Saturday, October 28, 2017

Responding to Gene Kim on Antichrist

He is wrong about the Catholic Church. He could still be right we just don't know yet.

Who are the Six Antichrists?
BBC International, 17 June 2017


I think a falling away happened to Catholicism, socially, over c. 40 years from 1943 to 1994.

Whether Pius XII was a true Pope or an imposter by heresy previous to election, he very carefully opened a door with Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943.

What does it say? Nothing directly anti-Biblical. It just says, Biblical writers, Bible-Book writers, we call them hagiographers, have personal characteristics which we can study through the texts. [Own example : The woman who has paid so many doctors without finding a cure comes in Mark, not Luke - perhaps because Luke is a doctor.] There is nothing wrong in such study.

Well, the thing is, a bad type of angle already existed in Biblical scholarship, like Markan priority and a few more. Pius XII's encyclical, whether he foresaw it or not, whether he intended it or not, opened the door to this bad apostatic scholarship already existing among Protestants.

1994 Antipope "John Paul II" allows "Cardinal" Ratzinger to condemn Fundamentalist Bible reading. The Christmas liturgy is also changed.

Old Liturgy still has, even New Liturgy up to then had, in Latin rite, Our Lord born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood (LXX based).

New text from 1994 on replaces "5199" with "unknown ages" and "2597" with "several thousand years". See what is happening?

Now, the Temple of God is arguably the Catholic Church and the Man of Sin could very well be an Antipope. Like ... Bergoglio.

But, the rapture you think of is arguably not happening until AFTER the tribulation, second coming, doomsday, perhaps an hour before Armageddon battle.

Actually, 9:50, some thing Bergoglio has already fulfilled Apocalypse 17 by that light show with so many animals projected on the white walls of the Vatican buildings.

The Catholic Church, however, he does not represent, since he is not Catholic.

10:24 Your Church history is faulty.

With Catholic Church not being a follow up to "Church that is in Rome" or (one of the epistles of St Peter) "Church that is in Babylon", but to Nero, where did the Church of Christ go?

For the Church persecuted by Pagan Emperors we keep records. Roman Martyrology two days ago was Pope St Evaristus, whom Emperor Hadrian's administration killed. Same with every Pope up to St Sylvester, the man who baptised Constantine or received him as Catechumen.

Now, suppose St Sylvester was a fraud or a weak pastor, the pagans were let in too easy, the Church was taken over, where did the real Church go? Where are your records, century by century, of who the real saints were, if the Catholic Church was not? You don't have any such records, because you don't have any body with realistic claims of reaching back to Apostles in unbroken succession. You have Baptists who say the Apostles were Baptists (denied validity of infant baptism, required full immersion, three times, not just a little water), well, you don't have direct back up in the Bible for that claim. What is more important, you have gaps of centuries in your Church history. If not in theory, at least in how it is recorded.

10:41 You may brag about your spiritual stature as much as you like, but you don't really have an intellectual one. You claim Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

First, it is a lie.

Second, you don't do much arguing to back up that lie, you just keep repeating it (as far as I have seen up to now, if you have resources on this, do link).

Third, it is a lie which plays into the hands of the deniers of Christian truth. If the main historically known provider of Bibles was messed up, what is to stop the Bible from being so?

Adding Charlemagne to the list is also not helping the credibility of Christianity.

Even more Bibles messed up because provider is suspect.

While Napoleon was temporarily a kind of Antichrist by attacking the Catholic Church, you are wrong on who kept Jesuits going after a weak Pope had disbanded them, namely it was Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia, with successors.

As to Jesuits being formed again, that was Pope Pius VII, after Napoleon had already been exiled to Elba.

The Allied Powers having declared that Emperor Napoleon was the sole obstacle to the restoration of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of his life, which he is not ready to do in the interests of France.
Done in the palace of Fontainebleau, 11 April 1814

The suppression was carried out in all countries except Prussia and Russia, where Catherine the Great had forbidden its promulgation. Because millions of Catholics (including many Jesuits) lived in the Polish provinces recently annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia, the society was able to maintain its existence and carry on its work all through the period of suppression. Subsequently, Pope Pius VI would grant formal permission for the continuation of the society in Russia and Poland, with Stanislaus Czerniewicz elected superior of the society in 1782. Pope Pius VII had resolved during his captivity in France to restore the Jesuits universally, and after his return to Rome he did so with little delay. On 7 August 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, he reversed the suppression of the society, and therewith another Polish Jesuit, Thaddeus Brzozowski, who had been elected in Superior in Russia in 1805, acquired universal jurisdiction.

12:40 Your historical documentation on Adolph Hitler's Catholicism is faulty.

Before the takeover in 1933, German Catholic bishops - who supported Brüning, not Hitler - had excommunicated all members of the NSDAP. After this takeover, the excommunication was restricted to high ranking members - Hitler arguably was one.

If Hitler wanted to assist Holy Mass, he could not do so with a normal priest obedient to the Vatican, but there were "brown priests" (brown as in SA uniform = pro-NSDAP) who sometimes allowed him to assist Holy Mass. One of them died in 1937, it was a very old abbot who did not see him at his worst, which came after that year, and who blamed already existing moral problems of NSDAP on the Protestants in it. Like the eugenics part.

Let's see if you repeat more errors on Hitler and Catholicism ... meanwhile, Pius XII left Rome and had all Churches in Rome locked up when Hitler visited Mussolini in Rome.

The 555 connection is interesting.

I have seen another interpretation of it.

Olivet discourse is - if you will consult William Tapley - divided into three sections.

4 verses about the King of the South (444)
6 verses about THE Antichrist (666)
5 verses about what or who defeats him (555, logically : like the 5+5+5 of the Blessed Virgin's Rosary)

If Hitler was 555, perhaps some prayed the Rosary for him and he was saved (some saying he survived the Bunker).

[Note : Gene Kim said Hitler became a "Nazi" in Austria, before he went to Munich. Not true, scanned photos of Hitler's membership card certainly do mark n. 555, as Gene Kim said, but also that it is "Ortsgruppe München" of Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. In other words, he was already in Munich, had already left Austria.]


KINGJAMES is nine letters.

You know that 666 is divisible by nine? It is 9*74.

I think ASCII is important to get the right numerology, and one interesting thing, in block letters, it is 8 or 9 letters (very barely 10) which will add up to 666.

He was also King James I (of England - of Scotland he was James VI).

There is one language in which reverent synonyms of Bible will add up to 666.


Check it out. Guess why?

My hunch is, KJV is cursed.

Less inaccurate than certain modern versions which leave out verses, but cursed as seducer of Protestants.

The Catholic Bible in English is Douay Rheims - originally translated and printed in France, because England persecuted Catholics.

1611 is a year which should make Baptists concerned about King James. The persecution of Lollards was in England not conducted on Papal lines, but an English parliament law from 1401, De heretico comburendo.

Well, it was obeyed again, against Anglicans, by Mary Tudor.

The last English monarch who applied it was however the "Anglican Pope" James I. Against whom? Catholics? No, they were considered traitors, not heretics. Guess again, it is closer to you ...

"April 11 – Edward Wightman, a radical Anabaptist, is the last person to be executed for heresy in England, by burning at the stake in Lichfield."

That is the year after 1611, it is 1612:

It is still KINGJAMES.

[Note, on looking, it seems Wightman would arguably have deserved burning more than any Baptist who just apostasised into false views on Sacraments : he was perhaps as vicious as Giordano Bruno, if the charges I read are right.]

Like KINGJAMES, also VLADIMIRA adds up to 665. It can be read as genitive or accusative of VLADIMIR, like WLADIMIRA adding up to 666. It can also be read as Vladimir A = Vladimir I. Vladimir B, Vladimir II, if written VLADIMIRB, adds up to 666.

In Russia, there are fairly clear candidates for Vladimir A and B ...

The first of them made a Revolution about one hundred years ago. There is Catholic prophecy saying Satan was given a century. Look who started it in Russia.

17:59 What happened after KINGJAMES published his HOLYBIBLE or his SCRIPTURE?


18:12 What you say about England is not really totally just bright.

Recall how you felt about world conquerors like Napoleon and Hitler a few minutes ago?

I love England. I love US. But I don't love what these states have been doing certain things during the centuries.

Btw, so far all my numerological matches, even exact ones, could, theoretically, just be good prospects.

I think BERGOGLIO is clinched, but I don't know it. He could still have time to repent, abdicate his false papacy, become a real Catholic. There are more than just he and Putin even on ASCII, and there is still Greek and Hebrew gematria too (Ratzinger's "papal" name, in Greek, "King Hari" in Hebrew, should Prince William's younger brother become king - God preserve him!).

No comments: