# The 27 Characteristics of the AntiChrist



## Qualitee (Apr 17, 2011)

Know how to recognize the beast and not be swayed into believing that someone is the AntiChrist who doesn't match the biblical characteristics.
*1.* He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]​ 
*2.* He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]​ 
*3.* He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]​ 
*4. *He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8] *ob·scu·ri·ty*/əbˈskyo͝oritē/Noun​1. The state of being unknown, inconspicuous, or unimportant.


*5. *He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]​ 
*6.* He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]​ 
*7.* He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]​ 
*8.* He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]​ 
*9.* He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]​ 
*10.* He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]​ 
*11.* He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem 
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]​ 
*12.* He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]​ 
*13.* He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]​ 
*14.* He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]​ 
*15.* He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]​ 
*16.* He will have "no regard for the desire of women": He will either be asexual or homosexual 
[Dan 11:37]​ 
*17.* He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]​ 
*18.* He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]​ 
*19.* He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]​ 
*20.* His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]​ 
*21.* Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]​ 
*22.* He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave
[2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]​ 
*23.* He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]​ 
*24.* He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]​ 
*25. *He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]​ 
*26. *His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].​ 
*27. *He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]​


----------



## miss cosmic (Apr 18, 2011)

thanks for this.
question - you use the future tense, does this mean that all these are things that are yet to happen? or that some have happened and others are yet to be fulfilled?

tia.


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 18, 2011)

By reading this list, and seeing the events of this world today, I truly believe that the 'Spirit' of the anti-Christ is already here for it is surely quite active.  

The list is self-evident.   It's just a matter of time before he/she is revealed.


----------



## blazingthru (Apr 19, 2011)

Anti Christ has already been revealed, people refuse to look and see, and its not a man. Most of the things listed have already happen. The day was changed most worship on Sunday although there is no biblical bases for it, the 2nd commandment has been changed (the law) hence the kissing and praying to statues. Three kingdoms were destroyed. There is a man that many say is God on earth and he is worshipped. His word is above the bible, so its been written.  So many many believe . 

Sent from my PC36100 using PC36100


----------



## Guitarhero (Apr 20, 2011)

^^^^NOPE, we don't worship the Pope as G-d on earth.  He is the vicar of Christ.  Our catechism is an explanation of our faith via scripture and how to apply it to theology, history of the church, liturgy and daily living for the glory of G-d.  Obviously, catechism is based upon something greater than itself, which is the bible.  I guess you wouldn't know that Moses received both written and oral sacred tradition from G-d, directly.  This is exactly how you have christianity...following the first that G-d provided as a path to Christ.  Written and oral tradition directly from Christ, passed down through the apostles and is referred to as apostolic tradition.  

You know, at this point, I'm sick and tired of the hinting that my  Church is the "whore" of anything or the "anti-christ."  We receive Christ in the manner in which He prescribed:

I Corinthians 11:24-25

and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "*This is my body, which is for you;* do this in remembrance of me."

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

So, I ask you, how is that anti?  You may not like us, you may call us evil, but  nobody  will prevail against Christ's Church.  When you condemn us, you condemn yourself.  Peter was the first pope.  If our Church is supposedly evil, then why are you listening to what Peter wrote?  Rip him out of the scriptures.  Oh wait, the other disciples were in agreement with him.  Doesn't leave much when you have to "x" the entire New Testament.  Vicar means a representative of something.  St. Peter, the first pope and the leader of the apostles (after Jesus) in importance is the first vicar.  It's from the Latin "vicarius christi."  "Persona christi" would mean the "person of Christ."  That has never been any claim of any of the apostles that they are Christ and therefore, it has never been a claim of the apostolic Catholic Church for the papacy, from whom you likewise descend.  Catholic, meaning "universal" church...under which the orthodox, armenian, chaldean, syriac, coptic, ethiopic etc. are a part of it...and then protestants who are peripheral.   We used to be ONE.  


Matthew 16:18

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


If I didn't know you meant well, I'd rip you a new one.  Stop it, though.  You don't find me belittling your faith and telling you you are hell-bound for not being catholic, now, do you?  Nope  (something we don't even believe in the first place).  No matter how much you pray away my faith in Christ, it is not going anywhere as I am where Christ placed me. Don't believe me, ask Him yourself.  

BTW, we don't worship statues.  They came into being via the Roman culture.  It was changed to reflect Christ and the saints.  Just like a picture you have of your mother, you kiss it?  Same thing.  Although, most people don't go around kissing any kind of image of the saints.  But we do kiss the crucifix.  Icons are the same thing.  Nope, don't worship them and yes, the communion of saints is real and we regularly ask intercession of those who have gone to heaven.  They aren't just sitting up there eating grilled leviathan aux sauces de tomates, they are busy working for G-d.  Intermediary differs from intercessor...in case you find fault with that as well.


----------



## blazingthru (Apr 25, 2011)

1


Guitarhero said:


> ^^^^NOPE, we don't worship the Pope as G-d on earth.  He is the vicar of Christ.  Our catechism is an explanation of our faith via scripture and how to apply it to theology, history of the church, liturgy and daily living for the glory of G-d.  Obviously, catechism is based upon something greater than itself, which is the bible.  I guess you wouldn't know that Moses received both written and oral sacred tradition from G-d, directly.  This is exactly how you have christianity...following the first that G-d provided as a path to Christ.  Written and oral tradition directly from Christ, passed down through the apostles and is referred to as apostolic tradition.
> 
> You know, at this point, I'm sick and tired of the hinting that my  Church is the "whore" of anything or the "anti-christ."  We receive Christ in the manner in which He prescribed:
> 
> ...


 [FONT=&quot]It is not my intentions to insult or debase your faith, it is the system we are talking about, it is not directed at you personally.  
; _Vicarius Filii Dei_, which is the Latin for ‘Vicar of the Son of God.’ Catholics hold that the Church, which is a visible society, must have a visible head; Christ, before His ascension into heaven appointed St. Peter to act as His representative. Hence, to the Bishop of Rome as head of the church, was given the title, ‘Vicar of Christ.’” At present, the pope’s miter does not contain the Latin title, but the words are incorporated into the coronation ceremonies of each newly crowned pope.[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 4:12 (King James Version)[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are some things that are painful to hear and disturbing. I was devoted to my service, which comes out of the Mother Church, Methodist. but there was to many things that were conflicting to me that I could not understand. This made me start to do my own searching but at the time I didn't' know what to search. or where to begin.  *But* I left that church. I grew up in that church. I have roots in Baptist and others no need to name them, I found no answers to my questions.  I am never offended by things said to me about my faith, because I stand on the bible alone. It is sinful to argue, this will be my last response to you regarding your faith as I said it was and is never my intentions to harm you upset you or make you feel as if your under attack,  It is my desire that the truth be told.  When you have confidence and you are standing on the truth God will fight your battles there is no need to fight or even defend. You defend your reasons for your joy in Christ.  Everything else, well lets leave it at that.

Daniel 7:25, where the papacy is described as a power who would “think to change times and laws.” We have learned already how the second commandment was removed and the tenth commandment divided in the catechisms of the papacy. But what about the “times” mentioned in the text? Where only is time mentioned in the law? It is in the fourth commandment. Did the papacy think to change the Sabbath, the only time designated by the law? Yes, it did, and it happened in a most interesting way.
     The pagans had a system of religion based on sun worship. Their sacred day was the first day of the week, which they named Sun-Day in honor of the sun god. Sunday was observed by the pagans in contrast to the Sabbath observance of Christians. But in the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine, a significant thing happened. Constantine professed conversion to Christianity and opened the doors of the church to all his heathen followers.
     In order to gain power, prestige, and greater numbers to the church, he accepted many of the customs of sun worship from the pagans. Many of these compromises, such as Christmas and Easter, have already been described. Another of those customs was the observance of Sunday. It appeared more convenient to let the pagans keep their own day of worship on Sunday and ask the Christians to join them in it. So Constantine actually made the first law about keeping Sunday instead of the Sabbath. Papal church councils strengthened that law until it became firmly entrenched in Christianity and the world.      [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In order to avoid all mistakes of identity, it would be well first to consider the nine characteristic marks described in the prophecy itself. These marks of identity will enable us to be absolutely sure of the interpretation. We dare not guess or speculate concerning the historical identity of this “little horn” of prophecy.
_First_ of all, the little horn came up among the ten. This places it geographically in Western Europe. _Second_, it came up after the ten arose, because it came up “among them.” Since the ten arose in 476 A.D., the little horn would have to begin its reign some time after that date. _Third_, it would uproot three of the ten tribes as it came to power. The eighth verse says that before the little horn, “there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.”
_Fourth_, the little horn would have “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” Verse 8. This indicates that a human being would be at the head of the power represented by the little horn. _Fifth_, “he shall be diverse from the first (horns).” Verse 24. This means that the little horn would be a different kind of power from those purely political kingdoms that preceded it. The _sixth_ characteristic is revealed in the first part of verse twenty-five, “And he shall speak great words against the most High.” Another verse says, “speaking great things and blasphemies.” Revelation 13:5.

 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
 [/FONT]


----------



## blazingthru (Apr 25, 2011)

At this point, let’s define from the Bible the meaning of blasphemy. In John 10:30-33, Jesus was about to be stoned for claiming to be one with the Father. The Jews who were going to kill Him said, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” According to this text, it is blasphemy for a man to be accorded the place of God.
     Now let us read another definition of blasphemy. Jesus had forgiven a man his sins, and the scribes said, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7. Clearly, Jesus was not a blasphemer, because He was God and He was able to forgive sin. But for a man to make such claims would constitute blasphemy, according to the Bible’s own definition.
     Now we come to the seventh point of identity, found also in verse twenty-five, “and shall wear out the saints of the most High.” This tells us that the little horn is a persecuting power. It will make war with God’s people and cause them to be put to death. The eighth mark is also given in verse twenty-five, “and think to change times and laws.” Apparently, in its bitter opposition to the God of Heaven, in speaking great words against Him, this power also seeks to change the great law of God. This move of the little horn could only be an attempt to make a change. Obviously, man can never alter the moral law of God.
The ninth, and final identifying mark, in verse twenty-five, tells us exactly how long this little horn would exercise authority in the earth, “and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” Here we are faced with a strange expression. It is actually a prophetic term that the Bible itself explains. In Revelation 12:14, we read these words concerning the same time period, “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” Now read verse six, which describes the same event. Instead of saying, “a time, times, and half a time,” it says, “a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Thus we see that the two periods of time are exactly the same. By comparing these Scriptures, we understand that a time is a year in Bible prophecy, times is two years, and half a time is half a year. This gives us a total of 3 1/2 times, or 3 1/2 years, because 3 1/2 years is exactly equal to 1,260 days. We are using, of course, the Bible year of 360 days.
     We are now ready to apply another great principle in the interpretation of prophecy. Please notice that always in measuring prophetic time, God uses a day to represent a year. In Ezekiel 4:6 we read the actual rule, “I have appointed thee each day for a year.” Further support of this is found in Numbers 14:34. This method of reckoning time must always be applied in the study of Bible prophecy. This means, then, that the little horn power would rule for 1,260 years, instead of merely 1,260 days. 
     We have before us now a list of nine specific characteristics, which have been lifted out of the seventh chapter of Daniel in description of the little-horn power. There is only one power in all history that meets the description given here. In other words, God closes every other option, and forces us to the only possible conclusion: the Catholic Church alone fulfills all the points of identity established in Daniel 7.
     Let us take a quick look and notice how clearly this is done. First of all, the papacy did arise in western Europe, at the very heart of the territory of the pagan Roman Empire—in Rome itself. Second, it did come up after 476 A.D. It was in the year 538 A.D. that a decree of Emperor Justinian went into effect that assigned absolute preeminence to the Church of Rome. These are facts of history that can be verified by any authoritative historical source.
     Third, when the papacy arose, it was opposed by three of the tribes that had taken over at the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Vandals, Ostrogoths and Heruli were Arian powers that strongly opposed the rise of the Catholic Church. The armies of Rome marched in to uproot and completely destroy these three tribes. The last of the three was destroyed in the very year 538 A.D., when Justinian’s decree went into effect.
     Fourth, the Catholic Church did have a man at the head of its system. Fifth, the papacy was a diverse kind of power from the other political kingdoms before it. It was a religio-political system quite unlike anything that had been seen in the world before that time.
     Now we take a look at the sixth characteristic—the speaking of great words and blasphemy against the Most High. Does the papacy meet this description? We need only to be reminded that the Catholic Church has ever attributed to itself the power to forgive sins. As to the great words, let me quote from an article by F. Lucii Ferraris, contained in the book Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Juridica Moralis Theologica. This book was printed at Rome and is sanctioned by the Catholic encyclopedia. Listen to these claims: “The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted, that he is not a mere man, but as it were God and the Vicar of God. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power.” Volume VI, pp. 2529. These are only a few of the words that the Bible defines as blasphemy. Thus, the papacy meets the marks of identity as the little horn power.


----------



## blazingthru (Apr 25, 2011)

Coming now to the seventh point of identity, we find that history supports the prophecy concerning papal persecution. Everyone who has any knowledge of the Middle Ages is acquainted with the fact that millions of people were tortured and killed by the Catholic inquisitions. From a book written by a Catholic cardinal, which also bears the sanction of the Church, we read, “The Catholic Church … has a horror of blood. Nevertheless when confronted by heresy … she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like the Inquisition. She calls the laws of the state to her aid. … Especially did she act thus in the 16th Century with regard to Protestants. … In France, under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics.” The Catholic Church, The Renaissance and Protestantism, pp. 182-184. 
     We could multiply statements like this from historians, both Catholic and Protestant,  that describe the horrible tortures of the papal authorities upon Protestants. Thus we can see the complete fulfillment of this description of the little horn.
     The eighth mark, as given in verse twenty-five, concerns the attempt to change God’s laws. Does this apply to the papacy? Please note this: the Catholic Church has removed the second commandment from her doctrinal books and catechism, because it condemns the worship of images. The tenth commandment is then divided so that they still have ten commandments. But two are against coveting, and there is none against idolatry. In this way, the papacy has thought to change the law, but unsuccessfully. God’s law cannot be changed.
     Finally, we come to the ninth identifying mark, which tells us exactly how long this papal power would exercise its authority in the earth. We discovered that it would be for a period of 1,260 years. Is this according to the record of history? Remember, that we have noted how the papacy began its reign, by order of Justinian, in 538 A.D. By counting down 1,260 years from this date we are brought to the year 1798. In that very year the French general, Berthier, marched his armies into Rome and pulled the Pope off his throne. He was carried away into exile, and all the properties of the Church were confiscated.
     The French Directory government decreed that there would never be another Bishop of Rome. As far as the world was concerned, and by all outward appearance, the Catholic Church was dead. After exactly 1,260 years, in fulfillment of the prophecy, she lost her control of the world. Thus, the final point is clearly fulfilled in the papacy, and in it only.
You may be wondering what all of this has to do with the beast of Revelation 13. We are now ready to identify that strange, composite animal described in the book of Revelation. Let us read the description of that beast once more, which has the body of a leopard, the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion. “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.” Verse 5. Notice, please, that this beast is doing exactly the same thing as the little horn of Daniel. Verse five continues, “And power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” How long is forty-two months? Exactly 1,260 prophetic days or years—the same as the 3 1/2 times of Daniel’s prophecy.
     Concerning the beast, we read further, “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.” Verse 7. This beast is also a persecut- ing power. In other words, the beast of Revelation 13 is the very same power as the little horn. Both are symbolic of the papacy. This is God’s graphic illustration of the papal power, as it came up to exercise arbitrary authority over the earth for 1,260 years.
     Further similarity is found by reading Revelation 13:3, “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.” As we have already established, the deadly wound was given in the year 1798 A.D., when the French armies carried the Pope away into exile. But that wound was to be healed, and finally the whole world would give its allegiance to the papacy again. That prophecy has been fulfilled very, very vividly before our eyes.
     It was in the year 1929 that Mussolini executed the Concordat of 1929 with the Pope, restoring the properties that had been taken away from the Church. At that time, the Pope was actually made king once more, and the Vatican City was set up as a political sovereign power. From that day to this, the strength of the papacy has been advancing with tremendous strides.
     At this present time most of the countries of the world have political representatives at Vatican City. The incredible influence of the papacy in world affairs is attested to by the headlines in today’s newspaper. Almost every utterance of the pope is published to the ends of the earth, and millions and millions of people look to the papal power as the greatest influence in politics today. Yes, the wound has certainly been healed, and the world continues to follow after the beast. 

There is more to this story, but it has been told already in deeper detail in this forum.  It is my desire to share the Truth with everyone I can sometimes someone will get hurt along the way.  It is not my truths. It is not something I made up. It is the word of God and to understand the word of God constant prayer and asking the holy spirit guidance is key..  
*Matthew 16,* Jesus asks His disciples, “Whom do men say that I … am?” They answered, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; … or one of the prophets.”
Yet Jesus pressed His disciples: “But whom say ye that I am?” Finally, Peter proclaimed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

To this startling confession, Jesus responded, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” To come to a correct understanding of Jesus requires more than an understanding of history, it requires a revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then added, “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Of course, the rock upon which the church is built is not the fickle apostle, but rather Jesus Christ. Peter didn’t see himself as the foundation of the church; rather, he says in Acts 4:11 that Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone.

That’s why the church, empowered by the living Christ, is able to break down the gates of hell. Filled with God’s Spirit, Christ’s church is to conduct aggressive spiritual warfare, rescuing lost souls from the enemy. Why then are there so many churches intent on avoiding this battle, even though they have been promised in Luke 10:19, “I give unto you … over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you”?


----------



## Guitarhero (Apr 25, 2011)

Blazing, you are going to have to stop with this pompous nonsense lacking any grounding and historical basis for truth, save for persecution, which YOU are also a part of because you hadn't broken off yet.  Don't you even know when the Protestant Reformation occurred?  That means that YOU are a part of the same church that persecuted, the same saving church.  You still fail to realize what "catholic" refers to.  It means "universal."  Funny, the chaldeans are also "catholic."  You are continuously posting inflammatory nonsense that you cannot comprehend.  And speaking of the bible, are you avoiding the FACT that Jews murdered Canaanites, under G-d's mandate?  How do you justify that?  The Old Testament is irrelevant?  Then why is it included in your bible today?

Pray, I ask you, what is this so-called doctrinal book being referred to in which we avoid idolatry?  Give a name and in addition, I beg you to invite a canon lawyer and theologian into the discussion.  The commandments have been altered?  How?  Where's the doctrinal proof?  Do you realize that WE refer to the decalogue or the 10 commandments when we go to confession?  That's one of the sacraments of the Church.  And if you worship Jesus, is He not an image of the unseen G-d?  G-d has no physique or does He?  Contradictory, no?  How do you explain away that you are an idolator if you worship a man called Jesus?  Why do you use a symbol of a cross? It's an image.  

Sigh...it's not G-d's word, _*it's YOUR word*_, based upon the word of another person with a grudge on our Church. Provide the original evidence, I dare you.  However, as pointed out before, all christians share this horrible period of history...ALL CHRISTIANS. Protestants murdered Africans and Indians by the millions...long after the Protestant Reformation.  Christian missionaries today are wreaking havoc on Africa to place spies and govt. cohorts, stealing resources, making back-room deals with despots.  All this, under the guise of "spreading Christ."   If you think you are holy now and not a part of that, what makes you think that we caholics go about killing people who don't convert today?  Your arguments or copy/paste...they are seriously flawed and it's insulting the the many faithful catholics on LHCF as well as protestant denominations you've deemed invalid.  You are insulting your sisters in Christ. Granted, you hate us.  Guess what, WE DON'T CARE but don't lie on Jesus, His mother nor His Church.  Live and let live.  I will NEVER leave our church for your beliefset.  Praise G-d for that.


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 4, 2012)

blazingthru said:


> Anti Christ has already been revealed, people refuse to look and see, and its not a man. Most of the things listed have already happen. The day was changed most worship on Sunday although there is no biblical bases for it, the 2nd commandment has been changed (the law) hence the kissing and praying to statues. Three kingdoms were destroyed. There is a man that many say is God on earth and he is worshipped. His word is above the bible, so its been written. So many many believe .
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using PC36100


 
Wow.. I'm sorry to say so but this is one ignorant post. erplexed  erplexed

blazingthru, you must be of the SDA sect.


----------



## divya (Dec 4, 2012)

Rsgal said:


> Wow.. I'm sorry to say so but this is one ignorant post. erplexed  erplexed
> 
> blazingthru, you must be of the SDA sect.



What exactly is ignorant about it? That is the SDA understanding via studying biblical prophecy. It is not meant to offend but simply fits the characteristics. And don't be so sure that one must be SDA to hold those beliefs as such beliefs predate Adventism and there are other Christians who hold such beliefs.

What sect are you?


----------



## auparavant (Dec 4, 2012)

Why do y'all bump old butt posts?    Anyhoo....


----------



## divya (Dec 4, 2012)

Who do you understand "they" to be Auparavant? The belief about the Papacy is not about or an attack on the sincere everyday believers. It's about the practices that are understood to be unbiblical that are taught from the top to people who are striving to please God. The example given is understood to be in direct conflict with the 2nd commandment. So when people are studying these characteristics given in Scripture, the Papacy does fall under that.  Again, it is not an attack on individuals.


----------



## auparavant (Dec 5, 2012)

I responded to an old post which I hate...cuz I'm already in that thread.  I read backwards.  


But [email protected]divya   who else kisses statues in "church" but us?    It's all good.  BTW, the papacy is the guardian of the entire christian faith.  People fall under that authority and protection without realizing it...as Christ passed the apostolic "papacy" to Peter as He founded one Church, not several denominations.  We catholics don't "strive" to please G-d in darkness and misguided rules.  If that is a direct violation of the 2nd commandment,  please tell me why HaShem (Gd) commanded Moses to fashion a snake of gold on a rod for those who were snake-bitten to look upon?  It's an image.  Think hard about the answer first.

Graven means something different.  Which porcelain statue is actually Jesus, or Mary or any saint?  Why did the ark have "graven" images on the ark?  It didn't.  What is a kiss?  Jesus received one that led to betrayal.  How do humans show deep affection to the beloved?  If there are to be no images, no "graven" images in the interpretation written in this thread by others than me, then idolators would include people who worship Jesus of Nazareth as G-d.  In fact, G-d would have broken, nullified and hypocritically disregarded His own commandment by sending Jesus as Messiah.  "Gd has no shape nor form..."  So, how do christians arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is G-d?





Partial answer....."graven" refers to a false g-d.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Dec 5, 2012)

auparavant said:


> I responded to an old post which I hate...cuz I'm already in that thread.  I read backwards.
> 
> But [email protected]divya   who else kisses statues in "church" but us?    It's all good.  BTW, the papacy is the guardian of the entire christian faith.  People fall under that authority and protection without realizing it...as Christ passed the apostolic "papacy" to Peter as He founded one Church, not several denominations.  We catholics don't "strive" to please G-d in darkness and misguided rules.  If that is a direct violation of the 2nd commandment,  please tell me why HaShem (Gd) commanded Moses to fashion a snake of gold on a rod for those who were snake-bitten to look upon?  It's an image.  Think hard about the answer first.
> 
> ...



Graven images is translated from the Hebrew word pesel which means carved. Its derived from the word pasal which means cut or hewn. So no it wasn't just talking about false gods, it was about carved images period. The rest of the verse says not to make anything in the likeness of heaven, earth or beneath the earth. And please don't put worship of Jesus as God under the category of having a church full of statues. Its not even close to being the same thing. The Bible says the following:

 John 1:1, 14 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word affirms who Jesus Christ was. The snake you mentioned was a representation, not something he kissed and bowed down before. It wasn't meant to be made as an image of God or an idol either. Worship is spiritual (John 4:24) so kissing a statue is not a form of worship to the true and living God. There were many reasons why Jesus needed to come in the flesh and I simply don't see how you view that as a justification for bowing before a statue. 

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF


----------



## auparavant (Dec 5, 2012)

"Carved" is not the only meaning of "graven" image.  There are many levels of meaning in scripture and in the oral law.  It's essentially referring to trust in a false G-d, which was the point I was making.  Graven images are false g-ds.  When you have a h-ly image of Jesus, you do not have a graven image.  You have a representative of the Christ incarnated who is not a false g-d.  Why would G-d tell you one thing for all ages and turn around and say, "nevermind?"  Makes no sense...unless there were a deeper meaning and one which was waiting to be revealed.  

Glossing over the actual meaning is causing the misunderstanding.  The simplistic route is not going to get the answer.  But we can certainly agree to disagree here.  Incidentally, there are NO graven images in the catholic church.  There are h-ly images.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Dec 5, 2012)

auparavant said:


> "Carved" is not the only meaning of "graven" image.  There are many levels of meaning in scripture and in the oral law.  It's essentially referring to trust in a false G-d, which was the point I was making.  Graven images are false g-ds.  When you have a h-ly image of Jesus, you do not have a graven image.  You have a representative of the Christ incarnated who is not a false g-d.  Why would G-d tell you one thing for all ages and turn around and say, "nevermind?"  Makes no sense...unless there were a deeper meaning and one which was waiting to be revealed.
> 
> Glossing over the actual meaning is causing the misunderstanding.  The simplistic route is not going to get the answer.  But we can certainly agree to disagree here.  Incidentally, there are NO graven images in the catholic church.  There are h-ly images.



Thanks for clarifying. However, I've never read anything about a holy image in the Bible.

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF


----------



## auparavant (Dec 5, 2012)

Jesus in the flesh... if one is to take that other interpretation of "graven," would mean they should also include ANY representative of the G-d with no form.  No painted image, no mosaic, nothing.  What do you call a typical painted image of Jesus in protestant churches?  What about the usage of icons in the Greek orthodox churches?   G-d has no physical form and is incorporeal, as theologians explain it.  Metaphorical reference to G-d's hands, etc., plus, people who have seen G-d in the O.T. yet, nobody can see the Father and live.  Sounds contradictory, right?


----------



## auparavant (Dec 5, 2012)

Exodus 25: 10-22 

10 Tell the people to build a chest of acacia wood forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high. 11 Cover it inside and out with pure gold and put a gold edging around the lid. 12 Make four gold rings and fasten one of them to each of the four legs of the chest. 13 Make two poles of acacia wood. Cover them with gold 14 and put them through the rings, so the chest can be carried by the poles. 15 Don't ever remove the poles from the rings. 16 When I give you the Ten Commandments written on two flat stones, put them inside the chest.
17 Cover the lid of the chest with pure gold.
18-19 *Then hammer out two winged creatures of pure gold and fasten them to the lid at the ends of the chest.* 20 The creatures must face each other with their wings spread over the chest. 21 Inside it place the two flat stones with the Ten Commandments and put the gold lid on top of the chest. 22 I will meet you there
between the two creatures and tell you what my people must do and what they must not do. 


<< Numbers 21:8 >>

New International Version (©1984)
The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live."


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Dec 5, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Jesus in the flesh... if one is to take that other interpretation of "graven," would mean they should also include ANY representative of the G-d with no form.  No painted image, no mosaic, nothing.  What do you call a typical painted image of Jesus in protestant churches?  What about the usage of icons in the Greek orthodox churches?   G-d has no physical form and is incorporeal, as theologians explain it.  Metaphorical reference to G-d's hands, etc., plus, people who have seen G-d in the O.T. yet, nobody can see the Father and live.  Sounds contradictory, right?



I'm still not getting how you think that is the same thing. We are made in God's image. But I'd hardly call that graven. Graven is something made by a man's hands. Jesus Christ was not a graven image so that argument does not apply. And I don't agree with images in any church period and I will certainly agree that it is of Catholic influence. Metaphors about Gods hands don't mean or justify graven images either. We'll never agree on that though and I certainly don't want to be argumentative.

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Dec 5, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Exodus 25: 10-22
> 
> 10 Tell the people to build a chest of acacia wood forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high. 11 Cover it inside and out with pure gold and put a gold edging around the lid. 12 Make four gold rings and fasten one of them to each of the four legs of the chest. 13 Make two poles of acacia wood. Cover them with gold 14 and put them through the rings, so the chest can be carried by the poles. 15 Don't ever remove the poles from the rings. 16 When I give you the Ten Commandments written on two flat stones, put them inside the chest.
> 17 Cover the lid of the chest with pure gold.
> ...



Sigh.... We'll never agree.

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF


----------



## auparavant (Dec 6, 2012)

I'm engaging you as I do others from time to time.  It's not argumentation, it's digging into a subject for clarity for either side/viewpoint.  Hey, it's good to disagree...gets the cerebral juices flowing.  I figure that if people don't question things, they don't think much.  Without thinking much, there is little curiosity.   Does make you wonder, though, the scriptures, right?  I'm not of the mindset that I can't challenge what I read in scripture.  By challenge, I mean questioning.  Some might see that as sacrilegious or even blasphemous...but that's now how I was taught in life.  You question to know more deeply.

What about:








This was kept in the h-liest part of the Temple and aron hakodesh.  Isnt it made by hands and containing images?  That's why we know there are many different levels of understanding in scripture.  And I think it leads one to ask that, if G-d is of no physical form, then who and what is Jesus?


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Dec 6, 2012)

auparavant said:


> I'm engaging you as I do others from time to time.  It's not argumentation, it's digging into a subject for clarity for either side/viewpoint.  Hey, it's good to disagree...gets the cerebral juices flowing.  I figure that if people don't question things, they don't think much.  Without thinking much, there is little curiosity.   Does make you wonder, though, the scriptures, right?  I'm not of the mindset that I can't challenge what I read in scripture.  By challenge, I mean questioning.  Some might see that as sacrilegious or even blasphemous...but that's now how I was taught in life.  You question to know more deeply.
> 
> What about:
> 
> This was kept in the h-liest part of the Temple and aron hakodesh.  Isnt it made by hands and containing images?  That's why we know there are many different levels of understanding in scripture.  And I think it leads one to ask that, if G-d is of no physical form, then who and what is Jesus?



I'm talking about images of Jesus, Mary, and the apostles specifically and bowing before them and kissing them which is what the Bible says is forbidden in Exodus 20:5. I'm still not understanding how you are comparing what you listed above as the same thing as making a statue of Jesus (which is NOT Jesus) and bowing before it and kissing it. Again, we know full well that a graven image is something made by human hands so you can't ask how I worship Jesus yet deny the statues in churches. Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, not carved out of wood or whatever else.We don't know what Jesus looked liked so I'm not about to bow before anybody's statue or kiss it. There is also no biblical reference to what Jesus looked like beyond telling us he was a Jew and there would be no beauty in him that we should desire him. The only bowing and kissing I plan to do is in spirit because that is the worship God demands.

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF


----------



## auparavant (Dec 6, 2012)

MrsHaseeb said:


> I'm talking about images of Jesus, Mary, and the apostles specifically and bowing before them and kissing them which is what the Bible says is forbidden in Exodus 20:5. I'm still not understanding how you are comparing what you listed above as the same thing as making a statue of Jesus (which is NOT Jesus) and bowing before it and kissing it. Again, we know full well that a graven image is something made by human hands so you can't ask how I worship Jesus yet deny the statues in churches. Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, not carved out of wood or whatever else.We don't know what Jesus looked liked so I'm not about to bow before anybody's statue or kiss it. There is also no biblical reference to what Jesus looked like beyond telling us he was a Jew and there would be no beauty in him that we should desire him. The only bowing and kissing I plan to do is in spirit because that is the worship God demands.
> 
> Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF





Jesus left several images of himself on earth, at least one of the apostles painted him and the Virgin Mary, early churches have kept icons of him and passed those on.  H-ly images are not forbidden because, again, they are not false gods.  You kiss the PERSON represented in the image.  It's old as christianity and is certainly nothing new.  Iconography is very ancient in the church.  We are not idolatrous for doing so.  But I comprehend your religious stance.  I'll keep on doing it until I die.

I'm glad we can talk out our views with respect.  I encourage it.  That's what's needed around here.  It actually helps to edify one's faith because you think deeply about it and go refind the answers, seeing it from different perspectives all the time.


----------



## divya (Dec 6, 2012)

auparavant said:


> I responded to an old post which I hate...cuz I'm already in that thread.  I read backwards.
> 
> 
> But [email protected]divya   who else kisses statues in "church" but us?    It's all good.  BTW, the papacy is the guardian of the entire christian faith.  People fall under that authority and protection without realizing it...as Christ passed the apostolic "papacy" to Peter as He founded one Church, not several denominations.  We catholics don't "strive" to please G-d in darkness and misguided rules.  If that is a direct violation of the 2nd commandment,  please tell me why HaShem (Gd) commanded Moses to fashion a snake of gold on a rod for those who were snake-bitten to look upon?  It's an image.  Think hard about the answer first.
> ...



That's just it. The disagreement is with the doctrine taught by those at the top and the understanding of prophecy is based on Scripture. "They" refers to those at the head. It is not an attack on your everyday sincerely practicing Catholic.

We'll have to disagree on the rest since I don't believe in any authority given to Peter or in the interpretation of graven given above. The issue with graven images is the danger of idolatry. No need to think hard as it is very simple. If God commands us to do or not to do something, so be it.


----------



## auparavant (Dec 6, 2012)

divya said:


> That's just it. The disagreement is with the doctrine taught by those at the top and the understanding of prophecy is based on Scripture. It is not an attack on your everyday sincerely practicing Catholic.
> 
> We'll have to disagree on the rest since I don't believe in any authority given to Peter or in the interpretation of graven given above. The issue with graven images is the danger of idolatry. No need to think hard as it is very simple. If God commands us to do or not to do something, so be it.




Whether sincere (read, heart searching but considered confused and misguided...eh, nope) catholic or lukewarm, it's still the same catholicism.  It's not going to change.  Those at the top, in our tradition, are guided by the H-ly Spirit and that's why we have a Magisterium for teaching and guarding the faith.  EVerything passes down from them.  So, there is no separate level of sincere vs. singular and separate teaching/adherence as scripture and tradition are regarded -  we're all united.  Thanks for explaining it the way you did because I guess I hadn't noticed people think of it this way.  In other words, it's either the catholic faith or it's not.  We one Church.  Go to one on the other side of the planet, they are the same in doctrine.  Cardinals, the papacy, the bishops, clergy, laymen, canon lawyers, parishioners and all, we all have the exact same faith.  THere is no separation.  How do we know what to believe?  It's from the teaching authority and written in our catechism.


----------



## divya (Dec 8, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Whether sincere (read, heart searching but considered confused and misguided...eh, nope) catholic or lukewarm, it's still the same catholicism.  It's not going to change.  Those at the top, in our tradition, are guided by the H-ly Spirit and that's why we have a Magisterium for teaching and guarding the faith.  EVerything passes down from them.  So, there is no separate level of sincere vs. singular and separate teaching/adherence as scripture and tradition are regarded -  we're all united.  Thanks for explaining it the way you did because I guess I hadn't noticed people think of it this way.  In other words, it's either the catholic faith or it's not.  We one Church.  Go to one on the other side of the planet, they are the same in doctrine.  Cardinals, the papacy, the bishops, clergy, laymen, canon lawyers, parishioners and all, we all have the exact same faith.  THere is no separation.  How do we know what to believe?  It's from the teaching authority and written in our catechism.



Well, God bless you all in your walk. As Christians, we will agree and disagree in terms of our beliefs. As you all look to the catechism, we look to the bible as our authority. So even though our understanding of the antichrist (really, the beast) may not be favorable to all, it's how we understand the holy book we hold as the authority.


----------



## auparavant (Dec 9, 2012)

Please know that the scriptures are held in authority with us.  It is what the catechism is based upon and the councils.  We also hold sacred (given by G-d) tradition in the manner that the people Israel have likewise received.  In addition to that, we hold to the apostolic teaching as passed down by the apostles.  Shrugs.  

I think this is just a matter of not comprehending what and why we do what we do and attributing something negative to it out of that condition of not comprehending.  What else can I say?  We are not idolators and can prove it. Shrugs.


----------



## divya (Dec 10, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Please know that the scriptures are held in authority with us.  It is what the catechism is based upon and the councils.  We also hold sacred (given by G-d) tradition in the manner that the people Israel have likewise received.  In addition to that, we hold to the apostolic teaching as passed down by the apostles.  Shrugs.
> 
> I think this is just a matter of not comprehending what and why we do what we do and attributing something negative to it out of that condition of not comprehending.  What else can I say?  We are not idolators and can prove it. Shrugs.



Yes, I am aware. I was simply stating that both groups are sincerely following what we hold as authoritative and used what you initally mentioned. Nothing more. Did someone call you idolators? Different people understand the 2nd commandment differently. I states that reason for the 2nd commandment is the danger of idolatry, thus there are practices that many avoid and/or deem in violation. It doesn't matter who or why, but many people simply don't believe in what is being done. Some understand it to fall under those characteristics listed above.


----------



## FrazzledFraggle (Dec 10, 2012)

Of the ones of you that believe in the rapture, are you pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers or post-tribbers?


----------



## auparavant (Dec 10, 2012)

divya said:


> Yes, I am aware. I was simply stating that both groups are sincerely following what we hold as authoritative and used what you initally mentioned. Nothing more. *Did someone call you idolators? *Different people understand the 2nd commandment differently. I states that reason for the 2nd commandment is the danger of idolatry, thus there are practices that many avoid and/or deem in violation. It doesn't matter who or why, but many people simply don't believe in what is being done. Some understand it to fall under those characteristics listed above.



I think we're adult enough to realize that when someone responds to catholic tradition by scripture that supposedly prohibits holy images when it's actually talking about false g-ds...yes, we were called and have been called in this forum...idolators, on various occasions.  This isn't the first thread.  Please, let's all be honest.


----------



## divya (Dec 10, 2012)

auparavant said:


> I think we're adult enough to realize that when someone responds to catholic tradition by scripture that supposedly prohibits holy images when it's actually talking about false g-ds...yes, we were called and have been called in this forum...idolators, on various occasions.  This isn't the first thread.  Please, let's all be honest.



Guess I would say that's hardly the intention here, imo. The thread is about the 27 characteristics of the antichrist. One of the issues is the changing of times and laws, and the intent was to show examples of the same. I can, however, understand that it may not be taken well by Catholics. Never seen Catholics being called idolaters here but I don't doubt it. Either way, not sure why the thread was bumped. It's as though someone must have done a search just to being up past debates.



letskeepntouch said:


> Of the ones of you that believe in the rapture, are you pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers or post-tribbers?



Guess I may be missing this question. I believe in the second coming but not a rapture. I believe the saints will go through the tribulation.


----------



## auparavant (Dec 10, 2012)

Divya, it's not taken "well" by catholics because it is a FALSE charge.  Yes, it is true...I am a witness and have seen it happen various times.  That someone who bumped this was not me...just making that clear.  At this point, I have nothing more to say.  But when my church is wrongfully charged and talked about, I will stand up and defend.


----------



## divya (Dec 10, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Divya, it's not taken "well" by catholics because it is a FALSE charge.  Yes, it is true...I am a witness and have seen it happen various times.  That someone who bumped this was not me...just making that clear.  At this point, I have nothing more to say.  But when my church is wrongfully charged and talked about, I will stand up and defend.



Yes, I responded to the person who bumped it, but they never came back. That you defend your church is understandable, as others will share and defend their beliefs.


----------



## auparavant (Dec 10, 2012)

I'm not surprised nor bothered by  the latter...however, there is a HUGE difference between defending our individual beliefs and crossing the line and charging another with heresy.  This is what I'm referring to.


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 10, 2012)

divya said:


> Yes, I responded to the person who bumped it, but they never came back. That you defend your church is understandable, as others will share and defend their beliefs.


 
@divya, Yep, I did bump this thread, and unless you tag me, it's hard to know you asked me a question.




Rsgal said:


> Wow.. I'm sorry to say so but this is one ignorant post. erplexed erplexed
> 
> @blazingthru, you must be of the SDA sect.


 


divya said:


> What exactly is ignorant about it? That is the SDA understanding via studying biblical prophecy. It is not meant to offend but simply fits the characteristics. And don't be so sure that one must be SDA to hold those beliefs as such beliefs predate Adventism and there are other Christians who hold such beliefs.
> 
> What sect are you?


 
I am a practicing Catholic who loves the LORD, the word and my Faith.


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 10, 2012)

blazingthru said:


> Anti Christ has already been revealed, people refuse to look and see, and its not a man. Most of the things listed have already happen. The day was changed most worship on Sunday although there is no biblical bases for it, the 2nd commandment has been changed (the law) hence the kissing and praying to statues. Three kingdoms were destroyed. There is a man that many say is God on earth and he is worshipped. His word is above the bible, so its been written. So many many believe .
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using PC36100


 


divya said:


> What exactly is ignorant about it? That is the SDA understanding via studying biblical prophecy. It is not meant to offend but simply fits the characteristics. And don't be so sure that one must be SDA to hold those beliefs as such beliefs predate Adventism and there are other Christians who hold such beliefs.
> 
> What sect are you?


 


> _*The day was changed most worship on Sunday although there is no biblical bases for it*_


 
Sabbath keeping is God’s Old Convenant. Just as circumcision is. These 2 are important identifiers of the Old Convenenat and it’s claimers. IMO, if you keep the Sabbath, you should be circumising your boys on day 8 after birth.

We Christians (which is one religion that has over 36,000 denominations, meaning we all worship differently and interpret the Bible differently) are part of the New Convenant. We are no longer subject to legalistic law codes but but, rather, the Spirit of Christ is to lead those who have been spiritually regenerated. 

It commenced with the Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, marked a distinct change in approach (see Matthew 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:7-13; Hebrews 10:16-18). Jesus is now our Lord and Master (Hebrews 1:1-2). 

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) clearly reveals this insufficiency of Old Covenant law as a guide for the disciples of Christ. Christians are not required to 'sit down and think of God' one day in seven in the old, legalistic sense because, as Spirit-led believers, we should enjoy regular communion with Him through the Spirit! (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Sabbath command is never repeated in the New Testament, not even once. Furthermore, Jesus is often critical of the Jewish authorities who took a 'picky' and literalistic approach to Sabbath day observance. Jesus was quite prepared to heal the sick on this day, something which the Pharisees strongly objected to such was their legalistic approach to the sabbath. 

The New Testament teaches that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 11: 28-30). 

Three texts are generally thought to indicate a pattern of first-day meetings:

Acts 20:7 “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.”

1 Corinthians 16:2 “On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.”

Revelation 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet…”

Paul in (Col. 2:16-17). says, “ ... let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” 
In that statement, he covers three kinds of Jewish holy days: yearly religious festivals, monthly new moons, and the weekly Sabbaths. All these foreshadowed Christ, he says; therefore, we should not allow anyone to judge us in regard to these things.

God created the world on the 1st day of the week.
He resurrected on the 1st day of the week.
Pentecost was on the 1st day of the week, and thus we worship him on the 1st day of the week. (and everyday, hour, minute of our lives)



> _*the 2nd commandment has been changed (the law)…*_


??? Changed?
I don’t know why Anti-Catholics claim this. It is abbreviated just as the Jews have the commandments abbreviated for easy recitals.
If you look in the Catholic Bible (which was the 1st bible before Martin Luther edited and changed what he didn’t like), you will see that the commandments are in long form. 
During Cathechist and bible study, we all knew that the commandments in the bible were in long form.



> http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/numberng.htm
> 
> 
> *The Abbreviation of the Ten Commandments*
> ...


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 10, 2012)

con'td



> 5. Another reason -- besides their sheer length -- for abbreviating the Ten Commandments is that they contain a lot of historical material that is simply not directly applicable to modern Gentile Christians. Thus God tells the ancient, Jewish audience that he is the Lord, "who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Ex. 20:2), that they must honor (lit., "glorify") their parents so "that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you" (Ex. 20:12), and that "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day" (Deut. 5:15). Besides these, there are also numerous cultural-historical references which no longer apply to the overwhelming majority of Christians today -- such as having male and female slaves, cities with gates and walls, oxen, asses, and fields -- while they did apply to what might be called "the Hebrew middle class" in ancient Palestine.
> 
> 6. Finally, the fact the Church is not trying to "hide" or "remove" any of Ten Commandments by abbreviating them in the memorization formula is indicated by the fact that everywhere else the Church uses them in unabbreviated form.
> *They are there, in all their unabbreviated glory, in every Catholic Bible, including the Vulgate, which was used for a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation, as well as in all the vernacular translations of Scripture before and since the appearance of Protestantism. *
> ...


 


> *……hence the kissing and praying to statues.*



The Bible is speaking of creating idols. There are no idols in the Catholic church. Idolatry is forbidden in the Bible and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:



> Idolatry
> 
> 2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.
> 
> ...






> http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7115
> 
> The Second Commandment is a continuation of the First in guiding the believer not to have for himself a graven image. This utterance is given to protect the believer from the temptation to create images and thus ignore the True God. Some believers worship the means of their own creation, which in itself becomes an idol and graven image. In the religious life of a Christian there are many objects and gestures which absorb his attention and devotion. The Second Commandment forbids anything in Heaven above and the earth beneath from replacing the pure faith in the One Lord. Knowledge, skill, money and works also can become graven images if they are not put to their proper use, that of serving and nourishing the pure faith in the One Lord and God.
> 
> This commandment does not prohibit the use of icons or other objects of the Church. These objects help the faithful Christian to express his true faith in God; the believer does not "bow down to them or worship them." The tabernacle with cherubic pictures on the curtains and sculptured cherubs was not considered idolatry, as it is mentioned in Exodus 36:35-38. The use of statues of a non-existing deity in worship is considered idolatry because the worshipper "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles" (Romans 1:23) (cf Psalm 135:15-18).




Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse *the legitimate veneration* of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry. 
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to _it_, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to _it_. 


_*There is no requirement in the Catholic Church to kiss a statue. This is a personal preference. *_


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 10, 2012)

*



There is a man that many say is God on earth and he is worshipped. His word is above the bible, so its been written. So many many believe

Click to expand...

* 

I've never heard of this claim until now. We as catholics believe that the pope is infallible (that is, he can not make a mistake)  but only under certain conditions .




> http://listverse.com/2009/07/13/top-10-misconceptions-about-the-catholic-church/
> 
> The Catholic Church defines three conditions under which the Pope is infallible:
> I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
> ...


----------



## Rsgal (Dec 10, 2012)

divya said:


> Yes, I responded to the person who bumped it, but they never came back. *That you defend your church is understandable, as others will share and defend their beliefs*.


 
And I always respect all kinds of religions and their teachings. Just the way we christians hold dear to our beliefs, so do others. They have history, holy scriptures and much that they can reference to support claim that theirs is the right(eous) religion.

I try not to judge or belittle.

*--UXOLO--,  *"Peace" in Xhosa


----------



## divya (Dec 11, 2012)

Rsgal said:


> @divya, Yep, I did bump this thread, and unless you tag me, it's hard to know you asked me a question.
> 
> I am a practicing Catholic who loves the LORD, the word and my Faith.



Rsgal Gotcha...I'll remember next time.

I'll respond to your posts later as I disagree completely with the common Old/New Covenant theology based on Scripture. Still at work.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 15, 2012)

divya said:


> That's just it. The disagreement is with the doctrine taught by those at the top and the understanding of prophecy is based on Scripture. "They" refers to those at the head. It is not an attack on your everyday sincerely practicing Catholic.
> 
> We'll have to disagree on the rest since I don't believe in any authority given to Peter or in the interpretation of graven given above. The issue with graven images is the danger of idolatry. No need to think hard as it is very simple. If God commands us to do or not to do something, so be it.



Please, divya, don't be condescending. We "everyday practicing" Catholics understand the Faith very well, and we properly understand who and what the Pope is and his role in the Church.

Your views on the papacy may not be intended as an attack, but it doesn't mean those views don't come from a place of ignorance and ingrained past prejudice of Catholicism.


----------



## divya (Dec 16, 2012)

Galadriel said:


> Please, divya, don't be condescending. We "everyday practicing" Catholics understand the Faith very well, and we properly understand who and what the Pope is and his role in the Church.
> 
> Your views on the papacy may not be intended as an attack, but it doesn't mean those views don't come from a place of ignorance and ingrained past prejudice of Catholicism.



Galadriel Wow...what are you talking about? Who is being condescending? My post was attempting to explain the earlier posts to which Rsgal responded. 

Just because you happen to be aware that I am SDA and happen to hold the persective posted doesn't give you the right to accuse me of ignorance and prejudice. You are attempting to label an entire 'denomination,' while I am doing the opposite in my post. Ignorant, prejudice as well as judgmental is just how your post comes off.

No one said anything about the everyday practicing Catholic not understanding anything. My post is explaining that people who hold the beliefs at issue often make a distinction between everyday Catholics and those at the top. See the post below:



blazingthru said:


> 1 [FONT=&quot]It is not my intentions to insult or debase your faith, it is the system we are talking about, it is not directed at you personally.




Just because people disagree with the doctrine in a particular faith or believe it fits into prophecy does not mean that they are attacking individuals when stating such.  Which is why I can go to a mass, puja or any other service in another branch of Christianity/religion and feel just fine. If that is difficult to understand, not sure what to say...


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 18, 2012)

divya said:


> @Galadriel Wow...what are you talking about? Who is being condescending? My post was attempting to explain the earlier posts to which Rsgal responded.



I do think it's condescending when someone tells a Catholic that her church/doctrine believes in idolatry, even if she doesn't know it, and that the belief of the clergy (esp. in the heirarchy) is different than and some how a secret from the rank and file Catholic. If I've misinterpreted, then do forgive me, but that's what it looked like to me.



divya said:


> Just because you happen to be aware that I am SDA and happen to hold the persective posted doesn't give you the right to accuse me of ignorance and prejudice. You are attempting to label an entire 'denomination,' while I am doing the opposite in my post. Ignorant, prejudice as well as judgmental is just how your post comes off.



I don't think disagreeing with someone is ignorance or prejudice, and I've always had great discussions with you, and we have several things that we actually do agree on. However I have encountered people before who have accused me of being a "blasphemous idol-worshiping pagan," (literally, I was called this word-for-word) and when I ask them about Catholicism, it turns out they know only half-truths and untruths about my faith.


----------



## divya (Dec 18, 2012)

Galadriel said:


> I do think it's condescending when someone tells a Catholic that her church/doctrine believes in idolatry, even if she doesn't know it, and that the belief of the clergy (esp. in the heirarchy) is different than and some how a secret from the rank and file Catholic. If I've misinterpreted, then do forgive me, but that's what it looked like to me.



My statement was that the purpose of the 2nd commandment is the danger of idolatry, which is not limited to graven images. Where did I call a church or anyone else an idolater?

Secondly, regarding the distinction, that was an explanation of how other who hold the view regarding prophecy often perceive Catholics, who are in fact brothers and sisters in Christ. This has nothing to do with secrets at all. Not even sure where that is coming from.




> I don't think disagreeing with someone is ignorance or prejudice, and I've always had great discussions with you, and we have several things that we actually do agree on. However I have encountered people before who have accused me of being a "blasphemous idol-worshiping pagan," (literally, I was called this word-for-word) and when I ask them about Catholicism, it turns out they know only half-truths and untruths about my faith.



No, the accusations are ignorant and prejudice to me, since not only the meaning of my statements were assumed but where the supposed beliefs come from. It's definitely not right for anyone to call you, but that was not the case here. There is disagreement among Christians on the interpretation of the 2nd commandment, but I personally see no need to label anyone just because we disagree. One can make idols out of many things and my focus is on avoidinf such a practice myself. The point of my post was to explain where others said on the purpose of that particular commandment.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 19, 2012)

divya said:


> My statement was that the purpose of the 2nd commandment is the danger of idolatry...One can make idols out of many things and my focus is on avoidinf such a practice myself. The point of my post was to explain where others said on the purpose of that particular commandment.



divya, thanks for explaining. I apologize for making certain assumptions. I've had the "second commandment" discussion so many times with non-Catholics (which usually involved the accusation that Catholics commit idolatry) that I guess I went on auto-pilot to respond .

I understand and agree that people can make many things their "idols" and put before God, whether it's money, sex, power, etc. I think for those who *do* think/believe Catholics commit idolatry or believe in worshiping statues, that maybe they ought to do a little more studying before making assumptions of their own .


----------

