Throughout the ages, all peoples from all walks of life, from kings and rulers to servants and slaves, rich and poor alike have called on wizards, prophets, and seers to consult the moon, stars, tea leaves, and horoscopes; to get understanding that is beyond the human mind. Countless decisions have been made on the advice of some mystic claiming supernatural power, deciding marriages, wars, and alliances. However, no one single cult or organization has been so influential and far reaching as the Babylonian Mystery Religion that birthed them all.
Let us get down to the dirt. Contrary to the popular teaching of today (by the futurist), the anti-christ is not one political leader or some kind of literal monster at the end of time. The Babylonian Mystery Religion, like a chameleon, has manifested itself in many shapes and forms with one goal, to usurp the authority and deity of the One True God. Even so, only one stands out as fulfilling the apocalyptic prophecies.
For more than twelve centuries the succession of the Roman Pontiffs, who wear the triple tiara-crown (King of Heaven, King of Earth, and King of Hell), are the monarchs who have governed Papal Europe. They ruled as temporal sovereigns and united under their sway the ten kingdoms of Western Christendom. This is the clay in the feet of Daniel’s metal man. [Dan 2]
John Bunyan said:
“ANTICHRIST is the adversary of Christ; an adversary really, a friend pretendedly. So then Antichrist is one that is against Christ; one that is for Christ, and one that is contrary to him; (and this is that “mystery of iniquity.”) Against him indeed; for him in word; and contrary to him in practice. Antichrist is so proud, as to go before Christ; so humble as to pretend to come after him; and so audacious as to say that himself is he. Antichrist will cry up Christ; Antichrist will cry down Christ. Antichrist will proclaim that himself is one above Christ. Antichrist is the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition; a Beast that hath two horns like a lamb, but speaks as a dragon.” The Ruin of Antichristpage 13
The Titles of anti-christ
The word anti-christ can only be found in I and II John. Paul uses the terms son of perdition and the lawless one (or a better translation would be “Torah breaker”), II Thess 2. In Daniel 7 this same antichrist is called the little horn who speaks great words. Then in Daniel 11:36 the antichrist is known as the Willful King whereas John, in The Revelation 13, calls him the Beast from the earth. Now, let us examine each of these titles separately to discover their commonalties.
anti-christ I John 2:18-20, 4:1-6; II John 7
The entomology of the word anti-christ, is easily mistaken by English speaking persons to mean, that which is opposed to, or opposite. But this is not the case. The Greek word does not convey the idea of an enemy. It rather signifies one who is, in the stead of, or substitute, vice or vicar. A close example would be our own word vice-president; the person who holds this office speaks and acts for the President when the President is unavailable or indisposed. An example of this is found in the Chronicles of Zechariah of Mytilene (6th century, Ch. 1, par. 1, Burry’s Byzantine Texts). It says: “King Justin made his sister’s son who was General, Anti-Caesar, and Justinian became Anti-Caesar on the 5th day of the week in the last week of the fast.” Therefore, anti-christ will be anyone who takes the place of Christ, who stands in His stead, or claims to speak for Him.
“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know.” I Jn 2:18-20
Here antichrist is not one person, but many. They are not in our future, since they were already present and at work in the first century. The expectation of one, fantastic, political antichrist, who in the future will attack God’s people and control the world and its finances, was not known to John.
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” II Jn 7
The antichrist is any who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. They are liars and deceivers. Those who deny the true deity and humanity of Jesus Christ are antichrist! Now the word deny used by John (Ho arnoumenos, the one refusing) in no way implies atheism, or the denial of God’s existence. [Josh 24:27; Mt 10:33; II Tim 3:5; Tit 1:16]. It simply signifies the heretical departure from the truth. The word is consistently used in the New Testament and in the Septuagint. People, who, in any way, deny the basic truths of the scripture, are liars, and deceivers, in other words anti-christs.
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was a real man and God on earth, that He actually lived, died, and rose from the dead. Scripture teaches He ascended into heaven and He will truly come again, with a real, although glorified body. To deny these basic truths whether by dogma, doctrine, or practice is enough to be an anti-christ. Many Jews of the first century denied that Jesus was the Christ. Those within the Church, who invalidate or ignore the real humanity or deity of Christ by usurping Christ’s position and placing another in His stead, have also become anti-christs. John does not call them atheist, infidels, or unbelievers, but rather liars, deceivers, and anti-christs.
It is apparent, that the spirit of anti-christ is that which fosters teachings opposed to the basic truths of The Word. It is the spirit of falsehood and deceit, a departure from Christian truth, that of apostasy, not of atheism. The sin of anti-christ is neither physical nor moral. It is wholly spiritual; it is spiritual darkness [II Cor 4; I John 1:6-7]. Just as Judas, the archetype son of perdition was a thief and a traitor [Mat 16:6, 12; John 12:6, 17:12] we would anticipate that the anti-christ would be likewise. We do not read that Judas was evil or lived a scandalous life. It is a mistake to expect the anti-christ to be malevolent or heinous. No! The prophecy predicts that the sin of the little horn, the son of perdition, the Beast from the earth, or the anti-christ is a spiritual one. It is blasphemy as defined in the Bible that which discredits God’s name by usurping God’s attributes and functions or opposing and counterfeiting the Holy Spirit. This is the unforgivable sin. [Mt 12:31; Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10]
The Church of Rome has many dogmas, doctrines and practices that have no foundation in the teachings of Our Lord, the Apostles, or the Prophets. The following is just a short list of their teachings that are contrary to scripture. Although many of these beliefs were practiced earlier than the dates given, they did not become binding on Roman Catholics until they were officially adopted by the church and proclaimed by the popes as dogmas of faith. (earlier dates are approximate)
- 2nd cen Presbyters (or elders) were first called priest by Lucian
- AD 300 Prayers for the dead
- AD 375 The veneration or worship of angels and dead saints and the use of images
- AD 378 THE BISHOP OF ROME MADE PONTIFEX
- AD 394 The Mass as a daily celebration was adopted
- AD 431 The beginning of the exaltation of Mary, and the first use of the term Mother of God by the Council of Ephesus
- AD 431 Pope claims to possess the keys of Peter
- AD 500 Priest began to dress differently than the laity and to wear special clothes
- AD 526 Extreme Unction or Anointing of the Sick – One of the seven
- AD 533 Edict of Justinian, decreed that the Bishop of Rome was “head of all the holy Churches, and all the holy priests of God.”
Sacraments, in which a priest anoints and prays for one in danger of death
- AD 593 The doctrine of purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great
- AD 600 Prayers began to be offered to Mary, dead saints, and angels
- AD 610 The first man proclaimed with the title Pope (Boniface III)
- AD 788 Veneration of the cross, images, and relics authorized
- AD 850 Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest was authorized
- AD 890 Veneration of Saint Joseph
- AD 927 College of Cardinals begun
- AD 995 Canonization of dead saints by Pope John XV
- 11th cen The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance was made obligatory
- AD 1079 The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII
- AD 1090 Peter the Hermit introduced the rosary, or prayer beads (copied from Hindus and Mohammedan)
- AD1184 The Rosary was legalized, and later promoted by the Forth Lateran Council in 1215
- AD 1190 The sale of indulgences
- 12th cen The seven sacraments as defined by Peter Lombard
- AD 1215 The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III
- AD 1215 The Inquisition of Heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona
- AD 1215 Confession of sins to a priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council
- AD 1220 The adoration of the wafer (host) decreed by Pope Honorius III
- AD 1251 The scapular (a piece of brown cloth with a picture of the Virgin, supposed to contain supernatural power to protect those who wear it on naked skin from all danger) invented by Simon Stock of England
- AD 1439 The doctrine of purgatory proclaimed a dogma by the Council of Florence
- AD 1545 Tradition is declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent
- AD 1546 The Apocryphal Books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent
- AD 1585 Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera introduces the Futurist view of prophecies concerning anti-christ
- AD 1854 The Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX (this doctrine maintains that the Virgin Mary was in the first instance of her conception, preserved from all stain of original sin
- AD 1864 Pope Pius IX condemns all scientific discoveries not approved by the Roman Church
- AD 1870 Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the First Vatican Council
- AD 1930 Pius XI condemned the public schools
- AD 1931 Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is The Mother of God
- AD 1950 The dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius (the belief that Mary ascended bodily into heaven without dying)
- AD 1965 Mary proclaimed the Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI
It is enough : To neglect to teach the deity of Christ; to be anti-christ. II John 9
To neglect to confess the real humanity of Christ; to be anti-christ. I John 4:3
To neglect to declare that Jesus Christ is coming again in the flesh; to be anti-christ. II John 7
It is extremely important that we as Christians continually gain knowledge about, and test those around us who claim brotherhood with us. We cannot believe everything or everyone just because they claim to be a follower of Christ. The anti-christ will come from among us. Be wary!
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit, which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in, the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” I Jn 4:1-6
“The Son of Perdition” or “Torah Breaker”
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended sign and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” II Thess 2:1-12
These events must by their very nature be in chronological order. The order of the events in these prophecies must be in the same order as events in history. John says the anti-christ is already at work, but not yet revealed. So before the coming of the Lord all these things must take place:
- The rebellion (falling away) must come first
- The worship given to him must precede the execution of wrath upon his worshippers
- The persecution of those who oppose him must be before the presence of the martyrs in heaven
- The Son of Perdition’s career must come before his doom
- The restrainer must be taken out of the way before the son of Perdition can be revealed
First there must come the falling away. The Greek word translated falling away or rebellion is apostasia that means defection from the truth. This falling away does not refer to a falling away from religion into irreligion or atheism. It refers to a departure from, corruption of, or a going into error, regarding Christian doctrine. This does not take place in the pagan world. It is not Humanism, Hinduism, The One World Order, or any revolution in the secular world. It developed right in the professing Christian church and the corruption was already happening in the first century as stated in Acts 20:28-30, II Pet 2:1 and I John 4:3.
The Thessalonians [II Thess 2:1-3] knew what was keeping the man of sin from displaying his power. They did not need to be told what it was. In verse 6 what is restraining him is neuter, in verse 7 he who now restrains is masculine. So, the man of sin could not be revealed until someone controlling some power is taken out of the way. We must look into church history to find out what it was. This restraining power was The Roman Empire. All early church fathers agreed that Rome was the restraining power. (Tertullian, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, and Hippolytus just to name a few)
This restraining heathen imperial power was swayed by and centered in, a series of single persons, the Caesars (later known as emperors), one following another in succession. When Constantine, the Roman Emperor, removed the seat of power from the seven-hilled city of Rome to Constantinople, then the restraint began to be removed which had prevented the Bishops of Rome from exercising temporal power and promulgating anti-christian claims.
When the last Western Emperor was forced to abdicate in 476AD, Rome ceased to be the seat of imperial secular power, and the Bishops of Rome began to put forward claims that exactly correspond with the predictions of Daniel, Paul and John. The legs of iron (Rome) gave way to the feet of iron and clay (Ten Kingdoms under the rule of the anti-christ or the Papacy). Now the restraint was ek mesou- out of the way – of the one who would be king of the seven-hilled city.
Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, the contemporary of John, said; “he that hinders is the Roman Empire”. All the early church fathers are unanimous in this assertion. Why would Irenaeus and the early fathers make this up? It only brought them further persecution. Would they not have been better off making the Roman Empire the anti-christ, rather than the obstacle to the anti-christ?
“What was the restraint which, in Paul’s day, hindered the manifestation of the Man of the Apostasy? Tertullian, in the second century, said: “What is this restraining Power? What but the Roman State.” Similarly, Irenaeus affirmed that on the dismemberment of the Empire then in existence, the catastrophe would occur. So Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome in the fifth century- this last adding, “Let us therefore say what all ecclesiastical writers have delivered to us, that when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, ten Kings will divide the Roman world among themselves, and then will be revealed the Man of Sin”; “he who hindereth is taken out of the way, and we consider not that Antichrist is at hand.” So again, Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, the latter saying: “This (Rome) is the Fourth Beast, whose Head was wounded, and healed again; and Antichrist will heal and restore it.” Cyprian, likewise, spoke of the imminent proximity of Antichrist in his day.
It was this early Christian tradition that caused Christians to pray for the continuance of the heathen Roman Empire. Thus Lactantius: “Beseech the God of Heaven that the Roman State might be preserved, lest, more speedily than we supposed, that hateful tyrant should come.” So Chrysostom: “As Rome succeeded Greece, so Antichrist is to succeed Rome.” The Antichrist By Baron Procelli pg 49
Only one person could fill the office of Caesar. Yet there were many who, over time held that office. So it is with anti-christ, over time many have held the position, yet there is only one office of anti-christ, the papacy.
- He (the man of sin) was to reign at Rome. Why else would the Roman Empire be a hindrance?
- It wasn’t until after the fall of Imperial Rome that the wicked was to be revealed
- He was to come from Satan, by the activity of Satan [II Thess 2:9]
- He was to wield ecclesiastical power over the temple of God; we are the temple of the Holy Spirit [I Cor 6:19]
- He will come to his end with the coming of the Lord. [Dan 7:7-12, 25-27 regarding the beast and the little horn]
Why didn’t Paul come right out and name the restrainer? If the restrainer were indeed the Holy Spirit Paul would have said so. But the restrainer was not the Holy Spirit, as he well knew, and for him to write, in a public letter, that Rome Eternal would fall from power would have brought the early Christians into immediate conflict with the state, and persecution would have increased.
“In the year AD 595 Bishop Gregory 1st of Rome denounced the title ‘universal Bishop’ – claimed by his rival, John of Constantinople – as Antichristian. Somewhere between AD 606 and 610 Bishop Boniface III of Rome assumed that very title, accepting it from the Eastern Emperor Phocas, who was a usurper, a murderer, and had degraded Cyriacus, Patriarch of Constantinople, for a virtuous deed. The effect of this title upon the minds of ecclesiastics was soon apparent. As Jerome says; ‘When that which is temporal claims eternity, this is a Name of blasphemy.’ Within forty years Theodore I, Bishop of Rome, assumed a fresh title, that of ‘Sovereign Pontiff.’ He was the last Bishop of Rome whom bishops dared to call ‘brother.’ A great and Antichristian change had manifestly been affected. The ‘man of the Apostasy’ had ‘revealed’ himself, in his self-exaltation and pride.
… It is remarkable that 1260 solar years, from AD 606-610, reach to the downfall (1870) of Papal territorial power; and 1260 lunar years, from AD 646 reach to the Vatican Council of 1869, which proclaimed Papal Infallibility.” The Antichrist By Baron Porcellipage 52
The son of perdition is he that opposes God and exalts himself above all that is called God. He shows himself as God. The following is an excerpt from the famous Unum Sanctum written by the Roman Catholic Church. In it the Pope claims to be the ONE head of the church, this making him Christ on earth.
“We are compelled to believe with urgent faith and to hold one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Therefore, the one and only Church has one body and one head, not two heads like a monster, viz., Christ and the vicar of Christ, Peter and Peter’s successor. We are instructed by the Gospels that there are in his power two swords, viz., the spiritual and the temporal. For when the apostles said ‘Behold here are two swords’ (Luke 22:38), viz., in the Church; when the apostles said so, the Lord did not respond, ‘There are too many’ but ‘Enough.’ Certainly, he who denies that there is in the power of Peter a temporal sword has paid poor attention to the word of the Lord, who said ‘Put up the sword into the sheath’ (John 18:11). Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, both the spiritual and the material sword. But this is to be wielded for the church, that by the church; that by the hand of the priest, this not by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and patience of the priest. Moreover, sword should be under sword, and the temporal authority should be subject to the spiritual; for when the apostle says, ‘There is no power except from God; the power which are ordained of God’ (Rom. 13:1); they are not ordained except sword be under sword. For on the testimony of truth, the spiritual power has to institute the earthly, and to judge it, if it is not good. Thus, the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power is verified, ‘Behold, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms,’ etc. (Jer 1:10). Therefore, if the earthly power deviates from the way, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; if the inferior spiritual power deviates, by its superior spiritual; but if the supreme by God alone, since it cannot be judged by man, on the testimony of the apostle, ‘The spiritual man judgeth all things, but is himself judged of no man’ (I Cor 2:15). Whoever, therefore, resists this power, thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God; unless he feigns that there are two principle, like Manichaeus, which we judge false and heretical, because, on the testimony of Moses, God did not create the heavens and the earth in several principles but in one principle (Gen. 1:1). Then, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be absolutely necessary to every human creature to salvation.” Excerpts from the Bull of Boniface VIII “UNAM SANCTAM“
“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, ‘supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls’” Catechism of the Catholic Church number 937
The Lawless One takes his Seat
“…and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, that he takes his seat in the temple of God, so proclaiming himself to be God.” II Thess 2:3-4
The word Paul uses here is naos meaning the holy place or dwelling of God. The word for the temple building, hieron, is only used for the literal building in Jerusalem [Mat 24:1]. This word, naos, is used symbolically [II Cor 6:16; I Cor. 3:16-17; Eph 2:21], and in this case refers to that group of people who believe in God both Jewish and Gentile. Therefore, the son of perdition takes his place among God’s people.
This cannot be a literal man sitting in the Holy of Holies within a Temple, rebuilt in Jerusalem. Think about it, where would such a man actually sit? How about on the wings of the cherubim or maybe on the altar of incense? Of course he could always bring in his own folding chair! Sitting in a seat symbolically means that the one ruling takes the position of authority andjudgment. [Mat 23:2].
God sits on a throne and has absolute spiritual and/or temporal authority. He establishes proper authority through His anointed kings, prophets, and appointed apostles. Gods system of hierarchy never appoints just one man over an entire congregation, with the exception of Jesus who alone is head of the Church. [Mat 23:2; 27:19; Acts 25:6,17; Rom 14:10; Rev 2:13; 13:2]
“Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God: ‘Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god I sit in the seat of gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you consider yourself as wise as a god–” Ezek 28:2
The son of perdition however comes in setting himself above all, even above God. [2Thess 2:4]
The Roman Catholic Church says;
“The Pope, bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ 402 ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” 403 Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 882
So figuratively it is the Pope who sits in the hearts and minds of all who claim to be Roman Catholic. The son of perdition can only be one that opposes God, exalts himself above all that is called God and shows himself as God sitting within the church of God
The Lawless One is quite literally, a Torah Breaker. (The Torah is the first five books of the Bible the books of Moses the Lawgiver) How can a future political anti-christ break the Torah? Dispensationalists have wrongly taught that the Torah has passed away. The Bible clearly states that the Torah will not pass away and Jesus himself said He had not come to destroy the Torah [Matt 5:17; 24:35; Luke 16:16-17]. This particular deceit has jeopardized our relationship with the Lord and fostered many other misconceptions concerning obedience to God’s word.
In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul writes concerning a rumor that had been circulated, as if coming from the apostles, that the day of the Lord Jesus Christ had come. So that they would not be shaken, upset, or troubled over this rumor, he endeavors to put their minds at rest. So he admonished, let no one deceive you in any way for the day of the Lord had not yet come.Who could deceive them? Certainly not a political figure from the secular world; the 1st century church would not have believed anything from them. No, it could only have been someone out of those professing to be Christians who could upset and deceive the followers of Christ.
Even today, one can find a fondness for this same deceiver in evangelical churches. Carefully watered and nurtured by well meaning, although ignorant Christians, many a pagan / papal tradition has been allowed to grow in the church.
Tertullian lamented: (160 – 230AD)
“By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro,, new year’s day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.” TERTULLIAN, De Idolatria
Some of these pagan influences are:
- Christ’s Mass or Christmas – Nowhere does the Bible tell us to celebrate this holiday. We are never given any information as to the date of Christ birth. Much has been written as to when this date may have been, but it is sufficient to say that it was not Dec. 25th, and was in all probability no later than the end of October during the Feast of Tabernacles. The early Christian Church knew no such festival as Christmas. However, as the Church of Rome gained power over all other churches, she began introducing pagan holidays.
Christmas is not mentioned until the third century and not until the forth century was it observed very much. So where does this festival come from? Where else, THE BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION! The pagans celebrated on December 25 the birthday of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven.
- Astarte, Ishtar or Easter – The very name Easter sounds Chaldean and is nothing more than “Astarte”, the Queen of Heaven. What do eggs and rabbits have to do with Christianity? Are they not just fertility symbols? What are fertility symbols doing in the church?
“Such is the history of Easter. The Popular observances that still attend the period of its celebration amply confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character. The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The ‘buns,’ known too by that identical name, were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens – that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. ‘one species of sacred bread,’ say Byrant, ‘which used to be offered to the gods, was of great antiquity, and called Boun.’ Diogenes Laertius, speaking of this offering being made by Empedocles, describes the chief ingrediants of which it was composed, saying, ‘He offered one of the sacred cakes called Boun, which was made of fine flour and honey.’ The prophet Jeremiah takes notice of this kind of offering when he says, ‘The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven.’ The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of Astarte; but this leaves no doubt as to whence they have been derived. The origin of the Pasch eggs is just as clear. The ancient Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order. In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. The Hindoo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden colour. The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen. In China, at this hour, dyed or painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country. In ancient times eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples.
From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians; and thus its tale is told by Hyginus, the Egyptian, the learned keeper of the Palatine library at Rome, in the time of Augustus, who was skilled in all wisdom of his native country: ‘An egg of wondrous size is said to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank, where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came Venus, who afterwards was called the Syrian Goddess’ – That is, Astarte. Hence the egg became one of the symbols of Astarte or Easter.” THE TWO BAYLONS OR THE PAPAL WORSHIP By Rev Alexander Hislop pg 109
Issachar Venting: Many a Christian teacher, with a straight face, has said that the Church took the Pagan holidays and Christianized them. They have continually replaced the Pagan ideas with Christian ones throughout Europe. This being the case why do Missionaries teach Christianized pagan holidays to the natives of other continents? Why don’t they simply Christianize the native’s own pagan holidays instead of teaching them new ones?
- Sunday Worship - In I Cor 16:2 Paul clearly wants the money collected on the first day of the week because he does not want them collecting money while he is teaching. It may then be assumed that he was teaching on the Sabbath and not the first day of the week. At any rate, why did the church switch from Sabbath keeping to Sunday? Are we to believe there are really only nine commandments and one suggestion?
- Graven Images – The Church of Rome is full of images of various Saints and Mary. In the third century, statues of the Roman gods were taken from the pagan temples and Christianized, by changing their names. One of the most famous of these is the bronze statue of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica at Rome; this statue was previously known as Jupiter.
The Roman Catholic Church says;
“Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented.” Catechism of the Catholic Church no 1192
The Bible says;
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”Ex 20:4-6
“And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehushtan.” II Kings 18:4b
Hezekiah did not hesitate to destroy this national treasure when the people were found to be burning incense to it. In light of this and of the commandment set forth by God, should we not wonder and diligently scrutinize our own practices? What is an image in God’s eyes? Are any of our icons or Christian symbols a graven image? Are they an offence in the eyes of God?
- Mary Worship – We could not possibly tell of all the supposed miracles that the Church of Rome claims. The stories of weeping images, winking Madonna’s, and miracle healings are endless. They work to enslave the ignorant and justify the most heinous of crimes. In current times, one of the more popular claims is to see apparitions of Mary. In some places a large crowd will look at the sun until they claim to have visions of the sun moving and great sparks breaking off from the sun. Actually they are slowly going blind as the sun burns their retina. The sparks they see are pieces of their retina breaking off inside their own eyes.
“This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”510 Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 969
“One noted Roman Catholic writer, Alphonsus Liguori, wrote at length telling how much more effectual prayers are that are addressed to Mary rather than to Christ. (Liguori, incidentally, was canonized as a ‘saint’ by Pope Gregory XIV in 1839 and was declared a ‘doctor’ of the Catholic Church by Pope Pius IX) In one portion of his writings, he described an imaginary scene in which a sinful man saw two ladders hanging from heaven. Mary was at the top of one, Jesus at the top of the other. When the sinner tried to climb the one ladder, he saw the angry face of Christ and fell defeated, But when he climbed Mary’s ladder, he ascended easily and was openly welcomed by Mary who brought him into heaven and presented him to Christ! Then all was well. The story was supposed to show how much easier and more effective it is to go to Christ through Mary.” Babylon Mystery Religionby Woodrow pg 21
- Celibacy: In 385 Syricius Bishop of Rome enacted the celibacy of the clergy. In the Mystery Religion it was only the celibate who could offer the mass during religious ceremonies.
“The earliest law enforcing celibacy was passed by the Council of Elvira (Canon 33) in Spain about the year 300. Bishops, priest and deacons were to be deposed, if they lived with their wives and begot children after their ordination. A similar decree was enacted by a Roman Council under Pope Siricius (384-399), who wrote letters to Spain and Africa insisting upon its observance. A few years later Pope Innocent I (402-417) wrote similar letters to Bishops Victricius of Rouen and Exuperius of Toulouse. By the time Leo the Great (440-461) the law of clerical celibacy was obligatory throughout the West.” Ins and Outs of Romanism by Zacchello page 42
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrine of demons, through the pretension of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer.”I Tim 4:1-5
The Little Horn Dan 7:8-25
In the De Unitate, Pope Leo XIII states, “What Jesus Christ had said of Himself, we may truly repeat of ourselves.” THE ANTICHRIST by Baron Porcelli pg 55
The little Horn is pretentious in that he speaks arrogantly. This horn is little, and he does not have a kingdom of his own. He does, however, have control over the other horns, and rips three of them out by the roots.
He wears out the saints by making war with them and prevailing over them. Contrary to the view of a short seven-year tribulation (deluded dispensationalist), the little horn must be around for a long time in order to wear out the saints. He wears them out with words, false doctrine, church tradition, and persecution.
In the first century laity led the church. Early in the life of the church the laity began the laying on of hands to ordain Bishops to lead the churches. These Bishops progressively assumed greater ecclesiastical control over the church. As this control progressed they started introducing heresies through edicts and unscriptural traditions.
In 196AD, Victor, the Bishop of Rome, threatened to excommunicate Asian Churches for refusing to replace Passover with an Easter Sunday. The Council of Nicea, 321AD, settled numerous issues including the Easter date. The Council of Laodecia in 364AD, determined that “Churches should not rest on the Sabbath like Jews”, decreeing a Sunday worship.
Persecution of dissenters began in a general way under Pope Alexander III’s Council at Tours in 1163, when the Bible reading Albigenses where denounced as heretics prohibiting them from buying or selling. Then in 1179 the same Pope decreed, through the Third Lateran Council, that all so-called heretics were to be refused Christian burial, and that all were forbidden to harbor them. In 1183 Pope Lucius III issued a bull against all heretics and ordered the Inquisition. Innocent III began a full crusade, in 1198, to destroy all heretics, by sending Legates as Inquisitors to Toulouse. (Remember at this time, anyone who disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church was considered a heretic)
The Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, urged more zeal in the killing of all heretics. Secular powers were ordered to carry out this new holy war. All subjects, of any prince refusing to join this crusade, were absolved from any allegiance and taxation due their prince. This discouraged all those, in ruling positions, from opposing the Pope’s Inquisition for fear of losing tax revenue and civil authority over their subjects. Princes, priests and secular peoples all joined the Inquisition.
In England from 1360-1380 the followers of Wycliff were hunted down, forty years later the followers of Huss and Jerome were also hunted. Huss was burnt at the stake! In Savonarola Italy the Inquisition carried on from 1464-1498 against the Bohemians, Waldenses, Taborits and United Brethren. Racks, gibbets, fire and sword were thought to be fitting weapons against any and all who were deemed heretics.
The history of the murder of the Waldenses is a list of atrocities that would make anyone’s blood curdle. In 1478 the
Inquisition was reformed to be more efficient. Llorente, the historian says of this reformed period during the Inquisition, between 1478 and 1517, some 13,000 persons were burnt alive and 169,000 were tortured. Far more were killed in the Spanish and Dutch Inquisitions, however Rome has never come clean on the numbers, estimates are in the millions. The teachings of the Church of Rome are clearly not the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, who say love your enemies, not kill anyone who disagrees with you.
Willful King Daniel 11 :36-39
“And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done. He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.” Dan 11:36-39
He shall do according to his will
The will of the Sovereign Pontiff was made known in all matters of kingship, both imperial strength and weaknesses of economics and everything spiritual. Disobedience to that will was condemned. On his whim one would live, another would die; one could marry, another could not marry; one could divorce, another could not divorce.
“We define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of the Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, the father of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal church, as is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical councils, and in the sacred canons.” COUNCIL OF TRENT
In the DECRETALS OF GREGORY IX, BOOK 1, TITLE 7, CHAP 3. Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) states, “Hence he (the pope) is said to have a heavenly power, and hence changes even the nature of things, applying the substantial of one thing to another – can make something out of nothing – a judgment which is null he makes to be real, since in the things which he wills, his will is taken for a reason. Nor is there any one to say to him, ‘Why dost thou do this?’ for he can dispense with the law, he can turn injustice into justice by correcting and changing the law, and he has the fullness of power.” Ins and Outs of Romanism by Zacchello page 19
“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII 1894 in the ENCYCLICAL letter dated June 20, 1894 Ins and Outs of Romanism by Zacchello page 20
This willful king will exalt and magnify himself above every god. On April 30, 1922, Pope Pius XI spoke from his throne in the Vatican, to a large group of Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Nuns. They fell on their knees before him, and he said, “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth.” Great Prophecies of the Bible Ralph Woodrow pg. 145
“Pope Pius X, when he was the Archbishop of Venice, said, “The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks.” Great Prophecies of the Bible Ralph Woodrow pg. 145
“On the arches raised in honor of Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) it reads
‘Rome was great under Caesar; now she is greater: Alexander VI reigns. The former was a man this is a god.’ Even the scandalous life of Rodrigo Borgia was not enough to stop the Bishops from calling him a god.” The Antichrist by Baron Porcelli pg 34
FYI: Alexander VI, originally Rodrigo Borgia (1431-1503) Pope (1492-1503), born in Jativa, Spain, the father of Ceasre and Lucretia Borgia. In 1455 he was made a cardinal by his uncle, Clixtus III, and on the death of Innocent VIII was elevated to the papal chair, which he had previously secured, by bribery. He endeavored to break the power of the Italian princes, and to appropriate their possessions for the benefit of his own family, employing the most execrable (appalling) means to gain this end. During his pontificate, he apportioned the New World between Spain and Portugal, and introduced the censorship of books
The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia pg 19
He shall magnify himself above every god
The priests claim to be able to turn the bread of the Eucharist (communion) into the body of Christ. It is called the host, immolated victim or wafer god. On the ‘Chair of St. Peter’ Porcelli says: “This ‘throne’ is supported by (the four legs) images pretending to be Augustine and Ambrose- the Latin ‘Fathers’, Chrysostom and Athanasius- the Greek ‘Fathers.’ Above it is a Dove, surrounded by angels, boys and nymphs, in the midst of ray’s of light. Angels are gazing down at the Pope’s bronze throne, with the seat inside. Directly under the bronze case is the ‘altar.’ ( where the host is placed) Thus the place of Romish ‘authority’ and ‘teaching’ is above the Sacrifice of the Mass or the Immolated Victim on the altar, i.e., is ‘above God’.” The Antichristby Porcelli pg 35
The God of Fortresses
In Dan 11:38-39 the word says; “He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know………He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god.” There is no word for goddess in Hebrew, even Ashteroth in Hebrew is called a god. So the passage could just as well be, he will honor the goddess of fortresses on his stand.
Goddess of Fortresses Cybele
“Who this god of fortifications could be, commentators have found themselves at a loss to determine. In the records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands forth there with any prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the existence of a goddess of fortifications, everyone knows that there is the amplest evidence. That goddess is Cybele, who is universally represented with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on her head. Why was Rhea or Cybele thus represented? Ovid asks the question and answers it himself; (in the Opera) and the answer is this: The reason he says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, ‘because she first erected them in cities’. The first city in the world after the flood (from whence the commencement of the world itself was often dated) that had towns and encompassing walls, was Babylon; and Ovid himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that city, who was believed to have ‘surrounded Babylon with a wall of brick’. Semiramis, then, the first deified queen of that city and towers whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have been the prototype of the goddess who; ‘first made tower in cities’. When we look at the Ephesian Diana, we find evidence to the very same effect. In general, Diana was depicted as a virgin, and the patroness of virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different. She was represented with all the attributes of the Mother of the gods, and, as the Mother of the gods, she wore a turreted crown, such as no one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded of the tower of Babel. Now this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly identified with Semiramis. When, therefore, we remember that Rhea or Cybele, the tower bearing goddess, was, in point of fact, a Babylonian goddess, and that Semiramis, when deified, was worshipped under the name of Rhea, there will remain, I think, no doubt as to the personal identity of the ‘goddess of fortification’.
Now there is no reason to believe that Semiramis alone (though some have represented the matter so) built the battlements of Babylon. We have the express testimony of the ancient historian, Megasthenes, as preserved by Abydenus, that it was ‘Belus’ who ‘surrounded Babylon with a wall’. As ‘Bel’, the Confounder, who began the city and tower of Babel, had to leave both unfinished; this could not refer to him. It could refer only to his son Ninus, who inherited his father’s title, and who was the first actual king of the Babylonian Empire, and, consequently Nimrod. The real reason that Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, gained the glory of finishing the fortifications of Babylon, was, that she came in the esteem of the ancient idolaters to hold a preponderating position, and to have attributed to her all the different characters that belonged, or were supposed to belong, to her husband. Having ascertained, then, one of the characters in which the deified wife was worshipped, we may from that conclude what was the corresponding character of the deified husband. Layard distinctly indicates his belief that Rhea or Cybele, the ‘tower-crowned’ goddess, was just the female counterpart of the ‘deity presiding over the bulwarks or fortresses;’ and that this deity was Ninus, or Nimrod, we have still further evidence from what the scattered notices of antiquity say of the first deified king of Babylon, under a name that identifies him as the husband of Rhea, the ‘tower-bearing’ goddess. That name is Kronos or Saturn. It is well known that Kronos, or Saturn, was Rhea’s husband; but it is not so well known who was Kronos himself. Traced back to his original, that divinity is proved to have been the first king of Babylon. Theophilus of Antioch shows that Kronos in the east was worshipped under the names of Bel and Bal; and from Eusebius we learn that the first of the Assyrian kings, whose name was Belus, was also by the Assyrians called Kronos. As the genuine copies of Eusebius do not admit of any Belus, as an actual king of Assyria, prior to Ninus, king of Babylon, and distinct from him, that shows that Ninus, the first king of Babylon, was Kronos. But, further we find that Kronos was king of the Cyclops, who were his brethren, and who derived that name from him, and that the Cyclops were known as ‘the inventors of tower-building’. The king of the Cyclops, ‘the inventors of tower-building’, occupied a position exactly correspondent to that of Rhea, who ‘first erected (towers) in cities’. If, therefore, Rhea, the wife of Kronos, was the goddess of fortification, Kronos or Saturn, the husband of Rhea, that is, Ninus or Nimrod, the first king of Babylon, must have been Ala mahozin, ‘the god of fortification’.” THE TWO BABYLONS by Rev. Alexander Hislop pg. 33
see also The pagan origins of Easter
He shall divide the land for a price
In 1075 the Emperor Henry IV, a headstrong young man fresh from triumphing over rebels and rivals in his own lands, refused to obey Pope Gregory VII over the appointment of bishops and threatened to turn him off the papal throne. The Pope retaliated by excommunicating him and telling his subjects that they no longer needed to obey him. Henry stood firm, but his subjects were horrified and rebelled against his authority, and he was forced to give in. He went to the Castile of Canossa, in northern Italy where the Pope was staying and waited three days outside in the snow before the Pope would see him. He was finally granted absolution from excommunication. However a few years later when Henry IV was in a better position he deposed Pope Gregory and set up another Pope in his stead.
In 1208 John I of England and Pope Innocent III, were in disagreement over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. When the Pope appointed his own choice as Archbishop over John’s choice, John refused to accept Langton as Archbishop. To resolve the matter and bring John under control the Pope placed all of England under an Interdict prohibiting the sacraments and solemn services (marriage, burial, etc.) to take place. This did not endear John I with his people and in the end John had to surrender his crown to the Pope and received it back as a vassal of Rome.
FYI: This John is the Prince John in the historical legend of Robin Hood.
He continues till the end
“He will prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.” [Dan 11:36] This sounds rather ominous but there will be an end. Today we can see he is already an old man and no longer lording over all the Roman World. The pope no longer has any temporal power, all he can do is tell Roman Catholics what to do, and they don’t even pay much attention. However, he will be around until God says he is done. Then there will come a time when “Rome the Eternal” will be no more.
“Now when Jesus came in to the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples. ‘Who do men say that the Son of man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him. ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” Mat 16:13-20
The Roman Church claims supreme authority based on this passage where Jesus tells Peter he will build His Church upon this rock. According to Catholics, this is Peter himself. Thus, the keys of succession to authority began with Peter. However, Jesus is making a word play with Peter’s name petros or small stone, petraor rock bed. Peter’s confession, that Jesus is the Christ, is the stone that Jesus will build His Church upon. Jesus tells Peter that he is a little rock; this is the foundational truth. Peter is just one of many stones being used to build a spiritual temple. There is only one cornerstone to the foundation of the Church, that cornerstone is Jesus Christ. The Pope of Rome claims to have the keys of St. Peter and with these he can open and close heaven and earth. We should ask where do these keys come from?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says:
“The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is ‘head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” no 936
“After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles ‘so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.’ 524 The apostles and their successors carry out this ‘ministry of reconciliation,’ not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:525
(The Church) has received the keys for the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.”526 no 981 pg 256
“… it is not difficult to see how the Pagans would rally round the Pope all the more readily when they heard him found his power on the possession of Peter’s keys. The keys that the Pope bore were the keys of a ‘Peter’ well known to the Pagans initiated in the Chaldean Mysteries. That Peter the apostle was ever Bishop of Rome has been proved again and again to be an arrant fable. That he ever even set foot in Rome is at the best highly doubtful. His visit to that city rests on no better authority than that of a writer at the end of the second century or beginning of the third – viz., the author of the work called The Clementines, who gravely tells us that on the occasion of his visit, finding Simon Magus there, the apostle challenged him to give proof of his miraculous or magical powers, whereupon the sorcerer flew up into the air, and Peter brought him down in such haste that his leg was broken. All historians of repute have at once rejected this story of the apostolic encounter with the magician as being destitute of all contemporary evidence; but as the visit of Peter to Rome rest on the same authority, it must stand or fall along with it, or, at least, it must be admitted to be extremely doubtful. But, while this is the case with Peter the Christian, it can be shown to be by no means doubtful that before the Christian era, and downwards, there was a ‘Peter’ at Rome, who occupied the highest place in the Pagan priesthood. The priest who explained the Mysteries to the initiated was sometimes called by a Greek term, the Hierophant; but in primitive Chaldee, the real language of the Mysteries, his title, as pronounced without the points, was ‘Peter’ – i.e. ‘the interpreter.’ As the revealer of that which was hidden, nothing was more natural than that, while opening up the esoteric doctrine of the Mysteries, he should be decorated with the keys of the two divinities whose mysteries he unfolded. Thus we may see how the keys of Janus and Cybele would come to be known as the keys of Peter, the ‘interpreter’ of the Mysteries. Yea, we have the strongest evidence that, in countries far removed from one another, and far distant from Rome, these keys were known by initiated Pagans not merely as the ‘Keys of Peter,’ but as the keys of a Peter identified with Rome. In the Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens, when the candidates for initiation were instructed in the secret doctrine of Paganism, the explanation of that doctrine was read to them out of a book called by ordinary writers the ‘Book Petroma;’ that is, as we are told, a book formed of stone. But this is evidently just a play upon words, according to the usual spirit of Paganism, intended to amuse the vulgar. The nature of the case, and the history of the Mysteries, alike show that this book could be none other than the ‘book Pet-Roma;’ that is, the ‘Book of the Grand Interpreter,’ in other words, of Hermes Trismegistus, the great ‘Interpreter of the Gods.’ In Egypt from which Athens derived its religion, the books of Hermes were regarded as the divine fountain of all true knowledge of the Mysteries. In Egypt, therefore, Hermes was looked up to in this very character of Grand Interpreter, or ‘Peter- Roma.’ In Athens, Hermes, as is well known, occupied precisely the same place, and, of course, in the sacred language, must have been know by the same title. The priest, therefore, that in the name of Hermes explained the Mysteries, must have been decked not only with the keys of Peter, but with the keys of ‘Peter-Roma.’ Here, then, the famous ‘Book of Stone’ begins to appear in a new light, and not only so, but to shed new light on one of darkest and most puzzling passages of Papal history. It has always been a matter of amazement to candid historical inquirers how it could ever have come to pass that the name of Peter should be associated with Rome in the way in which it is found from the fourth century downwards – how so many in different countries had been led to believe that Peter, who was an ‘apostle of the circumcision,’ had apostatized from his Divine commission, and become bishop of a Gentile Church, and that he should be the spiritual ruler in Rome, when no satisfactory evidence could be found for his ever having been in Rome at all. But the book of ‘Peter-Roma’ accounts for what otherwise is entirely inexplicable. The existence of such a title was too valuable to be overlooked by the Papacy; and, according to its usual policy, it was sure, if it had the opportunity, to turn it to the account of its own aggrandizement. And that opportunity it had. When the Pope came, as he did, into intimate connection with the Pagan priesthood; when they came at last, as we shall see they did, under his control, what more natural than to seek not only to reconcile Paganism and Christianity, but to make it appear that the Pagan ‘Peter-Roma,’ with his keys, meant ‘Peter of Rome,’ and that that ‘Peter of Rome’ was the very apostle to whom the Lord Jesus Christ gave the ‘Keys of the Kingdom of heaven’? Hence, from the mere jungle of words, persons and things essentially different were confounded; and Paganism and Christianity jumbled together, that the towering ambition of a wicked priest might be gratified; and so, to the blinded Christians of the apostasy, the Pope was the representative of Peter the apostle, while to the initiated Pagans, he was only the representative of Peter, the interpreter of their well-known Mysteries. Thus was the Pope the express counterpart of ‘Janus, the double-faced.’ Oh! what an emphasis of meaning in the Scriptural expression, as applied to the Papacy, ‘The Mystery of Iniquity’! “ THE TWO BABYLONS by Rev. Alexander Hisloppage 208
The Beast From the EarthREV 13:11-18
This beast is different from the other beasts. For unlike any other beast in prophecy it comes from the earth, not the sea, as do the kings in Dan 7:17, meaning that they were but ordinary men. However, it does have some of the characteristics of an empire, for it is a beast and not a horn. In Dan 7 he was represented as a horn, so therefore, in some way he must be a kingdom dynasty. Comparing scripture, it is an empire building man, who is also imitating Christ, who will be the fulfillment of the beast that comes out of the earth. This man would be an anti-christ. (I John 2:18-25) However, he cannot be a singular man for a beast represents an empire and must have the lasting character of an empire. The only conclusion possible is that this would have to be a seat of power with a succession of rulers. The only pagan seat of power to be found that meets this description and has lasted for generations is the position of Pontifex Maximus or the Roman Papacy.
“The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators; and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government.” The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon Vol. 1 page 56
He spoke like the dragon
Satan is the father of lies. His first and most telling lie was to misrepresent God. He is a roaring lion trying to devour the children of God with his lies. He tries to represent God as one who is unfair and wrathful, so that no one can approach God safely.
“This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred, sixty-six.”Rev 13:18
The Number of the Name of the Beast ….. by Guiness
“The mysterious number 666 is attached to the beast. We are told throughout the Bible, and especially in the book of The Revelation that the number seven is used of God and the things of God, perfection and completeness. There are seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls. Three sevens. In regards to 666, here there are three six’s in direct contrast to God’s perfection; this number denotes perfect imperfection.
“As this is the number of the Beast, we may expect to find it in various shapes in the chronology of the Beast, and in that of his most conspicuous Old Testament types. And it is there; a fact which has never before, we believe, been noted, but which is surely full of solemn importance. God has,‑ in secret cipher,‑engraven this stigma, this mark of reprobation, on the very brow of the period of the self‑exalting, blaspheming, saint‑persecuting, power; and He has besides, in order that we may not fail to note the contrast, set it in the midst of a series of periods, whose septiform measures, bring out its peculiar and evil character,
There is nothing whatever sacred or septiform about this period, nothing sabbatic, nothing suggestive of rest, or worship, or liberty, as in the sevenfold sabbatic and jubilee series. Like some sounds in music, it is a discord, not a harmony; a symbol of what is imperfect and evil.
1. Twelve hundred and sixty years is, first, as we have seen, eighteen of the 70‑years cycle. It is 6 + 6 + 6 such cycles.
2. And when we examine its lunar cycle measures we find that they similarly present a trine of sixes, for it is– 66 lunar cycles + 6 years.
(60 cycles + 6 cycles + 6 years)
Further; in the lunar cycles of this period, the sun’s gain is 66 weeks of months, and in the 6 years remainder it is 66 days. Sixfold throughout! a clear link of connection between the number of the Beast and his period.
3. The dominion of the typical ancient Babylon over the typical Israel, lasted, as Clinton shows in his Chronology, accurately 66 solar years, for the remaining years of the Captivity were under the Medo‑Persian power. The dominion of the anti-typical modern Babylon, over the anti-typical Israel ‑‑ over captive Christendom‑endures for 66 lunar cycles, and 6 years.
Another link between the number and the period of the Beast dependent on great, and apparent utterly disconnected facts, in the realms of history and astronomy.
4. It has been well said, that “history is prophecy,” for all history has a tendency to repeat itself. But the saying is peculiarly true of Old Testament history. As Paul says of various incidents in the experience of Israel, “All these things happened unto them for ensamples (Tupos, types), and are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come ” (I Cor. 10:11).
The literal Babylon was, as we have seen, a type of the spiritual Babylon‑the Church of Rome; and the great king of Babylon, the destroyer of the holy city and temple, the captor of the children of Judah, who set up a golden image of himself 60 cubits high and 6 broad onthe plains of Dura, and commanded all peoples nations and languages to fall down and worship it, and cast into a burning fiery furnace the faithful witnesses who refused‑Nebuchadnezzar, who was a very incarnation of human pride, is a marvelous type of that Papal dynasty which is symbolized by the “little horn,” and by “the beast.” The Pope is the self‑exalting monarch of the modern Babylon, who on a far wider scale commands all nations, and people, and languages, to bow down and adore him, and condemned to the flames the saints of the Most High, who refused compliance. The type‑portrait is too like to be mistaken; it has had but one anti-type, the man who sits in the temple of God, showing himself as a God on earth, and claiming the infallibility of Deity. We ask then what was the period of this remarkably typical monarch, Nebuchadnezzar?
Josephus tells us it was forty‑three years, and the famous astronomical canon of Ptolemy confirms the statement; as Clinton says, “The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is forty‑three years, in all the copies of the canon of Ptolemy, and that number of years is also assigned to his reign by Berosus.”
Applying the same standard as before, we look eagerly to see what arc the soli‑lunar measures of this singularly typical reign and again the fatal trinity of sixes meets our view! The soli-lunar gain or epact in forty‑three years is sixty‑six weeks, and six days. 66 weeks + 6 days.
5 ‑ In considering the four hundred and ninety years’ period, we observed, that whether regarded as consisting of true solar, or calendar lunar years, it equally afforded septiform results, when measured by soli‑lunar epact. The elements of the calculation being different, the results arc of course different, but both are septiform. (seven)
Similarly, with the period now under consideration, we have this true testimony of two witnesses. The twelve hundred and sixty years may be taken either as true solar, or as calendar lunar years, the epact measurement affords in either case, sixfold, not sevenfold, results. Treating them as true solar and lunar years, they arc, as we have seen, 66 lunar cycles and 6 years. Treating them as prophetic, or calendar years, on the other hand, we find the gain of the true solar year in the whole period is 6606 days.Y
There is a very note worthy circumstance connected with this last measurement, to which we must direct attention. We have in a previous chapter spoken of the Reformation of the calendar affected by Pope Gregory XIII., A.D. 1582. But for the application to the period in question, of the more accurate measures of the solar year introduced by this Papal reformation of the calendar, the above results would have been hidden from view. The use of the old style Julian year, throws them out completely and make the solar gain in the 1260 years 6615 days. This is because the Julian year of 365 ¼ days is slightly in excess of the true solar year, and the error accumulates in this period to about ten days.
Now it will be remembered that Gregory XIII cut off ten days from the year 1582, and commanded Christendom by a special Papal brief to count the 5th of October of that year as. the 15th. In this he legislated back for 1260 years thus changing times and laws for ‘a time, times, and the dividing of time,’ in remarkable agreement with the prophecy about the little born.
This arose in the following way. The first general or Ecumenical Council of Nice, A.D. 325, had legislatedwith reference to the time of the observance of Easter. Gregory XIII assumed this Council as a starting‑point; and as the error of the old Julian year, had, in the interval which had elapsed since the Council, thrown the vernal equinox out, by about nine days and a half, he arbitrarily ordained the removal of ten days from the calendar, at the same time that he introduced regulations to avoid irregularities in future.
Gregory XIII died in A.D. 1585, exactly 1260 years after the Council of Nice, and his reformation of the calendar only came into use three years before his death, and that only in the Catholic countries which accepted it as a matter of course; in Protestant Germany and Switzerland it did not take effect till A.D. 1700, and in England not till A.D. 1752.
It is a singular coincidence, to say the least of it, that this chronological legislation, emanating from the Pope who sanctioned and struck a triumphant medal, in memory of the bloody massacre of the Protestants of France, on St. Bartholomew’s day, should have removed from a period of 1260 years (dating from the first General Council following the rise of Imperial Christianity) the accumulated Julian error which concealed its true epact measures, and that he should thus have unintentionally uncovered, as attached to it, one more form of the triple six, so solemnly linking the period with the number of the Beast.
The downfall of the temporal power of the Papacy is the event marking the close of this period of 1260 years, just as the rise of the Papacy marked its beginning; and it is evident that neither of these events happened in a year, or indeed in a century. ‘Rome was not built in a day,’ it is commonly said; and assuredly the Roman Catholic Church did not burst full‑blown on the world. It rose intopower gradually as the old Roman Empire decayed and passed away; it had various marked crises of rise, and hence its great period of 1260 years, must have analogous successive termini, earlier and later, exactly as in the case of the Captivity era. The earliest possible conclusion of the period is the epoch of the Reformation. Upto that time the saints had been delivered into the hand of this persecuting power without exception, and without appeal, or redress. Then, and thenceforward, a very considerable portion of Christendom was delivered from its spiritual and temporal oppression and tyranny. From the Councilof Nice to the full end of the Reformation movement may therefore, perhaps, be regarded as an initiatory 1260 years.
The chronological legislation of Gregory XIII., took place at the close of this period, and corrected the error that had accumulated since its commencement. Sixtus V, who died five years after Gregory (A.D. 1590), was ‘the last pope who rendered himself formidable to European courts.’ From his time, to the present, Papal power has been passing through its period of decline and fall, just as from the fourth to the end of the sixth centuries; the system of the apostasy was gradually rising and developing into the Papacy.
A second and more evident and accurate measurement, is found by dating the 1260 years from the Edict of Justinian, which constituted the Bishop of Rome ‘the head of all the Churches,’ A.D. 533. This date of the terminus a quo, gives as the terminus ad quem AD 1793, the time of the French Revolution, in the course of which, as we have seen, the Pope was carried captive from Rome, and the Papal power received a tremendous shock, from which it never fully rallied.
But the main reckoning of the period is unquestionably between the chronologic limits A.D. 606 and 1866‑70, the former being the date at which the title of Pope, or universal bishop, was, by the Emperor Phocas, conferred upon Boniface III., and the latter, that of the overthrow of Austria and France, and the consequent loss of the 7 last vestige Of temporal Power, by Pius IX., when Victor Emmanuel moved his court to the Quirinal, and became sole king of united Italy. Then, and never quite till then, the Papacy, as a temporal power‑a horn ‑ceased to exist. As a religion, it is destined to continue till the second advent of Christ, when the Lord will destroy it ‘with the brightness of his coming.’ The Beast is to be cast alive into the lake of fire, and therefore to be still in existence at the Epiphany.
To sum up: 1260 years, the foretold and fulfilled period of Papal domination in Christendom, and of the temporal political power of the Popes of Rome, has the following remarkable astronomic measures.
1260years is 6 + 6 + 6 soli‑lunar 70‑year cycles;
1260years is 66 lunar cycles + 6 years.
1260 years have 6606 days of epact.
The 43‑years type of the period of the Beast‑the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar,‑whose image was 6o cubits high and 6 broad,‑has
66 weeks + 6 days of epact
This period is then bound by multiplied linksto the number of the Beast, 666. And it is thus linked by hidden connections, not obvious ones; by great unobserved soli‑lunar cycles, not by months and years of conspicuous recurrence; linked therefore by the Hand that upholds the stars in their courses, by the Providence that orders all the events of history, and by the Mind that inspired the Apocalypse, and communicated to the man greatly beloved, the secrets of this ‘time of the end.’ ‘Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world’.” THE APPROACHING END OF THE AGE by H. Grattan Guinnesspg. 425
“Edward Bickersteth (1786-1850) Bickersteth holds consistently that “Rome is the Man of Sin and Babylon of Revelation,” basing his opinion upon the common consent of a great galaxy of English and Continental Reformation writers, and their successors- naming some thirty will-known churchmen, Teaching back into the Middle Ages, he sites the strong earlier declarations of Arnulph, Bernard of Clairvaux, Joachim, Dante, and Petrarch. He then adds the supporting witness of the historic Protestant creed, confessions, homilies, and articles.” THE PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS by Leroy Edwin Froom page 650
Many today have forgotten the teaching of the Reformers and the Bible “to come out of her my people” [Rev 18:4] and have begun to fellowship with the Church of Rome. Others, claiming that they do not want strife or divisions in the body, are reaching out to Roman Catholics as brothers in Christ. This does not help any true believers in the Church of Rome who will not leave her and who will in some way face the judgment that is to fall on Rome.
Some even have begun to apologize for the sins of Rome, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. But Rome does not apologize for herself! Why should Protestants take on the sins of Rome? Rather, we should denounce what happened and explain that they are not of us. From time to time there have been atrocities committed by Protestants, however these have for the most part been small local problems that were stopped when cooler heads were finally acknowledged.
The teachings of the Church of Rome are clearly not the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Love your enemies, is what they taught, not kill anyone who disagrees with you. Many in the Church of Rome are never taught that to be a believer you must be born again [Jn 3:3], or that the just shall live by faith [Rom 1:17].
The good news is that the breath of the Lord’s mouth will consume the man of sin. This refers to Christ’s word, which is both spirit and life [Jn 6:63]. It is the only weapon by which we may combat or resist him [Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12]. With the publishing of the Bible in many languages of the common people, the power of the papacy has been slowly diminishing and he will be totally destroyed by the brightness of the Lord’s coming.
A ROMAN MIRACLE
A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;
To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she’s been bred.
It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply,
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.
So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
And transubstantiation, too, she never dare believe.
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale,
“My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail;
For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.”
The priest went with the gentleman- he thought to gain a prize.
He said, “I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
“The priest has come to dine with us!” “He’s welcome,” she replied.
And when, at last, the meal was o’er, the priest at once began,
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
The greatness of our Savior’s love, which Christians can’t deny,
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
“I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”
“I’ll bake the bread,” the lady said. “You may,” he did reply,
“And when you’ve seen this miracle, convinced you’ll be, say I.”
The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.
The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest answered, “Yes!
It’s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
Begorra, lass, the power of mine has changed it into God!”
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.
The lady said unto the priest, “I warn you to take care,
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.”
The priest was struck real dumb- he looked as pale as death.
The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did grasp for breath.
“Bring me my horse!” the priest cried. “This is a cursed home!”
The lady replied, “Be gone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome.”
The husband, too he sat surprised, and not a word did say.
At length he spoke, “My dear,” said he, “the priest has run away;
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I’m not for sure, quite able;
I’ll go with you and we’ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable.”
PREVIOUS CHAPTER: THE PROPHETIC CALENDAR
NEXT CHAPTER: MATHEW 24