₦airaland Forum

@ Omenuko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Image123

@Bobbyaf and SirJohn what would you not give to win an argument.

And you're completely innocent of such a charge, correct?

You very well know that what ttalks said is wrong,but simply because I sat back,you backed it up.

What ttalks said is very true. Your sitting back had nothing to do with it!

Are you saying that you agree with what ttalks said?I need re-confirmation on this.

Isn't it obvious?

Its difficult explaining things to people who don't have it.If you had it,it would have been easier.

What is it we don't have?

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

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

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

@ lady

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would He state the obvious?

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

Did they?

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

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

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

Go through the thread and see my previous responses.

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

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

Sacred tradition are God's immutable words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ ttalks

Very well explained my friend. The idea that an angelic tongue means that Christians are communicating with God directly and privately is absurd to the nth degree. It is so nonsensical and baseless that I cringe at the thought of the idea.

There has been only one gift of tongues, or languages, which was first manifested at Pentecost when the disciples were able to speak other languages while speaking Hebrew. The emphasis was on what the hearers heard as in the case of the diasporic Jews who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of the passover and Pentecost all at once.

Back then there was a language barrier that had to be broken if the gospel were to be fully effective, but the disciples had no time to learn all languages, and received the gift naturally.

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

@ Christ4mi

So without the bible how else can you get to know about Christ, if you're going to allow some Moslems to misguide you.

Was St. Peter married?

@ Sir John

I'm sure apostle Paul will have a good laugh if he was alive to see what you wrote here Grin Grin Grin Grin. I advice you study the subject without bias; its obvious you just spewed out what you have heard off several pulpits and publications.
I'm very much interested in the 'tongues of men'; how come we don't see it in operation anywhere among the charismatics? its always the same gibberish you hear everywhere. I'm sure its the same thing you speak Image123:
"raba shakatalahaya, mando groshe, balaronsky latarabadoshka, eidosonshka laribonda lahate"
what other manifestation of tongues have you seen apart from this gibberish??

I second that! Besides, how have they come to associate "tongues of angels" with what is manifested in most of their churches, when I doubt if they have ever heard an angel speak before.

As you are aware tongues simply mean languages, and languages were meant to be understood as Paul hinted at in 1 Corinthians 14.

@ Image 123

@davidylan and bobbyaf
Do you have a biblical basis against this?Please,lets hear it if you do.

David will have to answer you on that, but as for me I do, but we were hoping to hear yours first for the definitions you gave the forum. We need for you to furnish some references to support your definitions.

@ davidylan

the above are your own explanations. Do you have a biblical basis for this?

You took the words out of my mouth.

I have read the pentecost story in the book of Acts of the Apostles (chapter 2)and when i got to verse 4, I got confused because the bible said ", began to talk in other languages, ". To the best of my knowledge, i feel that this means that religious men from other parts of the world (Egypt,Asia, Judaea,Arabia e.e.c) that were present in Jerusalem as at then heard the disciples speaking their own various languages(verse 11). I have observed that when people speak in tongues nowadays, they tend to do it in a particular format/manner which i believe is not representing any language. From the passage, i can conclude that as an Igbo guy, when the spirit comes upon me, then i'd be speaking in zulu or some other language. Am i right?, I need your corrections o!

Exactly! Tongue-speaking today isn't based on the teaching or practice of NT Christians. I am not quite sure how to explain it, and at the risk of seeming to graphic, I believe there is some other factor involved in the whole mechanism. If we are using the bible as a standard of truth and practice, then something is wrong.

I have been to quite a few Pentecostal meetings, and there is hardly a difference in format. As soon as the main service finishes, and the tarry service begins, hell breaks loose. Its nothing but confusion. Everyone is speaking in what is called tongues, and no regard is paid to scriptures, concerning the purpose of the gift.

@ Chukwudi44

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

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

Is it any clearer for you now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Chukwudi44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will see.

@ Chukwudi44

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

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

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

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

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

Did you study logic courses in school at ll?

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

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

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

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

Good try!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Omenuko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popes claiming to be God on Earth:

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

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

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


Those are just a few,

2) He blasphemes His tabernacle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go again, Bobbyaf, grave sins were committed by members of the Catholic Church and we continually pray for their souls and the souls of the persecuted. The Blessed Pope John Paul II has apologized on there behalf and has asked those who have been affected to find forgiveness and reconciliation.

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

Likewise, atrocities have been leveled on Catholic Christians by our brother non-catholic Christians during those same times.

Give the time and place if you please, and the circumstances that might have logically led to their persecutions. When you're done doing that I will give you mine. Besides, there can be no comparison between what Catholic leadership and members did to innocent bible-believing Christians who posed no threats at all, to Catholics who reaped their rightful judgments.

No one is innocent and I will ask you to stop preaching to the choir about “your so called loss” because of the past transgressions of members of the Catholic Church. You talk about the persecutions of members in Gods true Church, but yet you have not yet identified what Church tradition you follow

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

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

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

(e.i., the faith tradition you most readily identify with; and yes I said faith tradition). What Church do you belong to? If I were to guess, I would guess Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh day Adventist. Because only those churches have vivid imaginations and seemingly bend the Bible so that it could fit their wild Bible exegesis.

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

My friend, these are the saints (holy ones) in heaven. Are you saying that Mary is not in heaven (the Mother of God the Son) because her name is not mentioned in that passage? Why wouldn’t the Blessed Virgin Mary be in heaven? Your hate for all things Catholic has even biased you against the Mother of our Lord.

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

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

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

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

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

You say my hate for all things catholic has made me bias, and I say your love for all things pagan has clouded your spiritual eyesight. My words may seem graphic and strong, but they are true. The truth has an uncanny way of making people think, and I am sure that you Catholics have been thinking twice since you began reading these posts, correct?

In Catholic theology the woman in Revelation 12 is part of what we call fusion imagery/polyvalent (e.i., when one symbol is composed of elements from several different things) symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary. We would not disagree with you about ‘the woman’ symbolizing the Church. But the Catholic understanding is fuller and broader.

The Woman is Israel:
Because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. John takes these symbols from the book of Genesis 37:9–11. In the passage Joseph (the patriach) has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him (side not: notice how bowing down to Joseph is NOT a sign of worship, but is one of showing honor to whom honor is due). Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church:
Because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians. As Christians we are to follow the teachings of Christ by preaching and spreading the good news (the Gospel). We are to baptize believers into the Church thereby making them members of the Church. In the New Testament, Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the Church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27).

The Woman is Eve
Because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus. Catholics also call this passage the Protoevangelium (the First Gospel).

Sounds all fancy and nice, but still doesn't answer why the woman was left in the wilderness in the earth for 1260 years.

The Woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary
Because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

As was said the woman symbolizes God's pure church.

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. We call this typology, which is basically a system of interpretation by which certain events, images, and personages could be understood as prophetic ‘types’ or ‘figures’ foreshadowing the life of Christ.

This is catholic mumbo jumbo for trying to deceive the congregants.

Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict. Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

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

As far as your claim about the ‘time, and times, and a half time’ being 1260 literal years I addressed this earlier. Please stop putting your wrong interpretations before what the bible actually says. If you believe it is 1260 literals years prove it using the Bible.

All bible-believing Christians have used the day-year principle for prophecy studies. If the principle applies to some prophecies, it applies to all, including the one revealing your organization. When God called Ezekiel to prophesy against Israel he appointed him 1 day for a year.

I will go into more details next time.

@ Chukwudi44

@bobbybaff,

since you believe so much in martin luther,why dont you stick to his version of the bible which removed the books of revelation and James.The you can be rest assured that you can be saved by faith alone.since you believe that the RCC is the the harlot mentioned in the bible ,reading her bible might mean you are drinking the wine of her fornication.Abi can you eat from a smelling pot without getting poisoned?

You must be comical, or something! Hahahhahahahaha, you're making me crack up with laughter. Listen Martin Luther was not perfect even though he started making efforts to reform the RCC. Rahab was a harlot but because of the step of faith she took, she was placed in the hall of fame of righteous persons.

Mon ami, vous etes tres simple,

@ Mad Max

@Bobbyaf
Well,I know nothing about prophecy. But I was baptised and raised Catholic. It took varying time spans but every member of my family voluntarily departed from Catholism, without being urged by a soul. God's been in the business of delivering people a long time. No doubt he is more than capable of leading individuals to Himself,including Catholics.

And others by the millions are likewise following suit, especially ever since the sex scandals that is still rocking the organization to date.

Well, if you're interested in seeing prophecy fulfilled in front of your very eyes I'd be glad to share some websites with you. In the mean time here is a prophecy video that you will definitely find interesting.

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

@ Lady

The true Church of God would not be able to be surpressed, it was to be a light on the hill, light doesn't hide, it doesn't get surpressed. If the true Church got surpressed, Christ was lying.

Is persecuted a better word? So who were those bible-believing Christians who were burnt at the stake may I ask? Who were those Christians that were tied up in dungeons to rot for their faith? Who were those Christians who were torn apart on the racks? Who were those Christian mothers who had their unborn cut from their bodies? Who were those Christian children and wives who were fed with their father's flesh? Were they Roman Catholics? Listen carefully Lady you have not the slightest clue as to what God's true church went through during the middle ages. Now let me give you some biblical proof from John's words as to what God's church will pass through before reaching heaven:

Revelation 7:9-14
"9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. 11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

By the way you noticed nothing was mentioned of Mary,

Revelation 12:13,14 say, "13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 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."

As was mentioned to you before that woman in prophecy means church, God's true church in this sense. It was shown clearly that for 1260 literal years which is symbolized by the expression time, and times, and half a time

How did the prophet say she would be persecuted? 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

Water in prophecy means people in accordance with Revelation 17:15 "And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the LovePeddler sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."

The dragon represented pagan Rome which passed its authority to papal Rome. In other words the popes replaced the Caesars whose doctrines were rejected by the true church that was persecuted for not paying homage to edicts and dogmas. This LovePeddler which sits on top of the waters controls the nations today as it did then. This great apostate movement called the Roman Catholic church cannot hide because history is there to reveal what she did in the past, while prophecy is there to reveal what she intends to do in the future. Your own pope confessed to the persecutions.

If the Catholic Church did not infallibly define the books of the Bible, then the Bible isn't infallible.

No one is infallible but God. Not even the apostles claimed infallibility. As I have said before on more than one occasions, that God used people from the RCC to have collated and put together a canonized standard of the scriptures. If there were no scriptures there could have been no canonization in the first place, but that does change the fact that the RCC in general is an apostate movement.

The New Testament books were not written to be scripture. Therefore when the Church defined the books of the Bible as scripture, She infallibly did so, or else the Bible wouldn't be infallible.

When St. Paul said that all scripture is given by inspiration of God what was he talking about? The parchments, and apostolic letters are all scriptures. Anything that is written is called scripture. I thought you knew that. The only difference is that these scriptures came about by inspiration. The minds of men were illuminated by God's Spirit to have written down what God inspired them to.

Factually the apostles taught Purgatory. I will only present to you biblical passages, but also keep in mind that the successors of the apostles in their writings also acknowledged prayer for the dead because of their stay in purgatory.

I am not interested in what successors had to say. I only go by what inspired writers had to say by way of the scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15: 29
Otherwise what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why having them baptized for them?

To give a background of what is going on in this chapter. Paul is disputing the heresies of no resurrection of the dead. But notice that he mentions baptism for the dead. The normal protestant view is that once you're dead, you're going to hell or to heaven, no purgatory, but we know that in heaven one wouldn't need baptism because they are already saved, and in hell one cannot be saved, so no baptism there. So why would Paul speak of baptism for the dead? Why would the dead need baptism? There's no hope for them after deat right?

On my part I don't believe that people after death go to heaven, or hell. I won't necessarily dwell on that aspect of things at this time in point though. I will deal directly with 1 Corinthians 15:9. With that said it is extremely important to read Paul's words in context. It is also important to realize that Corinth was riddled with pagan concepts that tended to influence Christians just like how stuff can influence Christians today.

Notice something here, Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, ", if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Why would Paul refer to they? Why would Paul say, "if the dead are not raised, " when he was 100% certain of the resurrection. In previous verses before these he mentions the reality of the Christian's resurrection. Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead? However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans,  Let's take a look.

Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."

The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized."  It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED. It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."

This passage also proves that baptism is salvific, it is not just merely symbolic, as several other passages state also

The act of baptism is not salvivic. No one can be saved by baptism alone.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
10 According to the grace of God given to you, likewise a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how h builds upon it. 11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ 12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, r straw 13 the work of each will come to light, for the day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage 15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved but only as through fire.

How would you interpret the above passage?

I prefer quoting from the KJV which says,

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Actually it is pretty straight forward. Paul is talking about the gospel ministry that he is involved in. He is saying that those who come after him should take heed not to add what will not strengthen the ministry, and each addition's true colors will be revealed after being tested. He's not ruling out those failed cases because God uses difficult circumstances at times to save each and everyone of us.

first of all it says "he went and preached to the spirits in prison" so Jesus did go to preach to thoe who were in the land of the dead.

The grammar didn't say that.

second, what spirit was used by Christ in the past?
How many spirits did Christ use? Did he use a different spirit while he was alive or what? explain that to me.

There is only one Spirit of God that has been convicting men to follow God. What Peter was saying is that this same Spirit that quickened Christ, or as it were brought back life to Christ, was the same Spirit that appealed to the antediluvians.

In Genesis 6:3 it says, "3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Bear in mind that in other verses Peter made mention of the world that was destroyed by a flood. He referenced that event to show that God's Spirit that appealed to the people before the flood is the same Spirit that quickened Christ from the dead. Logically Jesus was not yet manifested in the flesh at the time of the flood, but His Spirit was very much apart of plan of salvation in convicting the world then and now to repent.

You see the bible does not and cannot contradict itself. The teaching of Christ and His apostles clearly state that after death comes the judgment. There can be no more repentance in the grave. Why would Paul say in quoting the scriptures, "today if you hear my voice harden not your hearts" "Now is the day of salvation" if he knew that if a person died whose sins were not forgiven by God, could be placed in purgatory to be given another chance.

The whole idea of the teachings of Christ and His apostles/Disciples was to call people to repentance before it was too late.

third, that verse proves that their probabtion wouldn't have been closed there and then, that verse proves your point to be false. If it was closed they wouldn't have been saved. Notice that is says "eight souls were saved by water" they were saved after their death. You assume that you hold the correct position when you say that their probabtion had been closed there and then. That verse is telling you that you are wrong.

The 8 people mentioned were Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives who were the only righteous ones left from the flood. My argument was not addressing them, but those who refused to enter the ark of safety.

You assume that no one can be saved even after death, that verse is telling you that 8 people were saved after death. You saw what you wanted to see, you didn't see the truth here.

And that is because they were saved from the flood, as well as when they died. They were righteous before the Lord.

So instead of taking what you believe and inserting it into the Bible, let the Bible tell you what it is actually saying. The problem is that protestants already have constructed what they believe and anything contrary would be wrong, therefore their interpretation of the Bible must fit their belief and not their belief fitting the Bible, it doesn't work that way. In this interpretation you contradicted the Bible verse.

I'd advise you to take a serious look at what the RCC has done in adding and subtracting from the very bible they canonized. All those things that we have pointed out to you have fallen on deaf ears it seems.

@ Lady

If you trust the Roman Catholic Church to have infallibly defined the books of the New Testament what makes you think we got the Old Testament wrong?

Circumstantially, the true church of God was suppressed under Catholic rule, hence God used good scholars from the catholic church to have simply collated scriptures, but that is all they did, and I wouldn't say it was done infallibly either.

FYI, the apocrypha were not taken out by the Jews until after the death of Jesus Christ. The book Christ himself studied and quoted from includes the deuterocanonical books known to you as the apocrypha.

There is no proof of that.

Do you mind telling me what the sacraments are?

I believe we both know them, so save the fora the trouble.

Purgatory is in the Bible, go and actually read your Bible, and don't just browse through it like a magazine or read it to see what you want to see, ask God to open your eyes. Purgatory is in the Bible dear.
So what are you supposed to do? Bad works?

Factually, that doctrine was invented by the RCC. None of the apostles of Christ, or Christ Himself taught it. It is a fabrication invented by the church to have robbed poor people of their hard-earned money. That doctrine was associated with the indulgencies.

And yet Christ himself had to descend unto the place of the dead to release the souls in prison, I pray thee what is that place?

I am not surprised that you would have said that, but unfortunately, the verses in question say no such thing. By the way I was hoping you'd have quoted the passage as support. Let me do what you have failed to do and that is to show scriptural references.


1 Peter 3:18-20
18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

This has been one of the most misunderstood passages in the bible, largely because people tend to take out of context what was being said, or they usually fail to capture the grammatical syntax. If you read the grammar carefully you'd notice that it didn't say Christ went to preach, but rather that the Spirit by which He was quickened, was once used by Christ in the past , to reach out to the antediluvian. Their spirits were disobedient it says in those days, and not that the Spirit of God, or Christ after His death was now dealing with those persons who had already died.

Logically speaking if those antediluvians were rejected by God before, then why would God have to go in search after their souls, since their probabtion would have been closed there and then. The bible teaches that after a person dies the judgment follows which is a universal principle that isn't affected by time lines.

First of all we don't worship Mary and the saints, secondly, why did the God command that no graven image should be made of everything in heaven or hell or on the earth, and then command that an image of the cherubim be constructed for the ark and that moses should raise a bronze serpent in the desert and that the Isrealites should look up to it and they will be saved, and why did Christ say that he is like the serpent that was raised, why would he be like a graven image?

The difference lies in God's own motives for commanding those constructions. Moses was directly under God's instructions. God knows however, that when men make graven images outside of His instructions and supervision, their intentions are different. How else would we be justified in denouncing pagan images and icons if it were ok for all and sundry to up and make images for their own purposes?

Let me prove to you that Mary is worshipped, for if she weren't then Catholic leaders would not have placed her in such high esteem by teaching what Christ, nor His apostles have never taught The scriptures say "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

To assume that she is now queen of heaven, and co-redemtrix without one ounce of biblical proof is tantamount to Marian worship.

Amen. Are you angry because you think Mary doesn't pray for you, don't worry she does pray for you and she loves you. And yes Jesus wants you to stop disrespecting him by disrespecting his mother.

Only if I thought for one second that she wasn't in her grave awaiting the last trump. My anger rests with the level of deception that has gripped you and those who think like you. Its called holy indignation.

It is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a false cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:

1. Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19)

2. Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)

They believe purgatory is a place where a person is purified of sins – even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says, when a person dies their eternal home is sealed – heaven or hell – there is no place in between like purgatory. (Hebrews 9:27) The word "purgatory" and its concept is not found in the Bible.


They believe in worshiping images of Mary, crucifix, saints, angels, etc. The Bible speaks out against this. (Exodus 20:4-5)


They believe in repetitious prayer to Mary, saints and angels. The complete Rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed. The Rosary did not come into general use until after the beginning of the thirteenth century, and not officially sanctioned until after the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The concept of praying to Mary, saints, and angels is not found in the Bible; on the contrary, we are directed to pray to our Father. (Matthew 6:9-13) In the Rosary, Mary is prayed to almost 9 times for every prayer directed to God. The Bible speaks out very clearly against praying in vain repetitions as the heathens do.

In "The Holy Father's Prayer for the Marian Year [1987]," John Paul II asks Mary to do what only God can do – comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect "the whole of humanity , " His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation." (4/97, Berean Call).

A Roman Catholic ritual for selling a home - Put a statue of St. Joseph in a bottle or mason jar and bury it in the front yard (head first), thereby guaranteeing a quick sale of the home. After the sale, the seller is to dig up St. Joseph, put him in a prominent place in the new residence, and pray to him (Mother Angelica, EWTN Catholic TV, 10/95).

And it continues,

I find all this both serious and humorous all at once.

@ Lady

oh so that's what you were talking about. I used the plural "you". You Bobbyaf was standing for all protestants at that point.  Grin

You certainly have developed the art of excusing yourself when you obviously made an error. If I am standing for all protestants according to you, then logically I should be the one invited by you to debate, since it was in my thread you raised the issue as to whether or not protestantism is biblical.

When it became clear to you that truth was being unfolded right before your eyes you thought of a way of escape, but alas, you have been discovered. 

@ lady

When I made the other statemen I already started the thread, which states that only one protestant is needed. But I see you posted there anyway, and I obliged to respond to you. But please have respect for the thread, and the readers. I don't want it derailed with rubbish and insults from protestants and catholics as well. That's why I initially wanted only one protestant posting. I also didn't want redundancy which tends to happen with more than one poster from each side, and that makes a thread boring, I want it to be invigorating and fruitful. I want people to learn from it.

I am trying hard to really make sense of the above.

I'd say this much about the Witnesses, that they are good people in general, but have been misled by their organization. In their attempt to be different it has made them look extremely exclusive, both socially and spiritually.

@ Chukwudi44

DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT GOD USED EVIL BISHOPS TO SELECT THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.WHERE WHERE THE "TRUE" CHRISTIANS ,WHERE THEY ALL SLEEPING.HOW ARE YOU SURE THAT THIS BOOKS ARE NOT EVIL .WHY DONT YOU BELEIVE THE NOVEL CALLED DA VINCI CODE

That is your interpretation of what I am saying, but allow me to enlighten you. Everyone knows that the RCC as an organization does not represent God's truth and saving grace, but despite that, He God still has His people within its walls that He is able to use to at least maintain some semblance of sanity.

An example would be Martin Luther. He began reforming the obvious ills and evils within the organization, something your blind eyes have not been able to see.

@ chukwudi44

your denomination will make me know yhat am cctually communicating wit a "true" christian.ALSO PLEASE RE-INTEPPRETE DANIEL'S PROPHECY OR SHOW ME WHERE U SAW 1260 YRS

I am a Christian and that is all you need to know for now. Sorry!

@ lady

@Bobbyaf, may I start a thread about it? I have so much to ask you

You have so much to ask me yet I must only follow, and not post?

You're something else lady.

@ chukwudi44

@bobbybaff
my man nane ur church .For christ's sake whatz wrong wit that.Iam still waiting for u to re-inteprete prophet daniel's prophecy based on 1260 days or you show me where you saw the duration of 1260 yrs in the bible

Obviously you have not been reading my postings in this thread. I'd advise you to go through the earlier part of the thread and you'll find the answers you are searching for. Why does it matter to you as to what denomination I belong to? Does that have any bearing on you personally?