Page 1 of 4
Beast = Pope+Catholic Church?
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:50 pm
by fedhykin
I thought this was interesting. I wonder if anyone here has heard of this interpretation of the "whole 666 numer of a man thing". Mind you, I have nothing against catholics. Im not even christian(kinda undecided about religion in general)...but this guy has an interesting theory.
Let me know what you guys think of it. All i know is...if Pope benedict changes his name and the catholic church regains world political power...im officially a born again christian...lol
Go here:
http://www.666man.net
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:06 am
by puritan lad
The Beast was the Roman Empire headed by Nero Caesar. See
http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/beast.html
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:28 pm
by Prodigal Son
i think the catholic church is evil. does anyone else?
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:34 pm
by Believer
Prodigal Son wrote:i think the catholic church is evil. does anyone else?
The Catholic church in my opinion has twisted itself, but I don't think they are EVIL. Because of that, that is probably one reason why a lot of Catholics deconvert either into a different religion or none at all. Thank goodness for Martin Luther!
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:12 am
by j316
Prodigal Son wrote:i think the catholic church is evil. does anyone else?
If the catholic church is evil then it should be prospering, not under attack.
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:23 pm
by kateliz
Under attack by who? Protestants who say things against it? That's nothing.
Good point to bring up, though, that evil has an easy time and good is constantly persecuted. We need to take note of that for our own lives. We should be constantly persecuted ourselves, though God says He saves the righteous from his enemies!
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:29 pm
by kateliz
Oh, right: I think it's highly probable, but only for the pope being the False Prophet. He would fit that role much better than that of Antichrist. Little Shepherd did a good job convincing me of that, too. I see him as canidate #1 right now for that, but I'm keeping my eye on someone else for possiblly being the future Antichrist. Only thing that's wrong with the person is that he has a wife, and the Antichrist won't be interested in women. But maybe that comes after he gets possessed?
I say the Antichrist and the ten nation confederacy will come from the eastern leg of the old Roman Empire, not the western. It was a big empire, remember, and it doesn't have to do anything with Rome as far as I see it.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:53 pm
by j316
Whoa! How can a papacy that changes with each succeeding pope be the antichrist? I mean either he is or he isn't. The antichrist of popular opinion is an individual not an institution, [I'm not endorsing popular opinion here because I am not certain that the current guess is biblical] but which pope would you say it is? The last one? This one? The next one?
The roman church has always had more than it's share of problems, but it might be because it has been under spiritual attack because of its position in world affairs. You can say a lot against it, often with valid reason, but it has always been out there witnessing.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:05 pm
by kateliz
Witnessing! Don't you know it's history? What do you call indulgences? What do you call keeping the Bible in Latin, a language for so long only used in the Church and by the well-educated? What do you call holding church services only in Latin, which the lay people didn't even understand? What do you call robbing the poor to pay for wars that only served to give the Pope more power and riches? What do you call the Inquisition? Burning people at the stake because they disagreed with the Church?
For most of the Church's history it was, (by my understanding,) the largest evil there was in the world! Why do people keep forgetting that? The Pope is not infallable. Far from it. The Chruch's beliefs are not infallible. Far from it. I personally believe the Church has done more evil than good. And that includes the present day RCC. It's a cult, and I'm not afraid to say it. I don't mean to offend, but those are my beliefs.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:12 pm
by kateliz
Really, please don't be offended. I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm just very upset at all the Church has done in it's history, and I'm also not thrilled with it's present form.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:18 pm
by jakelo
Witnessing! Don't you know it's history? What do you call indulgences? What do you call keeping the Bible in Latin, a language for so long only used in the Church and by the well-educated? What do you call holding church services only in Latin, which the lay people didn't even understand? What do you call robbing the poor to pay for wars that only served to give the Pope more power and riches? What do you call the Inquisition? Burning people at the stake because they disagreed with the Church?
For most of the Church's history it was, (by my understanding,) the largest evil there was in the world! Why do people keep forgetting that? The Pope is not infallable. Far from it. The Chruch's beliefs are not infallible. Far from it. I personally believe the Church has done more evil than good. And that includes the present day RCC. It's a cult, and I'm not afraid to say it. I don't mean to offend, but those are my beliefs.
So we should judge the Catholic church by it's history? Then we should do that with everything else in the world. I guess the United States of America is still evil because the government and the majority supported slavory. I guess all of germany is evil because they once murdered millions of jews. I could go on and on. I dont think we should judge people or religions today on how its very distant history looks, no matter how gruesome it is. Believe me, I hate the history of the Catholic church. It was very corrupt in those times, but does that mean it supports those types of actions today? Should the Catholic church be hated for actions committed by people so very long ago? And what exactly (other than the molestation cases) do you mean by you aren't happy with it's "present form"?
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:54 am
by j316
Thanks Jakelo, that is about what I would have said. Even with all the evil that has crept in, the church has been a constant witness to Jesus.
In answer to Kateliz I would like to ask her who is known as the accuser of the saints? Where are you in relation to him if you are doing the same thing. Christians are forgiven by their Lord for the evil they have done, who are you to deny them the same?
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:09 am
by bizzt
jakelo wrote:Witnessing! Don't you know it's history? What do you call indulgences? What do you call keeping the Bible in Latin, a language for so long only used in the Church and by the well-educated? What do you call holding church services only in Latin, which the lay people didn't even understand? What do you call robbing the poor to pay for wars that only served to give the Pope more power and riches? What do you call the Inquisition? Burning people at the stake because they disagreed with the Church?
For most of the Church's history it was, (by my understanding,) the largest evil there was in the world! Why do people keep forgetting that? The Pope is not infallable. Far from it. The Chruch's beliefs are not infallible. Far from it. I personally believe the Church has done more evil than good. And that includes the present day RCC. It's a cult, and I'm not afraid to say it. I don't mean to offend, but those are my beliefs.
So we should judge the Catholic church by it's history? Then we should do that with everything else in the world. I guess the United States of America is still evil because the government and the majority supported slavory. I guess all of germany is evil because they once murdered millions of jews. I could go on and on. I dont think we should judge people or religions today on how its very distant history looks, no matter how gruesome it is. Believe me, I hate the history of the Catholic church. It was very corrupt in those times, but does that mean it supports those types of actions today? Should the Catholic church be hated for actions committed by people so very long ago? And what exactly (other than the molestation cases) do you mean by you aren't happy with it's "present form"?
On top of that Should we judge those Past Christians who had Drug Problems, were in Jail, commited Murder, etc etc etc...
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:52 pm
by kateliz
Who's to say those in the former days of the RCC were actually Christian? I say otherwise, for probably the majority of them. No, the point I was driving at was that the RCC should not be upheld as something that's been "always out there witnessing."
j316 wrote:The roman church has always had more than it's share of problems, but it might be because it has been under spiritual attack because of its position in world affairs. You can say a lot against it, often with valid reason, but it has always been out there witnessing.
I was also responding to some more recent statements that have been made about trusting without question the Church, and just because the Chruch tells you you should. It is utterly appalling.
As for it's present form, I detest the legalism. Legalism is the oppposite of grace and does, (though not always,) lead people away from grace. I detest that they teach they and their earthly leader are infallible, and that you should give over your heart and mind completely to them, trusting that they'll always tell you the truth. I detest their perversion of the New Testament church. I detest their... well I don't feel like going on.
j316 wrote: Even with all the evil that has crept in, the church has been a constant witness to Jesus.
That, sir, is a lie.
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:04 pm
by BavarianWheels
j316 wrote:Whoa! How can a papacy that changes with each succeeding pope be the antichrist? I mean either he is or he isn't. The antichrist of popular opinion is an individual not an institution,
I find this quite amusing!!
"
Wide is the path...and narrow the gate..."
.
.