The Heresies of the 1st and 2nd Centuries (Book II: Apostolic Fathers, Chapter VIII)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2024
- In this video, we examine each of the dominant heresies which plagued the Church from the 30s AD to the end of the 2nd century.
Link to ebook: www.amazon.com...
That was great synopsis of the first heresies that attacked Holy, Mother Church after Christ’s Ascension. I will be rewatching it many times in order to make it second hand knowledge. I’ve read & studied it many times over the past 25 years, but, I’m 56 now, and it’s hard to keep them all separate & defined. I learn better from video/audio and repetition. Thanks! 🙏
Thank you. Are you a priest here in Detroit?
@@historiaecclesiastica , Oh, no. Just a layman who loves studying the Sacred Sciptures & Sacred Tradition & Church history.
It started in the ‘90s when, along with the many prayers of my loving parents, watching EWTN & reading my parent’s magazines (like This Rock, Catholic Answers, Adoremus, The Wanderer, etc.) I started practicing my faith again and trying to live it.
Growing up in the ‘70s & ‘80s, catechesis was very lacking. So, I almost had to start from scratch. I knew very little about what the Church taught, why She taught it, and many things I thought She taught, She did not. My knowledge of the Bible was also poor, except for what I got from the Readings at Mass.
That changed when I started watching Our Father’s Plan on EWTN, by Dr. Scott Hahn & Jeff Cavins. A great Bible Study. It took some years to get through it, and I’m still studying to this day. Just like reading about the heresies, I need repetition to define & remember the names.
I now have a huge library of Catholic books & commentaries that I need to get through!
Thanks, again, for your videos. I’m half-way through the first one, and can’t wait to watch all of them! J.M.J 🙏
Edit: Al Kresta and Ave Maria Radio was also a tremendous asset to learn Catholic teachings & the Bible.
@@historiaecclesiastica , Oh yeah, I’ll be getting your e-book too!
Do not think heretics are members of the Body of Christ. But we do now. We print stamps and make statues of them, and will no doubt soon start proclaiming them saints. I wonder what Irenaeus would write about the Church today?
Montanus: founder of the charismatic movement
I just thought about this but it seems odd Jesus didn't teach the apostles, during His time with them, that baptism could be given to the Gentiles without the mosaic law.
It's , in my estimation, the most integral aspect to the whole new covenant and just a weird thing not to cover to me. I wonder what the Church fathers said to explain it 😅
@mememe1468 Hello. Jesus did say in the Gospels that His Divine Revelation would not be completed before His ascension. He said in John 16:12-13: 12“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13* But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming." I agree with you that it is interesting how to us, the baptism of gentiles doesn't seem like it should have been that much of a psychological hurtle for the apostles, but to first century Jews, who justifiably perceived the gentiles and their countless generations of idolatry, fornication, and fleshiness as little different then dogs, the thought of initiation without prior mosaic cleansing was earth-shaking.
"And from his storehouse, he brings forth new treasures as well as old."
@@historiaecclesiastica genius! I never thought of it like that.
-- "On the day of preperation, at the hour of dinner, there came out pursuers and horsemen" and Polycarp was killed "on *the great day of the Sabbath* at the eighth hour"
(The encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Verses 7.1 & 8.1 Charles H. Hoole's 1885 translation.)
-- "Again as to the assertion that Sabbath has been abolished. We deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself Lord of the Sabbath."
(Archelaus c. 3rd century.)
-- "Gnostic 8th day Origins"
"They affirm that man was formed on the eighth day, for sometimes they will have him been made on the sixth day, and sometimes on the eighth, unless perchance they mean that the earthly part was formed on the sixth day, but his fleshly part on the eighth, for these two things are distinguished by them."
(Irenaeus of Lyons c. 2nd century.)
-- The Gnostic "Eight Day" origins of Sunday rest.
"But the works of the Nicolaitans in that time were false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicholas, had made for themselves a hersey, to the effect that what might be offered to Idols might be exorcised and eaten, and whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day."
(Victorinious of Pettau c. 3rd century.)
-- "For almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of *Alexandria and Rome* on account of some *ancient tradition* cease to do this."
(Socrates Scholasticus c. 380 - 439 A.D.)
-- "There are many here among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, [Rome made the Sabbath day a fast] and keep the Sabbaths in the same mannor."
(John Chrysostom c. 339 - 407 A.D.)
-- 'Primitive Christianity' Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria tells us that "They assemble on Saturday, not that they are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath"
(Pseudo Athanasius; William Cave c. 1676)
-- "Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath, He kept the law thereof.....even in the case before us He fulfilled the law while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath and while imparting to the Sabbath itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the Benediction of the Father. An additional sanctity by His own Beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards..... *a course which His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath* and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it."
(3rd century Tertillian on the Sabbath.)
*Council of Laodicea* canon 29 A.D. 363
"Christians must not Judaize by resting on the sabbath day, but must work on that day, rather honoring --the Lord's Day-- [Sun-day] and, if they can, resting as Christians.
But if they they shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be an anathema from Christ."
^
Proof that true Christianity still remembered the sabbath day, to keep it Holy, even in the fourth century A.D.
-- In 563 AD Columba (of Ireland) and twelve of his brethren set out to do missionary evangelism, settling in Iona, an island in the inner Hebrides, in Scotland.
They founded the Abbey on Iona.
They were Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers living in Scotland during the sixth century. This would continue until the eleventh century AD.
-- “Professor Andrew Lang says of them [churches set up or inspired by St. Patrick]:
‘They worked on Sunday, but kept Saturday in a Sabbatical manner.’ -‘A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation,’ Vol. I, p. 96. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1900.
-- “Dr. A. Butler says of Columba:
‘Having continues his labors in Scotland thirty-four years, he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday, the ninth of June, said to his disciple Diermit: ‘This day is called the Sabbath, that is, the rest day, and such will it truly be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.’ -‘Butler’s Lives of the Saints,’ Vol. I, A.D. 597, art. ‘St. Columba,’ p. 762. New York: P. F. Collier.
-- “In a footnote to Blair’s translation of the Catholic historian Bellesheim, we read:
‘We seem to see here an allusion to the custom, observed in the early monastic Church of Ireland, of keeping the day of rest on Saturday, or the Sabbath.’ 🫢-‘History of the Catholic Church in Scotland,’ Vol. I, p. 86.
-- “Professor James C. Moffat, D.D., Professor of Church History at Princeton, says:
“It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the --Jewish-- Sabbath as a day of rest from labor. *They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week* -‘The Church in Scotland,’ p. 140. Philadelphia: 1882.
“But the Church of Rome could never allow the light of pure apostolic Christianity [in contrast to the “darkness of impure and corrupted apostolic Christianity,” the mother of which is the Romanized Papal Church headquartered in Rome!] to shine anywhere, for that would reveal her won religion to be apostasy. Pope Gregory I, in 596, sent the imperious monk Augustine, with forty other monks, to Britain. Dr. A Ebrard, says of this ‘mission’:
‘Gregory well knew that there existed in the British Isles, yea, in a part of the Roman dominion, a Christian church, and that his Roman messengers would come in contact with them. By sending these messengers, he was not only intent upon the conversion of the heathen, but from the very beginning he was also bent upon bringing this Irish-Scotch church, which had been hitherto been free from Rome, in subjection to the papal chair.’ -‘Bonifacius,’ p. 16. Guetersloh, 1882. (Quoted in Andrews’ ‘History of the Sabbath,’ fourth edition, revised and enlarged, p. 532).
THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental doctrine: the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church.
The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general account is one of the most provable of historical events.
But is it?
The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give information completely negating Peter's supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars - except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the records of the True Church of God - the writings of the New Testament - absolutely refute the Roman Catholic claim.
It is time that the world gets its eyes open to the truth of this matter - the truth, which is clearly revealed in the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
The Bible Teaching
There are ten major New Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter!
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11:
"Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.
"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16).
How clear!
Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he - not Peter - who was going to officially found the Roman Church.
"I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).
Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before - in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation.
"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).
If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church.
Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 - read the whole chapter!
Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? - Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him.
"When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23).
But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ''as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed - the majority didn't.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE - how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Paul's Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is - the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy.
In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16.
"At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."
This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, is untenable!
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. - even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11).
The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me."
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Where Was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4).
In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council.
About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor - the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God's own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
It was Peters confession of faith that Jesus would build his church on.
Not on Peter himself.
When Jesus came into the coasts of *Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God*
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and *upon this rock I will build my church* and *the gates of hell* shall not prevail against it.”
{Matthew 16:13-18}
"upon *this rock* I will build my church"
is a demonstrated pronoun.
No different than,
Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy *this temple* and in three days I will raise it up.”
{John 2:19}
"the gates of hell"
Here Jesus was using satire, for the pagans believed that the gates of hades was at a cave in Caesarea Philippi.
“And I will give unto thee *the keys of the kingdom of heaven* and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
{Matthew 16:19}
The keys to the kingdom is not exclusive to Peter, for anyone can open the kingdom of heaven by their witness of the gospel to unbelievers.
“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.”
{Matthew 10:32}
That *if thou shalt confess with thy mouth* the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and *with the mouth confession is made unto salvation*
{Romans 10:9-10}
And that *every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord* to the glory of God the Father.
{Philippians 2:11}
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
{1 John 4:15}
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, *If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest* And he answered and said, *I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God*
{Acts 8:35-36}
Ah yes so all the church fathers that gave you the bible was wrong but you a random person 2000 years later got it right sure sure
@@gandalfsupreme8800
The church fathers did not give us the bible.
@@gandalfsupreme8800
-- "On the day of preperation, at the hour of dinner, there came out pursuers and horsemen" and Polycarp was killed "on *the great day of the Sabbath* at the eighth hour"
(The encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Verses 7.1 & 8.1 Charles H. Hoole's 1885 translation.)
-- "Again as to the assertion that Sabbath has been abolished. We deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself Lord of the Sabbath."
(Archelaus c. 3rd century.)
-- "Gnostic 8th day Origins"
"They affirm that man was formed on the eighth day, for sometimes they will have him been made on the sixth day, and sometimes on the eighth, unless perchance they mean that the earthly part was formed on the sixth day, but his fleshly part on the eighth, for these two things are distinguished by them."
(Irenaeus of Lyons c. 2nd century.)
-- The Gnostic "Eight Day" origins of Sunday rest.
"But the works of the Nicolaitans in that time were false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicholas, had made for themselves a hersey, to the effect that what might be offered to Idols might be exorcised and eaten, and whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day."
(Victorinious of Pettau c. 3rd century.)
-- "For almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of *Alexandria and Rome* on account of some *ancient tradition* cease to do this."
(Socrates Scholasticus c. 380 - 439 A.D.)
👉Ancient tradition ~ die solis
-- "There are many here among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, [Rome made the Sabbath day a fast] and keep the Sabbaths in the same mannor."
(John Chrysostom c. 339 - 407 A.D.)
-- 'Primitive Christianity' Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria tells us that "They assemble on Saturday, not that they are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath"
(Pseudo Athanasius; William Cave c. 1676)
-- "Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath, He kept the law thereof.....even in the case before us He fulfilled the law while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath and while imparting to the Sabbath itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the Benediction of the Father. An additional sanctity by His own Beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards..... *a course which His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath* and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it."
(3rd century Tertillian on the Sabbath.)
*Council of Laodicea* canon 29 A.D. 363
"Christians must not Judaize by resting on the sabbath day, but must work on that day, rather honoring --the Lord's Day-- [Sun-day] and, if they can, resting as Christians.
But if they they shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be an anathema from Christ."
^
Proof that true Christianity still remembered the sabbath day, to keep it Holy, even in the fourth century A.D.
@@gandalfsupreme8800
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
{Revelation 17:15}
The seven headed beast of Revelation 17:
The seven heads are symbolic of seven kingdoms, starting with the beast of Daniel chapter 7
1st < Babylon
2nd < Medo-Persia
3rd < Greece
4th < Pagan Rome
5th < Papal Rome; the little horn
("that was" & "is not" & "yet is")
6th < "one is"
^
The woman that rides the beast is in captivity at the time of John's vision, AFTER receiving the deadly wound from the (atheist) beast from the bottomless pit [Rev 11:7]. This is the beast of THE TIME of John's vision IN THE WILDERNESS.
(Meaning that John is in the wilderness in his vision and not physical on Patmos, and he sees a beast that would come up from out of this wilderness. Read Job 38:26.)
The 7th < "is not yet come"
At the time of John's vision *in the wilderness* this head of the beast was yet to come; this is *the beast from out of the earth* [Rev 13:11];
(And he shall exercise all of the power of the first beast...) when this beast will speak like a dragon.
This beast must continue a short time, as per the others before him.
I believe by the testimony of Jesus, that we are now living in that "short time".
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
{Revelation 17:8}
:11...even he is the eighth, AND IS OF THE SEVEN, and ascends out of the bottomless pit and goes into perdition.
--There are seven heads at the time of John's vision, five kings/heads/beast are fallen, so this eighth is of the seven kingdoms...."that was"...."and is not"...."yet is" AND received a deadly wound; AND his deadly wound was healed.
This wound is the loss of her (the woman/church that rides the beast.) temporal sword (also her captivity), which is the earthly secular world kingdom.
This is the image of the beast (that great city), who like Babylon of antiquity, who thinks to usurp church and state craft.
The number eight is a metaphor for the resurrection. The eighth is resurrected from a former head of the seven; the 5th head that received a deadly wound.
(When he shall go into perdition: this will be the final dispensation of this beast with seven heads, that is a metaphor for satan.)
Jesus;
(The resurrection; Jn 11:25) Ἰησοῦς/Iēsous = 888
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
I(10), E(8), S(200), O(70), U(400), S(200).
In antiquity the mountain was not only a metaphor for a kingdom, but it was also symbolic of the head of a (river) dragon that was symbolic of a river that flows out from a mountain, after the spring thaw and overflowing its banks, spreading out in the form of the dragon's tail.
The color is scarlet because it is symbolic of the blood of the saints of the Lord.
A woman in prophecy is always a metaphor for a church, in this case (Jezebel) it is the fallen temple of God.
The false prophet, a lamb (Christ like) with two horns, and/but will speak like a dragon (a wolf in sheep's clothing), will be the beast (from out of the earth ... the USA) that will make an image unto the first beast from out of the sea, who received a deadly wound and his deadly wound was healed.
The two horns are a metaphor for two (equal) kingdoms in one, church and state craft.
Medo-Persia also is expressed as having two horns [Dan 8:3], but one was higher, (Persia) and eventually usurps the other.
This is the image of the first beast from out of the sea (Papal Rome). Once the wall of separation of church and state is lost, then will the second beast from out of the earth become the image of the first beast, who claims the authority of both church and state.
Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.
@@gandalfsupreme8800
Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God?
{Psalm77:13}
...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount.
{Hebrews 8:5}
The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows.
Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven.
He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness.
He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice.
He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit.
He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles.
He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world.
He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints.
He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment.
Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice.
In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months.
How so?
This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation.
And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church.
She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments.
She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man.
Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God.
Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense.
Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth.
This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God.
And goeth into perdition.
I hate premieres. I wanna see the video now, not in a million years, thus am less likely to watch the video. Like me, billions
Simon Magus was the first Bishop of Rome,. hence the Pagan and Christian mixing, it was not Peter Simon, Peter and Luke prayed against him as he levitated off the barrister to show off for the emperor, he fell broke his legs and died two weeks later.
Magus was in Samaria, not Rome.
Check any encyclopedia sir!
@@vintage53-coversandorigina37 oh do tell, what do they say and what source do they claim because look it up yourself there is ZERO evidence that he was EVER in Rome.
Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God?
{Psalm77:13}
...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount.
{Hebrews 8:5}
The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows.
Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven.
He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness.
He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice.
He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit.
He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles.
He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world.
He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints.
He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment.
Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice.
In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months.
How so?
This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation.
And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church.
She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments.
She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man.
Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God.
Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense.
Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth.
This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God.
And goeth into perdition.