PDA

View Full Version : Whore of Babylon?



Opally
Jan 17th 2008, 03:56 PM
Please do NOT take this as anti-jewish or anti-semetic, to the Jew first and then the Gentile, Catholics believe that and hold to that.

Quote:
There are many verses describing Jerusalem. See how many are degradations which dovetail perfectly with the "Whore of Babylon".

Jerusalem in Holy Scripture:

Abomination: Ez 16:2, Mal 2:11
Associate of the Scarlet Beast: Rev 17:1-3
Babylon: Rev 17:5,18:2,18:10,21
Babylon the Great: Rev 17:5
Bad City: Ezra 4:8,12
Bloody City: Ez 22:2,24:6,9, Nah 3:1
Burdensome Stone: Zech 12:3
Captivity of Jerusalem: Joel 3:1
City of Precious Stones and Fine Clothing: Ex 35:30-36,39:1-2, Ex 39:8-14, Isa 52:1, Rev 18:16-17
Cup of Trembling: Zech 12:2
Cursed in the City: Deut 28:15-19
Daughter: Lev 21:9, Lam 2:15-18.
Death of the Prophets: Mt 23:29-36, Lk 11:47-51,13:31-34, Rev 17:5-6,18:24
Den of Dragons: Jer 9:11
Desolation: Isa 64:10, Dan 9:2
Destroyed by Fire: Deut 29:22-24, Lev 21:9,26:15-16,27-28, Ez 16:2-3,35,38,41, Ez 19:12,21:2-3, Ez 22:19-21, Ez 23:2-4,17-19,22-25,44-47, Lam 2:all, Neh 1:3, Mt 24:15-22, Mk 13:14-20, Lk 21:20-24, Rev 18:8,17. Note: Jerusalem was completely destroyed by fire in 70 A.D., whereas Rome was only partially burned by Nero in 64 A.D.. This is yet another reason why the Whore of Babylon could not possibly be associated with Rome, for the whore is destroyed by fire in Rev 17:16.
Egypt: Rev 11:8
Evil brought upon Jerusalem: Ez 14:22
Evil Done to the Saints in Jerusalem: Acts 9:13,21
Faithful City: Isa 1:21
Fire Devouring Palaces of Jerusalem: Amos 2:5
Fornicator: Jer 13:27, Rev 18:3,9
Four Grievous Judgments upon Jerusalem, sword, famine, beasts, and pestilence: Ez 14:21
Fury upon Jerusalem: Ez 9:8
Gomorrah: Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Rom 9:27-29
Great City: Jer 22:4-8, Rev 11:8,17:18,18:10,16,18-19,21
Great Evil upon Jerusalem: Dan 9:12
Great Harlot (RSV): Rev 17:1,19:2
Great Mourning in Jerusalem: Zech 12:11
Great Whore, (KJ): Rev 17:1,19:2
Habitation of Demons: Rev 18:2
Harlot (RSV): Isa 1:21, Jer 2:20,3:3,6,5:7, Ez 16:1-3,15-16,28,31,35, Ez 16:41, Ez 23:2-49, Hos 3:3,4:15, Joel 3:3, Amos 7:17, Mic 1:7, Nah 3:4, Rev 17:1,5,15-16
Her: Rev 17:4,18:4-10,20,24
Immoral: Rev 18:3
Iniquity Built Jerusalem: Mic 3:10
Jerusalem Encompassed with Armies: Lk 21:20
Jerusalem Killed the Prophets: Matt 23:37, Lk 13:33-34
Jerusalem Shall be Trodden Down: Lk 21:24
Jerusalem to Become Heaps: Mic 3:12
Jesus Killed in Jerusalem: Matt 16:21, Mk 10:33
Laid Waste: Ez 26:2
Menstruous Woman: Lam 1:17
Mother of Harlotries: Rev 17:5
Mother of the Abominations of the Earth: Rev 17:5
Prostitute: Jer 2:20, Ez 16:15
Queen: Rev 18:7
Rebellious City: Ezra 4:8,12
Reduced to Ruins: Psa 79:1, Isa 3:8
Removed: Lam 1:8
She: Rev 18:2
Sin and Uncleanness: Zech 13:1
Sinned Grievously: Lam 1:8
Smitten City: Ez 33:21
Sodom: Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Rom 9:27-29, Rev 11:8
Sorcerer: Rev 18:23
Unfaithful Wife: Ex 16:1-3,44-63
Whore (KJ): Ez 16:28, Rev 17:1,15-16
Wickedness of Heart: Jer 4:14
Woman: Rev 17:3-9,18
Worship of GOD shall not be in Jerusalem: Jn 4:21

With such titles as, Abomination, Associate of the Scarlet Beast, Babylon, Bad, Bloody City, Cursed, Death of the Prophets, Evil brought upon, Evil Done to the Saints, Fornicator, Gomorrah, Great Harlot, Great Whore, Habitation of Demons, Harlot, Immoral, Laid Waste, Mother of Harlotries, Mother of Abominations, Prostitute, Rebellious, Smitten City, Sodom, Sorcerer, Unfaithful Wife, Whore, and Wickedness of Heart, do you have any doubts as to just whom, what, or where, the Whore of Babylon refers?

Rome in Holy Scripture:
Here is every verse in the Bible that mentions Rome by name:

Visitors from Rome, Acts 2:10
Claudius ordered Jews to leave Rome, Acts 18:2
Paul said he must also see Rome, Acts 19:21
Bear witness in Rome, Acts 23:11
We came to Rome, Acts 28:14
On our arrival at Rome, Acts 28:16
To all GOD's beloved who are in Rome, Rom 1:7
I am ready to preach the gospel to you also who are at Rome, Rom 1:15,
But when he came to Rome he sought me out, 2Tim 1:17

Contrast what is written about Jerusalem in Scripture with what is written about Rome?
Where is the coarse and degrading language regarding Rome in Holy Scripture?

"And in her was found the blood of the prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
Revelation 18:24
"For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand."
Revelation 19:2
What city is responsible for the blood of the prophets? Is it Rome, or is it Jerusalem?
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"
Luke 13:34
Again, what city is responsible for the blood of the prophets?
Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture clearly said it is Jerusalem.
Why then do Protestants insist it is Rome, when Holy Scripture does not agree with them?

The only place I could find regarding the Demonizing of Rome, or association of Rome with the Whore of Babylon, is from the false charges spread by Protestantism, as I can find nothing whatsoever from Holy Scripture to support what clearly is a lie.
Remember, for believers of the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if you cannot find it in the Bible then it simply did not happen, or does not exist, right?

Now that the lie of the Whore of Babylon being connected with Rome has been exposed, let us find from whom it had its origin.
There are no authentic historical documents in which the Catholic Church or the papacy is called the Whore of Babylon before the Protestant reformation of 1520-1521.
Therefore, it is a Protestant fabrication. Isn't this Demonizing?

When you think about it, a lie or fabrication, is an untruth designed to deceive, denigrate, or to calumnize another. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", in John 14:6.
If He is the truth then the devil is the liar, and Jesus even said so speaking of him in John 8:44,
"When he tells a lie he speaks from his very nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
So from whom, and through whom, comes the Demonizing of the Catholic Church?
For WHOLE PAGE (a lot there) visit; The Legacy left by Martin Luther, the first Protestant! (http://home.inreach.com/~bstanley/luther.htm) Also, visit Hunting the Whore of Babylon (http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp).

jeffreys
Jan 17th 2008, 04:17 PM
Those are some interesting insights. Thank you!

Of course, considering that they're from "The Catholic Treasure Chest", I'll take them with a grain of salt. Catholics do, after all, have good reason to be "less than charitable" toward Martin Luther. :)

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 17th 2008, 10:42 PM
I'm a Protestant, and I think Dave Hunt has a few screws loose.

He has an agenda. Big time.

Opally
Jan 18th 2008, 04:39 AM
I pray I never sound anti-Protestant as I never want to. I do know I was looking for something that was missing for me, was in an Assemblies of God church but looking at Messianic Judaism, found out that just started as a denomination by name in the 1970's. Took a lot of prayer, a lot of tears but I did end up coming back. I was given David Hunt's book & still have it actually. Didn't read it yet, if I had read it in my anti-days I probably would have hit the point of no return as far as Catholicism. I have more ex-Catholic friends right now who all think the Catholic Church is corrupt but they're buying into all the anti-Catholic junk out there. I believe Jesus knew all this was going to happen and part of what He suffered on the cross was division in the body, He knew.

Opally
Jan 18th 2008, 05:08 AM
I've been working on my own list of verses. Mary is the ark of the New Testament. What was concealed in the Old Testament was revealed in the New. Lutherans believe in the Eucharist to an extent but not completely. Jesus said THIS IS my body, not this represents. I was missing the real presence in the Eucharist.

Our Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God
Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims Bible
(15) I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Rev 12:1 Douay-Rheims Bible
(1) And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Luk 1:41-43 Douay-Rheims Bible
(41) And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
(42) And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
(43) And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

on Baptism
1 Peter 3:18-22 NAB
(18 ) For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
(19) In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
(20) who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
(21) This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(22) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Mortal and Venial Sin
1 John 5:16-17 NAB
(16) If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
(17) All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

No divisions or schisms
1 Corinthians 1:9-10 NAB
(9) God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
(10) I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

1 Corinthians 12:22-26 NAB
(22) Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
(23) and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
(24) whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
(25) so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
(26) If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

Jude 1:17-23 NAB
(17) But you, beloved, remember the words spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(18 ) for they told you, In (the) last time there will be scoffers who will live according to their own godless desires.
(19) These are the ones who cause divisions; they live on the natural plane, devoid of the Spirit.
(20) But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the holy Spirit.
(21) Keep yourselves in the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.
(22) On those who waver, have mercy;
(23) save others by snatching them out of the fire; on others have mercy with fear, abhorring even the outer garment stained by the flesh.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
1Co 11:21-29 Douay-Rheims Bible
(21) For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
(22) What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
(23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
(24) And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
(25) In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
(26) For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
(27) Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
(28) But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
(29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Joh 6:48-58 Douay-Rheims Bible
(48) I am the bread of life.
(49) Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
(50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
(51) I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6:52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
(52) (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(53) (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
(54) (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
(55) (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(56) (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
(57) (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
(58) (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

Traditions
2Th 2:15-17 Douay-Rheims Bible
(15) (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
(16) (2:15) Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,
(17) (2:16) Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

1Ti 3:15 DRB
(15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Purgatory
originally a Jewish belief
2 Maccabees 12:43-46 DRB
(43) And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
(44) (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
(45) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
(46) It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

1 Corinthians 3:12-13 DRB
(12) Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:
(13) Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

Revelation 21:27 DRB
(27) There shall not enter into it any thing defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

The Trinity
Matthew 3:13-17 DRB
(13) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.
(14) But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?
(15) And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him.
(16) And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
(17) And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

John 10:24-31 DRB
(24) The Jews therefore came round about him and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
(25) Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
(26) But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
(27) My sheep hear my voice. And I know them: and they follow me.
(28) And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of my hand.
(29) That which my Father hath given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.
(30) I and the Father are one.
(31) The Jews then took up stones to stone him.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Genesis 1:26 DRB
(26) And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

John 1:1-4 DRB
(1) In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
(4) In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

John 14:25-26 DRB
(25) These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
(26) But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Hebrews 12:2 DRB
(2) Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.

1 Peter 4:1-6 DRB
(1) Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins:
(2) That now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men but according to the will of God.
(3) For the time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the will of the Gentiles, for them who have walked in riotousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings and unlawful worshipping of idols.
(4) Wherein they think it strange that you run not with them into the same confusion of riotousness: speaking evil of you.
(5) Who shall render account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
(6) For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: That they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh: but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

1 John 5:6-8 DRB
(6) This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.
(7) And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
(8) And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Jesus IS God
Isaiah 7:14 DRB
(14) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

John 1:47-50 DRB
(47) Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.
(48) Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
(49) Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.
(50) Jesus answered and said to him: Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, thou believest: greater things than these shalt thou see.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 DRB
(1) For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud: and all passed through the sea.
(2) And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea:
(3) And did all eat the same spiritual food:
(4) And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

John 10:30 DRB
(30) I and the Father are one.

John 14:7 DRB
(7) If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him.

John 15:24 DRB
(24) If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 19th 2008, 07:18 AM
Opally,

Just for clarity's sake, my wife was brought up Catholic, and her dad is a charismatic Catholic (speaks in tongues, operates in the gift of healing, etc) - so know that I'm not one of those "Catholic bashers" that seem so prevalent in the Protestant church (and I'm not speaking against these forums, either). There are obviously some things that I disagree with, otherwise we'd be Catholic, but at the same time I think that I have an understanding of Catholicism that many do not.

I agree that Mary ought to be given honor, but I disagree that she acts as humanity's mediator - I believe that she's alive (like Abraham's alive) and that she prays for us, but not that she needs to take my prayers to the Father. Our Father isn't mostly angry at us (which is the reason I've heard for her doing this); He loves us *so* much, and takes *so* much delight in His children! I do acknowledge that the NT writers, by the Holy Spirit, made obvious connections between her and the ark of the covenant, but I disagree that she is specifically mentioned in the book of Revelation symbolically, and I disagree that she was sinless. I agree that she was a virgin when she conceived of Jesus, but I believe that Scripture is plain that she did not remain a virgin (and honestly I'm unsure of why Catholics are so strongly opposed to her having children later in life; sex isn't a sin). And though I do see connections to her being likened to the ark, I disagree that she is the new Eve - the church, which she is a part of, is the new Eve.

Concerning my beliefs on communing with the saints, I'm very much "Catholic"; God is the God of the living, not the dead, and the calling and gifts are irrevocable (which things are used to edify the body), and the dead in Christ are still just that - in Christ: therefore I believe that we can, to a measure, communicate with the saints in heaven, but that we shouldn't pray to them - asking saints in heaven for prayer is not the same as praying to saints in heaven. We should definitely only pray to Jesus!

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself to you, that you would know that I'm eager to dialogue with you about this, and am not looking to "convert" you - if you have applied the blood of the Passover Lamb upon the doorpost of your life, and have been redeemed from Egypt, and are following the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night out in the wilderness, and have set your face like flint upon the Promised Land, and pledge allegiance to King Jesus, then you are my brother / sister in Christ!

With that said, here are two things that I'd like to discuss with you:


The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
1Co 11:21-29 Douay-Rheims Bible
(21) For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
(22) What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
(23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
(24) And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
(25) In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
(26) For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
(27) Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
(28) But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
(29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Joh 6:48-58 Douay-Rheims Bible
(48) I am the bread of life.
(49) Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
(50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
(51) I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6:52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
(52) (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(53) (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
(54) (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
(55) (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(56) (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
(57) (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
(58) (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

As I was just saying, when Jesus came, He came to console Israel, who was in exile (which was why I was using that language). True, they weren't in exile in the truest sense of the word, but Mary (Luke 1:50-55), Zacharias (Luke 1:68-75), the heralding angels (Luke 2:11), Simeon (Luke 2:25, 29-32), Anna (Luke 2:38), John the Beloved (John 1:14), Paul (1 Cor. 5:7), and Jesus (Luke 22:7-20; John 6:30-65) all spoke in this type of language: Jesus came to redeem those in exile, to take all who would follow Him on a greater exodus.

When Jews thought of a "Savior" and a "Redeemer", they didn't think of these words as we do today, and we should take note of this! They spoke by the Holy Spirit, and their words are canonized for profitable doctrine. Those words meant "to be saved from the surrounding or oppressing nations", and "to be redeemed from their rule over Israel". And just as Egyptians left with the Jews following Moses, Gentiles came with the Jewish apostles following Jesus.

This is what Jesus is talking about at the Last Supper: "We're leaving Egypt tonight! Eat the Passover meal quickly, with your staff in hand, and prepare your heart for the journey through the wilderness! Follow Me!" This is what Jesus is talking about in John ch.6: "Daily eat the Manna given you in the desert, for I am the Manna, and I alone will sustain you on our journey to the Promised Land! Come to Me daily!" This is probably new to you and many others, so spend time in prayer about this, and test my words with God's word.

He's not saying: "Guys - this bread and this wine is My actual flesh and My actual blood! Eat! Drink!" To His complaining and confused disciples, even to the twelve, He says, "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. If you took what I said back there to be literal - to be of the flesh - then this teaching will profit you nothing, for it is the Spirit who gives life, not a bit of bread and wine, nor in keeping the tradition itself." Nothing is wrong with traditions - don't get me wrong (I agree with your notes on keeping tradition). But Jesus here isn't giving them a nice tradition to keep. He's using Exodus language that they would have understood, that they would live.


Purgatory
originally a Jewish belief
2 Maccabees 12:43-46 DRB
(43) And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
(44) (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
(45) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
(46) It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

1 Corinthians 3:12-13 DRB
(12) Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:
(13) Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

Revelation 21:27 DRB
(27) There shall not enter into it any thing defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.


Please read my post here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1378851&postcount=16) about 1 Cor. 3:12ff, and let me know what you think... and quoting 1st and 2nd Maccabees here will do you just about as much good as quoting Homer's Odyssey - if it's not a canonized book in the Protestant's Bible, then they'll treat it that way (as they should)... but what does Rev. 21:27 have to do with Purgatory? - you lost me with that reference...

Bless you! - Lk.11

Studyin'2Show
Jan 19th 2008, 03:20 PM
Just to be fair, I believe that the 'Whore of Babylon' is used by those who are not really labeling 'the city' per se. It is the religious system that many believe fits the label. A whore is one who sells themselves for profit; whether that profit is money, power and prestige, or popularity. Babylon seems to represent a religious system, NOT a particular place. I am one that leans toward the move to 'ecumenize' religion being this whore. No, all religious beliefs are not the same! To act as if they are is completely selling out for the sake of political correctness. I would NEVER stand before an altar with a shaman, an imam, a witch doctor, a hindu priest, a bhuddist monk, etc. and act as if we are all praying to my God. That would be an act of whoredom and yet we see that more and more with the move toward ecumenical spiritualization as an acceptable means of worship. This PC (politically correct) religion may very well be what the prophecy in Revelation refers to.

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 19th 2008, 03:39 PM
Just to be fair, I believe that the 'Whore of Babylon' is used by those who are not really labeling 'the city' per se. It is the religious system that many believe fits the label. A whore is one who sells themselves for profit; whether that profit is money, power and prestige, or popularity. Babylon seems to represent a religious system, NOT a particular place. I am one that leans toward the move to 'ecumenize' religion being this whore. No, all religious beliefs are not the same! To act as if they are is completely selling out for the sake of political correctness. I would NEVER stand before an altar with a shaman, an imam, a witch doctor, a hindu priest, a bhuddist monk, etc. and act as if we are all praying to my God. That would be an act of whoredom and yet we see that more and more with the move toward ecumenical spiritualization as an acceptable means of worship. This PC (politically correct) religion may very well be what the prophecy in Revelation refers to.

God Bless!

Good post!

Check out this thread for more on this subject (ecumenism). We are discussing how some of the RCC's doctrines are a move toward ecumensim.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=111414

Studyin'2Show
Jan 19th 2008, 03:50 PM
Good post!

Check out this thread for more on this subject (ecumenism). We are discussing how some of the RCC's doctrines are a move toward ecumensim.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=111414Thanks Kata! I'll check it out!

Nihil Obstat
Jan 19th 2008, 04:58 PM
The one playing the harlot with Babylon is Israel. Babylon will once again become a literal city (Zech. 5:11), and (correct me if I'm wrong, but) every time save twice in the OT, "harlot", etc (when *not* said of a person, of course) is said of the Israelites as a people. It is to be clearly understood that this woman in Rev. 17 is not a religion, nor the Catholic church, nor Rome, nor any other such nonsense, but Israel. Every time in Revelation a name is written on someone's forehead, it's not their identity (this harlot is not "Babylon"), but is rather who they call God and lean upon for provision. That means that the references to Babylon is to be understood as just that - the city of Babylon. See Eze. 16 and Jer. 50-51, which will do some serious unlocking when reading Revelation. Pretty much every reference given in the opening post of Israel in Revelation needs to be removed, and others added...

- Lk.11

Studyin'2Show
Jan 19th 2008, 05:51 PM
The one playing the harlot with Babylon is Israel. Babylon will once again become a literal city (Zech. 5:11), and (correct me if I'm wrong, but) every time save twice in the OT, "harlot", etc (when *not* said of a person, of course) is said of the Israelites as a people. It is to be clearly understood that this woman in Rev. 17 is not a religion, nor the Catholic church, nor Rome, nor any other such nonsense, but Israel. Every time in Revelation a name is written on someone's forehead, it's not their identity (this harlot is not "Babylon"), but is rather who they call God and lean upon for provision. That means that the references to Babylon is to be understood as just that - the city of Babylon. See Eze. 16 and Jer. 50-51, which will do some serious unlocking when reading Revelation. Pretty much every reference given in the opening post of Israel in Revelation needs to be removed, and others added...

- Lk.11Do you have any idea how secular and pc the nation of Israel has become? Right along with the rest of the world, I believe they will follow after the 'religion' of ecumenism. Conservative estimates have it that as many as 90% of Jews are non-religious (secular). But no, I don't see the whore of Babylon being Israel alone, but as you say it is the 'system' they will be following along with much of the world; the one they will be following instead of the One True God.

Opally
Jan 20th 2008, 10:03 PM
on the first part;

John 6:59-66 DRB
(59) (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
(60) (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
(61) (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
(62) (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
(63) (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(64) (6:65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
(65) (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
(66) (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Jesus didn't state this was a parable, He said THIS IS. It would seem they took Him at His word, why else would so many have left? If He didn't mean His presence would be in the bread and wine it wouldn't have offended so many. He was very careful to say when something was a parable.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 12:04 AM
:huh: I thought this thread was about the whore of Babylon? How are we talking about the Eucharist? :confused

danield
Jan 21st 2008, 02:39 AM
I defiantly do not think that the whore Of Babylon is the Catholic Church. Let’s just say Catholic Church is the Babylon as claimed. If we take them out of the picture like what happens to the Harlot, What changes on a world scene? What will happen is that there will be many poor people that do not get fed in some poverish areas around the world. Is this the economic might that is talked about is Revelation? Consider that Dave Hunt is VERY wrong because he is. You have to go back to square one and look at the big picture when understanding Revelation. It will stress the world in ways that you can’t imagine. As important the Catholic Church is to us Christians in feeding the poor and spreading the word, it is very unimportant to the powers that be in this world.

Deriluxa
Jan 23rd 2008, 03:25 AM
The Catholic Chuch is the Body of Christ expect it's members to be persecuted and derailed by false prophets.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 23rd 2008, 07:14 AM
The Catholic Chuch is the Body of Christ expect it's members to be persecuted and derailed by false prophets.

Correction: The Catholic church is PART of the body of Christ, although they have assimilated some very weird doctrines.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 23rd 2008, 07:40 AM
on the first part;
John 6:59-66 DRB
(59) (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
(60) (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
(61) (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
(62) (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
(63) (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(64) (6:65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
(65) (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
(66) (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.Jesus didn't state this was a parable, He said THIS IS. It would seem they took Him at His word, why else would so many have left? If He didn't mean His presence would be in the bread and wine it wouldn't have offended so many. He was very careful to say when something was a parable.

And I didn't state that this was a parable either... but what does Jesus Himself say during the Passover meal the following year? "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). To drink the wine is to make covenant with Him - that you will leave Egypt and not turn your heart back to slavery. His body is given us as well - unleavened bread, called "the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life" (Deut. 16:3). Jesus says that we are to do this in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19); in other words, He's the greater Moses, and He's bringing them on the greater exodus.

The reason so many left is because of the very things they were complaining about earlier in the text.

1) Jesus was saying to them that He was alive in Moses' day, yet they knew His father Joseph and mother Mary (John 6:41-42) - though later they would say of Mary that she was an adulterous woman (8:41).

2) They left because Jesus said of Himself that He would be returning to the Father in heaven (6:62), though the Jews believed that the Son of Man would remain forever (12:34)! Their paradigm of the Christ was so far off that they could not understand Jesus, even when He spoke plainly (cp. 10:24, 25).

3) Furthermore, they did not believe Him because they believed that with Abraham as their father, they would automatically be in God's kingdom, though Jesus was telling them that if they did not come to Him and hear His words (6:63), they would be like the generation who died in the wilderness and was not able to enter into the Promised Land.

Jesus isn't telling them that the bread becomes His body, and the wine becomes His blood. How could this be so, as He was standing there as yet uncrucified! Rather, He is telling them that without hearing His words, which are spirit and life, and which are given only by the Holy Spirit to those whom the Father draws - without hearing His words, you will either remain or turn back to enslavement. And who does the Father draw? Those like Jacob, who wrestle for the blessing! Those like Jacob and Caleb, who say, "With God, all things are possible!" But these, who turn and leave Jesus (6:66), are likened to Esau, who do not wrestle at all for their inheritance, but are happy with food that perishes (6:26-27). The Hebrews in Moses' day were freed that they would worship God - those in bondage were not worshiping God.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 11 that when we take communion, we are to "proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (v.26). What does this mean? Well, when we proclaim Jesus' death, we are basically doing deliverance on ourselves, as it is by His death that the demonic principalities are disarmed and triumphed over (Col. 2:14-15)! And when we are no longer oppressed and in bondage, and are with Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength as He leads us through the wilderness to the Promised Land, He comes! In other words, His presence is manifested - we love each other and are in one accord, and, sometimes, He actually shows up in the room bodily (Luke 24:30-31, 35)!

* * *

Good! That felt good to write! Do you feel good from that? That's the Spirit, making known the Son! Receive it! Amen!

Okay! Well, I also wanted to bring up again, as it may have been overlooked, the link I gave to my post about Purgatory... were you able to read over it and follow along in your Bible, and to pray over what I had written?

Awaiting your response and fellowship... - Lk.11

Realist1981
Jan 23rd 2008, 11:28 AM
The Catholic Chuch is the Body of Christ expect it's members to be persecuted and derailed by false prophets.
The word Catholic means universal

The Roman Catholic Church wasn't established until Constantine 325 AD (roughly)

The Roman Catholic Church isn't the Catholic Church

In the bible when the word catholic comes up it isn't talking about the RCC its talking about the Catholic Church i.e universal faith.

There were no Popes, cardinals, priests ect..
In fact there were no organization. Church was simply a gathering of believers in a basement in secret somewhere because of persecution

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 23rd 2008, 11:45 AM
The Roman Catholic Church wasn't established until Constantine 325 AD (roughly)


Can you cite some sort of evidence to back this up?

If you can, you will save me an unbelievable amount of study and research.

I have seen no historical evidence, testimony, or document that would substantiate this claim.

Realist1981
Jan 23rd 2008, 12:16 PM
Kata, I'll get back to you probably Thursday or Friday with a complete study. I don't have time right now. I'll create a different thread because I don't want to derail this thread

Thanks!!

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 23rd 2008, 01:13 PM
Kata, I'll get back to you probably Thursday or Friday with a complete study. I don't have time right now. I'll create a different thread because I don't want to derail this thread

Thanks!!

Sounds good, realist.

I'm looking forward to it!

Deriluxa
Jan 23rd 2008, 03:16 PM
The word Catholic means universal

The Roman Catholic Church wasn't established until Constantine 325 AD (roughly)

The Roman Catholic Church isn't the Catholic Church

In the bible when the word catholic comes up it isn't talking about the RCC its talking about the Catholic Church i.e universal faith.

There were no Popes, cardinals, priests ect..
In fact there were no organization. Church was simply a gathering of believers in a basement in secret somewhere because of persecution

Christians were allowed to practise their faith for the first time under emperor Constantine because he approved an Edict calling for the toleration of Christianity.

The word Catholic does not appear in the bible it was first used by Ignatius of Antioch to describe the Church.

How do you explain the apostolic succession from Peter to the current Pope Benedict XVI if there were no Popes in the early Church?

David Taylor
Jan 23rd 2008, 07:01 PM
Christians were allowed to practise their faith for the first time under emperor Constantine because he approved an Edict calling for the toleration of Christianity.

The word Catholic does not appear in the bible it was first used by Ignatius of Antioch to describe the Church.

How do you explain the apostolic succession from Peter to the current Pope Benedict XVI if there were no Popes in the early Church?

There was no apostolic succession between Peter and Benedict XVI.
This is just a claim the RCC holds.

It is no different than the apostolic succession from Peter to Gordon Hinkley that the Latter Day Saints claim.

Protestants and non-RCC believers within the Body of Christ simply reject those claims.

Non-RCC believers generally believe an 'Apostle' was nothing more than a living eye-witness to the resurrection Lord Jesus Christ, and they all died out within the Generation of Christ's incarnation.

The Body of Christ has continued through faithful believers over the ages since the 1st century, but it is not limited to only RCC Believers.

As for Christians practicing their faith, that was going on long before Constantine was born.

I think you can find examples of this in every since N.T. book; all written centuries before Constantine.

Deriluxa
Jan 23rd 2008, 09:51 PM
There was no apostolic succession between Peter and Benedict XVI.
This is just a claim the RCC holds.

It is no different than the apostolic succession from Peter to Gordon Hinkley that the Latter Day Saints claim.

Protestants and non-RCC believers within the Body of Christ simply reject those claims.

Non-RCC believers generally believe an 'Apostle' was nothing more than a living eye-witness to the resurrection Lord Jesus Christ, and they all died out within the Generation of Christ's incarnation.

The Body of Christ has continued through faithful believers over the ages since the 1st century, but it is not limited to only RCC Believers.

As for Christians practicing their faith, that was going on long before Constantine was born.

I think you can find examples of this in every since N.T. book; all written centuries before Constantine.

The early Church Fathers all accepted that there was and is apostolic succession from the apostles to carry on the authority that Christ bestowed on his apostles.

The origins of the LDS Church can be traced back to Joseph Smith, the Catholic Church can be traced back to Christ and his apostles, thats a pretty big difference.

Christians were not able to openly practice their faith before the Edict of Milan signed by Constantine which forbade the persecution of Christians.

David Taylor
Jan 23rd 2008, 10:08 PM
The early Church Fathers all accepted that there was and is apostolic succession from the apostles to carry on the authority that Christ bestowed on his apostles.

The origins of the LDS Church can be traced back to Joseph Smith, the Catholic Church can be traced back to Christ and his apostles, thats a pretty big difference.

Christians were not able to openly practice their faith before the Edict of Milan signed by Constantine which forbade the persecution of Christians.

The bible speaks of no apostolic succession; but rather it speaks of Holy faithful men, taking the gospel of Christ out into the world; being led by the Holy Spirit.

Christians practiced their faith long before Constantine.

Christians have always been persecuted for their faith; yesterday, today, and tomorrow.


Look, you seem to be wanting to turn this thread into a RCC apologetic; that isn't the purpose of this thread ("Whore of Babyon"), or this subforum and discussion board in general.

Now, back to the OP folks.

Deriluxa
Jan 23rd 2008, 10:38 PM
Vatican City is built on one hill not seven, the Vatican is to the East of the Tiber River and Rome is to the West. Vatican City is built on one hill not seven.

An interesting coincidence from scripture regarding a city built on a hill.

Matthew5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lamp stand, and it gives light to all the house.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 01:10 AM
Actually, Rome is built on seven hills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome Vatican City is a city in name only. Not the size of a suburb or even a housing development. It's really about the size of a maybe a small apartment complex. To put it in perspective one square mile is 640 acres and the Vatican is 108.8 acres; 0.17 sq. miles. One time around a standard high school track is 0.25 miles. So if you straightened out one track horizontally and one track vertically, it would be bigger than the Vatican.

Really, I'm not attempting to fit the RCC into any particular prophecy. Just responding to the post about a city on a hill. It just seems to trivialize the passage when it means so much more.

God Bless!

Deriluxa
Jan 24th 2008, 03:29 PM
Actually, Rome is built on seven hills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome Vatican City is a city in name only. Not the size of a suburb or even a housing development. It's really about the size of a maybe a small apartment complex. To put it in perspective one square mile is 640 acres and the Vatican is 108.8 acres; 0.17 sq. miles. One time around a standard high school track is 0.25 miles. So if you straightened out one track horizontally and one track vertically, it would be bigger than the Vatican.

Really, I'm not attempting to fit the RCC into any particular prophecy. Just responding to the post about a city on a hill. It just seems to trivialize the passage when it means so much more.

God Bless!

I'm not disputing that Rome is built on seven hills, what i am saying is that Vatican City is an internationally recognized sovereign state which is built on one hill not seven.

Correction from by earlier post, Vatican Hill is on the west of the Tiber river not the east as previously stated.

Moreover ask yourself why would Jesus talk about not hiding your lamp under a bushel basket, and then only reveal his Church during the time of the reformation?

Jollyrogers
Jan 24th 2008, 03:56 PM
Christians were allowed to practise their faith for the first time under emperor Constantine because he approved an Edict calling for the toleration of Christianity.

The word Catholic does not appear in the bible it was first used by Ignatius of Antioch to describe the Church.

How do you explain the apostolic succession from Peter to the current Pope Benedict XVI if there were no Popes in the early Church?


Easy, it is a myth. It has its roots in a mideviel book called "The Isidorian Decretals". This book, which surfaced abt 845, claimed to be a collection of the writtings of Popes going all the way back to Peter. 200 years later it was proven to be a forgery.

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church. http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html

The word "Pope" (which means father or papa) was used by all western bishops before 500 A.D.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 04:20 PM
Moreover ask yourself why would Jesus talk about not hiding your lamp under a bushel basket, and then only reveal his Church during the time of the reformation?Easy answer. He wouldn't. Christ's church has been clearly visible from His assent into heaven until this very moment. You and I simply disagree on what that 'church' IS. In my view His church did not start in Rome, nor does it RESIDE there. ;) Church or ecclesia (ekklesia) simply means a gathering or congregation. In this case Messiah's eclessia consist of those who 'gather/congregate' in His Name! It is not a particular building or organization or power structure, but rather it is His people, wherever they may be and whatever they may call themselves or be called. If you have submitted to Him as Lord and Savior then you are His and are thus my brother or sister in Christ and a member of His 'church'.

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 24th 2008, 04:20 PM
How do you explain the apostolic succession from Peter to the current Pope Benedict XVI if there were no Popes in the early Church?

Just because the church of Rome was headed by someone does not necessarily mean that the papacy as it is known today existed since the apostolic times.

We arent denying that there has been a succession of men who led the Roman church.

What we are saying is that the doctrine of papal SUPREMACY was a "new tradition" for the RCC.

Deriluxa
Jan 24th 2008, 04:44 PM
Easy answer. He wouldn't. Christ's church has been clearly visible from His assent into heaven until this very moment. You and I simply disagree on what that 'church' IS. In my view His church did not start in Rome, nor does it RESIDE there. ;) Church or ecclesia (ekklesia) simply means a gathering or congregation. In this case Messiah's eclessia consist of those who 'gather/congregate' in His Name! It is not a particular building or organization or power structure, but rather it is His people, wherever they may be and whatever they may call themselves or be called. If you have submitted to Him as Lord and Savior then you are His and are thus my brother or sister in Christ and a member of His 'church'.

God Bless!

I was going to make this response long, but i'll just ask you the question, do you believe the authority Jesus bestowed on the disciples ended when the disciples died?

Deriluxa
Jan 24th 2008, 04:50 PM
Just because the church of Rome was headed by someone does not necessarily mean that the papacy as it is known today existed since the apostolic times.

We arent denying that there has been a succession of men who led the Roman church.

What we are saying is that the doctrine of papal SUPREMACY was a "new tradition" for the RCC.

The Primacy of Peter and his successors has always been recognized by the Church.


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 05:12 PM
I was going to make this response long, but i'll just ask you the question, do you believe the authority Jesus bestowed on the disciples ended when the disciples died?No. Do you believe the power and authority from heaven which He spoke of was ONLY for those disciples or for all those who would through their testimonies, come to sit at the feet of the Master?
The Primacy of Peter and his successors has always been recognized by the Church.Actually, when looking to Apostolic scripture, James was often spoken of as the leader and James, John, AND Peter as pillars. (Acts 12:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=12&verse=17&version=50&context=verse), Acts 15:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&verse=13&version=50&context=verse), Acts 21:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=21&verse=18&version=50&context=verse), 1 Corinthians 15:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=7&version=50&context=verse), Galatians 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&verse=9&version=50&context=verse))

And this passage,
Galatians 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

seems to show that Peter was under the authority of James in some fashion.

Deriluxa
Jan 24th 2008, 05:26 PM
No. Do you believe the power and authority from heaven which He spoke of was ONLY for those disciples or for all those who would through their testimonies, come to sit at the feet of the Master?


Yes i believe certain sacraments can only be validly performed by a person who has been lawfully succeeded from the apostles.

I think the Church teaches that baptism can be performed validly using the trinitarian formula by a lay person in an emergency, i'd need to check this up.



Actually, when looking to Apostolic scripture, James was often spoken of as the leader and James, John, AND Peter as pillars. (Acts 12:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=12&verse=17&version=50&context=verse), Acts 15:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&verse=13&version=50&context=verse), Acts 21:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=21&verse=18&version=50&context=verse), 1 Corinthians 15:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=7&version=50&context=verse), Galatians 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&verse=9&version=50&context=verse))

And this passage,
Galatians 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

seems to show that Peter was under the authority of James in some fashion.


Peter had a special roll among the disciples he was conferred the keys of the kingdom, see Isaiah22:22 for the significance of this.

Did you know that the Pope confesses his sins to another priest, and that he can be wrong when not speaking ex cathedra?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 05:40 PM
Deriluxa, it appears we may eternally be going around in circles on this if we continue. You interpret scripture through the RCC while I understand that the 'church' is a gathering or a congregation that gathers for a specific purpose. In this case, in the Name of God the Son to the glory of God the Father. I interpret scripture through the Holy Spirit as Paul teaches us to do.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It does not say these things are papally discerned. As long as we interpret these things fundamentally differently; me through the Spirit of God you through the papacy, we will not agree on the specifics. However, if you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and submitted yourself to Him, I count you as one of my brothers and sisters in Christ, part of His holy 'church'. So, what do you count me as?

God Bless!

Nihil Obstat
Jan 24th 2008, 08:32 PM
I guess I'm not sure why it matters if Peter was the first pope...? What does that prove? Why the debate? Is this important to Catholic doctrine, or to the authority of and respect due the pope? I mean, let's say it was true that the pope today was commissioned by, through successions, Peter, and in essence entrusted those kingdom keys by laying on of hands... does this somehow mean that they will be godly men, or good leaders, or anything like that? Of course not. Just read First and Second Kings, and you'll see what I mean! Study those in Jesus' genealogy, and this should be easy to understand. So why the excitement over this? I mean, I don't think that Peter was the first pope, but I also don't think it matters if he was... nor do I think he was "the rock" Jesus spoke about building His church on, but again, even if that's what He said, why would it matter? Does it matter? - Lk.11

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 08:51 PM
Did you know that the Pope confesses his sins to another priest, and that he can be wrong when not speaking ex cathedra?Yes. As I said, I grew up roman catholic. Had 'first communion', was 'confirmed', I remember lots of the in and outs but when I finally read the Bible for myself, I just didn't feel it lined up with scripture. It feels like another set of Pharisees; telling the people that they are the mediators between God and man. When I read scripture and it tells me that because of His sacrifice, the separating wall has been removed. Now, I can go DIRECTLY to the throne of grace; boldly! No more are the pharisees to lord it over us. That's my two cents. ;)

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 25th 2008, 09:39 AM
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


Primacy, I can see. The church of Rome was supposed to be the spiritual leader of Christendom and the pope was dubbed by all christians as "the first among equals". (equal with all the other bishops)

The writings of the church fathers (over 30) acknowledge that Peter's profession of faith was the rock on which Christ will build his church, not Peter's office or Peter himself. Augustine deviated from many of the other church fathers in several important issues.


Actually, when looking to Apostolic scripture, James was often spoken of as the leader and James, John, AND Peter as pillars. (Acts 12:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=12&verse=17&version=50&context=verse), Acts 15:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&verse=13&version=50&context=verse), Acts 21:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=21&verse=18&version=50&context=verse), 1 Corinthians 15:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=7&version=50&context=verse), Galatians 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&verse=9&version=50&context=verse))

And this passage,
Galatians 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

seems to show that Peter was under the authority of James in some fashion.

James was a "bishop" along with Peter. They were equals. Peter was not the supreme, divinely-appointed ruler of all Christendom.

Deriluxa
Jan 25th 2008, 12:59 PM
Primacy, I can see. The church of Rome was supposed to be the spiritual leader of Christendom and the pope was dubbed by all christians as "the first among equals". (equal with all the other bishops)

The writings of the church fathers (over 30) acknowledge that Peter's profession of faith was the rock on which Christ will build his church, not Peter's office or Peter himself. Augustine deviated from many of the other church fathers in several important issues.


Peters profession of faith confirms him as the rock upon which Christ would build his Church. Peter had a devine revelation from God which Jesus confirms in Matthew16:17

Matthew16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.


"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

Studyin'2Show
Jan 25th 2008, 01:43 PM
So, in your view, the current pope is the possessor of the keys to the kingdom and all who get there must go through him? :rolleyes: You can not see that the 'key' to entrance to the kingdom is the profession of faith which Simon Peter made?

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

That is the key; not following a fallible man. ;)

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 25th 2008, 04:54 PM
Peters profession of faith confirms him as the rock upon which Christ would build his Church.

Patristic evidence supports that Peter's profession of faith was the rock. Not Peter himself.



Originally Posted by Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).


Far from being a pronouncement similar to Vatican I in 1870, this does not outline the doctrine that Peter was the all powerful supreme ruler of Christendom. In fact, the Papacy has been in a state of development for hundreds of years. You can even find the first encyclicals at papalencyclicals.net. There are none from the dark ages and before.

Also, had the pope was not a controversial figure until the middle ages, when he started insisting that he had control over the eastern bishops.

Disagree as you might, the office has also made conflicting pronouncements.



This thread has also had some major digression. Perhaps a new thread on Papal Supremacy would be more appropriate?

Deriluxa
Jan 25th 2008, 07:29 PM
So, in your view, the current pope is the possessor of the keys to the kingdom and all who get there must go through him? :rolleyes: You can not see that the 'key' to entrance to the kingdom is the profession of faith which Simon Peter made?

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

That is the key; not following a fallible man. ;)

What do you mean by go through the Pope? The Pope is an appointed person given the authority conferred upon Peter by Christ through lawful apostolic succession. The Pope is prevented from teaching error by the Holy Spirit when speaking ex cathedra.

The Pope and the magesterium can only teach what has been handed onto them through divine revelation. God knows the hearts of all men/women, each of us will be held accountable for either willfully accepting or rejecting revealed truths.


Patristic evidence supports that Peter's profession of faith was the rock. Not Peter himself.

I believe this idea first came about in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I suppose it could be considered to be partially true because Peter's profession of faith is what confirms him as the rock on which the Church will be built. There were many power struggles between the papacy and the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church, so it is no surprise that they came up with this interpretation. The fact remains that they accepted the Popes position before the schism, and even after the schism only to change their minds.

Teke
Jan 25th 2008, 07:41 PM
I believe this idea first came about in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I suppose it could be considered to be partially true because Peter's profession of faith is what confirms him as the rock on which the Church will be built. There were many power struggles between the papacy and the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church, so it is no surprise that they came up with this interpretation. The fact remains that they accepted the Popes position before the schism, and even after the schism only to change their minds.

What position did EO agree with and then "change their minds"?

Also, I don't see what "power" struggles your speaking of. They were all to be equal in the early church, so the only struggle was to keep the churches wherever they had begun.

Deriluxa
Jan 25th 2008, 08:17 PM
What position did EO agree with and then "change their minds"?

Also, I don't see what "power" struggles your speaking of. They were all to be equal in the early church, so the only struggle was to keep the churches wherever they had begun.

The Primacy of the Pope at the Council of Florence.

The Power struggles were always there, the patriarch of Constantinople wanting greater ecclesiastical powers because of the pre-emenence of the City.

Rome siding with Ignatius over Photius about the lawful bishop of Constantinople.

Also something i didn't know about Photius until recently is that he was prophesied to become patriarch by Michael of Synnada but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father and mother then wanted to kill him, but the bishop encouraged them not to. His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon.(Information from Catholic Encyclopedia)

Teke
Jan 26th 2008, 02:28 AM
The Primacy of the Pope at the Council of Florence.

Why do you always come back to this. We went over this in other threads.
Eastern Patriarchs condemned the Council of Florence and named it "tyrannical".

This is not a shining moment in Roman Catholic history. There are too many instances of Rome trying to force their ideals on Eastern Orthodox. I wouldn't make it an issue in your favor.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 26th 2008, 07:38 AM
There were many power struggles between the papacy and the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church, so it is no surprise that they came up with this interpretation.

This was the position of the church fathers before the conflicts even began.

David Taylor
Jan 26th 2008, 02:29 PM
Patristic evidence supports that Peter's profession of faith was the rock. Not Peter himself.

Disagree as you might, the office has also made conflicting pronouncements.

This thread has also had some major digression. Perhaps a new thread on Papal Supremacy would be more appropriate?

Good point Kata.

if yall want to start a new thread listing the many conflicting ex cathedra papal pronouncements over the centuries then go ahead, that would be a useful and hopefully eye-opening presentation to some who aren't aware of them.

This thread needs to return to the OP of " Whore of Babylon".

Deriluxa
Jan 26th 2008, 07:53 PM
I believe Rome could also fit the description of a City that has killed the saints, with many christians being martyred there in coliseum's and by other means.

I just recently read that Tertullian recognized Babylon as the City of Rome.

But as most scholars agree the number 666 is in reference to Nero Caesar, and so the Whore of Babylon could be a depiction of pagan Rome which is drunk with the blood of the saints.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 26th 2008, 10:52 PM
But as most scholars agree the number 666 is in reference to Nero Caesar, and so the Whore of Babylon could be a depiction of pagan Rome which is drunk with the blood of the saints.Most scholars? I don't think so. There are those who hold a preterists view that would agree about the Nero thing, but MOST scholars are not preterists.

Deriluxa
Jan 26th 2008, 11:50 PM
Most scholars? I don't think so. There are those who hold a preterists view that would agree about the Nero thing, but MOST scholars are not preterists.

Not everyone who equates 666 with Nero Caesar is a preterist. They may believe the future antichrist will be like Nero Caesar.

The Parson
Jan 27th 2008, 12:01 AM
I believe Rome could also fit the description of a City that has killed the saints, with many christians being martyred there in coliseum's and by other means.

I just recently read that Tertullian recognized Babylon as the City of Rome.

But as most scholars agree the number 666 is in reference to Nero Caesar, and so the Whore of Babylon could be a depiction of pagan Rome which is drunk with the blood of the saints.I'm so glad you mentioned Tertullian Delrexina. He was many of those who were part of the continuing church. He is also one who spoke against the corruption which became the RCC of whom my forefathers have always referred to as the Great Harlot.

I want to ask you a favor please. Would you start a thread in Chat to the moderators (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=84)? I'd sure appreciate it.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 12:02 AM
Not everyone who equates 666 with Nero Caesar is a preterist. They may believe the future antichrist will be like Nero Caesar.Fair enough. ;) Your post seemed to imply complete fulfillment. I apologize if I misunderstood. So, if there was a partial fulfillment regarding the 'Whore of Babylon' as you believe there has been with the Nero/antichrist prophecy, there is still a complete fulfillment on the horizon. If Rome was consider Babylon then, could it not still be Babylon?

Deriluxa
Jan 27th 2008, 01:29 AM
Fair enough. ;) Your post seemed to imply complete fulfillment. I apologize if I misunderstood. So, if there was a partial fulfillment regarding the 'Whore of Babylon' as you believe there has been with the Nero/antichrist prophecy, there is still a complete fulfillment on the horizon. If Rome was consider Babylon then, could it not still be Babylon?

If 666 does represent Nero Caesar then it would follow that the Whore of Babylon could represent pagan Rome of which Nero Caesar was the emperor. This also fits in with Daniels interpretation regarding the statue in King Nebuchadrezzar's dream of a revived Roman Empire.

The revived Roman Empire could represent pagan Rome which was drunk with the blood of the saints until the edict of Milan by Constantine forbidding the persecution of christians.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 01:35 AM
You said that already, but that's about the past. I was referring to the future.

Deriluxa
Jan 27th 2008, 02:43 AM
You said that already, but that's about the past. I was referring to the future.

That is the point i am making they could be using examples from their present/past to project what the antichrist and revived Roman Empire will be like in the future.

In other words if 666 represents Nero then it follows that the Whore of Babylon represents the pagan/pre-christian Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was pagan before Constantines Edict of Milan. Which Roman Empire do you believe Daniel and John are referring to, the pagan or christian Roman Empire?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 02:58 AM
The point I thought was discussing what that FUTURE Babylon might be. In my first post I gave my view. I don't usually quote myself :rolleyes: but here it is
Just to be fair, I believe that the 'Whore of Babylon' is used by those who are not really labeling 'the city' per se. It is the religious system that many believe fits the label. A whore is one who sells themselves for profit; whether that profit is money, power and prestige, or popularity. Babylon seems to represent a religious system, NOT a particular place. I am one that leans toward the move to 'ecumenize' religion being this whore. No, all religious beliefs are not the same! To act as if they are is completely selling out for the sake of political correctness. I would NEVER stand before an altar with a shaman, an imam, a witch doctor, a hindu priest, a bhuddist monk, etc. and act as if we are all praying to my God. That would be an act of whoredom and yet we see that more and more with the move toward ecumenical spiritualization as an acceptable means of worship. This PC (politically correct) religion may very well be what the prophecy in Revelation refers to. What is your view?

Deriluxa
Jan 27th 2008, 02:21 PM
What is your view?

My view is that the coming kingdom of the antichrsit will be like pagan/pre-christian Rome.

There is a problem for protestants who state that the Roman Catholic Church was started by Constantine and who still label the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon.

The first problem is that they acknowledge that the Roman Empire had two distinct phases. The pre Constantine pagan era, and the post Constantine christian era.

Most protestants to my knowledge also accept that the coming kingdom of the anti christ will be a revived Roman Empire, of the two distinct era's of the Roman Empire to my knowledge the pagan era would be better described as drunk with the blood of the saints.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 08:59 PM
There's a problem with lumping all of any people into one basket. I wouldn't say that most Protestants are figuring the RCC is the whore of Babylon. Many? Sure. Most? I just don't think so. I believe most realize that prophesy is best analyzed in hindsight. ;) However, you also must consider that not all non-RCs are Protestants. I know that Quakers and Anabaptist, as well as EO, and many non-denominational believers would consider themselves in that category.

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 27th 2008, 10:23 PM
However, you also must consider that not all non-RCs are Protestants. I know that Quakers and Anabaptist,

Aren't the Quakers and Anabaptists protestants? Along with the "non-denominational" believers?


as well as EO

Perhaps TEKE would like to fill us in on the EO interpretation of this.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 10:50 PM
Aren't the Quakers and Anabaptists protestants? Along with the "non-denominational" believers?

Perhaps TEKE would like to fill us in on the EO interpretation of this.Nope! Protestants are a group that protested and broke away from the RCC. The groups I mentioned feel they were NEVER part of the RCC.

Deriluxa
Jan 27th 2008, 11:07 PM
There's a problem with lumping all of any people into one basket. I wouldn't say that most Protestants are figuring the RCC is the whore of Babylon. Many? Sure. Most? I just don't think so. I believe most realize that prophesy is best analyzed in hindsight. ;) However, you also must consider that not all non-RCs are Protestants. I know that Quakers and Anabaptist, as well as EO, and many non-denominational believers would consider themselves in that category.

I never stated that most protestants believe that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. I stated that i believe most knowledgeable protestants interpret the prophecy of the statues feet in Daniel as being a revived Roman Empire. I believe the same interpretation is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The point is which era of the Roman Empire is more guilty of persecuting christians, the post or pre Constantine era?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 27th 2008, 11:20 PM
I never stated that most protestants believe that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. I stated that i believe most knowledgeable protestants interpret the prophecy of the statues feet in Daniel as being a revived Roman Empire. I believe the same interpretation is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The point is which era of the Roman Empire is more guilty of persecuting christians, the post or pre Constantine era?Once again, I believe the adjective 'most' is not the right one to use, but rather 'many'. But I guess that's really not important. Do you have an idea as to the ACTUAL system or group that you believe will be the whore of Babylon?

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 27th 2008, 11:45 PM
Nope! Protestants are a group that protested and broke away from the RCC. The groups I mentioned feel they were NEVER part of the RCC.

This is a side discussion, and if you feel its inappropriate for the thread, just let me know, but

Scholars classify such groups as part of the "radical reformation" which had its beginnings in the 16th century reform movements of western christianity.

Although I could suppose said groups felt they were forming new churches.

The Parson
Jan 28th 2008, 02:25 AM
Lets not go over that roller coaster again KATA. Lets stick with the OP.

Ref: These hard headed Baptists (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+head) (http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+head) 2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=2&highlight=hard+head) 3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=3&highlight=hard+head) 4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=4&highlight=hard+head) 5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=5&highlight=hard+head) ... Last Page (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=12&highlight=hard+head))

KATA_LOUKAN
Jan 28th 2008, 10:50 AM
Lets not go over that roller coaster again KATA. Lets stick with the OP.

Ref: These hard headed Baptists (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+head) (http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+head) 2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=2&highlight=hard+head) 3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=3&highlight=hard+head) 4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=4&highlight=hard+head) 5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=5&highlight=hard+head) ... Last Page (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=12&highlight=hard+head))

Sounds good. Thanks for the links.

New thread, here I come!

Deriluxa
Jan 28th 2008, 01:52 PM
Once again, I believe the adjective 'most' is not the right one to use, but rather 'many'. But I guess that's really not important. Do you have an idea as to the ACTUAL system or group that you believe will be the whore of Babylon?

I believe that is the standard interpretation of the statue in Daniel.

Head- Babylonian
The silver breast and arms- Medo/Persian
The copper belly and thighs- Greco/Macedonian
The iron Legs- Roman
The feet of iron and clay- Revived Roman Empire

If the feet of iron and clay do represent a revived Roman Empire, it could be an alliance of ten countries stemming from the European Union.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 28th 2008, 02:45 PM
I believe that is the standard interpretation of the statue in Daniel.

Head- Babylonian
The silver breast and arms- Medo/Persian
The copper belly and thighs- Greco/Macedonian
The iron Legs- Roman
The feet of iron and clay- Revived Roman Empire

If the feet of iron and clay do represent a revived Roman Empire, it could be an alliance of ten countries stemming from the European Union.Thanks for the input. That is what I was taught, as well. However, after digging deeper into the verses, I believe there is more there than what seems obvious. Ten, in scripture, is the number of completion or totality. The ten commandments, the ten virgins, ten lepers etc. So, I don't think it will need to be that number of nations but simply symbolizes the nations in totality. Also, Babylon is the symbol of false religion, religion so called, an Oprah type of 'remembering your spirit' as long as you don't mention Messiah. Spirituality is more than acceptable to speak of in public. Yeshua/Jesus is not accepted. There are military chaplains that have been court-martialed for praying (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51973) "in the Name of Jesus". The chaplains are said to be intolerant because they did not do just a general prayer without mentioning Him. I believe this politically correct, ultra-tolerant, non-Jesus religion is already beginning to form and gain power around the world. I believe that when it has reached full power, it will single out Christians, whether RC or baptist or Messianic or whatever who would dare to stand by the word of Messiah who says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Me." We will be labeled haters, intolerant, enemies of peace, and worse. Anyway, that's what I see beginning to happen. I'm not firm on prophecy, believing that these things will be best understood in hindsight.

Teke
Jan 28th 2008, 03:55 PM
Perhaps TEKE would like to fill us in on the EO interpretation of this.

Background information

1) The interpretation of Revelation
Revelation has been interpreted in many ways throughout the history of the church. However, three basic approaches to its interpretation stand out.

The contemporaneous approach assumes that Revelation was written for a specific group of churches (1:11) with specific needs at a specific time. The work is therefore interpreted in terms of what it was meant to say to those to whom it was immediately addressed.

The futurist approach assumes that Revelation is a book of prophecy addressing a time far distant from its era of composition, predicting actual future events.

The idealist approach assumes that Revelation is an exposition of the ongoing relationships and conflicts between God and His Kingdom, humanity, and the devil. It reveals things in the past, present and future.

These three approaches are not contradictory, but must be used in conjunction. Revelation is for those to whom it is addressed and, equally, for us all.

2) The liturgical use of Revelation in the Church
While seen as canonical and inspired by God, Revelation is the only NT book not publicly read in the services of the Orthodox Church. This is partly because the book was only gradually accepted a canonical in many parts of Christendom. In addition, in the second and third centuries Revelation was widely twisted and sensationally misinterpreted, and the resulting erroneous teachings brought troublesome confusion to Christians. These issues, coupled with the presence of admittedly obscure and difficult passages, caused the church to adopt a cautious approach to the interpretation of Revelation.

3) The literary features of Revelation
This book is unique within NT literature because it combines three important literary types: apocalyptic, prophetic, and epistolary writing.

The apocalyptic from was especially popular in Judaic and Christian literature from about 200 BC to AD 200. It abounds with features such as divine visions, vivid and even grotesque imagery, and symbolic numerology. Apocalyptic works offered hope and encouraged steadfastness to groups undergoing persecution or severe crisis. Revelation was written for churches suffering persecution.

Revelation is distinctly prophetic, speaking God's word directly to the seven Asian churches in their tribulation. It prophetically envisions the final victory of God over evil, including the last judgment and the establishment of His eternal Kingdom.

The epistolary character of Revelation is also pronounced. Fundamentally, it is an epistle, a letter, from an early church leader to specific churches, full of exhortation directed toward their particular situations.


With all that in mind. The harlot is Rome the empire, not a nation or city. The harlot is identified by the band on her head. Roman law stated harlots must wear headbands exhibiting their name. This great harlot bears the mysterious name of "Babylon....Mother of Harlots". For the late first century Christians, Babylon was incarnate of Rome (see 1 Peter 5:13), but it is primarily a spiritual reality, a "mystery", transcending concrete manifestations. For Babylon has always stood for rebellion against God (see Gen. 11:1-9; Babel=Babylon): self-exaltation and idolatry. She is the mother "of the abominations of the earth " (literally "detestable things"), the prostitution of God's creation. And she finds her life in a perverse eucharist, the death of those united with Life Incarnate.

This is supported, for instance, in depictions like that of Jeremiah 51:7, where Babylon is pictured as a golden cup in the hand of the Lord which makes all the earth madly intoxicated.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 29th 2008, 12:41 AM
I guess I just think if we're to truly go back to the 'original' church, we would meet together with other believers from house to house, as the early believers did. The real division did not occur until power became an issue. One bishop saying I'm in charge here and choosing not to resolve matters biblically as believer should. We have a housechurch fellowship and you're right about not protesting. I'm not protesting anything. Still consider our last church as family. Nope, not protesting. :D

God Bless!

Teke
Jan 29th 2008, 02:07 AM
Jesus never said he was speaking a parable when he said THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD, I have the faith to believe his words. Many left him when he spoke such things because they knew he was not speaking a parable. As far as the lies about Rome being whore of babylon...

Opally, I hope my post did not offend you. It was not written with any intent to assault your religion.
It is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the text of Revelation. And in no way discredits the Christian patriarchate of Rome.

Forgive me.:hug:


He called for no divisions or schisms.

Well that is a subject for another thread. As your patriarchate has been in schism from Orthodox Christianity for some time. ;)

Deriluxa
Jan 29th 2008, 01:19 PM
For Babylon has always stood for rebellion against God (see Gen. 11:1-9; Babel=Babylon): self-exaltation and idolatry. She is the mother "of the abominations of the earth " (literally "detestable things"), the prostitution of God's creation. And she finds her life in a perverse eucharist, the death of those united with Life Incarnate.

Could you elaborate on what you believe a perverse Eucharist to be?

Do you believe the RCC sacrament of the Eucharist is perverse?

Teke
Jan 29th 2008, 01:47 PM
Could you elaborate on what you believe a perverse Eucharist to be?

As I posted, "the death of those united with Life Incarnate".


Do you believe the RCC sacrament of the Eucharist is perverse?

No I do not.
note- EO do not call the mysteries "sacraments".