Skip to main content

 

Christie Martin

Christie is a convert to Catholicism from the New Age and Neopaganism.

She is a homeschooling former schoolteacher and an adoptive, foster,

and birth mom of five (and counting).

 

My family was Church of Christ. While it was never spoken of from the pulpit

growing up, the handouts available on the tables in the vestibule often held

tracts that spouted things like the Catholic Church was the ***** of Babylon

and the Pope was the Anti-Christ. A few people in the church had family

members convert to Catholicism. This news was greeted in the same manner

as people whose family members had come down with cancer: with condolences,

disbelief, and shocked horror. Although my mother and father made it clear they

did not approve of the tracts, neither did they approve of Catholics and their

beliefs. I grew up with the impression that they were a strange cult,

like the Moonies.

 

My friends were another matter entirely. They loathed Christians, Catholics

especially. One had told the story of her son accompanying her to visit her

mother at a senior facility. Some little old ladies in the lobby had made

semi-rude gossipy comments about them as they walked past. The little

boy got on the elevator, rolled his eyes and said, "Probably Christians."

His mother laughed as she told that story, so did everyone present.

I didn't. As far from Christian as I was, I thought she was

training up a bigot. That's never funny.

 

My conversion to the Catholic Church took about three seconds. I was an

arrogant fool sitting in on my very first Mass and watching it like I'd watch

a National Geographic nature film. I was analyzing away, "Those pews are

so phallic, who are they kidding that this isn't all about a patriarchy?"

when I heard something Jewish. A cantor sang the Psalm. It caught my

attention and stopped the haughty drift of my thoughts. I began to be interested.

What else might they have stolen from the Jews?

 

The full story

http://whyimcatholic.com/index...vert-christie-martin

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

First off I am not a Catholic Christian and I do worship in a Protestant denomination.  While I have seen some Churches that are preoccupied with condemnation of the Catholic religion they are in a very small minority at least from what I have observed.  I, personally, my opinion that is, see no comparison between Revelation 2:19-29 and the Catholic Church.  I am also aware of many of the issues that protestant have with teachings of the Catholic Church and while I have heard some well meaning protestants make the statement that they believe the AntiChrist will come from the position of the Pope and they reason this because of the worship and adoration that will be given AntiChrist and how many he will lead astray.  I do not believe there is any merit or profit in making such a statement.  Although I am not saying I believe this to be the case  I do believe a much stronger case can be made to assume that the antichrist will come from the Muslim Religion than the Christian Religion and Rome.  

 

I am curious though as to just why you feel and believe this particular Church letter to be referring to the Catholic Church as when I read that section I just don't see it?

Hi all,

Extra makes the suggestion, "Christ himself has a message for the Catholic Church.  It's contained in Revelation Chapter 2:18-29.  The name Thyatira means 'continuous sacrifice' and the rebukes of Christ fit catholicism perfectly."

And, GB replies, "I am curious though as to just why you feel and believe this particular Church letter to be referring to the Catholic Church as when I read that section I just don't see it?"

Like GB, I have heard many Bible scholars, teachers, pastors, etc., make the claim that the Roman Catholic church is the great harlot of Babylon found in Revelation 17 -- but, I have never been convinced.  Dave Hunt, whom I hold in high regard for his work of Christian apologetics strongly feels this way -- and has written a book defending his position.   The book is "A Woman Rides The Beast."  Below is an excerpt from this book:


Who Is The Woman Who Rides The Beast In Revelation 17?
http://www.chick.com/informati...icism/sevenhills.asp
© 1994 by Dave Hunt. Reproduced by permission


"Virtually all attention these days is focused on the coming Antichrist — but he is only half the story. Many are amazed to discover in Revelation 17 that there is also another mysterious character in the heart of prophecy — a woman who rides the beast." — Dave Hunt

The Bible says she is a city and gives remarkable clues to her identity. Reproduced here by permission is one chapter of one of the greatest books of our time on Bible prophecy, "A Woman Rides The Beast" by prophecy researcher Dave Hunt.

A City on Seven Hills:

A woman rides the beast, and that woman is a city built on seven hills that reigns over the kings of the earth!  Was ever in all of history such a statement made?  John immediately equates the readers' acceptance of this revelation with "wisdom."  We dare not pass over such a disclosure casually.  It merits our careful and prayerful attention.

Here is no mystical or allegorical language but an unambiguous statement in plain words: "The woman ... is that great city."   There is no justification for seeking some other hidden meaning.  Yet books have been written and sermons preached insisting that "Mystery Babylon" is the United States.  That is clearly not the case, for the United States is a country, not a city.  One might justifiably refer to the United States as Sodom, considering the honor now given to homosexuals, but it is definitely not the Babylon that John sees in this vision.  The woman is a city.

Furthermore, she is a city built on seven hills.  That specification eliminates ancient Babylon.  Only one city has for more than 2000 years been known as the city on seven hills.  That city is Rome.  The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined."


++++++++++++++++++++++

 

While I can see Dave Hunt's point that the city sitting on seven hills is most certainly Rome, I cannot relate Extra's contention that the church of Thyatira mentioned in Revelation 2:18-29 is the Roman Catholic church.   The church of Thyatira represents the compromising churches throughout the church history. 

 

Who are the compromising churches?  Well, this would be those who deny the authority and inspiration of the Bible; this would be those who bend over backwards to try to fit the church into the secular science world, to make the Word of God fit the teachings of secular science, even though science is very obviously a part of the Creation.  Compromising churches are those that try to adapt the Bible to society's norm -- instead of molding society to fit God's Word.  This, I personally believe, is what Jesus Christ held against the church at Thyatira -- and all compromising churches.

Extra suggests, "Thyatira means 'continuous sacrifice' and the rebukes of Christ fit catholicism perfectly."

While I agree that the Roman Catholic church is continually re-sacrificing Jesus Christ on their altar every day -- I do not find that the meaning of Thyatira.  In Strong's Concordance we find that Thyatira means, "odor of affliction" -- a fit description of the compromising church, which would be many Christian churches -- Protestant and Roman Catholic.

Regarding the true Antichrist, GB contends, "I do believe a much stronger case can be made to assume that the antichrist will come from the Muslim Religion than the Christian Religion and Rome."

Revelation 13:1 tells us about the first beast, the Antichrist, "And the dragon stood on the sand of the seas****.  Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names."

I see this as the European Union, i.e, the Restored Roman Empire -- and believe the Antichrist will be a charismatic political leader who will rise to power from this, very quickly.  So, he will be of European descent, not Middle Eastern Muslim descent.  But, he will somehow bring peace between Israel and the Muslim countries -- which will allow the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.

In Revelation 13:11-12 we read of the second beast, "Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon.  He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence.  And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed."

This second beast will be subordinate to the first, and, I believe will be the leader of the new One World Church.   Where the first beast, the Antichrist, is a charismatic political leader -- this man will be a religious leader.   This, and the Roman Catholic church's heavy involvement in the world ecumenical movement, is why many theologians, scholars, and teacher often equate him with the Pope of Rome.  This may or may not be right; but, we know he will be a religious leader -- in Rome.

Personally, I cannot go along with Dave Hunt and others who teach that the Roman Catholic church is the Antichrist.  The Antichrist, in my opinion, will be a person, not a church, city, or state.  The Antichrist and his False Prophet will be two men -- sent from Satan.

Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

 

The Scriptures preach before-time of this lion and lion's cub. And in like manner also we find it written regarding Antichrist For Moses speaks thus: Dan is a lion's cub, and he shall leap from Bashan. Deuteronomy 33:22 But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Saviour, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion's cub; and in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so antichrist, is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse's heel. Genesis 49:17 What, then, is meant by the serpent but antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis, Genesis 3:1 who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam.           I've always believed the antichrist was a Jew.

 I cannot relate Extra's contention that the church of Thyatira mentioned in Revelation 2:18-29 is the Roman Catholic church.   The church of Thyatira represents the compromising churches throughout the church history.

 

 Bill,

 The name Thyatira means "Sacrifice of Labor" or "Continuous sacrifice." There is only one Church going back towards the early days of Christianity that fits that bill.

    To understand the church of Thyatira, you must go back to the Church of Pergamos. The word Pergamos means "lifted up" or "elevation".  The Church of pergamos is the church that was "married" to the world if you will when Constantine brought the church out of the catacombs and persecution and made it the church of the empire. the church of thyatira is the resulting consequence of the compromises and corruptions in the church thru this new union with the world.

    The name Jezebel speaks volumes. False religions are always characterized as female because in the ancient world, it was more palatable to pagans to worship a sensual diety. It was Jezebel who introduced the wordship of Baal in istreal, replacing the worship of Jehovah. Baal warship was a knockoff of Judeaism, Jezebel copied it, and supplanted Jehovah's worship with her own.

  When Constantine became emperor, the same thing happened. In order to get the pagans of Rome to accept Christianity, the church had to accept paganism into the church. This corruption is what gave up Catholicism, that's why catholicism looks nothing like the early church.

  

 What did jezebel do?  verse 20, "To teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols".

 

  What will happen to jezebel and all catholics who don't repent?  verse 22 and 23. She will be cast into the bed of tribulation. "And I will kill her children with death". Those who follow Jezebel's doctrine will go to Hell.

 

 What about those Christians who never became Catholic? Verses 24-28.

 And by the way, there have always been Christians in every generation since the Apostles who were not Catholic.

 

 The reason why the imagery of the bible uses female dieties to represent false doctrine is because the first to rebel against God after the flood was Nimrod. We know from history that is was his wife Semiramis who diefied herself as the wife of Nimrod and instituted the worship of herself as God.

 This is the foundation for all false religion in the ancient world. Semiramis and Jezebel are two peas of the same pod.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

 I cannot relate Extra's contention that the church of Thyatira mentioned in Revelation 2:18-29 is the Roman Catholic church.   The church of Thyatira represents the compromising churches throughout the church history.

 

 Bill,

 The name Thyatira means "Sacrifice of Labor" or "Continuous sacrifice." There is only one Church going back towards the early days of Christianity that fits that bill.

    To understand the church of Thyatira, you must go back to the Church of Pergamos. The word Pergamos means "lifted up" or "elevation".  The Church of pergamos is the church that was "married" to the world if you will when Constantine brought the church out of the catacombs and persecution and made it the church of the empire. the church of thyatira is the resulting consequence of the compromises and corruptions in the church thru this new union with the world.

    The name Jezebel speaks volumes. False religions are always characterized as female because in the ancient world, it was more palatable to pagans to worship a sensual diety. It was Jezebel who introduced the wordship of Baal in istreal, replacing the worship of Jehovah. Baal warship was a knockoff of Judeaism, Jezebel copied it, and supplanted Jehovah's worship with her own.

  When Constantine became emperor, the same thing happened. In order to get the pagans of Rome to accept Christianity, the church had to accept paganism into the church. This corruption is what gave up Catholicism, that's why catholicism looks nothing like the early church.

  

 What did jezebel do?  verse 20, "To teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols".

 

  What will happen to jezebel and all catholics who don't repent?  verse 22 and 23. She will be cast into the bed of tribulation. "And I will kill her children with death". Those who follow Jezebel's doctrine will go to Hell.

 

 What about those Christians who never became Catholic? Verses 24-28.

 And by the way, there have always been Christians in every generation since the Apostles who were not Catholic.

 

 The reason why the imagery of the bible uses female dieties to represent false doctrine is because the first to rebel against God after the flood was Nimrod. We know from history that is was his wife Semiramis who diefied herself as the wife of Nimrod and instituted the worship of herself as God.

 This is the foundation for all false religion in the ancient world. Semiramis and Jezebel are two peas of the same pod.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

extra, Maybe you've some idea where you got this false information.

Where did you get these interpretations?

The Church Jesus found when still on earth, the church Jesus made Peter

head of said church, the one you call Catholic, documentation was kept

as best as they could while still in Jerusalem, you could say the Jerusalem

Catholic church. But things were getting too dangerous and so St Peter

moved the church to Rome. The record keeping continued and ongoing

to date.

So why is the google stuff of a 1906 start up more accurate than

1st century, 2nd and so on till present day?

 

You've have also made claims in the passed that aren't true and

should prove them but you can't, but you sure like to spout them out.

 

Invictus, Sorry to burst your bubble, but the so called records you claim that prove Peter built the church has been shown in times past to forgeries.

 

 The historian Eusebius, in the 4th century plainly says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and after him was Clement. Both of these men were converts and disciples of Paul, not Peter. It doesn't stand to reason that if the church was built upon peter, that his immediate successor was not someone whom had been severely influenced by him.

 That aside, Peter wrote his epistles from Babylon, in case you didn't know, that's 180 degrees opposite direction from Rome and about 4 or 5 thousand miles away. It's a complete stretch that the church of Rome was built by Peter. To top it off, according to the book of Acts, it was James not Peter who presided over the council mentioned in chapters 15 and 16.  It was James not Peter who was the Bishop of Jerusalem and according to Josephus, James was beaten to death with a club before the Roman invasion.

 

 In Galatians chapter 2, Paul recounts his version of the jerusalem council recorded in Acts ch 15. He specifically states that the ministry of the circumcision (Jews) was committed to Peter. Notice that there was no mention of Peter ministering to the gentiles.  When Paul recounts his contact with the apostles, it is James that he mentions first as leading the Apostles at jerusalem.

 

  The conclusion is made there that the Apostles at Jerusalem would go to the Jews, and Paul would go to the gentiles. If Peter is the first Bishop and upon whom the church is built, how can this be since Peter has already agreed not to preach to the gentiles?

 

 I hate to tell you this but you are "following cunning devised fables". Get back in the word and quit following the slight of men.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Invictus, Sorry to burst your bubble, but the so called records you claim that prove Peter built the church has been shown in times past to forgeries.

 

That's OK, No bubble hurt, I didn't say Peter built the church, Jesus built it.

 

The proof that Christ constituted St Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16: 17-19 and John 21: 15-17.

 

Acts 15: 1-11 ------Is saying Peter made the decision about dispenaing with

circumcision. If you want to say James agrees with Peter, fine.

The Bible doesn't confuse who's the head and who made that person the

head of said church, not James not eusebius not Paul.

 

1st Pope-----Peter  d. 67

2nd Linus---67--76

3rd  Anacletus I,---- 76--88

4th   Clement I, -----88--97

 

You are wrong on just about everything Extra

 

Matthew 16:18-19 saying “whatsoever you bind shall be bound in heaven.”

 

Eusebius----Book 3

Chapter 2. The First Successor to St. Peter in Rome.

1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome,

in the salutation at the end of the epistle.

 

 The historian Eusebius, in the 4th century plainly says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and

Where does he say that?

after him was Clement. Both of these men were converts and disciples of Paul, not Peter. It doesn't stand to reason that if the church was built upon peter, that his immediate successor was not someone whom had been severely influenced by him.------Wrong

 That aside, Peter wrote his epistles from Babylon, in case you didn't know,

I did know that, you don't have a point.

 that's 180 degrees opposite direction from Rome and about 4 or 5 thousand miles away. It's a complete stretch that the church of Rome was built by Peter. To top it off, according to the book of Acts, it was James not Peter who presided over the council mentioned in chapters 15 and 16.  It was James not Peter who was the Bishop of Jerusalem and according to Josephus, James was beaten to death with a club before the Roman invasion.

 

 You know by now you're wrong, and it doesn't matter if James is Bishop of Sheffield.

You're rewriting the Bible and adding whatever suits you.

 

 In Galatians chapter 2, Paul recounts his version of the jerusalem council recorded in Acts ch 15. He specifically states that the ministry of the circumcision (Jews) was committed to Peter. Notice that there was no mention of Peter ministering to the gentiles.  When Paul recounts his contact with the apostles, it is James that he mentions first as leading the Apostles at jerusalem.

 And you really believe this is something

  The conclusion is made there that the Apostles at Jerusalem would go to the Jews, and Paul would go to the gentiles. If Peter is the first Bishop and upon whom the church is built, how can this be since Peter has already agreed not to preach to the gentiles?

 I guess you're a Marcionite now, you don't understand.

 I hate to tell you this but you are "following cunning devised fables". Get back in the word and quit following the slight of men.  Most ridiculous thing yet.

 

You don't know or rewording the Bible and you're just plain off track

All your life you've have brought into the anti catholic gang, you'll

say anything your hate can come up with-------

 

The difference between us is I don't hate your denomination,

I don't care what you believe. One things for sure, you can't

lie to me about Christianity or the first 2000 years of it.

It's written and it doesn't change.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Invictus, Sorry to burst your bubble, but the so called records you claim that prove Peter built the church has been shown in times past to forgeries.

 

That's OK, No bubble hurt, I didn't say Peter built the church, Jesus built it.

 

The proof that Christ constituted St Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16: 17-19 and John 21: 15-17.

 

Acts 15: 1-11 ------Is saying Peter made the decision about dispenaing with

circumcision. If you want to say James agrees with Peter, fine.

The Bible doesn't confuse who's the head and who made that person the

head of said church, not James not eusebius not Paul.

 

1st Pope-----Peter  d. 67

2nd Linus---67--76

3rd  Anacletus I,---- 76--88

4th   Clement I, -----88--97

 

You are wrong on just about everything Extra

 

Matthew 16:18-19 saying “whatsoever you bind shall be bound in heaven.”

 

Eusebius----Book 3

Chapter 2. The First Successor to St. Peter in Rome.

1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome,

in the salutation at the end of the epistle.

 

 The historian Eusebius, in the 4th century plainly says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and

Where does he say that?

after him was Clement. Both of these men were converts and disciples of Paul, not Peter. It doesn't stand to reason that if the church was built upon peter, that his immediate successor was not someone whom had been severely influenced by him.------Wrong

 That aside, Peter wrote his epistles from Babylon, in case you didn't know,

I did know that, you don't have a point.

 that's 180 degrees opposite direction from Rome and about 4 or 5 thousand miles away. It's a complete stretch that the church of Rome was built by Peter. To top it off, according to the book of Acts, it was James not Peter who presided over the council mentioned in chapters 15 and 16.  It was James not Peter who was the Bishop of Jerusalem and according to Josephus, James was beaten to death with a club before the Roman invasion.

 

 You know by now you're wrong, and it doesn't matter if James is Bishop of Sheffield.

You're rewriting the Bible and adding whatever suits you.

 

 In Galatians chapter 2, Paul recounts his version of the jerusalem council recorded in Acts ch 15. He specifically states that the ministry of the circumcision (Jews) was committed to Peter. Notice that there was no mention of Peter ministering to the gentiles.  When Paul recounts his contact with the apostles, it is James that he mentions first as leading the Apostles at jerusalem.

 And you really believe this is something

  The conclusion is made there that the Apostles at Jerusalem would go to the Jews, and Paul would go to the gentiles. If Peter is the first Bishop and upon whom the church is built, how can this be since Peter has already agreed not to preach to the gentiles?

 I guess you're a Marcionite now, you don't understand.

 I hate to tell you this but you are "following cunning devised fables". Get back in the word and quit following the slight of men.  Most ridiculous thing yet.

 

You don't know or rewording the Bible and you're just plain off track

All your life you've have brought into the anti catholic gang, you'll

say anything your hate can come up with-------

 

The difference between us is I don't hate your denomination,

I don't care what you believe. One things for sure, you can't

lie to me about Christianity or the first 2000 years of it.

It's written and it doesn't change.

 

==========================================

 

260,,,,,,,Did I say something wrong?

 

  


 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×