Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

1Timothy115

The Pope Steps Down

Recommended Posts

I belong to a Christian church, yes. I desire to read the Bible like the early Christians did. They seemed to be masters of scripture. If you read sermons from the 1st and 2nd century there sermons were amazing! It was never just a verse, they would read from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament and the readings would tie in together, something from the old would be revealed in the new. Amazing stuff!


Just out of interest - what kind of church is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh really?  Where in the Word of God is your reference for this?

Hebrews 10:22 says, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

 

This is prophesized in Ezekiel 36:25-27 "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

 

I picked up a book called "Didache." It was written by the apostles in the late first century or early 2nd century. They describe how to baptize. Immersion in running water is preferred but if there isn't enough water you can pour water over the person's head three times and say "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Ghost)." I'm still searching for early Christian writings that talk about a sinners prayer or altar call. Please recommend one if you know of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest - what kind of church is it?

I grew up IFB and now I go to a Bible Church. I'm here to learn as much as I can. I thank everyone for their input. I'm learning that our Christian faith is so rich and deep going back 2,000 years to Jesus. I've found if you don't ask questions you'll never learn. I want to do whatever the earliest Christians did. That's why I'm reading the "Didache" because it's one of the oldest surviving books written by the apostles outside of the Bible. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit like the Bible sure, but it's fascinating to know how things were done in the infant stages of Christianity. If anyone can recommend other early Christian documents please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who’s in the Running for Pope? 12 Names to Watch
8:00AM EST 2/12/2013 David Gibson and Alessandro Speciale/RNS


Pope Benedict XVI’s sudden announcement that he would resign by the end of the month took the church and the world by surprise, in large part because it was a move without precedent in the modern world.

But what comes next is as old and familiar as the papacy itself: Speculating about who will succeed to the Throne of St. Peter.

Indeed, within months of Benedict’s own election in 2005, church insiders and online oddsmakers were trying to figure out who might be next, given that Benedict—now 85—was already aging, increasingly frail, and had himself declared that he did not expect his reign to be a long one.

So what will happen when the world’s cardinals gather before the splendor of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment fresco in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope? Who are the “papabile,” as the Italians say, the “pope-able” cardinals?

Will the conclave make the epochal break with the European monopoly and pick a cardinal from Latin America or Africa? The Catholic Church is booming in the Southern Hemisphere, as opposed to Europe and North America, where it is on life-support or barely treading water.

“In my eyes it would be a good thing if a candidate from Latin America or Africa were elected at the next conclave,” Cardinal Kurt Koch, a Swiss prelate who is the Vatican’s top official for dialogue with other churches, said in December.

The future of the church “does not lie in Europe,” Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, a German who Benedict tapped last year to serve as the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, said in a separate interview in December. “I know a number of bishops and cardinals from Latin America who could take responsibility for the entire world Church.”

Age is also a consideration: Will the conclave look to a younger cardinal? The last decade of John Paul II’s reign was focused on his declining health, to the point that it was almost a death watch, and Benedict’s tenure has always been as much about his age as his policies.

Here is a look at some of the candidates whose names have been discussed, publicly and privately, in recent months, and their chances.

An Obama for the Papacy?

Catholicism in Africa is booming, and the idea of an African pope has long captured the imagination of many inside and outside the church. A pope from Africa would be such a visible sign of change in an institution that marks time in centuries, and yet it would also be a return to the church’s roots in the Middle East and northern Africa, where it flourished in the early centuries. It would be a clear bet on the church’s future.

If the cardinals in the conclave turn to an African, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana seems most likely to get the nod. Turkson is a media-friendly, multilingual 64-year-old who has the requisite Roman experience and connections, having served as head of Benedict’s Justice and Peace Council--sort of the Vatican’s human rights commission--since 2009.

At the time of his Vatican appointment, Turkson was asked whether he thought the time was right for a black pope, given that America had its first black president in Barack Obama. “Why not?” Turkson replied. But Turkson has also made impolitic statements about Islam, which many view as the great threat facing African Christianity, and some think the time is still not ripe for a pope from the continent.

An Italian Restoration?

The Italians view the papal throne as their birthright, and having lent it to a Pole and now a German for 35 years, many say it’s time for an Italian Restoration. The favorite among the Italians would be Cardinal Angelo Scola, 70, the Archbishop of Milan. Milan has traditionally been a stepping stone for future popes, and Scola, often associated with the conservative Communion and Liberation movement, is a favorite of Benedict’s.

Scola is an intellectual, but also open to the media. Asked in October 2003 by CNN to identify the main challenge facing the church, Scola said the principal one was the “fracture” between the church and contemporary culture.

Other Italian options are Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, 69, the strong-willed head of the Italian bishops since 2007. Bagnasco is close to Benedict and has learned to navigate the treacherous waters of both church and worldly powers. Or there is Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, 69, an affable scholar who peppers almost every sentence with quotations from a staggering array of classical and modern writers and philosophers. He lacks international standing, however, and has never headed a large diocese.

A Papal Samba? Or a Tango?

Latin America is home to the greatest concentration of Catholics in the world, and Brazil has the most baptized Catholics of any country. Rio de Janeiro is hosting World Youth Day, a huge Catholic jamboree that the pope traditionally presides over, this July. It could also be a homecoming of sorts if the cardinals choose Cardinal Odilo Pedro Scherer, currently archbishop of Sao Paolo. The arguments are strong: Scherer, 62, is a German-Brazilian who has headed the largest diocese in the world’s largest Catholic country since 2007, and he studied and worked in Rome.

But Scherer could have some in-house competition from Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, 65, who has headed the Vatican’s congregation that oversees the world’s religious orders of priests and nuns since January 2011. He has curial credentials but also showed he wanted to change the way Rome managed its relations with religious men and women worldwide, aiming at dialogue and collaboration rather than confrontation.

Then there is Cardinal Leonardo Sandri. If the cardinals want to turn to a Latin American without leaving Rome, they could pick Sandri. He’s an Argentine, yes, but since 2000 he has been in the Roman curia, the papal bureaucracy, and is considered the ultimate Roman insider. He would be seen as a “safe pair of hands” to steer the church in difficult times and restore order to the Curia. The lack of experience at the head of a large diocese could set him back, however, and cardinals who don’t live in Rome – or love Rome, as many don’t--may not be so enamored.

The once bright star of Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, 69, has dimmed considerably since the media savvy prelate was the favored Latin American option at the last conclave. Still, he enjoys strong name recognition in the Catholic world.

An Asian Tiger?

Asia is a small but potent source of growth and strength for the Catholic Church. Of all the bishops in this diverse continent, one stands out: Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, archbishop of Manila in the Philippines. At 55, he is something of a “baby bishop,” and he would be the youngest pope in centuries. But Tagle is very appealing: smiling, humble and perceptive, Tagle impressed many of his fellow bishops during the 2012 Synod on New Evangelization in Rome. He called for a more humble church that puts more effort in listening to its flock; just a few days later, Benedict made him a cardinal. Tagle--who studied at Catholic University of America in Washington – has also taken a strong approach to the sexual abuse crisis, warning his fellow bishops from Asia that they must not dismiss it as a Western phenomenon.

Still, his relative youth, and his brief experience as the head of a major diocese (he was appointed to Manila in 2011), will probably make him an outsider in this conclave.

The Dark Horse?

Everyone loves a long shot—the dark horse who comes out of nowhere to win by a nose. And even the cardinals do the unexpected at times. Could they go with a non-cardinal for the first time in centuries? A popular favorite would be Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin. Martin is 67, and spent nearly three decades working in the Roman curia, which gives him serious standing. But he also got the most thankless job in Christendom when John Paul sent him to Dublin a decade ago to clean up the clergy sex abuse scandal and start a reformation in the church. He has done a remarkable job, but has stepped on lots of sensitive toes in the hierarchy, even as he has won the hearts of many Irish Catholics. His outspokenness is seen by many as one reason he’s never won a cardinal’s red hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the next Pope be the Antichrist? I know a lot of the brethren who have been teaching that he will be and that he will also be a black man. So others say no way because this is "racist" and no black man can ever be anything evil. There are allegedly two black Cardinals vying for the position of head papist. If the RCC wants to catch up with the world (like they have with the teaching of evolution) then they'll go with a black man. 

 

Apparently, even in Catholic legend there is some prophecy (the St. Malachy Prophecy) that the next Pope will lead to the destruction of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASoD said:

"Apparently, even in Catholic legend there is some prophecy (the St. Malachy Prophecy) that the next Pope will lead to the destruction of the world."

 

I couldn't figure out if it is the current pope or the next  was supposed to be It? Interesting prophecy.

 

Speaking of coincidences:  Lightning Strikes St. Peter’s Basilica the Day Pope Benedict XVI Resigns  Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard others talk about John 3:5 referring to amniotic fluid. If you read verses 1-6 of chapter 3 Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Jesus tells Nicodemus how to be saved, or born again. In fact Nicodemus asks how can a man be born again if he is old. Jesus says to be born (again) it must be through water and spirit. We are born the first time in amniotic fluid, and one cannot crawl back into the womb to be born again. It would be physically impossible for Jesus to be referring to water and spirit in John 3:5 as amniotic fluid.

 

In Matthew 3:16 Jesus is baptized by water first, then the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus. Water and then spirit. Someone mentioned there are different kinds of baptism, immersion being one of them. To be baptized by fire is a reference to being baptized by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is referred to as fire in the Bible. Since there are other types of water baptism, such as sprinkling or pouring, to say immersion is the only correct baptism would also be inaccurate.

 

It's apparent that you missed the meaning of Jesus's explanation of the new birth just like Nicodemus did! Born again means to be born a second time, human's are born once of the flesh (water birth), and must be born again (of the Spirit) to enter the kingdom of God. You seem to be thinking Jesus said you need to be born twice to be saved, once through water baptism and again through the Spirit baptism, but this is false doctrine.

 

Baptism means immersion, so sprinkling and pouring do not qualify.

 

As to your understanding of the baptism by fire, when John said it in Matthew 3 he was speaking to an audience of believers and unbelievers (Pharisees and Sadducees, Matt 3:7), the following verses explain this fire as burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire - this is a clear reference to hell/the lake of fire:

 

 

Matthew 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
 
Those believers in John's audience would later be baptized with the Holy Ghost and the unbelievers would be fully immersed into hell.
 

Also, in Acts 2 with the cloven tongues of fire appearing when the Holy Spirit came down, they weren't baptized, the verse says the fire sat upon each of them, again this is not immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of having my own interpretation of what I read from God's Word because 2 Peter 1:20-21 forbids us of privately interpreting the Bible. What did the early Christians do before they had a Bible? I think it was around the 4th century. The KJV didn't come about until the 17th century. I wonder what the early Christians did.

 

 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
 
No that verse does not forbid you to study the Bible, its says that the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is not the private interpretation of man, but that the Word of God came by the will of God, & man wrote it, but were moved, led, by the Holy Ghost.
 
The RCC's interpretation of that verse is wrong. 
 
So, if your a saved person.
 
God tells you to:
 
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
 
To show your self approved of by God by studying the Bible so that you can rightly divide the word of the truth.
 
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 
Now, the unsafe man, the one who has not been saved, the teachings in the Bible will be foolish to them, but that is not so with the saved man.
 
The Bible is:
 
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God can  be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 
Read the Bible, study the Bible, & if what man says disagrees with the written Word of the Bible, believe the written Word of the Bible, not that man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense. If there's one interpretation why do so many people interpret differently? If two people disagree on an interpretation and they are both filled with the Spirit, who's interpretation is correct?

 

 Why do so many people interpret differently?

 

 

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

Remember this, the gate is narrow, few enter in the narrow gate which leadeth unto life, the other gate is wide, many there be which go in thereat. That means most people who proclaim the Word of God are false teachers. So it quite obvious there will be many interpretation. And the majority of churches will not teach God's truths.

 

Its up to you, you can believe a lie, or believe the truth.

 

And in the last days:

 

 

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
 
2Pe 3:3 ¶ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
 
There several that believes we are in the last days, so it should not be no surprise that we have  scoffers, walking after their own lusts, that willingly are ignorant of God's truths, while leading many in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASoD said:

"Apparently, even in Catholic legend there is some prophecy (the St. Malachy Prophecy) that the next Pope will lead to the destruction of the world."

 

I couldn't figure out if it is the current pope or the next  was supposed to be It? Interesting prophecy.

 

Speaking of coincidences:  Lightning Strikes St. Peter’s Basilica the Day Pope Benedict XVI Resigns  Hmmmm.

 

Luke 10:18- And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

 

Maybe the devil already took his seat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense. If there's one interpretation why do so many people interpret differently? If two people disagree on an interpretation and they are both filled with the Spirit, who's interpretation is correct?

 

They can all be right sometimes. The bible has three "interpretations" or applications.

 

You have:

 

1) Historical

 

2) Doctrinal

 

3) Spiritual

 

Example:

 

:"Jesus Wept"

 

1) Historically Jesus actually wept over Lazarus' death.

 

2) Doctrinally it teaches about the humanity of Christ.

 

3) Spiritually we should show compassion with those who suffer lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 10:18- And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

 

Maybe the devil already took his seat?

I wouldn't worry about it. There have been bad popes but the Holy Spirit has always made sure that popes never taught an eronious doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more, but Revelation 1:5-6 doesn't nullify being baptized by spirit AND water (John 3:5). In fact I would say it's all of the above. We are saved by the blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5-6 and other verses) but we are also saved by water and spirit. It doesn't have to be either or, it can and is both.

 

 

Could not agree with you less on a both requirement. I'll get back to on it. I had a lengthy discussion with a guy before who wanted to add to Christ's shed blood and I don't want to go through that again...so, I'll find it and re-post for you.

Edited by 1Tim115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's apparent that you missed the meaning of Jesus's explanation of the new birth just like Nicodemus did! Born again means to be born a second time, human's are born once of the flesh (water birth), and must be born again (of the Spirit) to enter the kingdom of God. You seem to be thinking Jesus said you need to be born twice to be saved, once through water baptism and again through the Spirit baptism, but this is false doctrine.

 

Baptism means immersion, so sprinkling and pouring do not qualify.

 

As to your understanding of the baptism by fire, when John said it in Matthew 3 he was speaking to an audience of believers and unbelievers (Pharisees and Sadducees, Matt 3:7), the following verses explain this fire as burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire - this is a clear reference to hell/the lake of fire:

 

 

Matthew 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
 
Those believers in John's audience would later be baptized with the Holy Ghost and the unbelievers would be fully immersed into hell.
 

Also, in Acts 2 with the cloven tongues of fire appearing when the Holy Spirit came down, they weren't baptized, the verse says the fire sat upon each of them, again this is not immersion.

The Greek word for baptism is "baptizo" and you are correct it does mean to immerse, but that's not the only meaning. In fact baptizo is found in other gospels when talking about washing up before eating. If it's true that a water birth is what was meant, then Jesus being baptized by water in the Jordan river before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him was a waste of time. Rather than say it's either water or spirit, why not put them together and say it happens simutaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greek word for baptism is "baptizo" and you are correct it does mean to immerse, but that's not the only meaning. In fact baptizo is found in other gospels when talking about washing up before eating. If it's true that a water birth is what was meant, then Jesus being baptized by water in the Jordan river before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him was a waste of time. Rather than say it's either water or spirit, why not put them together and say it happens simutaneously.


I don't know why you are so hung up about Jesus's baptism, his was unique, he wasn't even born again, he didn't need to be. Jesus's baptism is not a model of how the NT Christian is saved, you seem to be saying it is?

There is only one baptism which pertains to the salvation of the soul, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism saves noone today, nor ever did in the past.

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

You have got your doctrine here seriously wrong here, and I wonder if all my efforts to explain the truth to you is in vain or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrews 10:22 says, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

 

This is prophesized in Ezekiel 36:25-27 "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

 

I picked up a book called "Didache." It was written by the apostles in the late first century or early 2nd century. They describe how to baptize. Immersion in running water is preferred but if there isn't enough water you can pour water over the person's head three times and say "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Ghost)." I'm still searching for early Christian writings that talk about a sinners prayer or altar call. Please recommend one if you know of one.

 

Your verses have nothing to do with Baptism.  Scriptural Baptism is by full immersion only.  It's a new believers first outward sign of obediance and also signifies entry into a New Testament Church.  Only a New Testament Church is authorized to perform a Scriptural Baptism, it is one of two church ordinances.

 

Now if you believe that Baptism saves, then I could see why one would apply those verses.  But it cannot be as that would be another gospel, a false gospel.  Then the Bible would contradict itself and be worthless.

 

 

I wouldn't worry about it. There have been bad popes but the Holy Spirit has always made sure that popes never taught an eronious doctrine.

 

You're kidding right?  Kissing Pope's feet, not given in marriage, no meat on Fridays and thousands of other blasphemies through it's 1700 year reign of terror.  They Popery in times past were masters of deceit, murder and torture.  The term, "the ends justify the means" comes from the Jesuits.  The Catholic Church has murdered over 80 million real Christians since it's man-made inception.

 

Are you a priest of the order of Melchizedek?

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about it. There have been bad popes but the Holy Spirit has always made sure that popes never taught an eronious doctrine.

 

What made you think I was worried about it?

 

No Pope ever taught an erroneous doctrine? What about the doctrine of Transubstantiation (i.e. cannibalism)?

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Simple, clear explanation of salvation by Paul.

Where is the Baptism?

Why does Paul not mention it?

Simple - it is not, part of salvation - not as far as Paul is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about it. There have been bad popes but the Holy Spirit has always made sure that popes never taught an eronious doctrine.

 

There has never been a good pope, they're all false teachers, there is no such thing as a pope described in the pages of the Bible. Read the Bible, believe it, not man.

 

 

 
Ac 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Ac 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
 
Peter, who the RRC calls the 1st pope was only an apostle, & he could not pass his apostleship on to no one, & he did not let men worship him, as the popes do. If a pope today was anything like Peter was, when all those people bow to him, get down on their knees, he would tell them I'm just a mere man like you, get up. 
 
Besides that, as before stated, there is not an origination within the pages of the Bible anything like the RCC, its a man made church run by men who have never been born again.
 
Once again, read the Bible & believe it, after all the truth is the only thing that will make you free.
 
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding right?  Kissing Pope's feet, not given in marriage, no meat on Fridays and thousands of other blasphemies through it's 1700 year reign of terror.  They Popery in times past were masters of deceit, murder and torture.  The term, "the ends justify the means" comes from the Jesuits.  The Catholic Church has murdered over 80 million real Christians since it's man-made inception.

 

The Jesuits have murdered a number of popes, including John-Paul 1st,  Notice how he is never mentioned?  He is a nowhere man.  J-P 1st wanted to clean up the RCC but they weren't going to have any of that nonsense and he was bumped off. J-P 1st wanted to fire some of the corrupt Vatican officials,like archbishop Marcinkus, but J-P2 promoted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 40 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...