Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Yowm said:

Another unfortunate twist. The OT was basically about God revealing Himself to Abraham and continuing that revelation of Himself to succeeding generations of Jews culminating in the greatest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, to the Jew first and to then to the Gentiles fulfilling the promises to the Jews of His first coming. There are still many prophecies from the OT concerning His Second Coming and His dealings with Abraham's descendants. You cannot split up the bible into two partitions, into Jewish 


and Catholic. It's one unified story.

Even the writers of the NT were Jewish not Catholic. 

OK my friend, I can see that is YOU'RE Story and your going to stick with it.

Good luck with that.


BTW; I thought they were Jewish-Catholics:rolleyes:

May GOD guide our paths,


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Patrick Miron said:

OK my friend, I can see that is YOU'RE Story and your going to stick with it.

Good luck with that.


BTW; I thought they were Jewish-Catholics:rolleyes:

May GOD guide our paths,


Is that another oxymoron like 'Roman' Catholics?

  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 8:55 PM, KiwiChristian said:

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility.

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.

How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded


Beloved, IMO The Proof Of The Pudding
Is Found In The Tasting
Of The Bible

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. Matthew 23:8-10


Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 

Love, Your Brother Joe


Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Praise God! 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seventh Day Adventist church has been vilified for its interpretation of scripture regarding prophecy, in particular the day/year principle where for every prophetic day, one year is meant. This principle is found to be most accurate in several places, the most profound as you would be aware being Daniel 9:24 which speaks of the 70 'weeks', which is meant as 490 years. But another equally accurate number is found also in Daniel, as well as Revelation. The 1260 days...42 months...times, time, and half a time. 

This has two distinct applications, being the same time period, for two separate peoples. The oppressor, (Daniel 7:25; Revel.13:5; ) and the oppressed. (Revel. 11:3; 12:6,14). So what has this to do with the topic currently under discussion?

Papal Primacy
What is the real issue involved with the prophetic 1260 years and the topic under present discussion? The real issue is papal primacy.

Papal Primacy is what the Papacy wants. She wants back what she had during those 1260 years.

What is Papal Primacy?
First Papal Primacy is not:
It is not being the top civil or political leader in a country.
It is not even whether everyone always accepts that primacy or not

Papal Primacy during the 1260 years was being recognized BY LAW, to be the supreme teaching authority. It was recognizing that the papacy had the legal right to persecute and eradicate all whom she defined as heritics. Papal power resided in her stance of having the very keys over who would enjoy eternal life, or suffer the wrath of God. A faulty application of Matt. 16:19's "bind and loose" was used to give the papacy power to intimidate even powerful kings into obedience in executing their agendas.

The issue isn't whether people liked it or not-- many didn't. The issue isn't whether the papacy suffered weak points during those years. We know there were even times when there were several "popes" fighting for the position. The issue is an entire era, covering 1260 years when papal primacy was established by law.  This is highly significant when considering Revelation 13 and a future ecumenical global religion enforcing, by law, her dogmas and doctrines, even under pain of death. The 1260 years past, beginning with Justinian's code of law, and ending with Napoleon's code of law. 538AD to 1798AD. 1260 years.

The issue is papal primacy and the authority to enforce that primacy by civil law and with the use of civil power. The papacy is not satisfied to be "one of the body" of Christian churches. NO, NO, NEVER!

She must be the leader, and controller---

In an official four page "note" after the release of the Vatican Declaration Dominus Deus which reaffirmed the Papal position of Primacy by Pope John Paul II, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, (later Pope Benedict 16th) who was the "Prefect" of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (Note: that means he was head of the re-established and renamed Office of the Inquisition) stated:

"when the expression 'sister churches' is used in the proper sense, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not (meant to be) sister but MOTHER of all particular churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ."

Rev. 17 jumps to mind--
Mystery Babylon, the mother.....
This is the primacy that lead to the 1260 years of papal persecution, when that primacy using the power of the state (the kings) to force people into compliance.

Otto Gierke, speaking of Pope Gregory VII (Pope from 1073-1085) 
writes in "Political Theories of the Middle Ages", p.11-12

"If mankind be only one, and if there can be but one State that comprises all mankind, that State can be no other than the Church that God Himself has founded, and all temporal lordship can be valid only in so far as it is part and parcel of the Church. Therefore the Church, being the one true State, has received by a mandate from God the plenitude of all spiritual and temporal powers, they being integral parts of One Might. The Head of this all embracing State is Christ. BUT, as the Unity of Mankind is to be realized already in this world, His celestial kingship must have a terrestrial presentment. As Christ's Vice-Regent, the earthly Head of the Church is the one and only Head of all Mankind. The Pope is the wielder of what is in principle an Empire (principatus) over the Community of Mortals. He is their Priest and their King; their spiritual and temporal Monarch; their Lawgiver and judge in all causes supreme.

Gregory VII (Pope from 1073-1085) was probably the first pope to claim UNIVERSAL jurisdiction, he issued his Dictatus Papae, containing twenty-seven propositions about the powers of the pope, which declared he was over kings and emperors. ( See "Lives of the Popes, by Richard McBrien, page 186 ) But we see popes crowning and anointing kings and emperors well before that time. Stephen IV anointed and crowned Louis as successor to Charlemagne in 816. Leo III was the pope who crowned Charlemagne.
As early as 492 Pope Gelasius claimed the title "Vicar of Christ". 
According to Richard McBrien in "Lives of the Popes" p. 80-81 Gelasius I, (pope from 492-496) Wrote a series of letters which read more like legal briefs in defence of papal primacy by appealing to the theory of "two powers" or "two swords" (the spiritual and the temporal) each power has its own sphere BUT the spiritual power is superior to the temporal.

Even earlier, Pope Leo the Great (r. 440-461) was promoting the right to primacy and asserting that Peter, above all the disciples was given this right.

In a letter to the Bishop of Vienna (according "The Faith of the Early Fathers" (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, p. 269;) Pope Leo wrote:

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be pre-eminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head." (Quote also found in Tract: The Authority of the Pope: Part II, Catholic Answers)
So early on we see the papal authority asserting it's sovereignty over spiritual power, of which it claimed to be the head. The civil leaders were merely the police department of the Church to be used to further it's aims. With the fall of the western Roman Empire, the church took over the vacated prerogatives of that position. The introduction into law Justinian's code in 533AD and its establishment of Justinian's law in Rome in 538 legally declared the Pope as the "head of all churches". Napoleon's law written in 1793 and enacted in Rome 1798, reversed this. 

However, the Lateran Treaty in 1929 saw the Pope reinstated as a civil ruler. The wound was healed. Revelation reveals the beast will be granted, for a short time, global dominion, which will afford him the opportunity to legislate and enforce one particular doctrine he favours above all others. Sunday sacredness. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).   Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ.   Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."   Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.   1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.   2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context?   John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.   John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.   John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.   John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.   John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.   John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."   Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.   3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:   a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.   b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."   In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."   4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.   The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.   Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.   5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."   Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.   6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.   Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?   Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.   John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."   John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."   John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."   The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being.   Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:   "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.   "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.   Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.   Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?   Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?    No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
    • By KiwiChristian
      Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible.
      The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was.
      Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and  Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT.
      The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth.
      It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
      God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
    • By KiwiChristian
      If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
      If the Bible is a Catholic book,
      1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
      2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
      3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
      4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
      5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
      6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
      7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
      8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
      9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
      10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
      11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
      12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
      13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
      14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
      Now, please my friend, when you reply to this, please stick to just a couple of points per post, then it will be easier to respond to, unless you want to make a VERY long post answering ALL these points in one post, hoping that no-one will take the trouble to address your points.