Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mystery Babylon

Mystery Babylon
Quoting: Mr. Rev. Clarence Larkin.
“When Attalus, the Pontiff and King of Pergamos, died B.C. 133, he bequeathed the Headship of the Babylonian Priesthood to Rome. When the Etruscans came to Italy from Lydia (The region of Pergamos), they brought with them the Babylonian religion and rites. They set up a Pontiff who was head of the Priesthood. Later the Romans accepted this Pontiff as their civil ruler. Julius Caesar was made Pontiff of the Etruscan Order in B.C. 74. In B. C. 63, he was made Supreme Pontiff of the “Babylonian Order,” thus becoming heir to the rights an title of Attalus, Pontiff of Pergamos…Thus the first Roman Emperor become head of the “Babylonian Priesthood” and Rome the successor of Babylon (p. 151-152).” ...Constantine the Great coinage carried the symbols of the sun-cult until 324. Even when he dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem. Constantine was the Pagan High priest of the Babylonian Mystery cult.
Attalus III (in Greek Attalos III) Philometor Euergetes (ca 170 BC – 133 BC) was the last Attalid king of Pergamon, ruling from 138 BC to 133 BC.
Rev. Alexander Hislop states: “… There never has been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman sitting on seven hills, and having on her fore head the name written ‘Mystery, Babylon the great,’ with the Roman apostasy. No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has … for its situation on seven hills (p. 2).”
Mystery Babylon.

That city is Rome, and more specifically, Vatican City.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating admits that Rome has long been known as Babylon. Keating claims that Peter's statement "The church here in Babylon ... sends you her greeting" (from I Peter 5:13) proves that Peter was writing from Rome. He explains further:

"Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible [four of the six are in chapters 17 and 18 and in extrabiblical works such as Sibylling Oracles (5, 159f.), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ii, 1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Eusebius Pamphilius, writing about 303, noted that "it is said that Peter's first epistle... was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

As for "Mystery," that name imprinted on the woman's forehead is the perfect designation for Vatican City. Mystery is at the very heart of Roman Catholicism, from the words "Mysterium fide" pronounced at the alleged transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ to the enigmatic apparitions of Mary around the world.
Every sacrament, from baptism to extreme unction, manifests the mysterious power which the faithful must believe the priests wield, but for which there is no visible evidence. Rome's new Catechism explains that liturgy "aims to initiate souls into the mystery of Christ (It is 'mystagogy.')" and that all of the Church's liturgy is "mystery."
 
Jesus taught us everything that we need to know about the Gospel.

Do you realize that Jesus is repeating similar teachings in 4 gospels?

You know Jesus says He is the Teacher.

Don't you think He taught us everything we need to know about God's kingdom and the Gospel?
Do you have 3 other verses that teach the same thing?
Jesus is not repeating similar teachings in 4 gospels.
Do you not understand that Jesus didn't write the Gospels?
Jesus taught and His disciples wrote 4 different versions of His words.
You are taking a few words from one verse and making a theology out of it.
Please show at least the 3 other references that there should be if the Gospels follow your theories.
 
If you read the Gospel books, you know it is not much.

I know you guys skipping too many of Jesus' words to make your own doctrine.

I know it because of what Jesus says in the Gospel books.
But you have skipped Jesus's words, and John's too.
 
I follow Jesus' theory, not mine.

Elaborate your question, please.
You provided one verse John 20:17.
Now provide 3 more.
One from each Gospel that shows the same teaching.
You state that Jesus taught 4 times similar teachings.
Provide the other 3 please.
 
You provided one verse John 20:17.
Now provide 3 more.
One from each Gospel that shows the same teaching.
You state that Jesus taught 4 times similar teachings.
Provide the other 3 please.
Not everything is repeated.

But I know everything is said in the books of the gospels and I don't skip any of it unlike most of you.
 
Not everything is repeated.

But I know everything is said in the books of the gospels and I don't skip any of it unlike most of you.
How about 2 other teachings that are similar.
For someone who knows everything Jesus said this should be off the top of your head.
Or did you have to search for Jesus' words to back up your theory?
 
How about 2 other teachings that are similar.
For someone who knows everything Jesus said this should be off the top of your head.
Or did you have to search for Jesus' words to back up your theory?
Why the nitpicking?

You don't get the idea of my point?

Or you are just being argumentative or picking a fight?
 
Why the nitpicking?

You don't get the idea of my point?

Or you are just being argumentative or picking a fight?
I am asking for more than one verse that may, or may not, back your claim.
How about you back up your claim with a few extra verses?
 
I am asking for more than one verse that may, or may not, back your claim.
How about you back up your claim with a few extra verses?
Ok, since you don't seem to get my point I will just spell it out.

Jesus' teachings are the core of Christianity.

So His followers are supposed to honor all His word.

That's why I read 4 gospels since Jesus' words are all in those books.

If your purpose is just picking a fight and continuing nitpicking or dishonest questions, I will put you on ignore.

I took many hours for you. I thought your inquiry might be sincere.

But it is becoming hostile and unbecoming.

it is so childish and unchristian like even claiming to read the Bible for 30 years.

this is my last message to you.

blessings.
 
Ok, since you don't seem to get my point I will just spell it out.

Jesus' teachings are the core of Christianity.

So His followers are supposed to honor all His word.

That's why I read 4 gospels since Jesus' words are all in those books.
You make a small error here.
There are more words of Jesus than are found in the Gospels.
Are you not forgetting all the wonderful words of Jesus found in Revelation?
If your purpose is just picking a fight and continuing nitpicking or dishonest questions, I will put you on ignore.
That is not my purpose. But you are saying things that are not proven to be true and don't ring true.
So of course I will ask for proof of what you are teaching.
I took many hours for you. I thought your inquiry might be sincere.
And yet you have not spelled out your position but rather have been insulting several times.
But it is becoming hostile and unbecoming.
How so? I have not been hostile at all. I am just asking for more that a few words spoken once in questionable circumstances.
it is so childish and unchristian like even claiming to read the Bible for 30 years.
This is the truth. You don't like it but that does not change the facts.
I have read the Bible through many times... the best time was when I did it in one month. Gives a wonderful overview of the history of the entire book. An experience I highly recommend.
this is my last message to you.

blessings.
Sorry to see you go. And thank you for the blessing. I have been very blessed.
 
How did I skip His word?
I have given several verses that you have so far ignored--John 1:1-18; 5:17-18; 8:23-24, 58; 10:30-33; 20:28. There is also Jesus's continual way of referring to himself as the "Son of God," which is itself a claim to deity, much like in 5:17-18 and 10:30-33.

I dont read John the way you do.

You follow the triune god so that's how you interpret or read.
I don't read John a certain way because I believe God is triune, I believe God is triune precisely because I read what John actually writes and take into consideration the language, grammar, and context, as we always should. If we don't do those things, it is all but guaranteed to lead to error.
 
I don't read John a certain way because I believe God is triune, I believe God is triune precisely because I read what John actually writes and take into consideration the language, grammar, and context, as we always should. If we don't do those things, it is all but guaranteed to lead to error.
That will do for me.

I don't try to understand triune god-worshipping interpretations.

you guys give too much of your own reading to Jesus' simple gospel.

I don't give much respect who do not honor Jesus' own word of His Father is His God.

everything else you add is a man-made interpretation, not according to Jesus' word.

blessings.
 
That will do for me.

I don't try to understand triune god-worshipping interpretations.
You should because the one true God of the Bible is triune.

you guys give too much of your own reading to Jesus' simple gospel.
Can you provide a definition of the gospel? The gospel is simple, but the nature of God is not.

I don't give much respect who do not honor Jesus' own word of His Father is His God.
Both Jesus and John clearly thought Jesus was God, but not the Father. Then Paul and Peter both repeat this in their writings, as they should. You are ignoring much and in so doing, are taking things out of context and coming to an incorrect understanding. That is a serious problem that I keep pointing out to you.

everything else you add is a man-made interpretation, not according to Jesus' word.
I haven't added anything; I'm simply taking all that the Bible says about the nature of God into account. That the one true God is triune is the best explanation of all that is revealed.
 
You should because the one true God of the Bible is triune.


Can you provide a definition of the gospel? The gospel is simple, but the nature of God is not.


Both Jesus and John clearly thought Jesus was God, but not the Father. Then Paul and Peter both repeat this in their writings, as they should. You are ignoring much and in so doing, are taking things out of context and coming to an incorrect understanding. That is a serious problem that I keep pointing out to you.


I haven't added anything; I'm simply taking all that the Bible says about the nature of God into account. That the one true God is triune is the best explanation of all that is revealed.
You misused the scripture to fit into your man-made doctrines.

that's what most trin churches do.
 
You misused the scripture to fit into your man-made doctrines.

that's what most trin churches do.
I haven't misused anything; I've simply pointed out numerous verses that you are ignoring and given some exegesis which you've also ignored. You are in a very dangerous position spiritually and you can't even see it. Also, you have not provided any argument of substance to prove Trinitarianism false. Everything from you so far has literally only been your opinion. This is the problem when a person doesn't go to church and just reads the Bible on their own--their own opinions become their doctrines. Instead of "man-made" doctrines, yours are self-made. You will not accept correction and this is a very serious problem for you.

Looking at the passages I gave, because I suspect you aren't likely to read them otherwise:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(Not one thing was made without the Word, which means that the Word cannot have been something that was made. This supports what is said in verse 1--when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and "was with God" and "was God.")

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

(The claim to the Son of God is a claim to be God, to be equal to the Father.)

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am [he] you will die in your sins.”
...
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

(Twice Jesus claims to be the I Am, even saying that if a person doesn't believe he is, they will die in their sins.)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

(Notice that there is no rebuke from Jesus.)

(All ESV.)

Please, provide a rebuttal to those verses, other than simply repeating the one verse you use which simply shows that Jesus was also human. Of course, it also says God is his Father, which means that he is equal to the Father.
 
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
I know you misreading His word.

Thomas was talking about Two, One is God the Father, and One is Lord, Jesus.

I will not correct all your misreading.

It is too time-consuming and a waste of my time.

good night.
 
I know you misreading His word.

Thomas was talking about Two, One is God the Father, and One is Lord, Jesus.
No, Thomas is talking only to and about Jesus. That is the simplest and most plain reading of the text. You are reading two into the text when it isn’t there.

I will not correct all your misreading.
I knew you wouldn’t even try. I’ve been studying and debating this for over 20 years and just like almost every other anti-Trinitarian, you just avoid everything that proves difficult for your position. It’s a serious shame that you don’t even try and don’t heed Prov 27:17.

It is too time-consuming and a waste of my time.
If it’s a waste of your time, then you 1) don’t take God seriously, certainly not seriously enough, 2) haven’t actually studied the doctrine of the Trinity, and/or 3) don’t care about truth and if others believe lies.

I continue to debate it and have some very long debates about it because it matters what we think about God, I care about the truth, and I care when others are in error, especially potentially grave error. I am always open to being wrong, but I have yet to see any substantial argument that proves the Trinity false. What I never do is ignore others’ arguments and simply dismiss them. I always do my best to address everything, putting in the study necessary.
 
I propose that the text of Revelation shows the Whore is not false religion.
False religion is not mentioned in relation to the Whore at any time.
This is a misunderstanding of the use of fornication in describing the Whore.
There is much less symbolic language in Revelation than people believe.
No doubt you realize that the whore is not from God, therefore it is a representation of something from satan's world. When dealing with satan's world it will fall into one of three categories sir. It will be of government, commerce, or religious. The Scriptures reveal that babylon the great is a harlot that is in bed with the Kings of the earth, therefore she is not governmental, and that upon her demise (by the kings of the earth) the traveling merchants will cry at the loss, hence she is not commercial, thus leaving her to be religious by nature. Are not many lead churches in bed with the kings of the earth, giving support to their leadership? Does not this simple truth lend credence to her identity?
 
Back
Top