Hunting the Whore of Babylon

[samuel]

The Harlot is called the mother of all harlots. Since the RCC did not come along until around AD 400, how can it be the originator of apostasy. That title belongs to another. Or the murderer of the Prophets, they were far before the RCC.

I did not say it was Israel, but then I did not say it was NOT either. Prophesy is hardly worth discussing, there are so many opinions, all they serve to do is confuse others. Besides! I for one am not planning on being around for the Beast show. I think there are too many other more important! issues, that need discussing.

 

[RND]

The Harlot is called the mother of all harlots. Since the RCC did not come along until around AD 400, how can it be the originator of apostasy. That title belongs to another. Or the murderer of the Prophets, they were far before the RCC.

The RCC is not the originator of the apostasy. That happened when the COI gave their children to walk in the flames of Molech. What the RCC is the originator of is the mixing of paganism with Christianity.

I did not say it was Israel,

Um, yes you did.

but then I did not say it was NOT either.

Hedging your bets or just sitting on the fence?

Prophesy is hardly worth discussing, there are so many opinions, all they serve to do is confuse others.

For those that have little interest in, or knowledge of, a topic I would agree.

Besides! I for one am not planning on being around for the Beast show.

Secret rapture nonsense? You'll be here.

I think there are too many other more important! issues, that need discussing.

There are many, many topics that we can discuss.

 

[samuel]

What the RCC is the originator of is the mixing of paganism with Christianity.

Although I would probably think it happened even before the RCC, I will have to give them credit for that. Starting with Constantine, but I don't think the RCC recognizes him as their originator.

And yes I did end my statement about Israel with two ??.

 

[parousia70]

Scripture teaches the antichrist will have his seat in the temple of God

The scriptural teaching on antichrist contains no such claim.

See for yourself.
Here is EVERYTHING scripture teaches about antichrist:

1.
1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

2.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

3.
1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

4.
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

That is it. Nothing about sitting in a temple here.

It never ceases to amaze me how tightly people hold their man made tradition of applying John's antichrist to other scriptural figures (such as Paul's man of sin or John's Beast) in the complete and utter absence of ANY scriptural instruction to do so.

 

[samuel]

Scripture teaches the antichrist will have his seat in the temple of God

Don't give me credit for this, I did not say it.

 

[samuel]

There is however this:

2Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Thess. 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Now the question, is Paul indicating a physical temple, or the spiritual one?.

 

[parousia70]

Scripture teaches the antichrist will have his seat in the temple of God

Don't give me credit for this, I did not say it.

Sorry...bad edit on my part...I'll correct

 

[parousia70]

There is however this:

2Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Thess. 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Now the question, is Paul indicating a physical temple, or the spiritual one?.

Whatever it was, it applied to the Thessalonians of the first century as this man was alive and being restrained from his takeover of the temple in their day.

It's not an event in our future.

 

[Vic C.]

What the RCC is the originator of is the mixing of paganism with Christianity.

Although I would probably think it happened even before the RCC, I will have to give them credit for that. Starting with Constantine, but I don't think the RCC recognizes him as their originator.....

Ooh, Samuel, I wouldn't agree to that. Bible states this was a problem way back in the first century. Paul, for instance, was having problems with the church in Corinth, due to their incorporation pagan practices into their own. Give them (and us) credit for propagating these practices.

The SDA will attribute just about everything that is wrong with Christianity to the RCC. For me, who does harbor some Historicist beliefs, this is a fundamental flaw.

There is however this:

2Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Thess. 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Now the question, is Paul indicating a physical temple, or the spiritual one?.

Both... physical in the past and spiritual in our future. It would mean nothing to us and shouldn't have been canonized if it didn't hold more than just a historical account. The Bible is much more than a history book. :yes

 

[veteran]

RND asks what am I protesting? I'm not protesting, I'm declaring; there is a difference.

I'm not a member of the RCC; as a matter of fact, I've got European ancestors that were Huganoughts, part of the earliest Protestant movement against the RCC in France. That was one of the reasons my Protestant Christian ancestors wound up in Great Britain and then America later. The early Protestants thought the RCC was the manifesting of the beast and antichrist in their day, and thus thought the end would come in their days. It didn't happen. They were watching like our Lord Jesus said to do, but not all the signs were there, a lot of the signs were missing. But today, a lot of those missing signs are present, but not with the RCC, but with the one-world order globalist movement, which appears to be a rarely covered topic from the world view of those who concentrate on the RCC as the Revelation beast (because of false Kingdom Theology?). And that concetration appears to be coming from a misleading of teachers within some Churches today keying too much on the old reformer's histories.

 

[Vic C.]

RND asks what am I protesting? I'm not protesting, I'm declaring; there is a difference.

I know why he asked. You said you were a Protestant Christian and he wanted to know what it is you are protesting. Sometimes we get the words protestant and reformer mixed up. :yes

 

[RND]

Whatever it was,

Whatever it was? You mean we can't know? God is playing "hide n' seek" with us?

it applied to the Thessalonians of the first century as this man was alive and being restrained from his takeover of the temple in their day.

Question: If it applied to an event in the Thessalonians day what is it in the Bible for?

It's not an event in our future.

It's even at the door.

 

[RND]

RND asks what am I protesting? I'm not protesting, I'm declaring; there is a difference.

You called yourself a "Protestant" the root word of course is "protest."

So again, what are you protesting to call yourself a "Protestant?"

I'm not a member of the RCC; as a matter of fact, I've got European ancestors that were Huganoughts, part of the earliest Protestant movement against the RCC in France.

The Huguenots were definitely attacked unmercifully by the RCC.

That was one of the reasons my Protestant Christian ancestors wound up in Great Britain and then America later. The early Protestants thought the RCC was the manifesting of the beast and antichrist in their day, and thus thought the end would come in their days. It didn't happen. They were watching like our Lord Jesus said to do, but not all the signs were there, a lot of the signs were missing. But today, a lot of those missing signs are present, but not with the RCC, but with the one-world order globalist movement, which appears to be a rarely covered topic from the world view of those who concentrate on the RCC as the Revelation beast (because of false Kingdom Theology?).

It seems to me in these last days "worship" becomes the major issue - forced worship at that. How does the modern, secular, nation state of Israel force the world to worship them?

And that concetration appears to be coming from a misleading of teachers within some Churches today keying too much on the old reformer's histories.

Deflecting questions aimed at your comments doesn't change the fact that you should have at least a semblance of an answer for why you believe Israel is the woman of Revelation 17.

 

[Vic C.]

... Deflecting questions aimed at your comments doesn't change the fact that you should have at least a semblance of an answer for why you believe Israel is the woman of Revelation 17.

Are you really interested or are you going to take the dyed in the wool stance of your denomination? I'm not trying to put you down, but you don't seemed to be interested. You appear to be entrenched in the textbook historicist's beliefs.

I don't know if veteran can answer you, but I believe the answer is firmly in Scripture without ever leaving the Bible, once, for extra Biblical support.

For instance:

Mat 23:37 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!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

If you keep that in mind while reading Rev. 17, it should leave you scratching your head. < yeah, like that. ;)

The OT is chock full of verses that point us to no one but Jerusalem and it's inhabitants. A first century reader, whether a follower of Jesus of of the Jewish persuasion, who had knowledge of their Scripture and it's culture's history, would most likely understand this and recognize who John was writing about.

How this plays out in the future of whether this part of scripture is in our future is what is being questioned after all, isn't it?

 

[RND]

... Deflecting questions aimed at your comments doesn't change the fact that you should have at least a semblance of an answer for why you believe Israel is the woman of Revelation 17.

Are you really interested or are you going to take the dyed in the wool stance of your denomination? I'm not trying to put you down, but you don't seemed to be interested. You appear to be entrenched in the textbook historicist's beliefs.

Vic, my position and my beliefs have nothing to do with the why's or how come's as to how other people address and express their beliefs.

I don't know if veteran can answer you, but I believe the answer is firmly in Scripture without ever leaving the Bible, once, for extra Biblical support.

For instance:

Mat 23:37 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!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

If you keep that in mind while reading Rev. 17, it should leave you scratching your head. < yeah, like that. ;)

Vic, I'm not too sure where you are going here in that I don't see the connection between the Pharisees in Jesus' day and the false teachings of the mother church in Rev. 17.

The OT is chock full of verses that point us to no one but Jerusalem and it's inhabitants. A first century reader, whether a follower of Jesus of of the Jewish persuasion, who had knowledge of their Scripture and it's culture's history, would most likely understand this and recognize who John was writing about.

I think it is fairly clear who John was writing about and it wasn't Jerusalem. There is no way one can fit Jerusalem into Rev. 17. without going through strained contortions in Biblical exegesis.

How this plays out in the future of whether this part of scripture is in our future is what is being questioned after all, isn't it?

For some that have no idea about the prophecies on Revelation? Sure, I'd agree. But for those that have a firm understanding of what John's epistles points to there is really no question at all.

 

[TheCatholic]

Hunting the Whore is not too hard to do. All apostate religion is represented by the Whore. Determining who the Mother is, is another matter, and it is not the RCC, she is just another apostate child of the Whore.

And who is authority to claim who is apostatate and who is not? You?

 

[Elf]

Hunting the Whore is not too hard to do. All apostate religion is represented by the Whore. Determining who the Mother is, is another matter, and it is not the RCC, she is just another apostate child of the Whore.

And who is authority to claim who is apostatate and who is not? You?

That's a simple answer, scripture of course.

 

[RND]

Hunting the Whore is not too hard to do. All apostate religion is represented by the Whore. Determining who the Mother is, is another matter, and it is not the RCC, she is just another apostate child of the Whore.

And who is authority to claim who is apostatate and who is not? You?

The word of God the Father.

 

[researcher]

RND wrote - Vic, I'm not too sure where you are going here in that I don't see the connection between the Pharisees in Jesus' day and the false teachings of the mother church in Rev. 17.

If I might answer for Vic:

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen,
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 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!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 

[RND]

RND wrote - Vic, I'm not too sure where you are going here in that I don't see the connection between the Pharisees in Jesus' day and the false teachings of the mother church in Rev. 17.

If I might answer for Vic:

So what's you answer? Quoting related scripture doesn't do much if you don't equate the meaning of what is behind the scripture. Are you saying that the Pharisees are Babylon? Jesus said the Pharisees were "of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do" because they didn't abide "in the truth, because there is no truth in him." Thus what we are seeing in Revelation 18 is that Babylon is fallen because she has the same spirit of the devil that the Pharisees had.

Babylon = Babel = "gate of God" = a different way to God.