Your posting does not make a whole lot of sense.
Paragraph 2: You can’t deny that during the Dark Ages, there were people seeking for power, and those are the “Nicolaitanes”. Not all the Church was corrupted, but people from Satan’s synagogue, “infiltrated” the Church.
**Nicolaism is a Christian heresy by a deacon known only as Nicholas. The Nicolaites were mentioned twice in John’s Revelation. Several Early Church Fathers also mention the sect in their writings, such as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret. Irenaeus wrote that they “lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.” Although some theologians believe the letter to the 7 churches could be interpreted as 7 ages of the Church, most agree that the Nicolaites practiced a form of Balaamism which included sexual promiscuity, and that this was somehow included in their ‘christian’ rituals. **
For example, if the Bible would have written directly and clearly against the Church at that time, I’m totally sure that the Bible was going to be “edited”. God is smarter than that, don’t you think?
Since the Canon of Scripture was decided BY the Church with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, perhaps.
For example, there were popes “unworthy” of their seats or authority, as you cal them, and if the Bible would have written against them, logically, since they were a bit (a lot, actually) evil , they would have used their infallibility to make changes in the bible, were His Word accuses them, to be more precise. Don’t you think it sounds logical?
No, because you show that you have absolutely no concept of what infallibility means. In fact, that there were unworthy popes in the seat of Peter at various times in the Church and yet the Faith remained and nothing in the Church’s teachings in Faith and morals was ever changed, shows that the Church is protected from error. Also, infallibility only involves the Teaching Magisterium of the Church - the pope together with all the bishops - when these make a pronouncement together or supported in the areas of Faith and morals.
If you were some evil bastard having supreme authority and on your left somewhere is a book that accuses you, and if you have power to change it, wouldn’t you? Of course you’d do, if you were evil, but I hope you aren’t.
I don’t ever remember a verse in Scriputre from Christ in which he states that we are evil bastards, do you? And the only evil bastards that I can think of are those who blatantly translated Scripture in such a way that it became weak, biased and shoddy. Example: early protestant bibles.
“it does not mention anything at all about the Church as being the seat of an antiChrist,” in the Apocalypse, there are two women that represent churches. One is pure, with a crown of 12 stars, which are the apostles, and a whore with many children. Since the first is a church, I believe that the second is as well. The second church seats on a beast with 7 heads, and the angels says that the heads are 7 hills. Rome is on 7 hills. I will let you deduce by yourself.
**The woman with 12 stars who gives birth to the one who will rule with an iron rod is interpreted in two ways: the most obvious one is Mary, mother of Jesus, and the one who she delivers is Her Son, our Savior. The second interpretation is that of a woman giving birth to Israel itself, represented by 12, the tribes.
The second woman, the harlot, is Jerusalem. The 7 hills of Rome has no bearing on the Vatrican because the Vatican is outside of the city and beyond the 7 hills of Rome. Go check your geography.
It’s amazing how nonCatholics come into these forums and attempt to tell US what we believe and what the Church teaches. The height of your arrogance is unbelievable. **
I was talking about the prophecy, and in the prophecy, “Nicolaitanes” are those who try to win the favor of the people and rule over them. What I say is proved by historical facts, which you’ll find on that web page I posted.
