It's not just 7 hills, there are hundreds of reasons why the Papacy is the Antichrist

It's not just 7 hills, there are hundreds of reasons why the Papacy is the Antichrist.

remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm

Only the Vatican fits all the characteristics of the Beast system. No wonder it was illegal to read the Bible in the vernacular during the middle ages - the book of Revelation showed how Roman Catholicism is wrong.

The Reformers universally knew the RCC was Satan's false church, it's sad to see Protestants today fall for the Futurism lie (perpetuated by Catholic Jesuits to get attention away from Rome).

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/user/zion4131/videos
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because the second part of the bible verse is "and rules over the kings of the earth". And it was written in 95 AD. Present tense.

Rome is Babylon.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon. The exact same pagan practices that they were doing before; they just literally changed the names on the statues.

The more people who know the Jesuit Order is an order of assassins, the better.

Here's the bible verse.

Revelation 17
And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Here's the woman he saw:

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.

Are there any sources on this stuff the pre-date 1517?

Absolutely. Why do you think that date is important?

So what are they and how far back do they predate? Are these sources backed up by secular historians?

Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) is the second oldest existing member of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. It often is abbreviated as "Aleph" or is called uncial 01.

What has been preserved:
...
The New Testament is all preserved, except the scribes did not include John 7:53-8:11, and a blank space reserved for Mark 16:9-20. Sinaiticus contains all of Romans (minus 16:24) in the same order as Bibles today.

lexandrinus (c.450 A.D) have all of Revelation.

>Are these sources backed up by secular historians?

No clue why this is your question. Really. Either the manuscripts exist or they do not.

*Alexandrinus

Because people try to legitimize stuff

Yeah, okay. One expert says yes, one expert says no.

Now what.

Well, existing doesn't merely denote validity. That's why medieval forgeries are a thing after all.

Have secular historians validated the ages of these "Catholics are Evil" documents to the first millennium?

Bohairic Coptic 3rd/4th century
Sahidic Coptic 3rd/4rth century
Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th century
Armenian [Arm] from 5th century
Ethiopic [Eth] from c.500 A.D.
Philoxenian Syriac 507/508 A.D. Bishop Philoxenus of Mabug
Harclean Syriac [Syr H] 616.A.D Thomas of Harkel

Couple more.

Yes, looks like they start picking up in the 3rd century. Why does the RCC have to be the good guy? Would the good guy discourage reading Revelation? Would the good guy teach the bible in a foreign language? Would the good guy burn all bibles in a foreign language? Would the good guy chain the bible shut to the pulpit? Would the good guy tell you the bible is beyond you, so don't read it for yourself?

No, once the scales drop from your eyes you see the Whore not as a beautiful woman, but as a vicious beast.

No, you won't find them. You'll only hear "Muh bible."

Everything being spewed in this thread is new age protestant propaganda.

To answer your question, protestants must demonize the church to validate their heresy. I could believe that Rome itself could be referred to in revelations, but not the Vatican itself.

Okay so are those "Protestant" or "Orthodox" though? The dates are close to the Great Schism and East versus West had different issues than the Reformers and I've seen a lot of Christians say Orthodox churches are equally whorish. Something about "two bronze legs of the same statue" or something.

Catholicism is a religion of peace guys!

d-don't listen to those silly protties!

See Also see

Eastern Orthodoxy is just Catholicism without a pope, and a bit of mysticism.

They are manuscripts. The manuscripts do not have their own denominations.

Holy shit what fucking questions are these.

Two legs on the same statue that Daniel described to Nebuchadnezzar. Both legs ruled Rome for a thousand years.

Both will be pulverized by Jesus.

That's what I'm asking about, hence the picture in my original post. The hill Vatican is and always has been seen as wholly distinct from the Seven Hills of Rome, even before Christianity started. So I'm wondering why a completely separate Hill is included in the Roman Seven despite a traditionally not being one of the Roman Seven. I'm wondering where this tradition started and when. And also which Roman hill gets kicked out of the seven to incorporate Vatican and keep the arc number.

Didn't Nebuchadnezzar pre-date Rome by several centuries?

First off, the Bishop of Rome lives in the Vatican and has control over both the Vatican and Rome. i.e. the pope. So there is no separation between Rome and the Vatican.

Second, the Vatican was built long after the bible was finished. Think of it as the Whore having her own apartment next to the main house.

I'll spell it out for you again.

Rome is Babylon.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon.
The popes are the false prophets of Mystery Babylon.

We say this, and have always said this, because it is in the bible.

Well, "Protestants" is a distinction that only appeared in 1517, and between the years 300 and 600 "Catholic and Orthodox" started becoming separate distinct sects so I'm asking if those are seen as traditionally Protestant or Orthodox texts.

Yes. His empire was the head of gold, the purest kingdom. His word was law. He alone reigned. He was conquered by the Medo-Persians, the silver chest on the statue. More diluted government. Less pure. Less valuable. They were conquered by the Greeks, the brass waist and thighs of the statue. Then the Romans, the iron legs of the statue, and finally the future kingdom of the Antichrist, made up of iron from Rome and broken pottery shards from other types of nations. The 10 Kingdom NWO of the Antichrist. Note that iron and pottery shards do not mix well, and this is the weakest of all the empires.

Then the rock uncut by human hands rolls in and smashes this Empire of Man statue, and the rock grows until it fills the earth. This is Jesus ruling the earth from Jerusalem in the not-too-distant future.

Which is why I despise the word. It's just another papist lie.

The "protestants" including Martin Luther were all CATHOLICS.

They're just the texts dude. They are what they are.

Why would Persia be more diluted or less pure than Babylon?

Babylon was a brutal pagan nation.

Persia is somewhat seen as a positive force in the book of Kings and Chronicles. Cyrus freed the Jews. The Zoroastrian religion, technically pagan, is almost monotheistic and it borrows from a scroll of Isaiah.

>First off, the Bishop of Rome lives in the Vatican and has control over both the Vatican and Rome. i.e. the pope. So there is no separation between Rome and the Vatican.

What about the Lateran treaty? Or the several centuries of the papacy refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Kingdom of Italy?

>Second, the Vatican was built long after the bible was finished.
Aren't most "protestant" sects that way too though?

>Mystery Babylon
I'm not a Christian so that doesn't mean anything to me, what is that and what does it have to do with the ancient civilization located in modern-day Iraq?

God you Christians delude yourselves on the craziest shit. ALIUMSfags have nothing on you apes.

What is it about Jesus that attracts the kooks?

It was two countries, two peoples, so no one person's word was law.

Nebuchadnezzar literally had no one else ruling with him. Which is why he thought he was god on earth, until the real God humbled him by making him live like a beast for 7 years.

0/10 weak bait

So Lutherans are Catholics then?

Mystery Babylon basically refers to an entity or group that practices the ancient Babylonian religion.

Babel is where all the world's paganism comes from (see the Tower of Babel story). Everything that is antichrist, false and satanic.

Roman Catholicism is a crypto-pagan religion. On the outside it claims to be Christian, but when you actually look at their rituals, creeds, beliefs and dogmas, it bears a resemblance with the ancient Babylonian religion.

Jesus warned us of "Mystery Babylon", wolves in sheep's clothing.

Satan's counterfeit church did a good job suppressing the true Gospel in Europe, but real Christians were still thriving in MENA. So in 600 AD he made Islam to block the Gospel there as well.

Catholics are Catholics.

I know it's difficult, but try to pay attention.

So what are some secular sources that corroborate this? And if is correct and all the Reformers were former Catholics, how were they able to completely shed every single vestige of some ancient Babylonian whatever and leave only real Christianity? Because I watch different church services between different sects on YouTube and maybe it's just because I don't care about the intricacies of Christian mythology but they all look pretty much the same.

>Babel is where all the world's paganism comes from (see the Tower of Babel story)

Well that's nonsense, but it explains where you are coming from

>Facts are nonsense

>Christian mythology
>mythology

0/10

Because there were always real Christians outside of Rome, who did not bend the knee to Rome, and managed not to be murdered by Rome.

Rome murdered people in the tens of millions over the past thousand years.

How is the truth "nonsense" to a sane man?

Yeah but said all the reformers were Catholic so are the new sects that came out of the Reformation still Catholic or not? And if they aren't, how did that happen?

he's probably an atheist who bought into the evolution meme

This isn't a team sport.

Catholics within the Catholic church were appalled by how evil it was, and tried to get it to reform itself. Instead of reforming itself, it launched a war against those former Catholics, as they had all been excommunicated.

The bible got out of the church's grasp, and just as the printer promised, the plow boy soon knew more about the bible than any Catholic magisterium.

The worship of Jesus as God.
The reading of the Word of God.
Praying to God in Jesus' name.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

These are the things that led to the explosion of Christianity, and the transformation of the world. The power of God unleashed.

It's just so odd. If I said that this Freemason lodge had roots in ancient Egypt, he'd believe that in a second. Tell him the Roman church has roots in Babylon religions and suddenly it's the oddest thing in the world.

No, I'm genuinely curious. Jews don't go through these crazy zany conspiracytard phases or Jerusalem syndrome. Muslims don't either.

What is it about Jesus that attracts the clinically insane?

>Because there were always real Christians outside of Rome, who did not bend the knee to Rome, and managed not to be murdered by Rome.
So the Orthodox Church then? Because if that's the case then why do some Christians say that they're the same thing as the Catholics even though they fit your criteria of Christians outside of Rome that did not obey the Papacy and didn't get destroyed like Nestorians and Arians?

>Rome murdered people in the tens of millions over the past thousand years.

I'm pretty sure that's completely impossible given what historians say about ancient world populations, most agree that it was only about 3-400 million people worldwide in 1400

(You)

Freemasonry did not exist in ancient Egypt.

Both Jews and Muslims are insane in that they cannot and do not know that Jesus is God.

That is true insanity.

The Pharisees were talking to their God, and did not know it.

An angel told an Arab everything in the bible is true, and then tells him a directly contradictory story about how Jesus is not God, did not die, did not raise from the dead, and all muslims believe it.

Even though it was coming from satan, which Mohammad knew from the beginning, and almost killed himself over.

And then there's you.

2000 years of information at your fingertips, and you can't figure out that Jesus is God either.

You want to see insane? Buy a mirror.

No.

Christianity is not a team sport. It is an individual meeting his Creator and being reconciled to said Creator for failing to be like aforementioned Creator.

No church ever saved anyone, and no church ever will.

Egypt did not build with stones.

This is the "high level of discourse" we can expect here?

I wouldn't believe either of those things because they are nonsense. And the tower of babel story didn't happen. Everyone in circa 2000BC did not all speak the same language and the certainly didn't all start talking in different ones on the same date

No, I'm saying Freemasonry as an organization doesn't predate 1600.

I'd like to see some proof and sources for all those claims you're making, buddy.

So then why are Baptists and Presbyterians even a thing? Don't the many sects have various conflicting ideas about salvation that should make them as invalid as Catholics?

Glad you were there to give us your eyewitness report.

Yes it did.
And yes they did.

You can deny history all you want, it won't change the past.

Maybe slow down and read my post again, you obtuse twit.

>IMPLYIGN ANYONE ITT HAS PROOF OR SOURCES

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

>reddit spacing

didn't read lol

So how did they manage to figure out what was Christian and what was Pagan? I was raised Lutheran and I don't really see a lot of differences in Catholic services that I don't see in Baptist services.

It's all the same singing and bible verses and preaching and crackers and juice. I don't get what you are talking about with "obvious ancient Babylonian paganism."

I have historical records from people who were there.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove it.

>Egypt did not build with stones.
>This is the "high level of discourse" we can expect here?

OK what was I supposed to notice?

Because there are many different personalities who are Christians, and they tend to congregate together. Baptists tend to be a little boring, homey, staid, tried and true.

Other people like to jump up and down and run around full of the Spirit.

I can't really tell you what Presbyterians do, because I haven't been to their services.

Many different denominations differ on things that are not critical to biblical truth. Things like immersion baptism v sprinkling. Wine for communion v grape juice. Baptizing infants, not baptizing infants.

Whatever a man believes and is convinced in his heart is true, that he should do.

you are practicing cultural christianity, just religion. just traditions.

you need to be born again. actually understand what it means to be a christian

Actually burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim, not the negative claim. By asserting that the Bible is 100% historical fact and true, you are making the positive claim.

By the guidance of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, and by the knowledge of what pagans do. Everything anyone needs to know about being a Christian is contained in the bible.

I'll give you some examples of pagan practices that carried over into Roman Catholicism.

The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.

Different flavors.

Protestants all tend to agree on the most important issues, like salvation in grace through faith.

The differences are minor, the denominations are just little flavors denoting what you believe on a specific issue or doctrine.

That masonry is the working of stone.

>implying christfags know what positive and negative claims are

it's just GAWWWWWWD and NO GAWWWWWD and if you NO GAWWWWDD you go to HAEEEEEELLLLLL

very simple, very easy to regurgitate at will which the ants do with marvelous splendor and great pomp

Excuse me, why is Babylon "bad" again?

>Be Semites.
>Live like squabbling rats in tiny kingdoms whose borders stretch from one hill to another.
>Always be subjects of greater powers.
>But be mad at one of the greatest cities in history.

Yup. And any time you want to show where it is not, feel free.

You'll be famous. First person in 3500 years to demonstrate the Word of God is not true!

>By the guidance of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit
I mean academically and historically, not mysticism.

I just told you, historical records from people who lived in those times. I have proof.

You need to prove that it did not happen, and to explain why the people said it did happen.

see? GAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWD and NO GAWWWWWWWWWWWD

very simple, very easy to regurgitate at will which the ants do with marvelous splendor and great pomp

I'm not a Lutheran anymore, I'm not practicing anything.

And if religion has nothing to do with being Christian what the hell does "Christian" matter as a term? If I just "accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior" but then do nothing to actually follow through on that beyond reading an old book and saying some little mnemonic prayers before meals, what does it even matter?

Hell, from the sound of that just saying "Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior" and only that is literally all anyone needs to not burn in hell so why do Christians care about other religions and non-religions existing if all they have to do to be saved is say they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?

>Baptists
>boring

I see you have never seen Charles Lawson then.

youtube.com/user/zion4131/videos

He is always on fire.

The story of the earth is the story of the war in heaven.

God on one side, with Jerusalem as his capital, and the devil on the other, with Babylon as his capital.

God says spread out over the earth and multiply, and subdue the planet.

The devil says let's all gather in one place and make a name for ourselves, and build a tower that can get us into heaven.

God or the devil.
Jerusalem or Babylon

These are the choices everyone makes. The default choice is the devil and Babylon; you have to make an affirmative choice to regain the life lost by Adam and be saved.

You think Babylon is a great city?

The New Jerusalem is 2/3 the size of the moon, with 144 cubit walls and 12 foundations each of precious stones. The river of life flows through it, and the trees of life give off their fruit every month, their leaves being medicine for the earthbound. The New Jerusalem is a satellite city with streets of gold and 12 gates each of a pearl, where the bounty of the earth flows and the glory of God shines from above to light the earth.

Babylon is a child's mud hut next to the New Jerusalem.

Straw man.

No clue why you think mankind's conventions are more powerful, reliable, or real than the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God.

The Christians hate Babylon because the Jews hate Babylon, the jews hate Babylon because Irsael took big babylonian cock.

So then why does being Catholic matter if on the most basal line they all agree with Protestants on the most basic aspects of Christian religion and honestly believe themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ?

The claim is that the bible is true.

You say the bible is false.

You provide no example where the bible is false.

DEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL and DDDDDDDEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL are your only retreat.

Because I'm not religious.
Honestly it's you who have the ridiculous position that is at odds with everyone else, not me.

To accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior requires not only declaring it, but believing in your heart God raised him from the dead. It's a two part effort; merely knowing Jesus is Lord is insufficient.

It's like saying Jesus was just a good man, a teacher, or even a messiah or a prophet.

It's like saying "Lord, Lord".

Why do we care about saving the lost? Because Jesus loves the lost, and wants them to be saved.

Good for him. I favor a Southern Baptist church myself.

Actually the problem was that at the time the Jews had gone through a bit of a Civil War and divided into two kingdoms, and then Babylon showed up kick the asses of the northern kingdom and then later kick the asses of the southern kingdom destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and basically shuffled all the Jews into Media, thousands of miles away.

It basically endeared them to Babylon about as much as the Trail of Tears did Native Americans to Congress, and why Cyrus King of Persia was seen as a messianic figure by the Jews since he kicked Babylon's ass and help the Jews both get back to their homeland and rebuild their temple.

It's really fascinating from on the historical standpoint.

The bible is a collection of supernatural myths, it's as "true" as the beliefs of the people who wrote it.
Do Christians automatically assume that everyone has to hold their religious tenants?
There's no purpose to this, it's just an excuse for you to rant your little poems.

So then I can live a sexually promiscuous and drunken life as long as I always believe that Jesus will raise me from the dead on the last day?

Seems kind of cheap

The Bible is a collection of history, wisdom, truths and prophesies (that always come true).

Because they don't. They recite creeds and mouth prayers but their hearts are far from Jesus. He's not real in their lives; the church is real, and Mary is real, but Jesus is still dead on the cross to them. Hence their crucifixes and the pope's staff have Jesus in an obnoxious and obscene position on the broken cross.

It would be like setting up your son's funeral who was shot to death in a gang war by staging a photograph of your dead son's brains blown out on the sidewalk. Do people do that? No, they put the High School graduation photo up instead. To remember the departed on a good day, not on their worst day.

This is what Jesus says about people like the Catholics:

Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
Among this people,
A marvelous work and a wonder;
For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

and

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

If an individual Catholic is saved, which is what would make heaven rejoice, I do not believe the Holy Spirit would allow him to be comfortable in the Whore of Babylon's pews.

My position is lined up with God.

Your position is hostile and rebellious against God.

Which of us has the untenable position again?

If you are a born-again Christian, you are incapable of doing that.

It's a life changing event. Things you used to love you will suddenly hate.

The 66 books of the bible written by about 40 men of all stations in life over about 1500 years is the inspired Word of God, telling the story of the earth from beginning to end, and telling the story of the redemption of mankind after his fall.

There are no myths in the bible.

This is how people think before the Holy Spirit sets up shop within them.

After the Holy Spirit sets up shop within you, you will not want to live that kind of a broken, empty and degenerate life.

Your wants will change.

And the lifeblood of God himself is not "cheap".

>Which of us has the untenable position again?
The fringe cultist, lol.

GAWWWWWWWDDD and NO GAWWWWWWWDD as I keep saying. It's a mantra, they repeat it endlessly to themselves so nobody has any chance of shining light through.

very simple, very easy to regurgitate at will which the ants do with marvelous splendor and great pomp. christians make the perfect communists.