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 do people believe that Catholicism is the Anti-Christ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
chief_counselor, pardon me I could be wrong here, but wasnt Peter martyred in Rome under Nero around 64 AD? I guess that if this is true then the Roman Catholic Church as is (a political/religious power) did not exist at this point, and did not exist until 312 AD under Constantine. Prior to that the Church existed there no more or less then the Churches in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, or Jerusalem which where all founded by the original Apostles and Paul. Therefore if you wish to use lineage as a proof, rather then compare doctrine to the Word, you might as well admit that the Orthodox Church (of which I am not a member, nor stating their doctrine is correct/incorrect), has every bit as much claim, if not more to the same title.

Also proving that Peter was a founder of the Church in Rome does little in my book to say one way or another whether the Roman Catholic Church is the First Beast of Daniel. Besides this, If I where the Devil, I would be trying to infiltrate the Church, I would not be worried about anyone else, just Gods main force here on Earth. I believe this is why we are seeing so many problems in all Christian Religions nowadays, and why every unbeliever on the face of the planet constantly points it out to us.




posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
chief_counselor, pardon me I could be wrong here, but wasnt Peter martyred in Rome under Nero around 64 AD? I guess that if this is true then the Roman Catholic Church as is (a political/religious power) did not exist at this point, and did not exist until 312 AD under Constantine. Prior to that the Church existed there no more or less then the Churches in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, or Jerusalem which where all founded by the original Apostles and Paul. Therefore if you wish to use lineage as a proof, rather then compare doctrine to the Word, you might as well admit that the Orthodox Church (of which I am not a member, nor stating their doctrine is correct/incorrect), has every bit as much claim, if not more to the same title.

Also proving that Peter was a founder of the Church in Rome does little in my book to say one way or another whether the Roman Catholic Church is the First Beast of Daniel. Besides this, If I where the Devil, I would be trying to infiltrate the Church, I would not be worried about anyone else, just Gods main force here on Earth. I believe this is why we are seeing so many problems in all Christian Religions nowadays, and why every unbeliever on the face of the planet constantly points it out to us.

Ok just to correct a couple of things. The first church of St. Peter moved from Jerusalem to Rome after the Second Jewish war in about 133 AD. Many of the eastern churches before constantine lost strength due to false teachings. When St Paul of Tarsus started a church he left a Bishop in charge of the church. Over time when several churches where in one city the bishop overseen all of them and assigned priest to each church. This all started before Constantine. What people forget about Constantine is that Christianity grew faster after he became emperor than it would of if he didnt. Also Constantinople did not exist until the time of Constatine.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Constantinople was founded c. 658 B. C. by a Greek colony from Megara; the site was then occupied by the Thracian village of Lygos. The chief of the Megarian expedition was Byzas, after whom the city was naturally called Byzantion (Lat. Byzantium). Despite its perfect situation, the colony did not prosper at first; it suffered much during the Medic wars, chiefly from the satraps of Darius and Xerxes. Later on, its control was disputed by Lacedmonians and Athenians; for two years (341-339 B. C.) it held out against Philip of Macedon.


www.newadvent.org...

Just to restate a couple of things, Constantinople sure seems to have a lot of history, about 900 years worth, prior to Constantine for a city that did not exist, eh?

Just to show I am not slanting things, I took it from a Catholic Online Encyclopedia for ya


Now just to be fair, yes, it was not called Constantinople until Constantine.

The original question was over where the Catholic Church got accused of being the anti-Christ, or more to the correctly, the first beast. The Roman Catholic Church that I am pointing too here is the one that existed after the mating of the Roman Empire and the Church of Rome. The other point I was trying to make is that just laying down a lineage is not proof of much one way or another, as I stated before, we both know that there are disputes between Religions over which can trace its roots back to the Original Church. I speculate they all can to some degree or another. The reason that I use the Orthodox religion as an example, is that I know that they also claim to be the oldest with roots back to the original apostils.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
Now I remember...it's Episcopalian. Is that a branch from the Catholic church?

NA!
If ya only look to see that anti-christ is in all religion, does that mean the people who are faithful are too? I swallard enough bashing of the Catholic faith, arr. Mary was appointed as the mother of all by Jesus, no other, she prays for all the children to the Father as we pray to her to help in prayer. The saints who once lived with the angles help your mortal souls in life. Aye, scuttle butts starts up and leads to misunderstanding of each other. May want to think that it is a way by those to keep us divided. We were once united long ago and by those who were desendents of Noah cursed the people with building that stairway to heaven that God himself gave us different tongues.
Set sail first mate, these waters are cursed with those who do not read the logs. There is a place called the black sea, aye, you may want to scuttle butt there if ya like. 'Tis sea is cursed like the dead sea where mortal souls of the tongueless.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If you look at my other posts you will see that I don't mention ANY religion as being the anti-christ. I think all religions are good as long as their doctrines of love and helping your fellowman.
Ahoy thar matey yourself!


[edit on 15-9-2004 by elaine]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Aye, lass, forgive an old seadog mistake and pardon thee. Thanks for the correction, lass, I will be more careful in the future. Atlast, the winds are up. my regard, lass, as my captain of long ago once told me, get your head out of the stern.

And for the rest who bashed the catholics, read the other messeage.

Set sail for Norway, lads, we need more supplies.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ancientsailor]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
You're forgiven ye 'ol seadog.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Thank you kindly, lass, it was an honor to meet thee at sea.
Now, get that parrot out of the rum and set sail, first mate!

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ancientsailor]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
It's actually an easy question to answer (not that it's the anti christ, but more to do with the false prophet) It's because of the gospel of St John, otherwise known as St John the Liar, even by those that knew him. Letters exist from John defending himself from accusations of blatantly lying to basically trying to extort money from the memory, and the words of Jesus. (The letters he was replying to no longer exist) John never met Jesus, and wasn't even around when the events happened, but yet his gospel is the basis for most of Christian dogma concerning the end of Christs life. It was the version that afforded the best scope for power for the church at the time, and evaded such other imbedded truths such as the general acceptance of reincarnation in the Bible.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Heretics, Schismatics and Lothsome Apostates, repent from your offenses against Religion and the Unity of the Church, and withdraw now from your contumacy! Submit to the jurisdiction entrusted to the Latin Church by Christ!



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
) The Place of Peter: Rome declares that God's Church is "built on Peter," and that "Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 141. (1994). Is this the truth or a fable? How can we find out? By the Word. The primary passage used to support Rome's idea is Mat. 16:18. The context reveals that Peter acknowledged who Jesus Himself was - the Christ (vs. 16). Then Jesus said, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will I build My church" (vs. 18). Rome says Jesus meant that Peter was the Rock, yet Christ did not say this. He didn't say, "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church." Rather, He said, "You are Peter, and on this rock ..." Protestants believe "this rock" is Jesus Christ Himself, not Peter. The Bible says, "...that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:4. David said, "The Lord is my Rock." Psalm 18:2. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation ..." 1 Cor. 3:11,12. Thus the Word says we should build on Christ, not Peter.

Rome says Peter was the first Pope - that is, Number 1 among the apostles. Yet Peter himself said he was only "a fellow elder." 1 Peter 5:1. Peter would not let anyone bow down at his feet in reverence (Acts 10:25,26). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11). James led the Jerusalem council, not Peter (Acts 15:13,19). If Peter was the first Pope, and God intended His church to believe this, then why didn't Paul mention Peter even one time in his letter to the Church of Rome? Paul's epistle to the Romans never mentions his name. This is highly significant. If we stick to the Word, we do not find the supremacy of Pete



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Why do people believe that Catholicism is the Anti-Christ?
Simply put, because to many who believe this, the anti-Christ is not any particular individual, but a system of things. Accordingly, the Catholic Church fits the criteria set-forth and/or explained as being 'those' system of things. Just hit any decent and well-informed Seventh-Day Adventist website and one will see those thngs explained.

Again, it is not necessarily an individual that is the 'anti-christ', but a system.



seekerof



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The Place of Peter: Rome declares that God's Church is "built on Peter," and that "Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 141. (1994). Is this the truth or a fable? How can we find out? By the Word. The primary passage used to support Rome's idea is Mat. 16:18. The context reveals that Peter acknowledged who Jesus Himself was - the Christ (vs. 16). Then Jesus said, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will I build My church" (vs. 18). Rome says Jesus meant that Peter was the Rock, yet Christ did not say this. He didn't say, "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church." Rather, He said, "You are Peter, and on this rock ..." Protestants believe "this rock" is Jesus Christ Himself, not Peter. The Bible says, "...that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:4. David said, "The Lord is my Rock." Psalm 18:2. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation ..." 1 Cor. 3:11,12. Thus the Word says we should build on Christ, not Peter.

Rome says Peter was the first Pope - that is, Number 1 among the apostles. Yet Peter himself said he was only "a fellow elder." 1 Peter 5:1. Peter would not let anyone bow down at his feet in reverence (Acts 10:25,26). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11). James led the Jerusalem council, not Peter (Acts 15:13,19). If Peter was the first Pope, and God intended His church to believe this, then why didn't Paul mention Peter even one time in his letter to the Church of Rome? Paul's epistle to the Romans never mentions his name. This is highly significant. If we stick to the Word, we do not find the supremacy of Peter.



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Sorry Did mean to post the same message twice



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join