Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

Mike brings up a good point from Rev 17. And one could take that same piont from Daniel 7 or Rev 12 and 13.

The real question is this - what does the Bible say about the RCC? Simply "ignoring any text that seems to point that direction" might be the "solution" for someone how is married to an institution and blindly defending it at all costs - but at some point Christians have to have a serious interest in what the Bible actually says EVEN if it is not flattering of one's chosen denomination.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Chemnitz,

You can believe anything you want, Chemnitz.

God bless,

Mike

 

Again, unless the text in question does not point to the Catholic Church, but to the Roman government of the era in which the text was written.

 

Nothing, the Bile says absolutely nothing about the “Roman Catholic Church”. I can’t find anything regarding RCC. Now you may “interpret” certain passages, but that doesn’t make you right.

Revelation written by St. John depicts to the original audience, not the unheard of Christian Rome we know of today, but the pagan Rome of that time period that were notorious persecutors of Christians. Pagan Rome had unholy alliances with kingdoms she governed, unholy because the alliances were built on paganism and the cult of emperor worship.

And the same can be said about Daniel as well; the Babylonians had just conquered the Israelites and were taken into captivity. Daniel was writing to the original audience about the persecutions, not to come, but that were presently living with them.

While reading and studying the Bible, it’s important to know a little background of the events and culture taking place of the time period the book or letter of the Bible was written.

 

Riverm,

I've never regurgitated Dave Hunt at all. There are so many good ministries of this nature. But that brothers books on Catholicism are just excellant. I'll amit that. Heavily annotated of course. He does a great job with footnotes and references.

I do...but interestingly I've been wondering for years now when Catholics will start "thinking for themselves" in order to see the foundational errors of Rome.

I wouldnt say that, but you obviously do. Its not hard to "see" the truth of Catholicism...just compare it to the truth found in the scriptures.

Rome doesnt even come close to the Catholic Church regarding the things mentioned in these passages.

Of course you believe that.

The scriptures of God apply to ALL periods, and ALL centuries, riverm. Not just the 1st century. The scriptures are filled with prophetic wisdom, as we find here.

The "Roman Empire" as seen in the 1st century has not been for centuries now, Riverm. There is absolutly noone that fits these "qualifications" as the Roman Catholic Church does.

You cant be serious, riverm. I mean, I would think that it would be too embarrasing to post something like that.

The Vatican is located in Rome, riverm. Hence, the prophecy of sitting on seven hills fits her perfectly.

The only one that fits perfectly.

The Catholic Church based in Rome.

And I wish the Catholic Church would come to its senses and stop doing that.

But I doubt that she will.

Mike

 

tragic pizza,

But the government of Rome...from the 1st century...never attained literal world wide influence.

The "harlot" that "sits on 7 hills" does. And the false christian church that fits all of these signs, known as the Catholic Church, of course has.

God bless,

Mike

 

Here is an excerpt from an excellant article concerning these things. A link is at the end...

Click here for full article


Sadly,

Mike

 

Still waiting, Mike, for your response in defense of Mr. Wylie's conclusions.

 

To know if that is the case - we would need to look at the details in the text and see how they correlate to the history they are highlighting.

Also - we would need to take the arguments very seriously without wearing our "Feelings" on our sleeve. Nobody here "invented" the Bible, or Christianity or Protestantism or the RCC. So it should just be a simple matter of evaluating the evidence.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Click here for full article


Sadly,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]You said you never regurgitated Dave Hunt, well you just did…was it good?

 

How DARE Dave Hunt report these facts!! Blinders on folks! We wont listen to any more of this!

 

Riverm,

I didnt "regurgitate" Dave Hunt...I QUOTED him.

I took your comment about me "regurgitating" him as my simply posting his material as if it were mine. That would be plagerism as well as "regurgitating" his work.

There are multitudes of ministries propagating the same truth about Catholicism that Dave Hunt so excellently propagates and backs up with source notes. Its actually a good testimony that so many are angered by the truth he shares regarding Catholicism.

The good news is that...by the millions...those with "ears to hear" are fleeing the clutches of Rome as a result of hearing the truth about it.

Mike

 

The mere fact of work being "heavily annotated" with lots of "footnotes and references" doesn't mean much when those primary sources referenced are being mischaracterized more often than not by the author of said work. You see, I used to be impressed with Dave Hunt's work as well believing that the RCC just had to be the "whore of Babylon". It's amazing how one's perspective can change, however, when one reads the primary sources for oneself and sees how the primary source conveys something entirely different that how it is portrayed in secondary material.

I do...but interestingly I've been wondering for years now when Catholics will start "thinking for themselves" in order to see the foundational errors of Rome. </font>[/QUOTE]The fact that you have yet to answer Chemnitz regarding Wylie's distortion of Ambrose betrays a contentment you have to spout of anti-Catholic polemics rather than thinking for yourself. Without critically examining whether Wylie is faithfully portraying the primary sources he has cited, you seem to be persuaded that, by the sheer number of footnotes that he included in his work, that his account is correct, presumably because he shares your same anti-Catholic bias. However a large volume of footnotes fails to impress those who are aware of distortions of primary sources in certain secondary "scholarly" works.

I wouldnt say that, but you obviously do. Its not hard to "see" the truth of Catholicism...just compare it to the truth found in the scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]You mean the "truth" as found in the scriptures misinterpreted by anti-Catholic propagandists?

 

Doubting Thomas,

No.

The truth of the scriptures, which is in direct contradiction...in foundational areas...to the false teachings and false gospel of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for asking.

Mike

 

Actually the truth of the scriptures, as believed by the historic consensus of the orthodox Christian Church, are also in direct contradiction...in some key foundational areas...to the false teachings and watered-down gospel of the modern day, neo-evangelical McChristian denominations.

 

But the government of Rome...from the 1st century...never attained literal world wide influence.

The "harlot" that "sits on 7 hills" does. And the false christian church that fits all of these signs, known as the Catholic Church, of course has.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]You know, of course, that in the first century, Rome was the world's sole superpower? And that, save for a very small area, at the time, Rome owned the known world? You know, of course, that the city of Rome sits on seven hills, right? And you, of course, know that at the time Revelation was written, there was no established Catholic church.

Now, let's you and I think a minute. Christians were being terribly persecuted while Revelation was being written, right? One of the best ways to die slowly and horribly was to make fun of the Big Guy, which was the governmnt of the Roman Empire and her seat.

With me so far? Good.

Now, if the people for whom this book was primarily written for were reading it, what would they think when they read about the harlot who sits on seven hills, the kings, etc.?

A yet-unknown Christian religious group?

Or a pagan, persecuting world power, whose center was Caesar worship?

Think about that for a minute.

Yes, Revelation is prophetic, but I refuse to believe that the only people who can properly interpret Revelation are rabid antiCatholics. I refuse to believe that Revelation, or any part of Scripture, would go against the obvious madate of Jesus, James, John, etc. that love for our Christian brothers and sisters is the penultimate evidence of our faith.

 

As a friend of mine once said Catholics look at scripture through the lens of 1 verse, Matthew 16:18, all others look at Matthew 16:18 through the lens of all the rest of the scripture.
They also enjoy Supercedeing scripture with tradition, even against god's will.

 

#1. IF non-Catholics have to be called "rabid" then are the pro-dark ages RC posters "rabid Dark Ages devotees"??

#2. There is no question but that John includes the slaughter of many Christians by the Pagan Roman empire in his panoramic view of 2000 years of future history as you noted. So also the Papal Roman Empires slaughter of its 75 million Christians.

As even pro-Catholic commentaries such as Malachi Martin's - clearly state - the PAPAL Roman system that followed on the heels of Papal Rome - rules from the SAME seat of power and excercises MORE control over the SAME territory for a LONGER period than did Pagan Rome!

The Golden Age for the RCC was the dark ages for mankind!!

In Rev 12 we see the PURE woman pre-cross that is the church in OT times giving birth to the Messiah. Then the SAME church is seen in the NT going into exile in Rev 12 for 1260 years. That time line goes FAR BEYOND pagan Rome and DEEP INTO THE HEART of Papal Rome!!

There is just no escaping it!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

tragicpizza,

I agree 100% with this. I love Catholics enough to tell them the truth, both in my words, in the scriptures, and the testimony of others who love them just as much.

God bless all,

Mike

 

tragicpizza,

The reason for your confusion is that you are misunderstanding the primary purpose of Gods scriptures.

God did not give the scriptures primarilly to those of the 1st century.

Gods scriptures are primarily for those in the 1st century, and the 2nd century, and the 3rd century, and for those actual born again people all through the Catholic bloodshed during the dark ages, and during the wonderful time of reformation, and right up until you and I exchanging ideas right now.

That is who the scriptures are primarily for.

I dont either.

And I am not anti-Catholic. I love Catholic people. I love then enough to tell them the truth.

I am anti-false gospel, anti-blasphemy, anti-idolatry, and anti-Catholic Hierarchial organisation of Rome.

Not anti-Catholic.

God bless,

Mike