Welcome to Gaia! ::

Here's my response. I wrote it in 3 or 4 (can't remember) sections and posted them seperately, so ignore the random "I'm back!" and "goodbye for now!" comments.



Ok, I’m going to try addressing your post line by line.




The first error is found here. The author says that he allowed the bible to unlock itself and reveal the meaning of its own symbols. This makes it sound as if the bible was the only source used. Such a use of scriptures is inherently flawed. Remember that the scriptures were not written for us. They were written for completely different audiences living in a different time and who had different views about the world and about God. Now, I do not deny that the scriptures are useful and that they do still apply to us, but they must be read in context, taking into account both historical events and cultural norms of the time. The bible itself does not include all of these norms, though some can undoubtedly be revealed by reading the entire bible from a anthropological standpoint.
This is especially important when looking at apocalyptic literature, since many symbols were used in order to hide the meaning from those the book was not meant for. For example, the number 7 is used many times in the book of Revelations in order to indicate perfection, since 7 was considered a perfect number. Remember, the Lamb (aka Jesus) was said to have 7 heads. Without taking into account the cultural and theological significance of the number 7, much of the symbolism found within Revelations is missed.



You are correct in saying that the beast maintains both political and religious power, however Revelations 13:4 makes no reference to combining these powers. It simply states that images of the first beast will be made and the people will be forced to worship the beast.
Now, if you take into account historical context, you’ll notice that this is exactly what the Romans, specifically Nero, were doing at the time. They were creating statues of themselves and asking the people to worship those statues and the Roman Emperor.



How does rising out of the sea equate to densely populated areas?
Again, let’s look at this from a historical context. Now we all know that the Christian faith grew out of Judaism. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that the authors of the New Testament, who mostly grew up in the Jewish faith, shared the same cultural view points of the Jews (at least early on). Now, at this time, the Jewish people had not mastered the sea. They would go out and fish and whatnot, but that was about it. The Jewish people did not use sea routes to trade, but rather went by land. Because of this, the sea was seen as a mysterious, unknown, and possibly even dangerous place.
It is more likely then, that the imagery of the beast rising from the sea was meant to instill a sense of mystery, rather than to indicate a specific location.



Ok.



Ok, let’s look at those verses in context, shall we?

3One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
5The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. 6He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

So, first of all, your math is a little off. 40 and 2 months (aka 42 months) is 3 ½ years, not 1260 years. The number you have given is completely fallacious and is in no way supported by scripture. I’m surprised that no one else has pointed this out yet.

Second of all, verse 3 states that there was a fatal wound and then a recovery. Verse 5 states that he reigned for 42 months. This particular section of Revelations seems to be arranged chronologically, so it’s safe to assume that the wound happened first and the 3 and ½ years of authority followed that event.

Third, if you look to verse 8, John clarifies that not everyone worships the beast, that the ones who’s names are in the book of life do not worship him, therefore he does not have absolute dominion, though no one would argue that his dominion is still plenty strong.

As you can see, all three points made in this particular point are fallacious. The beast did not rule for 1260 years, the beast was not wounded after his time of dominion, but rather before, and though he ruled many, many people, there were still many people who did not follow him, which were those written in the Lamb’s book of life (presumably referring to early Christians).

Now, again, let’s look at history.
Nero Caesar’s persecution of the Christians is a fact of history. Tacitus, a non-Christian historian, links the torture of the Christians with an even in 64 AD. Though I do not claim that this proves Nero is the antichrist, it is an odd coincidence that such an important historical even in the persecution of Christians was between 3 and 4 years before Nero’s reign ended.



Again, 1260 years is a fallacious number.
From the previous point made on this site, it seems clear to me that the author wishes to insinuate that the beast was the Catholic Church and that, after 1260 years, it was “wounded” by the Protestant reformation.
However, as I have already stated, The wound occurred before the reign of the beast and the reign was described as being 3 ½ years long, not 1260 years long. The author is falsifying evidence in order to reach an erroneous conclusion.



Ok.
Again, I think I know where you’re going with this and I think it would be absurd to say that people marveled at the survival of the Catholic Church.
I also think it would be absurd to refer to the Protestant Reformation as a “fatal wound” to the Catholic Church. The only wound that the Church may have received would be loss of members, but this is hardly a wound that we have fully recovered from. If this were the wound Revelations speaks of, in order to fully recover, we would have to eliminate the Protestant Churches and convince all of them to become Catholic. I think it’s pretty obvious that this didn’t happen.



Again, you’re only partially correct.
The verse says that it is the number of a person, not that it is the number of an office. Interestingly enough, Nero Caesar’s name translated into numbers as such and whatnot adds up to 666. Coincidence? Maybe, but they sure are starting to add up, aren’t they?



Partially correct. The beast does indeed blaspheme, claiming to be a god. (note: he does not claim to be the Christian God. He does illicit worship, which is equivalent to pretending to be a god, but he never claims to take on the role of God.)
However, nowhere in Revelations does it claim that the beast is granting false absolutions. You’ll notice that this is one of the few verses that does not have a citation. Why? There isn’t one. There is no place in Revelations that links the beast to granting absolution.
In fact, absolution at the hands of man is not something promoted by the devil, but by Christ himself. John 20:21-23 (more citations)



Again, this is only partially correct. The beast did indeed make many blasphemous claims, but scripture does not state that the beast takes actions that are only supposed to be taken by God. Revelations speaks of words, not actions.



But only if you falsify scriptures, take things out of context, and make numerous incorrect assumptions about the Catholic Church.
Believe me, you are not the only one who has suggested that the Catholics Church is the antichrist. Many before you have said it and their points were refuted. I myself participated in refuting the points of someone who made this same claim here on Gaia a little more than a year ago. This was over 60 pages of debate that essentially consisted of myself and several others (some of whom were not even Catholic) shooting down every claim he made. The reason this took 60 pages was because the OC kept repeating already refuted claims and bringing new claims into the argument that we also refuted. Not one point remained standing.
As I hope to demonstrate to you in my refutation of all the points made in this wall of text, the Catholic Church is not the antichrist spoken of in Revelations (or anywhere else in scripture for that matter).



I hope that I can provide you with facts in my rebuttal. Undoubtedly, they are not the facts you are looking for. They do not condemn the Catholic Church, but rather show that it is innocent of these charges which are being made against it.
I also want to point out the flaw in this author’s “encouragement”. He is not encouraging the readers to look for facts about the Catholic faith or to form an unbiased search. He is advocating searching for evidence that we are guilty of this claim. If that is the evidence you search for, that is the evidence you will find. Any evidence can be bent to serve any purpose, provided one is willing to bend it and believe what the tampered evidence indicates, no matter how far fetched that indication might be.
I encourage you not to look for evidence on both sides of the argument. I hope I can supply you with plenty of evidence to our innocence here and perhaps even supply you with some sites that will help further educate you on what the Catholic Church believes and why we believe that.

The site that I already posted (www.scripturecatholic.com) is likely to be the most helpful for you and other Protestants, since it takes the only source you trust (the bible) to show how our beliefs stem from that. However, do not expect it to be 100% comprehensive. Catholic doctrine rests on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This site only covers one of those.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found here. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm This source is basically the guide book for all Catholic doctrine. It sites scripture, councils, Church Fathers, and more while explaining in depth what Catholics believe and why.
www.catholic.com also has some fantastic apologetics on various beliefs of the Catholic Church, especially those beliefs that are called into question the most.
http://fisheaters.com/ is another apostolic site that explains Catholicism to audiences of Catholics, soon to be Catholics, and Protestants. (as in there are sections dedicated to informing each category of people about things they are likely unaware of and probably have an interest in)
www.cin.org and http://fisheaters.com/ are other Catholic apologetic sites. I have not fully explored them myself, but what I have seen has been very helpful.

Search for your own evidence by reading not only the works of those who support your opinion, but of those who contest it as well. Only when you look at both sides of the issue can you find the truth.

I would love to continue this rebuttal, but I need to shower and go to Church, so it will have to wait for another time. (I hope 5 pages in a Word document will satisfy you for now) Rest assured, I will be back.
Peace and Love


Second instillation



I’m going to hold you to this claim. Each identifier must either be a true identifier (I have already established that several of the claimed identifiers do not match up with scripture) and it must point EXCLUSIVELY (aka this is the only one it points to. No others fit the identifier) to the Catholic Church. It also must actually point to the Catholic Church.

Let’s continue . . . .



Ah, but as we have already established, the combination of religion and politics is not necessarily the identifier, simply the presence of both.

Now, the Catholic Church does indeed hold both political and religious power, but it is not the political and religious power that the beast is said to have in Revelations.

The religious power of the beast includes the worship of the beast. The Church is certainly not worshiped, so this particular kind of religious power is obviously not held by them.
The political power is also not that of the Beast. Remember, the beast’s political power expands over all nations and all people. While the Church’s religious power does indeed expand this far, its political power doesn’t even extend into Rome. The Vatican is a city state and, outside of that small area, the Catholic Church has no political power.

Note that it is very important to point out the little things here because the beast has a lot of similarities with the figure of Christ in this book. The reason for this is that the beast is mocking Christ. Christ’s followers hold religious power, as do the beast’s followers. The difference is in the type of religion, not in the fact that religion exists within that faction. Just as both Christ’s followers are marked by the name of the lamb on their foreheads, the beast’s followers are marked by the beast’s name on their foreheads. Just as Jesus is described as a lamb, so is the second beast.

Now, I would like to address the point made prior to this. The author claimed that all identifiers could point to only one culprit. However, using the identifier that he has provided, we can see that the Anglican Church, the Romans (esp Nero), Nebuchadnezzar II, and the ancient Egyptians are all guilty of combining religion and politics.

To sum up: The identifier provided by the author is both incorrect and incomplete. When we correct it, we see that the Roman Church does not fit.
Who does fit? Nero. (Wow, that name just keeps popping up as the possible antichrist. What a coincidence!)
However, when we use the incorrect version of the identifier, we can find many examples, rather than just one as the author claimed. Either he is ignorant of history or willfully choosing to leave out facts in order to deceive the reader. I’m really not to fond of either of those, but I desperately hope it’s the first one.



Whoa. Stop. Now you’re combining prophecies that were never meant to be combined. Revelations was not written as an extension of the book of Daniel, but as it’s own work. If you wish to speak about what Revelations says, speak about revelations. If you wish to speak about what Daniel says, speak about Daniel. However, to use Daniel’s words as a support for John’s would be as ludicrous as using C.S. Lewis’s words to support Tolken’s. Yes, they both wrote fantasy books, but just because two books fall in the same genre doesn’t mean that they are parallels of each other.
Daniel and John both wrote apocalyptic texts, but there is no reason to infer that they were meant to be parallels of each other.

So, let’s omit that part about the book of Daniel for now and just look at what comes from Revelations. Indeed, there is a woman. However, women were not used to symbolize a Church in the Old Testament. They symbolized a nation: Israel. There are, in fact, no mention of Churches anywhere in the Old Testament. God’s people are not members of a Church. They are a nation.
Even in the New Testament, where the Church is called a woman, the woman is not referred to as a whore or unfaithful in anyway. She is the faithful wife of Christ.
So, there are two metaphors for women in the bible: the whore and the faithful wife. The whore represents a nation, while the faithful wife represents the Church.
The woman spoken of in chapter 17 of Revelations is a whore. Who then does it appear she would be most likely to be? A nation or a church?

Now, as from the verse taken from Daniel, the author has again misrepresented what the bible verse says (gee, this seems to be happening a lot!).
Daniel 7:19Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
The fourth beast is diverse from the other three beasts. It also speaks of the beast being made of iron and brass.
These symbols refer to Nebuchadrezzar II. link



Again, we see another problem. Before you can claim that the antichrist John is warning us about is chillin’ today, you must first prove that Revelations was intended to tell the future.
Of course, when we look at the time in which it was written and the style in which it was written, it seems to be the same as other apocalyptical books of the time. They were not meant to be visions of the future, but rather portrayals of current hardships and assurances that God will always triumph in the end.
What was the current hardship? The Roman empire. Which historical figure matches all the symbols John mentions?
Nero Caesar.

But gee, history isn’t nearly as fun as fortune telling, is it? No, not at all. In that case, I vote we ignore the facts and pretend that John was trying to identify a specific person 2000 years into the future so that we can start a witch hunt! After all, everybody loves witch hunts!



Arguably, the Anglican Church combines Church and state and is indeed globally recognized (not that being globally recognized is a requirement found in Revelations, but this guy is making up plenty of other false assertions, so why should we be bothered with this one?)
And, again, there is more required than simply religion + government for this identifier to, well, identify.



Define absolute religious leader.
One would assume that an absolute religious leader has absolute control over the followers of that religion, the practices of that religion, and the doctrine of that religion. That’s not really true with the Pope. The only thing the Pope can do on his own is define doctrine, but he cannot define doctrine such that it contradicts with previously defined doctrine and, though I don’t expect you Protestants to accept this in the slightest, the Pope cannot define a false doctrine, as the Chair of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit, in order that the Church may never receive a false teaching from its papacy.



And? Peter was the rock. The popes are successors of the rock, aka they are little rocks themselves, continuing on the work of the original little rock: Peter.



Though you’ll notice this was not a definition of doctrine, a papal decree, or in anyway preserved within the Catholic faith. Why? Because even when a pope messes up (they are human, after all), the Holy Spirit protects the Church doctrine from being harmed by this. Find me one corrupt declaration by the Pope on Church doctrine and I will concede this point.



Actually, the word isn’t king. It’s Pope. The Vatican is a theocracy. They follow the rule of God, so God would be their king. The Pope is the Pope. He doesn’t need another title because, as previously mentioned, this is a theocracy.


Within a small territory. Remember, the beast is said to have this power over a large territory. Kinda like Nero Caesar had way back when, just before the book of Revelations was written.




Except we’ve already established that this indicator is false, since Revelations says nothing about the beast rising in a densely populated area and this was only an assertion made by the author based on his current cultural understandings, rather than the 90 AD cultural understandings which are in fact the only cultural understandings that could possibly give an accurate account of the meaning of the symbols in Revelations.

Also, the author says that the Catholic Church is the only thing that fits each indicator.
Let’s think about this for a moment . . . .
The Catholic Church was the only power to rise up from a densely populated area?
Sure, but only if you ignore 96% of history.



Ok, you’re evidence is of someone saying that the Catholic Church is deceitful. I’m gonna need more than that before I just accept it for face value.



Again, problem with a Pope, not the Church. I could just as easily point out Protestants who have been deceitful and thus claim that the Protestant churches are a composite antichrist, but I think that would be ludicrous. Why? Because the actions of one do not reflect the teachings of the whole.

Individual popes have indeed tried to deceive people, but the Church has not. There are no deceptive doctrines in the Church.
No Catholic (at least, no sane and well educated Catholic) will claim that the Pope is perfect. However, the Church =/= the Pope. The Church is founded not on the actions of Pope, but on the teachings of the Pope which fall under the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit. End of story.



Oh Noes!!!!!!!!
The Pope wants everyone in the world to respect each other and be kind to each other and to love each other!!!!!!
s**t! He really is the antichrist!
No doubting it now. Only someone completely consumed by evil could ever suggest loving your neighbor. The horror!!!!!



Wait, wait, wait. Because the Pope used the words “new world order”, he is the antichrist? Where the hell is this found? It isn’t in scripture and I know you Protestants won’t believe anything that’s not in scripture, so show me the verse or concede.
The Pope isn’t arrogantly saying he knows what’s best for the world. He’s not boasting in himself. He’s boasting in Jesus (which Paul says is ok. In fact, that was our second reading at mass yesterday. Galatians 6:14-1 cool Jesus already said we need to love each other. The Pope is reiterating this because some people just don’t seem to be getting it. Furthermore, how is calling people to love one another a deception of the masses? If that truly is a deception of the masses, then Jesus would be guilty of it too.
The Pope is calling for a new world order: new- different than what we have now, world- universal, order- way of doing things. The Pope is saying that we need to change our ways of doing things on a universal scale. What kind of change is he promoting? One that falls in line with the teachings of Jesus.
How is this declaration any different from Paul reprimanding the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Hebrew, etc. that they are not following Christ’s teachings and telling them that they need to change, that they need to go about doing things in a different way than they do now in order to follow Christ?
I’m sorry, but your unfounded accusation just doesn’t hold up against common sense.

Goodbye for now.

Let us continue!



I’d like to start by pointing out that I have already proved that this is a fallacious indicator.
Nowhere in Revelations are we given this 1260 year period. We are given a 3 ½ year period, which the author so kindly cited for us, but no 1260 year period. This is a made up number.
Furthermore, the deadly wound occurred before the beast’s reign, not after.

Now, moving on . . . .



Ok, let’s check his dates and facts real quick. . . .

He states that in 1798, Catholicism was dealt a deadly blow.
This deadly blow was that Napoleon kidnapped the pope and abolished the Vatican government.
This was not a blow to the Catholics. This was a blow to the people living in the Vatican. It did not drastically affect our Church other than the individuals living in the small area of the Vatican City.
Nothing in doctrine or even church practice was changed. We were just down one pope. Considering we had already lost 148 Popes before this, it wasn’t exactly a deadly blow. Plus, this pales in comparison to the blow dealt by the Great Schisms of 1054 and 1378 or even with the Reformation in the 15 and 1600s.

Now, for the second date he gives, 538. He states that this was when the Catholic Church finally threw off the oppression of the Ostrogoths and thus gained control as a leading figure in the West.
However, the Pope had been a leading figure in the west before this date, particularly with the help of a Ostrogoth emperor, Theodric Strabo. He was great friends with the Pope from 520 onward and viewed the Pope as an authority not only over Catholics, but an authority in all of Rome.
Furthermore, the year 538 has no particular importance in the defeat of the Ostrogoths. 534, 536, and 540 were all years of deciding battles, and it was not until after the last battle that things were finally settled with the Ostrogoths.
538 is merely a year the author chose because it fit into this conflict, but the actual date has no real significance for either Ostrogoth or Catholic history.

So, to sum it all up, the first date chosen by the author, though undoubtedly important, was no where near dealing a deadly blow to the Catholic Church. We lost a Pope. It happens a lot. Yeah, everybody is sad, but we don’t fear for the downfall of our Church and we certainly aren’t astonished when suddenly we have a new Pope.
The second date holds no importance at all and was merely thrown in to further fabricate this theory.
Regardless of all this, the dates chosen still bear no validity, since the date supplied by the author is entirely unbiblical.



Unfortunately, that source lies.
Vigilus became the Pope in 537 AD. Check your history.
Oh, but wait, this doesn’t fit with your carefully contrived dates that come from absolutely nowhere.



Yeah, only not so much.
I’ve said this before, and I hate to say it again, but it seems necessary.
Unless it is doctrine, it can be false. The Church never disagrees with this, nor have they ever in the past. The popes have authority because, as we can see within the Protestant Churches, without a central authority, there can be no central beliefs and there seems to be no end to the Churches splitting off to form new sects.
Can they abuse that authority? To an extent, yes. However, they cannot introduce corrupt doctrine into the Catholic Church.
No matter what quotes have been shown here, it still remains fact that Catholic doctrine does not reflect these assertions. There must be some reason for this and, I can only assume, it’s because the quotes have been taken out of their proper context and therefore cannot be properly understood here. If these teachings were a clear cut as the author makes them sound, they would appear in Catholic doctrine. However, they do not.

Ok, there are three parts of this
Part 1. The priest has the keys of heaven.

Part 2. Priests have the power to take people off the path to hell and place them on the path to heaven.

Part 3: Absolution of sin from a priest is something God is forced to accept.

Part 1 is a statement regarding the apostolic succession in the priesthood. In Mathew 16:19, Peter receives the keys to heaven. The image of keys in the bible is seen in the book of Isaiah, where Eliakim is given the keys to the house of David. Here, keys represent both authority and succession.
If you think it’s blasphemous to claim that a man holds the keys of heaven, then Jesus, Peter, and Mathew are all guilty of blasphemy.

Part 2 is talking about the priest’s role in God’s plan of salvation. Let’s first introduce a bit of Catholic terminology. Co-redeemer: someone who cooperates through their own free will in God’s plan of redemption. The best example of this would be Mary, who through her own free will said yes to God and allowed him to use her to bring the Redeemer, the Savior, into the world so that he could do his thing.
The bible supports this idea that we can, through saying yes to God, help to bring about the salvation of others.
Rom. 11:13-14 - I magnify my ministry to make the Jews jealous and thus save some of them. Paul says that he is the one doing the saving, but he really means that he participates in Christ's work of salvation.
1 Cor. 7:16 - Paul indicates that a wife can save her husband and vice versa. We are lesser mediators in Christ's salvific work.
1 Cor. 9:22 - Paul says he has become all things to men that he might save some. Only God saves, but His children participate in their salvation.
1 Tim. 4:16 - you will save both yourself and your hearers. Christ is the only Savior, but He wants us to participate, for we are members of His body.
James 5:20 - whoever brings back a sinner will save his soul from death. We are saviors in the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jude 22-23 - we are instructed to save some people, by snatching them out of the fire. We participate in our salvation and in the salvation of others.
Prov. 16:6 - by love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for. We can participate in Christ's atonement through our love and faith.
(from scripturecatholic.com)

It is Christ that saves, but Paul calls us to help with that salvation. We take action so that another might be saved. By doing this, we are saving that person through our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Part 3 is again talking about God keeping promises. See the whole absolution thing again if you don’t remember this.



Notice the bolded words. Also notice the big picture tied in with Catholic theology. During the consecration, the body and blood of Christ are created (actually, not so much created as simply made present) out of the bread and wine. How do we believe this happens? Through the power of Christ. It is the power of Christ acting through the Priest. Notice the part where she says the power of the priest is the power of the divine person? That’s what she’s talking about. During the consecration, Christ’s power fills the priest so that it is not the power of the priest that is “creating” the body and blood, but the power of Christ working through the priest to “create” the body and blood.
The priest is indeed taking part in this, but it is by the power of Christ that it happens.



Again, talking about co-redeemers bit about people saving others through cooperating with God’s plan. Priests, are cooperating with a pretty necessary part of God’s plan, especially with the Eucharist.



We still have all 10 commandments. They are just in a different order. It is also important to note that out of the three groups that use the 10 commandments (Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish), The Protestants are the only ones who group idols into their own commandment. The Catholics group it in with #1 and Jews group it in with #2, which is grouped with the second part of the Catholic and Protestant #1. The Jews link the polytheism bit in with the idols, since those two were generally paired together in the Jewish mind at the time.


source



Except that it doesn’t, since we don’t have idols.



1. This is worse? Worshiping idols vs. worshiping God on a different day. I’m thinking the first sounds worse, but that’s just me.

2. You cite Psalms 89:34 that nothing can change, but to the best of my knowledge, Protestants don’t follow all 600 and some odd rules and regulations found in Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus.
Why don’t we keep those rules? Because we have a New Covenant with God.



But they are not the only words that God spoke directly to his people. God spoke to Abraham when he gave him the covenant of circumcision. (Acts 7: cool
And indeed, this was something that could not be changed for those who abided by this covenant. However, as we all know, it was changed by the apostles for the New Covenant. (Romans 2)

So what does Psalm 89 mean? The bible cannot contradict itself, but here we see that something that came from God’s lips was abolished. Why?
Psalm 89
God says that he will protect David and be faithful to him, and then he lists a whole bunch of things he’s going to do for David. Right after he makes a list of things he plans on doing, he says, I won’t violate this covenant or change what I have just said.
End of story. It makes no promise for different covenants, just the one he had just made.



And those words are kept, but the Sabbath day was changed. (I’ll go into this more later)



How are the sun and the Earth, which are not eternal, proof that God’s law is eternal? This makes no sense.



Jesus: I didn’t come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
Basically that’s what he said, yeah?
What happens when you fulfill something? The status quo changes. Jesus fulfilled the Law by becoming the perfect sacrifice. The Law still existed: a sacrifice is needed for the forgiveness of sins, but the way in which we go about that is different now. We no longer sacrifice our own lambs. We simply accept Jesus’s sacrifice.
The Sabbath day also changes when Jesus fulfills the law, because he rises on Sunday, which many Catholics will refer to as the 8th day. Everything was created in 6 days, God rests on the 7th day, and then he fulfills the law on the 8th day. The 8th day was the completion of the New Covenant, whereas the Old Covenant was still on the 7th day (since the 8th day had yet to come.)
The law of the Sabbath was not abolished, but rather fulfilled. As with other fulfillments, the Law did not change, but our practices did.



Remember that the Catholic Church believes that the apostles, Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, etc. were the first Catholics. They believe that the Church was established at that time. So, all the things that the apostles did were essentially done by the same authority the Church exercises today.

And, it was indeed the apostles who changed the Sabbath. Acts 20:7 indicates that the Christian celebration of “breaking the bread” was celebrated on the first day of the week. (more)



See above and note that the Catholic Press in indeed mistaken about that last bit.



See above above.



See above above above and note that the Sacredness was changed to Sunday on the day our Lord rose from the dead. It was made official in 364.



A random Catholic says we are above the bible and now it’s doctrine? That’s news to me.



You know, I’d never actually thought about it, but yeah, the Protestants do kinda owe their Sunday worship tradition to Catholic Tradition.



Yet you conveniently left out this guy’s explanation of why they claim this. Hmmm, there go those red flags again.
Oh well. I don’t really care. I my previous refutation was enough to cover this as well.

GASP!
We’re almost done! Are you as excited as I am!?!?!?!?!



A little premature, seeing as you have yet to establish that Revelations was a prediction of the future, isn’t it?



Actually, you don’t have any real evidence at all that can’t be debunked.
Oh well. That’s never stopped your claims in the past (as we can see by that who 1260 year remark.)



Except that the mark of the beast is 666, which is one of your arguments for the Church being the beast. You argued that 666 is the Pope. It’s either the Pope or Sunday. Choose one, ‘cause you can’t have both.
I already debunked the papal accusation, so let’s debunk the Sunday accusation as well.
1. There is no link with Sunday and 666.
2. 666 is the number of a name, not a day or an event.
3. The Catholic Church (nor anyone else for that matter) does not restrict buying or selling to those who go to Church on Sunday. (Revelations 13:17)

That should just about do it.



Wait, you’re binding God to an American law? Are you

ace_fma

Looking to the Almighty Creator, we realize that He has a Heavenly Kingdom. And the document containing the law of His Kingdom is The Ten Commandments. Looking directly in the midst of them you will find the seal of the living God! "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea..." Exodus 20:11.
Notice the three distinct features:
1. Name: THE LORD ("I am the Lord: that is my name" Isaiah 42: cool
2. Title: CREATOR ("the LORD made")
3. Territory: HEAVEN AND EARTH (Heaven and earth)
Clearly, the seal of the Creator is found in the Sabbath commandment of His law. It is an acknowledgement of His authority as our Creator. When we keep His Sabbath, we are expressing that we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

-applause- Awesome! AWESOME! XD I read the whole thing and I loved it. You actually gave light to me with a lot of parts in the book of Revelation. I love you for doing this. x3

ugh..."intellegent" discussions from ed =/= truth...

Okay, Now i am going to show you how there is no way the pope is the AntiChrist
The Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Book of Revelation. The identification of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ is often and article of faith for many Protestant denominations: Westminster Confession of Faith: 25.6 There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. The London Baptist Confession of 1689: 26.4. The lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.


One of Satan's old tricks and one used to deceive millions, thousands, hundreds, tens and small families who become the almighty wise and powerful interpreters of the scriptures, is to use 2 Thessalonians 3-4 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above ever so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." To the weak and easily led, this old and well known to the Catholic church passage becomes the evidence that the Catholic church is following an Anti-Christ who has led, is leading, or will someday lead the church to certain destruction.
In 1 John 2:18-19, we read, "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."
In 1 John 2:22-23, we read, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also."
This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have "deny(ied) that Jesus is the Christ" and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Most certainly the same would be true of the individual Antichrist. 1 John 4:1-6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John4:3, we read that "every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already." This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John's day but would grow afterward. Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such as one is the deceiver and the antichrist." This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism. 2. That the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or 3. that jesus was not the messiah (as in non-christian Judaism). The four passages givin above are all that the new testament has to say about the antichrist- at least under that name. but many have identified the antichrist with the beast from the sea in Relelations 13 or with the "man of lawlessness" that paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 These identifications are reasonable, but must be understood with some nuance. The beast from the sea that john speaks of in Revelations is best understood in its initial, literal fulfillment as one of the early roman emperors (cf. Catechism of the catholic church 2113 on the past fulfillment of the prophecy). Yet there are often multiple fulfillment of a single prophecy, and the beast may also point forward to an individual at the end of time who will be very much like the early roman emperors.
such as individual is easy to identify with paul's man of lawlessness for he appears to be a still-future individual who does things like the roman emperors. Paul states that he will one day manifest himself in the temple of God which to first century Jew would mean the Jewish temple in Jerusalem- and demand to be worshiped as a god. This is related to things the roman emperors did, such as when Caligula after he began claiming to be a god - attempted to have an image of himself put in the jerusalem temple.
The church Fathers displayed significant interest in the Antichrist, whom they commonly identified with the man of lawlessness, they understood him to be a political ruler who would oppose the church, rebuild the temple in jerusalem, and then demand to be worshiped as a god. At times he was understood to be a person of jewish ancestry, from the now-lost tribe of Dan. The Father's of the church would never have agreed with the theory thatthe antichrist would be a church leader. They showed the temple to be the jewish temple, rebuilt by the antichrist in Jerusalem. Rather than the bishops of rome, the early fathers identified the Antichrist as a government official- a king coming to power in the ruins of the roman empire. He probably would be jewish, possibly from the tribe of Dan. and most importantly, rather than claming like the pope to be the vicar of emissary of Jesus christ, he would claim that jesus was not the christ but that he was instead. he would seduce many of the jewish people by attempting to fulfill the political aspirations they held for the messiah.
Throughout history there have been a large number of individuals who have been identified as potential AntiChrists, and such they may have been though none has been the final persecutor of Church history. The catechism explains simply that there will be a supreme religious deception" before the second coming of christ and that the supreme form of the deception" Is that of the AntiChrist who will bring "a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh (CCC 675).
This deception has precursors in our own time. These precursors appear "every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement (CCC 676), including "the intrinsically perverse political form of a secular messianism (ibid.) that was displayed by twentieth century movement such as Nazism and communism.
The deception of the Antchrist will lead to the final crisis of the church which will be persecuted almost to the point of extinction and thus will "follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection," only to be saved by the second coming of Christ (CCC 677).
The Pope as the Antichrist? It is important for Catholic defenders to have a good handle on what Scripture does and does not say regarding the Antichrist because the opponents of the Catholic faith have often depicted the pope as the Antichrist. This was a psychological necessity for the early Protestant leaders because they were in the process of breaking away from what their families and comteporaries universally recognized as the authentic Church of Christ, governed by the authentic Vicar of Christ. Since breaking with such a body is inconceivable to any one determined to ollow Christ's will, it was necessary for Protestant leaders to deny that the Catholic Church and the pope were these things.
The Recognition of the catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong- given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ- that it created severe problems, that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. "If it's not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?" would be logical questions.
Protestant leaders cast about in the Scripture for alternative explanations for a large, false religious system expected to exist durint eh Christian age. They chose the religious system associated with the beast from Revelation, whom they identified as the Antichrist. They further identified this religious system with the Whore of Babylon, who in Revelation is in contrast to the Church, the Bride of Christ. They thus came to portray the Church as the Whore of Babylon and the pope as the beast/Antichrist. Only in such a way could breaking away from what everyone recognized as the true Church of Christ be psychologically justified.
Again, Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, "The pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord" (Smacald Articles 2:4-10, 14)
The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense me the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son or perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God" (25.6)
The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture. Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or and Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope's position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.
For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible. Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church. Read further posts on the morrow.