He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,
The Beast of the Sea, in a medieval tapestry
Revelations – the book in the bible which narrated in part the mark of the anti-Christ. When people hear the word “anti-Christ” images of a 7-headed supernatural super beast of the scariest kind come to mind. Others erroneously believe he is the leader of the most powerful nation (U.S) or group of nations (E.U.). These are all untrue of course. If one really think about the anti-Christ in terms of the spiritual and religious and guided by what was taught by the Messenger of God in these last days, I’m sure one would come to a pretty accurate understanding of the anti-Christ.
What does “anti” mean anyway? From webster.com comes this definition:
anti Function: preposition
Date: 1953
: opposed to : against
Taking this definition then the anti-Christ is just that, anti/ante of Christ our Lord. The anti Christ is against, opposite, instead of, Christ. He would be exactly opposite of what Christ was, against what Christ stood for and opposite of what teached and preached . Christ is the Savior who brings people to God. The ante-Christ is the usurper who leads people away from God. And since no man can live through the ages and continuously go against the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this is more so of the spiritual realm, this anti-Christ has to be a position of a religious power and not the person who holds the position.
One teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is enough for anyone with understanding to see that indeed the position of the pope is the anti-Christ. Examine this:
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the ONLY true God
Compare this to Catholic teaching as is posted on the website vatican.va describing the pope:
THE HOLY FATHER
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.
LUMEN GENTIUM, 23
Going back to the sign of the cross, the book of Revelations states that the ante-Christ will force everyone to receive a mark on his right hand or the forehead? Which religious entity makes its member possess and practice this mark to identify them as his followers?
Chrysostom therefore recommended: “From the tenderest age, arm children with spiritual weapons and teach them to make the Sign of the Cross on their forehead with their hand” (Homily, 12, 7 on First Corinthians).
BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Saint Peter’s Square
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
The Sign of the Cross
The pope of the Catholic church quotes a certain Chrysostom as the authority in instruction on how to perform such a practice. “St.” John Chrysostom is not an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is one of the so-called “church fathers/apostolic fathers” of the Catholic church. He was born in 347 AD more that two hundred years after the Apostles.
Who else preached and practiced this “symbol”? Tertulian, another “church father” of the Catholic church.
“This sign is a very ancient one, mentioned by the early Fathers of the Church as being a habitual practice by the second century. Tertullian recounts that “in all our travels in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”
Aside from the Catholic church, the religions today that has this mark are Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, maybe some Lutherans.
But what was the basis for such a sign if it wasn’t practiced and preached by the Apostles? Did they just invent this out of the blue? Or was there a such a practice prior to the Roman Catholics? A Catholic website, newadvent.org provides the answer:
Primitive cruciform signs
The sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both the East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. … the cross was originally not a mere means or object of ornament, and from the earliest times had certainly another — i.e. symbolico-religious — significance. The primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called “gamma” cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.
So it’s clear that the Catholic church not only adopted a sign marking it the church of the anti-Christ, it also violated a commandment of God not to add teachings to what was preached by the Lord Jesus and the Apostles. Which such overwhelming evidence would you still want to belong to the church of the Anti-Christ?
FROM RESBAK:”“St.” John Chrysostom is not an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is one of the so-called “church fathers/apostolic fathers” of the Catholic church.”
You are correct in saying that John Chrysostom is not an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ because he still DID NOT EXIST at the time of Jesus. He was born in Antioch in the year 347.
And yet your charge greatly SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE since you acknowledge him being a “church father/apostolic father”. APOSTOLIC <—sounds familiar? Indeed,these "church fathers" are called as such BECAUSE THEY ARE FOLLOWERS OF AND ARE CLOSE TO CHRIST'S DISCIPLES!
“apostolic”? empty claim. There is no evidence the first century Christians made the sign of the cross.
funny, you “church fathers” are not even apostles. Meaning you’re putting more importance to these impostors than to the Apostles themselves.
FROM RESBAK:”Now, do you still want to belong to the church of the Anti-Christ?”
WOW. WHAT AN ACCUSATION! Are you even reading your Bible? Who told you that the Pope is the Anti-Christ? The anti-catholics noh? So naniwala ka naman?
2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will NOT acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
Hello? Can you cite any statements from all the Popes in history that did not believe in Christ’s second coming?
PROVE IT.
I making this super simple.
anti Function: preposition
Date: 1953
: opposed to : against
anti-Christ = opposed or against or opposite of Christ.
Lord Jesus: After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the ONLY true God
Pope, catholic dogma: Pope = Holy Father; God = trinity.
““apostolic”? empty claim. There is no evidence the first century Christians made the sign of the cross.
funny, you “church fathers” are not even apostles.”
Ok ka lang? You dont even back up your arguments with evidences. You are just operating THROUGH YOUR PRESUMPTIONS!
Indeed,making the sign of the cross was not practiced by FIRST century christians because JESUS WAS STILL NON-EXISTENT AT THAT TIME. Diba when you write 1st century,we put B.C after it (meaning BEFORE CHRIST).Common sense naman. We make the sign of the Cross as a reminder of Jesus’ crucifixion.The sign of the cross reflects biblical reality.
Tertullian wrote,
“In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”
Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria who almost single-handedly stood for Christian orthodoxy against the powerful Arian heresy, taught his flock that
“by the sign of the cross…all magic is stayed, all sorcery confounded, all the idols are abandoned and deserted, and all senseless pleasure ceases, as the eye of faith looks up from Earth to heaven.”
Cyril of Jerusalem echoed Tertullian as he encouraged the Church:
“Let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Let the cross, as our seal, be boldly made with our fingers upon our brow and on all occasions over the bread we eat, over the cups we drink, in our comings and in our goings, before sleep, on lying down and rising up, when we are on the way and when we are still.”
The great bishop of Cappadocia, Basil, taught that the sign of the cross was a tradition the originated with the apostles,
“who taught us to mark with the sign of the cross those who put their hope in the name of the Lord.”
Do I need to “back up my claim” that the so-called “church fathers” are not apostles? Do I really need to do that?
The first century christians were the christians that were with the Lord Jesus.
Ignore the “church fathers”. They’re the first ones among those called as wolves in sheeps clothing.
“I making this super simple.
anti Function: preposition
Date: 1953
: opposed to : against
Pope, catholic dogma: Pope = Holy Father; God = trinity.”
This is a poor rebuttal.
The catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1040 “The Last Judgment will come when WHEN CHRIST RETURNS IN GLORY. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvellous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. the Last Judgment will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death”
So how can the RCC be so anti-christ when we also for Christ’s second coming.
Because the RCC preach the Pope is another Christ and also preach a different Jesus, i.e. Christ is God when the Lord Jesus Christ himself said the Father is the ONLY true God.
Resbak,you don’t even acknowledge that Jesus is God in the flesh. You reason out that God made Jesus Lord and Savior. Don’t you know that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the ineffable Hebrew name YHWH, by which God revealed himself to Moses, is rendered as Kyrios, or “Lord”? From then on, “Lord” becomes the more usual name by which to indicate the divinity of Israel’s God. The New Testament uses this full sense of the title “Lord” both for the Father and – what is new – for Jesus, who is thereby recognized as God Himself.
And do you even know what does the name of JESUS means in hebrew? Jesus means in Hebrew: “God saves.” At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.The name “Jesus” signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,23 so that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be save (Acts 4:12; cf. 9:14; Jas 2:7.)
Jesus is God?
don’t be blind.
Resbak,I believe that you believe God is without sin and all humans have sinned. But since you believe that Jesus was just a prophet and a man,so therefore he was also under original sin,right?
And yet have you read that Jesus was WITHOUT SIN too?
1 PETER 2:21-22
“For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.
“He committed NO SIN, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
2 CORINTHIANS 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin WHO DID NOT KNOW SIN, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”
The name “Jesus” signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,so that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”(Acts 4:12)
The Lord Jesus is NOT JUST A MAN. He is human in physical nature but was exalted by God and made him both Lord and Savior.
The Lord Jesus committed no sin. The concept of “original sin” is another catholic invention. It’s not biblical.
FROM RESBAK:”Do I need to “back up my claim” that the so-called “church fathers” are not apostles? Do I really need to do that?”
Now this is a clear statement of your ignorance. NO catholic article would say that the Church fathers were the apostles because they are NOT. These Church fathers are the DISCIPLES of CHRIST’s APOSTLES. In short,they are the SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.
So you thought the apostles’ teachings DIED WITH THEM TOO? NO! They pass it down to their successors!
Good! At least you admit the “Church fathers” are NOT Apostles. But now you claim they were disciples of the Apostles? Can you back up that claim? You’d be hardpress to do so. I on the other hand can prove they were not disciples of the Apostles. How? Compare their teachings! If these “church fathers” are indeed disciples of the Apostles their teachings should be the same. Let’s check:
What the Apostles teach:
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the ONLY true God
Compare this to Catholic teaching:
THE HOLY FATHER
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.
LUMEN GENTIUM, 23
Kelangan pa ba pagtalunan???
“I will not execute My fierce anger;
I will not destroy Ephraim again
For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst,
And I will not come in wrath” Hos. 11:9,
“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” mal. 3:6
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” I tim. 1:17
“one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Eph. 4:6
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36
kasalanan ba namin kung naniniwala kami sa bibliya?^_^
immortal po ba namamatay???^_^
which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. Eph. 1:20-21
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Acts 2:22
kawawa naman ang mga nabulag ng formulation ng doctrine trinity na yan. Buti pa si kristo kilala ang AMA, ang DYOS! samantalang ang sumunod sa creed, kahit si kristo d alam na ginawa nyo palang syang dyos!
Mateo 25:46-47 – Mula sa tanghaling tapat hanggang sa ikatlo ng hapon ay nagdilim sa buong lupain. Nang mag-iikatlo ng hapon, sumigaw si Jesus, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” ibig sabihi’y “Diyos ko, Diyos ko, bakit mo ako pinabayaan?”
FROM READ ME:”kawawa naman ang mga nabulag ng formulation ng doctrine trinity na yan. Buti pa si kristo kilala ang AMA, ang DYOS! samantalang ang sumunod sa creed, kahit si kristo d alam na ginawa nyo palang syang dyos!”
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT BUT ALL THE VERSES YOU POINTED OUT WAS UTTERED BY THE HUMAN JESUS.
FOR US CATHOLICS,JESUS IS GOD WHO CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BECAME MAN FOR OUR SALVATION!
I dare ask you to read JOHN 10:30
“I and the Father are ONE.”
Now would it be blasphemy if a human being claimed that God and he are one right? (This is the same challenge I countered upon Resbak which he still haven’t answered on.
“I and the Father are ONE” = “I and the Father are ONE GOD”? preposterous. Have you tried looking at other versions of the bible for this verse? You may be surprised that other version renders this verse thus:”I and the Father are UNITED”! There goes your argument out the window.
FROM RESBAK:”“I and the Father are ONE” = “I and the Father are ONE GOD”? preposterous. Have you tried looking at other versions of the bible for this verse? You may be surprised that other version renders this verse thus:”I and the Father are UNITED”!”
ONE & UNITED ARE THE SAME. EVen if it did not say ONE GOD,the CONNOTATION is there!
Is that your best refutation? To just look at other versions? Wow,how deep.
Let’s put it in analogy. When we say the Filipinos are UNITED in improving our country,then suffice it to say that we are ONE in this effort.
connotation? so you went from ala tsamba to kuro kuro? why don’t you try what is exact? here:
I suggest you read what God tells us through the prophet Elijah in the Last Days, which began when Our Saviour first came (Heb:1.2-3),those who are saved will receive a visible mark on their foreheads (Ezek:9.1-2 Rev:7.3) in the form of the Hebrew letter ‘Taw’ or ‘Tau’.This letter is identical in appearance to the Cross (Ezekiel:9.2,4). This Sign will appear in the sky before the Second Coming. Yet again Jesus is God and He does not forbid Christian images (St. Mtt:19.18-19). Every Church which rejects the Sign of the Cross comes from Satan – contrary to what you say the Apostles did not reject the Sign of the Cross – the Apostles did not teach Satan’s lie of salvation by faith alone but salvation by faith and Baptism (St. Mk:16.16) and that we must truly EAT the FLESH and DRINK the BLOOD of Our Redeemer (St. Jn:6.53-58) which we do in the Mass (St. Mtt:26.26-28) but Protestant Churches do not because your false Churches do not come from God. The mark of the beast is 666 not the Sign of the Cross – those who reject the Sign of the Cross are those who will have Satan’s mark (666) put on them.
The Scriptures tell us those who are antiChrists are those who deny that Jesus became incarnate as man but is also God so is God become man (1 St. Jn:4.2-3 2 St. Jn:7). By your claim that Jesus is only a man which the Scriptures clearly deny then you are an anti-Christ.
As for the Pope being ‘the Anti-Christ’ – this is lies from Satan’s rebels at the Protestant rebellion. The Pope is the successor of Simon whom Our Lord renamed Peter (St. Mtt:16.18-19) which in Aramaic is ‘Kepha’ (St. Jn:1.42). Even St. Paul went to see him. St. Peter and the Apostles were bishops (1 St. Peter:5.1,5) and Our divine King said to them ‘”whoever hears you, hears Me, whoever despises you despises Me and whoever despises Me despises the One Who sent Me”‘ (St. Luke:10.16).
If your Pope is a successor of an Apostle, shouldn’t he be preachings the same message as the Apostle? Your Pope teach a Jesus that is totally different from the Jesus taught by the Apostles. Watch http://gemnet.tv to learn more.
ako ay pormal na hahamon ng debate sa iyo, kung iyon pauunlakan kailangan sa ibang blog na open sa lahat ng mambabasa para maipakita ang katotohan.
apolegist.
(alam ko hindi mo ito ipopost, ok lang pero kung nais mo malaman ang tunay na turo ng katotohan makipagdebate ka sa akin)
LOL! if ur truly confident of the doctrines you hold, do a live face to face debate.