The 27 Characteristics of the AntiChrist

[auparavant]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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

 

[Rsgal]

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

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
For a couple of reasons, Christians have historically aided memorization of the Decalogue by using an abbreviation of the commandments. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

2065 Ever since St. Augustine, the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful. In the fifteenth century, the custom arose of expressing the commandments of the Decalogue in rhymed formulae, easy to memorize and in positive form. They are still in use today. The catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments.

By nature, an abbreviation must leave out certain material, and since the Church has most typically used the Augustinian division of the Decalogue, the section of the Decalogue which says:

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Gets abbreviated to:

"You shall have no other gods before me.

This abbreviation has led anti-Catholics to virtually explode with rage, declaring that the Catholic Church has "hidden" or "removed" from the Ten Commandments the prohibition of idolatry.

This assertion stems from two sources:
(1) their misinterpretation of the idolatry command as a prohibition of all religious images (see "The Court of God") and
(2) their intense hostility toward the Catholic Church.

However, the falsity of the charge can easily be shown by pointing out that:

1. Luther himself abbreviated the no false gods/no idols commandment this way.

2. Jews -- who today are even more opposed to religious representations than Protestants -- abbreviate this command in this way.

3. Protestants themselves, even those who separate the two parts of the command, abbreviate them for catechetical purposes, showing that catechetical abbreviation is perfectly fine in principle and is in no way an attempt to "hide" or "remove" any of the Ten Commandments.

4. Teaching the faith to others, especially children, requires an abbreviation of the Ten Commandments for easy memorization since they are otherwise a very long block of material to memorize, longer than any of the commonly recited creeds.

It would take a great deal of effort to memorize the Ten Commandments in unabbreviated form. And while God certainly wants each Christian to know the Ten Commandments, he certainly does not expect every Christian (including the billions of illiterate ones in world history) to memorize them in unabbreviated form. That is not an essential Christian duty, and thus Luther, the Jews, and Protestants in general have used abbreviations to aid in memorization.

 

[Rsgal]

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.
They are read out unabbreviated during the Scripture readings at Mass (and always have been).

And, finally, when catechetics is done and people are taught the Ten Commandments, they are always read and shown the unabbreviated form before being asked to learn the memorization formula.

In short, there is simply no basis whatsoever to the charge that the Church is trying to "hide" or "remove" any of the Ten Commandments. Rather, the Church is trying to make them easier to memorize and thus help people learn and internalize them better. One may well ask in which communion an average, catechized person is more likely to know the Ten Commandments by heart. Is a catechized Catholic more likely to be able to name the commandments in order, or is a average, catechized Protestant more likely to be able to name them in order? Which communion really stresses the Ten Commandments more in its catechesis? The group that says it is a mortal sin to violate them or the group that is more prone to say, "That is just Old Testament. Today we have grace"?

……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.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47

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]

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

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
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Saint Pius V – 16th Century):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. The most recent pronouncement that can be seen as falling under Papal Infallibility was when Pope John Paul II declared that women could not become priests
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and from the beginning of Christianity he was considered the head of the Church. This fact is alluded to in many of the early Church documents and even in the Bible itself: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Greek for "rock"]; and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he led the Church until his death in 64 AD, at which point St Linus became the second Pope.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [office of Bishop of Rome]. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Timothy 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus [third Pope, pictured above]; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement [4th Pope] was allotted the bishopric. — Against the Heresies, 180 AD

 

[Rsgal]

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]

@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]

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]

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:

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]

@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.

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]

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]

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 .