Nostr Web Client

I’ve studied the historicist view too, including the Geneva Bible annotations and the claim that the papacy is the Antichrist. But if you’re serious about truth, you have to ask: who preserved Scripture, doctrine, and apostolic succession from the first century onward? The Catholic Church did. The early Church was visible, hierarchical, sacramental, and unified under bishops long before Constantine. If the papacy were truly the Antichrist, you’d have to believe Christ let His Church fall into total apostasy for over a thousand years, which directly contradicts His promise in Matthew 16:18. The real counterfeit isn’t the historic Church, it’s the rebellion against it.

Neigsndoig IQ 120 6mo ago 💬 1

How is it a counterfeit when Martin Luther "measured the temple" and determined that the Roman Catholic Church was the apostate harlot church, the Tares in the Wheat and Tares parable? If anything, the Reformation sparked a counter (the Counter-Reformation) from the Jesuit Order, leading to the creation of Futurism and Preterism.

Futurism, while popular, was never proven to be true (this is a form of taking the mark on the right hand, sadly). Not to mention, those two systems shift blame away from the Pope (he even ruled for 1,260 years, fulfilling the 1,260 day prophecy before the Jesuit Superior General took over in 1798).

Also, the early Ekklesia was never like that from my research. If anything, Yeshua clearly pointed towards the RCC and the Jesuit Order in Revelation through John (look at the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70 AD, for example, which was, in fact, the Great Tribulation due to the horror of the scene in Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman Beast Kingdom). Those who saw the signs of Messiah's coming judgment against unfaithful Israel moved to the mountains of Pella to escape the 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation.

In terms of this response, it's a classic Laodecian response, wherein the saints in this Ekklesia era believe they know the truth (thus being "rich"), and have no need of an alternate explanation to the false futuristic script (the "need of nothing"). However, because of this rigid belief, it leads to them being wicked, naked, poor, miserable and hungry. I was like you at one point, having taken the mark in the method I described on the right hand for over 2 decades, and stopped that cold turkey once I started looking into how I was doing so, historically speaking.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

NICO⚡️ 6mo ago 💬 1

You’re quoting Luther like he was some infallible prophet, but he was a priest who broke his vows, rewrote Scripture, and split the Church Christ founded. You say he “measured the temple” but by what authority? His own? The Church existed for 1,500 years before Luther ever picked up a hammer. If that was all apostasy, then Christ failed, and His promise in Matthew 16:18 was a lie. But He didn’t lie, and the gates of hell didn’t prevail.

You’re leaning on historicist timelines like 1,260 years and labeling popes and Jesuits as beasts, but you’re building that on interpretations that didn’t exist until well after the fact. Meanwhile, the actual early Church read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement described a visible, hierarchical, sacramental Church that looks nothing like your invisible remnant theory.

You mentioned Pella and the Jewish-Roman war as if that fulfilled the Great Tribulation, but the early Christians who fled Jerusalem still worshipped under bishops, still celebrated the Eucharist, and still saw Rome as the place where Peter and Paul died for the faith not as the seat of Antichrist.

Luther’s rebellion triggered chaos splintering the faith into tens of thousands of denominations and opening the door to Enlightenment secularism and moral relativism. If anything, that looks more like the “falling away” than a Church that has preserved apostolic succession, sacraments, and Scripture for two millennia.

Christ didn’t found confusion. He founded a Church. It wasn’t hidden in the shadows or waiting for a 16th-century German monk to rediscover it. It’s been visible, attacked, slandered, and still standing because it’s His.

Neigsndoig IQ 120 6mo ago 💬 1

For the "measuring" of the temple, he used the scriptures that were available at the time to determine this. No Catholic leadership was involved in that, as that would cloud the Scriptures altogether.

As for why I talk about the historical timelines, a book by Edward Gibbon called "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" exactly explains how Revelation, Daniel and Matthew 23 were being fulfilled (at the time, from 1776). That, and many theologians who had fantastic works were all from the 16th-20th centuries. Mind you, Gibbon wasn't a Christian, despite writing something that exactly explained the historical fulfillment of these three books.

When it came to the Ekklesia fleeing to Pella for the Jewish-Roman war, the Nazarites (400 years before Christians) never did what you described. Worshiping under bishops is not the same when you look at the biblical definition of it from what I've read. On top of that, the Eucharist is actually a blasphemous ceremony (for it brings the authority of the Creator and Messiah to naught, which you don't do). Peter and Paul tried to make it work, but after Peter and Paul passed away, Lucifer took over and completely mucked it up, thus making it his seat (which is why he selects the Popes he does, probably through the General most likely since 1798).

As for the rebellion, yes, it was a rebellion performed to save the Saints from the persecution of Catholic leadership, as the Pope was reigning over the entire known world at the time (this was before 1798 when the General took over). Not to mention that Messiah allowed the misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church to fester as a means for people to see who controls us. The "falling away" was more to do with the Pope forcing people who wouldn't worship or obey him to do so or face death (there's a Papal Bull that literally calls for the death of non-Catholics that's still in effect. There's your Mark of the Beast right there in front of you).

As for Messiah not founding a confusion, I agree with that, but the term "Church" is modern day. I use the term "Ekklesia" as a means to distinguish between babble buildings (which is what churches are nowadays) and the assembly (those who follow the Old Testament where applicable, and still followed Messiah's clarifications).

That's just how I see it from the research I was doing on it.

NICO⚡️ 6mo ago

Dude it’s not that complicated.

The Catholic Church is the longest running institution in human history founded by jesus himself.

Peter is the first Pope and the continuity has never been broken for 2 millennia.

Peter is literally buried under St. peter’s basilica at the vatican.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:18

It’s literally in the bible, if you want to follow a fork of the OG church that’s up to you and I respect your right to do whatever you please.

These are my personal beliefs and opinions.