Featured The Great Whore is Religious Rome

For both you and Bob:

Here is an excerpt from: http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect61.htm

"The two-horned mitre, which the Pope wears, when he sits on the high altar at Rome and receives the adoration of the Cardinals, is the very mitre worn by Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians. There were two ways in which Dagon was anciently represented. The one was when he was depicted as half-man half-fish; the upper part being entirely human, the under part ending in the tail of a fish. The other was, when, to use the words of Layard, "the head of the fish formed a mitre above that of the man, while its scaly, fan-like tail fell as a cloak behind, leaving the human limbs and feet exposed." Of Dagon in this form Layard gives a representation in his last work, which is here represented to the reader (Fig. 48); and no one who examines his mitre, and compares it with the Pope's as given in Elliot's Horae, can doubt for a moment that from that, and no other source, has the pontifical mitre been derived. The gaping jaws of the fish surmounting the head of the man at Nineveh are the unmistakable counterpart of the horns of the Pope's mitre at Rome...."

Do a little more digging, 'Protestant'. It seems almost a pity to point out that that the mitre was originally almost flat, not pointed at all - &, Bob, that there is a difference between wearing a hat that looks vaguely like a fish's open jaws, & wearing an entire artificial fish-skin. The mitre is related to the academic cap - both are developments of a cap of Byzantine origin called in Latin camelaucum, which gave rise to the mitre, beret, & academic cap.

Dagon was in any case not a fish-god. The book this is taken from is 140 years old - it is badly out of date. Old books can be good for ideas, but not for archaeology; & this is a matter of interpreting archaeological data.


Again, the symbolism of the present day mitre is attached to pentecost when the flame of the Holy Spirit danced on their heads.

I remember when I was confirmed as a Catholic, the Bishop informed us that it also represents the bible by the way it folds, and the two tassels that hangs from the miter, representing the New Testament and the Old Testaments.

 

Go to Chrislam's own website:

[SIZE=-1]
He is one of the few members of the committee at the top of this organization:
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
http://chrislam.org/members.html
[/SIZE]

The RCC is like a chameleon. It changes colors with whoever it is with. The Pope welcomed Yasser Arafat into the Vatican, the world's greatest terrorist, and then he kissed the Koran (John Paul II). You talk a lot about works. Jesus said "You shall know them by their works." The acceptance of terrorism and Islam by the Pope is as good as an acceptance of a change in doctrine.

 

Another Gospel

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”(Unam Sanctum, Bull of Pope Boniface 8)

“Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith ... we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”(First Vatican Council 1870)

 

1 Tim. 3:15 - Who does Saint Paul say is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Not the scripture, but the Church. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. Protestants doctrines have swayed back & forth and changed so not to conflict with modern day thought. Check out the American Baptist Churches (even involved in Gaia worship in my parts!), The Episcopal Church, The United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church, even Mennonites have lost their theological moorings.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a "mystery." This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. "Church" does not mean a local assembly of believers. That is not a mystery! Baptists on this site view church as mere local assembly, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

 

Check out the Ten Commandments, the one that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Taking into consideration the length of time the RCC has been in existence it is as much a terrorist organization as Islam. Pope Innocent III wiped out an entire nation of Albigensis--complete genocide. The wickedness of the popes who carried out the various crusades and inquisations throughout history can hardly be described for the depths of the evil of the human heart. The atrocities condoned at Goa by Francis Xavier--The Goa Inquisiton, are beyond description. Be baptized or face death!
That is how the RCC makes saints, eh? Bless the killers, the murderers, those who have blood on their hands--a description of the Great Whore of Revelation 17!

 

Bottom line os that Jesus NEVER made the church of Rome his Church!

RCC teaches errors/heresies, so cannot be the true church jesus said he would establish!

Tbe Church of Rome fits very well spiritual idolatry babylon of end times though!

 

Walter claims their doctrine has never changed. Their heresies accumulate and change throughout history. For example:
The assumption of Mary was never made official RCC doctrine until 1950.
The immaculate conception was never accepted by the RCC church until 1854.

It is an ever-changing church with its doctrine changing as the years roll by.

 

and some of their doctrines, such as outlined in the Council of trent NEVER will change!

 

To say The Immaculate Conception was never accepted is not true. It WAS accepted and believed but had not been made official. You are correct that the assumption of Mary was not official dogma until 1950 but it was already believed from ancient times. To say that the doctrines of the Church Christ founded is ever-changing is a lie. You don't know the difference between dogma and Church disciplines. One cannot change, the other can and does. No doctrines have changed in 2,000 years, nor will they.

 

To demonstrate you have an ever-changing doctrine is rather simple. One can take a number of different approaches to prove this. Here is one of them.
Those of us who believe the Bible and have it as our sole authority, our final authority of all faith and practice believe in a closed canon. It was closed when the Book of Revelation was written, with a warning and a curse to anyone who should add anything to it. There are 66 books to the Bible; no more no less. It is a closed canon.

The RCC believes it is an open canon--heresy. But so do the Mormons, the Charismatics, and almost all cults. You are in good company. The Mormons believe it is open so they can add the "Book of Mormon," as inspired. Charismatics (many of them) believe that the "words of prophecy" and sometimes "dreams and visions" they receive come directly from the Lord and are therefore inspired. It is an open canon.
You have the Pope and papal bulls--additional revelation.
You added the apocrypha--additional revelation.
Like the Charismatics and others the RCC has its own mystics who receive revelation from God. [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Padre Pio, who regularly whipped himself, wassaid to have received revelation from God. He was a mystic. So was Francis of Assissi. Instead of confining revelation to the revealed Word of God, the RCC receives its revelation from outside the Word of God. It believes in an open canon. Historically we go back and see how its doctrine has changed has changed over the centuries.
If anyone cannot see how the RCC doctrine has not been changing over the centuries then they are blind to the truth.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

DHK, you like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible, and if I remember right, you accuse Catholics of adding them at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. Why does the Book of Daniel have more to it in the Catholic bible than in the Protestant bible? When was part of Daniel deleted and why? Are you really going to try to say that only part of the book of Daniel it actually inspired? Or are you going to say that the Catholics made up an alternative ending? What evil purpose did they have for that? What doctrine of devils do you find the Catholic Church needing to support by this so called, added ending? Nope, Protestants deleted part of the book of Daniel. Maybe you Protestants are the ones that the book of Revelation was talking about. Seriously, I think that passage in Revelation is referring to Revelation and not the entire bible. But, hey, I think if anyone has been guilty of 'taking away' from the bible it is easy to prove you Protestants are the ones that have been guilty of just that.

|
How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Baptist on this board to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! That in itself speaks volumes!

Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

 

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.



Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.



Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.



Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.



Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.



Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

http://theorthodoxfaith.com/the-so-called-apocrypha/

 

Since the RCC holds to papal infallibity inregards to pronouncing official doctrines, and Cardinals ratifing dogmas, how can that be unchanging doctrines?

And since most core doctrines and practices are heretical, erronous, how can that be the true church?

 

Do you deny the church of rome added in false books in order to have "inspired' sources to proof text catholic heresies, as could not be found in the inspired canonized books?

 

How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Baptist on this board to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! That in itself speaks volumes!
Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry. __________________

 

Of course he denies it. These books were written by Jews in Alexandria about 200 B.C. They were made a part of the Greek Bible called the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the primary Old Testament used in New Testament times. You may have noticed that New Testament passages quoting the Old Testament are similar to their Old Testament counterparts but have different wording and syntax. That is because our Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew. However, those Old Testament quotes in the New Testament were taken from the Greek Septuagint and that is why they are slightly different.

Despite Biblicist's avowals that the Deuterocanonicals, a/k/a Aprcrypha, were not used by the real Christian church in the first four centuries, they were in fact used. To be sure, there were some who questioned their authenticity, Jerome for example. However, that dispute was put to rest with the publication of the Vulgate and never arose again until the time of Luther.

 

So true when spoken of Rome's idolatry.

Idolatry permeates the very soul of Roman/Latin Catholicism, aka Mystery Babylon, whether it be

• Goddess worship (Virgin Mary)

• Crucifix worship (a dead man on a cross)

• worship of the Dead (via relics, bones, corpses and graven images)

• Papal worship

or

• Eucharist worship

Without her immutable idolatry she can no longer be called 'The Great Whore' and 'Mother of all harlots.'

Therefore, her idolatry will ever remain until the return of Christ in judgment, at which time Babylon Rome will be destroyed forever:

“Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen.”

 

Mystery Babylon = Sacramental Babylon = Roman Catholicism

The ‘seat’ of the Roman Catholic Church is the ‘City of 7 Hills.’

The Church of Rome has 7 sacraments.

Their sacraments are ‘mysteries.’

Middle English: from Old French sacrement, from Latin sacramentum ‘solemn oath’ (from sacrare ‘to hallow,’ from sacer ‘sacred’), used in Christian Latin as a translation of Greek mustērion ‘mystery.’

Their Church is Mystery Babylon.

The Latin Vulgate uses the noun ‘sacramentum’ in translating the Greek noun ‘musterion’ [‘mystery’] in the text of Rev. 17:7 ---

17:7 ”et dixit mihi angelus quare miraris ego tibi dicam sacramentum mulieris et bestiae quae portat eam quae habet capita septem et decem cornua.”

17:7 “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.”

Today Mystery Babylon is no mystery.

Christians have known and preached this truth for well over 1,000 years.

Their Catholic enemies attest to this fact.

 

This wasn't argued, for several centuries, by anyone.