Is the "Holy Vatican" of Satan?!?!

reply to post by clever024
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: Hmmm? Ok I'll play...Note I use the KJV purely because it is so corrupted but I'm willing to use whatever version you care to pick!

blueletterbible search page [holy spirit]

blueletterbible search page [holy ghost]

And just looking at both those pages I can see multiple references to people who were imbibed/anointed with either the holy spirit [long before Jesus ever arrived on the scene! i.e Moses, David, Daniel] or the holy spirit! [David, Elizabeth, Zacharias, Simeon]

So it was never exclusive to Jesus in the first place! This is backed up by it not being exclusive both before and after Jesus existence! Care to refute?

Personal Disclosure: Quoting myself directly from the relevant thread linked above on the validity of Jesus..."Summary: Jesus CAN'T be the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD" because its biblically inconsistent and I believe I have shown this conclusively."...... [Note see the thread for full details of that argument in refering to Johns canonical non-validity!]

P.S. miriam0566 has a great thread Here in which the trinity gets kyboshed! Specifically MatrixProphets comments regarding the evidence you put forth concerning the multiplicity of God and since we are made in their image this should be reflected in us but its not! I also have two titles [formal =Mr OmegaLogos and informal= Peregrine] but I'm still just one entity and not two or more!

reply to post by clever024


One of the most important victories for the Catholic Church was the eradication of American Indian culture.

I would ask that the OP provide his sources.

The scholarship of ATS in the CiR forum has taken a nosedive of late. At least there is a tangential relationship to a conspiracy in this thread. Most of the new threads have nothing to do with conspiracies and belong in BTS.

Claims that there have been a declared equivalence between God and the Papacy are false.

You can visit here to view a partial but well written refutation:
www.geoffhorton.com...

I suggest that you try to balance your reading between your anti-Catholic polemicists and at the least some neutral sources.

I look forward to seeing if you post any sources for your claims.


Eric

reply to post by Selahobed


The Two Babylons is so riddled with logical fallacies and proven archaeological falsehoods that no scholar takes it seriously. Even the books most popular proponent (Ralph Woodrow) has rescinded his support and wrote a book refuting the claims of The Two Babylons.

It was a brilliant work for it's time, but it's of little value today.

Eric

reply to post by OmegaLogos


OK, my refutation to that is the the Godhead, IE Gen 1:26 "Let Us...." who is Us first of all... as for the holy spirit being exclusive. I do see where it says "the spirit of the lord, in other books of the bible, but then again there have been other Christs" and in this case IMO when they refer to "the spirit of the lord" in the other books of the bible, its actually a reference to either a substance (tangible/chemical) I.E. Alcoholic drinks= "Spirits" but in Jesus case, its the only instance where "Heaven opened up" making Jesus "The Embodiment of the H.S." also note in the book of John it says there is one coming who can Baptize you in the Holy Spirit and of Fire. but there is no record of Jesus performing ANY baptisms. the reference in John IMO is actually a reference to the second coming of God's anointed, The Son of Man, who will "Come unto you and dwell in you" I.E. Baptizing you in the Holy Spirit, and for those who have rejected Jesus, Baptizing in the Lake of Fire... also in the book of acts i believe its chapter 2 or 3 or something, there is a prayer or something of the like you can say unto the "Lord" and feel the Holy Spirit, and many have claimed to have felt it according to other threads I have read. does that make them "The Anointed" ABSOLUTELY NOT. so even if the previous books of the bible says "And the spirit of the lord came upon them" it didn't IMO "dwell in them, as part of them" thus making them not Lord as Jesus was Lord. this is the best explination i can come up with. feel free to refute it.

reply to post by EricD



You say there is no equivalency between God and the Papacy, but I notice you didn't happen to mention anything about an equivalency between SATAN and the Papacy.

Whether or not some Catholics liken the Pope to God is not doing any damage to anyone but themselves, but the satanic evil that has been part of the Catholic church for so long is undisputable. It is amazing that anyone allows their son to be an alter boy anymore. I wouldn't let a child of mine wander around in a Catholic church if you held a gun to my head.

Originally posted by clever024
Book of Joshua, chapter 6, 6th word. the word is Nun, Joshua is the 6th book of the bible. Joshua=6+6+6=Nun, they give their "sisters" the Title of "Nun", which coincides with the number of the beast..... Also, The first pope declared "The Position of Pope and God are on in the same" if this doesn't do it for you I don't know what will.... Christianity is not evil, just the BIGGEST, MOST RECOGNIZED FORM OF IT MAY BE!

Some other Examples

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

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous"

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

now, in the eyes of "Christians" that is Believers of Christ Jesus as the Son of God, this would be the HIGHEST form of BLASPHEMY

Your thoughts on the issue please. Open for free discussion, please keep it civil as well as an open mind.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by clever024]

Yet another misinformed Catholic hater posts PURPOSELY inaccuarte information to condemn Christians.

From the VATICAN...

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Please keep your illinformed opinions to your self.

reply to post by EricD


I find it quite funny foot note 7

#
# Speaking [in] the name of the Pope (a rhetorical device) Cardinal Manning said: “I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.” (Sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, Tablet Oct 9, 1864)

I AM= God 's name to Moses (taken out of context I am sure of that because i did that on purpose

but

"last supreme judge of what is right and wrong." Isn't the second coming of Christ the LAST Supreme judge of what is write and wrong.

He starts of by claiming no man as superior

as for this refutation. i think it speaks for itself...

it's not the Papacy/Vatican refuting any statements that have been made by it or its members but a 3rd party defending it as if it needed a lawyer, usually only liars need lawyers. unless they are unjustly accused

reply to post by crmanager


ha, that's all i have to say to you. now where do you get off saying I am condemning Christians, I do nothing of the sort, I point out things an organization has done. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, I, Myself, am a Messianic Jew (Christian). Judge not les 'ye be Judged. This thread was not to bash Christians/Christianity. its to point out FLAWS and POSSIBLE Lucerferian on goings within the largest Organized, MOST Recognized form of Christianity on the face of the planet.

Again, this is a conspiracy forum, no one said you had to agree with the conspiracy. just take notes that nothing really has been taken out of context.

i myself do not know latin, or i would look for latin sources and translate for you myself. and most likely draw the same conclusion

Cant you tell? The pope looks just like the 'emperor' from star wars...


eeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

cant you tell? the pope looks just like the emperor off star wars


NO SERIOUSLY ....HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

OK, the PURPOSE of this statement was to keep those who QUESTION the Vatican at bay, because amongst any organization, opinions vary from leader to leader.

as for Solemn here's the definition Uttered, prescribed, or made according to religious forms: I.E. a solemn ban on sacrifice.

it basically just means "serious" and how can you take a man in a funny hat "seriously" I mean c'mon

was it a Solemn teaching that man evolved from primates as of now from the Vatican??? a serious question, as I do not have, and really hope there is no serious answer to be found

reply to post by clever024



So, would I be correct in assuming that you either can not or will not provide original sources for your quotes?

1) Cardinal Manning did not speak for the Church. The Catholic Church has millions of members. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with what he said.

2) I truly hope that you have the capacity to understand temporal conditions on statements. I believe that it is eminently reasonable to believe that the statement was for the here and now, and not referring to the Parusia and Second Coming.

3) You have to rely on 3rd party explanations for refutation to the claims you have copied and pasted when what they quoted never happened or are taken out of context.

The Vatican is not going to explain why they said something when they never said it.

Eric

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by EricD

 

You say there is no equivalency between God and the Papacy, but I notice you didn't happen to mention anything about an equivalency between SATAN and the Papacy.

Quite true. I also didn't mention that there was no equivalency between the Papacy and peanut butter, the Papacy and Major League Baseball and the Papacy and McDonalds.

If you are looking for an exhaustive list, you're not going to find it.

Have there been evil men or men of poor moral character in positions of power in the Vatican? Absolutely. Is the Vatican evil? No. Until the return of Christ, you will not find an institution that includes human beings that is not comprised of flawed and often venal individuals.


Eric

reply to post by EricD


I didn't ask you for an exhaustive list; I only know that many correlations and testimonies exist which links Satanism inside the Catholic church. I am not saying anything about the parishoners as I believe they are simply misled and have good intentions and if they recognize Jesus Christ as their Savior they are in good shape. I do believe the Catholic church is overrun with Satan worshippers which is why they have such a stronghold in the world, and is why they won't be dissappearing anytime soon.

Originally posted by clever024
the Title of "Nun", which coincides with the number of the beast

That's a stretch.

Quoted in the New York Catechism.

What is a 'new york catechism'??
There is only one authorized catechism of the catholic church.
It's just the plain ol' Catechism.

Your thoughts on the issue please.

I'm thinking you are a Jack Chick fan.

[edit on 9/29/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by EricD




Oh on the contrary I do understand the statements, as for the "here and now" who is the pope to Judge, this goes directly against what Jesus taught. and to who's standards does he judge when he does judge? the standards of man? who as you already say is flawed. or the standards of God? Which he does not know God's standards since he is not God. and he uses the word "supreme" as in "exalted". This is just one Pope's statement. lets fast forward to the future It's now OK to allow the spread of a deadly disease by denying contraceptives to people (right) while allowing its cardinals and bishops to molest little boys (also right) just to be moved to another location I.E. another church or higher position out of the reach of the "youngins" (rewarding for bad deeds) so much for the here and now. i wonder what they would consider wrong? oh that's right. they would consider not recognizing the Vatican as God's ultimate authority on earth wrong (self serving) I do not condemn the body of the church, just those who commit horrid acts in the churches name, and since they are "God's ultimate authority on earth embodied currently" they fear not the consequences for their actions.

I assume as you take up in defense of the Vatican you are a Catholic? if i am wrong that is fine but consider this statement. "While you donate to your Vatican, Little Joey can't afford that kidney transplant" and just think about all the GOOD the Vatican CAN DO and how much THEY DO DO, and notice the HUGE DIFFERENCE. and honestly, if and when the 2nd coming comes, Do you think he will reward or punish the Vatican?

im going to quote one of my favorite songs called "When I Get to HELL"

"When I get to hell, I'm sure I'll know everybody from the likes of David Berkowitz to Aleister Crowly, a couple of BIBLE THUMPERS here and there, PRAISE THE LORD" basically what that says is just because you throw around the name of Jesus, Thump Bibles in peoples faces, or Just act like a sheep, and are really a goat, the Lord will KNOW YOU. and I assure you that the likes of some of histories worst people will get into The Kingdom of God, before most of the CURRENT Preachers, Pastors, and the like (Including Pope) just because they may have been non-hypocritical. Most people now Preaching are the "Do as I say, not as I do" People. with that said consider your actions, because even your words can not defend your actions. Forgiveness is available, for FREE, you just have to ASK for it, its not just given, thats why people must always repent for sins, and when was the last time you heard anyone really talk about repenting? Especially in a Catholic Church? I'm wondering myself because I have BEEN to a Catholic church, and there was a lot a talk about St. whats-his-face and St. not-really-important and Holy Blessed Mother Mary, but very LITTLE to do with JESUS. as someone mentioned earlier. IMO the Catholic Church is purposefully leading people down the wrong path with false idols/dieties just so they would have company where they are going, and also keep people under their control. and SINCE WHEN does St.Peter stand at the Gates of heaven and decide who gets in and who doesn't. And how do they know its St.Peter? if you read a BIBLE it says at the Gates of Heaven there will be an angel placed 2 gates on Each Side of the Kingdom. is St.Peter an Angel? then why the title of Saint? thats just one minute example. also if he does judge who gets in and who doesn't well then that negates a Christ figure judging from the book of life so YAY no more need for a Vatican to teach you of Jesus according to their own made up myths.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by clever024]

reply to post by FlyersFan


New York Catechism. In fact does not exist, I withdraw the statement, of said Catechism. after some research I have come to that conclusion. but that still does not leave the "Nun" being the 6th word in the 6th chapter in the 6th book debunked. GFY FlyersFan. i should have used some common sense when posting honestly because in order for a New York Catechism to exist, a New York Vatican, must also exist. and thus it doesn't DEBUNKING only PART of the OP.

reply to post by clever024


I am now asking for the third time that you post your sources for the quotes that you have provided.

If you can not or will not it should be evident to everyone reading that your quotes are falsehoods and you are bearing false witness.


Eric