Evidence regarding Antichrist and Daniel teachings

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #7118
    genny
    Participant

    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.

  • #53004

    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Actually, wait. I think that might be Dante's Inferno, not the Sistine Chapel. The point is, Catholics historically have no problem imagining certain Popes being in hell. 

    EDIT: 

    Dante portrayed Nicholas III and Boniface VIII in hell for the sin of simony. (selling holy objects or positions of authority) 

    He also portrayed Saint Celestine V in hell, because he thought he was a coward for abdicating the Papacy. The Church later judged otherwise and canonized the monk, turned Pope, turned monk. 

    #53005

    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Furthermore, the Pope is only infallible in his teacher when he speaks "ex cathedra," or "from the chair" of Peter. Vatican I defined this in the following words:

    "EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

    Pope Benedict XVI stressed that; 

    "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible on the rarest of occasions." 

    #53006

    Simon
    Participant

    is there any list of what is specifically infallible doctrine and what is not?

    #53007

    Simon
    Participant

    not the second one I just meant the first a list of what isn't would be silly cuz so many things have been said I am sure

    #53008

    Anonymous
    Inactive

    There is a book that comes close. Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Dogma," it is not necessarily everything that's infallible, and some of the contents might not be, but its a pretty thorough compilation of the Church's dogmatic decrees and documents. (Papal and Conciliar) 

    http://www.ignatius.com/Products/DENZ-H/enchiridion-symbolorum.aspx

    #53009

    Simon
    Participant

    wow thats pricey lol 

    #53010

    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yeah, lol. It's a pretty big book. That one has the Latin and English, there are cheaper and abridged versions. If anyone wanted a copy I would recommend shopping around on Amazon. 

    #53011

    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Here it is online. Its a bit difficult to read online though. I defenitely prefer the print edition. 

    http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

    #53012

    Simon
    Participant

    cool thank you 🙂

    #53013

    emil
    Participant

    Simon wrote:

    emil wrote:

    Sorry. The church does not forbid people from marrying. Priests make a choice to not marry and be priests instead.

    That's a non sequitur

    Why? 1 Tim 4 is about those who proscribe marriage and certain foods. I have explained that the catholic church does not forbid marriage. You are applying this verse erroneously.

    The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?

    Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.

    better yes required no

    Why would he recommend it if it was demonic?

    that is a strawman

    You first quoted 1 Tim 4 to say forbidding marriage was a demonic doctrine. Then I pointed out how Paul himself recommends it for those who are called to be priests. You call that a strawman.

    #53014

    Simon
    Participant

    no I call saying I said celibacy is demonic a straw man when I only said requiring it is

    #53015

    emil
    Participant

    I did not mean that you said "celibacy is demonic" either. I meant whay would Paul recommend it if it was demonic to recommend it. This meaning is clear from my previous post which you quoted.

    You need step back and understand without bias. 1 Tim 4 talks about focing people not to marry. The Catholic Church does no such thing as has been explained to you. The Catholic Church gives equal importance to the sacrament or Matrimony as to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Those who opt for the latter, accept celibacy as part of that choice. And as IrenaeusFTW pointed out, there are examples of priests who rennounce priesthood and opt for marriage. This is sad but perfectly acceptable to the Church.

    This is why it is wrong to claim the CC teaching is demonic based on 1 Tim 4.

    Oh and BTW, you would do well to read the history of Joan of Ark before saying the Church burnt her at the stake. She is a canonized saint of the Catholic Church.

    #53016

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    I notice the Catholics like to canonize people they killed or were against, well after the majority of the world acknowledges them as martyrs or their death as unjust, is that not true? Joan of arc died in the 15th century but was conanized in the early 1900's.  What took them so long? 

    #53017

    Sarah2013
    Participant

    Joan of Arc had a little bit of issues. In addition, her famous story appear to have some discrepancies in it.  

    #53018

    emil
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    I notice the Catholics like to canonize people they killed or were against, well after the majority of the world acknowledges them as martyrs or their death as unjust, is that not true? Joan of arc died in the 15th century but was conanized in the early 1900's.  What took them so long? 

    Can you list some names or you just shooting from the hip?

    Joan of Arc was tried in a fake trial by an individual French Bishop loyal to the English King with in 1431.

    Here's some history for you

     

    She was captured by the Burgundians, transferred to the English in exchange for money, put on trial by the pro-English Bishop of Beauvais Pierre Cauchon for charges of "insubordination and heterodoxy", and was burned at the stake for heresy when she was 19 years old.

    Twenty-five years after her execution, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, pronounced her innocent, and declared her a martyr.

    If you read the history in detail, you would know that Joan requested an appeal to the Pope but she was denied it. The whole issue was of political vendetta and the a church functionary was used by the King of England.

    Here in brief, is the conclusion of the retrial ordered by the Pope

    Brehal drew up his final summary in June 1456, which describes Joan as a martyr and implicated the late Pierre Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a secular vendetta.

    You need to re-examine your bias.

    #53019

    emil
    Participant

    Now that you have deigned to come back to this thread, can we get back to discussing Dan 7 which I wrote about and Genny's points about your interpretation? The interpretation of Rev, Dan 2 and Dan 7 was what this thread was started for.

    #53020

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    So the Catholic Church or bishop of the Catholic Church had her executed.. so how is my statement wrong?????

    #53021

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Okay so the Catholic church recognized her as a martyr.. okay that part I didn't know but… they still killed her. So …. 

    #53022

    emil
    Participant

    A rogue bishop acting under the orders of the King of England is not the Catholic Church. There are sinful people in the Catholic Church, just as in every other church or elsewhere in society. Even the intervening period of 25 years is because her family did not petition the Vatican until the 1450s.

    So can we now get back on track?

    Tell us what exactly is wrong with my point that Dan 7 shows that the little horn cannot be the Catholic Church or the Pope. Tell us how Genny is wrong in her brilliant argument.

    #53023

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    He wasn't a "rogue" at the time he was a legit Biship authorized by the Church.  The Vatican could have realized the wrong and meant to cover up the whole thing. 

Viewing 20 replies - 361 through 380 (of 387 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.