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.

 

Why did the Catholics change the ten commandments ?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Obviously since I did not say it was the swiss guard then it must be the vatican army like I previously mentioned.
Ask other people, google it, do whatever you feel you need to do to find out that vatican does control things. Now as to what exactly I do not know because like I said before its behind the scenes and not in view of the public but things do get out or "leaked" from someone involved.
Now I cant specifically name the books in the vatican library, but anything that has to do with free thinking women like for example Joan of Arc, for lack of a better term stories where Jesus was both divine and a man that had a wife and had children, hunting down and killing the Knights Templar, etc.




posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonSpeedN
Obviously since I did not say it was the swiss guard then it must be the vatican army like I previously mentioned.
Ask other people, google it, do whatever you feel you need to do to find out that vatican does control things. Now as to what exactly I do not know because like I said before its behind the scenes and not in view of the public but things do get out or "leaked" from someone involved.
Now I cant specifically name the books in the vatican library, but anything that has to do with free thinking women like for example Joan of Arc, for lack of a better term stories where Jesus was both divine and a man that had a wife and had children, hunting down and killing the Knights Templar, etc.


Ok, to sum up:

1) You discuss a 'Vatican Army', but you are not referring to the Swiss Guard. You provide no other information on this Vatican Army, even after being asked for it more than once.

2) You declare that the Vatican controls things, but you don't know what, can't list anything and offer no speculation.

3) You believe that the Vatican library is keeping things from the public, but you have no idea what those things are. You give examples of things that may be in the library, but offer no titles, authors, contemporaneous documents found elsewhere or any sort of evidence.

Is that pretty accurate?

Eric



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
You can google about the "Vatican Army and get all the information you require on the subject.
As far as the thing about the vatican controling things, I guess I should of mentioned that was what I believe even though I have no proof.
No one outside the vatican knows whats inside the library, it is a FACT that they will not let anyone from the public inside to read the books unless given special permission and even that is extremely hard to get.
Now if I didnt know any better ericd I'd say you were getting a little angry perhaps at the lack of evidence or something. I'm just curious, are you offended by these allegations or just need solid proof that things are correct.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DemonSpeedN
 


I'm not angry at all, thanks for asking.

So, we have boiled things down to:

1) You have no proof of the Vatican controlling anything.

2) You believe that there is some Vatican Army that is not the Swiss Guard and that your source is google. When I google Vatican Army, there are two entries on the first page for a tee shirt manufacturer and every other entry is about the Swiss Guard. How far down into Google should I look for this other Vatican Army?

3) You don't know what is in the Vatican library, but you believe that it is something nefarious.

Would that be accurate?

Eric



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
There are other sources besides Google, go to a library, ask other people and just a suggestion maybe you should google "the vatican army".
You also didnt answer my question "are you offended by these allegations or just need solid proof that things are correct? "



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DemonSpeedN
 


I'm not offended by the statements. People have said a heck of a lot worse about the Catholic Church here.

Some proof, a little substantiation, a couple of sources or anything other than idle speculation would have been nice.

It seems that we are now at the point where:

Regardless of the lack of a Vatican Army on Google, in spite of you being the one to recommend it's use, there is some militant arm of the Vatican out there.

You have no idea if the Vatican controls anything, but if they do it's for ill.

In spite of allowing visiting scholars access to the Vatican library on a daily basis, they are clearly hiding texts that show them in a negative light, but you don't know what they are, can't offer titles or authors and have no contemporaneous documents found elsewhere.

Ok, I guess we are done here.

Eric



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Oh I wish I had more information like, what the vatican controls and titles and authors of books and documents in the vatican library. All so I could shove the proof in peoples face that the Catholic church and the Vatican are doing things that God would not approve of and that their views on other religions is wrong and even though they are worlds oldest church organization they are not the church with all the right answers and truth about Christ.




On a side note Google is a hell of alot better resource than Youtube, from what I've seen on this forum thats where everyone gets their proof and thinks theres no where better to get truthful explanation of things.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
The common misconception is that Catholocism was the 1st and only church (which is irrelevent, because TRUTH is what matters). If one actually cared about the subject matter and did a slight bit of reseaech, they will find this was not the case (even in Europe). Here are a few topics to search for: "Waldenses", "Albigensis", "Coptics". The first Christian churches started in Greece, Israel, North Africa 300+ years prior to Constantine. The reformation wasn't simply about rebelling from the Catholic system, but actually about returning to Orthodox Christianity.

Problem for the Catholics is that we still have all the manuscripts that the Bible was translated from. One of many examples of how they remove material to fit their pagan system, is the removal of Acts 8:37. It pretty much spits in the face of their infant baptism policy.

And to anyone else that wants to get on their soapbox about "we need to just come together in agreement, we're all Christians..." Perhaps you should first look at the differences, and then you will see that Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholocism are irreconcileable. Do a search on: "infused vs imputed righteousness (grace vs works)", "Is Mary co-redemptrix?", "The mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ", "Praying to saints is heresy", "Jesus, not the pope is the head of the church", "The lie of purgatory"... Again all of this can be easily researched, but I guess it is easier to just sit back and wallow in ignorance. What possibly is more important than eternity?


You're almost correct, the first Christian church was in Antioch, Syria. Paul, Barnibas, and timothy stayed with them for over a year. The Book of Acts states this, and calls the Antioch believers the "first Christians".

Interesting to note, they rejected outright the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus that derived from Alexandria, Egypt outright both for pagan influence and heresies.

Here

And,

Here



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Some nice links


Actually many of the new testament books were written as letters to other churches to clear up some misunderstandings that developed among the early church's .



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Also worth noting , a book that some of you out there might be interested in ....
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Some nice links


Actually many of the new testament books were written as letters to other churches to clear up some misunderstandings that developed among the early church's .

Oh yeah, especially Galatians. I'm arguing with 2 Seventh Day Adventists now who are demanding people observe the Sabbath.

And Paul explicitly tells the Christians at Galatia not to listen to Judaizers who were telling them that as new Christians they had to adhere to rites and rituals of the Jews. Paul even rebuked Peter for teaching the same.

Galatians explicitly is telling them that the Old Covenant is destroyed and Christians are under a New Covenant with God through Jesus Christ's life and death.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Some nice links


Actually many of the new testament books were written as letters to other churches to clear up some misunderstandings that developed among the early church's .

Oh yeah, especially Galatians. I'm arguing with 2 Seventh Day Adventists now who are demanding people observe the Sabbath.

And Paul explicitly tells the Christians at Galatia not to listen to Judaizers who were telling them that as new Christians they had to adhere to rites and rituals of the Jews. Paul even rebuked Peter for teaching the same.

Galatians explicitly is telling them that the Old Covenant is destroyed and Christians are under a New Covenant with God through Jesus Christ's life and death.


I've dealt with some of the 7th dayers in the past. I think that they skip the book of Galatians altogether. The whole Grace vs law concept is not appealing to them? There are a couple problems with there obsession with the 4th commandment. First of all, they don't keep it the way God instructed the Jews to keep it. They are to do no work whatsoever, so going to church breaks that. Ask them when the last time they stoned someone for not keeping the Sabbath? (Jews were told to do this) The Bible says if we break one of the commandments of the law, it is the same as breaking all of them, so question them if they have ever lied, stolen, commited adultry, coveted etc. Then when all else fails, show them how Ellen White was a false prophet, and by the Jewish law, she should have been stoned.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 
She was not only a false prophet, but a plagiarist, 90% of her book "The Great Conspiracy" was stolen from books by J.N. Andrews. And my goodness, there are over 100 failed prophecies from her.

And it's quite depressing to see them soooo staunchly try to live under the Old Covenant as regards to the Sabbath, yet they don't seem to care about God's litmus test in the OT for determining a true prophet and a false one:

100% accuracy with each and every prophecy. And if a self-proclaimed prophet was wrong even a single time they were to be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by kingofmd
 
100% accuracy with each and every prophecy. And if a self-proclaimed prophet was wrong even a single time they were to be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death.

You are a false prophet.
You distort scripture to serve your own inclinations.
The verse about stoning false prophets is talking about people who come along and speak against the law that Moses gave to the people from God. That would apply to you who tell people not to follow the ten commandments. Here you are calling on the stoning of someone who upholds God's law. Shame on you. When you meet your maker, He will say to you, I know you not. Because you did not acknowledge Him. How does one acknowledge God, according to the Ten Commandments? To keep the Sabbath day holy. If you say you have no sabbath, then you have no god.

edit to add: this applies to both of you.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
WHAT???????

I've never claimed to have a prophecy from God!!!! lol I've never claimed to be one of God's prophets. Hilarious dude.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Ahem:

" And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Deuteronomy 18:21-22

Have I ever once declared I had a Word from the Lord to share with you?? lol Unreal dude, I've never claimed to be a prophet!!!!

Ellen G. White has though....



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
WHAT???????

I've never claimed to have a prophecy from God!!!! lol I've never claimed to be one of God's prophets. Hilarious dude.

You are a prophet of Above Top Secret. If you go around teaching the word of God, that makes you a prophet. By saying this or that will happen, you are giving prophecy. You can be held accountable for everything you write on a forum because other people read it. The Bible says what happens to people who teach others to not keep the commandments. That means you, and anyone else who wants to celebrate their freedom to sin. You have your reward here on earth but you will pay in hell.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


"Prophet of Above Top Secret"? Hmmm, I don't recall that being in the Word of God.

I do however recall that a 'prophet of God' being spoken of very often in the Word of God. And someone claiming to have a prophecy from the Lord had to pass a LITMUS test... 100% accuracy.

I have never once claimed to be a prophet, nor have I ever claimed the Lord has given me a prophetic revelation.

Ellen G. White on the other hand can't say the same, she claimed to be a prophet of God, and made over 100 prophecies which failed to come to pass.

She is a false prophet, and thank God we are under the covenant of grace or her false prophet behind would have been taken out of the church and stoned to death. She was a charlatan, a liar, a plagiarist, and a false prophet. A "wolf in sheep's clothing", teaching the "doctrines of men".

If I were you I'd leave the church as fast as I possibly could. But don't sit there and lie through your teeth and say that I have declared to be a prophet or declared that I had a prophetic revelation from God. You're a liar, I have never claimed such.

I challenge you to provide evidence of my doing so, if you cannot you need to recant that lie.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Your version of what God wants is no more exeptional or valid than mine. It is no more valid than anyone's. Even the guy you called a false prophet.

You should accept what you hold true, and be you. What you should not do is preach the word of God as if your way is the right way. We all have the ability to read and understand what you've been taught, and at this stage of the game if we don't think that way then we don't need you to correct us plz. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
kingofmd your thinking of how the 4th commandment means going to church is breaking the sabbath day you are sadly mistaken. Since when is going to church considered work.
Another thing you have gotten horribly wrong is saying when someone breaks one of the ten commandments they are breaking them all and that is not true at all.

jmdewey60 you are also wrong about that if you go around teaching the word of God you are a prophet. If you go around teaching the word of God you are a Teacher, simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join