Pope linked to the number 666?

Lonestar read this quote again about Matthew.

Begin quote-"He claims that this proves that the mere fact that the Catholic Church drives out Satan doesn't prove that she is of divine origin. But here he is presupposing that the people who claim that they drove out demons in Jesus' name really did so. But the text does not make this clear. It only says that they claimed that. Jesus never confirms their claim, however. So we do not know whether they actually really did cast out demons or only engaged in pseudo-exorcisms.

Another possibility is that these folks really did do all those authentic and miraculous things at one point in their lives, but failed to endure to the end. Here we do well to remember Ezechiel 18:26: "When the just turneth himself away from his justice, and comitteth iniquity, he shall die therein: in the injustice that he hath wrought he shall die."

It seems, though, that the first interpretation is correct, as Christ specifically says, "I never knew you."-End quote.

Pretty straight forward, now for your challenge about the Pope, here is a good essay for you, hoepfully you'll see the truth:

Begin quote-"There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter�s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ�s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock



Peter�s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that�aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2�in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram�s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob�s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim�s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths�Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Barak "lightning," (Judg. 4:6), Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene



Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter



When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, �So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)�" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city�an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost�meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?



Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon�s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this�namely the establishment of the papacy�have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter�s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter�s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative



The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the first one.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic



Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn�t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew�s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ�s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man�s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson�s remarks on this passage in the Expositor�s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ�s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn�t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew�s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy."-end quote.

You see after Peter, power was transfered through the Holy Spirit to Linus and on down until the present Pope John Paul II. As you know Jesus doesn't lie, and if the Church stopped at Peter and the apostles then the "gates of the netherworld prevailed" which clearly contradicted Jesus saying it wouldn't. Jesus gave power to Peter and the apostles to help "make disciples over all nations." Here is another article for you, this ties into Peter (because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome aswell):

Begin quote-"The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles� teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession�his own generation, Timothy�s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church�s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed �an infallible charism of truth�"

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field."-end quote.

For further reading on succession:
www.newadvent.org...

Hopefully this clears up some stuff for you Lonestar.




[Edited on 3-10-2003 by Cearbhall]

I didn't read all of that because I don't really need to.

I think the new testament is quite succinct when it describes Christ casting out demons and why he did it and how he did it. I'll let it speak for itself.

Regarding the Catholic church itself, there has been a long going feud between it and other secret societies for many hundreds of years. Begining with Cathars to the Knights Templar and before and after these groups. It should be considered fact that masons have infiltrated the Catholic church and an example of this is the Knights of Malta. Now the real question is: do they control the current pope and if so what is their true intent?

I believe in Malachi's predictions based on the track record of the past succession of popes. Thus we are moving into a time of darkness for the catholic church itself, but how deeply are we there now?

I don't believe they have sway now in the Church. As you know the Church is hugh and there is probably spies and infiltrators and the Church has taken steps on finding them out. I've read alot about Pope John Paul II and he seems to be a decent fellow. Pope John Paul I didn't have a chance to do anything since he died so early in the papacy. I have faith in my Church, we have weathered tougher storms in the past than what we have now.

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by Cearbhall]

Originally posted by Toltec
Actually the idea that the Pope/Vicar of Christ is in fact eh antichrist is a common theme in many respects

Yes, indeed. Many people who are shocked at this and tired of what has been called "Catholic bashing" and "disinformation", call themselves protestants or belons to other denominations of Christendom which were all originally founded by people who opposed Catholicism because of these things, but since they all have continued in the exact same manner as the Roman Church appart from some marginal changes, they take it personal when people attack the ways and orders in question. Martin Luther meant the pope was the antichrist and started translating and distributing the Bible which was a book that was banned by the Church and only was to be read by the Roman Catholic clergy in their own Latin translation. If you owned a copy of the Bible back in the dark ages, you would be tortured, killed and your remains and soul cursed to Hell by the papacy and the Cathoilic Church. If you worshipped according to the Law on the Sabbath, your fait would most likely be the same. Everything read from the Bible in the churchroom was said out in Latin. The words "abra cadabra" for instance originates from priests reading Latin in church.

The Catholic Church has today a policy to never comment on the prophecies in the Book on Revelation. This is naturally because this perticular book discribes their own institution in a less flattering way than they want us to know about. They would have to lie if they commented it in order to avoid reveiling their true identity. The book of revelation speeks accurately prophetic about events which are now happening or belongs to the history of Europe and the world. It speeks about the Roman Empire and a false prophet who behind the scenes infact runs the kings of the world from the high chair of Ba'al, which is in Rome. This fake prophet has two lines of emperial rulers who act on his command over the kings of our civilisation. The papacy fulfills all prophecies about the second beast in the Book of Revelation. The One World Empire and it's temporary replacement the Holy Roman Empire, fulfills the rest. UN and America in coorporation with the Vatican and EU strive to realise the legacy of king Cyrus which basically means establishing a One World Order controlled by them: To force their usual Pax Beluae down our necks again.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Cear, you may well be right but that does not mean that they are not to be taken over in the near future. I predict this, the next pope will not be such a good man and as I have said before around here, look an immediate liberalization in the church as proof of this.

They also have designated the catholic church as the world religion' and watch for great efforts to unite catholics with jews, protestants and even with Islam.

As a former Catholic you know about Church history and what verse we as Catholics use as proof of the foundation of the Church. I'm an optimist and have faith in Jesus' words that "the netherworld will never prevail against." the Church. I have confidence. We shall see what happens though. I fear the Pope might not make it to the end of next spring.

they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

You are Peter (Petros), on your rock (petra) I will build my church (ekklesia). This sentance have been subject for much discussion that has lead to alot of speculation. For good reasons. First the word "church" is derived from kyrios, a word Jesus never used to discribe his office of apostolic elect, which he refers to only as the ekklesia in the Greek source text, which refers to the council of the Law, the court of judgement, the office of government. The rock of Peter is Jesus, the rock cast away by the builders, but became a cornerstone and a stumbling block. In the Hebrew translation of the Bible they take another twist in translating the sentance in question: "you are "Peter", from rocks like you I will build my "church"". It still doesn't capture the true essence of the sentance: For Jesus is the corner stone, Peter is the next block in the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the first elect of a spiritual building made out of living stones whose corner stone is Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the first rock, and Peter is a rock of the same kind, the first rock to be added after Jesus (who is the corner stone) in the process of building a spiritual temple of Truth.

Jesus said he would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three days. One day equals 1000 years, and the realisation of the Messianic Kingdom lasts one day or 1000 years. Hence, he will use 2000 years to collect or elect rocks from which he will build his new Temple which isn't a house, but a government of priests who will rule together with Jesus and the king he will call his son who will rule for 1000 years until Jesus and his Father return for good to live on Earth in a giant cubic city which is more than five times as big as the Moon (!) which will descend down from the sky which is a physical realisation of the Body of Christ. A physical representation of God's and the Lamb's (aquired) power over this world (through victory over evil). An Ark cloathed in golden glass which will eliminate the need for the Sun and replace it with the Light which is the Lamb or Jesus and it's source which is God or Love who will live on Earth together with the elect humans who in their turn are upgraded to angelity after overcoming death through believing in the Word of God which is the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Tannakh that they thereby are part of, as the elect -- the ekklesia, God's new angels to replace the fallen ones.

To believe in Jesus means to have his understanding of the Law. Jesus was extremely concervative when it came to the Law. All of his ministry was a fight against laws which had been added to the Covenant of Moses after Babylon and an attempt to reestablish the original Law, stripping it from all the laws of human origin the Jewish priests had added to the Covenant after Babylon. Jesus promiced to replace the existing council of the Law and reestablish the true council of the Law. If you share Jesus' views on the Law, he accepts you as an equal with himself, a child of God, and he will choose you to rule with him in the Millennium. All the accusations against Jesus were rooted in these new laws. New Sabbath rules etc. which Jesus categorically disrespected and rebelled against. His habbit of walking up to the Mount of Olives every Sabbath Jesus did in rebellion against these new rules which among other things defined the distance between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives as the longest walk you were allowed to walk on the Sabbath.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

This leads me into another interresting topic: The meaning of names. Let's start with Simon Peter since this name came up here in the thread: His original name Simon means "listening" or "hearkening". In other words Simon Peter translates "Listening Rock" not Simon the Rock. Jesus is the cornerstone and the Rock of God, YHWH. To believe in Jesus is to be like Jesus. Jesus said by calling Simon for Peter, that "the Listener" is "the Rock" meaning he was like him because he had listened and become like him. The name Jesus or Yeshuah is a variant of Yehoshuah which means "YHWH is Salvation". But the pronounciation of the Hebrew word for salvation is nearly identical to Yeshuah: "Yeshuw`ah". Yehoshuah simply says: YHWH is Jesus. YesHuWaH is the correct way to read the Tetragrammon . Jesus is Adam's God, YHWH.

Hence: It was Jesus who cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. It was Jesus who gave Moses the Law. It was Jesus who established the land of Israel. YHWH is Jesus. The Father of YHWH is God. YHWH is the Word of God. YHWH is the Light. God called the Light Day. One day equals 1000 years: Jesus is the Millennium.

But the Jewish clergy cast away YHWH and further complicated his Law. They replaced YHWH with Adonai meaning the Lord which is a term we know from Ba'alism. Ba'al means Lord or Adonai in Hebrew. YHWH means Salvation, not Lord. The sign of salvation is the morning star. Jesus/YHWH/Salvation is the clear Morning Star. Like Adam disobeyed YHWH in Eden, the Jews at the time of Jesus disobeyed YHWH by giving him the title of Ba'al: Adonai meaning the Lord, and the really funny thing is that it seems someone was quick to make sure this was also the title ascribed to Jesus by the people who either wrote or edited the books of the New Testament. Beelzebul which is a popular name for Satan is written Ba'al Sebul meaning "the Lord who is lifted up". The dead Jesus on the cross tree. The main symbol of the Catholic Church.

Adam=Man
Eve=Life
Seth=Breath

And YHWH Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You can't understand the subliminal messages of the Tannakh unless you read it in Hebrew and know the importance of the meaning of names. And names also have higher meanings. Names is a language in it's own.

In the end I'll put in a caramel of the more fruity kind: Have you ever wondered about why Jesus was called Jesus (YHWH) and not Immanuel ("God with us" or simply "our God" if you want to take it further)? Well look at this: Jesus pronounced in Norwegian is Y�sus. Written back again into English it writes Yesus. Yes u=s. Now take the prophetic name Immanuel and replace the u with an s: Immansel. I'm Man's El. I AM THE GOD OF ADAM. The God of Adam was YHWH, in other words Jesus. A timeless riddle solved or just madness in the mind of a lunitic? I have said here that Jesus is YHWH. Why has the world has cast away YHWH and replaced him with "the Lord" which is the title of Ba'al? The name Ba'al means Lord. They have replaced Salvation with Ba'al. This is so incredibly confusing that when you understand it have to change the way you pray, the way you think, the way you freakin' walk and talk. It's incredibly difficult.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by mikromarius]

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by mikromarius]

Thanks for all your input guys, although i never did find out if anyone had seen proof of this 666 being on one of the Pope's hats. Oh well.

the vatican if you look at a sky view the front circle is te pagan symbal for horris the sun god with is a x wtth a p in the middle of it at certain times of day when the sun is cast a line appers in certan places on the compas in the front when the sun hits a certan way on the statue in the front it creates this sigh it was and probably still is used as a symbal.
check out www.youtube.com...
The True Origins of the Fish Head Hat Otherwise Known as the Papal Miter This hat comes directly from Babylon and is a direct representation of the true roots of Catholicism. It identifies Benedict VXI as the leader of the largest and oldest pagan religious organization on the planet. It is also a direct connection to Nimrod who sought to kill God in retaliation for the flood and Dagon the Fish god who supposedly came up from the sea after the flood and sought to restore the religious practices for which God wiped the earth clean. check out www.youtube.com... also no this new pope is not the antichrist but i will tell you get into your revelaitions the antichrist is comming 10 of the twelve sighns have already occured with all do respect to the roman catholic church think about this who is the only pope to visit all 116 contreys
who is the only pope loved by everyone the bible dose symbalise roam as the first beast to rise fall and rise again and it has happend
check your history books
roam also has full controll over every religion and every church
the bible states that the antichrist will be in the form of someone that dies and after some time is reserected.
the second beast is no disrespect to my contry america
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
look at all the symbols around you images.search.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A0geu44pV.NIV7IAXwtXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=ancient%20pagan%20symbols&rs=0&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-501-s look threw all of the pages
and check this out
www.seiyaku.com...
useing the bible to protect a church based on paganisim would be correct since contantine of the roman church commisioned the bible be translated to english and kept some chapters out please keep in mind this is for resurch perposes only i donot wish to cause conflict also look in your history books you will see that the bible clearly states thou shalt not kill look at this not to judje the bible clearley states judge not lest ye be jujed history-world.org... killing in the name of god why?
www.youtube.com...
check this out from 1 all the way to the end and then after you have seen
all of the stuff i presented you makeup your mind
time is running out
do not be fooled
12 sighns of the end:
www.youtube.com...
i can fully explain each and every sighn just ask heare and i will respond
in the name of Yeshua( god) i pray that anyone that reads this takes it seriousely the horsemen of revelaitions are apon us notice the wether lately notice the crops in mexico eaten by weird bugs that just appered notice earthquakes and superstorms that wipe out entire citys notise the starvaition rate rising notice the calamitys major deth tols notice pestelence aids malarya mad cow desies aids you are being blinded take a look for yourself .