The Great Deception of Christianity - Departing the Faith (the Word)

[3rdAngel]

Clearly you see yourself differently that all of the rest of us see you. Sorry to have to break this to you, but numerology is not God's Word.

Ok tell me how I am being judgmental when I have only shared the scriptures with you? If you cannot why are you pretending that I am when you are the one doing all the name calling while not addressing anything in the OP that you may disagree with? Did you google the difference between numerology and Roman numeral yet? Seems you haven't

 

[Katzpur]

Goodness another one that does not know the difference between Roman numerals and Numerology. Perhaps you should google the difference before posting. Now did you have anything to share in relation to the OP? Did you wish to show why you disagree with anything posted here? I can wait for you to google the difference between Roman numerals and Numerology if you like?

I have said nothing about Roman numerals.

"Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names, and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts." (Source: Wiki) You are using numerology to prove that Roman Catholicism is evil, and where educated people are concerned, you are failing miserably.

 

[Katzpur]

Ok tell me how I am being judgmental? If you can why are you pretending that I am?

Honestly, if you can't see it in yourself, nothing I could possibly say is going to change that. And to be perfectly frank with you, you're not worth my time.

 

[3rdAngel]

Honestly, if you can't see it in yourself, nothing I could possibly say is going to change that.

Thank you for proving my point. Your only making empty words and accuations as your not able to address the OP. It is you who are the one that is being judgmental. I suggest you read ROMANS 2:1-8 which may be helpful. Did you google the difference between numerology and Roman numerals yet?

 

[McBell]

No need, I have never made the claims you are pretending I have made so your simply making strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the OP. Everything posted here is my own work and study of the scriptures. Do you disagree with anything posted here in the OP and can you demonstrate why you disagree? If you cannot demonstrate why you disagree with the OP here then it seems to me that you are only here for the sake of making a disagreement and not interested in having a discussion IMO

As par usual, you completely ignore what I actually posted.

Perhaps one day you will be able to let go your ego and hear what is being said to you.

 

[3rdAngel]

As par usual, you completely ignore what I actually posted. Perhaps one day you will be able to let go your ego and hear what is being said to you.

Happy to discuss the OP with you. Do you have something to share in relation to the OP?

 

[McBell]

Well I am not the one calling other people names or am I judging anyone or being judgmental. I am only posting God's Word and the scriptures that you seem to disagree with but are unable to show why.

And here you, in your own words, have flat out admitted to what you called me a liar for pointing out.

Your ego is preventing anyone from taking you seriously.
That your ego sees that as merely more ego masturbation is truly sad.
Though it is also kinda amusing.

 

[3rdAngel]

And here you, in your own words, have flat out admitted to what you called me a liar for pointing out.

Your ego is preventing anyone from taking you seriously.
That your ego sees that as merely more ego masturbation is truly sad.
Though it is also kinda amusing.

I am sorry I have said no such thing. Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures shared here in the OP. Until then my friend lets agree to disagree

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me I believe your speechless as you are not able to address the scriptures in the post that disagree with you. Cat got your tongue (joking). If you believe the post you are quoting from is nonsense, then prove it. You quoting you does not make your words true. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it *ROMANS 3:4. Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear

"Scriptures" covers a lot of territory. Revelation was for a long time not even considered scripture -- and in many Christian communities is still not. The "Gospel" of John disagrees in just about every aspect with the other 3 (the "synoptic gospels" or "seen together gospels") for the simple reason that the writer wasn't there, didn't know, and could thus write whatever the heck he felt like.

Revelation itself cannot have been written before 95 CE, and whoever wrote it (it certainly was not the same John as the Gospel) seems very much to me to the of the same model as Jim Jones, or David Koresh or any number of other apocalyptic thinkers relying on little other than their own fears and prejudices.

Even Daniel, who you like to quote, was written AFTER much that it pretends to prophesy. Trust me, you will not be impressed if I prophesy to you today that the US will drop a major bomb in Japan. Well, that's what Daniel does.

You seem to me so utterly bound up in your mythology, your apocalyptic yearnings, that you can't bring yourself to do a minimal bit of research into how all these things were written. No, you just accept that because they are written (by whom, you couldn't possibly say), they must be true. And that's where you get stuck.

 

[McBell]

Happy to discuss the OP with you. Do you have something to share in relation to the OP?

Bold face lie.
You are not in this thread to "discuss" anything with anyone.

This is proven by your not discussing anything with anyone in this thread.

 

[McBell]

I am sorry I have said no such thing. Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures shared here in the OP. Until then my friend lets agree to disagree

Be sorry all you like.
It changes not the fact that you called me a liar, not once, but twice, in this very thread for pointing out that which you freely admit to doing.

 

[3rdAngel]

"Scriptures" covers a lot of territory. Revelation was for a long time not even considered scripture -- and in many Christian communities is still not. The "Gospel" of John disagrees in just about every aspect with the other 3 (the "synoptic gospels" or "seen together gospels") for the simple reason that the writer wasn't there, didn't know, and could thus write whatever the heck he felt like.

Revelation itself cannot have been written before 95 CE, and whoever wrote it (it certainly was not the same John as the Gospel) seems very much to me to the of the same model as Jim Jones, or David Koresh or any number of other apocalyptic thinkers relying on little other than their own fears and prejudices.

Even Daniel, who you like to quote, was written AFTER much that it pretends to prophesy. Trust me, you will not be impressed if I prophesy to you today that the US will drop a major bomb in Japan. Well, that's what Daniel does.

You seem to me so utterly bound up in your mythology, your apocalyptic yearnings, that you can't bring yourself to do a minimal bit of research into how all these things were written. No, you just accept that because they are written (by whom, you couldn't possibly say), they must be true. And that's where you get stuck.

For me I would simply disagree with the majority of your post here. I do not think whatsoever that the Gospel of John disagrees with anything from the other Gospels. It is simply giving a different perspective on the life and teachings of JESUS.

Even the scholars do not agree as to the date of when the books of DANIEL and REVELATION was written. That being said the book of REVELATION was easily written in the life time of the apostles. It's inclusion into the bible that we have today I believe is God's doing and not mans and everything is as it should be but those who do not know God or his Word cannot see things that are not seen.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts though

 

[McBell]

I am further going to ask the Mods to remove all ratings from you on my profile that are a blatant violation of the forum rules.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am sorry I have said no such thing. Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures shared here in the OP. Until then my friend lets agree to disagree

You really cannot figure it out, can you? You are completely and utterly blind to the fact that the "scriptures" that you insist be the only things discussed are the works of humans -- like the thousands and thousands of other "scriptures" that are not from the Bible but that have been written by humans.

And you cannot even begin to see that any "discussion" about something you see as being directly from God, and that your interlocutor sees as being directly from a human, cannot lead to any rational discussion at all.

You've accepted you magic, and you are unwilling to talk to anybody in any terms that do not accept your magic. And in that situation, any rational discussion with you is simply impossible. You've already placed yourself outside of the rational universe.

 

[3rdAngel]

Bold face lie. You are not in this thread to "discuss" anything with anyone. This is proven by your not discussing anything with anyone in this thread.

Ok my friend no need to get angry. We will have to agree to disagree. Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures and the OP here and we can talk more latter. Until then I only wish you well

 

[3rdAngel]

I am further going to ask the Mods to remove all ratings from you on my profile that are a blatant violation of the forum rules.

Your welcome

 

[3rdAngel]

You really cannot figure it out, can you? You are completely and utterly blind to the fact that the "scriptures" that you insist be the only things discussed are the works of humans -- like the thousands and thousands of other "scriptures" that are not from the Bible but that have been written by humans.

And you cannot even begin to see that any "discussion" about something you see as being directly from God, and that your interlocutor sees as being directly from a human, cannot lead to any rational discussion at all.

You've accepted you magic, and you are unwilling to talk to anybody in any terms that do not accept your magic. And in that situation, any rational discussion with you is simply impossible. You've already placed yourself outside of the rational universe.

I believe that the scriptures teach that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (God breathed). It is the Word of God given to holy man as they were moved by the Holy Ghost given to mankind from God. You cannot see these things because you do not believe in God or his Word. That is your opinion although it is not mine. Therefore this is the reason we would agree to disagree. I thankyou for sharing your view but as a Christian it is not one I can agree with and do not believe whatsoever. The wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God

 

[3rdAngel]

More reformers....

One of the great intellectuals of the English reformation was John Jewel (1522-1571). He listed some of the misconceptions held by the Roman Catholic church as to the Antichrist: that he would be a Jew of the tribe of Dan, born in Babylonia or Syria, or be Mohammed, or that he would overthrow Rome or rebuild Jerusalem, etc. Then he commented: "These tales have been craftily devised to beguile our eyes, that, whilst we think upon these guises, and so occupy ourselves in beholding a shadow or probable conjecture of the Antichrist, he which is the Antichrist indeed may unawares deceive us." He was referring to the Papacy.

He then mentions that if we took the term "man of sin" by itself, we might suppose that an individual man is meant. But taking all of the evidence into consideration, we understand that a succession of men is the proper meaning. He pointed out that pagan Rome was the hindering power that prevented the development of the Antichrist and that "Paul saith, the Antichrist shall not come yet; for the emperor letteth him: the emperor shall be removed; and then shall the Antichrist come." This system of apostasy shall continue until it is destroyed at the Lord's coming. "He meaneth not, therefore, that the Antichrist shall be any one man only, but one estate or kingdom of men, and a continuance of some one power and tyranny in the church." (Jewel, 'An Exposition Upon the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians', vol.2, p.813).

Jewel mentioned some of the Papal claims: that the Pope is lord over all the world, king of kings, and that every knee should bow to him; that his authority reaches into heaven and down into hell; that he can command the angels of God; that he can forgive sins, etc. "This is the Antichrist. This is his power. Thus shall he work and make himself manifest. So shall he sit in the temple of God - as though to take God's place."

Twenty-two of the sermons of Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) have been preserved to our day. In his sermon on ISAIAH 55:1: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters... come ye, buy... without money and without price", he contrasted this invitation with that of the Papal Antichrist who requires money for his blessing: "He that sitteth in the temple of God, and termeth himself Christ's vicar, doth in like sort offer unto the people bread, water, wine, milk, pardon of sins, grace, mercy, and eternal life; but not freely: he is a merchant, he giveth nothing, and that is nothing which he selleth... his holy water cannot wash away the spots... his blasphemous masses do not appease, but provoke God's wrath... his rotten relics cannot comfort you... by his Latin service ye cannot be edified, or made wiser. Yet this trumpery they sell for money, and upon this trash they cause silly men to waste their substance... Thus you see a manifest difference between Christ and the Antichrist." ('The Sermons of Edwin Sandys', pp.11-12).

William Fluke (1538-1589), an English puritan, pointed to Rome as the seat of the Antichrist (which was taken after the seat of the civil empire was removed) and that the Antichrist was a succession of men, not a single individual. By looking at Rome, he says, "It is easy to find the person by St. Paul's description; and this note especially, that excludeth theheathen tyrants, 'He shall sit in the temple of God': which we see to be fulfilled in the Pope... the Pope is that 'Man of Sin', and 'Son of Perdition', the adversary that lifteth up himself 'above all that is called God'; and shall be destroyed 'by the glory of his coming'."

In 1611, what is known as the "King James Version" of the Bible was issued and has ever since been in wide circulation and use. The translators, men of learning and with a knowledge of history, recognised that the Papacy was the man of sin and that the open publication of scriptural truth was dealing a great blow to him. Thus they wrote in their dedication to King James: "...The zeal of your majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom by writing a defence of the truth which hath givensuch a blow to that man of sin as will not be healed." It is evident that these men did not think the man of sin was an individual to be revealed at some future time!

King James (1566-1625) himself believed that following the removal of the Roman emperors, the reign of the Antichrist began. This was, of course, a reference to the rise of the Papacy which he believed to be the Antichrist and Mystery of Iniquity. (Froom, vol.2, pp.540-541).

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is well known in history because of his scientific research, especially in connection with the laws of gravitation. He was a writer, mathematician, philosopher, and also a student of Bible prophecy! His writings on prophecy - from a study of 42 years - entitled 'Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John'was published six years after his death. Newton linked the little horn of Daniel 7 with the Papacy, rising among the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire fell. "But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms... By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the church of Rome. A Seer... is a Bishop in the literal sense of the word; and this Church claims the universal Bishopric. With his mouth he gives laws to kings and nations as an Oracle; and pretends to Infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the whole world; which is to be a Prophet in the highest degree." (Newton, 'Observations on the Prophecies', p.75).

TO BE CONTINUED...

 

[3rdAngel]

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1725), "early became convinced that the Pope was the predicted Antichrist." Through his books which were translated into many languages, he had a strong influence upon a number of people, including Wesley.

John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of Methodism, whose ministry has affected the lives of multiplied thousands, believed the man of sin had found fulfilment in the "Romish Papacy." (Wesley, 'Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament', pp.290).

In 1754, Wesley wrote these words concerning the Papacy: "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is... that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped... claiming the highest power, and highest honour... claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." (quoted in the 'Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms', p.110).

Froom sums up the evidence in these words: "We have seen the remarkable unanimity of belief of Reformation leaders in every land that the Antichrist of prophecy is not to be a single individual - some sort of superman - who will wrack and well-nigh wreck the world just before the second advent of Christ. Instead, they found that it was a vast system of apostasy, or rather, an imposing counterfeit of truth which had developed within the jurisdiction of that divinely appointed custodian of truth, the Christian Church." (Froom, vol.2, p.793).

A number of notable books on the Papal Antichrist were written during the centuries that followed the Reformation. We will mention two: 'Roman Antichrist', written in 1612 by Andreas Helwig of Berlin (the first according to Froom, as well as Elliott, to link the number 666 with the Papal designation "Vicarius Filii Dei") and 'Dissertations on the Prophecies', written by Thomas Newton in 1748, which showed that the prophecy of the man of sin had found fulfilment in the Roman Papacy.

This same point was emphasised in the Protestant Creeds. The 'Westminster Confession of Faith' used by the Church of England and later by the Presbyterian Church says: "There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and Son of Perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." (Chapter 25, Section 6). This same basic statement, with difference only in wording, is found in the 'Savoy Declaration' of the Congregational Church, the 'Baptist Confession' of 1689, and in the 'Philadelphia Confession of Faith'.

The 'Morland Confession' of 1508 and 1535 (which represented the beliefs of the Waldensian Brethren) says in article 8: "That the Antichrist, that man of sin, doth sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Church, of whom the Prophets, and Christ and His Apostles foretold, admonishing all the godly, to beware of him and his errors, and not suffer themselves to be drawn aside from the Truth."

The Reformation work in Switzerland produced the 'Helvetic Confession' in 1536 in which the Papacy is mentioned as the predicted Antichrist. The Lutheran Statement contained in the 'Smalcald Articles' says: "The Pope is the very Antichrist, who exalteth himself above, and opposeth himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God..." These Creeds represented the belief of multiplied thousands.

As churches were established in America, it was this same view concerning the Papacy that was held. In 1680 the churches of New England drew up a Confession of faith which stated that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and notthe Pope of Rome who is indeed the Antichrist and the Son of Perdition. "This", writes Froom, "was the commonly accepted American position." (Ibid. vol.3, p.111).

As Samuel Lee (1625-1691), a learned minister of New Bristol, Rhode Island, said: "It is agreed among all maintainers of the Evangelical Church that the Roman Pontiff is the Antichrist." (Lee, 'The Cutting Off of the Antichrist', p.1).

John Cotton (1584-1652), a Puritan minister of Plymouth and Boston, taught that REVELATION 13 was a picture of the Papacy. Cotton is regarded as America's first prophetic expositor.

Roger Williams (1603-1683), founder of Rhode Island and pastor of the first Baptist church in America, likewise, spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself... speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (2 THESSALONIANS 2)." (Froom, vol.3, p.52).

Cotton Mather (1663-1728), a Congregational theologian, in his book 'Fall of Babylon' asked the question: "Is the Pope of Rome to be looked upon as the Antichrist, whose coming and reigning was foretold in the ancient oracles?" To this he answered: "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, allthe characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvellously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvellous blindness upon them." (Ibid., vol.3, p.113).

Samuel Cooper (1725-1783), while delivering a series of lectures at Harvard, said: "If the Antichrist is not to be found in the chair of St. Peter, he is nowhere to be found." He believed the Antichrist was the succession of bishops in Rome. (Cooper, 'A Discourse on the Man of Sin', p.12).

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), a famous revivalist and third president of Princeton, identified the "Pope and his clergy" as the power prophesied in 2 THESSALONIANS, DANIEL 7 and REVELATION 13, and 17. His grandson, Timothy Dwight(1752-1817), also a minister, spoke of how the Popes "have seated themselves in the Church, or temple of God, and shewed that they were God, by assuming powers, which belong only to God: the powers, for instance, of making laws to bind the consciences of men; or pardoning sin; of forming religious establishments; of introducing new laws for the conduct and government of the church... thus have they exalted themselves above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." (Dwight, 'A Sermon Preached at Northampton', p.27).

..............

I believe the same as the early reformers did and that is that the Antichrist and the man of sin as described in the scriptures is the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church (not the people or whom God has many that he is calling out to whorship him in Spirit and in truth).

Hope this is helpful

 

[3rdAngel]

I have said nothing about Roman numerals.

Yes you did (red emphasis mine). Post # 14 linked that you claimed is numerology is Latin and Roman numerals. Seems you are the one failing miserably IMO as you do not know the difference. Why do you think I asked you do you know the difference between latin Roman numerals and numeralogy?