I believe it is pretty plain to see when reading the bible that the false prophet will be whoever is the pope at the end times. I know that catholics believe there is a ';bad-pope'; coming so how could they follow a ';religion'; that teaches they will have a bad leader eventually? I am not hating but I just want the truth.Who do catholics believe the false prophet will be?
%26lt;%26lt;Who do catholics believe the false prophet will be?%26gt;%26gt;
False prophets are everywhere. Anyone who claims to speak in the name of the Lord, but says something contrary to what the Lord has already revealed, is a false prophet.
As to exactly who a given false prophet will be, nobody knows until he/she opens his/her mouth and condemns themselves with their own blasphemies.
%26lt;%26lt;I believe it is pretty plain to see when reading the bible that the false prophet will be whoever is the pope at the end times.%26gt;%26gt;
Words and actions must always be in sync. You claim your prediction is based on Biblical text and that it is ';pretty plain to see';, so then why do you not present the Biblical texts from which you have obtained this revelation, so that the rest of us
can see your prediction as ';plainly'; as you do?
At least you didn't make the mistake of trying to predict the precise timing of said event.
%26lt;%26lt;I know that catholics believe there is a ';bad-pope'; coming so how could they follow a ';religion'; that teaches they will have a bad leader eventually?%26gt;%26gt;
No, it is not part of Catholic Doctrine that there is to be this ';bad leader';. Certainly there is nothing in the Bible predicting a ';bad leader'; of the Church.
Recorded history alone is enough to prove that some popes have been better than others. Common sense alone is enough to conclude some future popes will be better than others.
You don't need questionably interpreted Bible verses - which you have so far failed to present as evidence to your claim - to prove some popes are better or worse than others?
%26lt;%26lt;I am not hating but I just want the truth.%26gt;%26gt;
Well, you see, since when have people predicted ';bad leaders'; of the Church out of love for the Church? Usually, people want to predict ';bad leaders'; for the Church out of some semblance of disdain one has for the Church.
If you've presented anything ';pretty clear'; it's an underlying intention to mislead and misinform the Faithful. Doesn't that make you a False Prophet?Who do catholics believe the false prophet will be?
How is it ';plain to see'; that the false prophet will be a bad Pope? I've read the Bible for well over 45 years now, and I've never seen anything in Revelation that specifies that a Pope will be the false prophet -- any more than the Church is the ';whore of Babylon.';
Trying to attach specific names or roles to Revelation is dangerous and fosters a lot of unnecessary hatred for Catholics and Catholicism. I've also read lots of commentaries about Revelation, and the writers seldom agree about anything, including whether the book is to be taken literally, symbolically, or as a coded message to the suffering Christians of John's day.
Do yourself and us a favor -- don't try to interpret Revelation by putting names or groups together with John's symbology. Since no one knows what the book is all about, all you're doing is driving another wedge between Protestants and their Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.
And there's more than enough of those as is.
(h Latine Basileia), which also has a numeric value of 666.
Read this Book
THE BEAST OF REVELATION
Myth, Metaphor or Reality?
by John H. Ogwyn
I'm not catholic but think it could have been mohammed or the imam muslims claim will return,
Judging by the criteria of biblical fundamentalism (literal words literally understood) it is certain that there is no mention of the Catholic Church in the book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon. By contortions of interpretation (not biblical literalism) some groups and individuals equate the Whore in Revelation 17:9 with the Catholic Church since Rome is the famous city of seven hills and the Church's principal See is Rome. This position is untenable, both factually and from the only words of Scripture which tell us of the actual doctrine of the Antichrist, those of the apostle John in his letters.
There would seem to be two choices, either interpret Rev 17:9 absolutely literally or according to some interpretive key that is metaphorical, allegorical or otherwise non-literal. Lets look first at literal interpretation.
';The seven heads represent seven hills on which the woman sits.'; First of all, no Pope has ever lived or had his ';seat'; (cathedra or cathedral) on any of the seven hills of Rome. These hills are small hillocks (Capitoline, Palatine, Esquiline, Aventine and three lesser ';bumps'; in central Rome) where the religion and government of pagan Rome was situated. The Catholic Church's headquarters at the Lateran (the cathedral) and at the Vatican (where the Pope lives) does not coincide with them. At the time that John wrote Revelation the Christians of Rome lived mostly in Trastevere (trans Tiber), a district ';across the Tiber'; from the City and adjacent to the Vatican hill where St. Peter was crucified and buried. The Vatican is on top of that burial site and is today its own city-state distinct from Rome and Italy.
So, of what was St. John speaking when he wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos around 96 AD? Obviously of the pagan imperial system situated on the Seven Hills, especially the Capitoline (the religious and political center) and the Palatine (the imperial palace). This pagan power persecuted the Church of Rome in Nero's day (64-67 AD), and in the mid-90s under Domitian was persecuting Christians throughout the Roman world. Domitian was considered by the people a re-incarnation of the evil, but well-liked, Nero (the head that lives again). While the antichrist Nero persecuted only the Christians of Rome, Domitian extended that persecution throughout the empire. Both are thus types of the final persecutor, the Antichrist.
Why the cryptic name Babylon? First, the historical Babylon was the pagan power which persecuted the People of God, the Jews, between 610 and 538 BC, destroying the Temple and dispersing the people. The Romans inherited that mantle of infamy when they destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, and, more importantly, persecuted the new People of God, the Church. Thus, St. Peter, writing from Rome refers to as ';Babylon'; (1 Pt. 5:13) - a name any Jew or Christian familiar with the Old Testament would know.
How does this relate to the Antichrist? The future Antichrist will be a world-wide power, essentially pagan, which will persecute the Catholic Church (and orthodox Christians in general) everywhere, as the Babylonians persecuted the Jews and 1st century Rome the Church. These are biblical types! The Babylon of John's day, Rome, stands for the kingdom of the future Antichrist and is no more likely to be situated in Italy than Rome needed to be situated in Babylonia (modern Iraq). John was informing his readers of these prophetic types by drawing their attention to the contemporary fulfillment they found in pagan Rome. The Antichrist will come out of the Christian world (Greco-Roman civilization) to be sure (1 John 2:19), but America is as much an inheritor of that civilization as Europe and just as likely to be the source of the Antichrist.
Finally, after distorting the text and history to read what they want into the Bible, and thereby obtaining God's ';blessing'; on their hatred of the Catholic Church, some ';Christians'; ignore the only texts of Scripture which tells us about the religious leanings of the Antichrist. The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist. In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom. The present pope, John Paul II, has written three great encyclical (circular) letters on the Trinity, one for each Divine Person, and he has without a doubt preached Jesus Christ to more people than any other person in human history. The Catholic Church does not have the spirit of the Antichrist but of God, since no one without the Spirit can say ';Jesus is Lord'; (1 Cor. 12:3), something the Church and Catholics always have done and continue to do!
it's pretty plain to see
1..you've never read the bible
2..you know nothing of what Catholics believe
3..you may want the truth,but you're approach is far off.
a sincere search of the Catechism will help inform you.
google will help you find one online.
Peace
He will twist the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
He will lead Catholics against the Pope and the Church.
He will denounce hate in the guise of wanting the truth.
He will have a ';third eye of light'; between his two normal ones.
He will have skin of a color like that of a jar of clay, and a long, tall chin like Dick Van Dyke and a Stan Laurel grin.
His picture is somewhere on this page.
Be watchful.
Most Catholics DO NOT believe there is a bad Pope coming. We take it for fact just exactly what Jesus said and that is ';The gates of Hell shall not prevail over her'; (the Church). It doesn't say that the gates of Hell will not try but, that it will not prevail---Jesus himself guards against false teachings at the properly elected Pontiff's level.
Well, I have read through some of the answers, and first I would like to say, that the Catholic Chruch is definately the whore of Babylon. Look at all the imagery in REV 17. Note, there are more figures in Rev 13, than just merely ';the beast.'; there is the first beast, the earth beast with two horns like a lamb, and finally the image of the first beast. thats 3 figures all together. All of the reformers Wycliff, Luther, Knox, all considered the papacy to be the antichrist. have you not ever read of the inquisitions, the crusades, and how much worldly power the pope used to enjoy before the french revolution? it is estimated that over 200 million witnesses of the true church were slain. think about it. would the apostles, Paul, Peter, sported so much pomp as the catholic Popes, bishops and cardinals? Even our Lord, Jesus Christ lived in poverty. I recommend, that anyone that does not think that the office of pope is the seat of the antichrist should reread their history, and John Foxes Book of Martyrs.
Charles Darwin.
The false prophet is John Hagee. The abomination that maketh desolute is the apostate church giving up their birthright to a fleshly people and lifting up Israel to a pre-imminent postion world wide and they are doing so now with CUFI, ACT of America. Wake up.. His peope (apostate church) will be taken into captivity this August and the killing of them (using current laws on the books and the 7 Noahide laws ) will begin in December of 08. Time is short. Best pray for eyes to see and ears to hear.
In Jesus,
Linda
Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, so I go with that. If I get your drift you would be what is called in Catholic circles a sede-vacantist or similar. But it's hard to be a Catholic at all if you are exercising a supra-Papal teaching authority of your own.
No, the Church will endure to the end, but there will be very few with real faith.
The False Profit
Paving the way for the Anti-Christ? Jesus is not the messiah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jUlzB1EA鈥?/a>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment