Revelation's Harlot

I don't have time, right now, to look it up, but I think the Bible says that the anti-christ has no desire for women, (homosexual..possibly) not that he hates them. It also says something about he has no regards for his forefathers, which could mean Jewish forefathers and thus could make him Jewish.

Now that could get deep!

MEE

 

Both Catholic and Protestant scholars admit that it is Pagan Rome in Rev 12 that is waiting to kill Christ at his birth. The idea that we can not find "Rome" in the book of revelation is just silly. You are not even making the Catholic argument let alone a Protestant one.

I would very much like to see the Catholic "scholars" who are saying that the Church is the Whore of the Revelation. Have a few names for me?

It was Rome - the Jews had no objections at all to a Hebrew child being born in Bethlehem. In fact it was not the Jews klling baby boys in Bethlehem - it was the Roman puppet government.

It was the JEW Herod. And he acted FOR THE PEOPLE.

The seven heads and Ten Horns does show the Pagan Roman empire - but the impure woman - is in fact a perversion of the morally pure. The woman was "supposed" to be pure - but was not.

EXACTLY. The pure woman, as I showed from the verses in Ezekial 16 (did you even BOTHER to read the chapter I quoted??), was the Jewish nation. Why don't you believe what the Bible teaches on this rather than concocting fanciful ideas which have no exegetical substance?

It is - as James states - a church in apostacy. "You adulteress" James 4:4. The term is applied to Christians that are compromising with the World "Friendship with the world is hostility toward God" - James 4:4.

Yupper. And that is exactly what the Church of the OT was doing - compromising with the world and committing spiritual adultery.

The jews "ceased" to be "Any kind of Force" after 70 ad and the destruction of their nation.

True. But Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is the record of Jerusalem's destruction and the end of the Old Covenant. Your time line is off.

The church IS the bride of Christ according to the NT authors AFTER the resurrection of Christ. The Pure woman After the resurrection - is the church - even by Catholic standards.

Yeah. But that all didn't happen until the final divorce decree in AD 70, delivered by the Roman armies of General Titus.

Your reasoning is just flawed - Rev 17 predicts the destruction of the harlot - but the Jews had already been decimated by the Romans BEFORE John started the book. This is so - Not the persecuted/wiped-out/decimated Jews that it is not funny.

No, your time line is off. You believe in that fanciful idea that the book of Revelation was written sometime between AD 96 and AD 108, but you have scant, if any proof of that fact. On the other hand, we have Matthew 24 which places very clear time restrictions upon the return of Christ, the destruction of the Temple, and the end of the aion. You need to do some serious study comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Premillenialism is spelled out explicitly in Rev 19 and 20. In 19 we have the 2nd coming. In 20 we have the FIRST resurrection - remember 1Thess 4? and then the 1000 years and then the 2nd resurrection "the resurrection of the wicked".

1 Thess 4 is indeed the first resurrection, which is the resurrection which took place in AD 70 upon the return of Christ. Paradise was emptied of the righteous souls who were waiting there for the consumation of Christ's work upon His return. You need to compare the Jewish cermony of YOM KIPPUR with Hebrews 9 and 10. You will see there that Jesus, as our Great High Priest, entered into the heavenly temple to make YOM KIPPUR with His own Blood, fulfilling the rite (as He has fulfilled ALL the Jewish rites and ceremonies) and then returning to earth to empty Paradise, be seated as the Judge, and begin the kingdom of which He is the King over all as the Head of the New Covenant.

Remember this important fact about YOM KIPPUR: it was not considered finished until the high priest returned from the temple. In like manner and in keeping with type/antetype fulfillments, if Jesus has not returned, the New Covenant is not in force, the work of the Cross is not finished, and we are still in our sins.

It's all there - spelled out for you. First century A.D.

Indeed it is. It is just that Premillenialists have been blinded to it and read into the text those things which they think are there.

Brother Ed

 

Brother Curtis --

Sorry you are feeling under the weather. Bummmer!!!

I don't suppose you'd want me to ask our Mother for Her intercessions before the throne of Grace now, would ya?

I'm of the "Christian Church who has compromised with the world" camp". I do believe the one world church will have the support of the anti-Christ. Since the anti-Christ will make a pact with Israel, I believe the anti-Christ will have to be Jewish. The bible tells us the anti-Christ will not be interested in women, which points to RCC priests. And with the jewels, golden chalices, robes, and everything else, it points right to the RCC. I'm not saying that the Catholic church is the harlot. Not yet.

Well, for a guy who is not saying that, it sure sounds like perhaps you are STRONGLY SUGGESTING IT!!!

You know, if you study the worship in Heaven, there are robes, chalices, lampstands and candles, incense, etc. which all sounds very Catholic to me. Why is that? Why doesn't Heaven look like a Baptist assembly (you know, four bare walls and a choir singing "just as I am without one plea" for 27 verses!!)

You seem to equate beauty in worship with idolatry and error. Yet Heaven's worship is outlined in just such beauty.

But the recent popes have all been ecumenical, and my studies have pointed me to a Jewish Pope.

THAT would be interesting. Do you see a Jewish cardinal or bishop around right now who might fill the bill?

As for the eccumenicism, I must say that this is one area of the Roman rite (remember I am NOT Roman) which gives me the willies, quite frankly. While the latest encyclical DOMINUS IESUS, was very strong in stating that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ (which drove the pagans into spasms of protest!! - ), I still feel that there are too many eccumenists in the Church who are selling the truth of Christ short. I realize that perhaps they desire to be loving to the pagans and win them by love, but in that love, there does need to be a point at which someone says that either your sins are under the Blood of Christ or you will spend an eternity outside the presence of God in a place of torment.

BTW -- Thought of you on Sunday. Our priest began the homily with the following words "If you think that your good works or your belief in Jesus is going to get you to Heaven, you are sincerely mistaken. It is your FAITH in Christ which is what will get you to Heaven." I kinda wished all y'all Baptist folks could have been there to hear it. Think it would have put a smile on yer faces.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS Did you read my analogy from Ezekial 16 and compare it with the woman in Revelation? I didn't see much comment on it.

 

Ed, in your enthusiasm to defedn the RCC - you are not following the point. The point above references Rev 12 showing that Rome IS mentioned - in this case the Pagan Roman Empire - that preceeded the RCC. Both Catholic and Protestants scholars agree and the references would be too numerous to list.

Herod was not a Jew or even a descendant of Jacob. - He was an edomite.

The Pure woman of Rev 12 that is "About to give birth" is the Jewish church - but then the Pure woman of Rev 12 is driven off by the beast of Rev 12 and is persecuted for 1260 years.

Rev 12 calls them "Saints" - "Here is the patience of the Saints". The ONE TRUE church of God spans BOTH OT and NT - it is the Jews in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT.

EVEN the Catholic church admits the christians were persecuted by the Romans following the resurrection of Christ and destruction of Israel.

Why don't you believe what the Bible teaches on this rather than concocting fanciful ideas which have no exegetical substance?

James chapter 4 was not written to OT saints - but NT saints.

Rev 17 comes AFTER the sequence of Rev 12 where Christ is resurrected. The 1260 years of persecution is identified in Rev 12 and the Jews lasted - barely 40 years after Christ as a conquered and subjugated nation having no power at all.

Revelation was written approximately 90 B.C.

20 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact John was placed on PAtmos BY the Romans.

this is shown clearly in Romans 11 - the church had taken over and was grafted in the place from which the Jews fell.

In fact - Rev 17 shows a world dominant power - with great persucting power. EVEN the CAtholic church admits that Pagan Rome had FAR more devastating persecuting impact on Christians than the subjugated nation of Israel for its brief 40 years.

In the 1Thess 4 event all the living righteous ascend up to heaven and all the dead in Christ are raised. This happens at the resurrection of the 2nd coming. The idea that the second coming happened in 70 ad - is hard to fathome why anyone who invent such a story.

Another nice "story". And the "empty paradise" text?

Wrong again. The Spring feasts pertain to Christ's first coming - and the fall feasts to the 2nd coming. The heavenly judgment of Yom Kippur did not happen in 70.A.D

More story? "returning to earth to empty paradise"?? A text??

Again - wrong.

The Cross is the "atoning sacrifice" 1John 2:2 -

The Day of Atonement is about judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary - it is not about the introduction of the "new covenant".

And The Catholic church teaches "The is the New Covenant IN My Blood" means that the New Covenant is the Catholic Mass - ALONE. No Protestants saved by the New Covenant according to Catholic doctrine. For getting Protestants saved - the Catholic church has said "another story" is needed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." Daniel 11:37

This verse, I believe, tells me he will not be interested in women. Also, note the "God of his fathers", which seems to tell me about his Jewish heritage. Also, we know from Daniel 9:27 that a peace pact with Israel will be in effect, and I can't imagine Israel making a pact with anybody who isn't Jewish.</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Bro. Curtis. These are the scriptures that I was referring to in my other post. I just didn't have time to look it up.

MEE

 

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." Daniel 11:37

This verse, I believe, tells me he will not be interested in women. Also, note the "God of his fathers", which seems to tell me about his Jewish heritage. Also, we know from Daniel 9:27 that a peace pact with Israel will be in effect, and I can't imagine Israel making a pact with anybody who isn't Jewish.</font>[/QUOTE]So now the antiChrist will be a Jewish Roman Catholic priest? St. John in his letters states that the antiChrist will also deny that Christ came in the flesh (a denial of the Incarnation). How does this fit in with your theology?

God bless,

Grant

 

I'm sure Brother Ed will respond in length, but I thought I could answer a few things here. First, Eastern Orthodox churches are not under the Pope. But Brother Ed is part of an Eastern Catholic rite. To my understanding, this was a church body that broke away from Rome at some point in history, but has returned is now again in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. As is bound to be the case, some did not do this, and there is a remnant Orthodox group as well. For example, I have a friend in New York who is Syrian Orthodox, but there is also the Syrian Rite Catholics. Some returned to Rome, some did not. Those bearing the Orthodox name are not Catholic, although the differences in doctrine are minimal, and the breaks are viewed as temporary, as many churches throughout history have returned to Rome.

Also, I think saying "blindly follow" the Pope is a little harsh. I don't follow anything blindly. A faithful Catholic relies on just that, faith, not blind submission. The Catholic Church, despite contrary belief here, is not about blind submission. I don't expect to change any minds, but through my conversion, I know personally that it has not been like that for me, and I put a great deal of study into any doctrine that I have issues/concerns with. After much prayer, God always leads me in union with the Catholic Church, and I always find peace there. That's not blindness; that's the gift of faith.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hello Brother Curtis --

I do hope you are feeling better. Sounds like something dreadful got a'holt of ya.

As Christianity developed, there developed two distinctly different schools of theology and spirituality. In the Orthodox east, Constantinople was considered to be the center of all things. Eastern thought was distinctly mystical in its outlook, focusing on the developing of our union with Christ. In such atmosphere, monasticism had its start. Such works as the Philokalia and The Ladder of Divine Ascent are reflective of this mindset.

In the West, of which Rome was the head, the spirituality took a more scholastic and, especially after St. Augustine, legally defined take. While the emphasis in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the developement of one's walk with Christ and becoming like Him through contemplation, prayer, and the Sacraments, the Western approach is more oriented to the doing of social good, scholastic understanding, and the Sacraments. Note that the Sacraments and the teaching on them was the binding doctrine for the 1000 years of unity between East and West.

After the schism of 1054, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches issued mutual excommunications and pretty much went their own ways. Attempts were made at reconcilliation, the last one being the failed Council of Florence if memory serves me correctly. From thence on, the Catholic Church was extremely busy with the new teachings of the Reformation and turned its attention elsewhere.

However, there were certain political issues which were still unresolved and which altered the eclessiastical landscape. Such a political situation existed in the area of Europe now known as the Ukraine, and for highly political reasons, the Orthodox Church in this area decided to come once again under the headship of the Holy Father. This was accomplished at the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzuhrod. The Orthodox churches which were there were united with the Roman pontiff and enjoyed certain political advantages, not the least of which was military protections from neighboring Catholic countries against the ever threatening invasion of pagans.

However, this union did not come without a cost to us. For some reason, perhaps to show their willingness to accomodate the Latin Church, over a period of centuries, certain "Latinisms" crept into the Byzantine Catholic Church until it lost a great deal of its Eastern identity. In America, this was most pronounced when the Irish Catholic bishops raised cain with the Holy Father over the issue of our married priests. We conceded the point and as of yet, while John Paul II has encouraged the Eastern Church to practice its Eastern heritage, none of our bishops has had the testicular fortitude to do so -- a point which is a very SORE spot with many who feel that a married priesthood is indeed our right as ORTHODOX Catholics.

At ST. ANN'S BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH in Harrisburg, a church considered by many to be the "jewel of the Eparchy (diocese to you westerners)" almost ALL of the Orthodox practices have been restored to their original beauty. If you will go to this web site and look around, you will see an Orthodox Church. This is my HOME.

Our Liturgy is almost indistinguishable from a Russian or Greek Orthodox Liturgy. Old Church Slavonic is used in parts of the Liturgy to keep us in touch with the old world from which many of the families here take their roots. The Iconostasis (icon screen in front of the altar) has been restored (many were torn down during the "latinizations"). The Liturgy, hymnology, and chanting of the psalter come from the tones of the 6th century liturgy written by St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. The only thing in which we are still "latinized" is the use of pews. (True Orthodox consider pews good for only one thing -- firewood). But these are NOT doctrinal issues. They are culturalisms of worship and administrative issues with which the Holy Father has no argument.

As for the issue with the Holy Father. The differences between the East and the West are more of the administrative type than the doctrinal type. As Easterners, for instance, we do not celebrate the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. But we have our own tradition, which goes back to the verbal tradition handed down from the apostles. It is called The Dormition (falling asleep) of Mary.

In like manner, we commune our babies as soon as they can swallow rather than waiting for a time of "confirmation". This was the practice of the whole Church in the beginning, and only in the last couple of hundred years did the Latin rite leave this practice. We have always practice the Body and Blood under both species in one chalice. We immerse for baptism, which again was the ancient rite. We do not say the "filioque" clause of the Nicene Creed, which is a BIG (and I mean REALLY BIG) issue for those Orthodox churches which are still separated from Rome.

As for the Holy Father just pulling a doctrinal rabbit out of his hat -- it will not happen that way. That is not how doctrine is made. For a doctrine to be binding, it must be confirmed by the whole of an "ecummenical" council (The word ecummenical come from the Greek world "oikoumene" and is translated "world" in Scripture) In other words, a council of ALL the bishops of the world. Until the Orthodox come back to the fold, there really cannot be a truly ecummenical council of the Church, since the Orthodox are considered to be of the Church despite the fact that they refuse to acknowledge the leadership of the Holy Father. Therefore, we are really, as Orthodox in communion with Rome, only bound by the first 7 councils. All others are local councils to the Latin rite and deal with their "in house" problems, such as the issue of defining the Eucharist at Trent in the face of opposition from the Reformers. We simply, as Orthodox, never faced that problem. For us, it has always been the Body and Blood of Christ without opposition.

Hope that is somewhat helpful. I take sides with my Latin brothers here because we are in the same boat, but there are things which belong to us in the East which I would simply not desire to change or to "go West" on.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

As pointed out in Rev 12 - the Word of God depicts the one true church of God - as existing both before the birth of Christ and AFTER the resurrection of Christ.

James 4:4 shows explicitly the term "adulteress" applied to post-cross NT christians in compromise with the world "Love of the world".

The case is obvious. Scripture shows it explicitly.

Acts 20 (last half) shows explicitly that errors "wolves" and false teachers were going to aris "from among your own selves" drawing away disciples "After themselves".

The clear and present danger of a church in apostacy is shown in the NT and predicted by it. The labeling of that condition as "adulteress" is done explicitly in the Christian context in James 4:4.

And John and James were contemporaries.

You have to "want to miss it" to miss it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Brother Curtis --

I had not heard of this (isn't interesting how sometimes non-Catholics are quicker on the uptake on Catholic happenings than we are?). However, a couple of things come to mind:

Prayer is not a doctrine. Prayer is a spiritual exercise which has a personal application. Therefore, the forms of prayer can be changed without changing doctrine. The purpose of the Rosary is meditative and contemplative. The Holy Father is giving the faithful other parts of the life of Christ to meditate upon.

The Eastern Orthodox do not primarily use the Rosary. While it is not prohibited to us to use, the main focus of our prayer spirituality is the "Jesus Prayer" which is very old, going back a number of centuries. It, too, is a meditative and contemplative prayer which goes like this:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."

It is said by the teachers of this prayer that in it is the whole substance of the Gospel.

If you would wish to find out more about the Jesus Prayer, you may obtain a book called The Philokalia from LIGHT AND LIFE PUBLISHING. They are a very popular publishing house for Eastern Orthodox books and religious items.

I think the Holy Father is struggling with a question which ALL denominations struggle with: how do we get our people more committed? Every assembly I have ever gone to has about 10% of the people who are very committed to living out the faith. The rest seem to be along for the ride. Do you see that as true in your congregation?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

I don't know what Bishop Pike believes, but I do know he isn't Catholic. He is Episcopalian.
http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/JamesAlbertPike.html

 

Whoa, there, Grant. That isn't SheEagle who's equating anything about priests in this thread! I simply answered the question about the hater of women.

Actually, it's found here:

Daniel 11:[37] Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

The Whole Chapter 11 of Daniel is about this, it it's not talking about the RCC, but is speaking of King of the North, Daughter of South, etc.

 

You are correct, Queen Noor is American. But she is not the Mother of King Abdullah of Jordan. The young king's mother is British, Toni Gardiner. His wife is Palestinian. King Hussein (the royal Hashemite father) had more than one wife.

The relevence to this thread is ONLY if one thinks out of the box & focus on the world's fastest growing religion, where that religion originated, who is a half-brother to Isaac (Ishmael), (would not regard the God of his fathers--Allah is the moon god), and present world events, as far as anti-Christ goes.

BTW, there is a a mosque in Rome now, not far from the Vatican.

[ October 17, 2002, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle911 ]

 

Bob, you are exactly right. Herod was not a Jew, CC.

From the Internet: "Herod was born 73 BCE as the son of a man from Idumea named Antipater and a woman named Cyprus, the daughter of an Arabian sheik. Antipater was an adherent of Hyrcanus, one of two princes who struggling to become king of Judaea. "

 

You are correct, Queen Noor is American. But she is not the Mother of King Abdullah of Jordan. The young king's mother is British, Toni Gardiner. His wife is Palestinian. King Hussein (the royal Hashemite father) had more than one wife.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi there, remaining totally off the point, we in the west forget how important politically marriage is for monarchs. Soloman married the daughters of kings he wanted peace with, because if they then went to war, the other king was fighting his own blood. King Hussein originally was dependant upon the British, and so married a British wife. With the rise of Palestinian nationalism and its threat to his kingdom (black september etc), he married a Palestinian. Later in life, curring the favour of the latest power in the region, he married an American.

A brief comment on the real discussion, the thought that the Jewish people are the harlot of Revelation is disgusting. Jesus returns when Jerusalem say "BLESSED is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Their watchmen lift up their eyes for they see the return of the Lord to Jerusalem to rescue her, (as per Zech 12-14) not destroy her!! To think the opposite is to utterly misunderstand the nature of God's love, and character of His heart. The jewish people remain "beloved for the sake of their fathers."
God bless, Colin