Rome is NOT the Babylon Harlot City

[DavidT]

One of the matters from men's 'leaven' doctrines the new babe in Christ should be careful of, are men's traditions from the old Protestant Reformers. Now don't get me wrong, I am a Protestant Christian, my ancestors came to the Americas in the 17th century having fled France as huguenots (first French protestants). They fled persecutions by the Catholic Church that was trying to stamp out the Protestant movement of the Reformation. So I definitely am not a Catholic, nor pro-Catholic. I side with the old Reformers.

But TODAY, just what is the purpose of still pushing the old Reformer's ideas of their day, that the Roman pope was the Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world? Did the end of the world happen in the days of those old Reformers like Martin Luther? No. The pope wasn't the Antichrist for the end either. Nor is a pope going to be the coming Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world either. Why?...

Because no pope can become The Messiah of The Bible which MUST be from the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David! In Matthew 24:23-26 Lord Jesus was warning us about a false-Messiah. The Greek word pseudochristos is used for KJV "false Christs". Yet the context of those verses are actually SINGULAR, and is about a singular false-Messiah that is to appear in Jerusalem at the end of this world, and work great signs and wonders, that IF... it were possible, would deceive even His very elect.

Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, defined that Greek word pseudochristos (NT:5580) as "a spurious Messiah". It's because that word is actually made up from 2 Greek words, pseudo which means false, and christos which means a singular Christ. And the word Christ means The Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, and applies only to The Son of God.

The old Reformers when they were being attacked by the Catholics and their pope back during the Protestant rebellion, thought the tribulation was coming upon them back then. So they thought the pope then represented the Biblical Antichrist prophesied to come at the end of this world. Well, the end of the world did not happen in their day, so the pope was NOT the Antichrist prophesied to come.

However, the Protestant Churches today that still push that old Reformer doctrine about a pope as the Antichrist is still being pushed today as propaganda. And it is a very convenient tool used by Jews who want the Church to stay away from pointing to fallen Jerusalem being where the prophesied Antichrist is to appear, and set himself up as God there, with a new Jewish temple.

The pagan Roman empire didn't just persecute Christians in its history, the Romans also persecuted Jews at one point too. Not only that, but the later Roman Church ended outward powers of groups it had once supported, like the Knights Templar. The Roman Church also has worked against world Communism. Thus the Roman Church has plenty of haters. And I say that not as a supporter of the Roman Church, because I don't accept many of their man-made doctrines, nor their pope, and not even their organized Levitical type priest system, which The New Covenant gives no authority for, and definitely not Mary worship, nor praying to dead saints.

The pope and the Catholic system can be no more the root of the Antichrist than any other globalist organization working towards a "one world government" over all peoples and nations today. And a pope definitely can never... be The Messiah, Jesus Christ. Any system working against Christ today can inherit the "many antichrists" label, or "spirit of antichrist" label, but not 'the' "antichrist" label, which can only apply to a fake Christ, because the Greek for the word "antichrist" means the 'instead of Christ', or 'in place of Christ'.

Therefore, I find it very surprising that those pushing the old Reformers ideas today can think they are so smart with their false theories that the pope is the Antichrist, when Biblically that is an impossibility, and only reveals their Biblical ignorance of Jesus' warning about the coming of a false-Messiah that will attempt to be Jesus Christ Himself. Those actually show that they do not understand The New Testament prophetic Scripture at all! They only reveal their 'old' hatred against the Catholic Church and the pope office, so much so, that they actually reveal they probably have a secret agenda.

I believe that secret agenda originates from the false Jews, not Christians, but false ones that have crept in. Whatever it takes to keep your attention on Rome, and off of Jerusalem involving the events for the end, appears to be their ploy.

 

[DavidT]

1. What did the early Church fathers reveal about the coming Antichrist at the end of this world? Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.), who lived prior to any office of a pope, and was a student of Irenaeus. Hippolytus proclaimed the coming Antichrist would come from the tribe of Judah, and be styled as Jesus Christ.

"Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand."
(from https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-christ.html)

Based on what Hippolytus said, which he got from Bible Scripture, could that ever apply to a pope? Absolutely not.


2. What does The Bible actually reveal about the coming Antichrist?

In Matthew 24:23-26 Lord Jesus is warning His Church about the coming of a pseudo-Christ that will work great signs and wonders that IF it were possible, would deceive even His very elect. Jesus said some would say, "Lo, Christ is here, or there", and Jesus said to not believe it. Jesus also said some will say, "He is in the secret chambers", and He said to not believe it. That is the same false one, the "man of sin" which Apostle Paul warned of in 2 Thessalonians 2 that is to come prior to Jesus' coming to gather His Church. It is the same "another beast" Apostle John showed in Rev.13 that will work those great signs and wonders, and miracles to deceive the whole world.

So The Bible is not simply pointing to some man dressed in glitter in a pope office as the coming Antichrist. The Bible is pointing literally to a copy of The Christ with the power of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES like Jesus did!

In Revelation 17, Lord Jesus explains many of the symbols of Rev.13.

Rev 17:8-13
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

I find it amazing that so many brethren just skip right over those points in red above. That "beast" shall ascend out of the bottomless pit? Could that mean a flesh man? No! of course not! It means that "beast" comes up from the abode of haides, or hell, for that is where that bottomless pit is. And in Revelation 9 we are even shown Satan as the angel of the bottomless pit! and that he is a king!

What about that idea of that "beast" going into "perdition"? That can only be about Satan and his angels, since no flesh born man is judged and sentenced to perish unto God's Great White Throne Judgment that only will happen after Christ's future "thousand years" reign (Rev.20).

So that "beast" there can only be about Satan himself. He 'was', points to his being exalted by God in the old world, guarding God's throne (Ezekiel 28). He 'and is not' because God ended Satan's rebellion of old, and 'yet is' because Satan is coming, as Jesus warned that the prince of this world cometh, and has nothing in Him (John 14:30).

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

The subject reverts temporarily to the "seven heads" part of the kingdom beast of Rev.13:1. That's about the 1st beast idea, which points to a system structure the Antichrist will setup over the earth at the end. Those "seven heads" the Babylon harlot sits upon represents the whole earth, seven continents, which is the idea of their being "seven mountains".

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Now the subject is back to the idea of the beast king. In past history John shows there were five beast kings, and the one in John's day (Domitian, emperor of pagan Rome). But that the 7th is still yet to come (and still yet to come in our day). That "short space" the 7th beast king will cover represents the time of "great tribulation" for the end of this world.

Thus the Antichrist office is about a 'king'. So those of you deceived about that being a pope, when is the pope going to be crowned as a king, which this requires?

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Once again, that can only be about Satan, since only Satan and his angels have already been judged and... sentenced to perish in the future "lake of fire". Lord Jesus is giving us a hard clue with that being about Satan, and not any flesh born man. So if the Antichrist at the end of this world for the trib is the 7th beast king, then the 8th beast king has to be when Satan is loosed after Christ's future "thousand years" reign, and Satan goes to tempt the nations one last time (Rev.20).

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Remember the ten horns of the Book of Daniel? and another "little horn" comes up from among the ten, and subdues three of the ten horns? This "beast" is that "little horn", the coming Antichrist. And notice these "ten kings" only come to power together at the time of that "little horn", at the very end of this world. How wrong then, does that show the Reformers were about a pope being the Antichrist for the end of this world? It shows their idea was way... off from Bible Scripture.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
KJV

 

[DavidT]

The Babylon harlot of Revelation 17 is a "great city", not a religious movement.

Rev 17:18
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
KJV

That idea of the Babylon harlot representing a "great city" comes from what God called JERUSALEM when it fell into false worship against Him. That is written in the Ezekiel 16 chapter where He first called Jerusalem a harlot.

Rev 11:7-8
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV

The above reveals it will be Satan himself that ascends out of the bottomless pit to kill God's "two witnesses".

Also revealed there is the "great city" again, which is where God's "two witnesses" will be killed, which is also described as being where Lord Jesus Christ was crucified! That means JERUSALEM brethren, NOT Rome.

Notice also in that Rev.11:8 verse, that Jerusalem is being described at that time, spiritually as Sodom and Egypt, symbols for having fallen into false worship and moral depravity.

Thus Jerusalem is the Babylon harlot for the end, which is that "great city". And what will make that so is because that is where the coming beast king, the false-Messiah, the Antichrist, the devil himself playing Messiah, will appear, and work miracles to deceive the whole world, and proclaim himself in a new stone temple, as God, and over all that is called God, or that is worshiped (2 Thess.2).

 

[Vinny37]

One of the matters from men's 'leaven' doctrines the new babe in Christ should be careful of, are men's traditions from the old Protestant Reformers. Now don't get me wrong, I am a Protestant Christian, my ancestors came to the Americas in the 17th century having fled France as huguenots (first French protestants). They fled persecutions by the Catholic Church that was trying to stamp out the Protestant movement of the Reformation. So I definitely am not a Catholic, nor pro-Catholic. I side with the old Reformers.

But TODAY, just what is the purpose of still pushing the old Reformer's ideas of their day, that the Roman pope was the Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world? Did the end of the world happen in the days of those old Reformers like Martin Luther? No. The pope wasn't the Antichrist for the end either. Nor is a pope going to be the coming Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world either. Why?...

Because no pope can become The Messiah of The Bible which MUST be from the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David! In Matthew 24:23-26 Lord Jesus was warning us about a false-Messiah. The Greek word pseudochristos is used for KJV "false Christs". Yet the context of those verses are actually SINGULAR, and is about a singular false-Messiah that is to appear in Jerusalem at the end of this world, and work great signs and wonders, that IF... it were possible, would deceive even His very elect.

Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, defined that Greek word pseudochristos (NT:5580) as "a spurious Messiah". It's because that word is actually made up from 2 Greek words, pseudo which means false, and christos which means a singular Christ. And the word Christ means The Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, and applies only to The Son of God.

The old Reformers when they were being attacked by the Catholics and their pope back during the Protestant rebellion, thought the tribulation was coming upon them back then. So they thought the pope then represented the Biblical Antichrist prophesied to come at the end of this world. Well, the end of the world did not happen in their day, so the pope was NOT the Antichrist prophesied to come.

However, the Protestant Churches today that still push that old Reformer doctrine about a pope as the Antichrist is still being pushed today as propaganda. And it is a very convenient tool used by Jews who want the Church to stay away from pointing to fallen Jerusalem being where the prophesied Antichrist is to appear, and set himself up as God there, with a new Jewish temple.

The pagan Roman empire didn't just persecute Christians in its history, the Romans also persecuted Jews at one point too. Not only that, but the later Roman Church ended outward powers of groups it had once supported, like the Knights Templar. The Roman Church also has worked against world Communism. Thus the Roman Church has plenty of haters. And I say that not as a supporter of the Roman Church, because I don't accept many of their man-made doctrines, nor their pope, and not even their organized Levitical type priest system, which The New Covenant gives no authority for, and definitely not Mary worship, nor praying to dead saints.

The pope and the Catholic system can be no more the root of the Antichrist than any other globalist organization working towards a "one world government" over all peoples and nations today. And a pope definitely can never... be The Messiah, Jesus Christ. Any system working against Christ today can inherit the "many antichrists" label, or "spirit of antichrist" label, but not 'the' "antichrist" label, which can only apply to a fake Christ, because the Greek for the word "antichrist" means the 'instead of Christ', or 'in place of Christ'.

Therefore, I find it very surprising that those pushing the old Reformers ideas today can think they are so smart with their false theories that the pope is the Antichrist, when Biblically that is an impossibility, and only reveals their Biblical ignorance of Jesus' warning about the coming of a false-Messiah that will attempt to be Jesus Christ Himself. Those actually show that they do not understand The New Testament prophetic Scripture at all! They only reveal their 'old' hatred against the Catholic Church and the pope office, so much so, that they actually reveal they probably have a secret agenda.

I believe that secret agenda originates from the false Jews, not Christians, but false ones that have crept in. Whatever it takes to keep your attention on Rome, and off of Jerusalem involving the events for the end, appears to be their ploy.

Your posts are peppered with proof-texts, too many to be responded to piecemeal. I have limited myself to your first post.

Personally I’d neither allow Rome not Elim nor Orthodoxism to be a Church, though I allow such to be Christian denominations: there is only one Church (Mt.16:18), many denominations, and many local churches within each denomination. For my part I am a mere Christian, not a mere Protestant, though a mainly Protestant.

I question whether there is to be an arch-Antichrist. In the NT the term antichrist is only in 1 & 2 Jhn. There it perhaps suggests a general antichristness (eg 1 Jhn.2:22: “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist” (NLT)). John did not affirm what they had heard—from whom he did not say—but merely focused on the truth that there were enough antichrists in their day and age to be aware of (Jhn.2:18): there still are for us. Perhaps likewise Jesus’ response to Peter about John: What is that to you? You follow me.

Of course you might say that other NT writings speak of such an end-age individual under different guise. Granted. I simply question how helpful the term the antichrist, is used that way. BTW, like Mk.13:22, Mt.24:24 has the plural not the singular, ψευδοχριστοι: different witnesses would support different messianic claimants to be the sole messiah (23,26). Such false anointeds along with false prophets, would (perhaps with pure motives) seek to mislead God’s people.

Mt.24:24 did not limit this attempt to deceive to one individual, and the term χριστος could apply to many not of David’s like, such as King Cyrus, Yahweh’s anointed/christ/messiah (Is.45:1); Aaron too was a christ, an anointed one. The magi sought the Davidic messiah, so went to Bethlehem. Those who claimed to come in Jesus’ ‘name’ may simply have been Judaics rejecting Jesus but claiming his οναμα, whether as christ, as Yahweh-saviour, or as both.

From early days many, following Irenaeus, believed that such an antichrist individual would come from the tribe of…Dan, not Judah. I disagree with Irenaeus, but to squeeze him into your mould, Did Irenaeus not know that an end-age antichrist must come from David’s line? Do you denounce his false theory as you do that of the Reformers’, as biblically impossible, as revealing his biblical ignorance, as showing he never understood the NT prophetic scripture at all, as revealing that he hated the tribe of Dan, and of having a secret agenda? Your assumption, vis-à-vis the Reformers, of a biblical ignorance and an intentional smoke-screen, I deem unwarranted.

Some Reformers deemed Vicarius Christi to be a false claim to be God’s Anointed in place of Christ, and Rome called the Reformers some biblically negative names as well. Those were messy days and both sides were needlessly hurt, but I don’t think that the Reformers were deliberately blowing smoke into our eyes.

For different reasons, I would agree with you that Rome is not Revelation’s Babylon, although I hold that in John’s days pagan Rome represented the attitude of ancient Babylon. I deem a global attitude, not a geographic city, to be Revelation’s meaning. I deem some popes to have been anti-God, and some to have been pro-God: a Christian hat does not a Christian make, and a triregnum does not an antichrist make.

As to the Reformers, they were a mixed bag and lumbered with a lot of cultural clutter, revivalists trying to make straight the path. Coming from different backgrounds though catching the same fire, they didn’t always do a great job, and were not always friends to each other—eg Lutherans joined Catholics to extirpate Anabaptists (Münster).

PS: Personally I would nuance the term ‘Jew’ according to context. Some ethnic-Jews are Judaic, some are atheist, some are Christian, some are Muslim, etc. And even Arab Christians are Jews, belonging to spiritual Jerusalem with Sarah as their mother.

 

[DavidT]

Your posts are peppered with proof-texts, too many to be responded to piecemeal. I have limited myself to your first post.

You have the option of creating separate responses. So if you want to leave out the Biblical Scripture proofs given in my posts, then doing that will not reflect positively on your opinions about my posts.

Personally I’d neither allow Rome not Elim nor Orthodoxism to be a Church, though I allow such to be Christian denominations: there is only one Church (Mt.16:18), many denominations, and many local churches within each denomination. For my part I am a mere Christian, not a mere Protestant, though a mainly Protestant.

That kind of does not make sense.
Either you claim to be a Protestant Christian, or you do not. If you claim to be a Christian, but not a member of any one denomination, then that simply means you would be a Non-denominational believer. Non-denominational Protestant is what I claim for myself, even though the seminaries don't recognize such a category.

I question whether there is to be an arch-Antichrist. In the NT the term antichrist is only in 1 & 2 Jhn. There it perhaps suggests a general antichristness (eg 1 Jhn.2:22: “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist” (NLT)). John did not affirm what they had heard—from whom he did not say—but merely focused on the truth that there were enough antichrists in their day and age to be aware of (Jhn.2:18): there still are for us. Perhaps likewise Jesus’ response to Peter about John: What is that to you? You follow me.

The idea that Apostle John in 1 John 2:18 was only pointing to the concept of 'antichrist' like a force, or religious movement, kind of like he did with the phrase "spirit of antichrist", is a pop notion among men's traditions. Yet the 1 John 2:18 verse is much more specific.

1 John 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
KJV

That phrase above in red is about a 'singular' "antichrist" that those brethren had already... heard shall come. Just when, and where did they first hear about that singular "antichrist"? From Jesus, written down by John in John 14:30 that the "prince of this world cometh".

The pop notion on that John 14:30 verse is that it was the time when Satan would cause Lord Jesus' crucifixion, like they think of the John 12:31 verse also, thinking Satan was cast out of this world and 'bound' at Jesus' crucifixion. But those pop notions are by those who aren't remembering Scripture in other Books where we are shown Satan is not locked in his pit prison until Jesus returns in our near future, and they also forget the Revelation 12:7-17 Scripture about Satan and his angels cast down to this earth in OUR earthly dimension for the future time of great tribulation at the end of this world.

The phrase above in 'green' represents the working of the "many antichrists", which even in my generation there have been many that claimed to be Christ, but couldn't prove it. That is actually about the "workers of iniquity" matter back in The Old Testament Books, and what Apostle Paul was talking about in 2 Thess.2 with the "mystery of iniquity" idea. It's simply about Satan's workers here on earth that serve and worship him. And Lord Jesus covered this plural "many antichrists" idea also in His Olivet discourse, warning us to beware that many would come saying they are Christ.

Yet in the Matthew 24:23-26 Scripture of Jesus' Olivet discourse, He revealed the future coming of a 'singular' false-Christ with the power of miracles that if it were possible, would deceive even His very elect. Now that is different, and aligns with the part in 'red' above in 1 John 2:18.

In summary then:
The 1 John 2:18 verse is pointing to both a singular Antichrist to come, and his many little antichrist servants that have been at work for him, probably since after the flood of Noah.

 

[DavidT]

Of course you might say that other NT writings speak of such an end-age individual under different guise. Granted. I simply question how helpful the term the antichrist, is used that way. BTW, like Mk.13:22, Mt.24:24 has the plural not the singular, ψευδοχριστοι: different witnesses would support different messianic claimants to be the sole messiah (23,26). Such false anointeds along with false prophets, would (perhaps with pure motives) seek to mislead God’s people.

Well, I already answered that point in my previous post, revealed the word "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18 is used in 2 different tenses, one being abut a singular Antichrist figure, and the other about plural many antichrists, representing his servants here on earth. And that's not just my opinion, it's the grammar of that verse.

As for the Matthew 24:23-26 Scripture (yes, we need to include all those verses in that context of what Jesus said there), that Greek pseudochristos in verse 24 Jesus shows is meant about a singular pseudo-Christ, not plural. And the proof He gave is simple. For example: in Matthew 24:23, what tense is that...

Matt 24:23
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
KJV

That above verse is obviously about a 'singular' false Christ, not many. Likewise with the 26th verse, what tense is it?

Matt 24:26
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, He is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, He is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.
KJV

For this reason, the context of verses 23 thru 26, Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defined Greek pseudochristos to mean "a spurious Messiah", a singular false Christ...

NT:5580
pseudochristos (psyoo-dokh'-ris-tos); from NT:5571 and NT:5547; a spurious Messiah:
KJV - false Christ.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Does that interpretation align with other Bible Scripture?

Yes, it certainly does, as with the singular false one Apostle Paul showed in 2 Thessalonians 2 that would come working those great signs and lying wonders. And further, with Apostle John warning about the 2nd beast, the "another beast" of Revelation 13:11 forward, speaking as a "dragon", and working those miracles, even raining fire down from heaven in the sight of men, to deceive the whole world.

So I've given well enough Bible Scripture evidence of this matter. Either one accepts that Biblical proof, or they don't.

 

[Rondmon]

One of the matters from men's 'leaven' doctrines the new babe in Christ should be careful of, are men's traditions from the old Protestant Reformers. Now don't get me wrong, I am a Protestant Christian, my ancestors came to the Americas in the 17th century having fled France as huguenots (first French protestants). They fled persecutions by the Catholic Church that was trying to stamp out the Protestant movement of the Reformation. So I definitely am not a Catholic, nor pro-Catholic. I side with the old Reformers.

But TODAY, just what is the purpose of still pushing the old Reformer's ideas of their day, that the Roman pope was the Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world? Did the end of the world happen in the days of those old Reformers like Martin Luther? No. The pope wasn't the Antichrist for the end either. Nor is a pope going to be the coming Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world either. Why?...

Because no pope can become The Messiah of The Bible which MUST be from the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David! In Matthew 24:23-26 Lord Jesus was warning us about a false-Messiah. The Greek word pseudochristos is used for KJV "false Christs". Yet the context of those verses are actually SINGULAR, and is about a singular false-Messiah that is to appear in Jerusalem at the end of this world, and work great signs and wonders, that IF... it were possible, would deceive even His very elect.

Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, defined that Greek word pseudochristos (NT:5580) as "a spurious Messiah". It's because that word is actually made up from 2 Greek words, pseudo which means false, and christos which means a singular Christ. And the word Christ means The Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, and applies only to The Son of God.

The old Reformers when they were being attacked by the Catholics and their pope back during the Protestant rebellion, thought the tribulation was coming upon them back then. So they thought the pope then represented the Biblical Antichrist prophesied to come at the end of this world. Well, the end of the world did not happen in their day, so the pope was NOT the Antichrist prophesied to come.

However, the Protestant Churches today that still push that old Reformer doctrine about a pope as the Antichrist is still being pushed today as propaganda. And it is a very convenient tool used by Jews who want the Church to stay away from pointing to fallen Jerusalem being where the prophesied Antichrist is to appear, and set himself up as God there, with a new Jewish temple.

The pagan Roman empire didn't just persecute Christians in its history, the Romans also persecuted Jews at one point too. Not only that, but the later Roman Church ended outward powers of groups it had once supported, like the Knights Templar. The Roman Church also has worked against world Communism. Thus the Roman Church has plenty of haters. And I say that not as a supporter of the Roman Church, because I don't accept many of their man-made doctrines, nor their pope, and not even their organized Levitical type priest system, which The New Covenant gives no authority for, and definitely not Mary worship, nor praying to dead saints.

The pope and the Catholic system can be no more the root of the Antichrist than any other globalist organization working towards a "one world government" over all peoples and nations today. And a pope definitely can never... be The Messiah, Jesus Christ. Any system working against Christ today can inherit the "many antichrists" label, or "spirit of antichrist" label, but not 'the' "antichrist" label, which can only apply to a fake Christ, because the Greek for the word "antichrist" means the 'instead of Christ', or 'in place of Christ'.

Therefore, I find it very surprising that those pushing the old Reformers ideas today can think they are so smart with their false theories that the pope is the Antichrist, when Biblically that is an impossibility, and only reveals their Biblical ignorance of Jesus' warning about the coming of a false-Messiah that will attempt to be Jesus Christ Himself. Those actually show that they do not understand The New Testament prophetic Scripture at all! They only reveal their 'old' hatred against the Catholic Church and the pope office, so much so, that they actually reveal they probably have a secret agenda.

I believe that secret agenda originates from the false Jews, not Christians, but false ones that have crept in. Whatever it takes to keep your attention on Rome, and off of Jerusalem involving the events for the end, appears to be their ploy.

The whole post here is basically a dissertation on how Rome is not "THAT CITY" as mentioned in Rev. 17:18 by Jerusalem is "THAY CITY" am I correct?

Well, both inferences are in error. The vision is only 4 verses, 3-6. Then in vs. 7 an angel tells John he is going to show John the "Mystery of the Harlot and the Beast she rides". So why anyone assumes its should be Mystery Babylon is beyond me, but many call it that, in order to understand this can not be Rome nor Jerusalem, we have to understand Mystery is used as a "Header" only. Everything else describes the "mystery" of the Harlot.

MYSTERY (?)

1. Babylon the Great (Babylon is world renowned for its FALSE RELIGION)

2.) Mother of Harlots (FALSE RELIGION is the original Harlotry on mankind/the mother)

3.) Abominations of the earth (God is a Jealous God and He hates all FALSE RELIGION)

So, each clue was meant to describe unto us who the Harlot is, but you take an Angel reminding John to remember THAT CITY (that descriptor) and turn it into the City being the Harlot. Now, I will show you 100 percent why the Harlot woman can not be ONE CITY. But most people can not accept having "their understandings" debunked, I guess its a false pride thing, but I am always hopeful. I love t when the Holy Spirit tells me I am wrong, you in why? Because that means I am about to be taught the truth.

19 And the great city(Jerusalem) was divided into three parts(Earthquake/Jesus returns), and the cities of the nations fell(Jesus defeats all the Nations at Armageddon): and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

So, God calls those nations Jesus defeated at Armageddon Babylon the Great, well who did Jesus defeat there? The 6th Vial tells us, it says Satan/A.C. & F.P. sent forth lying spirits and the "Kings of the WHOLE WORLD" gathered together at Armageddon !!

So, God sees the whole world as Babylon, and Babel means what? Confusion. So, Satan's Dark Kingdom on this earth is Babylon the Great, he so confuses mankind that they try to fight against their own loving Creator. NOTICE, Babylon is Fallen, is Fallen is telling us Satan has been cast down out of heaven and is getting locked up for 1000 year.

The Harlot (ALL FALSE RELIGIONS of All Time) rides the [Gov. Strongholds] Beast Powers in so much that all of those nations served False gods continually. Looking for ONE CITY when the hole world is going to be judged is nonsensical.

 

[DavidT]

The whole post here is basically a dissertation on how Rome is not "THAT CITY" as mentioned in Rev. 17:18 by Jerusalem is "THAY CITY" am I correct?

Just going by what God's Word is showing, yeah, the Babylon Harlot is a "great city" per the Revelation 17:18 verse, and the "great city" of Rev.11:8 is about the city of JERUSALEM where God's "two witnesses" will be killed by the 'beast' that will 'ascend from the bottomless pit'.

So you are going to have a very difficult time trying to prove that "great city" is about Rome.

Well, both inferences are in error. The vision is only 4 verses, 3-6. Then in vs. 7 an angel tells John he is going to show John the "Mystery of the Harlot and the Beast she rides".

What you say is the "error", simply because you are actually denying... what the Rev.17:7 is saying...

Rev 17:7
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
KJV

That part above in 'red' is exactly... what the Rev.17:1-6 verses are about. And you say the vision is 'only' about 4 verses, Rev.17:3-6? You CONTRADICT yourself, I hope you realize that.

So why anyone assumes its should be Mystery Babylon is beyond me, but many call it that, in order to understand this can not be Rome nor Jerusalem, we have to understand Mystery is used as a "Header" only. Everything else describes the "mystery" of the Harlot.

MYSTERY (?)

1. Babylon the Great (Babylon is world renowned for its FALSE RELIGION)

2.) Mother of Harlots (FALSE RELIGION is the original Harlotry on mankind/the mother)

3.) Abominations of the earth (God is a Jealous God and He hates all FALSE RELIGION)

All that is just mere 'leaven' speculation from men's doctrines that you are wrongly adding... to the Rev.17 Scripture. Lord Jesus warned us against doing that adding in Rev.22, remember? And with denial of the content of a Scripture passage He also warned against doing, for that is take away from the actual written Word of God (see Rev.22:18-19).

So once again, like the Revelation 17:18 emphatically says as written, the Babylon Harlot is a "great city"...

Rev 17:18
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
KJV

 

[DavidT]

(Continued...)

Now then...
... will that Babylon harlot "great city" involve the idea of future false world religion when the coming false-Messiah shows up in that "great city" Jerusalem? Yes, definitely, because that is actually one of Apostle Paul's warnings about the coming "man of sin" in 2 Thess.2. That "man of sin" is to exalt himself in place of God in a new stone temple in Jerusalem, and over all that is called God, or that is worshiped. That suggests he will join all the world's religious systems together into one pot, including deceived Christian brethren. But his headquarters for that will... be JERUSALEM for the end, which is the "great city" where Rev.11 and Rev.17 is pointing to.

And why did Christ use the label "Babylon" for future Jerusalem in false worship?
It is because He was revealing the 'no new thing under the sun' idea. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in Daniel's day, setup a gold idol image of himself in false worship, and demanded all to bow in worship to it at the sound of the psalter (music instrument). Neb's false prophets stirred him up to do that, because they knew Daniel and his fellows would refuse to bow to it, and thus be executed. The Rev.13 "image of the beast" is that same IDOL idea that the coming Antichrist will place at a new Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem for the end. Thus the idea of the Babylon in Daniel's era is actually the type comparison Christ is using in His Book of Revelation through His servant John.

In Lamentations, a time after Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed Jerusalem and the 1st temple, the idea of Jerusalem being a 'widow' is used. Likewise in Isaiah 47:9 the idea of 'widowhood' is also used about pagan Babylon of history. And again in Isaiah 54, the idea of 'widowhood' is used about Jerusalem. When we get to the following Rev.18:7 Scripture about the end time Babylon Harlot, we are supposed to keep that widowhood idea from The Old Testament in mind...

Rev 18:7
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, "I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow."
KJV

And remember, the "great city" is pointing to Jerusalem as that Babylon Harlot. At the end of this world, she claims she sits a queen, and is not a widow, so what's that about?

It means that Babylon Harlot, a "great city", is claiming she is 'married', and thus no longer... a 'widow' (a reference to Jerusalem in opposition to Lamentations as a 'widow). Just Who has spiritually married Jerusalem, spreading His skirt over her? Our Heavenly Father of course...

Ezek 16:6-8
6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, "Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live."

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread My skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest Mine.
KJV

The idea of spreading one's skirt over a woman in Old Testament times meant marriage. God has... married... Jerusalem. That is what God is pointing to in that Ezekiel 16 chapter, i.e., the city of Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem fell away from Him, and that is when began to call Jerusalem a Harlot, because of falling into false worship against Him...

Ezek 16:28
28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.
KJV

One almost wants to cover their ears for all that God said there against the city of Jerusalem in that Ezekiel 16 chapter. Yet those in Christ are not to, but are to read it and understand how God feels about Jerusalem.

This is why the Babylon Harlot, the "great city" (Jerusalem), will claim she is already... 'married', but to whom? Not to God in the future great tribulation time at the end of this world, but to Satan. It all goes back to Satan coveting what belongs to God. And Satan will be the Antichrist that is coming to Jerusalem to play The Christ. THIS... is why Christ calls Jerusalem the Babylon Harlot in His Revelation.

 

[Rondmon]

So you are going to have a very difficult time trying to prove that "great city" is about Rome.

You clearly do not read, I said its the WHOLE WORLD, not Rome nor Jerusalem

That part above in 'red' is exactly... what the Rev.17:1-6 verses are about. And you say the vision is 'only' about 4 verses, Rev.17:3-6? You CONTRADICT yourself, I hope you realize that.

No, the Angel gives a vision in verses 3-6 then the Angel tells John he will reveal the Mystery, and thus it is not now a Mystery, the Greek word Musterion means Secret by Gods silence or to shut the mouth (muo). So, that which had not been revealed was revealed.

All that is just mere 'leaven' speculation from men's doctrines that you are wrongly adding... to the Rev.17 Scripture. Lord Jesus warned us against doing that adding in Rev.22, remember? And with denial of the content of a Scripture passage He also warned against doing, for that is take away from the actual written Word of God (see Rev.22:18-19).

So once again, like the Revelation 17:18 emphatically says as written, the Babylon Harlot is a "great city"...

Rev 17:18
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

No, I destroyed your whole thesis, and thus yo dodged it and pretended I stated it was Rome when I SAID NO SUCH THING. I have been a Preacher specializing in a Prophetic bent. I see guys like you all the time my friend, just like the Rome types who were taught that, so were you by those anti Jewish types.

You do not understand prophecy at all, find your calling.

 

[Vinny37]

Well, I already answered that point in my previous post, revealed the word "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18 is used in 2 different tenses, one being abut a singular Antichrist figure, and the other about plural many antichrists, representing his servants here on earth. And that's not just my opinion, it's the grammar of that verse.

As for the Matthew 24:23-26 Scripture (yes, we need to include all those verses in that context of what Jesus said there), that Greek pseudochristos in verse 24 Jesus shows is meant about a singular pseudo-Christ, not plural. And the proof He gave is simple. For example: in Matthew 24:23, what tense is that...

Matt 24:23
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
KJV

That above verse is obviously about a 'singular' false Christ, not many. Likewise with the 26th verse, what tense is it?

Matt 24:26
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, He is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, He is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.
KJV

For this reason, the context of verses 23 thru 26, Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defined Greek pseudochristos to mean "a spurious Messiah", a singular false Christ...

NT:5580
pseudochristos (psyoo-dokh'-ris-tos); from NT:5571 and NT:5547; a spurious Messiah:
KJV - false Christ.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Does that interpretation align with other Bible Scripture?

Yes, it certainly does, as with the singular false one Apostle Paul showed in 2 Thessalonians 2 that would come working those great signs and lying wonders. And further, with Apostle John warning about the 2nd beast, the "another beast" of Revelation 13:11 forward, speaking as a "dragon", and working those miracles, even raining fire down from heaven in the sight of men, to deceive the whole world.

So I've given well enough Bible Scripture evidence of this matter. Either one accepts that Biblical proof, or they don't.

I’m afraid you haven’t checked Mt.24:24 in the Greek NT: εγερθησονται γαρ ψευδοχριστοι και ψευδοπροφηται και δωσουσι σημεια μεγαλα και τερατα, ὡστε πλανησαι, ει δυνατον, και τους εκλεκτους. It’s ψευδοχριστοι, not ψευδοχριστος. Strong’s G5580 won’t show the number in this text, merely the base word in the masculine nominative singular form: you have not understood how Strong works. Nor is the number textually disputed. On 1 Jhn.2:18, by [in 2 different tenses], you don’t mean tenses, you mean numbers. Tense is concerned about the time and state or nature of an action—it is verbal. Number is an inflection indicating singular or plural, eg αντιχριστος (sg.) αντιχριστοι (pl.).

In 1 Jhn.2:18, one reference is singular; one is plural. It isn’t settled by [the grammar of that verse] at all, but simply devolves around interpretation of the context. The question here is, did John mean that they had heard a truth that there was one arch-antichrist coming, or had they heard an untruth, an unchristian rumour about some future arch-antichrist? I do not know the answer; John’s audience would have known his meaning. Might he have been turning their minds from conjectures of the future to the there and then realities? Ηκουσατε is in both Mt.5:43 and 1 Jhn.2:18. As Jesus’ audience had heard the wrong idea, had John’s also?

[Does [John’s] interpretation align with other Bible Scripture?] Perhaps it does; perhaps it doesn’t. I simply underline the uncertainty of the term the antichrist, and how John’s concern was more pressing than an actual or hypothetical end-age antichrist. Once we see the broader picture of many antichrists, presumably not all flagging up Davidic lineage, we might treat Reformers and the like with a little more respect if they claimed that the pope was [the] antichrist. We agree that they were mistaken in that assertion.

Your misunderstanding also comes out in [Likewise with the 26th verse, what tense is it?]. Again, it’s nothing to do with tense, and again I’d made the point that in vv23,26 the number is singular, but simply singular because of the fact that a number of false christs would come one at a time (as v24 is so so clear to those who can read Greek). Put simply, when one false christ would pop up, some folk would say, “he is the christ”. Later when another would pop up, some would say, “he is the christ”. Each of several claimants would each in turn be advocated as being the christ; each weed would each in turn be proclaimed as the flower. The lass in Jhn.4:18 would have called each of 5 husbands (plural) her husband (singular) during their innings.

At the end of the day, I suppose we could simply say that either one understands the biblical text, or they don’t. And if they don’t, may they say so in all humility.

 

[DavidT]

You clearly do not read, I said its the WHOLE WORLD, not Rome nor Jerusalem

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one here with the reading comprehension problem.

Rev 17:18
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
KJV

Rev 11:7-8
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV

 

[DavidT]

I’m afraid you haven’t checked Mt.24:24 in the Greek NT: εγερθησονται γαρ ψευδοχριστοι και ψευδοπροφηται και δωσουσι σημεια μεγαλα και τερατα, ὡστε πλανησαι, ει δυνατον, και τους εκλεκτους. It’s ψευδοχριστοι, not ψευδοχριστος. Strong’s G5580 won’t show the number in this text, merely the base word in the masculine nominative singular form: you have not understood how Strong works. Nor is the number textually disputed. On 1 Jhn.2:18, by [in 2 different tenses], you don’t mean tenses, you mean numbers. Tense is concerned about the time and state or nature of an action—it is verbal. Number is an inflection indicating singular or plural, eg αντιχριστος (sg.) αντιχριστοι (pl.).

Already covered that too with the 'context' of all the Matthew 24:23-26 verses, which Dr. James Strong agrees is pointing to a SINGULAR false-Messiah, not many.

 

[Rondmon]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one here with the reading comprehension problem.

Rev 17:18
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
KJV

So it can be "metaphoric" Jerusalem but not a "metaphoric descriptor" which describes who the harlot is. The Harlot is ALL FALSE RELIGION of All Time. Now I will rove you to have been in error the whole time.

The Vision

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

So, this woman sits with these 7 Heads and 10 horns, of which we know 5 HAVE FALLEN (do you think 5 hills have fallen? come on) which were Egypt. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece, she sit with Rome who WAS and another who has NOT YET COME (the one whose 10 kings kill her off, the E.U. forbids all religion save Beast worship). She was dressed Purple and Scarlet, and all one has to do is google purple and scarlet and it will tell you these colors were associated with Religious Orders and Government Royalty. These colors were very, very expensive to create, one came from a seed whose plant only grew in a few places, and the other came from a rare insect smushed up. So, when we see scarlet and purple the clue means Religious orders (FALSE RELIGION) and Governments Royalty.

On her FOREHEAD (street harlots back in the day practiced in the city square, the ones who set them up with a client would tell the to look for so and so, and that name would be on her forehead. So, those THREE NAMES not four, were Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots & Abominations of the Earth. So, if one is trying to identify the harlot what good is Mystery? It is not a part of the description of the Harlot, the MYSTERY in the vision is God saying I am going to explain this heretofore Mystery/Secret. Then the angels shows John three names that solves the puzzle, as I stated before, its means ALL FALSE RELIGION of All Time.

Verse 6 however proves your understanding to be in error, in full. All the Saints (Jewish Saints) blood were on her hands, and all of the Christian Martyrs blood were also on her filthy hands. Well, all of the blood of God's peoples means in NO WISE can the just be ONE CITY, that just common sense my friend. All God peoples were not murdered in Jerusalem, nor Rome, nor Greece, nor Egypt, some are being killed today in Africa and in Muslim nation by what? A FALSE RELIGION called Islam. God true servants never kill God's holy followers, be they Jews of old or Christians, only those who are of FALSE RELIGION kills the Saints & Martyrs, and that in different and varied places all over the whole world, that's why she sits on MANY WATERS. So, nothing you say fits the scriptures, where do you guys come up wit stuff like this? Other men, or Men's Traditions is all it is.

Rev 11:7-8
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV

There were many GREAT CITIES, that means a City of renown, that's all. That is very bad Eschatology my friend. I weigh out all the facts, without pre drawn conclusions.

 

[journeyman]

One of the matters from men's 'leaven' doctrines the new babe in Christ should be careful of, are men's traditions from the old Protestant Reformers. Now don't get me wrong, I am a Protestant Christian, my ancestors came to the Americas in the 17th century having fled France as huguenots (first French protestants). They fled persecutions by the Catholic Church that was trying to stamp out the Protestant movement of the Reformation. So I definitely am not a Catholic, nor pro-Catholic. I side with the old Reformers.

But TODAY, just what is the purpose of still pushing the old Reformer's ideas of their day, that the Roman pope was the Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world? Did the end of the world happen in the days of those old Reformers like Martin Luther? No. The pope wasn't the Antichrist for the end either. Nor is a pope going to be the coming Antichrist prophesied for the end of this world either. Why?...

Because no pope can become The Messiah of The Bible which MUST be from the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David! In Matthew 24:23-26 Lord Jesus was warning us about a false-Messiah. The Greek word pseudochristos is used for KJV "false Christs". Yet the context of those verses are actually SINGULAR, and is about a singular false-Messiah that is to appear in Jerusalem at the end of this world, and work great signs and wonders, that IF... it were possible, would deceive even His very elect.

Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, defined that Greek word pseudochristos (NT:5580) as "a spurious Messiah". It's because that word is actually made up from 2 Greek words, pseudo which means false, and christos which means a singular Christ. And the word Christ means The Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, and applies only to The Son of God.

The old Reformers when they were being attacked by the Catholics and their pope back during the Protestant rebellion, thought the tribulation was coming upon them back then. So they thought the pope then represented the Biblical Antichrist prophesied to come at the end of this world. Well, the end of the world did not happen in their day, so the pope was NOT the Antichrist prophesied to come.

However, the Protestant Churches today that still push that old Reformer doctrine about a pope as the Antichrist is still being pushed today as propaganda. And it is a very convenient tool used by Jews who want the Church to stay away from pointing to fallen Jerusalem being where the prophesied Antichrist is to appear, and set himself up as God there, with a new Jewish temple.

The pagan Roman empire didn't just persecute Christians in its history, the Romans also persecuted Jews at one point too. Not only that, but the later Roman Church ended outward powers of groups it had once supported, like the Knights Templar. The Roman Church also has worked against world Communism. Thus the Roman Church has plenty of haters. And I say that not as a supporter of the Roman Church, because I don't accept many of their man-made doctrines, nor their pope, and not even their organized Levitical type priest system, which The New Covenant gives no authority for, and definitely not Mary worship, nor praying to dead saints.

The pope and the Catholic system can be no more the root of the Antichrist than any other globalist organization working towards a "one world government" over all peoples and nations today. And a pope definitely can never... be The Messiah, Jesus Christ. Any system working against Christ today can inherit the "many antichrists" label, or "spirit of antichrist" label, but not 'the' "antichrist" label, which can only apply to a fake Christ, because the Greek for the word "antichrist" means the 'instead of Christ', or 'in place of Christ'.

Therefore, I find it very surprising that those pushing the old Reformers ideas today can think they are so smart with their false theories that the pope is the Antichrist, when Biblically that is an impossibility, and only reveals their Biblical ignorance of Jesus' warning about the coming of a false-Messiah that will attempt to be Jesus Christ Himself. Those actually show that they do not understand The New Testament prophetic Scripture at all! They only reveal their 'old' hatred against the Catholic Church and the pope office, so much so, that they actually reveal they probably have a secret agenda.

I believe that secret agenda originates from the false Jews, not Christians, but false ones that have crept in. Whatever it takes to keep your attention on Rome, and off of Jerusalem involving the events for the end, appears to be their ploy.

I think the answer to "when will this happen?", is answered by how it happens.
We read from scripture about the tribulation of believers throughout time have suffered, yet fail to understand the end times for all believers is their mortal death on earth.

 

[Vinny37]

Already covered that too with the 'context' of all the Matthew 24:23-26 verses, which Dr. James Strong agrees is pointing to a SINGULAR false-Messiah, not many.

I despair, I really do. You show that you can neither read Greek nor Dr. Strong, nor are you willing to be taught on this very simple point. I really must stop beating my head against a wall and just let you think yourself wise in your own eyes. I bow out bemused and exasperated.

 

[DavidT]

So it can be "metaphoric" Jerusalem but not a "metaphoric descriptor" which describes who the harlot is. The Harlot is ALL FALSE RELIGION of All Time. Now I will rove you to have been in error the whole time.

So the 'Babylon harlot' is a metaphor only according to men's philosophy instead of 'how' He Himself used it in His Word, like in Ezekiel 16?

I don't buy your reasoning, which is actually from men's thinking. I will instead stay with what God said in His Word, allowing His Word to interpret His Word on that, since He gave us clear evidence of having done so in Ezekiel 16. (And brethren in Christ, one would be amazed at how difficult it is just to get others to open up that Ezekiel 16 chapter and read and heed it in connection with the Babylon harlot idea of Rev.17.)

The Vision

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

So, this woman sits with these 7 Heads and 10 horns, of which we know 5 HAVE FALLEN (do you think 5 hills have fallen? come on) which were Egypt. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece, she sit with Rome who WAS and another who has NOT YET COME (the one whose 10 kings kill her off, the E.U. forbids all religion save Beast worship). She was dressed Purple and Scarlet, and all one has to do is google purple and scarlet and it will tell you these colors were associated with Religious Orders and Government Royalty. These colors were very, very expensive to create, one came from a seed whose plant only grew in a few places, and the other came from a rare insect smushed up. So, when we see scarlet and purple the clue means Religious orders (FALSE RELIGION) and Governments Royalty.

JERUSALEM is where Revelation 17 is pointing to about the Babylon harlot, which the last verse shows it is a "great city", and NOT a religious movement.

That metaphor is about Jerusalem which God used in the Ezekiel 16 chapter. It is going to involve a world-religion under the coming false-Messiah, but God's Word still defined that Babylon harlot as a "great city". And the Revelation 11:8 verse revealed that it is about the "great city" JERUSALEM, where Jesus was crucified.

Anything else is just men's leaven doctrines added to God's Word.

 

[DavidT]

I think the answer to "when will this happen?", is answered by how it happens.
We read from scripture about the tribulation of believers throughout time have suffered, yet fail to understand the end times for all believers is their mortal death on earth.

If all Christians were killed in the coming time of "great tribulation", which God's Word reveals is to be a time on earth that has never been before, nor ever will be again, then it would mean the Bible Scriptures about Jesus' coming to gather His Church would have been all lies.

Some of us will be delivered up to councils and synagogues to give a Testimony for Jesus by allowing The Holy Spirit to speak through us against the beast. And some of us delivered up might be killed, like Jesus showed in Mark 13. But not all of us. And what did Lord Jesus say about not fearing those who can kill our flesh body, but not our soul? (Matthew 10:28)

 

[DavidT]

I despair, I really do. You show that you can neither read Greek nor Dr. Strong, nor are you willing to be taught on this very simple point. I really must stop beating my head against a wall and just let you think yourself wise in your own eyes. I bow out bemused and exasperated.

Now you are bearing 'false witness', and not just against me, but also against how Dr. James Strong defined Greek pseudochristos in Matthew 24:24 which is translated as "false Christs" in the KJV...


From the Strong's Exhaustive Condordance by Dr. James Strong...

NT:5580
pseudochristos (psyoo-dokh'-ris-tos); from NT:5571 and NT:5547; a spurious Messiah:

KJV - false Christ.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Greek pseudochristos, translated as "false Christs", is from 2 Greek words, pseudo, which means false, and christos, which means Christ, singular. That is why Dr. James Strong referred to those 2 separate Greek words in his Concordance.

And the Matthew 24:23 & 26 verses are in the SINGULAR TENSE about a SINGULAR FALSE MESSIAH Jesus is warning that if others say is Him!

Thus I refuse to listen to any more baloney that Vinny37 is spewing with his REJECTION of the above evidence. Welcome to my IGNORE LIST Vinny.

 

[Rondmon]

So the 'Babylon harlot' is a metaphor only according to men's philosophy instead of 'how' He Himself used it in His Word, like in Ezekiel 16?

I don't buy your reasoning, which is actually from men's thinking. I will instead stay with what God said in His Word, allowing His Word to interpret His Word on that, since He gave us clear evidence of having done so in Ezekiel 16. (And brethren in Christ, one would be amazed at how difficult it is just to get others to open up that Ezekiel 16 chapter and read and heed it in connection with the Babylon harlot idea of Rev.17.)

You don't have any argument left, I check mated you. Jerusalem nor ANY CITY can qualify for the descriptions put forth, the blood of the Saints AND Martyrs of Jesus are on her hands/head. This is not hard to grasp brother. You went into a study with a biased bent and of course you see what you wanted to see. I went into the Raptures timing with an open mind, and the facts were easy to digest, everything points to a pre 70th week rapture, and whereas before I never cared nor thought about it much, I then knew 100 percent that the rapture is pre 70th week, and understood those who say it isn't, I should look to their eschatological points with skepticism.

JERUSALEM is where Revelation 17 is pointing to about the Babylon harlot, which the last verse shows it is a "great city", and NOT a religious movement.

That metaphor is about Jerusalem which God used in the Ezekiel 16 chapter. It is going to involve a world-religion under the coming false-Messiah, but God's Word still defined that Babylon harlot as a "great city". And the Revelation 11:8 verse revealed that it is about the "great city" JERUSALEM, where Jesus was crucified.

Anything else is just men's leaven doctrines added to God's Word.

You do not understand Prophecy. I have been called unto Prophecy 40 years, you are a Message board guy. You do the math.