Why the pope could not possibly be the Antichrist

[Joseph77]

what I do have is an understanding of what makes Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism tick so that I can expose the errors of them.

GOOD!
(as God Permits!)

 

[Phoneman777]

Since we can easily ignore Jesuit Futurism and go to biblical futurism, my beliefs are based strictly in biblical futurism and are solidly supported by Scripture.

What you and the Jesuits teach is identical: future Antichrist, future peace treaty, future temple of prophetic significance...Jesuits don't even understand the Gospel, let alone eschatology.

You, on the other hand, must turn Scripture on its head to claim that the papacy --which has existed for over 1,600 years -- is the Antichrist. Especially since God gives the Antichrist (the Beast, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition) NO MORE THAN 42 MONTHS to have control over the whole world. The papacy has never had -- and never will have -- total control over the world of humanity.

I noticed you didn't respond to you my refutation of your "seventy sevens of years" which establishes the "day/year" principle in prophecy, but that's cool.

You accept as symbolic Daniel's characterizations of the kingdoms of his book as having global dominion (eg., both Babylon and its successor are described as bearing "rule over all the Earth" but neither empire impacted Far East Asian imperial dynasties, the Mayan empire, etc.) yet you demand that the same kind of descriptive language applied to the Papacy mean a literal world dominion? Yes, eventually the Papacy will have global dominion when the Second Beast compels the entire world to bow down, which we have not seen as of yet, but is being set up through the NWO network of subservient secret societies, all of which are as Luciferian as Satan's headquarters located in the Vatican. Comment on the 42 months is further down.

"...Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? ["him" = an individual, not a system]

Nobody gets confused when singular pronouns often refer to entire kingdoms, as in, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" -- we all know "him" means the entire nation that set out toward the Promised Land -- however, when it comes to Beast, Jesuit Futurism has everyone all confused into thinking the Beast is one evil dude instead of what the Bible says it is: the kingdom of the Papacy.

a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;

Both Luke 5:21 and John 10:33 define blasphemy as claiming to be God and the power to forgive sin, which the Papacy has always claimed of their leaders.

and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. [42 months = 1260 days = 3 1/2 years = time (1 yr) + times (2 yrs) + half a time (6 months) = first half of Daniel's 70th week]

The 70th Week expired way back in history...the 69th ended with Jesus' baptism in the Jordan, and the 70th began with Jesus preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, continued for 3 1/2 years to the Cross, and then another 3 1/2 years until the 70th was completed and Paul began taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. Since we now see that Daniel's 70 Weeks are actually "seventy sevens of days" and not "seventy sevens of years" as you claim, the "day/year" principle is firmly established in Daniel and Revelation, and that the 1,260 Days/42 Months/3 1/2 Years/Time, Times, and Half a Time of Revelation, all of which are 1,260 Days, is a symbolic reference to the 1,260 year reign of the Papacy, from its inception in 538 A.D. to the "deadly wound" in 1798 A.D.

As you can see, your mistaken ideas are REFUTED by Scripture, not Jesuit Futurism. Since the Mark of the Beast is in the future, so is the reign of the Antichrist for 3 1/2 years. So it's now time for you to give up your VAIN HISTORICISM and turn to biblical futurism.

Again, that 3 1/2 year (1,260 day) reign is symbolic for the 1,260 year reign of the Papacy. The Little Horn of Daniel arises among the Ten Horns way back at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, and yet is still running his mouth at the time of the end when "the Judgment was set and the books were opened". No literal dude can live that long, but KINGDOMS last for centuries, and in the case of the Papal kingdom, it's still here and happy to have you defend her.

 

[Joseph77]

As written in the first century "there are (already) many anti-christs among us (or around us) "
So,
things are worse, by far, today ! ?
The whole world is deceived.... that much is certain.

 

[Bobby Jo]

How can the Beast be a *platform* when he is clearly identified as a man in Revelation 13 and thus -- the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition?

Rev. 13:7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation,​

According to you, shouldn't Scripture say he/him?
Bobby Jo

 

[Phoneman777]

How can the Beast be a *platform* when he is clearly identified as a man in Revelation 13 and thus -- the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition?

The Beast is identified as a "kingdom" and only referenced as an individual, much like God has referred many times in the past to entire kingdoms by singular pronouns or individuals with not the slightest intent to diminish the concept from being the kingdom in its entirety. Now, a platform? LOL If I were you, I'd limit my engagements to just those with as least some Biblical grounds for their beliefs :)

 

[Joseph77]

If I were you, I'd limit my engagements to just those with as least some Biblical grounds for their beliefs

Like Martin Luther and most all the reformers for a few centuries ?

 

[Phoneman777]

Like Martin Luther and most all the reformers for a few centuries ?

Yes...the Reformers didn't waste a whole lot of time arguing with Papists who knew less of the Scriptures than "a boy that driveth the plough", as Tyndale would say.

 

[Joseph77]

Yes...the Reformers didn't waste a whole lot of time arguing with Papists who knew less of the Scriptures than "a boy that driveth the plough", as Tyndale would say.

and
where is it written ? 'a little child shall lead them' (those humble seeking God and God's Way and Truth ; not those seeking or serving other spirits)

 

[Phoneman777]

and
where is it written ? 'a little child shall lead them' (those humble seeking God and God's Way and Truth ; not those seeking or serving other spirits)

Exactly! This foundational principle of "Speak, for Thy servant heareth" was NOT employed by the Jesuits in their defense of the Protestant Reformation's indictment of the Papacy as Antichrist. The Jesuits approached the Bible with their minds already made up, and thus their minds were filled with Satanic errors which lead Jesuit Luis Alcazar to conclude Antichrist had already arisen in the first century (aka "Jesuit Preterism") and lead Jesuit Francisco Ribera to conclude that Antichrist would arise at the end of time (aka "Jesuit Futurism").

They were not "willing to do His will" and thus were unable to "know of the doctrine" of Historicism as truth, that they might come out of Papal darkness into marvelous light.

 

[Joseph77]

Exactly! This foundational principle of "Speak, for Thy servant heareth" was NOT employed by the Jesuits in their defense of the Protestant Reformation's indictment of the Papacy as Antichrist. The Jesuits approached the Bible with their minds already made up, and thus their minds were filled with Satanic errors which lead Jesuit Luis Alcazar to conclude Antichrist had already arisen in the first century (aka "Jesuit Preterism") and lead Jesuit Francisco Ribera to conclude that Antichrist would arise at the end of time (aka "Jesuit Futurism").

They were not "willing to do His will" and thus were unable to "know of the doctrine" of Historicism as truth, that they might come out of Papal darkness into marvelous light.

Hmmm..... is this the same principle for other disputes ? Like the laughter thing, and the shroud ?

 

[Phoneman777]

Hmmm..... is this the same principle for other disputes ? Like the laughter thing, and the shroud ?

Seems to me the reason for the multiplied thousands of different churches who all claim to love God but can't stand one another on Sunday is precisely due to an unwillingness to let go of preconceived notions about the Christian faith.

 

[Joseph77]

Seems to me the reason for the multiplied thousands of different churches who all claim to love God but can't stand one another on Sunday is precisely due to an unwillingness to let go of preconceived notions about the Christian faith.

Do you think that it is only that (preconceived notions) , or mostly that,
and not something far more terrible and maybe horrible (in general... not to be vague, but , so much to consider) ....

 

[Phoneman777]

Do you think that it is only that (preconceived notions) , or mostly that,
and not something far more terrible and maybe horrible (in general... not to be vague, but , so much to consider) ....

Well, always the exception, but for the most part, it's cherished beliefs which we don't wanna let fall to the ground when they are shown to be incompatible with Scripture. I grew up Baptist and futurist, but when those beliefs were challenged and I found them indefensible, I had no choice but to let em go. If we aren't willing to give up everything - cherished beliefs, attitudes, relationships, even our lives - we're not ready to follow wherever He leads, right?

 

[Joseph77]

Well, always the exception, but for the most part, it's cherished beliefs which we don't wanna let fall to the ground when they are shown to be incompatible with Scripture. I grew up Baptist and futurist, but when those beliefs were challenged and I found them indefensible, I had no choice but to let em go. If we aren't willing to give up everything - cherished beliefs, attitudes, relationships, even our lives - we're not ready to follow wherever He leads, right?

Right.

It is good to note and remember that that is what Jesus said to everyone - if you want to be My permanent disciple, it is required that you abandon everything to follow Me(Jesus). (said a few various ways in various locations) ....

 

[Phoneman777]

Right.

It is good to note and remember that that is what Jesus said to everyone - if you want to be My permanent disciple, it is required that you abandon everything to follow Me(Jesus). (said a few various ways in various locations) ....

Amen to that brother

 

[theophilus]

What you and the Jesuits teach is identical: future Antichrist, future peace treaty, future temple of prophetic significance...Jesuits don't even understand the Gospel, let alone eschatology.

The beliefs in a futre Antichrist, peace treaty, and temple are true regardless of who believes them. The Jesuits certainly don't understand the gospel but that doesn't prove that everything they believe is wrong.

The 70th Week expired way back in history...the 69th ended with Jesus' baptism in the Jordan, and the 70th began with Jesus preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, continued for 3 1/2 years to the Cross, and then another 3 1/2 years until the 70th was completed and Paul began taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. Since we now see that Daniel's 70 Weeks are actually "seventy sevens of days" and not "seventy sevens of years" as you claim, the "day/year" principle is firmly established in Daniel and Revelation, and that the 1,260 Days/42 Months/3 1/2 Years/Time, Times, and Half a Time of Revelation, all of which are 1,260 Days, is a symbolic reference to the 1,260 year reign of the Papacy, from its inception in 538 A.D. to the "deadly wound" in 1798 A.D.

Here is what the Bible says happens between the 69th and 70th weeks.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
Daniel 9:26 ESV

The anointed one who is cut of is Jesus. This speaks of his crucifixion which took place at the end of the 69th week. The people of the coming Antichrist destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. All this has already happened. Some time in the future the Antichrist will make a seven year treaty with Israel. This starts the 70th week, which is still in the future.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

For some strange reason, all the Protestant reformers decided that the pope (or nowadays the papacy) was this Antichrist. The Seventh Day Adventist Church followed suit. While this may have helped them to separate from the Catholic Church, this was not something which they derived from a study of the Scriptures. But there are multiple biblical reasons why the pope – the bishop of Rome and the head of the Catholic church – cannot possibly be the Antichrist.

King Herod of Israel, a fake Jew, sent out his army to kill all children under two years old just to try to kill baby Jesus. Jesus and his family had gone on to Egypt.

Scribes and Pharisees, fake Jews, convicted Jesus falsely in order to have him put on a cross and killed.

Where are these false Jews at today? Does anyone look at them to be the anti-Christ? They certainly aren't Christian, and if one is not a Christian they are anti-christ.

 

[Brakelite]

Every reformer, from the 12th to the 18th century, from Wycliffe to Luther, from Calvin to Cranmer, and dozens in between, pointed their collective fingers at Rome and proclaimed the Roman papacy as the Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Were they right? If one was to give any credence to modern Christianitys view, eg Messrs. Copeland et al, the reformation was a major mistake, and the reformers all religious radicals deceived and influenced by the times in which they lived. If however they were right, and the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the Antichrist as they claimed, then why do so few proclaim it today? If however they were wrong which it seems the majority of Christendom now contend, then why don’t we all forsake the title “protestant” (who’s protesting today anyway?) and return to Rome?

 

[Stan B]

King Herod of Israel, a fake Jew, sent out his army to kill all children under two years old just to try to kill baby Jesus. Jesus and his family had gone on to Egypt.

Scribes and Pharisees, fake Jews, convicted Jesus falsely in order to have him put on a cross and killed.

Where are these false Jews at today? Does anyone look at them to be the anti-Christ? They certainly aren't Christian, and if one is not a Christian they are anti-christ.

Rocky sez >> "King Herod of Israel, a fake Jew"

Dunno where you picked up that drivel. If you had read your Bible, you would know that Herod was not a Jew, he was an Idumean/Edomite. a descendant of Esau appointed by Ceasar to rule the Jews.

Rocky sez >> "Scribes and Pharisees, fake Jews, convicted Jesus falsely in order to have him put on a cross and killed."

According to the Bible, these people were Jews. You don't seem to engage with the Bible, so you must have a more credible reliable source than the Bible, which you apparently reject. What is your source?

Rocky sez >> Where are these false Jews at today?

Dunno. Probably in the same place where all the rest of your false Jews reside: Probably in the same dark corner of your distorted imagination where all the others reside.

 

[Enoch111]

Every reformer, from the 12th to the 18th century, from Wycliffe to Luther, from Calvin to Cranmer, and dozens in between, pointed their collective fingers at Rome and proclaimed the Roman papacy as the Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Were they right?

It is quite evident that they were wrong. Given the time and circumstances, it is understandable that they made the papacy out to be the Antichrist. But that simply does not fit with the Scriptures.