its power. Its glory days were over; its supremacy had come to an end.

"The object of the French directory was the destruction of the pontifical government, as the irreconcilable enemy of the republic. . . . The aged pope [Pius VI] was summoned to surrender the temporal government; on his refusal, he was dragged from the altar. . . . His rings were torn from his fingers, and finally, after declaring the temporal power abolished, the victors carried the pope prisoner into Tuscany, whence he never returned (1798),  The territorial possessions of the clergy and monks were declared national property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place." - --George Trevor, Rome: From the Fall of the Western Empire (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1868), pp. 439, 440.

The above quote is not true. . . .the author of the quote is assuming that if the Pope is not in Rome or if he dies then the Church dies with him.  Its like saying, since Peter was the leader of the apostles, when he died the Church died with him.   Peter was captured by the Romans and crucified upside down.  According to you, since he was forcefully taken into custody and was crucified upside down the Church ended with him.  Or again, since Jesus is our God, when he died the Church died with him.   For the record, after Pope Pius VI, there was Pope Pius VII.   There have been many occurrences in the history of the Church where the Pope was subjected to maltreatment and forcefully taken into custody.  Just because the Pope is imprisoned or kidnapped does mean that there is not Catholic Church.  Let me post the list of Popes again, and it shows that in 1798 and in subsequent years there was a Pope.

# Leo XI (1605)
# Paul V (1605-21)
# Gregory XV (1621-23)
# Urban VIII (1623-44)
# Innocent X (1644-55)
# Alexander VII (1655-67)
# Clement IX (1667-69)
# Clement X (1670-76)
# Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
# Alexander VIII (1689-91)
# Innocent XII (1691-1700)
# Clement XI (1700-21)
# Innocent XIII (1721-24)
# Benedict XIII (1724-30)
# Clement XII (1730-40)
# Benedict XIV (1740-58)
# Clement XIII (1758-69)
# Clement XIV (1769-74)
# Pius VI (1775-99)
# Pius VII (1800-23)
# Leo XII (1823-29)
# Pius VIII (1829-30)
# Gregory XVI (1831-46)
# Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
# Leo XIII (1878-1903)
# St. Pius X (1903-14)
# Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
# Pius XI (1922-39)
# Pius XII (1939-58)
# Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
# Paul VI (1963-78)
# John Paul I (1978)
# John Paul II (1978-2005)
# Benedict XVI (2005—)

Daniel 7:25, "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."

The he refers to the little horn power that arose out of the 10 barbarian kingdoms after Rome's demise in AD476.

Daniel 7:25 is referring to the persecution of Antiochus IV and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways.  And it actually says “a time, two times a time, and half a time” (or a year, two years, and a half-year).  Basically, it says 3 ½ years or 1260 days and not 1260 years (as Bobbyaf and co are claiming).  We Catholics have the Old Testement Book of Maccabees and in the book it describes the actions of Antiochus IV towards the Jews and lines up with to Daniels prophecy.

1 Mc 2 - Not long after this, the king(Antiochus Epiphanes) sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God; also to profane the temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and that on Mount Gerizim to Zeus the Hospitable, as the inhabitants of the place requested, They also brought into the temple things that were forbidden, so that the altar was covered with abominable offerings prohibited by the laws. Moreover, at the monthly celebration of the king's birthday the Jews had, from bitter necessity, to partake of the sacrifices, and when the festival of Dionysus was celebrated, they were compelled to march in his procession, wearing wreaths of ivy. A man could not keep the sabbath or celebrate the traditional feasts, nor even admit that he was a Jew. At the suggestion of the citizens of Ptolemais, a decree was issued ordering the neighboring Greek cities to act in the same way against the Jews: oblige them to partake of the sacrifices, and put to death those who would not consent to adopt the customs of the Greeks. It was obvious, therefore, that disaster impended. Thus, two women who were arrested for having circumcised their children were publicly paraded about the city with their babies hanging at their breasts and then thrown down from the top of the city wall. Others, who had assembled in nearby caves to observe the sabbath in secret, were betrayed to Philip and all burned to death.

So, since this was the first time of me hearing about this 1260 year nonsense being pushed by Bobbyaf, I decided to google it and this is what I found:

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).

Furthermore:

Scholarly View of 3½ years, 1260, and 2300 Day Prophecy
Virtually all non-Adventist exegetes of Daniel, and some Adventist exegetes (such as Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell), believe that the 2300-day period(the 70th week in Daniel 9:26-27) refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes from the death of Onias III in 170 BC to the cleansing of the sanctuary in 164 BC(6 years[of 360 days each] and 140 days or 2300 days).[12] The "time and times and a half"(3½ years) in Daniel 7:25 and 12:7-11 refers to the last half of the 70th week/2300 days in Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 8:14 when Antiochus set up the altar of Zeus in the temple(abomination of desolation) and suspended the temple offerings from 167-164 BC

You still have not posted any sources or links to your stories. . . .The below is what I found on wikipedia.org and it gives a short explanation on what happened to the Ostrogoths.  The Catholic Church did not call a crusade to defeat them.  I told you before; the crusades were only called upon to defeat the Muslims in the middle east.  Go and read the history of the crusades.

So who influenced Justinian the eastern emperor in the first place to have crushed three separate Arian kingdoms that were from the original 10 barbarian kingdoms?

Look, I don’t know who all influenced Justinian (I’m sure many people did) to re-claim the western part of his empire that was overrun with Germanic tribes (what kind of question is that).  Oh, and please name these 10 kingdoms that were defeated by Justinian.

The point is there is no trace of these kingdoms anymore, and that is exactly what the prophecy said, that the Papacy by whatever means would have exterminated them just so it could rule for the time period allotted. There is no going around the events.

What!?  The reason why Germans speak Geman and have there own country, French speak French and have there own country, Spaniards speak Spanish and have there own country, etc., is because of the influence of these same Germanic tribes.  The cultures and languages of Europe are partly attributable to the Germanic tribes.  Therefore, there is a trace of there culture and kingdom.

Nothing has changed as far as the developments are concerned. I should have made a better comparison between the status the catholic church before AD538, and the same church between AD538 through AD1798. Please don't try to score points on my error because it really doesn't lessen the truth as to the role the catholic church played before the period and between the period.

Oya, post the comparison please. . . .

So where are the modern names for those three barbarian kingdoms may I ask? We can account for the continuation of the remaining 7, but the three Arian kingdoms that stood in the way of the church before AD538.

See above.  Again, Arianism is the heresy that claims Jesus and ‘God the Father’ are not one.  If you want to go ahead and believe that thats authentic Bible teaching, by all means.

Bobbyaf,

Don't you remember that they have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication?
They've become numb to the reality of truth due to their drunken state.
It's only those who are truly God's and are ordained unto salvation that will awake from their drunken stupor and face the reality of truth.

@ Omenuka

@Bobbyaf,

Sorry for not getting back sooner, lets go. . . .Oh, Lady thanks for the shout out.

That's the thing. . . .that's why I'm Catholic and you're not. I don't see any glaring variation between Catholic teaching and the Holy Scriptures. If I did I wouldn't be Catholic, now would I. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession, so if Paul were alive today and were to point to the Church founded by Jesus he would point towards the Catholic Church.

John was exactly right. You have been drunken with the harlot's wine. Only God can help you now.

* "Most Divine of all Heads."
* "Holy Father of Fathers."
* "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
* "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
* "Pastor of Pastors."
* "Christ by Unction."
* "Abraham by Patriachate."
* "Melchisedec in Order."
* "Moses in Authority."
* "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
* "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
* "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
* "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
* "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
* "Vicar of Christ."
* "Vicar of the Son of God."
* "Sovereign Priest."
* "Head of all the Holy Churches."
* "Chief of the Universal Church."
* "Bishop of Bishops."
* "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
* "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
* "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
* "Physician of Souls."
* "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
* "Infallible Pope."
* "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
* "Chief bridge maker"

I asked where did the list come from and you provided no link or source. So, I will assume the list was made up by some anti-catholic of sorts.

I thought you said you were familiar with both secular and church history. Tell you what ask of your priests the next time you attend mass, and let them sit you down and give you the whole drama. Just to let you in on a little secret the list was not made up.

I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are true and orthodox. How has the Catholic Church violated the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ. The priesthood was instituted by Jesus Christ by giving his disciples the authority to preach and lead in His name (Matt. 10:1,40;16:19; 18:18; Luke 9:1; 10:19; etc.).

None of those texts have given anyone the authority to forgive sins, or to have persons come before a priest to make confessions. Jesus Christ died to provide for the forgiveness of sins. Why would John say that if any man sins he has an advocate with the Father, the man Christ Jesus, if such an authority was given to the priests in the first place? Why is Jesus Christ High Priest in heaven making intercessions for our sins if He had already given sin-infested priests who themselves need cleansing such authority? When Jesus hung on the cross those who were in Jerusalem witnessed what the earthquake did to the Jewish temple. Those wicked priests saw the veil of the temple torn from top to bottom signifying that that system was now null and void.

Priests have what is called apostolic authority by way of apostolic succession which is exemplified in Acts 1:15-26. The first thing Peter does in that passage, after Jesus ascends into heaven, is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. He is given the authority to preach and lead, by way of the apostles. Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (Acts. 6:6, ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. By this way do we know that the bishops are the successors of the apostles.

Really now! Until they continue with the apostolic scriptural teachings they are none of His. Its all in your head.

As far as Mary being given the title 'queen of heaven', what Catholics mean by that is that she is the Queen Mother or "Gebirah"(1 Kings 2:18). In the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's (in our case Jesus Christ) followers.

So what! That has nothing to do with a dead woman whose bones have rotted long time ago.

Since we are brothers (and sisters) of Christ, she (the Blessed Virgin) is our mother by way of Chist as well (John 19:26). We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary intercedes on our behalf to her Son, Jesus Christ. Because she was most pure, we believe that her intercessory prayers (and those of other righteous people/saints alive and/or with Christ) have powerful effects (James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29). God hears the prayers of the righteous and upright.

Find the evidence that she never died and get back to me. All you have to go by is what the Catholics teach. Why would any of the apostles have ignored such an important event as that, seeing the the significance it would have played in our time? The Marian doctrine was made up hundreds of years after the apostles all died.

My friend, I can use the same scripture passage to describe you and your church. Paul may have said there will be a falling away, but this was not in regards to the Church because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

You're perfectly right, but the difference lies in what church Paul was addressing. Remove your blinders and check history once again as to who killed and maimed millions of Christians who refused RC traditions and who preferred reading the bible. Jesus knew exactly what His church stood for. Everything you do as an organization is designed to be the very opposite of what scripture teaches. I am more than able to list a host of variations if you care,

Like you, the Church preaches that many people will not accept God’s free gift of salvation. But, acknowledging that not everyone will be saved is not the same thing as saying the Church will be overcome by the evil one because if that were the case then Jesus' promise in Matt 16:18 would have all been for not, for he said:

Quote
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

We believe this Church is the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately there has been a gross misunderstanding of that passage above. Christ did not say that Peter was the rock. He said that he was a pebble, or small stone. The rock that Jesus referred to was what the Father prompted Peter to have said about Christ being the Son of the Living God. In that sentence lies the pure essence of salvation, that if we believe that Jesus was sent by God, and accept His sacrifice, then we shall be saved. Remember what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost before they were baptized? He said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, "

How could Peter have been that ROCK when soon after having said such a powerful statement that he would have turned to Christ to discourage Him from Calvary? Do you recall what Jesus said to Peter, "get thee hence Satan, " How could Peter be that ROCK when he denied His Lord at a time When he was needed? Was he the rock right there and then when Christ supposedly said that he was?

Oh, earlier you said that the 1st century bishops and priests of the Catholic Church aposticized. Now you are claiming that St. Ignatius (a first century bishop) was a good soldier of Christ. I’m assuming that this affirmation of yours stating that Ignatius was a “soldier of Christ” means that you believe he did not aposticize as you stated earler. Ok, well let me post some of Ignatius' writings in regards to what he believed and thought about the church at Rome (headed by the bishop of Rome aka the Pope).

"From IGNATIUS, whose other name is Theophorus: To her who has found mercy in the greatness of the All Highest Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, to the church beloved and enlightened in her love to our God Jesus Christ by the will of Him who wills all things; to the church holding chief place in the territories of the district of ROME--worthy of God, worthy of honour, blessing, praise, and success; worthy too in holiness, foremost in love, observing the law of Christ, and bearing the Father's name."

It was never your way to grudge anyone his success. You have been a SOURCE OF INSTRUCTION to others; all I want is for the principles which you expound by your teaching to hold good now

"However, I am not issuing orders to you, as though I were a Peter or a Paul. They were Apostles and I am a condemned criminal."

"Letter to the Romans." 107 AD

As you can see from the above quotes, St. Ignatius expressed high respect, honor, veneration, and deference towards the church at Rome. In the quote St. Ignatius alludes to the unique authority of the church at Rome and if he were alive today even he would know where the Church of Christ is; that is the Catholic Church.

I am certain that Ignatius was very much aware of the apostasy Paul spoke of. He having used the word church in his document doesn't necessarily mean he was addressing the Catholic church. There will always be two churches. One will be genuine, and one will be counterfeit.

Source please. . . .

Each time you post something in this thread how can you be sure its genuine? We all have our sources don't we?

I just posted the listing of Popes for that time period and showed you that Vigilius was the Pope in 539 AD and there was no break in the chain of succession. Where are you getting your information from? Are you saying that John was bishop in 539 and soon after there was no Pope. Or, are you saying before John became Pope there were no Popes. What time period did we not have a pope?

So why was there a scuffle over leadership? Why would Justinian have to choose one bishop over the other if as you say there has never been a break? Its obvious that several bishops had their eyes on the prize,

This copying and paste thing you are doing is not answering any of my questions. Why do you keep saying Catholic supremacy? The Roman Empire had a Roman Emperor (Not the Pope). The Roman Emperor was the one who had the power. Like I've been saying all along, the Pope (bishop of Rome) was/is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church.

That is exactly the point. The bishop wanted what the Caesars had, and whoever Justinian favored, being the last emperor would have gotten total supremacy for the church only after the three Arian kingdoms were completely removed from the map. History shows that after AD476 Rome started losing its power, despite Justinian's valiant attempt to restore the west . After Justinian there wasn't another emperor according to most historians. Revelation 13 says that the dragon, pagan Rome passed on its seat and authority to the beast the RCC.

And since you are bringing up the heresy of Arianism, do you know what Arianism is? Are you saying that Arianism is orthodox belief? Do you believe in Arianism? I would have you know that Arianism is the belief that Jesus and ‘God the Father’ are NOT one. Basically it was declared a heretical belief by the Church well before AD 539. See below.

I do not believe in Arianism, but there is something being taught by the RCC that is even worse, and that is Marianism.

Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250––336), a Christian priest, who was first ruled a heretic at the First Council of Nicea, later exonerated and then pronounced a heretic again after his death. Arius lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicted with other christological positions held by Church theologians (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches).

I studied systematic theology, and I am aware of the various theories about God.

The above quote is not true. . . .the author of the quote is assuming that if the Pope is not in Rome or if he dies then the Church dies with him. Its like saying, since Peter was the leader of the apostles, when he died the Church died with him.

Try as you may you cannot change history. The fact is the church's property and right to be the ruling church ceased to exist, if but only for awhile according to the prophecy.

Peter was captured by the Romans and crucified upside down. According to you, since he was forcefully taken into custody and was crucified upside down the Church ended with him.

We are not talking about Peter here. There is no comparison. Peter wasn't involved with politics and curruption as the church was. It took a secular monarch like Napolean to have seen right through the hypocracy of the RCC.

Or again, since Jesus is our God, when he died the Church died with him. For the record, after Pope Pius VI, there was Pope Pius VII. There have been many occurrences in the history of the Church where the Pope was subjected to maltreatment and forcefully taken into custody. Just because the Pope is imprisoned or kidnapped does mean that there is not Catholic Church. Let me post the list of Popes again, and it shows that in 1798 and in subsequent years there was a Pope.

You're missing the point, which is the church lost its power. It was not free to do as it did in violating the people's freedom. All its ill-gotten properties were taken away. It had nothing to scheme with. It was flat broke. No money no power, since that was all the leadership depended on.

By the way why was there 3 popes fighting for power? Is that what Christ commissioned the church to do?

Daniel 7:25 is referring to the persecution of Antiochus IV and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways.

Any smart grammar student would readily see the folly of your reasoning. Antiochus IV doesn't fit in that time prophecy which pointed to a power that would rise up after pagan Rome fell. I have told you before that if you line up the image in chapter 2, with the beast in chapter 7, you'd get a parallel. Since the iron naturally represents Rome, then its logical and truthful to think that the 4th beast in chapter 7 would represent Rome. After Rome's demise came up 10 smaller kingdoms of which 3 were destroyed by the little horm power using the Roman army to do its dirty work.

Remember what Daniel said would happen in the feet and toes of the image that were mixed with iron and clay? The 10 toes were a mixture of Iron and clay, meaning that some of the 10 kingdoms would have been stronger than some. Daniel predicted too that there would have been an attempt to unite the kingdoms, but the prophet was shown that that would have been impossible since iron and clay could not mix. Several attempts were made by kings and queens to re-form as it were a holy Roman empire. Through inter-marriage between royalties, sons and daughters of kings and queens were placed all around Europe to secure unity, but each one led to internal conflicts and murders.

What you're guilty of is private interpretation of prophecy. You cannot choose randomly other historical figures to try and throw off the truth of God's words. You must put all the pieces together so as to derive at the truth.

And it actually says “a time, two times a time, and half a time” (or a year, two years, and a half-year). Basically, it says 3 ½ years or 1260 days and not 1260 years (as Bobbyaf and co are claiming). We Catholics have the Old Testement Book of Maccabees and in the book it describes the actions of Antiochus IV towards the Jews and lines up with to Daniels prophecy.

Unfortunately it doesn't fit.

So, since this was the first time of me hearing about this 1260 year nonsense being pushed by Bobbyaf, I decided to google it and this is what I found:

I am glad you did because now you know how its done.


Quote

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.

Other sources say otherwise.

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]

If you were prepared to find out that this principle of prophetic understanding started way back before there was even 19th century churches. What one man expresses and is placed in a search engine doesn't mean anything. The weight of history is what counts. Below is proof that the principle of a day for a year in bible prophecy goes beyond what you think.

The day/year principle is an old principle already recognized by the Jews, even before the time of Christ.
However it was Abbot Joachim, of Floris, who in 1190, applied the day/year principle to the 1260 days.
His “disciple”, the scientist, physician, Villanova, agreed with Joachim and applied the year-day principle to the 2300 days as well. (Froom 1:751-752)

Francois du Jon (c.1545-1602), Huguenot leader, lawyer, theologian, preacher, gives his reason for the year-day principle:
"Daies is commonly taken as yeares, that God in this sort might shew the time to be short, and that the space of time is definitely set downe by Him in His counsaile. The daies must be reckoned for so many yeares, after the example of the Prophets Ezechiel and Daniel." (Francois du Ion, The Apocalyps, 1596 p. 124, cited by Froom 2:624.)

Georg Nigrinus (1530-1602), Evangelical theologian and teacher, and prolific exegete, chiefly on prophecy. In an argument dealing with the Jesuit arguments over the three and a half year (1260 days) Nigrinus cited Tertullians recognition of the fact that pagan Rome in his day was holding back the coming of Antichrist, Nigrinus discusses Antichrist’s allotted time period, and cites the verdict of the Bible:
"This Jesuit further contends that the papacy cannot be antichrist because the papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only 3 ½ years….But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of year-days, not literal days….The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1260 days, 1,2,½ times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year. (Nigrinus, "Antichrists Grundtliche Offenbarung" fils 28v,29r cited in Froom 2:328)

John Napier (1550-1617), distinguished Scottish mathematician, celebrated inventor of logarithms, introducer of the present use of the decimal point, inventor of a mechanical device for the performance of multiplication, division, and extraction of square and cube roots, says this about the year-day principle: "In propheticall dates of daies, weekes, monethes, and yeares, everie common propheticall day is taken for a yeare." (Froom 2:457.)

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.

However way you choose to see it the expression "evenings and mornings" still represent a day, just as Genesis says it is. In prophecy however God allows a day to symbolically represent a year, or how else would we be able to calculate time prophecy? Let me supply you an example to back up the day-year principle as used in scripture.

In Daniel 8 he receives a vision concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary which according to the prediction would have started at the end of 2300 days. If you were to count from the time Daniel was told by the angel in chapter 9 as to when the period would have started, which was BC457, then counting literally 2300 days after that starting period would not even see the reconstruction of the temple walls much less there being a sanctuary to be cleansed.

If you divide 2300 literal days by 360 days to deetrmine how many years we are talking about it would amount to less than 7 years. It took the Jews 49 years to have re-constructed the temple walls.

Think about it carefully. Was Daniel even referring to the earthly temple in the first place, and its cleansing? Certainly not, and if one takes the time to study Daniel 7 through 9 one will discover that God had spoken about a judgment in heaven, and for most of you who can't seem to put it together, its talking about the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary above, when Jesus Christ will blot out the sins from the books in heaven, while at the same time judge that little horn that persecuted His people, and blasphemed His temple and name. There are several sections in the bible that talk about the books being opened, and the thrones cast down. Everything ties in.

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.

That cannot be true because there is only one way to use the principle.

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).

It still wouldn't matter since what Christians imagined wouldn't necessarily affect the principle, and its application. Furthermore, the principle can only apply to prophecies that will only take place before the 2nd coming of Jesus.

temple(abomination of desolation) and suspended the temple offerings from 167-164 BC

Look, I don’t know who all influenced Justinian (I’m sure many people did) to re-claim the western part of his empire that was overrun with Germanic tribes (what kind of question is that). Oh, and please name these 10 kingdoms that were defeated by Justinian.

Only after you name the present day remnants of people who survived the the 3 Arian kingdoms. Not only that since you believe that these kingdoms were not completely then where are they today. I can account for the other 7.

What!? The reason why Germans speak Geman and have there own country, French speak French and have there own country, Spaniards speak Spanish and have there own country, etc., is because of the influence of these same Germanic tribes. The cultures and languages of Europe are partly attributable to the Germanic tribes. Therefore, there is a trace of there culture and kingdom.

It doesn't change the reality that there started out 10 kingdoms, and that we can still account for 7 of the 10, despite their modern languages having their roots in German. If you can find on any map today a place where 3 kingdoms once occupied, and that a modern nation has sprung up from them, then fine. Go ahead please,

Oya, post the comparison please. . . .

I explained all that already.

@ Ttalks

Bobbyaf,

Don't you remember that they have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication? Wink Grin
They've become numb to the reality of truth due to their drunken state.
It's only those who are truly God's and are ordained unto salvation that will awake from their drunken stupor and face the reality of truth. Wink

Exactly! The bible says that the god of this world has blinded them. It also says that God will send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie instead of the truth.