It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Woman Rides The Beast- Hillary Clinton 2008?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Defcon5
Queenannie38

It has been interesting to read the debate going on here.

Defcon5, I really don’t feel that you answered, to my satisfaction, the question about the sources for your statement, “The most commonly accepted interpretation of this verse is that the Woman is the Roman Catholic Church”.

From the source you have posted it seems that there are now many other candidates for that distinction, including the United State of America.

The pictures were interesting but I could not find why you decided that the woman on the Vatican coin is the “the whore of Babylon” or the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I missed the source of these pictures.

I have read the whole thread and I did look at the pictures and read your links. Very wordy explanations and you will probably write me off as just too ignorant to understand intellectual thinking such as yours and your sources. That is OK. I am simple.

A good reference for understanding what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” An Image Book published by Doubleday

Here is the basis of my beliefs: IGNATIUS HOLY BIBLE, CATHOLIC EDITION


Matthew 16: 18,19, And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



John 21: 15-17, “When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord: you know that I love you.” He said to him, Feed my lambs.” (16)A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” (17)He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord , you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”


I am very happy to be considered one of the sheep Jesus is asking Peter to tend. Because of Apostolic Succession Pope Benedict is now in the seat of Peter.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 1575 &1576


1575: Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops.



1576: Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the “gift of the Spirit,” the “apostolic line.” Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.


Simple.




posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
A good reference for understanding what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” An Image Book published by Doubleday


The problem is it's what Rome teaches, it's not nessicarily the historical truth, as I will explain below:


Originally posted by Mahree
I am very happy to be considered one of the sheep Jesus is asking Peter to tend. Because of Apostolic Succession Pope Benedict is now in the seat of Peter.


Unfortunately, Rome has this thing about canonizing things; they have had it since the beginning of the Roman Empire. What canonization is, was Rome’s way of absorbing things into it that are not really theirs to take. They put their canonization stamp of approval on it and now it’s a Roman Catholic thing. This is very evident throughout history where Rome would ingest other religions into the Roman Culture. This is why their original Pantheon of gods were all modeled after gods and goddesses of older religions; the most obvious one being the gods of Greece. This is how we have ended up with pagan holidays such as Christmas and Easter, now as Christian holidays. They did this with Peter and the original church fathers as well, and it can be historically shown to be the truth.

Now you must realize that there have been major schisms in the church and even wars fought over what I am about to explain to you. I will try to keep it simple, and put background links to Wiki and other places where the actual history can be verified, for you.

First off, there is no way in the world that Peter would ever call himself a Pope or Pontiff. I am sorry if that sounds offensive, but it’s true. To Peter the title Pontiff/Pope would mean the Pontifex Maximus, and he would be insulted to be referred to as that. The Pontifex Maximus was a position held by the very men who were the persecutors of the early Christians, that crucified Christ, and who put Peter himself to death. Under normal circumstances, the Pontifex Maximus was the Emperor of Rome himself, though there had been a few senators that held the title at times.

So Peter died at the hands of Nero:

Death of Peter
he early writings indicated in the following paragraphs witness to the tradition that Peter, probably at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64, for which the Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, met martyrdom in Rome.

The same Nero who was Pontiff of Rome, and persecuting Christians:

List of Roman Emporers
October 54 to 11 June 68 NERO CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVGVSTVS GERMANICVS 55: Pontifex Maximus; later Pater Patriae;

At the very best the early leaders of the church called themselves Bishops, but never was there a Pope as the leader.

Here is the list of the people that held the position of Pope up to 12BC:
Pontifex Maximus to 12 BC
Here is the list from 12BC until Emporer Gratian (c. 359 - 383), refused to hold the Title of Pontifex.
Emporers as Pontifex Maximus

I am sorry, but Peter is not on either list...

Emperor Gratian would not even accept the title of Pontiff because he considered himself to be a Christian, and the title was associated with the pagan church.

Emperor Gratian
Under the influence of Ambrosius, Gratian prohibited Pagan worship at Rome; refused to wear the insignia of the pontifex maximus as unbefitting a Christian; removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate House at Rome, despite protests of the pagan members of the Senate, and confiscated its revenues; forbade legacies of real property to the Vestals; and abolished other privileges belonging to them and to the pontiffs.


Pope Damasus I was the first Christian Bishop of Rome to assume the title of the Pope, or Pontifex Maximus. He was an extremely corrupt and power hungry man, and this was the direction that the papacy would take for centuries to come, being more of a political post then an actual head of the Church.


Pope Damasus I
Many in both Pagan and Christian society saw in Damasus a man whose worldly ambitions outweighed his pastoral concerns. His entertainments were infamous for their lavishness. Praetextatus, a wealthy aristocrat and a high priest in the cults of numerous gods, reportedly joked to Damasus, "Make me bishop of Rome and I will become a Christian". Some of his critics called him "the ladies' ear-tickler."
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "An accusation of adultery was laid against him (378) in the imperial court, but he was exonerated by Emperor Gratian himself (J. D. Mansi, Coll. Conc., III, 628) and soon after by a Roman synod of forty-four bishops (Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, s.v.; Mansi, op. cit., III, 419) which also excommunicated his accusers."


As I explained to thehumbleone above about the bible, the same thing applies to the Papacy:

Originally posted by defcon5
Now to be honest the Church that we are calling Catholicism is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There was no Pope, as the Emperor was still the Pontifex Maximus, and the Orthodox Religion also claims men such as Irenaeus as saints in their religion. So basically you think that the Bible was created by Rome because after Rome became Christian they canonized all these people like Irenaeus into their church. In that case The Orthodox Church can just as much claim that they wrote the Bible as the Roman Catholic Church can.
I would hope that you at least knew that there is a difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church...


Here maybe this will help you, see how far to the right the red line is, that is the Roman Catholic Church, Things like the Muratorian fragment, and Irenaeus existed back in the gray area where it says “Early Christianity” on the left side.

So basically, Apostolic Succession is nothing more then the Roman Catholic church again waving it’s magic wand of canonization to try and re-write history and incorporate early church fathers into the Holy Roman Catholic Church as Popes. The title of Pope even being held by the head of a Christian organization did not occur until almost 300 years after the death of Peter at the hands of Nero, who was the Emperor and Pontiff of Rome…

I hope I explained that ok for you.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Thank you for your quick reply. And yes, I do believe that I understand your arguments. I had read your earlier posts on the same subject and I will respond later. I do have a busy life.

There were corrupt earlier popes, and I do know that the reformation had a basis because of these corruptions and bad popes.

Peter did know that Jesus appointed him as head of the apostles and the Roman Catholic Church. Why would Jesus do that if he didn't intend for the guidance of "Peter" down through the ages?

To me that was simply God cleaning house. All are human men and men are corruptible. I do believe that the reformation was wrong but that the Roman Catholic church did clean up its act. By whatever means the Roman Catholic Church came by Christmas, Easter or the name of pope for head of the Church, I really don't care. I believe that God's hand has been guiding the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning and cleaning house every so often, so to speak.

I did look at your time line and explanation as to why today's Roman Catholic Church is not the beginning Catholic church. But where I differ is that it is my belief the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the beginning Catholic Church. With God, nothing is impossible including keeping His Church going the way He intends. And, yes, I also believe that "the humbleone" is correct and the Bible did come from that beginning Roman Catholic Church.

I will have more to say on that later, as well as your time line. The difference between your explanations and mine are just a hair off, but grows into a gigantic difference after the years that have passed since the beginning. That is probably because I have the faith that the Roman Catholic Church is the one began with Jesus and His apostles.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
it IS HILLARY!

and the deity you are thinking of is ROMAN GODDESS DIANA.



she is the goddess of war.

she has many other names Isis,The Queen of Heaven,Virtus, Cybele, Rhea, and Mother Mary







she is a huge Freemason symbol. The statue of liberty is not for OUR freedom.
she is holding the Masonic Torch of Enlightenment. and the torch also represents the Sun.



www.crossroad.to...
www.freemasonrywatch.org...



i knew hillary would run for president when i found this out last year.

Hillary Rodham DIANE Clinton



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
Defcon5, I really don’t feel that you answered, to my satisfaction, the question about the sources for your statement, “The most commonly accepted interpretation of this verse is that the Woman is the Roman Catholic Church”.


I apologize, I guess I missed your main question above by reading it too fast and skipping the “don’t”.

Considering that most Protestants and Catholics believe that Rome is represented by Mystery Babylon the Great, as I said above. Historicists believe this to be the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, Futurists believe it to be a restored Roman Empire and one world religion, and Preterists believe it to be the Roman Empire and its Emperors. That encompasses all mainline Christian Religions. The exact quote from the “New American Bible for Catholics”, in its commentary on Revelations 16&17, states:

Rev 16:19 The Great City: Rome and the Empire.
Rev 17:1-6 Babylon, symbolic name for Rome is graphically described as the great harlot.
Rev 17:2 Fornication… Lewdness: The pagan kings of Rome adopted the cult of the Emperor
Rev 17:3 Scarlet Beast: see **Rev 13:1-8, Blasphemous names: Devine titles assumed by Roman Emporers.
Rev 17:4 Refernce to the great wealth of Rome.

**Rev 13:1-8 This wild beast, combining the four beast of Dan 7:2-28 symbolizes the Roman Empire; the seven heads represent the emperors, see Rev 17.


This is the official word of Rome, which every Roman Catholic is to believe…
As a Roman Catholic, you have no choice but to believe as told because according to Roman Catholic Doctrine a normal person lacks the divine ability to interpret scripture for themselves. If you questioned their authority to say this, and you lived 300 years ago, you would have been delivered to the inquisition for having any ideas to the contrary, tortured until you repented, then burned at the stake to keep your mind from ever wandering again.

Thus, my point is that it is Rome. The only thing that is contested here is that Historicists believe it to be Rome beyond just the Emperors, because the power and position of those emperors was passed on to the Pope. I have shown this to be historically correct.


Originally posted by Mahree
Peter did know that Jesus appointed him as head of the apostles and the Roman Catholic Church. Why would Jesus do that if he didn't intend for the guidance of "Peter" down through the ages?


No Jesus told peter “You will be the rock on which I would build my church”, he did not tell peter “You are the rock on which I will build the Roman Catholic Church”.

Next I am going to hear that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, correct?
So let me just answer that for you now before you bother to post it:


The Bishop of Rome
Catholic tradition holds that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to the primacy of Simon Peter and thus the "Vicar of Christ" for the entire world.


The Idea that Peter is the “Bishop of Rome” is only tradition, and a disputed one at that: Primacy of Peter
With this in mind how do you, or Rome for that matter, relate Peter to Rome in anyway other then he died there?

See this logic is getting rather circular, isn’t it?
1) Peter is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, because the Roman Catholic Church says so.
2) Therefore, Peter is the first “Bishop of Rome”.
3) Making Peter the first Pope.
4) Making all subsequent Popes hold the power of Peter through Apostolic Succession.
5) Apostolic Succession, which grants the Popes Papal Infallibility.
5) Papal Infallibility, which gives the Popes authority to pass Apostolic Succession as doctrine based on the grounds of…
6) See #1

If you read their rules they are not just circular, they have more loops then a dogfight…

In addition, what makes Rome think that the head office for Christian Churches at the beginning of Christianity was the Roman Christian Church? There is no proof, that I am aware of, that there was any church which was considered more important or higher ranking then another. In fact, why would Christians make their main church, if there even was one, in the middle of enemy territory where they were most prosecuted?


Originally posted by Mahree
I did look at your time line and explanation as to why today's Roman Catholic Church is not the beginning Catholic church. But where I differ is that it is my belief the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the beginning Catholic Church.


Using this logic then, as I showed above, all Churches hold the same authority as they sprung out of the mainline Catholic Church. With that in mind, what right did Rome seem to feel that it had persecuting other Christians, such as the Protestants? Again, prophecy speaks of a person that would come along, within God’s Temple, wear out the patience (persecute) of the saints, and attempt to speak as though God had granted him the authority to be God’s voice on Earth.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Mahree
Defcon5, I really don’t feel that you answered, to my satisfaction, the question about the sources for your statement, “The most commonly accepted interpretation of this verse is that the Woman is the Roman Catholic Church”.


I apologize, I guess I missed your main question above by reading it too fast and skipping the “don’t”.

Considering that most Protestants and Catholics believe that Rome is represented by Mystery Babylon the Great, as I said above. Historicists believe this to be the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, Futurists believe it to be a restored Roman Empire and one world religion, and Preterists believe it to be the Roman Empire and its Emperors. That encompasses all mainline Christian Religions. The exact quote from the “New American Bible for Catholics”, in its commentary on Revelations 16&17, states:

Rev 16:19 The Great City: Rome and the Empire.
Rev 17:1-6 Babylon, symbolic name for Rome is graphically described as the great harlot.
Rev 17:2 Fornication… Lewdness: The pagan kings of Rome adopted the cult of the Emperor
Rev 17:3 Scarlet Beast: see **Rev 13:1-8, Blasphemous names: Devine titles assumed by Roman Emporers.
Rev 17:4 Refernce to the great wealth of Rome.

**Rev 13:1-8 This wild beast, combining the four beast of Dan 7:2-28 symbolizes the Roman Empire; the seven heads represent the emperors, see Rev 17.


This is the official word of Rome, which every Roman Catholic is to believe…
As a Roman Catholic, you have no choice but to believe as told because according to Roman Catholic Doctrine a normal person lacks the divine ability to interpret scripture for themselves. If you questioned their authority to say this, and you lived 300 years ago, you would have been delivered to the inquisition for having any ideas to the contrary, tortured until you repented, then burned at the stake to keep your mind from ever wandering again.


Strange that you feel you have to teach me what the Catholic Church believes.


Thus, my point is that it is Rome. The only thing that is contested here is that Historicists believe it to be Rome beyond just the Emperors, because the power and position of those emperors was passed on to the Pope. I have shown this to be historically correct.


You may want to believe what the "Historicists" believe, but that doesn't make it true. I don't think you have "proved" it true.

I do believe Revelation 17, is speaking of Rome, the city. My question is why you insist that it means The Roman Catholic Church.


Those of the school of Historicism accept that it is exactly the way I stated it, the Roman Empire, and the Roman Church.


Here is a Catholic explanation from EWTN. Eternal Word Television Network. I have only posted an excerpt, please read the total article. If you want to know what Catholics believe it is good to go to a Catholic source.


www.ewtn.org...



The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist. In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.



Originally posted by Mahree
Peter did know that Jesus appointed him as head of the apostles and the Roman Catholic Church. Why would Jesus do that if he didn't intend for the guidance of "Peter" down through the ages?



No Jesus told peter “You will be the rock on which I would build my church”, he did not tell peter “You are the rock on which I will build the Roman Catholic Church”.


Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church same thing.

I believe that it is you who show the circular thinking.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
I do believe Revelation 17, is speaking of Rome, the city.


A city can do nothing of the sort, any more then a gun can kill. Its not the gun it’s the person behind the gun, and its not the city it’s the leaders of that city.


Originally posted by Mahree
My question is why you insist that it means The Roman Catholic Church.


I believe that I have explained fully well how the station of the Pontifex Maximus fits the definition of the “Little Horn” and how Rome fits the fourth Beast of Dan, The first Beast of Rev 13, and the Beast of Rev 16 and 17. Of course there is going to be no convincing you, as your obviously a staunch believer in Catholicism, no amount of proof or logic will prove anything to the contrary to you. I mean if you actually need an explanation of the pictures of the women holding the cup as a reference to the Vatican when its shown in pictures, I obviously cannot help you as you have blinders on about this subject.

As I said above. "Wars have been fought over this subject", because it’s a tradition in many areas…


The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist. In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.


I don’t believe that I ever accused the Roman Catholic Church of being the Antichrist. The Antichrist is not a factor in Historicism, the reason that you are talking my explanation of the “Little Horn” or the Beast as being the Antichrist is because you are thinking of Futurism which teaches that these are related to a Future Antichrist. To a historicist there are many Antichrists and they are all folks who deny Christ. In Historicism Beasts are world dominating empires, and the Little Horn is one position within one of those empires.


Originally posted by Mahree
Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church same thing.


Absolutly incorrect…
As a matter of fact many Protestant religions still say the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed:


We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
&
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,

That does not mean that we are Roman Catholic, it means that we believe in one Universal belief in Christ as Lord and Savior…


Apostolic Church
The phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church appears in the Nicene Creed (μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν) and, in part, in the Apostles' Creed ("the holy catholic church", sanctam ecclesiam catholicam). The phrase sets out the four marks, or identifying signs, of the Christian Church — unity, holiness, universality, and apostolicity — and is based on the premise that all true Christians form a single united group, the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:27), founded by the apostles and innately holy.

The Catholic Church, comprising 23 particular Churches, namely the Latin-Rite or Western Church, which is the largest, and 22 Eastern Catholic Churches, teaches that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" Church subsists in it. [1] The Eastern Orthodox Church, comprising about 16 mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical Churches, similarly teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.[2] Before the Great Schism of 1054, both sides saw themselves as belonging to the same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Oriental Orthodoxy shares this view, seeing the churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion as comprising the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

Many Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Catholics, and Independent Catholics view unity as a mark of catholicity, but see the institutional unity of the Catholic Church as manifested in the shared Apostolic Succession of their episcopacies, rather than a shared episcopal hierarchy or rites.
Protestant Christians hold that every person justified by faith in the Gospel committed to the Apostles is a member of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". From this perspective, the real unity and holiness of the whole church established through the Apostles is yet to be revealed; and meanwhile, the extent and peace of the church on earth is imperfectly realized in a visible way.



Originally posted by Mahree
I believe that God's hand has been guiding the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning and cleaning house every so often, so to speak.


Well according to your logic then, Protestants are the best Religion to belong too as they sprang from God cleaning house of old incorrect Roman Catholic Doctrine and corruption…


Ill have to get back to this later though I have to split for now…


[edit on 3/31/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Mahree
I do believe Revelation 17, is speaking of Rome, the city.


A city can do nothing of the sort, any more then a gun can kill. Its not the gun it’s the person behind the gun, and its not the city it’s the leaders of that city.


Originally posted by Mahree
My question is why you insist that it means The Roman Catholic Church.


I believe that I have explained fully well how the station of the Pontifex Maximus fits the definition of the “Little Horn” and how Rome fits the fourth Beast of Dan, The first Beast of Rev 13, and the Beast of Rev 16 and 17. Of course there is going to be no convincing you, as your obviously a staunch believer in Catholicism, no amount of proof or logic will prove anything to the contrary to you. I mean if you actually need an explanation of the pictures of the women holding the cup as a reference to the Vatican when its shown in pictures, I obviously cannot help you as you have blinders on about this subject.


The woman in the pictures is a portrayal of Holy Mother Church.

I believe you are right, and you cannot help me. I don't need any help actually. I am fine and happy that the Pope as the successor of Peter is still leading my Church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.



Originally posted by Mahree
Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church same thing.



Absolutly incorrect…
As a matter of fact many Protestant religions still say the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed:


We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
&
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,

That does not mean that we are Roman Catholic, it means that we believe in one Universal belief in Christ as Lord and Savior…


Yes, those creeds were established at the councils when we were all one church.


Originally posted by Mahree
I believe that God's hand has been guiding the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning and cleaning house every so often, so to speak.



Well according to your logic then, Protestants are the best Religion to belong too as they sprang from God cleaning house of old incorrect Roman Catholic Doctrine and corruption…


Wrong, The Protestants took the Creed and Bible with them when Martin Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

It was only later, I believe in 1885, when the books were removed from the Protestant Bible.

The Catholic Church cleaned its own house after the reformation. The Protestants did bring the problems to the front, and this was probably God working.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Defcon5
With that in mind, what right did Rome seem to feel that it had persecuting other Christians, such as the Protestants?


Because they strayed from the truth and tried to distort it.

Did you ever read what Moses did to the Jews who were worshiping a pagan god after he came down from Mount Sinai?

I can't even begin to tell you how many protestant religions have gone the way of the dinosaurs, look at how ridiculous it is nowadays, the protestant religions number in the hundreds because they can't even agree on what a particular verse means.

The Holy Catholic Church has never changed it's interpretation of what Christ meant, think about that for a second, we (Catholics) have had the same beliefs since the very beginning of Christianity, whereas with protestants you can't predict what they will believe from one day to the next.
They are always flip-flopping on how to interpret a particular passage, hence the hundreds of different protestant denominations.

Christ knows how to keep his true herd together.

The other sheep have gone astray.



[edit on 31-3-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
Wrong, The Protestants took the Creed and Bible with them when Martin Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.


The whole point of Luther having to leave the church was because they refused to reform on serious topics of dogma, which he proved wrong on in a court of law. This was why Rome fought so long to keep the Bible and Mass in Latin, as it was a language only known by scholars. It was because they did not want common man to understand how far they were stretching their interpretations from the actual Word of God. The reason they were doing this was very simple, as I said Rome never really ended, but what did happen was that it got to big, corrupt, and impossible to control. What men such as Pope Damasus I, discovered though was that no army of men could control people as well as and idea and an inescapable fear could.

What I mean is that When Christ Died, he did so as a free gift to man, granting him grace in return for acceptance of that grace. Now, as you well know, men have been trained all their lives that they can get nothing for free, right? So it became a simple thing for the early Roman Church to learn to control an empire through religion. To this day Christians are accused of their religion being used for control, and yet it is not possible to control a man that believes they are saved through grace alone. What Rome did was swing in the idea that salvation is through grace, but coupled with works, and decided upon by the Church. This is why the Roman Catholic Church made such a big deal out of the fact that there could be no salvation outside of Rome. So as a man you had to live in fear that if you did not do enough good for the church, or if you displeased them and they excommunicated you, not only would you experience torture in this world, but you also would experience an eternity of it in the next.

Then even this was not enough control, they needed to still be able to get people to have to pay for the sins of their ancestors. In order to do that, they came up with the Biblically un-doctrinal teaching of Purgatory. Using Purgatory as an excuse they could not only talk you into having to work and pay to ensure your own salvation, but you also had to work and pay to spring your dead relatives out of punishment on the other side. Luther caught on to this game and tried to change it thinking it was just the church having slowly allowed error to creep in, but then he found out it was intentionally done for both money and control. In his final act of severing his ties to Rome, he really stuck it to them by writing the first bible in German that was mass printed by the first printing presses, and widely available to the common man.

The reason that this was the final straw from Rome was that now ordinary Joe on the street could argue the scripture with his priest when he saw that he was being taken advantage of. The only reason that Rome even managed to survive past this was that many folks that had been brought up Catholic for ages were still in fear of not receiving salvation outside the church. Over the years it has obviously developed into a very deep spilt where one side or the other just will not give and inch, as we saw in Ireland.


Originally posted by Mahree
It was only later, I believe in 1885, when the books were removed from the Protestant Bible.


No I believe that martin Luther did not include the Apocrypha in his bible. This was simply because they contain nothing about Christ in them. All the other Old Testament books at least make a referral to the coming messiah. Neither Luther, nor any other protestant faith, that I know of, tells its members they cannot read the apocrypha, they simply say it’s not as important. I have read them, and they really did not add much for my understanding of things. As a matter of fact some of the Pseudopigraphal books have provided me with more insight then the apocryphal books did.

As far as if it’s the Roman Catholic Church, or if it the Roman Empire, I gave it some thought in the car, and its not that vitally important as long as you know its Rome in some fashion, and that much of it has already passed. As I said before Preterism and Historicism are very similar in some ways. The important thing to know is who the 5th layer of the statue in Daniel and the 2nd Beast of Revelations is. As that does not so much relate to Rome as a religion or as an empire, and it is the part that is happening in our lifetimes. The only thing that is important to realize is that the 5th beast has to relate back to Rome in some fashion and it is the one that enforces the mark. The 5th beast has a very similar set of attributes that can be historically tracked in the same fashion that I showed for the “Little Horn”. According to Preterism they call this two people, one Anitchious Epiphanies (sp? And I am too tired now to look it up), and Nero. But remember your beasts all follow an order and they are not men, but rather world controlling empires. So who is the next world dominating empire to form after Rome, that came into existence in the late 1700’s when Rome was wounded, was a two party system, with no royalty, and is based on much of the same system of governance as the Roman Empire?

[edit on 3/31/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Because they strayed from the truth and tried to distort it.

Could you please go read a little history before you try and argue with me?
The reason that Germany refused to relinquish Luther to the Inquisition was because their emperor had stated that no German citizen could be put to death without a fair trial. As the Inquisition was well known as both a death sentience and not being a fair trial, the German government agreed to only turn over Luther to the Inquisition if they could prove what he said was in error, against the Holy Scripture. They tried Luther at the Diet of Worms and he was found not guilty.

Translation for you: “Rome was the one straying from the Truth and Distorting it”


Originally posted by thehumbleone
Did you ever read what Moses did to the Jews who were worshiping a pagan god after he came down from Mount Sinai?


Well then I guess they should have put the Pope to death back then and made Luther the new head of the Church, as the Pope was made a public fool out of; being caught in lies, blatantly mistranslating scripture, and taking advantage of their parishioners. You know what the scripture says will happen to a man the intentionally misleads his flock? Look that one up…


Originally posted by thehumbleone
the protestant religions number in the hundreds because they can't even agree on what a particular verse means.


Actually they are not as different as you might think. It’s ok for me to take “Open Communion” with a number of various Protestant faiths, however; I cannot take Mass. Most of the differences between the mainline ones are simple doctrinal issues. Like Baptists believe that you have to be fully immersed when baptized and you cannot receive infant baptism, when others feel its safer to do as young as possible. Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists are somewhat interchangeable fundamentally they believe much of the same things. The important thing they all believe, that Rome does not, is salvation through grace alone. Now there are a few of the newer ones that are not quite as interchangeable, groups such as the Jehovah’s witnesses who believe in Arianism, as an example.


Originally posted by thehumbleone
The Holy Catholic Church has never changed it's interpretation of what Christ meant, think about that for a second, we (Catholics) have had the same beliefs since the very beginning of Christianity, whereas with protestants you can't predict what they will believe from one day to the next.


You guys change more then all of them put together… ROFLMAO…
Vatican 1, Vatican 2, Vatican 102, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, I mean I could write a book

[edit on 3/31/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5


Originally posted by thehumbleone
the protestant religions number in the hundreds because they can't even agree on what a particular verse means.



by defcon5:The important thing they all believe, that Rome does not, is salvation through grace alone.


Not so.


Catechism of the Catholic Church
The necessity of faith

Paragraph 161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowshop of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end.'




Originally posted by thehumbleone
The Holy Catholic Church has never changed it's interpretation of what Christ meant, think about that for a second, we (Catholics) have had the same beliefs since the very beginning of Christianity, whereas with protestants you can't predict what they will believe from one day to the next.



by defcon5:You guys change more then all of them put together… ROFLMAO…
Vatican 1, Vatican 2, Vatican 102, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, I mean I could write a book


Did you notice all were within the Roman Catholic Church? When a change was made, we did not go out and start a new church.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
In his final act of severing his ties to Rome, he really stuck it to them by writing the first bible in German that was mass printed by the first printing presses, and widely available to the common man.

The reason that this was the final straw from Rome was that now ordinary Joe on the street could argue the scripture with his priest when he saw that he was being taken advantage of. The only reason that Rome even managed to survive past this was that many folks that had been brought up Catholic for ages were still in fear of not receiving salvation outside the church. Over the years it has obviously developed into a very deep spilt where one side or the other just will not give and inch, as we saw in Ireland.


How do you account for the millions of Catholics still in this world? I mean now that we can read the Bible?


Originally posted by Mahree
It was only later, I believe in 1885, when the books were removed from the Protestant Bible.


No I believe that martin Luther did not include the Apocrypha in his bible. This was simply because they contain nothing about Christ in them. All the other Old Testament books at least make a referral to the coming messiah. Neither Luther, nor any other protestant faith, that I know of, tells its members they cannot read the apocrypha, they simply say it’s not as important. I have read them, and they really did not add much for my understanding of things. As a matter of fact some of the Pseudopigraphal books have provided me with more insight then the apocryphal books did.

If you did read the books than you must have noticed, "the 7 disputed books contain lots of scriptural proof for Orthodox & Catholic doctrine."

See this link

By the Way.....Here are a few quotes from the Deuterocanon in the New Testament:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7- slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

There are many others in most of the New Testament.

For Bible time line see this site

See years 1613-1901: At that time until today translations have continued as translators gained a better understanding of the Hebrew language and the Greek writers. 300 corrections were made in the 1613 version of the King James Version. In the 18th century Bishop Challoner made revisions to the Rheims-Douay Bible removing some Latin terms and adding the use of King James translation in some areas.
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed and in 1901 when the American standard Version was printed.emphasis is mine

Your link to the pictures of the coins and statues is rabid anit-catholic.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree

by defcon5:The important thing they all believe, that Rome does not, is salvation through grace alone.

Not so.


Yes so…
Since I don’t have a Catholic Catechism sitting here I found these from catholic sites:

Salvation is Both Faith and Works
We’ve had some great discussions about salvation. I’ve really enjoyed our conversations.
I’d like to take the opportunity to list some of the many places in the Bible where Scripture makes it extremely clear that: (1) we are saved by grace through both faith and works; and (2) this is a lifelong process, not a one-time action.
All of the quotations are from the King James Version.

Salvation Through The Church
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
"The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816

The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation By Works
Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!



Originally posted by Mahree
Did you notice all were within the Roman Catholic Church? When a change was made, we did not go out and start a new church.


And nothing Dogma wise has changed in my church since the day Martin Luther founded it, except the hymnal which was modernized some and has nothing to do with dogma…

The Catechism we still use was written by Luther, and can be found and checked online, all his original works are also available to us to check. Nothing in any of that Dogma has ever changed.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
How do you account for the millions of Catholics still in this world? I mean now that we can read the Bible?

The Catholic Church started out with a huge base of parishioners. Most of the folks that are Catholics now have been so since birth and it’s like a family tradition. People leave the Catholic Church in droves though, and their numbers are waning. I have met thousands of now Protestant ex-Catholics, and I have only ever met two people that were protestant and became Catholic (both through marriages). The reason that they started out with such a huge number of people was for the reason I stated above, they did so at the tip of a sword…


Originally posted by Mahree
If you did read the books than you must have noticed, "the 7 disputed books contain lots of scriptural proof for Orthodox & Catholic doctrine."

As I have stated they are open to any Protestant to read, they are not on some banned list. I have yet to see them convince any Protestant to become a Catholic, including myself. The reason they were omitted has already been stated, they lack anything to do with Christ.


Originally posted by Mahree
See years 1613-1901: At that time until today translations have continued as translators gained a better understanding of the Hebrew language and the Greek writers. 300 corrections were made in the 1613 version of the King James Version. In the 18th century Bishop Challoner made revisions to the Rheims-Douay Bible removing some Latin terms and adding the use of King James translation in some areas.
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed and in 1901 when the American standard Version was printed.emphasis is mine

I don’t see what this has to do with what we are discussing. I did not write the KJV bible, though I do often use one. I also use a “New American Bible for Catholics”, a RSV, a Students Bible, and I have a ton of Bibles on E-Sword including Luther’s German Bible. I also have a brand spanking new Strong’s Concordance sitting right here on the desk next to me…

So what is your point, unlike the Catholic Church there are no banned writings, and no strict guidelines on what version of the Bible I have to use?


Originally posted by Mahree
Your link to the pictures of the coins and statues is rabid anit-catholic

Yeah, that is why I did not link any content...
I try and keep things fair and even, but that was the only location I could find the pictures I was looking for. They are real pictures regardless of the opinion of the web site creator. If I intended this as an assault on Catholicism then I would be linking content from locations such as that, as I have been fair and honest I don’t need to use their content. I can prove my point using legit links such as Wiki and actual Catholic websites. It does not detract from what I am saying as I what I am saying is true and can be verified through legit sources.


[edit on 3/31/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I have met thousands of now Protestant ex-Catholics, and I have only ever met two people that were protestant and became Catholic (both through marriages). The reason that they started out with such a huge number of people was for the reason I stated above, they did so at the tip of a sword…


No swords are visible now. Maybe because you only hang out with Protestants you only know Protestants.

Perhaps some Monday evening you might watch a program on EWTN called, The Journey Home. It is testimony of fallen away Catholics and protestants who have come home to the Catholic Church. This includes many ministers and leaders in the Protestant Churches. The program may show you that not all are only converts through marriage or what we refer to as "cradle Catholics". I imagine there are as many "cradle Protestants."

I, myself, am a convert. Not through marriage, but through research.




So what is your point, unlike the Catholic Church there are no banned writings, and no strict guidelines on what version of the Bible I have to use?


When Martin Luther left the Roman Catholic Church he took with him the Bible developed through Councils of the Catholic Church, both Roman and Orthodox.


Originally posted by Mahree
Your link to the pictures of the coins and statues is rabid anti-catholic


Yeah, that is why I did not link any content...
I try and keep things fair and even, but that was the only location I could find the pictures I was looking for. They are real pictures regardless of the opinion of the web site creator. If I intended this as an assault on Catholicism then I would be linking content from locations such as that, as I have been fair and honest I don’t need to use their content. I can prove my point using legit links such as Wiki and actual Catholic websites. It does not detract from what I am saying as I what I am saying is true and can be verified through legit sources.


I accept your explanation that you were not wanting to quote anything from that perverse site and I thank you. But, my impression of what you posted was that the woman on the coins was the "whore of Babylon" which you indicated is the Roman Catholic Church.

If I am mistaken please correct me.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Yes so…
Since I don’t have a Catholic Catechism sitting here I found these from catholic sites:

Salvation is Both Faith and Works
We’ve had some great discussions about salvation. I’ve really enjoyed our conversations.
I’d like to take the opportunity to list some of the many places in the Bible where Scripture makes it extremely clear that: (1) we are saved by grace through both faith and works; and (2) this is a lifelong process, not a one-time action.
All of the quotations are from the King James Version.


This is indeed, a Catholic site. And it does bring up the difference in understanding that Protestants have about the term “works”. All the Bible quotations are there for you to read. As you say, right from the King James Bible.

Please use this link Corporal and Spiritual "works" of Mercy

Catholics believe (from the Catechism, paragraph 161,)

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end.'

This grace allows us to follow Jesus’ commandments:

Mark 12:29-31. (from Ignatius The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.)

“Jesus answered, “The first is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”


Loving our neighbor would be, to feed the hungry, cloth the naked , to comfort the afflicted, to mention a few. Please see the above link for other Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy.

Matthew 25: 31-46, (from Ignatius The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.)

Jesus tells us that we will be separated, sheep on one side, “for I was hungry and you gave me food.” Goats on the other side, “for I was hungry and you gave me no food..”

“as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it for me.”


This is what is difficult for Protestants to understand about Catholic teaching, and I believe it is all a play on words. Catholics believe that if, we are saved by Grace then we will want to follow all of Jesus’ commandments.

Protestants call these “works”.

Now I believe that when a Protestant is saved they also believe in feeding the poor, etc. but for some reason they do not call these works.

Even non-believers do these “works” of feeding the poor, etc.

The only difference is, again quoting from Matthew 25: 31-46,

the non-believers do not do it because Jesus has said, “as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it for me.”

doing good works without the Grace that comes from Jesus, will not save you.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Salvation Through The Church
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
"The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816


This is not a Catholic site. It addresses Islam, Masonry and Catholicism from a Protestant prospective.

One of the tracts they publish has the title, "Are Roman Catholics Christians?"

However, I will try to respond. Within paragraph 816 there is that quote from the Second Vatican Council.

One should read further for more clarification.

Paragraph #817 address "wounds to unity" ".........for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

Paragraph #818 is a little clearer....

Paragraph #818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities (that resulted from such separation) and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers....All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.


the Catechism continues with a few more interesting paragraphs that deal with the problem of unity.

Let us continue to the next selection by defcon5...

by defcon5:

The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation By Works
Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works. You must pay the debt of sins by your penance and your purgatorial sufferings. That is Rome's salvation by works!


This is not a Catholic site:


Copyright © 2000 - 2006 Dr Joseph Mizzi - Trinity Evangelical Church - PO Box 9 Luqa Malta - Email
Permissions: Unless otherwise indicated, any article on "Just for Catholics" may be reproduced and distributed in any format, provided that the wording is not altered and that no fee is charged. Please include the following statement on copies:
'Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi. www.justforcatholics.org. Used by permission.'


I would call it Protestant apologetics. I believe I have addressed the "works" controversy.

You did get one Catholic site out of the three listed as Catholic.


The Catechism we still use was written by Luther, and can be found and checked online, all his original works are also available to us to check. Nothing in any of that Dogma has ever changed.


I don't believe any "dogma" was changed in either of Vatican 1 or 2.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Defcon5 I already spoke to another member about faith and works.
Let me explain.


James 2:14-26

Faith Without Works Is Dead

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


18But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"-- and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. James 2:14-26




Jesus also said we are going to be rewarded according to our works:



12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Revelation 22:12-13



Everything Jesus speaks about here are all works:


Matthew25:31-46
The Final Judgment
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'


41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew25:31-46



So which is it Defcon? Faith only, works only, faith and works, or neither.

The bible and Jesus Christ obviously speak about both.
So are you gonna choose to believe the Bible and Jesus or are you gonna believe only what you want?


[edit on 1-4-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

The Catholic Church started out with a huge base of parishioners. Most of the folks that are Catholics now have been so since birth and it’s like a family tradition. People leave the Catholic Church in droves though, and their numbers are waning. I have met thousands of now Protestant ex-Catholics, and I have only ever met two people that were protestant and became Catholic (both through marriages). The reason that they started out with such a huge number of people was for the reason I stated above, they did so at the tip of a sword…



Where the heck is your proof for this? You're just talking out of your butt.
Yeah, that's why there are still 1 billion+ Catholics in the world.


The Catholic Church has been around since the very beginning of Christianity, trust me, it's not going anywhere. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it.




[edit on 1-4-2007 by thehumbleone]



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join