- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
… looks like FTOS just got burned ๐ That's what you get when you're being condescending to people. You condemn Satan for being proud, yet look at how proud you are. I've always disliked that tone when I was a member, the same one you use in your posts. Smug, self-righteous and conceited
You are stubborn like a child. And that's not what Jesus meant in Mathew 18:3, don't try to spin it that way.
fromtheotherside wrote:
LOLz you sound like a girl! Well even if you are not you are still so cute and fiesty! haha. I wouldn't take what you provided back to me to my pastor because it makes no sense. Why would i ask about something that just doesn't make sense, and I know even just by reading Dan your "proof" is totally absurd! Well emil girl or boy or thing whatever you are, then tell me what is the beast in rev that was given power by the serpent and the beast in Dan why are they different? As you say they are different, so prove it. I don't have to give you my points you should already know them, as does every Xmember.
I remember when you told someone to calm down and I said we don't need to tell people to do that, you apologized and 'retracted' your statement. You even started expressing yourself less aggressively after the fiasco with Joshua. I'm not going to 'burn' you for this comment but I will say that it appears you are trying to be a nicer person though you sometimes ignite heated discussions with comments like these. Keep trying FTOS. No one changes over night. =)
FTOS, I am still waiting for you to show me (not just tell me) how I am wrong about Dn 7. Please try to stick to the issue and not get personal.
FTOS, I'm still waiting for your response.
I was going through my notes and came across a study about King David. In my notes I wrote 330 AD Capital moved from Rome to Constantinople. All power was given to Pope. Ahab & Jezebel worship Baal = Emperor & Pope Constantine worship Sun God.
My question, why didn't the "1,260 year reign" of the Catholic church begin in 330 AD when all power had been given to the pope in that year? Does anyone have any more information about 330 AD? All I have written about that date is that's when the Pope received all power.
Very good question Renita. Apart from the fact that the information they gave is historically false, they cannot use 330AD as the start because then they have to find a suitable event in 1590 AD. That is what Genny has been talking about. They chose 538 and 1798 as a pair of dates that would give them the 1260 years because any other pair of dates 1260 years apart would have come out even more ridiculous than 538 and 1798.
Yes, I understand the literal "why not [insert date here]" but I was really asking anyone who is well learned in history, or at least understands more than me, who will explain when the true historical "reign" of the Pope began. History says the Pope received all power in 330 AD. Does that mean the Pope/Catholic church ruled over all the known earth in 330 AD? Or does that date not count because there were people still doing their own thing? Like having a king that no one listens to. Is that still reigning?
After proof reading, I don't think I'm asking this question properly. This question is independent of any church doctrine. Strictly history.
The only churchy significance to the year 330 I remember off the top of my head is that it was the year the first St. Peter’s Basilica was built.. As far as when the reign of the papacy was established, Catholics say Clement I was pope in the 80’s AD and I’m pretty sure there was a Pope St. Cletus before him. Maybe they interpret having the capitol moved to Byzantium as the pope receiving power, although I’m not sure why.
I have the Edict of Milan written down, too.. That fulfills one of the churches in Rev. The Christians were "raised" above others if they accepted the Catholic way. About the Pope.. Why do Catholics say A. Peter was the 1st Pope?
renita.payno wrote:
I have the Edict of Milan written down, too.. That fulfills one of the churches in Rev. The Christians were "raised" above others if they accepted the Catholic way. About the Pope.. Why do Catholics say A. Peter was the 1st Pope?
I think you got that a little wrong. Until the edict of Milan, Christians were being sought after and persecuted. Among the various signs to identify them was also the Sunday worship that was already well established long before. With the edict of Milan, the persecution of Christians officially came to an end and Christians were freely allowed to practice their religion. What I mean to say is that the edict of Milan did not glorify christians but rather accepted or tolerated them.
Catholics say Peter was the first Pope because Jesus chose him to head the church. Mt 16:18.
I didn't get anything wrong. You just elaborated what I said by the Christians were "raised" above others. I chose the term "raised" for anyone who had the study about whatever church in Rev means "elevated" or something like that. After 313, Christians didn't have to serve in the military or didn't have to pay taxes. Nothing I said was wrong, this is what the WMSCOG said. I think what you meant to say was they were wrong?
All I did was say what I wrote in my notes then I asked a question. Perhaps you thought I was mixing my own undestanding or something.. IDK! =)
So, was the early Catholic church the "same" as the early Christian church since they branched off the same Apostle? I know this has nothing to do with the WMSCOG. I just want to understand.
renita.payno wrote:
So, was the early Catholic church the "same" as the early Christian church since they branched off the same Apostle? I know this has nothing to do with the WMSCOG. I just want to understand.
the Catholic church and the early Christian church are the same thing. studying the writings of the first Christians is what led me to re-vert.
Polycarp certainly wouldn't recognize the RCC as his church, probably not any of today's churches to be fair (but he'd go to RCC before WMSCOG)
Revert? Meaning going from Catholicism to Christianity back to Catholicism?
But that makes sense that they were the same. Which leads me to another explanation from the WMSCOG. They say the early church split in 2, the Western church Rome [Lighten!] and the Eastern Church Asia Minor [Heavier!].. Idk why I wrote lighten and heavier but I wrote it twice. The West and East churches "fulfill" North Israel, 10 tribes [Lighten!] and South Judea, 2 tribes [Heavier!].
Wouldn't the 1st split be when the Catholics claimed Peter as the 1st Pope but the Christians claimed Peter an Apostle?
The "Reign of the Catholic Church" begain in 33 AD when it was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nobody can pinpoint the beggining of the Catholic Church's apostasy, because it never happened.
The Edict of Milan merely legailzed Christianity and its practice. It didn't change it.
As early as 110AD, Ignatius of Antioch, a friend of John the Apostle, and the third Bishop of Antioch, where the disciples were first called 'Christians,' was also the first to describe the Church as "Catholic."
He also describes the life of the Church, based on Bishops, celebrating the Eucharist, which is no mere symbol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Smyrnaeans
There is no getting around it, the first Christians were Catholic.
I challenge you to find a single sect of heretics from before AD 100, 300, 1000, or 1500 that hold the beliefs that match or even closely resemble those of any Non-Catholic/Orthodox church still in existence today.
Not only that, the Book of Daniel and the Book of Relevation PROVE that the true Church MUST be ROMAN CATHOLIC.
I will post on this in more detail this weekend when I have more time to post. But in the mean time I direct you to this fantastic book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Eternal-City-Catholic-Christianity/dp/0988442507
Wow! You might want to start a new thread for this one.
looks like as much revisionist history as WMSCOG in the opposite direction
Simon wrote:
looks like as much revisionist history as WMSCOG in the opposite direction
Depends on who wrote the book. If you think there are errors in what Irenaeus has written, it would be better to point the errors out rather than make a sweeping statement.
@Renita – I am sorry, when you post, I often misunderstand whether you are stating your views or just quoting the wmscog.
To clarify what you asked, Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He had successors as bishop of Rome. There were other bishops elsewhere as well, including the Eastern churches. The bishop of Rome traditionally had a slightly higher place than the other bishops mainly because they succeeded Peter who was appointed head by Jesus himself. There were some differences between the Eastern bishops and the Western ones but to a great extent this was compounded by the lack of proper means of communication in those days. The Western and Eastern churches have had one thing in common, apostolic succession. We have a few Eastern churches active in India today which trace their origin to the apostle Thomas who came to India. These churches are in communion with the Catholic church.
Emil, can we have a one on one PM on this before I Comment? I have some questions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.