₦airaland Forum

@All, Greetings,

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it seems that the Vatican (per Cardinal Arinze) has said for the Hebrew name for God 'YHWH' is not to be used during certain situations and conditions (i.e., during liturgy, and in song and prayer).  It does not say we should not use or speak his name at all.  In other words, Catholics are asked to not use YHWH (Yahweh) during worship, prayer and song.  It seems to me that outside these specific situations we may use this name for God (without breaking the 2nd Commandment of course).  Also, I think they maybe issuing this in keeping with our older brothers in the faith (aka the Jews).

‘Yahweh’ not to be used in liturgy, songs and prayers, Cardinal Arinze says

Vatican City, Sep 3, 2008 (CNA) - The Hebrew name for God is not to be used or pronounced in liturgical celebrations, songs and prayers, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has said in a letter addressed to the bishops’ conferences of the world.

In addition, this applies only to Catholics and not to other faith traditions, be it non-Catholic Christian, Hindu, Islam, etc.  So, I don't know what all the GRA GRA about the Catholic Church trying to control the world is coming from.  The reason for him issuing this request is because the name YHWH is very important in understanding Christ.  The tetragrammoton, YHWH, can be translated as Adonai, Kyrios, Lord, Senor, etc.  In other words, the name 'Lord' can be used interchangeably for the God of Israel (the Old Testament) and for Jesus Christ (Messiah).  It seems to me that Cardinal Arinze and the Vatican does not wish for the faithful to distinguish between the God of Israel and our Lord Jesus Christ; when as Christian we are to seem them as one (just my understanding).     

This translation tradition has importance for understanding Christ, the cardinal explains, since the title “Lord” in fact “becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith.”
Cardinal Arinze particularly cites St. Paul’s writings in the Letter to the Philippians, in which he wrote: “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name… every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

My 2 cents,

@Uplawal, Greetings,

Why do you consider what you posted idolatry?  Can you break down the prayer you posted and give biblical reasons of why you think its wrong. For those who may not know, the poem uplawal posted is in regards to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to her son and Lord, Jesus Christ.  It seems like you were not grounded in your faith (I'm presuming you were Catholic) and am saddened that you left the Church, but if you are stronger in faith and love for Christ in your current journey, then we thank God. I'm Catholic myself. The below is a poem that was written by a daughter to her mother (Mother's day and all); would you consider it idolatry?

Super Mom

Mom, you're a wonderful mother,
So gentle, yet so strong.
The many ways you show you care
Always make me feel I belong.

You're patient when I'm foolish;
You give guidance when I ask;
It seems you can do most anything;
You're the master of every task.

You're a dependable source of comfort;
You're my cushion when I fall.
You help in times of trouble;
You support me whenever I call.

I love you more than you know;
You have my total respect.
If I had my choice of mothers,
You'd be the one I'd select!

By Joanna Fuchs

@Bobbyaf,

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

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

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

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

@Bobbyaf,

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

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

@Bobbyaf and co

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More support:

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

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

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

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

Some youtube videos on the falsehoods of Seventh Day Adventism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popes claiming to be God on Earth:

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

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

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

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

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

Those are just a few,

2) He blasphemes His tabernacle,

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

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

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

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

You posted

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

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

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

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

@Bobbyaf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lady, I'm enjoying your write-ups,

@Bobbyaff

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 children and wives who were fed with their father's flesh? . . . . Listen carefully Lady you have not the slightest clue as to what God's true church went through during the middle ages.

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

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,

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.

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.

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).

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

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).

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. 

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).

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.

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.

You are correct in interpreting this passage as foreshadowing the persecution of Christians.  How you come to the conclusion that Pagan Rome passed its authority to the Catholic Church of Rome is still yet to be proven.  Please prove to us that Pagan Rome passed its authority to the Church of Rome.  And please provide credible sources and not anti-catholic website sources.  My friend, history is there to prove the truth. . . .the Catholic Church as nothing to hide.  Our pope apologized for the transgressions of members of the Catholic Church.  I feel that was a very Christian thing to do.  Yet, you still have not posted anything regarding the persecutions that Catholics went through (in many respects are currently experiencing) during those same times.

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.

Uh, my friend, for the apostles to write scripture they had to be infallible otherwise the scriptures wouldn’t be the word of God.  The Church has to be infallible for them to discern the canon of scripture.  I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of infallibility.  The only way one can be infallible is with the help of God.  The apostles were infallible when they wrote the New Testament.  The apostles were infallible when they were preaching the Gospel.  Infallibility does not mean impeccability (e.i., impeccability is the absence of sin. Catholics believe this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will and nature) and therefore also an attribute of Christ).

Infallibility is not the absence of sin.  The apostles were with sin, but taught infallibly.  Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope.  It does not mean they cannot make mistakes.  Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).  You may disagree, fine, but this teaching is rooted in scripture.

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.

Are you saying that every letter that St. Paul wrote in regards to the faith is scripture?  I would have you know that there are letters attributed to St. Paul that are not part of the canon of the Bible.  Are you saying that those letters are inspired and should be considered scripture?  The same applies to all the apostles. . . .are you saying that all the letters that the apostles wrote should be considered scripture.  If you answer anything, I would like for you to answer this.

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.

I believe Lady has addressed this passage.  And quite frankly, I really don’t want to hear your personal opinion of where we go after death.  If you can prove using the Bible where we go after death, by all means, prove it.  But keep you personal feelings and assumptions to one side and what the Bible teaches to another.  Personally I’ll stick to what the Bible says and what the Church has taught and believed since the earliest days.

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

I think you misunderstand what Baptism is. In John 3:5 Jesus says “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”  When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism.  The term “born again” does not totally convey what is happening and is not a good translation of the Greek, gennatha anothen, in John 3:5.  A better translation is “born from above”. 

The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34).  This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism:  We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

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.

The question is not who are the 8 people. . . .the question is where did Jesus go?  And the Bible clearly states where he goes and why.

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."

@No2Atheism,

And to buttress Chukwudi44's point further, even you agree that the 'Trinity' is implied and not explicit. . . .check your post below:

hence by your logic,

God Almighty was lying by His "[size=20pt]implication[/size]" when He said ,

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Also by your logic,

Christ Himself was also lying by His "[size=20pt]implication[/size]" when He said ,

Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.

@No2Atheism

hence by your logic,

God Almighty was lying by His "implication" when He said ,

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Also by your logic,

Christ Himself was also lying by His "implication" when He said ,

Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.

My friend, it be like say you no know the difference between the words 'implied' and 'explicit'.  No one is saying the the trinity is not taught in the Bible.  What Chukwudi44 is saying is that the doctrine of the 'Trinity' is taught in the Bible, but it is only implied and not explicitly taught.  For Christ's sake, the word 'Trinity' is not even in the Bible.

im⋅ply
   /ɪmˈplaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-plahy] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply⋅ing.
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.

ex⋅plic⋅it
   /ɪkˈsplɪsɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-splis-it] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.

@bobbyaff and co,

You people's hypocrisy is so blatant and disgusting and shows your ignorance inregards to what you don't know about the history of Christianity and the development of the core doctrines of the faith (e.g., the trinity, the two natures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints, the Eucharist, etc.).  You fail to even try to understand why certain aspects of the Catholic faith are practiced.  Instead of going to the source (Catholic sources) with your questions and assumptions, you go to the most anti-catholic websites and post garbage.  You don't question what they have on there sites and swallow the information whole.  Still, bobbyaff has not told us what faith tradition he belongs to and continues to cut and paste nonsense from anti-catholic websites without bothering to check the validity of such information.  He wants to throw stones and fails to understand that his own house is made of glass.  Its because of people like you (bobbyaff et al), that we Christians look like idiots when dialoging with athiest, muslims, and non-christians.  Your fundamentalist bent on not opening your mind is unbecoming.    

@Lady
I say open a new thread and ask your questions. . . . . i'll participate

@asha 80

Valentine gba kwa oku Angry .Umu asa n'acho onye ha ga eri nku ya Lips sealed

lol, nwanne, coolu kwa down o. Kedu ihe umu nwaanyi mere gi?

@Bobbyaf,

Since you keep harping on Daniel 7 (I've already explained) and 8, lets discuss the latter.  I'll start. . . .

Daniel 8:4-9

4 I saw the ram butting toward the west, north, and south.  NO beast could withstand it or be rescued from its power: it did what it pleased and became very powerful.  5 I was reflecting, a he-goat with a prominent horn on its forehead suddenly came from the west across the whole earth without touching the ground.  6 It approached the two-horned ram I had seen standing by the river, and rushed toward it with savage force. 7 I saw it attack the ram with furious blows when they met, and break both its horns.  It threw the ram, which had not the force to withstand it, to the ground, and trampled upon it; and no one could rescue it from power.  8 the he-goat became very powerful, but at the height of its power the great horn [/b]was shattered, and in its place came up four others, facing the four winds of heaven. 9 Out of one of them came a [b]little horn which kept growing toward the south, the east, and the glorious country.

So, the vision is of a ram (with two great horns) and of a he-goat (with one great horn initially).  This vision seems to be related to the vision in Daniel 7, though in more explicit fashion.  In regards to the he-goat, the great horn is shattered and in its place came up four others (still referring to the he-goat).  Out of one of the four came a little horn that became very powerful.  Lets continue. . . .

Daniel 8:20

The two-horned ram you saw represents the kings of the Medes and Persians. 21 The he-goat is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn on its forehead is the first king.  22 The four that rose in its place when it was broken are the four kingdoms that will issue from his nation, but without his strength.

Now, as we can see from the above passage the identities of the two animals (e.i., the ram and he-goat) are revealed.  The ram and its two horns represent the kingdoms of Medes and Persia and the he-goat represents the kingdom of Greece and the great horn on its head represents their first king (Alexander the Great).  After he (Alexander the Great) is broken four kingdoms issue from his nation ( Kingdom of Ptolemy I Soter, Kingdom of Cassander, Kingdom of Lysimachus, Kingdom of Seleucus I Nicator; Bobbyaf go and check the history books).  After the fall of Alexander the Great (the greatest of the kindoms/horns) his kingdom was divided into four smaller kingdoms; the Seleucid Empire being one of them. The Seleucid Empire was centered in the near East and at the height of its power included central Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, today's Turkmenistan, Pamir and parts of Pakistan. It was a major center of Hellenistic culture which maintained the preeminence of Greek customs and where a Greek-speaking Macedonian elite dominated, mostly in the urban areas.The 'little horn' discussed in Daniel 8:9 is Antiochus IV and the glorious country is Palestine.  This is the same 'little horn' discussed in Daniel 7.  Again most scholars agree that Antiochus IV is the little horn presented in Daniel 7:8 and 8:9, see below: 

A strong scholarly consensus, as well as most Jewish and Christian commentaries hold that the "little horn" refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, since he came from the Seleucid empire, which was one of the four empires that came to power after Alexander died. He seized the Seleucid Kingdom "through intrigue", took away the 'daily sacrifice' (Tamid) in 167 BC, and committed the 'abomination of desolation'. He made it illegal to follow the Judaic laws, with the penalty of death. The temple was reconsecrated in 164 BC, 2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days, from the time Antiochus began his persecution of the Jews (167-164 BC).

When Time Shall be No More By Paul S. Boyer, pp. 28-31

Will continue. . . .

@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.

@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. . . .

@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.

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. . . .

@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. . . .

Brethren Greetings,

@Bobbyaf

Its very late over here, just came back from hanging with friends. But before we continue, I just want to ask where are you getting these quotes? Are you just copying and pasting them from another site or are they a result of your research and study. Many of the quotes that you are posting (the ones portraying Catholics) seem to be out of context.

Hello All,

Posted by: Bobbyaf

Christ taught that no man should be called Father on earth for there is one Father above, yet the change came when the RCC referred to their priests as Fathers. Some are even referred to as "Holy Father"

Did you bother to read what you just posted or did you cut and paste this from somewhere else?  How is the practice of calling priests father against the teachings of the Bible?  If you’re referring to Mt 23:8-10 (see below) then you are taking that passage out of context. 

Mt 23:8-10 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

If this passage was meant to be taken literally, then we all offend the Scripture. We all have used "father" to designate our birth father; and "teacher," our instructors at school.  The meaning of that scripture is that no person should be given the respect and honor due ultimately to God the Father.  The title “Holy Father” is only a title and refers to the office of the Pope and not necessarily the person himself.  The Pope occupies the chair of Peter (the leader of the Apostles and the first Pope) and because of that we refer to him as “Holy Father”.  The adjective ‘Holy’ is also used as titles for other prominent figures and people within the Church.  In many cases the word “Saint” is used, which means the same thing as ‘Holy” (e.g., Saint Theresa, Saint Martin, Saint whoever).  Catholic Christians call the priests “father with the same sense understood by Paul (see below).

1 Cor 4:14-16 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

1 Thess 2:11-12 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

You posted:

What difference does it make? If you are having problems with, and can barely handle what is revealed, can you imagine the kind of remarks and excuses you'd be making now, on top of what you're already making? Why speculate about what was not revealed? It doesn't help to wonder what might have been, does it?

Well, we Catholics don’t see it as speculation, but rather revealed truth.  What many people don’t realize is that the Church uses Sacred Tradition (that oral Tradition handed down to us from the apostles) to interpret Sacred Scripture (with the help of the Holy Spirit).

You posted:

The church for your information comprises both clergy and laity. The clergy's job is to act as a guide, and an example to its members in reading and studying the bible. All the catholic church did was to stifle people's attempt to understand the bible. Have you forgotten so quickly what some were burnt to the stake? It was simply because they read the bible.

Although there has been grave wrongs committed by members of the Catholic Church, I would have you know that some of the greatest Biblical scholars (I would even say the greatest Biblical scholars) were Catholics (e.g., St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Cardinal Newman, and the list goes on and on).  For you to say that the Catholic Church stifled people’s attempt to understand the Bible full stop, is nonsense.  Like I said above, although there were many wrongs committed by members of the Church, the mere fact that you believe the Bible is the Word of God is because of the Catholic Church.

You posted:

All the church did was to translate to some extent from the original autographs, and even those translations had their inbuilt biases. In fact I'd go further to say that for most of the centuries, referred to as the Dark Ages, only the priests were allowed to understand and interpret the bible. Most were done in the Latin Vulgate which the ordinary people could not understand.  Priests and friars were thus able to rob the people of the little that they possessed through indulgences. These poor people had to pay in order to secure their loved ones' removal from purgatory.

The Catholic Church safe guarded the writings of the apostles, transcribed them, translated them into the vernacular (Latin), and compiled them into the present day canon of the Bible.  My friend, give the Catholics more credit than what you are giving.  Latin was the vernacular of Europe for sometime.  Most of the European languages are based on Latin.  The masses were not totally clueless about the scriptures (give them credit).  In addition, during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) the learned were mostly the ones who could read before the invention of the printing press.  Even if Bibles were made in all the various vernaculars and dialects of Europe, it would have been no use because not everyone could read.  The topic of selling indulgences for gain was very wrong and I’m sure God will punish those who participated in that wrong doing.

Will continue later. . . .

Greetings,

Posted by: Bobbyaf

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

What you posted above is partly true.  Yes the magisterium of the Church (the Pope and bishops in communion with him) has been given the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition.  We Catholics believe that this authority has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.  This authority in interpreting the Word of God is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16 - Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.)

This authority does not give the bishops the right to create doctrine and dogma at whim.  The bishops are not meant to be above the Word of God.  On the contrary, they are meant to be its servants and are only to be concerned with teaching what has been handed down (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) on to it.  They are to listen to, guard with dedication and expound it faithfully (with the help of the Holy Spirit).  All that is part of our belief is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

These are you questions:

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

The source of authority to interpret the Word of God and Sacred Tradition is Jesus Christ Himself.

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

No human being has the right to teach simply because the Pope, or prelate says so.  The magisterium and the faithful united with it are to teach, protect, and propagate the teachings handed down to us from the apostles (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, lay people (the faithful) have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.

Case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

What you posted above is not true.  This is what we believe about the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.  The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians."

966 Catechism of the Catholic Church

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

No…we accept the teachings by way of faith.  Interesting dialogue. . . .it seems like there are a lot of misconceptions that need to be cleared up.  To Bobbyaf et al, I will try to address some of you all's concerns.  I might say though, a lot of what you guys (Bobbyaf et al) are saying has been addressed before.  In short, if you google these same arguments you will readily find answers (Catholic ones) to them.  But, I guess it doesn't hurt to discuss them here.  Peace. . . .

@OLAADEGBU

This is basically talking about the rewards and loss of believers' works, otherwise called the judgment of works taking place in heaven between the Rapture and the second advent and the result would be either a reward or a loss of their works but not of the loss of  their souls for any wrong doings that they have properly confessed and have been forgiven.

Lol. . . .and they say we Catholics are in the business of making up doctrine.  No where in that passage does it talk about rapture (huh), judgment in heaven, or the second advent.  Lets look at verse 15

1 Corinthians 3: 15

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.  Bible (RSV)

It says: the person will suffer loss and will be saved (the operative word here is will, not is or has been saved) . . . .Note also, it doesn't say that the person is in heaven, or between the rapture (what ever that is) and the second advent.  You are right in regards to the final place of where the person will be (heaven), but before he enters heaven he will suffer loss.  You read too much into the passage by entering such things as rapture (?), second advent, and such.

@Carlosien

omenuko (abi na aloy Grin), Our last papa is already a saint in heaven. we just need some clarifications for the skeptics (and they abound).

i love(d) that man to pieces. he was my name sake too you know. Karol Wojtyla.

Yes o. . . .I know he dey for heaven, I admired him so much. Our current holy father is also doing good things for the Church.

Hey all,

Mine are St. Martin de Porres, St. Aloysius (my namesake), and Blessed John Paul II (although technically he hasn't been declared a saint yet).

You say you know by logic that God exists, so tell me what the nature of your God is, is your God perfect or just a prime mover?
Tell me about your God.

I don't understand your questions. This thread is about purgatory, not what type of God I believe in. It seems like you are trying to formulate theological questions without first discussing the existence of God. Start another thread and ask 'Does God Exist?'. There is no point in discussing what type of nature God is without first establishing that there is a God. In any event, start a new thread if you want to discuss how we Christians understand God.

So I take it, you do not believe in a "higher power".

@Mad_Max

I never said purgatory was implied. I was talking to the lady who said it was. I was wondering why everything else is explicitly taught, but only purgatory is 'implied'.

Fair enough. . . .please, provide your interpretation of the Bible verses she posted.

@Chrisbenogor

I love it when people posses the finese to sidestep issues and focus on other things.
I will try to keep this focused, I asked you if as an engineer you can design and ignore gravity, it is not about people agreeing to something, can we ignore gravity without dire consequences?
I am not disputing that many people believe there is a God in that same vain at least be honest not for me but for people reading this as an engineer can one ignore gravity?
Later we can talk about rationalizing about God's existence.
Please I need your supports on the claim that your God exists and your supports that life after death exists.

Nna bros, sidestep gini? I've been answering all your questions. I started out by saying, one cannot prove the existence of God or the afterlife. We believers believe in a God because of our interactions with him (i.e., miracles, goodness, evil, life, nature, death, love, hate). Just as I fill impelled to accept the concept of gravity because of its logic, likewise I have a belief in a higher being because it is very logical and human. I believe the act of wanting to know and grow in knowledge of our creator is part of the human psyche. I feel it is that (wanting to know God) that separates us from lower animals. You're right, as an engineer there is no way I can ignore the realness of gravity. But just because it seems so real doesn't mean it is truth beyond doubt. Who knows, we may wake up tomorrow and they (scientists) may discover that it is another phenomenon that causes us to stay grounded on earth and the moon in orbit. New discoveries are made every day that reshape how we understand our world and universe. Like I said before, gravity is seemingly true until another theory comes about that supersedes it.

@Mad_Max

The problem is, this deals with a man's fate after he is dead. There cannot be room for error,and the scales are really terrible:all of eternity.So a teaching like purgatory has to be very.very clear,and absolutely certain. The Bible might imply some things,but it doesn't imply important things like sin and salvation, the way to be saved, the fate of a man after death. It expressly teaches these things. It talks of heaven and hell. If there were a limbo place in between, it would plainly say so. That the bible implies some things doesn't mean it implies everything, or that it implies this one. Perhaps it exists,perhaps it doesn't. If it does, it has to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. So far, it hasn't. It's easy to back Heaven and Hell with verses. Anyone can flip open a Bible and see it.  Purgatory alone is implied and needs the Holy Spirit to be seen in the Bible. Come now.

My friend, to Catholics and early Christians purgatory exists.  You yourself acknolwedge that purgatory is implied, whats the problem?  The Catholic Church teaches this about purgatory:

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.  The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The above definition summerizes the biblical verses that Lady posted earlier.  It is very clear what the verses mean.  If you disagree with her interpretation of those verses; then, please ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and give us your interpretation of those passages.  If not, stop blowing hot air and 'bruha ha'ing all over the place.

@Chrisbenogor

Surely you know your reply about gravity is biased, I will not ask you to prove that there is a life after death, that will be too big for you to do.
Just support your claim that life after death exists with anything that will be agreed by everyone regardless of race and religion and do well to state the nature of life after death.
As for gravity I will support it with one simple evidence there is there anything you have designed without putting gravity into consideration? At least even muslims and christians will all agree that the value of g on earth is about 9.8 m/s.
Waiting for your support

I don't understand what you are saying or asking.  Are you saying that since most people agree that gravity is 9.8 m/s that it must be true.  My brother, like I said before it is only a theory and stating that gravity is 9.8 m/s does not constitute a proof of gravity.  Personally, I believe there is such a thing as gravity because of our empirical evidence for it.  Likewise I believe in God (and heaven and hell) because of our empirical evidence of Gods existence.  If I told you that over seventy percent (most humans) of the worlds inhabitants believe in an afterlife does that make it true?  Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Taoists, those who practice African religion, et al. believe in an afterlife. . . .so, according to you, that must mean it has to be true.  Like I said before, I don't understand how any intelligent person can rationalize the non-existence of a creator.  Look, most people believe in God(s) and express that in many ways.  As a Christian, I believe we have the fullest knowledge of who God really is.  If you are asking me to prove that there is an afterlife, than I would ask that you refer to the Bible and the teachings of the Church.  One cannot come to believe in God and the afterlife without the person first acting on the grace God has given him/her.  And also, it is only through faith can one believe.  Of course we can use science to sharpen and describe our belief in God, but it is only through faith (by the grace of God) can one come to this conclusion.

The mother off christianity in the western world (New world) is the Roman catholic. All religious denomination are splinter group of the Roman Catholic church and thus should be refered to as sects or cult.The Roman Catholic got the name from the ancient Egiptian, Sphinx known to the early european invaders as the Holy cat which they refered to as Cat holistic or Catholic. Holy cat, Cat Holistic to Catholics.The point is that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhism and all others, are perpetrating a fraud and are guilty of misrepresentation for the simple fact that they refuse to give due recognition to the source of their teaching, Egipt. Not the Egipt you see today in north eastern Africa and not the impersonators who reside there today, but pre-dynastic Egipt, which birthed the 46 dynasties.This is where all these religious doctines, churches, mosques, Synagogues, freemasonary, chapel, science, Magic, Logdes etc, etc get the teachings and stories from. And today this is spoon fed back to the people in the form of religion as if the as the originators of these things the teach, in so doing lying and deceiving the whole world, especially the Negroids(the black woolly hair people) whose ancestors are the deities mention in the religions be it in Torah, Bible or your Koran.

from mazaje

Horus what is this?

Exactly, sounds like more nonsense. I like how this guy posts this 'all over the board' piece and doesn't explain what it means, doesn't name the source, and makes up words (i.e., Cat Holistic). . . lol, come on. If you post something, try to make sure it makes sense. Scratch that, try to make sure that it makes sense to other people, because I swear. . . .i be like say some people dey for there own world and can rationalize anything without critical analysis and/or research. I'm sure this guy copied this from some wacko internet site and thought it interesting to paste here. Ara ga gba ndi ara, chai.

@naijaguy77

What an utterly shocking question. Of course there is proof that gravity exists, if there was no gravity you would be floating in space not glued to the earth, if there was no gravity the moon would drift away, if there was no gravity the earth would not revolve around the sun and we would have no solar system, no seasons, no day and night, and no time.

I do wonder sometimes the quality of education you get in Nigeria school. Shocking.

Is that what you call proof, my friend go and sit down I beg.  I can do the same thing.  Of course there is proof that God (and thus heaven) exists, if there was no God you would not exist and you wouldn't be here talking to me about the scientific theory of gravity (NOTE, it is a theory, better known as the Theory of Gravitation).  A theory I believe to be true because of our emperical knowledge of it.  Just as I believe God to be true because of our empirical knowledge of Him.  For one to believe in one and not the other is, well, simple minded.  Also note, I schooled in the US (obodo yankee) and am an engineer.  So, I did not have the pleasure of attending any award winning academic institutions in Naija. But I digress.

If there was no God there would be no moon (talk less of it drifting away sans the existence of gravity), if there was no God there would be no earth (talk less of it revolving around the sun), and there would be no solar systems (talk less of our solar system), no seasons, no day or night, and no time.  See, I can do the same thing.  My friend, this is not proof.  We only have empirical means of understanding our existence and how it relates to our environment.  The theory of gravitation is just has the name implies, a theory.  Using the same means one can come to a closer understanding of our existence in a higher sense (the existence of a creator).  When studying the creation of the universe (e.g., the big bang theory, emphasis on theory) one may quite easily conclude that a higher being may be the originator. I really don't understand how atheist can rationalize the non-existence of a supreme being (i.e., a creator). Even after experiencing and observing the complexities of the world.  Just look at the human body and how complex it is; its amazing how much the human body can do.  I normally error on the side of science when it comes to super natural things (I'm scientific by nature and profession), but for atheist to rationalize or un-rationalize the existence of God, chai. . . .nah that one be there own wahala.  Chukwu me anyi ebere.

Meanwhile, about purgatory, the Catholic church had since declared purgatory non-gospel. The vatican had declared that they were in fact wrong and that there really is no purgatory, just like they one day will tell all their slavish followers that there is no heaven, no hell, and no holy spirit. The blind leading the blinded.

LOL, na story story be that, No such thing has happened.  Show your source.  The Catholic Church has professed the existence of purgatory since the birth of the Church.

@mazaje

prove that heaven or aljannah exist. . . . . .

We can't prove that heaven exists (aljannah?). . . .we accept it by faith (by the grace of God), and not by reason.  Whats your point?  Prove that gravity exist.