|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 27, 2003 14:15:09 GMT -5
I know many believe that a literal mark will be forced on your hands and forehead, but thats not true.
To understand the mark of the beast; you must first identify the beast. Okay.
The beast has 7 heads, ten horns with crowns, has the body of the leopard, mouth of a lion, and feet of the bear. In Daniel 7, we get the identity of the conglomerate beast. John sees a beast that has the paganism of Babylon, cruelty of the Media/Persia and wisdom of Greece. YOu will notice that the four beast in Daniel 7, is the Iron beast which represents (Pagan)Rome, but after that Ten horns, the division of nations who divided the province of pagan rome. Now, a little horn pops up, knocking 3 horns out of way. Papal Rome. THe bible definition of Blasphemy is to make yourself out to be GOd, Claim to forgive sins; claim to keep the commandmants of God and dont. ONLY papal rome fits the claim. Now back to Rev 13. the beast rises out of the sea...Water in prophecy refers to peoples and nations. Rev. 17:10. What is the seal of GOd? the Seal of the president of US has three components. It tells you his name, title and the dominion. WEll, god's seal tells you that too. The four commandment. Its tells you god's name -The Lord thy God; his title- creator; his dominion - all the things he has made; the mark of the beast has got to be opposite of the seal of god. Forced worship on Sunday will be the mark of the beast. The catholic church claims to have change the seventh-day sabbath from saturday to sunday. Without any bible scriptures to support it. if you want more info, contact me a remnant8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
Post by Tulameen on Oct 28, 2003 14:47:03 GMT -5
to make yourself out to be GOd, Claim to forgive sins; claim to keep the commandmants of God and dont. ONLY papal rome fits the claim
Remnant, your argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
a.) No one in the Catholic Church has made himself or herself out to be God. NO ONE believes the pope to be god or even godlike!
b.) The power to forgive sins comes directly from Jesus: John:20 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
c.) Jn:8 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? 6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.
I don't know where you learned this, but it's incorrect. Please check your sources. There is a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda on the internet and in the pulpit. I will not allow it to be promulgated on my message board.
If you think it's fun to bash the Catholics, don't forget that all Christians will be in that persecutory cooking pot in during the tribulations. Maybe you'll need some friends, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 30, 2003 15:45:18 GMT -5
Tulameen, My sources are from many. John Wyclif; Martin Luther; Jan Hus; Jerome of Prague; Zwingli; John Wesley; Sir Issac Newton, yes he wrote books on prophecy too. These are protestants ministers who stood in the pulpit and preached that the Pope was the antichrist. They were all Catholic. As to the holes. I will fill in the gaps.. or better yet, I will let you read it for yourself. < www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=668as for holes...Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, "[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord" (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14). The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God" (25:6). F. Lucii Ferraris, contained in the book Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Juridica Moralis Theologica. This book was printed at Rome and is sanctioned by the Catholic encyclopedia. Listen to these claims: "The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted, that he is not a mere man, but as it were God and the Vicar of God. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power." Volume VI, pp. 25-29. In their own words..
|
|
|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 30, 2003 15:46:47 GMT -5
An Exact Fulfillment
We have before us now a list of nine specific characteristics, which have been lifted out of the seventh chapter of Daniel in description of the little-horn power. There is only one power in all history which meets the description given here. In other words, God closes every other option, and forces us to the only possible conclusion: the Catholic Church alone fulfills all the points of identity established in Daniel 7.
Let us take a quick look and notice how clearly this is done. First of all, the papacy did arise in western Europe, at the very heart of the territory of the pagan Roman Empire - in Rome itself. Second, it did come up after 476 A.D. It was in the year 538 A.D. that a decree of Emperor Justinian went into effect which assigned absolute preeminence to the Church of Rome. These are facts of history that can be verified by any authoritative historical source.
Third, when the papacy arose, it was opposed by three of the tribes which had taken over at the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Vandals, Ostrogoths and Heruli were Arian powers who strongly opposed the rise of the Catholic Church. The armies of Rome marched in to uproot and completely destroy these three tribes. The last of the three was destroyed in the very year 538 A.D., when Justinian's decree went into effect.
Fourth, the Catholic Church did have a man at the head of its system. Fifth, the papacy was a diverse kind of power from the other political kingdoms before it. It was a religio-political system quite unlike anything which had been seen in the world before that time.
Now we take a look at the sixth characteristic - the speaking of great words and blasphemy against the Most High. Does the papacy meet this description? We need only to be reminded that the Catholic Church has ever attributed to itself the power to forgive sins. As to the great words, let me quote from an article by F. Lucii Ferraris, contained in the book Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Juridica Moralis Theologica. This book was printed at Rome and is sanctioned by the Catholic encyclopedia. Listen to these claims: "The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted, that he is not a mere man, but as it were God and the Vicar of God. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power." Volume VI, pp. 25-29. These are only a few of the words which the Bible defines as blasphemy. Thus, the papacy meets the marks of identity as the little-horn power.
Coming now to the seventh point of identity, we find that history supports the prophecy concerning papal persecution. Everyone who has any knowledge of the Middle Ages is acquainted with the fact that millions of people were tortured and killed by the Catholic inquisitions. From a book written by a Catholic cardinal, which also bears the sanction of the Church, we read, "The Catholic Church ... has a horror of blood. Nevertheless when confronted by heresy ... she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like the Inquisition. She calls the laws of the state to her aid. ... Especially did she act thus in the 16th Century with regard to Protestants. ... In France, under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics." The Catholic Church, The Renaissance and Protestantism, pp. 182-184.
We could multiply statements like this from historians, both Catholic and Protestant, that describe the horrible tortures of the papal authorities upon Protestants. Thus we can see the complete fulfillment of this description of the little horn.
The eighth mark, as given in verse twenty-five, concerns the attempt to change God's laws. Does this apply to the papacy? Please note this: the Catholic Church has removed the second commandment from her doctrinal books and catechism, because it condemns the worship of images. The tenth commandment is then divided so that they still have ten commandments. But two are against coveting, and there is none against idolatry. In this way, the papacy has thought to change the law, but unsuccessfully. God's law cannot be changed.
Finally, we come to the ninth identifying mark, which tells us exactly how long this papal power would exercise its authority in the earth. We discovered that it would be for a period of 1,260 years. Is this according to the record of history? Remember, that we have noted how the papacy began its reign, by order of Justinian, in 538 A.D. By counting down 1,260 years from this date we are brought to the year 1798. In that very year the French general, Berthier, marched his armies into Rome and pulled the Pope off his throne. He was carried away into exile, and all the properties of the Church were confiscated.
The French Directory government decreed that there would never be another Bishop of Rome. As far as the world was concerned, and by all outward appearance, the Catholic Church was dead. After exactly 1,260 years, in fulfillment of the prophecy, she lost her control of the world. Thus, the final point is clearly fulfilled in the papacy, and in it only.
|
|
|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 30, 2003 15:49:21 GMT -5
The Beast and Little Horn Identical
You may be wondering what all of this has to do with the beast of Revelation 13. We are now ready to identify that strange, composite animal described in the book of Revelation. Let's read the description of that beast once more, which has the body of a leopard, the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion. "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies." Verse 5. Notice, please, that this beast is doing exactly the same thing as the little horn of Daniel. Verse five continues, "And power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." How long is forty-two months? Exactly 1,260 prophetic days or years - the same as the 3 1/2 times of Daniel's prophecy.
Concerning the beast, we read further, "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them." Verse 7. This beast is also a persecuting power. In other words, the beast of Revelation 13 is the very same power as the little horn. Both are symbolic of the papacy. This is God's graphic illustration of the papal power, as it came up to exercise arbitrary authority over the earth for 1,260 years.
Further similarity is found by reading Revelation 13:3, "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." As we have already established, the deadly wound was given in the year 1798 A.D., when the French armies carried the Pope away into exile. But that wound was to be healed, and finally the whole world would give its allegiance to the papacy again. That prophecy has been fulfilled very, very vividly before our eyes.
It was in the year 1929 that Mussolini executed the Concordat of 1929 with the Pope, restoring the properties that had been taken away from the Church. At that time the Pope was actually made king once more, and the Vatican City was set up as a political sovereign power. From that day to this, the strength of the papacy has been advancing with tremendous strides.
At this present time most of the countries of the world have political representatives at Vatican City. The incredible influence of the papacy in world affairs is attested to by the headlines in today's newspaper. Almost every utterance of the pope is published to the ends of the earth, and millions and millions of people look to the papal power as the greatest influence in politics today. Yes, the wound has certainly been healed, and the world continues to follow after the beast.
|
|
|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 30, 2003 15:50:26 GMT -5
Did the Catholic church claim to change the day of worship?
Catholic Agreement
Since the prophecy of Daniel predicted that the papacy would "think to change times and laws," let us ask her if she had anything to do with this change of the Sabbath. We want to be fair to everyone, and get authentic testimony from all. The next several quotations are taken from well-known Catholic authorities who express clearly the claims of the papacy about the attempted change. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, p. 153: "The Church ... after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's day."
Salvation History and the Commandments, p. 294, 1963 edition, by Rev. Leo. J. Trese and John J. Castlelot, S.S. describes it in these words: "Nothing is said in the Bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us from earliest times by the living voice of the Church. That is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the Bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic Church."
Another well-known Catholic writer gave this explanation of the change: "The Catholic Church transferred the observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. ... The Catholic Church deemed it more fitting to appoint this day, rather than Saturday, the festival day of Christians." This Is Catholicism, 1959 edition, John Walsh, S. J., p. 325.
A 1958 catechism by Killgallen and Weber entitled Life in Christ - Instructions in the Catholic Faith explained it thus: "Why did the Church change the Lord's day from the Sabbath to Sunday? The Church, using the power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to the Pope, changed the Lord's day to Sunday." Page 243.
Rev. Stephen Keenan's A Doctrinal Catechism has this to say: "Question - Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? Answer - Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority." Please note the word "substituted," a term we have used over and over to describe the activities of this power.
Cardinal Gibbons, in his book The Question Box, p. 179, makes this startling admission: "If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing the Saturday with the Jew. ... Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher, should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?"
Rev. John A. O'Brien in the book Understanding the Catholic Faith, p. 13, 1955 edition, states: "The Bible does not contain all the teachings of the Catholic religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members. Take, for instance, the matter of Sunday observance, attendance at divine service, and abstention from unnecessary servile work on that day. This is a matter upon which our Protestant neighbors have for many years laid great emphasis; yet nowhere in the Bible is the Sunday designated as the Lord's day; the day mentioned is the Sabbath, the last day of the week. The early Church, conscious of her authority to teach in the name of Christ, deliberately changed the day to Sunday."
One of the greatest challenges ever cast into the face of Protestantism is contained in a statement by Father Enright, President of Redemptorist College in America: "It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but urged all persons to labor on the seventh day under pain of anathema. Protestants ... profess great reverence for the Bible, and yet by their solemn act of keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the power of the Catholic Church. The Bible says, Ԓemember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' But the Catholic Church says, ԎO: Keep the first day of the week' and lo, the entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."
You must answer that challenge! Whom are you going to obey? Listen to these words by C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath: "Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters." Thus the issues become plain - God says that He is the true God: He has given the Sabbath as a seal of His authority as the Creator of all. By keeping the Sabbath we recognize His authority as the true God. But the Catholic Church appears and says in effect, "No, don't keep the Sabbath; keep the first day of the week. We changed it, and that change is a mark of our power to overrule God's law and authority."
The mark of the beast, then, is the counterfeit Sunday by which the beast power is trying to be recognized as an authority greater than the Creator Himself. The sign, or seal, of God's authority (Sabbath) is displaced by the papal institution of a substitute mark (Sunday) which she claims as her authority. Oh, that the world would see clearly the tremendous issue before us today! To whom will we yield our obedience - to God or to the beast? When we understand the issues we must make a tremendous decision either to keep the true Sabbath and recognize God's authority, or to take the false Sabbath and recognize the Catholic Church's claims. We must finally receive the seal of God or the mark of the beast. There are only two sides - God and the dragon, truth and error, Bible and tradition.
A book published in 1956 entitled The Faith of Millions and currently available from the Catholic Book Store as a textbook on the Catholic religion has this interesting statement on page 473: "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home, but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair."
Long ago Cardinal Gibbons summarized the issue facing every individual on the Sabbath question: "Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible." Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.
|
|
|
Post by Remnant1217 on Oct 30, 2003 15:51:15 GMT -5
Do the protestants agree that Sabbath (Saturday) has not been changed?
Protestants Concur
Perhaps you are wondering what the Protestant bodies think of these things we have been considering. They will speak for themselves. Here are some candid admissions of those churches upon the Sabbath question. All statements are taken from the most authoritative spokesmen. Here is a quotation from Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, the author of the Baptist Manual: "There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week. ... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament - absolutely not. ... Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian Fathers, and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!" (From a paper read before a New York ministers' conference held November 13, 1893.) This great Baptist leader condenses into a few sentences all that has been said in the pages of this booklet.
The Presbyterian Christian at Work said this: "Some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon apostolic command, whereas the apostles gave no command on the matter at all. ... The truth is, as soon as we appeal to the litera scripta (the literal writing) of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the arguments." Ed. April 19, 1883. The Methodist Theological Compendium states: "It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism ... nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week."
Dr. W. R. Dale (Congregational) in The Ten Commandments, pp. 106, 107, says: "It is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath was founded on a specific, divine command. We can plead no such command for the observance of Sunday. ... There is not a single line in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."
The Lutheran position, as revealed in the Augsburg Confession of Faith, states: "The observance of the Lord's day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church." Episcopalian spokesman Neander writes in the History of the Christian Religion and Church, p. 186: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."
In Ten Rules For Living, by Clovis G. Chappell we read: "We ought to remember that the Sabbath is God's gift to man. We realize, of course, that our Sabbath is not the same as that observed by the Jews. Theirs was the seventh day of week, while ours is the first. The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first. The early Christians began to worship on the first day of the week because Jesus rose from the dead on that day. By and by, this day of worship was made also a day of rest, a legal holiday. This took place in the year 321. Our Christian Sabbath, therefore, is not a matter of positive command." Page 61.
|
|
|
Post by Tulameen on Oct 30, 2003 22:05:59 GMT -5
Remnant, you know the rules: no religion bashing. The reason why all these so called "insights" never made it to my website is because they are, to my mind, Catholic bashing and nothing more.
I hate to say it, but every time I see this kind of thing, it makes me think that the Protestants are feeling guilty about the Reformation and have to keep inventing reasons (and convincing others and themselves) why they had to split off from the Church.
This had better be an end to this kind of thing, dear, or I will be forced to ban you from the boards.
|
|