analice107:


The Antchrist wont be a Chriatian or Catholic. The Antichrist will be an atheist. the world's atheists right now are his recruits.

I thought u guy already concluded this issue and agreed d pope is d antichrist.

Ubenedictus:
I thought u guy already concluded this issue and agreed d pope is d antichrist.

No.
The Catholic organization is operating under the Influence and Power of the SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST. Meaning working to promote and project the New World Order. And the office of the Pope shall be the position for the False Prophet to the PERSON OF THE ANTICHRIST. He shall galvanize the entire world into one religion(Check the activities of the Popes recently).

In the church he will form, you won't need to stop being who you were. You are a Muslim? welcome. Are you gay? welcome, Are you Hindu? Welcome. keep being who were, but accept the GUY as the one on top of all. The only people he have issues with will be the ones who will keep insisting that he "The Antichrist is not God", and those will be the Christians (The Left behinds)

The SPIRIT of the Antichrist is well at work right now, but the PERSON OF THE ANTICHRIST wont appear until Christ raptures his church and the Holy Spirit gets out of the way.

analice107:


No.
The Catholic organization is operating under the Influence and Power of the SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST. Meaning working to promote and project the New World Order. And the office of the Pope shall be the position for the False Prophet to the PERSON OF THE ANTICHRIST. He shall galvanize the entire world into one religion(Check the activities of the Popes recently).

In the church he will form, you won't need to stop being who you were. You are a Muslim? welcome. Are you gay? welcome, Are you Hindu? Welcome. keep being who were, but accept the GUY as the one on top of all. The only people he have issues with will be the ones who will keep insisting that he "The Antichrist is not God", and those will be the Christians (The Left behinds)

The SPIRIT of the Antichrist is well at work right now, but the PERSON OF THE ANTICHRIST wont appear until Christ raptures his church and the Holy Spirit gets out of the way.

HEHEHE D PERSON AND D SPIRIT, VERY FUNNY.

Ubenedictus:
HEHEHE D PERSON AND D SPIRIT, VERY FUNNY.

Eschatology is lost on you. The Catholic Church wont open that expect of Christianity to you just so that you wont ask serious questions.

Enjoy yourself, it wont be long now, we shall all die, then we will find out.

Ubenedictus:
HEHEHE D PERSON AND D SPIRIT, VERY FUNNY.

Eschatology is lost on you.


The Catholic Church wont open that expect of Christianity to you just so that you wont ask serious questions.

Enjoy yourself, it wont be long now, we shall all die, then we will find out.

analice107:

Eschatology is lost on you.


The Catholic Church wont open that expect of Christianity to you just so that you wont ask serious questions.

Enjoy yourself, it wont be long now, we shall all die, then we will find out.

We originated the branch of theology called eschatology, true eschatology had been around long before the phenomenon called prostestanism.

that part has long been opened but as usual u and ur fellow protestants have come up with ur false interpretation. are u aware dat protestanism has over 3 different and contradictory teachings on end times?

sorry dear, we've been around long before u guys, we know ur teachings are new invention AKA END TIME HERESY that the bible phophesied about.

do u even know that the early protestants didnt believe in rapture? do u even know d 1st person to teach d false doctrine called rapture?

d end of d world wil come, b4 dat evil wil control d world nd persecute d church, christ wil come back but no rapture.

Y'all gotta know.

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Rev. 14:9-11

And you can be sure that the other prophecies in the Bible are happening and will continue to happen just exactly as the Bible stated them.

DoctorAlien:
analice107,

Moreover, when the papacy reigned supreme in the Dark Ages, no power could withstand him. No monarch dared challenge the pope. To do so was to be quickly deposed. You now understand.

Pope wey King of France kidnap am so that he can keep a close eye on am.

“Your venerable stupidness may know, that we are nobody’s vassal in temporal matters.”

—Philip IV, King of France

Imagine a man more powerful than the President of the United States. Imagine that this man is above the law, beyond reproach. This man and his office have controlled tens of millions of people for centuries. Priests and princes are under his spell, obeying nearly every command. Emperors kneel before him, desperate for approval and a temporal crown that only this man can bestow. Imagine a man that is not only the judge, jury, and executioner of everyone on his lands, but also determines the afterlife fate of your very soul.

Now imagine the man that kidnaps him.

http://constructionlitmag.com/culture/philip-iv-takes-down-the-church/

King Philip IV dealt with the Pope anyhow anyhow and the pope couldn't do nada.

The same papacy that was also attacked and imprison in 1527 by the forces of Charles V of HRE.

PastorAIO:


Pope wey King of France kidnap am so that he can keep a close eye on am.




http://constructionlitmag.com/culture/philip-iv-takes-down-the-church/

King Philip IV dealt with the Pope anyhow anyhow and the pope couldn't do nada.

The same papacy that was also attacked and imprison in 1527 by the forces of Charles V of HRE.

It's true that Philip IV captured and later released Boniface VIII, and that the grip of the Papacy on Europe began to wane towards the 16th century, but it removes nothing from the fact that from the 6th century to late 18th is recognized as a period of papal domination of Europe, when princes and monarchs conformed to the dictates of the Pope. The Pope still directly or indirectly influenced monarchs to do his will, even in the 16th century in which the armies of Charles V sacked Rome. A testimony to that is the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

So therefore the pope was not and has never been as all powerful as you claim it to be. Furthermore the papacy held sway over Western Europe. Where does the Greek Orthodox or Russian orthodox churches fit into your scheme? Where does Islam which ruled over the Spainish peninsula fit in? Abi Spain is no longer a part of Europe?

I'll leave aside the fact that your belief is so obviously Eurocentric.

And finally the st Bartholomew's day massacre had nothing to do with the papacy even though it was part of a catholic vs Protestant conflict. The order was given by queen Catherine di Medici.

DoctorAlien:


It's true that Philip IV captured and later released Boniface VIII, and that the grip of the Papacy on Europe began to wane towards the 16th century, but it removes nothing from the fact that from the 6th century to late 18th is recognized as a period of papal domination of Europe, when princes and monarchs conformed to the dictates of the Pope. The Pope still directly or indirectly influenced monarchs to do his will, even in the 16th century in which the armies of Charles V sacked Rome. A testimony to that is the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

PastorAIO:
So therefore the pope was not and has never been as all powerful as you claim it to be. Furthermore the papacy held sway over Western Europe. Where does the Greek Orthodox or Russian orthodox churches fit into your scheme? Where does Islam which ruled over the Spainish peninsula fit in? Abi Spain is no longer a part of Europe?

I'll leave aside the fact that your belief is so obviously Eurocentric.

And finally the st Bartholomew's day massacre had nothing to do with the papacy even though it was part of a catholic vs Protestant conflict. The order was given by queen Catherine di Medici.

If I tell you that the Papacy infact established Islam for their own selfish reasons, and even controls Islam today, you'd probably dismiss it as propaganda. But events in the near future will reveal the Papacy's true character.

It is common knowledge that Europe was in the Pope's grip, until late 18th century. Europe, anyway, is central to Biblical Prophecy.

Without evidence to support the claim I will do more than call it propaganda, I will dismiss it as a baseless delusion.


No, it is not common knowledge that Europe is in the popes grip. That is not how you support a claim, you don't just say it is common knowledge, you provide evidence.

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the points I made to counter your claims.

What does the bible say about the anti Christ? That his power would wane towards the 18th century? How does anything you are saying fit into the history of the Catholic Church?

DoctorAlien:


If I tell you that the Papacy infact established Islam for their own selfish reasons, and even controls Islam today, you'd probably dismiss it as propaganda. But events in the near future will reveal the Papacy's true character.

It is common knowledge that Europe was in the Pope's grip, until late 18th century. Europe, anyway, is central to Biblical Prophecy.

PastorAIO:
Without evidence to support the claim I will do more than call it propaganda, I will dismiss it as a baseless delusion.


No, it is not common knowledge that Europe is in the popes grip. That is not how you support a claim, you don't just say it is common knowledge, you provide evidence.

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the points I made to counter your claims.

What does the bible say about the anti Christ? That his power would wane towards the 18th century? How does anything you are saying fit into the history of the Catholic Church?

You made no points to counter my claim. You only cited the struggle between Philip IV and Boniface VIII. The article in the OP establishes the rise of the Papacy to power from the time of Constantine.

Click on the link I provided on the first page of this thread. Only quote me after you must have read the article. The answers to your questions are in that article.

DoctorAlien:


You made no points to counter my claim. You only cited the struggle between Philip IV and Boniface VIII. The article in the OP establishes the rise of the Papacy to power from the time of Constantine.

Click on the link I provided on the first page of this thread. Only quote me after you must have read the article. The answers to your questions are in that article.

I said that Phillip IV dealt with the pope. Now if you don't know that's a point against the notion that the pope had absolute power and no one could stand up to him then I'll back out of this thread cos it won't be worth my while.

Did your article mention the ecclesiastical conflicts between the various centres of roman oethodox Christianity? I.e. The conflicts between Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople? Did it mention the great schism where the church split into Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox? Where does the absolute power of the papacy fit into that?

Was the Roman pope more powerful than Emperor Constantine himself, or any of the Nyzantine emperors for that matter?

Was the Roman pope more powerful than Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor?

Have you heard about the political factions in medieval Europe called the Ghibellines and the Guelfs? What did you article tell you about them? What was going on there?

The Guelphs and Ghibellines (/ɡwɛlfs/; /ˈɡɪbɪlaɪnz/, also US: /ˈɡɪbəliːnz/, /ˈɡɪbələnz/; Italian: guelfi e ghibellini [ˈɡwɛlfi e ɡɡibelˈliːni]) were factions supporting the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, respectively, in the Italian city-states of central and northern Italy. During the 12th and 13th centuries, rivalry between these two parties formed a particularly important aspect of the internal politics of medieval Italy. The struggle for power between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire had arisen with the Investiture Controversy, which began in 1075 and ended with the Concordat of Worms in 1122. The division between the Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, however, persisted until the 15th century.


---Wikipedia

PastorAIO:



I said that Phillip IV dealt with the pope. Now if you don't know that's a point against the notion that the pope had absolute power and no one could stand up to him then I'll back out of this thread cos it won't be worth my while.

Did your article mention the ecclesiastical conflicts between the various centres of roman oethodox Christianity? I.e. The conflicts between Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople? Did it mention the great schism where the church split into Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox? Where does the absolute power of the papacy fit into that?

Was the Roman pope more powerful than Emperor Constantine himself, or any of the Nyzantine emperors for that matter?

Was the Roman pope more powerful than Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor?

Have you heard about the political factions in medieval Europe called the Ghibellines and the Guelfs? What did you article tell you about them? What was going on there?

help me ask am