Did Pope Francis Praise Lucifer?

Several videos on YouTube are claiming that Pope Francis has praised Lucifer as God, just as several YouTube videos claimed the same about Pope Benedict XVI during his pontificate. In fact, as the theory goes, this is a Vatican-wide (or Catholic Church wide) conspiracy to praise Satan during the Easter Vigil. Here’s a sample of what I’m talking about:

These videos are troublingly popular: this video alone has about 1.4 million views so far.  And the case for the conspiracy is pretty clear: the pope and a huge group of Catholics, including many Cardinals, are praying a prayer that clearly uses the word “lucifer.”

But on the other hand, does the theory make even a little bit of sense? Not really. It’s ridiculous enough to believe that the pope and the College of Cardinals are all secretly Satanists. It’s a lot more ridiculous to think that they’re openly Satanists, pledging allegiance to Lucifer every Easter on live TV. And it’s still more ridiculous to think that they do all of this, and that nobody else around the world except a few anonymous YouTube cranks notices or cares. Are we seriously to believe that the pope gets up each year, does a little “hail Satan!” prayer with all of the leaders of the Catholic Church, at the Easter Vigil, during a widely-viewed live television broadcast watched all around the globe…. and nobody notices? Nobody within the Vatican was like, “Oh no, this will reveal our super-secret Satanism plan!” Nobody at any newspaper was like, “Hey, the pope worships Satan, I wonder if that’s news?” And that this happens every year?

But this theory isn’t just insane (and insanely stupid), it’s also uncharitable. A basic starting point for understanding people who disagree with you is to assume that they’re seeking goodness and truth. So much of the modern acrimony (political and religious, especially) is based upon a failure to observe this basic rule. Now, obviously, there are people who are just wicked: they’re not just mistaken or wrong, but evil. But you don’t start by assuming everyone you meet or everyone who disagrees with you is in this category.

So what’s the true story behind this video? What you’re seeing is part of a prayer called the Exsultet, prayed each year at the Easter Vigil to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. During the lighting of the Easter candle, we pray::


Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.


May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who, coming back from death’s domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

When properly translated (unlike in the conspiracy videos), it’s clear that the “Lucifer” in question is Jesus Christ. But why call Him that? Because “Lucifer” literally means “light-bearer” (lux is “light,” as you may know from fiat lux, “let there be light”) and it was the term used for the morning star. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon explains:



This naturally raises two questions. Why do we use the term “Lucifer” as a personal name for Satan? And why is Christ called “Lucifer” in the Exultet? Scripture holds the key to answering both questions.

First, look to Isaiah 14:12-14:

“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High.’

On its face, this is about the King of Babylon, but it’s not hard to see the subtext: that it’s also about the fall of Satan, who tried to hoist himself above the Lord God. This is made clearer in light of the New Testament, in which Christ says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18). And since the Latin Vulgate translates “Day Star” as “Lucifer,” it’s how that title for the devil came about.

But what about for Christ? Just look at Revelation 22:16,

“I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

Interestingly, the Vulgate doesn’t use lucifer here, but stella splendida et matutina, but the meaning is the same. Both Jesus and the devil are referred to as morning stars. (The Protestant site GotQuestions notes this oddity, but also that it’s not unique: both are also compared to lions, cf. 1 Peter 5:8 and Rev. 5:5, etc.). In the broader Scriptural context, this makes sense. Christ is the Light (John 1:4-9), humanity’s “dayspring” (Luke 1:78). As a fallen angel, Satan once bore witness to that light before turning to darkness. Ironically, Christ alone truly warrants being called a lucifer or “light-bearer”: the devil forfeited this by turning away from the light. But in a quirk of history, based largely on the Latin Vulgate (in language that the KJV borrowed), “Lucifer” became associated with the devil as a common name.

So there you go: the Exultet is an ancient prayer (likely dating back to at least the sixth century), back before we mistakenly started treating “Lucifer” as a proper name for the devil. Perhaps it’s not as exciting as a billion-person Satanist conspiracy, but it’s a lot truer.


  1. Thank you for sharing this. I found myself making a similar defense a few years ago. The video in question then completely disregarded the context of the prayer and the symbolism of the paschal candle, too, as it sought to emphasize its mistranslation.

    It is so sad how many people assume evil on the part of the Church from the outset, how easily people are influenced by videos like these, and how many people misunderstand and miss out on the truth and beauty of the Church Jesus founded as a result.

    Keep sharing the truth in love, brother!

    1. I do not accept this but say your are correct? Why would the church use a word of praise that is associated with the devil or a something evil. By the church doing this, they are opening themselves up to a very plausible accusation they are devil worshiping. Of course the church could be telling the truth they are indeed worship Jesus as the morning star, or Lucifer, TO BE SAFE THEY MUST STAY AWAY FROM THIS WORD. I am not a christian but i have some knowledge of Latin and when i heard the word Lucifer i thought on my god.. If the church is using it for Jesus only an idiot would not know this is a bad move and it would frightened people of the church and other christian denominations, by using this they are sowing the seeds of doubt, this along with the upside down cross, looks very suspect. Allot of people would run from the church because of these two issues and no wonder there are videos using As other areas of proof you have the church adopting secular law and priests/cardinals say Satan is in the Vatican. The above article is not very through and just calls people stupid for accepting the Lucifer doctrine, that is not going to persuade people away from it. No matter how innocent why use a word that is use for Satan as well, why cause the confusion? not unless there is some truth to the charge they are worshiping Satan at St Peter. For me it is very alarming and best to stay away from it.

  2. LOL, I figured that much. People need to know a little Latin. Ironically, crazy internet sensation Steve Anderson takes issues with modern Bible translations because they call Christ the Morning Star, because he says they are conflating Him with Satan (i.e. Lucifer.)

    1. Craig – Latin? In our current publek skool system? Might be offered as an elective on alternate years after one has satisfied requirements for gender and class warfare curricula….

      1. Well, you got to have the class warfare curricula and the transgender bathrooms, this is ‘Merica darn it!

        I used to do so bad on my Latin exams, I would get 20% when it was multiple choice with 4 possible answers. And, I was really trying and I did my 15 minutes of studying!

        However, even I picked it up along the way that Lucifer means “Morning Star.” I have become increasingly convinced that we are completely blind to even the most simple things apart from the grace of God.

        1. “…we are completely blind to even the most simple things apart from the grace of God.”

          There’s much, considering the length of the thread on ‘False Prophets,” upon which we differ. But on this most important immutable, we warmly agree.

          I had the same experience with Latin, in high school, probably contemporary with your parents. Wait 20 years, when one of your kids says, “dad, I need help with Latin…’ and you’ll be shocked by what of necessity returns to you.

        2. Jesus said:

          “I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for WITHOUT ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING.”

          So, it’s no wonder that we need the ‘grace of God’ operating in us. Jesus is also the ‘Alpha and the Omega’, the beginning and end of all grace, and all things:

          “Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen. [8] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty. (Rev.1:7)

          Note from the Douay Rheims Version Bible:

          “[8] I am Alpha and Omega: These are the names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and signify the same as what follows: The beginning and the end: the first cause and last end of all beings: who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty– These words signify the true God only, and are here applied to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is to come again to judge the living and the dead.”

      2. There’s a reason why there is a distinction between stella splendida et matutina, for CHRIST and lúcifer matutínus for Satan. So yes – they are praying to Lucifer. It’s just the fact of latin.
        If they were invoking Christ they would use stella matutina.
        Dont know why they are choosing to use Lucifer – but there’s no denying they are choosing too.
        Most churches use Stella Splendida et Matutina, except of course, the Satanists.

        1. Joe – they found us out. The resident Sola Latin-a scholars (Ph.D of homeschool linguistics) got us dead to rights with their indisputable schis-mo-phrenic philology.


          Tara, I have to thank you and so many others here like ROSE! and “KJV” Wishart for the hours of endless amusement on this particular topic.

    2. I am an Orthodox Jew who also have a major in Latin and Classical Studies. An idiot who knows latin could see the proper translation who in this prayer praises Jesus

      1. I am an Orthodox Jew who also have a major in Latin and Classical Studies. An idiot who knows latin could see the proper translation who in this prayer praises Jesus

      2. I guess that makes you an antichrist then. Who can believe you? Anyway, the name Jesus was a made up name by the catholic church. There is no son of God. It was Yahweh in the flesh.

    3. How ignorant why don’t you read the St James bible and look at Isaiah 14: 12-1;luke10: 18-20 and Revelation 12: 7-12. Lucifer the devil is the deceiver, and he is deceiving you In believing something that is completely false. Lucifer was an angel created by God and, that was cast into the earth by God. Do your own research and pray for answers.

      1. Try reading…and comprehending the article one more time…maybe you will come to understand the events that took place and the mistake that resulted in applying “Lucifer” to the devil.
        Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they’re open.

    4. The ignorance of people today is monumental. I admit that the truth is hard to find but can be found if you want it bad enough. The Judeo-Christian churches and the catholic church are an abomination to Yahweh and teach blasphemy. “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” Romans 9:6 (Paul is talking about the Jews here as they infiltrated the land at the time of the Babylonian captivity (see Ezekiel 35) and through the second temple period (see Ezekiel 35); there is no such thing as “spiritual Israel, it’s another lie–Universalism is a lie. There is only redemption for the covenant people (and the covenant people are not the Canaanite Edomite Jews) and the earlier books (you call the old testament) are not moot or invalid. If you are listening to the “wolves,” (who many such as Scofield changed the text of the Bible), you will be blinded by Yahweh according to 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. But keep in mind that redemption was not for all humanoids but for man (Adam) as described in many, many parts of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament where Yahweh declares in Matthew 15:24, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This was not a spiritual allegorical statement. It was literal. Obviously, you are not aware that the sin in the garden was the sin of miscegenation, race mixing, which is still a sin today (as it was in the days of Noah). Read Ezra 9-10. Those that had race mixed while they were in Babylon had to give up mates who were not white and the resulting bastard children or they couldn’t return at the second temple period. (Apocryphal Esdras is a good read too.) Yes, unbeknownst to most of Yahweh’s children today is that the jews are a hybrid mongrel group masquerading as the chosen people when in fact it was the white race of today which was created in Genesis 2:7. Do you really think God created miscegenated people? (See Matthew 15:13.) To Yahweh, bastard people groups are impure and they will all be uprooted when He returns. Deuteronomy 23:2 tells us that bastards will not be allowed in the congregation not even up to the 10th generation, which means forever. Hope you haven’t had children with that brown female, unless of course if you’re race mixed, it won’t matter.

      1. Jan,

        If Israel is supposed to be a nation of only one race – whites – as you say, then why is there a “mixed multitude” that leaves Egypt with the native Israelites in Exodus 12:38. The Hebrew word that translates to “mixed” is “ereb” which according to Strong’s Concordance means:

        “also a mixture, (or mongrel race):—Arabia, mingled people, mixed (multitude)”

        So a mixed/mongrel people left Egypt with Israel and you hear YHWH refer to them all as Israel after that. You never hear Him treat them as lesser than the native Israelites because they are grafted into Israel. See how the stranger/foreigner and the native Israelite are both included in Israel in Joshua 8:33:

        “33Then all Israel, with their elders and officers and judges, stood on either side of the ark before the priests, the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the stranger as well as he who was born among them. Half of them were in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel.”

        Also you have the example of Uriah THE HITTITE who was the husband of Bathsheba. He was grafted into Israel even though he was of one of the nations that YHWH drove out when He brought Israel into the land.

        The nations have always been allowed to be grafted into Israel, therefore Israel is a nation of mixed people.

        Please don’t think that I’m defending protestantism or Catholicism. I just wanted to touch on the race subject you mentioned in your post.

      2. Jan, you said:

        “To Yahweh, bastard people groups are impure and they will all be uprooted when He returns. Deuteronomy 23:2 tells us that bastards will not be allowed in the congregation not even up to the 10th generation, which means forever. ”

        Well realize that Deuteronomy 23:3 also says that a moabite and ammonite cannot enter into the body/congregation of Israel even to the tenth generation. Yet, you have Ruth (a moabite) being married by Boaz and becoming the grandmother of King David.

        If what you’re saying is right – that a moabite or ammonite cannot EVER enter the assembly/body of Israel then realize that Yahshua/Jesus could not have been born through David’s line anymore since, according to you, it would have been tainted by Ruth the Moabite.

        Clearly, Deuteronomy 23:2-3 is not saying that a bastard, moabite, or ammonite cannot EVER enter the body/congregation of Israel.

        1. Race hatred is a pretty p***-poor basis for Christianity unless you’re from a feigned-racially-superior backwoods colony of inbred bunker-dwellers following their own Jim Jones-type messiah (little “m”).

          Read Galatians 3:28…..learn it, live it, love it….

      1. Times, they are a-changin’.

        Merriam Webster online

        Full Definition of broadcast


        also broad·cast·ed


        transitive verb
        1: to scatter or sow (as seed) over a broad area
        2: to make widely known
        3: to transmit or make public by means of radio or television

          1. The pope is and was of SATAN. He said what he said, and by no means is “Lucifer” referring to God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

  3. “A basic starting point for understanding people who disagree with you is to assume that they’re seeking goodness and truth.”

    Yes! Now if only I could convince my children of this…


  4. Great! Now you have ruined my Easter cards for this year, which would have read “Happy Easter, you Lucifer worshipping synagogue of Satan! Love, Rev. Dark Hans and family” It was hard to get those custom cards printed with an image of Pope Leo X ridding a demonic looking T-Rex. I guess it is back to the Thomas Kinkade painting of the empty tomb as plan b after this blog post.

  5. Wrong. The Hebrew word for “star” is not found in Isaiah 14:12. Nor is the Latin word for “star” found in the word Lucifer. You are totally confused and spreading satanic disinformation.

      1. Such well-turned words. Peter, Paul as well as Jesus warned us of you deceivers and wolves. The Elect see through your Gnostic words. The Vatican is identified throughout the Bible: vain jangling, philosophies & traditions of men, forbidding marriage and meats and REVELATION 13, 17 & 18, just for starters. Matthew 24:4 emphasizes the extent of the deception. Note to all you Protestants: Daniel’s 70th week is completed. Stop believing the Jesuit lies.

    1. Philip,

      Could you be more specific about which symbols you think are Satanic? Certain Catholic symbols (the upside-down cross and the All-Seeing Eye) were taken up by Satanists and Masons, but they were Christian symbols before they were mocked and misused.

    2. I’m a great believer in reciprocity.

      Please explain why some evangelical Protestants believe that regular physical discipline of a wife by her husband is a Scriptural mandate? Loaded question for loaded question. I don’t expect an answer, any more than you did when you trolled this site with your hateful nonsense.

      As an aside, fortunately, my niece left her ‘vangerlilercal parster husband of 20 years – and his circle of believers in Christian (Reformed, of course) wifebeating – to fester in their Ozark’s compound, before things became irremediable.

      Joe, I’m asking for the prayers of your readership that she finds her way to the One Church. Not to mention, the same for Mr. Charles, above.

        1. Thanks. I found that Christian wifebeating is actually a ‘thing’ in some circles of the 30,000 and counting…it’s called “Christian Domestic Discipline…”

          I have absolutely no doubt, all present company to this blog – and the vast majority of the 30,000, outside of the Ozarks compound and some less-hospitable parts of Utah – find this horrifying and unacceptable….but it’s an example of how far off the rails you can go, doctrinally, when it’s a theological free-for-all…

  6. AK says that wife-beating is a mandate in protestant circles. Hmm, this is funny. I left the Catholic Church in the Seventies (because I was introduced to the REAL Jesus of the Bible, not the deviated version of the RCC) and have been part of MANY protestant churches since.

    Not ONE of them promoted wife-beating as ANY form of discipline! You are severely confused. Protestantism is NOT Islam, which DOES promote wife-beating!

    No, Protestantism promotes LOVE for our wives, the kind of Love Messiah showed His church (the Body of Believers that began with JEWS!)

    Maybe the wife-beaters were a cult, but they certainly had NOTHING to do with Messiah, Yeshua!

    1. “because I was introduced to the REAL Jesus of the Bible, not the deviated version of the RCC”

      What was your parish priest teaching you? By definition, Protestantism is a deviation, since it is the break-off and innovator and inventor of doctrines. But whatever.

      “the Body of Believers that began with JEWS!”

      Why do Protestants love the JEWS SO MUCH. Sheesh.

      You even accepted their canon made almost 100 years after Christ at THEIR, JEWISH, UNAUTHORITATIVE meeting at Jabneh (and was still not settled by them even then), instead of the canon used by the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Amazing.

      The same applies with using Jesus’ Jewish name instead of the Greek/Latin (‘Yeh-sous’) version used by the inspired writers, almost as if to look down on them. Do you say Yakov? Avraham? What about His Aramaic name, ‘Eshou? Why not call John the Baptist Yohannan?

      It just seems irregular to use His Hebrew name instead of His name in English like how we say God instead of HaShem or Elohim.

    2. Well, the RCC believes in genocide of its opposition, which has never ended; now insulated by secret societies and the US military. That certainly is well documented. Shall we also get into their carnal lusts? Why anyone believes this is a church of God, I’ll never know. God and Christ are in the true Disciple by way of God’s Holy Spirit. We are the temple, the living stones. Not this greedy, lust-filled institution.

      1. OK, Jan…yessir, we’re onto you.

        Opus Dei (you had someone read Dan Brown to you, right?) has your name in that Big Vatican Computer, along with every other Protestant from here to the Pleiades. You know, the one you saw in Brother Jack Chick’s funny-pages-tract in the johnny-house t’other night, after ye overdid the deep-fried okra….

        Better double the guard ’round your Ozarks compound…you know how scurrilous and sneaky us Vaticanistas are when we are bent on genocide of good Bah-Bule Chris-shun ‘Murricans….fair warnin’….have a nice night… 😉

        Oh…and no worries for you about our carnal lusts…even we have out standards….ick….


      1. Hahahaha, how these evangelicals are so moronic. Recently, a friend tagged me of the same video. She had the same accusations against the Pope and the Catholic Church in general. She would not listen nor even try to understand no matter how I’ve explained to her, or sending her links that would explain the Catholic side.

        People commenting here who are obviously non -catholics have the same reasoning as hers. Lord have mercy!

        Thank you for defending the faith Joe.

  8. Such troubling times we are in when our Lord’s believers turn against one another. Instead of attacking each other we should be standing together to spread his word and the love of Jesus Christ his own son who died on the cross for our sins. We are being persecuted not just by non believers and wicked people but by our own kind. These are truly sad times we live in.

    1. FB – seems to me, looking at the way the post in question was punctuated, that this was a complete non-believer. Having said, there is certainly enough strife and chaos, right here, amongst those who purport to reside at the foot of the Cross. And while sad, it’s predictable – the Father of Lies and Chaos goes where he will get the most results and satisfaction.

      Troubling times indeed….

  9. I am a recovering Catholic for many years. when I was a child I always felt something wasnt right. thru years of soul searching and studying ancient religions these are my own personal conclusions…
    Satan and Lucifer are 2 separate entities.Satan is Male Lucifer actually being feminine.Surprise!!
    The Virgin Mary worshiped by Catholics is actually a representation of Isis/Venus/Dianna/Ishtar/whatever you want to call her.
    Ive also done extensive research on the Vatican and luciferian practices. Sodomy is an important practice in luciferianism and is linked back to the serpent(Lucifer) in the garden of Eden. Hence all the boys being molested.The dark aspect of Lucifer (as she is triple female) is better known as Lilith, Adams FIRST wife, who refused to lay below him and saw him as an equal. Abrahamic religions supress the feminine for this reason and present themselves as patriarchal. Male energy is electric female energy is magnetic. when we speak of Babylon we speak of a time when women were revered and Mother Goddess worship was rampant. Yahweh, whos proper name is Samuel/Yaldaboath aka Satan (another surprise!) didn’t like this and declared himself the most high saying he was a jealous God.The first Commandment in the OT is a dead giveaway to the fact that there is more than one “God”. When cross referencing the Nag Hammadi and the dead Sea Scrolls, his physical description is identical. both state him as having the head of a lion and the body of a serpent….this says much in itself. if we were created in “HIS” image we would all have serpent tails.Clearly the Father Jesus speaks of in the NT is NOT Yahweh/Jehovah. There is SO much I could write here but will leave it at that! Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.Everyone is deceived.

    1. You could have stopped at ‘something wasn’t right…’ because you have amply illustrated, indeed, that something isn’t right, just not with Catholicism.

      All the best….we’ll pray for you.

    2. “I am a recovering Catholic ….
      The Virgin Mary worshiped by Catholics”

      So.. you weren’t Catholic..?

      That would explain the non-biblical Lilith characters, LIES about Yahweh/the NT, multiple gods instead of the one mentioned in the Bible, God is actually Satan despite this being stupid nonsense, etc.

      I can’t even figure out enigmas like you. I only conclude that someone SO LOST is obvious under some kind of wrath.

    1. Protestantism is freemasonry! Are you all crazy??

      Oops. I thought we were all just blurting out assertions like they’re true.

  10. Elizabeth:

    “Luciferian”…that’s mighty big word for “u.” Did Parster help you with your spellin’?

    Excuse me now, I am going to take a nap. Wake me up just before the Rap-chure. Thanks for your support.

    1. Suggest research on the ‘rapture’ it is a byproduct of Jesuit doctrine to deflect focus away from the Protestant interpretation of Daniel and Revelation , which maintains the Roman system as the ‘antichrist’.

      1. John Nelson Darby….founder of the Plymouth Brethren….formulator of both Dispensationalism and the concept of the rapture…was a Jesuit?

        Now I have heard everything….

  11. the papacy is the beast of revelations and the 10th horn from Daniel controlling the world behind the scene by the Jesuits and free masons setting up the devils kingdom which Jesus is going to destroy.They believe Lucifer is the first born son of God.The world is being decievd.This is the truth I got from 32nd degree free mason do your own research and put your faith in the only son of God Jesus Christ.The pope and the cardinals and priest are very satanic.I pray in Jesus name that all see these wolves in sheep clothing before it’s to late

    1. Soooo…a “32nd degree Mason” told you that the Freemasons and the Jesuits are working together to set up the Devil’s Kingdom?” Wow. I always thought the Masons and Catholics didn’t cotton to each other. Brilliant maskirovka, I say!

      You must be a very important person for him to have broken trust and revealed such dangerously momentous information, and you really have a warning to deliver. Tell you what…

      You know them there Catholics are subverted and just plain lost, lost. Your message is wasted here. Could even get Opus Dei looking for you, if you know what I mean. Now, there is a properly righteous online Parster named James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries who would love for you to go to his chat board and pass on the News, both good and bad. Would reach many more Christian brothern and sistern than you’ll ever see in this nest of Cat’lik vipers.

      There’s not a moment to lose, brother…and good luck to you!

      1. Gotta love the blatant little lies (“This is the truth I got from 32nd degree free mason”) threw in for all them credibilities. 3/10 creativity but still. It’s cute if, not just a little bit too sad to laugh at.

  12. So was the king of Babylon in the Garden of Eden? No, but Lucifer was. Read Is 14 in context. The Roman system is Luciferian or Satanic more accurately. Rev18 describes it as being completely possessed by devils, once we establish the consistancy of Prophetic interpretation. Interestingly the Jesuits have targeted prophecy applying decoy interpretation which most evangelical churches have fallen for.

    1. Do these wayward souls (ignorant people) not recall that it was Peter or as we know him St. Peter invented the Catholic church? And that Catholicism is the oldest and longest lasting sect of christianity?

      1. Well, what you said may be tradition. Test it to Scripture.

        Amos 3:7 says that God does nothing without first telling His prophets. So may I present the challenge of where God says that He will create a new religion/congregation outside of Israel? It is taught that Catholicism and Christianity are separate or have replaced Israel correct?

        1. “So may I present the challenge of where God says that He will create a new religion/congregation outside of Israel? ”

          I’d say Matthew 16:18 and the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 pretty well has that covered.

          However, if you want to dispute, I’d say that unless you are Jewish (Jones? What was it before? Jonesky? Jonestein?) you are in trouble as an outlander identifying as Christian….

          1. Matthew 16:18 and Acts 15 aren’t the prophets. You have to find something in the “Old Testament”.

          2. You saying that Matthew and Acts are not divinely inspired?

            Not sure why you are focusing on the Prophets, looking for direct prefiguring of the Catholic Church? The main task of the Prophets, over and over again, was to warn Israel away from their sinful ways, and then, when it was too late, to advise them to take their punishment as an opportunity to repent and thus become a people worthy of bringing forth the Messiah.

            I smell strawman…..

          3. Amos 3:7 says that God does not do anything without first telling it to the prophets. So I’m asking you tell tell me where God revealed to His prophets that Israel would be replaced by the Catholic church.

            The prophets did a whole lot more than just warn Israel about there sins. They prophecy about the latter days as just one example.

            Who do you think the Bereans tested Paul to? There was no “New Testament” then…So they tested it Paul’s message to the “Old Testament” which definitely includes the prophets.

          4. Amos, huh? So where did God, through the Prophets, prefigure Martin Luther? Calvin and Hus? The Second Great Awakening (or the first, for that matter)? Charles Taze Russell? AJ Tomlinson? Pastor Ted Haggard and New Life Church? Dispensationalism? Millenialism? The Rapture? Or 30,000+ denominations?

            Come back to me with ‘Catholicism not in the Prophets” when you’ve tackled those…..

          5. No no, don’t try and dodge the question. I asked for a SINGLE place where God told us through the prophets where the Catholic church would replace Israel, which is FOUNDATIONAL to Catholic beliefs. That should be much easier to answer than the MANY things you asked me to find in the prophets that are NOT FOUNDATIONAL to my beliefs.

            Secondly I shouldn’t have to find those examples…I’m sure we both believe that God does not lie and that Amos 3:7 is true…In short we both belief the truth of God inspired Scripture. So why do I need to find all these examples for a verse that we both very likely already believe is true?

            If you’re not sure how to answer my question then that’s totally fine….Just admit that and go look into it. I don’t necessarily expect people to answer me back immediately and i hope that they don’t expect that of me either. But I do hope that people have a desire to follow God so that they will actually look into these things and then come back to me with an answer.

            I’ve asked Protestants about Amos 3:7 before and their reaction is always the same as yours – they don’t k ow how to answer me so they ask me a question that essentially asks me to prove Amos 3:7 is true…But again why should I have to do that when we both believe Amos 3:7 to be the inspired word of God?

            And thanks for the compliment 😄

          6. Cjones….by the way….there’s a lot of screaming incoherent ranters in blog-land. I try to engage only the posters who don’t fit that description, and who make me think. Take that as a compliment.

          7. CJ…you posit one questionably cherry-picked quote and make it a requisite proof of a whole faith. That, CJ, is what we call a strawman….an indefensible fake target set up just so it can be knocked down. I call BS, especially on YOUR deflection…

            Look in context…I say again, both that you are misconstruing the purpose of the quote, which is to establish the authority of the Prophets as they warned Israel away from idolatry (which must have been quite an uphill battle), and **not** to provide an entry point for proof-texting every permutation of follow-on theological event dreamed up by one of the post-Reformation +30,000.

            And even if your obviously flawed interpretation of Amos 3:7 is correct, who said that God, having told his Prophets **everything** that was to occur in the following 2500 years, told them to recount it all in Scripture? Where is THAT in the Bible?

            You, therefore, are misusing Scripture for your own purposes…not that that is any surprise, and makes your question by definition
            a strawman that merits no response.

            And….you’re welcome 😉

          8. Being in agreement with the prophets is most definitely a requirement for one’s faith – at least the core, foundational beliefs, such as the Catholic church replacing Israel. That’s why the Bereans tested the gospel to Scripture (again there was no “New Testament” at the time, there was only the “Old Testament” – the Law and Prophets to test the gospel to) and Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-20 that the house of God is built on the apostles AND PROPHETS. Being in agreement with the prophets is a very important thing and is one way we test whether a belief is from God or not.

            That said, whether you want to argue if God told the prophets to write everything down in Scripture or not, it seems God at least tells them to write down enough to test the foundational issues. I have a hard time believing that God would communicate something to the prophets and not tell them to write it down or tell it to Israel – after all the prophets are God’s messengers…so what’s the point of communicating a message and then not sending it…what’s the point of the prophets if not to relay God’s message??) You have the prophets specifically being called messengers in some verses (2 Chronicles 36:15). Why would a messenger be given a message and be told not to communicate it for either present generations, future generations, or both? I can’t think of an example of this in the Bible.

            So, to make sure I understand: you believe I’m taking Amos 3:7 out of context by saying that God doesn’t do anything without first telling His prophets IN GENERAL. Rather, you argue that God only tells His prophets of what He’s going to do beforehand in the context of punishing Israel for their sins. However, Isaiah 45:19, 46:10, and 48:16 give further support that God has said nothing in secret FROM THE BEGINNING IN GENERAL (side note: it’s interesting that Jesus echos this in John 18:20).

            In Jeremiah 31:37 God says that He will not reject Israel. You have Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 specifically talking about covenants with Israel (Abraham’s descendants). If a new group of people (the Catholic church) replaced Israel, then why would that not be specifically mentioned in the prophets like Genesis 17 (Moses) and Jeremiah 31? It was worthy of mention in Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31, why would it not be worthy of mention with a new group of people?

          9. CJ – I think we are getting circular, and may have reached the point where, as a past colonel boss used to say, you may want to stop giving that dead horse an enema….not that it hasn’t been enjoyable and educational.

            First of all, you assert “being in agreement with the Prophets is…. a requirement for one’s faith” ….I will re-quote Aquinas and, like you, assert the validity of knowledge of and study of the OT as necessary and imperative precursor to understanding of the entire sweep of God’s hand in history, including of course the NT (I have run into some subdivisions of the 30,000 who believe that study of the OT is not only unnecessary, but bordering on sinful….sigh…). Where I disagree with you is, your out-of-context interpretation of the Amos quote (3:7). Here’s my considered observation of your proposal. I think you have found this quote, and see it as a kind of Holy Grail of faith provenance around which you have arranged a menagerie of interlocking strawmen – those being faiths other than yours – to knock down with this quote when they can’t meet your impossible interpretational standard, leaving only One Man Standing – you. The assertion to which I hold – backed up by pretty much any kind of credible Biblical scholarship, Protestant or Catholic, to which you may want to make reference – is this: Amos was one of the 12 minor prophets (an accepted designation of Biblical scholars, not something AK invented) whose *main charge* was to warn Israel to get and stay on track, and failing that, to take their punishment and repent. Yes there was more, most notably Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, but Amos? Not seeing it and I challenge you to find me a Biblical scholar who does. Amos foremost task was to transmit God’s judgement on six foreign nations (Amos 1:3-2:16), then Judah, then Israel.

            Please look at the preceding and following verses to Amos 3:7, as well as the verse itself. These are directed at the Jews of Samaria against whom ‘the lion will roar, describing the coming judgement – in very graphic terms – against especially the Jews of Samaria, capital of the northern Kingdom (Amos 3: 9-12). Nothing here even hints at prophecies beyond these times or purposes…and your use of language in your post “it seems….” and “I have a hard time believing” tells me that you are trying – in my opinion, based on Biblical scholarship, not how I feel – you are trying to pound a square theological peg into a round Biblical hole, to prove a point which I have found nowhere else but which seems to make sense to you.

            CJ, that’s what we call proof-texting. If it works for you, great. but I don’t see it as sound Biblical scholarship.

            Let me throw one back at you. It’s obvious you’re not Catholic, and so I feel safe in assuming you don’t believe in Transubstantiation and Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist. How can you justify that (non) belief in light of the painfully and graphically clear language not only of John 52-29, but of Paul in 1 Cor 11:27, and even of early Church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 7 & 8, and to the Philadelphians, Ch. 4? There’s more, of course….but…if you dismiss all preceding as ‘just metaphor’ or something similar as I have had others tell me in the past, then you are guilty of that which you accuse me re: Amos 3:7 – ignoring what seems to be very clear in favor of my own interpretation. .

            So….off to do other things. Been a very good exercise in apologetics – have a blessed Sunday.

          10. If you disagree with how I’m quoting Amos 3:7 that’s fine and we can skip that for now although I would like to point out that you did not address the three verses in Isaiah that I quoted that seem to say the same thing.

            If you don’t mind spending a little more time on the topic I was really asking about – the belief that the Catholic church has replaced Israel – then I would ask what evidence you have for this belief. Don’t worry about Amos 3:7…Just show me your evidence for the Catholic church replacing Israel.

            Lastly, let’s say that I declare that I’ve received a new revelation that God has replaced the Catholic church with a new body. How would you use Scripture to test this claim as the bereans would have done (and remember that the Scripture back then was only the “Old Testament”).

            Thanks for the source of the scholarship you referenced. I’ll say that I’m neither Catholic or Protestant or even Christian so which denomination the source comes from doesn’t really matter to me. Regardless…I’ll give it a read to see more of what you’re referring to😄.

          11. CJ – you use the example of the Bereans to posit that the Catholic Church has to pass some sort of Scriptural test to justify its existence as the New Israel. I disagree. The Bereans, having been evangelized by St. Paul, ‘searched the Scriptures’ and if I had to guess, probably saw the similarities between the life of Jesus as taught by Paul and so many of the OT writings that prefigured His life, and especially His death and Resurrection. And were convinced. If you are not familiar with these – and it seems you are – a simple google search or Biblical concordance will get that info for you. But I don’t see the connection between current Church legitimacy and Acts 17:10-12.

            The Catholic Magisterium is the authentic teaching authority of the Church, by virtue of the apostolic authority passed down from Jesus to Peter and thence to all Popes from that time and this. That, and not any specific, possibly contrived and faulty ‘Scriptural test,’ is the source of Catholic authenticity and belief. The manual, so to speak, of the Catholic Church is the Catechism, and each of its canons can be traced to Scripture or an associated Church tradition. At the end of this thread I have a post, 1 April @10:03, which talks a bit about the Scriptural sources of Church authority – I invite you to read it, so I don’t have to retype – so you know why I put Church Tradition on a par with Scripture. There’s also plenty of Scripture and writings of early Church fathers support this point of view.

            Being non-Christian you may or may not understand this is a major sticking point between Catholicism and Protestant denominations of Christianity. For this, and your hypothetical revelation I would apply the Gamaliel test. Gamaliel was a learned 1st century rabbi, a teacher of Saul (later St. Paul) who proposed this test of Christianity. He said, basically, to leave them alone. If they are not of God, they will wither and disappear. If they are of God, they will flourish and any fighting we do against them would be both wrong and futile.

            We will all know in God’s own time. In the meantime, I am quite OK with my chosen path; and the Church doesn’t seem o tbe going anywhere anytime soon.

            Hope this all helps. You have a good rest-of-Sunday.

          12. The Catholic church and any belief for that matter most definitely needs to pass a Scriptural test. The Bereans are praised in Acts 17 because they tested Paul’s message to Scripture (the “Old Testament” at the time).

            Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-20 that this “house of God” (the church) stands on the apostles and prophets. Regardless of whether you agree with me that the Catholic church needs to test it’s foundation to Scripture, Paul says that this “house of God”, which the Catholic church claims to be, is based on the prophets. So, if any organization claims to be the “house of God” they need to prove their existence based on the prophets.

            You said “That [the Catholic Magisterium], and not any specific, possibly contrived and faulty ‘Scriptural test,’ is the source of Catholic authenticity and belief. The manual, so to speak, of the Catholic Church is the Catechism, and EACH OF ITS CANONS CAN BE TRACED TO SCRIPTURE OR AN ASSOCIATED CHURCH TRADITION” and also “…which talks a bit about the SCRIPTURAL SOURCES of Church authority – I invite you to read it, so I don’t have to retype – SO YOU KNOW WHY I PUT CHURCH TRADITION ON PAR WITH SCRIPTURE”. These statements contradict themselves. You say that the Catholic church does not need any Scriptural basis for it’s existence, yet you say that each of its beliefs can be traced to Scripture. Which one is it? If it’s based on Scripture (“Old Testament” again), then show me where in the prophets it says that the Catholic church will replace Israel. If it’s not based on Scripture, then it’s just church tradition and isn’t the “house of God” that Paul is referring to in Ephesians 2:19-20 as being built on the prophets.

            Here’s some examples from the prophets that opposes the idea of the Catholic church replacing Israel:
            1) Jeremiah 31:36-37: ” ‘Only if these decrees [the sun, moon, and stars] vanish from my sight,’ declares the LORD, ‘will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.’ declares the LORD.This is what the LORD says: ‘Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done’ ”

            2) Jeremiah 33:20-26: “The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: ‘Have you not noticed what these people have said? They say, ‘The LORD has rejected the two families [Israel and Judah] He had chosen.’ My people are treated with contempt and no longer regarded as a nation among them. This is what the LORD says: ‘If I do not keep My covenant with the day and with the night and fail to establish the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I might also reject the seed of Jacob and of My servant David — not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Instead, I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’ ”

            It’s clear God has said He has no intention of rejecting or replacing Israel. In addition, you have Paul (although not a prophet) clearly saying in Romans 11 that we (Gentile believers) are grafted in to Israel. How is Israel replaced when we’re being grafted into Israel?

            Lastly, if your foundation is not based on Scripture and just tradition, then you’re in danger of what Jesus says in Mark 7:9: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”. If Catholicism is not based on the prophets and just tradition, then it’s no different than Jesus’ statement here that was directed at the Pharisees. The Pharisees had raised their tradition, which was not based on the Law or prophets, to the status of God’s Word – just like how the Catholic church is doing that with their tradition if it is not based on the prophets.

          13. One more thought…WHERE did you cook up the idea that something in the Gospels is invalid if it’s not repeated in at least two other places? On the basis of the out-of-context – both Scriptural and historical – ‘three witnesses” quotes from Deuteronomy and Corinthians? Oh wow….you just invalidated a large percentage of the Gospels, all by yourself, again something I have seen **nowhere** else. One more time…good luck with that….

            As for “rocks”….”YOU are the Rock….” Not Jesus. Not dalse gods nor teachings…a man, backed up by Jesus’ commission to Peter in John 21:17. Seems clear enough to me, as I suppose your interpretation does to you.

        2. PS…if you have questions about the ‘scholarship’ to which I refer, you can start with “The Message of the Prophets,” (2010) written by J. Daniel Hays, edited by Tremper Longman III, both of whom I can guaran-damn-tee ain’t Catholic. Publicly praised by Ph.D-level faculty of at least five Protestant theological institutes and seminaries.

          1. My final thought…if God applies the rules of documenting His Will consistently to the OT and NT (and if He doesn’t, then where in the Bible is *that?*) and your assertion about Amos 3:7 is true, then what of John 21:25?

          2. CJ – this discourse started out with what I identified as a demonstrably false premise, that an entire Faith can be judged on one out-of-context biblical verse. Now, I don’t have time at this point to go on a long cherry-picking expedition re: your attack on the validity of Church tradition and thus, the propriety of private Scriptural interpretation alone as a determinant of theological validity. This then doesn’t explain 1 Cor 1:2, nor 2 Thess 2:15, nor Jn 21:25. Or 2 Peter 1:20n or several others I could ‘cherry-pick.’ Do as you like with these clear defenses of Church tradition…ignore, or convolute as you like.

            In another post, you said you didn’t belong to any Church. Well, that flies in the face of Matt 16:18, and all the actions of the Apostles and the following Church Fathers who went around establishing, nurturing, and writing letters to…Churches. I guess that whatever permutation of “CJ; CJones; Chris; whom I am addressing feels he is above what was established by Scripture. If you want to appear here under six different CJones monikers, and cling to a single idea in hopes of invalidating the Catholic Church, please feel free. You may have the last word.

          3. Yeah, I agree that we’ve come to the breaking point in this debate.

            You continue to want to dodge the question about showing the Scriptural (which is the “Old Testament”) basis for the Catholic church (which was my original question – not Amos 3:7, which was just support). None of those “New Testament” verses you quoted are Scripture as the context of the “New Testament” defines Scripture (there was no “New Testament” at the time, so the Biblical definition of Scripture is the “Old Testament”). And even though you say there is Scriptural/Old Testament backing to establish the Catholic church as the “house of God” (aka the church) that Paul refers to in Ephesians 2:19-20 as being based on the prophets, you don’t want to quote any of that to me….hmmm O.o

            I said I didn’t belong to any mainstream church. I didn’t say I didn’t belong to the church, which I believe is very clearly Israel, which we are grafted into per Romans 11 and that God says He will never reject per Jeremiah 31 and 33 and Psalm 94:14. Again, Scripture as defined in the “New Testament” is actually the “Old Testament”, so Matthew 16:18 isn’t a Scriptural foundation in that context.

            I must have touched a nerve if you’re going to bash me about mistakenly having different names on this website. There’s no user login, so pardon me for forgetting what name I used last time….how petty lol. I said earlier of a saying I heard that the first person in a debate to resort to name-calling has lost the debate…you didn’t call me a name, but you’re sure getting close here by resorting to something as trivial as me not remembering what name I put my last post under lol.

          4. “I must have touched a nerve if you’re going to bash me about mistakenly having different names on this website. There’s no user login, so pardon me for forgetting what name I used last time….how petty lol.”

            Well, forgive my mistaking your confusion for an attempt to sew confusion. Not that that has ever been tried on this site.

            And it’s OK, you couldn’t begin to touch any nerve of mine….I have been worked over by real full-body-context proof-texters. And I am still here. 😉

            In any case..I hold to my assertion that you are creating strawmen, unsupported by any credible Biblical scholarship (something you haven’t addressed) for all the reasons I put forth in the past.

            But since you asked, here’s your clear Prophetic-reference to the future Catholic Church, not that it’s necessary, but there it is, Peter given the Keys clearly foreshadowed by the ‘elevation’ of the servant Elcias (remember the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas). Enjoy:

            Isaiah 22: 20-25 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

            20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,

            21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

            22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

            23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.

            24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.

            25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

            A clear foreshadowing of this, Matt 16:18-19:

            18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

            19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

          5. You’re going to have to find something a lot better than Isaiah 22. Here’s why:

            The covenants made with Israel in Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31 are very direct. They come straight from the mouth of God (in the case of Genesis 17) and with a “Thus says God” in the case of Jeremiah 31. Covenants are very important and these and others (the covenant made with Noah for instance in Genesis 9) are very direct, clear, and straight from the mouth of YHWH (or are prefaced with “thus says God” like in Jeremiah 31). There’s no instances I can think of where grey, “foreshadowing”-like language is used. Basically, Isaiah 22’s language, if you’re going to try to connect it to Matthew 16:18, doesn’t follow the same pattern as previous times were God makes covenants. Isaiah 22 is just an example of Eliakim taking the place of Shebna and it happens to use the same sayings/phrases as Matthew 16:18.

            On the topic of the Genesis 17 covenant, it’s mentioned as being an “everlasting” covenant three times – Genesis 17:7, 17:13, and 17:19. How can Israel be replaced and the Genesis 17 covenant replaced if it is an everlasting covenant? In addition, as I said before there are numerous examples of God saying He will never reject Israel and that they will always be His inheritance (Jeremiah 31:37, Jeremiah 33:24-26, and Psalms 94:14).

            To rely on a very grey interpretation of Isaiah 22 in the face of all this evidence is very foolish, in my opinion.

            Now, concerning Matthew 16:17-19: similar to what I said about Isaiah 22, I think it’s foolish to rely so heavily on these few verses as the foundation for the Catholic religion.

            First, Matthew 16:17-19 is not echoed in Mark 8:29-30 and Luke 9:20-22.

            Second, rocks are mentioned many times throughout the Bible and usually refer to a person’s god, whether it be God or some false god. See Deuteronomy 32:3-4, 32:15, 32:18, 32:30-31, 32:37 for some examples. Jesus also mentions a rock in Matthew 7:24-25 and it refers to Jesus’/God’s teachings. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that the rock that God has Moses split in the wilderness is Jesus (God). In short, all Biblical examples that I can think of where a rock is referred to are talking about God, a false god, or the teachings of God/Jesus. To summarize, the rock in Matthew 16:17-19 (that is not found in Mark or Luke) is referring to Jesus Himself (or the belief that He is Messiah), who is God, which agrees with how “rock” is used in the passages I cited here. To say that the rock is Peter (or any man for that matter) goes against all these examples and more.

            Lastly, even if you do cling to Isaiah 22 as support for the misinterpretation of Matthew 16:17-19, Biblically you need to find one or two more examples to support you’re position. According to Deuteronomy 19:15, God says that one witness is not sufficient evidence and that any matter is established by 2-3 witnesses. Paul quotes this standard in 2 Corinthians 13:1 also. Further, it’s the concept that Jesus is applying when He speaks in Matthew 18:19-20 (2-3 people can test a request before asking God).

            Overall, if you’re testing whether the Catholic church is founded on the prophets and is the “house of God” that Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:19-20 and you rely on Isaiah 22 as evidence of the prophetic foundation, then that is extremely weak “evidence” to base the Catholic church on.

          6. “You’re going to have to find something a lot better than Isaiah 22.”

            ummm….no, I don’t. Just like you can cobble together some verses from the OT and try to build a proof of..what?

            “In Jeremiah 31:37 God says that He will not reject Israel. You have Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 specifically talking about covenants with Israel (Abraham’s descendants). If a new group of people (the Catholic church) replaced Israel, then why would that not be specifically mentioned in the prophets like Genesis 17 (Moses) and Jeremiah 31? It was worthy of mention in Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31, why would it not be worthy of mention with a new group of people?”

            So, the message I get from all this back-and-forth and obscure OT verse-correlating is that, if I replace (the Catholic Church) in the cut/paste above, with **something,** because **something** replaced Israel after the sacrifice of the Cross; after all the Jews then are still Jews today and most of the ones I know who are no-kiddin’ Jews don’t believe in anything concerning Jesus. I guess the **something** is whatever CJ and his fellows believe, and not Catholicism. I get you think that. If you want to hold to your belief that OT-NT foreshadowing doesn’t exist (except maybe where you say it does), and no one but you and your fellows pass the obscure and convoluted OT-based smell test of theological validity you have basically created, and which in many years of Biblical research I have seen nowhere else…well, good luck with that and the Gamaliel test of both our belief sets.

            You may have the last word.

          7. Last time you said I could have the last word, you kept responding….but hopefully that won’t be the case this time, because I’m starting to get tired of this conversation.

            You said: “As for “rocks”….”YOU are the Rock….” Not Jesus. Not dalse gods”.

            There is no “you” in Matthew 16:18 (and 16:18-19 doesn’t appear in Mark 8 or Luke 9). The quote is “upon this rock I will build my church”. Again, no “you” referring directly to Peter like you quoted incorrectly.

            I didn’t understand much of what you were saying in response to what I said about Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31, but you seem to think that the Jewish people are Israel and that I’m referring to them when I say “Israel”. That is not the case. Israel, Biblically-speaking, are the descendants of Abraham (but can be cut off as you’ll see in this paragraph) but has always been open for anyone to be grafted into. That’s why you have verses like Joshua 8:33 showing Israel is comprised of natives and sojourners and verses like Numbers 15:15 where the same Law applies to both native and sojourner. Another example that anyone can be grafted into Israel is Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba who David killed. Uriah is know as “the HITTITE”. In Exodus 33:21, God says that He is driving out the Canaanites, Amorites, HITTITES, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites from the land before Israel. Therefore, Uriah is an example of a Gentile who was grafted into Israel and lives by the same Law as the native Israelites. There are also plenty of examples of how one can be cut off from Israel (see Exodus 12:15 for one example). All that to say, not all the Jewish people are Israel and Israel has always been open to and comprised of Gentiles/sojourners if they want to join. One group is not above the other….there is no distinction between native and sojourner – one Law applies to both.

            To call what I’m quoting from the “Old Testament” (a man-made distinction) as being cobbled together is ridiculous. My reasoning is very straight-forward. I presented Ephesians 2:19-20 as a challenge to show me where the Catholic church (as some claim to be the “house of God” mentioned here) is based on the prophets (what you call the “Old Testament”). I proceed to give many examples from the Law and Prophets of how Israel cannot be replaced and argued against your interpretation of Matthew 16:18. You then decide to say that it’s unnecessary to have any prophetic support even though Paul clearly says it’s needed in Ephesians 2:19-20 and then you just brush aside all of the Scripture I’ve quoted that is clearly problematic to your beliefs.

            Let readers discern and test these things for themselves.

          8. Well, CJ, our theological differences notwithstanding, I wish you and yours a peaceful, prayerful, and blessed Holy Week.

  13. Just use the KJV. Don’t be tricked by those funny versions. Lucifer is correctly called son of the morning, not morning star in Isaiah 14: 12.
    On the other hand, its Jesus who calls Himself Bright Morning Star in Revelation 22:16.
    Also, Lucifer means light bearer. And pope saying light bearer, Lucifer, however in hidden in plain extinct Latin, he is simply referring to the same Lucifer.

    Jesus Christ is the Lord.

    1. Yes, nothing like a Bible where the writer names it after himself. KInda like certain religions that are named after the founders instead of the Originator.

  14. proof is in the pudding,,live in any catholic society and see the suffering pain and a cesspool of sex homosexuality drugs and poverty . have you been to mexico, Brazil and almost all south america, even Italy northern Ireland you name it,, and that needs no explanation iis there to see… and is being done with one tool,NO BIRTH CONTROL,NO FAMILY PLANNING OVER POPULATION AND PRIEST NOT GETTING MARRIED. And the fools evevn in the US in the republican party are trying to block sex education and birth control..priest in the 3rd world equates using the condom with homicide ??? hard to believe but it is true. So the poorest of the poor will not use any family planning and having 10 kids or 12 pretty common that supplies the goods to sex trade and child trafficking. You know of course the clergy child molestation all over The world causing pope Benedict to resign to avoid more scandals ( he was the top cop in the church, moving the rapist priest from one city to the other without firing them or police report,all factual in US courts and proven beyond doubt). Have you ever asked , why Americans don,t run to Mexico to eat or get a job always Catholics run to a protestant country to survive?Mexico to US, Italians to Germany until recently . Irish to USA . etc…

    1. First, I need to say this is a such trove of malapropisms and tin-foil pseudo-syllogisms, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I won’t bother as I am a bit short on time, you won’t listen anyway, so this is a classic case of Matthew 10:14. Good luck to you.

      I do suggest you start by checking your proof-pudding for ergot fungus. Just wow….

  15. oh I forgot to mention,, Americans do run to Mexico, (or any Latin american country for that matter ). they do when they get paid to party and use the hooker of both sexes many children as well who are waiting around on the street corner for a 5 dolor sex experience. just to eat. Americans go there also to use illegal drugs or doing any evil thing imaginable that they can,t do in a protestant country like US. So need to evoke Lucifer.. people live that reality.in a Catholic country. and no sir , the light bearer and Christ are not the same. if you translate every word in Latin, it exactly match the English translation simply and clearly a prayer to Satan , But dont believe me you western catholic, simply quit your job and do not take any big saving to a catholic 3rd world( the 95 percent), but dont forget to take your teenn daughter LOL. because of over population and corruptionm No social security , no unemployment.no health insurance, plenty of guns ( almost sound like a republican utopia lol). withing a few month you will begin to starve and have to send baby Jane to service a tourist so you can eat and buy medicine!!!, then you will wake up to the reality.I am trying to explain.. ..

  16. Admittedly I’m new to this whole debate. So please take this as an honest question and not me trying to defame the pope.

    I’ve heard the argument that Lucifer is referring to Jesus in the Easter Exultet but if that’s the case then why does it say “Christus Fílius tuus” which is “Christ is your son”. If we’re already referring to Jesus as Lucifer then it seems like were then saying that Jesus is his own self’s son….that doesn’t make sense and seems to point to Lucifer being someone other than Jesus. I haven’t come across a site, that defends the the Easter exultet, mention this part of the prayer.

    Can you clarify that?

    1. Gladly.

      The Latin “Christus filius tuus” doesn’t mean “Christ is Thy Son”. It means, “Christ Thy Son”. Christ *is* your son would be “Christus filius tuus est”.

      Read the prayer in Latin and English on Wikipedia, In sorry I’ve no better link right now as I’m not at a computer. It’ll show that ” Christ your Son” is referring to that same morning star.

      Not that the whole prayer is literally the opposite of Satanic, haha.

      God bless.

  17. Can we just go back to the understanding that a majority of Catholic doctrine has no biblical basis whatsoever.
    For instance where in any scriptures was the catholic heirarchy laid out? The answer is nowhere.
    Why do they elevate Mary to the staatus of goddess in prayer, i do not remember yeshua stating anything about the divinity of his mother.
    Research a man named simon magus and you will come closer to the truth of the abominable catholic church.
    I urge any catholic to study just the bible and look for the origins of your own doctrines because they simply are not there

    1. Can you just leave and join your friend Rose riding the disoriented express to nowhere?

      Because it would-not-matter if every poster here laid out a clear response to every weirded-out, debunked, and baseless accusation that just dropped from your brain to your keyboard like a penny gumball machine works…you have no eyes to see nor ears to hear.

      1. To be fair, I think Greg presents a good challenge whether it’s offensive or not – it’s best to test everything to Scripture.

        I heard a saying once that, in a debate, the one who calls the other a name first has lost the debate…Because they no longer have any arguments to support their points.

        No matter how right a teaching or tradition may seem in our own eyes always test it to Scripture. I’ve found some of the radiations I was taught growing up in the church to be completely without support.

        Just wanted to say that.

          1. Mark 7 Verses 5-9. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

            6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

            7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

            8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

            9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition
            As you can see, Yeshua has very clear views on this subject. I only ask for a reflection upon why people believe what they believe. Is it because they were taught? Or because they read it in the true word and decided upon it for themselves?

          2. Posted by CJones April 2, 2017 @7:03: “I’m neither Catholic or Protestant or even Christian ….”

            I am curious…..if you’re not a Christian why are you testing *anything* to Scripture, which should have no inherent legitimacy for you?

            Is it just that there are multiple ‘C – Chris or otherwise – Jones’ out there or is something else going on?

          3. Yes, you’re on to us – we are a group of Jones’ lol :D.

            Sorry, I should have said that I don’t IDENTIFY as a Christian, Catholic, or Protestant. I am still a believer in Jesus as the Son of God, but my views after that differ a good amount from any of these mainstream groups. I believe Scripture (which in the context of the Bible is the “Old Testament”) is what all beliefs must be based on to hold any legitimacy.

            Hope that clears things up some :).

        1. Chris, I hear you, but read what I said.

          These accusations – at best vicious strawmen postings or at worst, regurgitation of the invented maunderings of sick, haggis-fed Calvinist psychotics – have been Scripturally and historically refuted, time and again. Do we ever hear an “a-ha, that sounds reasonable” or “hmmm..I’ll think about that” or even “I disagree but thanks for chatting” from the mouth-breathing posters? Nope…just more and lower insults aimed at the Holy Father, priests in general, the Blessed Mother of God, the Catholic Church, etc etc.

          After awhile, one runs out of cheeks and buys a sword.

          1. Look around on this blog….you will see good examples of civil – and quite educational – discourse amongst Catholics and Protestants….and the other, less palatable permutations of same.

            I trust you will see and note the difference.

          2. I fail to see any references to back up any of the Catholic doctrine in your response. What I DO see however is an ad hominem attack to the mere question I pose, Show me biblicly any chapter and verse that back up things such as confessional, the necessity of Mary in attonement, etc.

            I gave chapter and verse reference to a clear point that blindly following tradition for traditions sake is not only dangerous but wrong. When you deconstruct the traditions what is left at the core is akin to idolatry and placing men and mental constructs in the place of our one true savior and our father God.

            That is until you can reference those traditions with chapter and verse to back up their origin and practice.

  18. One man’s ad hominem is another’s frustrated observation. So many of your brethren have absolute contempt for Catholicism and it shows here. So I simply document it in appropriate language. Note the credit I give to reasoned discourse between the majority of Protestants and Catholics, above. But when I see some on your side angrily and arrogantly quoting from debunked, sloppy “history” like Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” (ever heard of it?)I ‘m going to call it out.

    Greg, I could show you a good Biblical reference, in Matthew 9, John 20, 2 Corinthians 5 and James 5, on confession. I could also show you not only chapter/verse references, but palpable threads from Scripture through the early Church Fathers, supporting Apostolic Succession that and the authoritative Church which together confers authority on the priesthood to administer sacraments like confession – look around at this blog, the latest thread had weeks of debate on just that subject.

    Mary? I could show you, not just cherry-picked verses, but references on the role of Queen Mother (Gebirah) going back to Solomon that prefigures the role of Mary, because the entire Bible is an exercise in foreshadowing, as Aquinas said, the New is prefigured in the Old, and the Old is unveiled in the New. And when you fail to bless and venerate (not worship) Mary, you are being un-Scriptural (Luke 1:48).

    Speaking of the Bible alone, where’s that in the Bible? And how does that demonstrably manufactured Lutherian doctrine square with, say, 1 Cor 11:2, or Jn 21:25, or Acts 20:35, the fact the Gospel is meant, not just to be read based on a technological construct (movable type) invented 1500 years after the death of Jesus, but spoken and taught by the ordained – “laid on of hands” (1 Tim 4:14) successors of Peter (oh, I am sorry I forgot, since we’re conferring Hebrew names on everyone, Shimon bar Jonah) and the Apostles, and those who have been taught by them, in the context of the Church that Christ intended in Mt 16:18.

    There’s more, but you get the idea. Here’s my humble analysis of the situation with many Protestant sects, especially the ones that sprang out of the so-called Second Great Awakening. You want your religion easy, packaged like a Marie Callenders dinner….just pop in a microwave and in 5 minutes you have a meal – not very nourishing, very temporarily filing, and leaving you thinking ‘I wish there were more…’ Catholicism is *work,* but in the end, it is the Feast…a grand buffet set before those who take the time to plan, shop, chop, peel, grate, saute, bake, broil…..that satisfies with the joy of preparing and partaking in the meal that makes one a real part of Christ’s Mystical Body.

    And Biblical cherry and apple picking does nothing but make you feel good for the moment, as you never get out of the trees, fail ever to climb the hill, to see the true expanse of the Divine Orchard with which you have been gifted.

    Plenty of really smart folks like Scott Hahn, Peter Kreft, Ulf Eckman, John Henry Newman, who have given up the TV dinner, become learned chefs of faith, and have taken the climb up the hill to see the whole Orchard.

    You wanted an answer that quoted Scripture, and was not ad-hominem. You got it. Hope you have a good and thoughtful day.

  19. What is truth? What is the point? To point to the Truth. The devil is the father of lies and in him is no truth at all. Be in the light as Our Father is love and light. The light barer is using the light of man to deceive by his policy. Words are SPELLED and used to Convey concepts of understanding for light or darkness. To seek words with duel meaning is double speak and a deceiving spirit. That is a lie of the prince of this world who appears as an angle of light but by his policy, laws, rules, statutes, edicts will cause craft to prosper in his hand. GOD’S Word is in the heart of all men who receive Him in truth. They need none to teach them. I think these bare witness of themselves when they calm to speak for light but speak of their god of this world. They have spoken what they meant to speak for that cause they intended, confusion of the masses. Elohim is not the author of confusion.

  20. If Lucifer literally means “Light bearer” as you say, then, Jesus should not be called by that name. Because, He is not a light bearer, but the Light itself (John 1:4-9, 3:19-21, 9:5). A light bearer cannot understand the misery of the shinning light (John 1:5). So it was Satan (Lucifer) that was bearing Light in heaven before his fall. And immediately he sinned against God the light was taken away from him and was cast into the world. So it will amount to heresies if any man calls Jesus either Lucifer or the Son of Lucifer.

  21. Under all of these comments is ONE common thread. The passions for your beliefs. Regardless of how much you know (the tree of knowledge/tree of good and evil) putting aside ego (Lucifer thinking it is God) let us see what our commonalities are and how they might help us to understand each other instead of creating so much distance amoungst brothers and sisters our divine creator. There are so many semantics that can be tossed around. There is also a great deal of emphasis upon God being personified or affiliated with a specific gender for many. I’m not saying that you aren’t entitled to your beliefs. You are. We were granted the ability of decernment for good reason. But I don’t believe that worshipping fear was one of them. When we focus our attention upon something it becomes great. There are subtle symbolisms embedded into scripture. And many of them, I believe have been dramatically perverted by ego. This is just my observation. If ever there was a goal to separate us by the use of something so sacred as scripture, well, it seems that for many… Quite obviously this notion has gone straight over peoples heads. Not all, but many. Perhaps that will be motivation for us to fill in the gaps, the distances with an intention of compassion, tolerance, love. However the distances too, serve the purpose of a positive motivation to cultivate that balance. Therefore duality was ordained by God for many a good reason. Why then wouldn’t we have a right and left hemisphere of our God given brains? I am not attempting to manipulate or convince. I’m merely sharing my experiences. The example… The living mirror of God in the flesh was the embodiment of a unwavering compassion. Or as much compassion as a human being can muster. Do I believe Jesus was supernatural? Yes. I also believe there is a fine line between striving to be like God and believing we are. So much can be said. And so often, because we don’t want to seem a certain way… We filter ourselves… For the sake of others reactions. My understanding of God is of one who encourages my own progression of transparency unto it. (I say it because I don’t believe God to be a finite or personifiable being.) I believe God to be much more than even just a state of being. Again, just my experiences… Facts are very easily manipulated. Can you imagine over time how muchof scripture has been trudged through the contamination of the flesh? If this does not even subtley occur as a possibility to you, fine… No one asked you to keep reading this comment. If it seems like something that may be a possibility than here’s what I’m getting at. Am I seeing Gods world, through the eyes of an upbringing which is so heavily influenced by social stimuli? By materialism, propoganda? Instant gratification? Or am I seeing God’s world through the countless examples of God in the flesh? And my own personal experiences of miracles which occur through the grace of the holy (whole) spirit??? It’s not a lecture, its not a matter or I’m right you’re wrong or you’re right I’m wrong…it’s a matter the mirror Jesus was for God. And how, through prayer, through interactions and experiences …. Can I follow in the example if that living mirror?

  22. What is truth? What is the point? To point to the Truth. The devil is the father of lies and in him is no truth at all. Be in the light as Our Father is love and light. The light barer is using the light of man to deceive by his policy. Words are SPELLED and used to Convey concepts of understanding for light or darkness. To seek words with duel meaning is double speak and a deceiving spirit. That is a lie of the prince of this world who appears as an angle of light but by his policy, laws, rules, statutes, edicts will cause craft to prosper in his hand. GOD’S Word is in the heart of all men who receive Him in truth. They need none to teach them. I think these bare witness of themselves when they calm to speak for light but speak of their god of this world. They have spoken what they meant to speak for that cause they intended, confusion of the masses. Elohim is not the author of confusion

  23. a person:

    Just be sure to apply a test to know who is truly a brother and who is not. Jesus says that the one who does the will of the Father is His brother, sister, and mother (Matthew 12:50). The question now is what is the Father’s will? It’s Torah/the Law. Therefore, the one who walks according to Torah/the Law is our brother.

  24. The present christian is leading by the Satanism worshipper but the pure and tru church is Islamic.evri ting in God willing n the book is the holy Quran is save guiding. Inshalla.

  25. The present bible translation is not fully complet and direct by the satanism wok mean evri one is politicale religion just for making business. But the tru and the last church is the Islamic (Muslim) because Jesus is dresseup like a Muslims not like a christian.so evri christian who follow the morning star .the truth is that they follow the teaching of Lucifer giving by the Christan pastor and leader.

  26. Evri christian should search for truth because today christian is just go to church h for making soft .and never follow the christian principle evri christian country allow the sales of alcohol n consume the alcohol .and many other tings more and how the christian claim to follow the teaching of Christ.

    1. Yes, and if you don’t listen,we’ll cut your head off.

      Inshallah, y’all…

      We ain’t played cowboys and muslims proper yet, but it’s comin’….

      1. My question is why a Muslim is on a CHRISTIAN forum? Look we don’t want sharia law, we believe in Jesus Christ, and our holy book doesn’t call for bestiality and the brutalization of people not of our beliefs. There for the “Satan worshipers.” Would be your backwards religion and its radical leaders.

  27. I would like the catholics to use the Name JESUS CHRIST instate of Lucifer in their Easter prayers in order to stop this confusion amonst ourselves. We all know Lucifer as Satan, as ordinary JESUS worshiping people of GOD. Why is it difficult for Pope to use the Name JESUS CHRIST in Latin instate of Lucifer.

  28. You Catholics need to stop making excuses for this man. Anybody that knows anything about Jorge Mario Bergoglio, knows that he’s no saint. Infact quite the opposite. Look at his time in Argentina and you will see a pattern of collusion with death-dealers and child abusers. Plus, uh hello, he’s a Jesuit. Go ahead and a take a second to read the Jesuit Oath.

  29. There is no philosophy on right and wrong..clearly the pope and every one of you come on the behalf of the dragon and beast..And for your intellectual methods of deceptions The Most High is going to crush you….and throw you into the wind..Follow the commandments stop the speculation your time is almost up..

Leave a Reply to AK Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *