Construction of Image of the Beast in Australia

[Dawn]

Michael Legna

You have told me nothing new - Roman Catholic apologists deceitfully try to absolve their Church of any responsibility in the actual burnings of heretics, claiming that the Inquisition was the work of the state etc etc. And so it goes on.

Nonetheless it remains historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has been one of the greatest persecutors of both Jews and bible-believing Christians. There remains no admission or apology for the atrocities committed and of course anyone who has the courage to confront Rome on the issue is called a bigot! Rome is faced with a choice - either her slaughter of Christians is something to be proud of or is something to be ashamed of.

The Church still has not changed has it? Still the same old arrogance and avoidance of responsibility whilst clinging to the doctrine of infallibility.

Indeed Rome is that city of seven hills 'drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus' Rev. 17:6. 'And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities' Rev. 18:4-5.

God has remembered her iniquities and you can be assured that there will be divine recompense for the death of His saints.

[Dawn]

Dawn,

Nonetheless there is compelling evidence that suggests that it is controlled by Freemasonry

Please provide more details.

As a starting point have a look at the book In God's Name by David Yallop. The P2 scandal was well known in Italy at the time with all the major newspapers reporting on it.  

Regarding the building and it's inspiration - have a read of the online book for more info.

[Corpus]

Ohhhhh... You're implying JPI was murdered by a clandestine masonic-loving Vatican organization, that JPII is a closet marxist, and that Rome helped Reagan get the Catholic vote in exchange for cash. All the while the CIA was protecting JPII from attempted murders courtesy of the Jesuits who were unhappy with his pontificate, and that P2, the CIA, the Illuminati, the Vatican and Freemasons are all part and parcel of the same grand cover-up/conspiracy.

Why not just say so?

The following article might shed some light on Mr. Yallop and his book:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm

[michael_legna]

Nonetheless it remains historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has been one of the greatest persecutors of both Jews and bible-believing Christians.

Something isn't an historical fact until it is supported by evidence and sources that have no vested interest in the outcome.  You will find that there are no main stream secular historians that hold to any of this garbage of yours.  

So you have shown me nothing new, just another Protestant claiming exaggerated numbers with no supporting evidence or independent sources to substantiate their prejudice.

Come back when you have reliable sources and verifiable references to support your claims.  Until then I am going to have to assume that your rantings are no different than demonstratably poor knowledge of history, as in your mistaken identification of Catholic heretics of the 1200's with Protestants of the 1500's.

[Dawn]

Revisionists are already denying and undermining the extent of the Jewish Holocaust that occurred only fifty odd years ago so we should not be surprised at Catholic denials of the extent of the Inquisitions. But 'God hath remembered her inquities' (Rev.) and 'Woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness' Isaiah 5:20.

For anyone interested in the Inquisitions I would suggest reading any reputable secular historian (Catholic Church sources are clearly bias) - no historian will deny that the Roman Catholic Popes sanctioned the Inquisitions causing the torture and death of countless saints.

There could be no dissent from Papal authority, books were banned, property confiscated and bible-believing saints put to death. Every citizen was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the Pope was considered punishable by death. Let us thank God for those Christians we stood against the suppression of basic human rights and the absolute authority of the Popes - ensuring freedom of religion and conscience and giving people access to the Scriptures.

Of course the Vatican can never give any apology or admission of guilt for such horrific crimes because of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

For further reading of the Inquisitions and Reformation - for those interested:

Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, Harmondsworth 1964.
R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York 1876.
E.G. Leonard, A History of Protestantism, 2 Volumns, London 1967.
Rev. John Foxe, M.A., Book of Martyrs; or, a History of the Lives, Sufferings and Triumphant Deaths, of the Primitive as well as Protestant Martyrs: from the Commencement of Christianity, to the Latest Periods of Pagan and Popish Persecution (Edwin Hunt, 1833).
W. Durant, The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster 1950.
Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishing Inc. 1988.
Jean Antonine Llorente, History of the Inqusition
A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation, London 1964.
A.G. Dickens, The Counter-Reformation, 2nd Edition, London 1989.
S. Ozmert, Protestants: the birth of a revolution, London 1993.

'And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus...And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth...And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth' (Rome) Rev 17.

'Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double...Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her' Rev 18:6 & 8.

I encourage you to keep writing Michael - you are doing a fine job of highlighting the absurdity of Catholic thinking on the Inqusitions. I like how you imply that the martyrs (1200s-1500) were merely 'Catholic' heretics - as if the Church has some God-given right to put to death any of it's own for dissent. What a joke and mockery of the truth.  

[Dawn]

The following article might shed some light on Mr. Yallop and his book:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm

I am afraid not.

[ebia]

There could be no dissent from Papal authority, books were banned, property confiscated and bible-believing saints put to death. Every citizen was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the Pope was considered punishable by death. Let us thank God for those Christians we stood against the suppression of basic human rights and the absolute authority of the Popes - ensuring freedom of religion and conscience and giving people access to the Scriptures.

And, for the most part, replacing the Catholic chuch with protestant equivalent of the same - compulsory membership, no disent beyond specified boundaries allowed, putting to death of Catholics and members of differing protestant faiths.  And this is a great step forward how?  

[Dawn]

And, for the most part, replacing the Catholic chuch with protestant equivalent of the same - compulsory membership, no disent beyond specified boundaries allowed, putting to death of Catholics and members of differing protestant faiths.  And this is a great step forward how?  

Such like-minded Protestants are in danger of the same wrath of God as the Roman Catholic Church.

My greatest concern for modern Protestants is the forsaking of Biblical truth for the sake of unity. The ecumenical movement is building a new Babel - the joining of all churches and eventually all religions - under the influence of Rome and it's doctrinal abominations. The ecumenical movement and World Council of Churches (WCC) fails every biblical test which could be applied and is patently unscriptural. Anyone holding to and preaching the word in Spirit and in truth is labelled intolerant. The persecution of any dissent revisited.  

[ebia]

And, for the most part, replacing the Catholic chuch with protestant equivalent of the same - compulsory membership, no disent beyond specified boundaries allowed, putting to death of Catholics and members of differing protestant faiths.  And this is a great step forward how?  

Such like-minded Protestants are in danger of the same wrath of God as the Roman Catholic Church.

But were the same protestant churches you were praising a minute ago for throwing off the shackles of Rome.

It seems the test you wish to apply to the RCC is not the same test you are prepared to apply to the protestant churches.

[Dawn]

But were the same protestant churches you were praising a minute ago for throwing off the shackles of Rome.

It seems the test you wish to apply to the RCC is not the same test you are prepared to apply to the protestant churches.

Ebia,

yes they are the very same Protestant churches that I praised for throwing off the shackles of a corrupt Rome. But the test is no different and they are not spared from reproof and God's anger. Firstly let me just say that the only true church is made up of individuals who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and who keep His word. Within every church building or denomination there are true members of this church. For nearly two thousand years these true Christians, who have kept God's Word, have been rejected and persecuted by the world (e.g. under the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church).

The early Reformers restored biblical Christianity and the truth of the gospel but the Protestant churches have now fallen into apostasy as predicted by the Scriptures (II Thessalonians 2:3). They have become the lukewarm church of Laodicea in the last days (Revelation 3:13-22) and are returning to apostate Rome.  What are the characteristics of this church? - They are lukewarm, spiritually blind and worldly churches that have conformed to the ways of the world. It is marked by apostasy (II Timothy 3 and 4:1-4). The Lord says 'So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth' Rev. 3:16.

This new religious Babel of which the Pope has been at the forefront - (i.e. the ecumenical movement) is built upon a false unity and God calls His people out of it before He judges it 'Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues' Rev. 18:4.

Every generation has had to fight for the faith and stand for the truth of the gospel even in the face of relentless persecution. Our generation is no different.

[ebia]

Ebia,

yes they are the very same Protestant churches that I praised for throwing off the shackles of a corrupt Rome. But the test is no different and they are not spared from reproof and God's anger.

But you reject the RCC because it persecuted those who disagreed with it, but not the protestant churches, who did exactly the same.

[Corpus]

They have become the lukewarm church of Laodicea in the last days (Revelation 3:13-22) and are returning to apostate Rome.  What are the characteristics of this church? - They are lukewarm, spiritually blind and worldly churches that have conformed to the ways of the world. It is marked by apostasy (II Timothy 3 and 4:1-4). The Lord says 'So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth' Rev. 3:16.

This new religious Babel of which the Pope has been at the forefront - (i.e. the ecumenical movement) is built upon a false unity and God calls His people out of it before He judges it 'Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues' Rev. 18:4.

Dawn,

You are one person interpreting scripture as you see fit. The problem however is the same one that plagues so many others who interpret certain peoples or churches as apostate, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?.

I won't assume your answer, but the one most frequently claimed is the authority of scripture itself, but that is an assertion riddled with errors given the circular nature of the reasoning. The second most common claim is that of the Holy Spirit, but this too simply begs the question of credibility and how it is authenticated. The question of interpretive authority needs to be answered before any prerogative of 'knowing' what scripture is talking about can be given credence; otherwise, your case is no more tenable then the 30,000 other and distinct claims of scriptural interpretive authority.

[Dawn]

But you reject the RCC because it persecuted those who disagreed with it, but not the protestant churches, who did exactly the same.

First and foremost I reject the RCC because of its apostate doctrines and theology. Likewise I reject those Protestant churches that have now fallen into apostasy.

Regarding persecution - those Protestants that resorted to the same violence and brutality, as Calvin did, are equally accountable to God. It should also be noted that the scale of the Inquisitions was not even remotely comparable to any Protestant reprisals. Indeed the martyrs between 1200-1500 A.D. were preoccupied with Papal persecution.

The problem with the RCC is that unlike the Protestants they are unable to admit their sin i.e. the wickedness of the Inquisition - because if they do the doctrine of Papal infallibility will be demolished along with Papal authority. It's that simple.

And that's why Michael is kicking and screaming about the issue. Many Catholic doctrines either contradict the Scriptures or are not supported by the Scriptures. Thus the RCC relies upon tradition and Papal authority in order to support its unbiblical doctrines. Martin Luther questioned Papal authority because of contradictions with the Scriptures - including the selling of indulgences and purgatory.

[Dawn]

Dawn,

You are one person interpreting scripture as you see fit. The problem however is the same one that plagues so many others who interpret certain peoples or churches as apostate, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?.

I won't assume your answer, but the one most frequently claimed is the authority of scripture itself, but that is an assertion riddled with errors given the circular nature of the reasoning. The second most common claim is that of the Holy Spirit, but this too simply begs the question of credibility and how it is authenticated. The question of interpretive authority needs to be answered before any prerogative of 'knowing' what scripture is talking about can be given credence; otherwise, your case is no more tenable then the 30,000 other and distinct claims of scriptural interpretive authority.

Well the Pope is only 1 person interpreting Scripture as he sees fit. And by what authority? The Scriptures? questionable tradition of Apostolic succession?

The Reformers urged submission to God's pure Word as the ultimate authority rather than the Church or the Pope. The basic issue that sparked the Reformation was whether to continue in blind submission to Rome, even though its dogmas contradicted the Bible, or to submit to God's Word as the final authority.

Catholicism has the bold claim that it's members cannot understand the Bible for themselves but must accept without question the Church's interpretation. Thus God's Word, the one repository of truth and liberty is withheld from the laity. This leaves Catholics at the mercy of their clergy - a clergy that is all too readily corrupted as evidenced by Rome's appalling history.

The Roman Catholic Church and Popes have proven themselves to be incapable of handling God's Word. As Martin Luther discovered absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Corpus]

Dawn,

All fine and good regarding Catholicism and the Papacy as an ultimate authority, but then what is your alternative?

You quote scripture and tell us what it means, but do so without revealing the source of your authority in properly interpreting it.

You said...

The Reformers urged submission to God's pure Word as the ultimate authority rather than the Church or the Pope.

Who and/or what then actually decided which scriptures were in fact 'pure' enough in properly relaying God's Word? And since nothing less than the fate of our very souls hangs in the singular act of properly interpreting it, how do you know you are in fact doing this? Doctrine, interpretation, belief, lifestyle and ultimately salvation itself are wrapped up in understanding it correctly. How do you know you are right, and they are wrong?