New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The End of the world as we know it
Source:
Revelation: A Historicist View
URL Source: http://barrymidyet.com
Published: Mar 18, 2018
Author: Barry Midyet
Post Date: 2018-03-18 09:01:35 by interpreter
Keywords: The End, 2018
Views: 9733
Comments: 95
I've heard a lot of people say the end of the world is coming. And they are absolutely correct. 2018 is (or will be) the end of the world as we know it. From my book: Last Page Yearly Supplement 2018 in Bible Prophecy As I always do, I must add my standard qualifier here but with three words added this time: These predictions are based on the Bible, and thus cannot fail to come true— But I may be ahead of God’s (and/or Trump’s) timetable by a year or two. 1. The first of the last plagues – skin cancer – will begin to abet But the others – especially global warming – will continue for a while yet 2. Trump together with some NATO nations and Russia, et al, will also take out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi— The demon-possessed king in Raqqa (or wherever he is trying to hide from Trump & company). 3. Trump & company will also take out Kim Jong-Un, the evil little whore in Pyongyang. (See commentary on Revelation 17 for more on little whores of the atheist kind). 4. Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction. 5. Trump will also have to take out Mawlawi Haibatah Akhundzada, the evil king of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has already taken out many fighters there with one drop of the exceedingly great “Mother Of All Bombs” which gives Trump the upper hand. 6. The Good News is, that’s it. When all of Satan’s forces are killed off (as we are commanded to do in Luke 19:27), The long-awaited “Heaven on Earth” will commence, and the 24 Christian nations in NATO will rule the Earth unhindered by Satan for a millennium. Your kingdom come, your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, Amen! Barry Midyet
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
According to your beliefs which are probably the Catholic churches beliefs. What is the point in getting baptized as a baby? Does it make them Catholic? If so are they still Catholic if they decide to become Baptists later in life? Honestly baby baptizing isn't scriptural is it? Shouldn't people come to a decision about it on their own and choose to do it? Because baptizing babies honestly sounds kind of unbiblical idoltry type behavior. Idoltry probably isn't the right word.
You are really hostile to a president who is doing great things. Could you give me your top 3 to five things that make you feel that way. You can leave his appointing pro life judges off your list, I already know that one about you.
That is pretty much the way I see it too, except I am not quite as hard on the Roman Church as you are. BTW, Peter founded the Jerusalem and Antioch Churches (and quite possibly the Anglican and Alexandrian Churches) long before he made it to Rome and started a fifth Church.
I have no doubt that Catholics, who, as in Poland, used the Church as a mask behind which they communicated and organized political dissent, and protected dissenters, were persecuted by Tito’s regime. But Catholics were not hunted down and killed for going to Church, the Churches were not closed. Nor were they co-opted into the government. They were similar to what they were in Castro’s Cuba or Communist Poland or 18th Century British-occupied Ireland: a closely - watched, officially suspect, Ill-treated but legal institution. To be Catholic was to be distrusted and barred from government power. But itdidn’t Mean getting slaughtered. It did in 17th Century Ireland, at the hands of Cromwell and the English, but in the end Cromwell lost. The English were unable to destroy Catholicism in Ireland, and were not able to crush out the Church. Tito did not go the route of extermination in Yugoslavia, just as Castro didn’t try to exterminate the Church in Cuba. Persecuted? Yes. Massacred? No.
Yes she is. The evidence is obvious. I'm now a Trump fan.
Don't forget Lutherans - "More catholic than Catholic". And when one farts all the angels dance in Hea... {err} hmm, no wait. That's not how that goes.
Well, Jesus didn't pay the woman at the well $130000 to keep quiet about his alleged adultery and then forget to sign the binding agreement either. Just my opinion - But I'd expect someone who'd undergone an honest conversion would just say, "hey that was the old Adam... I'm not him anymore" - instead of trying to cover it up. So, I'm skeptical that his behavior indicates that his religious epiphany is anything more than a political convenience.
Keep doing good job in trying to deprogram those guys. They are brainwashed by the dark forces, lying along the mental road, in a need of a good Samaritan.
And you know this because...? You don't know this. She was baptized as a baby, which makes her Catholic until she does something about it. She never did anything about it, practices the religion as an adult, including taking that Marian rosary to the Pope to have it blessed when she met him. That Melania is a Catholic doesn't fit one of your narratives, one of the stories by which you shape your view of the world, so you deny it loudly, but without any basis. That doesn't change anything.
There are 23 different kinds of Catholics. What distinguishes them from the other forms of Christianity )Orthodox and Protestant) is that all 23 Catholic Churches and their members consider the Pope to be the head of the Church on earth. The largest of the Catholic Churches, comprising about 90% of Catholics, is the Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Latin Rite. Other Catholic Churches include the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Melkites, the (Eastern and Western Syrian Rites, i(Which include the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, etc.), the Copts, the Ruthenians, the Armenian Rite, the Maronites, etc. Now there is an Anglican Use in the Latin Church, which is moving towards an Anglican Rite. The Anglican Church itself has a simple and well-known history. The English were all Catholic until the age of Martin Luther. England remained Catholic and did not go Lutheran, but then the English King, Henry VIII, wanted a divorce. The Catholic Church forbade divorce. She he broke with the Pope and made himself the head of the Church in England. He did not, however, go Protestant. He declared himself the head of the English Church, but blocked the Reformation from proceeding further in England. It proceeded further anyway, within the Anglican Church, and that division accelerated as Henry aged. By the time of his daughter Elizabeth, the Anglican Church had become a Protestant Church, but maintained the episcopacy (the Bishops), the priesthood, and many of the sacraments of Catholicism, but it severely persecuted its rival, Catholicism, within England. Eventually the English Church went full Calvinist Puritan during Cromwell's reign after the English Civil War, but puritanism did not ride well with the English people, many of whom became recusants and privately practiced Catholicism. When Cromwell died, the English invited the Stuarts back to be King, and Charles II, who had been raised at the Catholic Court of Louis XIV during the Cromwell dictatorship, came back to England and took the Church of England back towards a very Catholic-looking and sounding religion. With no heirs, the political classes of England tolerated a Catholic king, and probably would have tolerated his brother, James II, who was a much more vocal Catholic. But then James' wife conceived a child, and suddenly the English throne looked to be populated by a Catholic heir. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 ended that. But as time drifted forward into the 19th and 20th Centuries, and England found itself allied with Catholic powers (Spain, then France), and reconciled itself to religious tolerance, the outright Catholic population has steadily grown, and the Anglican Church has tried to find a middle way - maintaining a very catholic looking and feeling "High Church", and a protestant looking "low church". With the ordination of women and open homosexuals as bishops and priests, conservative Anglicans have increasingly found themselves unwelcome in their own church and have "swum the Tiber" in large numbers. This, in turn, led the Popes, particularly Pope Benedict, to create an "Anglican Use" within the Catholic Church, that uses a slightly modified Book of Common Prayer, and admits married Anglican priests as married Catholic priests. Of course the Protestant Anglicans view this as poaching, and many Protestant Anglicans call themselves "Anglo-Catholics" because the Anglican service is essentially an old mass. But this is their own name for themselves. Actually Anglican Use Catholics are Catholic: they are in unity with Rome. If you're not in unity with Rome, you're not Catholic, though you may be Orthodox. The Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are not Catholic, because they are not in union with the Pope, and they are not Orthodox, because they have abandoned several of the Sacraments, notably Confession. It looks Catholic, it calls its priests "father", it sounds Catholic, it likes to style itself Catholic, but it isn't Catholic - and it's dying out due to liberal politics. Conservatives swim the Tiber, and Pope Benedict XVI basically built them a bridge so they can walk right in without getting their feet wet. The bitterness between the Irish and the English over the centuries was primarily caused by the fact that the Irish refused to stop being Catholics, and the English tried to violently suppress Irish Catholicism. They failed quite miserably: the Irisih rejected the English Church and stuck with Rome, and the violence the English used to try to crush out Catholicism only made the Irish irreconcilable to England, and caused them to be the first out of the Empire.
Honestly baby baptizing isn't scriptural is it? Shouldn't people come to a decision about it on their own and choose to do it? Because baptizing babies honestly sounds kind of unbiblical idoltry type behavior. Idoltry probably isn't the right word. Well your post wasn't to me, and I dont know what Vic believes, but I can tell you what I believe. I could probably write a whole book on this subject, but let me sum it up by saying I am an Anabaptist. Notice that I said Ana- Baptist and not Southern Baptist. An Anabaptist is an Anglican (or Episcopalian) who believes that its perfectly alright to Baptize babies. (The Book of Acts says, following the Pentecost the disciples baptized whole families). But Anabaptists believe that a baby should be re-baptized when they reach the age of accountability. (Generally, for most kids (and most Churches), anywhere between 12 and 14). I did not grow up in the Episcopal Church, but I was baptized in the Nazarene Church (a branch of the Methodist Church) at age 14. Later, in my 60's, I was rebaptized in an Episcopal Church by a bishop descended from ST. Peter and with the water he used (from the Jordan River). It doesn't hurt to be baptized twice (better to be on the safe side).
Wow, we must have posted at the same time. Anyhow, we now also know what Vic believes. Anyone else want to chime in on the subject of Baptism?
I didn't read your entire comment yet but let me start here. I read that the Anglicans split from the Catholic Church because the pope. I admit it was a brief reading that I did to come to that conclusion.
I skimmed your comment a bit and I now see you say Anglicans aren't Catholic.
Well, that's a pretty long post, and I will have to say I agree with most of it, but not all. First, while are no longer in communion with the Roman Church, we are now in the (long) process of coming back together in full communion with the Orthodox Church(es). About 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury for the first time in history, gave permission for Anglicans to say the Nicene Creed either the western (Roman) way or eastern (Orthodox) way which was the first step, and allowed Canterbury to enter talks with the head honcho of the Orthodox Church (in Constantinople). And every year since then they have been meeting and we (the Anglican Churches) are now close (very close) to being in full communion with the six Orthodox Churches (as prophesied in the Bible). When that happens, and the western lampstand is restored -- but in Canterbury, and likely not Rome (as long as the present Pope is in power) -- the seven golden lampstands of the Church will again rule the Earth together united as one as at first -- and this time for a thousand years. Actually it will be 24 nations descended from the seven golden lampstands (or 8 lampstands if you include both Canterbury AND Rome). As for the conflict between the Irish Catholics and the Anglicans, well that is a very long conflict that goes back about a thousand years, and you have over-simplified it and have over-slanted it towards the Irish (or Roman Catholic) side. They were the blood thirsty ones who when they were in power (as with Bloody Mary) slaughtered all the Anglican priests and bishops who refused to say the Mass (or (Eucharist) the Roman way. The two versions are identical except for the placement of one word. Where the Irish Catholics say "the blessed ever-virgin Mary", we say the ever-blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only difference. They worship Mary. We worship Jesus. Not sure what any of that has to do with baptism though which (I think) is what Stone was asking about.
Actually, the Anglican Church/ England was never under the jurisdiction of Rome except whenever Rome sent someone to conquer England and force them to come under the jurisdiction of Rome (beginning with the Norman kings, and continuing off and on for about 1600 years and it got very bad, awful bloody at times. All (or mostly) because we refuse to say Mary was forever a virgin which we Anglicans consider to be a heresy. The fact that we are also a little bit more lenient when it comes to granting a divorce has also entered into it if you are talking about Henry the 8th. But that is only one king out of many dozens who broke with Rome.
If that was the case it would have sucked to be Joseph. I don't think Mary was a bitch that would do that to her husband.
Honestly baby baptizing isn't scriptural is it? Shouldn't people come to a decision about it on their own and choose to do it? Because baptizing babies honestly sounds kind of unbiblical idoltry type behavior. Idoltry probably isn't the right word. I'll answer. There's formal Catholic doctrine, and there's private belief. Formal Catholic doctrine is that the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by God, and that in the regular order of things it is necessary, though the Church recognizes that under certain circumstances, men who earnestly yearn for baptism but cannot obtain the actual rite, that their desire to be baptized suffices with God. Once you are baptized, you are a member of the Church, in parallel to the way that circumcision made a boy a Jew. What, exactly, baptism DOES is similar to the case of circumcision: God said to DO IT, he didn't explain exactly WHY or WHAT it does. Catholic theologians have pondered that for nearly 2000 years, and the view of St. Augustine is the prevailing one that is officially taught: Baptism washes away sin including, in particular, the original sin we inherit from Adam, that dooms us to spiritual death. Thus, the Church teaches, or at any rate taught in the past, that baptizing infants as early as possible is imperative lest they die unbaptized. Catholics are taught that in an emergency any baptizes person can baptize another, so nurses of babies born on the verge of death have been known to wipe water on the forehead of the dying newborn and quietly say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", to remove the risk of dying unbaptized from that little soul. Now, that's the "official" Church teaching. I personally think that most of that is right, though Augustine's "originial sin" reasoning doesn't appeal to me much, because it doesn't seem to be based on anything. What I personally think is that baptism places the seal of God of a child, and that this protects infants and young children from demonic possession. God seals his own little ones. The thing you say about making a choice, that is Confirmation. It is the parents who bring the child into the world, and the parents who circumcise the Jewish boys, bringing them into the tribe, or who minister to their own child by having him baptized, putting the seal of grace on him or her, promising to raise the child in the Faith. Then, when the child has grown, the child chooses of his own volition whether or not to celebrate his own religious choice to join his circumcisional people with a bar mitzvah, or his baptismal people with a Confirmation (which involves anointing with oil: a chrismation). As I see it, the baptism of babies is completely Scriptural, and was thought to be a holy act before scripture was written. When Peter baptized the entire family household of Cornelius the Roman, or when Paul baptized whole families, there is no reason to think that babies were excluded. There's nothing in Scripture that suggests that Baptism is intended by God to be the equivalent of Confirmation. This was all before the Scriptures were written, and the Church has been doing that - baptizing children - since the beginning. So, that's what the Church does, and thinks, and that's what I personally think. My thinking is within the lines of the Church. I'm not a big fan of Augustine, and find his logic forced, but I've certainly always been aware, from childhood, of that seal of baptism on me, and how it makes me different, and how it has protected me. There are your answers.
You're just making it up as you go along.
There never were any Anglican priests in Ireland. The Irish were Catholic from the time of Saint Patrick. Always in union with Rome, from one tip of te island to the other. There was not much religious dissension there, and there was no Reformation in Ireland. Long before the Reformation, in 1171, Henry Plantagenet, the Norman French king of England (Henry II), invaded Ireland, and Ireland came under Plantagenet rule. The Anglo-Normans were French-speaking Catholics. The Kings of England did not become English-speaking and were mostly born in France until the late 1300s/early 1400s. Thus, while Ireland was conquered, there was no religious change. It merely meant a change of overlord. Ireland did not become part of the Kingdom of England. Rather, the King of England was also King of Ireland. Had the Norman kings sought to reduce Ireland to a province of England there would have been a popular uprising in Ireland that the small feudal armies at the time never would have been able to put down. Anglo-Norman rule settled in, Catholic lived with Catholic - there were no Protestants, at all, and the land lay in a medieval feudal peace that would last until the Reformation. England had a Reformation and much internal strife. So did Scotland. Ireland did not. The Irish were happy with their faith. The Protestant English and Protestant Scots were not happy that the Irish remained Catholic, and came over to Ireland in various waves to molest the Irish. The two worst examples were the launch of Ulster Plantation by King James in 1606, which launched a colonizing effort by Scots Presbyterians into the northern part of Ireland. The Presbyterians came in looking at the Catholic Irish, living in their homeland, as being the equivalent of savage Indians in the Americas, and sought to exterminate them, force conversion or drive them away. This provoked a civil war in which the Catholic Irish were successful at defeating the advance of the Scots Presbyterians, and limited them to 6 of the northern counties of Ulster. The second and much worse invasion came under Cromwell, whose view of the Catholic Irish was "to hell or to Connaught" (the wild western part of the island. There was nothing "even handed" about this. It was not the case that the Irish abused the English. The Irish did not invade England or Scotland. The Scots and the English invaded Ireland. The Irish did not abuse Protestant religion: there was no Reformation in Ireland. The Protestants came as colonizers and conquerors, and they slaughtered Catholics because Catholics would not convert. The Catholics DID not convert, fought back, held on, and developed a permanent antipathy towards the English and the Scots Presbyterians who had invaded them and slaughtered them. You pretend that there were two sides. There were not. The Protestant invasions of Ireland were purely evil, unprovoked and genocidal in intent. God defeated them twice, and Ireland was the first territory after America out of the British Empire. The Irish and the English and Scots can cooperate, but the history is what it is, and the English and Scottish sides of it are savage and disgraceful. Irish Catholics never did anything to the Scottish Protestants in Scotland or the English Protestants in England. Irish Catholics and English Catholics lived in peace under a common, Catholic king for 300 years. The Protestants came out of England and Scotland seeking to murder the Irish Catholics for being Catholics, like Hitler went after the Jews - with that degree of hate and that degree of evil. They failed. They were defeated, in the case of the Scots. In the English case, Cromwell subdued the island, but the Irish Catholics utterly rejected English Protestantism as the evil, genocidal, demonic religion that it was, to them. In Ireland, the Catholics were the good guys and the Protestants were the murderous agents of genocide and hell. There were not two sides to it. The Protestants came to kill off Catholicism. God defeated them. Ireland is still Catholic, and always will be, until the end of the world.
And what difference does Anglican versus Catholic make in actual practice? The Anglicans support abortion on demand. Catholicism, of course, rejects abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. In fact, there is a clear delineation between the most Catholic countries of Europe and the rest. The following countries are the only countries in Europe that do NOT have abortion on demand: Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland. What do they have in common? They're all Catholic. Some of those countries do allow abortion in cases of fetal handicap or rape or incest. Of course, religion - Protestant AND Catholic - is fading in Europe, while Islam grows. The Christian-on-Christian fighting of the past managed to kill a great deal of the faith.
Most of those NATO nations have a negative birth rate and any increases are due to Muslim immigrants and refugees. Not to mention every EU nation has permissive abortion laws. When will this change?
Europe is dead. The largest expansion of Christianity is Asia and Africa.
Irish Catholics never did anything to the Scottish Protestants in Scotland or the English Protestants in England. Irish Catholics and English Catholics lived in peace under a common, Catholic king for 300 years. The Protestants came out of England and Scotland seeking to murder the Irish Catholics for being Catholics, like Hitler went after the Jews - with that degree of hate and that degree of evil. I never said there were any Anglican priests in Ireland (that I know of, but there may have been a couple), and I never said the Irish Catholics slaughtered any Anglicans in England. What I said was, Roman Catholic kings (and queens) slaughtered Anglican priests and the Anglican Bishops. But neither the Anglicans nor the Presbyterians liked the Irish Roman Catholics, or any Roman Catholics for that matter, and that led to fighting on both sides. And there is no way that one side was any better than the other side. There is peace now and you really need to quit trying to stir up all that shit again. BTW, my Grandma's Irish ancestors were Irish Protestants, and immigrated to the US to escape the fighting and persecution inflicted by the Irish Catholics.
I only post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The split with Rome began when the Anglican Church (Canterbury) refused to accept the decrees of 7th Ecumenical Council which said Mary was forever a virgin. It had very little to do with divorce laws. That was just the last straw (that broke the camel's back).
For the record, many Anglicans/ Episcopalians do NOT support abortion on demand. And in the 24 NATO nations I'm speaking of, Christians are still in the majority. Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium?
He's not going to.
He's not going to. Wow, just wow. Do you think God is going to let Muslims rule the Earth for a millennium?
God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself.
Right answer. The only answer. Why would Jesus "assign" His own Reign to any group, organization or persons?
As I have told you guys before, Jesus returned in 312AD (when the sign of Christ appeared in the clouds) as all the world history books say. No where in the Bible does it indicate Jesus returns twice.
Why would Jesus "assign" His own Reign to any group, organization or persons? As I have told u guys many times, God (and Jesus) and all ETs follow the Star Trek directive. They only interfere in the life/evolution of a planet when it is deemed necessary to preserve the intelligent life. In Luke 19:27, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that when He returns with a kingdom, He leaves it up to His followers to kill off all the bad guys. He was only here very briefly when He returned on Oct. 27th, 312 AD, and the rest is up to us. It is up to 24 Christian nations to rule the Earth for a thousand years as prophesied many many times in the Revelation of the Kingdom of God.
A very very good answer. Couldn't have said any better myself. Kudos!
Well, the Bible tells you that when Christ returns, heaven and earth will pass away in a rush, that the City of God will descend, the graves will be opened and the dead will rise, and all will be judged. None of those things happened in 312 AD when a celestial pattern of planets and stars sort of formed "PX" A transitory pattern of stars and planets that, with imagination, can be seen as resembling a pair of Greek letters, which popular Christian thought associated with Christ (who was called that by the Christians - his name was Iesous, which did not appear in the sky), without the other stuff like the end of the world and legions of angels and plagues, etc., doesn't match the Bible pattern at all. When a similar pattern occurs in the stains in a teacup, one does not say that Christ has returned in one's teacup.
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
very true of Constantine
That isn't in red so you don't believe it. You said the bible is full of lies. Quit talking about Christianity you don't know about it. Talk about Catholicism and the sun god, and the occult symbols you look at like an addict in a crack house. You are correct that none of those things happened in 312 AD or any other day though.
Quit talking about Christianity you don't know about it. Talk about Catholicism and the sun god, and the occult symbols you look at like an addict in a crack house. You are correct that none of those things happened in 312 AD or any other day though. Catholicism IS Christianity, according to 95% of the world's Christians. The crazy fringe like you assert that anybody who doesn't see and understand things exactly the way your Pastor Bob tells you to, are not really Christians. Somewhere inside you have to know you're wrong, but you can't stop yourself. And the real irony here is that, yeah, the description of the end of the world IS spoken out loud by God and the angels in Heaven to John, and he was told to take dictation, so those, in fact, ARE red letter words using the criteria of "Jesus said it".
Then I stand corrected.
never believe a false prophet liar
another lie from mental midget
Comments (77 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMelania's mother, was Catholic, and had Melania baptized - whether the father knew that or not, who can say?
#37. To: Jameson (#35)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#32)
didn't know there were two kinds of Catholics. Well they aren't really Catholics but Anglicans. Apparently they were "Catholic", but when the Roman Catholic variety drifted from scripture by appointing a "pope" ruler over the churches and calling him holy father the Anglicans chose to follow God instead of the pope man. That would mean that the Roman Catholic s are imposters, and if there was a church founded but Peter it would be the Anglicans and not the blasphemous Roman Catholics.
#39. To: interpreter (#29)
#40. To: interpreter, hondo68 (#30)
Melania is not, and never has been a Roman Catholic.
#41. To: A K A Stone, interpreter (#32)
I didn't know there were two kinds of Catholics.
#42. To: interpreter (#11)
Well, he's not perfect. Only Jesus was/is perfect
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
But Catholics were not hunted down and killed for going to Church, the Churches were not closed.
#44. To: interpreter (#30)
Melania is not, and never has been a Roman Catholic.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#32)
didn't know there were two kinds of Catholics. Well they aren't really Catholics but Anglicans. Apparently they were "Catholic", but when the Roman Catholic variety drifted from scripture by appointing a "pope" ruler over the churches and calling him holy father the Anglicans chose to follow God instead of the pope man.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#36)
(Edited)
ccording to your beliefs which are probably the Catholic churches beliefs. What is the point in getting baptized as a baby? Does it make them Catholic? If so are they still Catholic if they decide to become Baptists later in life?
#47. To: All (#46)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
There are 23 different kinds of Catholics. What distinguishes them from the other forms of Christianity )Orthodox and Protestant) is that all 23 Catholic Churches and their members consider the Pope to be the head of the Church on earth.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
(Edited)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#48)
(Edited)
#52. To: interpreter, vicomte13 (#51)
Mary was forever a virgin
#53. To: A K A Stone (#36)
According to your beliefs which are probably the Catholic churches beliefs. What is the point in getting baptized as a baby? Does it make them Catholic? If so are they still Catholic if they decide to become Baptists later in life?
#54. To: interpreter (#51)
Actually, the Anglican Church/ England was never under the jurisdiction of Rome except whenever Rome sent someone to conquer England and force them to come under the jurisdiction of Rome (beginning with the Norman kings, and continuing off and on for about 1600 years and it got very bad, awful bloody at times. All (or mostly) because we refuse to say Mary was forever a virgin which we Anglicans consider to be a heresy. The fact that we are also a little bit more lenient when it comes to granting a divorce has also entered into it if you are talking about Henry the 8th. But that is only one king out of many dozens who broke with Rome.
#55. To: interpreter (#50)
They were the blood thirsty ones who when they were in power (as with Bloody Mary) slaughtered all the Anglican priests and bishops who refused to say the Mass (or (Eucharist) the Roman way.
#56. To: interpreter (#51)
#57. To: interpreter (#0)
24 Christian nations in NATO will rule the Earth unhindered by Satan for a millennium.
#58. To: interpreter (#4)
Of course. God always works through men. In the Old Testament it was Isreal. And now it is through Christian nations. (The God of the OT is the God of the NT)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
(Edited)
There never were any Anglican priests in Ireland. The Irish were Catholic from the time of Saint Patrick. Always in union with Rome, from one tip of te island to the other. There was not much religious dissension there, and there was no Reformation in Ireland.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
(Edited)
You're just making it up as you go along.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
#62. To: interpreter (#61)
Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium?
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
"Why else do you think God is going to let them rule the Earth for a millennium?"
#64. To: interpreter (#63)
Wow, just wow. Do you think God is going to let Muslims rule the Earth for a millennium?
#65. To: Vicomte13, interpreter (#64)
God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself.
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
God isn't going to let anyone rule the earth other than himself.
#67. To: Liberator (#65)
(Edited)
Right answer. The only answer.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#52)
(Edited)
If that was the case it would have sucked to be Joseph. I don't think Mary was a bitch that would do that to her husband.
#69. To: interpreter (#66)
As I have told you guys before, Jesus returned in 312AD (when the sign of Christ appeared in the clouds) as all the world history books say. No where in the Bible does it indicate Jesus returns twice.
#70. To: interpreter (#67)
#71. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#69)
Well, the Bible tells you that when Christ returns, heaven and earth will pass away in a rush
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
(Edited)
That isn't in red so you don't believe it. You said the bible is full of lies.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
in fact, ARE red letter words
#75. To: interpreter, vicomte13. mudbiy slim (#0)
Trump & company will also take out Kim Jong-Un, the evil little whore in Pyongyang. (See commentary on Revelation 17 for more on little whores of the atheist kind).
#76. To: interpreter (#0)
Trump will no doubt also have to take out the evil Ayatollah Khomeini, the de facto king in Tehran, Because Tehran is very accurately pointed to and bisected by the Jerusalem- to-the-dry-Euphrates direction.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]