Historical Objectivity of Rome

My impression wasn't that they wanted to actually go fight, but were speaking spiritually. I could be wrong though. That Rabbi was rather anti-christian.

 

I don't think its not being honest because they didn't spin it the way you wanted. Also it seems they didn't give full disclosure. However, the area was christianized So they did tell the truth.

I don't know why you think I'm calling you a liar. I disagree with your "critical analysis" I don't know about Canada but in the United States you can still disagree with people.

I would hope that you do. However, I don't believe I've seen it displayed in our discussions. I honestly believe that you have a world view and that you judge everything based on it. If something is out of kilter with your view then you immediately disbelieve it whether or not it has merit. If that makes me a sad case. Then I'm a sad case though I have a lot to be joyful about.

 

You show your ignorance about these historical consepts
1) theotokos is about Christ nature not marys - error 1
2) They converted Europe and very many special men such as St. Patrick and St. Bede. These men were indeed Christian - error 2
3) You have no Idea of their ordencances or the occult you should read occultic observance and then christian comparisons you won't find but a few similarities. Try reading Pliny the younger. - error 3
4) they believed in salvation through Jesus Christ all you have to do is read the ECF to understand this. - error 4
5) Their clerical order derived from the apostles and how they established the churches - error 5

Error 6 - Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch 200 years before constantine refers to the Catholic Church. Constantine along with Licinius created religious tollerance in the empire called the edict of milan I will incert here the full document for your parousal. You'll hardly find it a charter creating a new church. Thus your bias and rejection of actual history is displayed.

 

I believe you're believing a fantasy. I've heard every one from Obama to JFK is the Anti- Christ. The anti- christ and his methods are very much on display in the bible He will have the characteristics of Antiochus Ephanies, and Caligula, and Nero. He will be a secular ruler who will propegate paganism once gain. The false prophet will be a pagan and niether will have nothing to do with Christ. They will want to establish their order in contrast to that of Christ. But whats really revealing is the bible discusses what characteristics these people will have but doesn't point them out. You much like those who tell us the date of Christ return (which no one knows save the Father) attempt to draw ignorant conclusion as though you have full understanding of what God is doing.
Luther was wrong the pope of his day was not the Anti Christ. Maybe an anti-christ but thats not what luther said. He was wrong. As you are wrong. Dispite your credentials I'm supprised at how little you understand Christian History and what it was the early debates were really about. I'm amazed to be honest. Especially the number of history classes you took and still didn't understand the Nestorian issue.

 

Try these concepts instead:
1. The ECF did not understand nor write in English; their writings were primarily in Greek. If not they were in other languages, but not in English! The point is; they had to be translated.
What we have today is translations of the writings of the ECF.

2. The word "catholic" is simply a word meaning "universal" which it often did back then, and even sometimes today.

3. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century with the advent of Constantine when Constantine made it a state-church. During that time one might say that he paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism. He introduced idolatry into the Catholic Church, or the Church that he made into a state-church. Outside of "his church" there were always churches that totally opposed what he was doing and remained faithful to the Word of God. This was the beginning of the RCC.

4. The RCC has always been a state-church. Now its state is the Vatican of course. But throughout history it has been the state-church of England, France, Canada--especially in Quebec, and in many other nations. Wherever it has been the state-church persecution was sure to follow. So much for tolerance.

5. Its doctrines are not Christian doctrines. They are pagan. It has just as much similarity to Hinduism as it does to Christianity.

 

You have shown your wonderful ignorance of history. Many baptist and other evangelicals are in disagreement with your historical analysis and will point out the very same things I just did such as your view of Theotokos. Or the ECF. You can claim I'm a deciever but when you ignore history and the development of Christianity for a fictionalized account by erronious pastors like Carrol, who is the real liar? Just walk down to the nearest christian book store and pick up a history of Christianity and see what is says. Zondervan publishes a historical guide as does Rose. I've used these again and again. And you know what they hold to what I just told you. Even John Fox has my view of the history of the Church. Have you read his book of martyrs? It says exactly as I have. I am a baptist. I go to a baptist church. I pay my tithes and participate where I can.

You have called me a liar! And a Deciever! and further you call me filth! Sir I would through down my gauntlet at your feet in challenge! Your paper is above you. Shame on you!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist

Irenaeus (2nd century AD - c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation.[31][32]

He identified the Antichrist with Paul's Man of Sin, Daniel's Little Horn, and John's Beast of Revelation 13.[33] He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.[34][35]

Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of "Dan," in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist's tribe.[36] He also speculated that it was “very probable” the Antichrist might be called Lateinos, which is Greek for “Latin Man”.[37]

Tertullian (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) held that the Roman Empire was the restraining force written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. The fall of Rome and the disintegration of the ten provinces of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms were to make way for the Antichrist.

'For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,' he [Paul] means indeed of this present empire, 'and that man of sin be revealed,' that is to say, Antichrist, 'the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.' What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.'[38]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.[39]

This certainly is not exhaustive, but quite revealing...and quite different from more modern eschatology. I shared these because you seem to give weight to the ECFs. Will you here?

Will you agree with Tertullian that what was restraining Antichrist was the Roman Empire? And that upon its fall that Man of Sin would appear? Pray tell...what did appear as one like the Son of God and as king...that may also be called the Latin Man?

 

Sure, they were guessing just as we are now about the meaning of all these things. And my position has always been that the AntiChrist could be just about anyone in any position and we will not really know until it happens. The Pope just happens to be a modern favorite since the reformation. And note He doesn't live in rome but he Vatican maybe the Anti-Christ really is Giorgio Napolitano.

 

I could not agree more. I am not sure how folks can't see this unless they are deluded. The popes are called:

Vicar of Christ (aside from it meaning Antichrist, literally) it usurps the place of God the Holy Spirit.

Holy Father usurps the only One to whom this title should be given, God the Father.

Head of the Church usurps the only Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

How people can see a man, standing in the temple of GOd, and in this manner claiming the place of God, showing that he is GOd, is not Antichrist, I don't know. If the papacy is not THE Antichrist I cannot imagine what could be.

 

Then your view is that there is no way to know. Where, both the ECFs and bible-believers from the very rise of Antichrist were not in doubt, but you are. These ECFs were looking forward...and they are rather correct.

 

As are you in mine. Since you call me a liar, a deciever, and filth. I will no longer address you until you apologize and we can debate these things without hurling insults.

I referred to Fox because his view is one of a changing church as well and he lived during the reformation. And his book is a good guide.

I'm glad to see that you finally stopped playing coy with Theotokos and shown it was about the nature of Christ rahter than what you first stated.

And I don't support prayers to Mary or anyother saint. I've never told you that was ok. So you misrepresent me again.

End.

 

but wrong about other things? is that your position? Where hey agree with you they are correct where they don't they aren't? Ok if thats the way you take them.

My view is there is no way of knowing until it happens and then it will be obvious. Jesus wants us to live like he's coming today and to be vigilant and ready. Thats the point. Are you ready to lay down your life for Christ? is the ultimate question when regarding these issues. I believe they were guessing because ultimatley Revelation is Apocalyptic literature and just like the Jews missed out on Jesus eventhoug Daniel spoke of him we can be endanger of doing the same thing (well sort of becuase actually it will be the consumation of all things.)