Come out of Babylon, what does that mean?

[ad finitum]

Uhhhh, no.

What I DID do was obliterate your "Catholic Church/Whore of Babylon" nonsense by giving you a solid Biblical and geographical argument as to why it is probably apostate Jerusalem. Vatican hill is NOT one of the Seven Hills of Rome.

I was simply wondering when you were going to try to attempt to counter that argument with equally-solid evidence . . .

With all due respect, the argument against Hobie doesn't work, even if he is still wrong. The beast is a person and the puzzle is that the heads are mountains. The woman sits atop the beast/person/heads/mountains. The imagery is symbolic while your argument is about literal mountains and the technicality that the Vatican doesn't sit on one of them. That's not the point. The imagery suggests a seeming control from the "riding" but rather apparent "dominance" of one over the other.

 

[MarysSon]

With all due respect, the argument against Hobie doesn't work, even if he is still wrong. The beast is a person and the puzzle is that the heads are mountains. The woman sits atop the beast/person/heads/mountains. The imagery is symbolic while your argument is about literal mountains and the technicality that the Vatican doesn't sit on one of them. That's not the point. The imagery suggests a seeming control from the "riding" but rather apparent "dominance" of one over the other.

Not sure what you’re getting at. I was arguing against the position that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" because Rome has “7 hills”. This is far-fetched and silly, as I showed that Jerusalem is also built on "7 hills".

Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).
And to say that ONLY the Catholic Church killed Christians is false because many Catholics were killed by Protestants as well.

She (The Whore) is called, "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18).
Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).
What happened in 70 AD? The destruction of Jerusalem.

As to the 7 Heads, 7 Hills and 7 Kings we read about in Rev. 17 -
Rev. 17:9-10
Here is a clue for one who has wisdom. The seven heads represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings: FIVE have already fallen, ONE still lives, and the LAST has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a short while.

"Five have already fallen . . ."
1. Agustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero

"One still lives . . ."
6. Galba – present

One is "yet to come" – "for only a short while" . . .
7. Otho – reigned for a short time

 

[ad finitum]

Not sure what you’re getting at. I was arguing against the position that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" because Rome has “7 hills”. This is far-fetched and silly, as I showed that Jerusalem is also built on "7 hills".

If it has 7 hills, then it is not "far-fetched" neither silly. You provided a city with 7 hills also. So mentioning a city with 7 hills isn't "far-fetched" by your own admission. You haven't explained why pointing out a city with 7 hills is silly and far-fetched.

Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).

What is "Fox's Book of Martyrs"? What is the inquisition? What are burnings at the stake? You make it sound as if zero argument can be made for the Catholic Church. That's just wrong. Do I think it's the Catholic Church? No. Could I be wrong? Maybe.

And to say that ONLY the Catholic Church killed Christians is false because many Catholics were killed by Protestants as well.

Except that protestants don't have a "great city" and protestantism isn't monolithic and of course, there are more Catholics in the world than protestants. Catholicism wields more power on earth than divided protestantism.

So, oops, the argument you made doesn't work.

She (The Whore) is called, "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18).
Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

I don't see any homework in this interpretation. In this very passage, Jerusalem is called "Sodom and Egypt", not Babylon. The whore has Babylon (a city) emblazoned on her. It also says the woman is the great city having kingship over all the kings of the earth.

Still sticking with Jerusalem?

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).
What happened in 70 AD? The destruction of Jerusalem.

As to the 7 Heads, 7 Hills and 7 Kings we read about in Rev. 17 -
Rev. 17:9-10
Here is a clue for one who has wisdom. The seven heads represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings: FIVE have already fallen, ONE still lives, and the LAST has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a short while.

"Five have already fallen . . ."
1. Agustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero

"One still lives . . ."
6. Galba – present

One is "yet to come" – "for only a short while" . . .
7. Otho – reigned for a short time

It suffices to conclude here that people might claim they know what is what in this passage of The Revelation, but a cursory scrutiny of the claims made compared to what John wrote suggests that the requisite wisdom that the same passage is at pains to recommend, has yet to be attained in the over-confident rebuttal of Hobie.

We will know that we are closer to the wisdom needed to understand The Revelation when we are not trying to trample one another underfoot with our disagreements on its interpretation. Until then, to be silent will be wisdom.

 

[MarysSon]

If it has 7 hills, then it is not "far-fetched" neither silly. You provided a city with 7 hills also. So mentioning a city with 7 hills isn't "far-fetched" by your own admission. You haven't explained why pointing out a city with 7 hills is silly and far-fetched.

Because I also pointed to NINETY-THREE other cities built on "7 Hills" in my previous post.
AND I pointed to the glaring Scriptural comparisons between the "Whore" and apostate Jerusalem.

What is "Fox's Book of Martyrs"? What is the inquisition? What are burnings at the stake? You make it sound as if zero argument can be made for the Catholic Church. That's just wrong. Do I think it's the Catholic Church? No. Could I be wrong? Maybe.

First of all - study your history. Most of the incidents you speak of were matters of STATE, including the Spanish Inquisition.

Anyway - WHO are the Martyrs of Gorkum killed by Dutch Calvinists in the 16th century??
WHO are the more than 72,000 Catholics killed during the reigns of Henry VIII and his equally blood thirsty daughter, Elizabeth I??

To point to the Catholic Church alone is ludicrous. There is PLENTY of blood on everybody's hands . . .

Except that protestants don't have a "great city" and protestantism isn't monolithic and of course, there are more Catholics in the world than protestants. Catholicism wields more power on earth than divided protestantism.

So, oops, the argument you made doesn't work.

WHAT are you talking about??
I was talking about apostate JERUSALEM - not any "Protestant" city. Pay attention . . .

Besides, Catholicism doesn't "wield" any power on earth.

I don't see any homework in this interpretation. In this very passage, Jerusalem is called "Sodom and Egypt", not Babylon. The whore has Babylon (a city) emblazoned on her. It also says the woman is the great city having kingship over all the kings of the earth.

Still sticking with Jerusalem?

PAY ATTNENTION to what I have posted before you make any further comments.
I never said that Babylon was Jerusalem. I acknowledged that Babylon was Pagan Rome, as we see in 1 Pet. 5:13.

She is the "Whore OF Babylon" - not FROM Babylon. Apostate Jerusalem prostituted herself TO Pagan Rome against the Early Church. Remember John 19:15??
“We have no king but Caesar.”
And Pagan Rome eventually destroyed her in 70 AD (Rev. 17:16).

It suffices to conclude here that people might claim they know what is what in this passage of The Revelation, but a cursory scrutiny of the claims made compared to what John wrote suggests that the requisite wisdom that the same passage is at pains to recommend, has yet to be attained in the over-confident rebuttal of Hobie.

We will know that we are closer to the wisdom needed to understand The Revelation when we are not trying to trample one another underfoot with our disagreements on its interpretation. Until then, to be silent will be wisdom.

The Partial Preterist view is FAR more accurate in determining the symbolism and unanswered questions from Revelation.
Much of this has already passed. To assume that this is ALL in the "future" is a gargantuan mistake.

 

[ad finitum]

Because I also pointed to NINETY-THREE other cities built on "7 Hills" in my previous post.

So he points out one of the 93 cities and it's silly. You point out one of the 93 cities too but because he pointed one out, it's silly. If you point one out it's not silly.

Yeah, sure.

AND I pointed to the glaring Scriptural comparisons between the "Whore" and apostate Jerusalem.

Ok, but that's only one point of comparison. The other points of comparison that clearly fail and do not support your view, you simply ignore (perhaps because you can't explain them).

First of all - study your history. Most of the incidents you speak of were matters of STATE, including the Spanish Inquisition.

If one is going to talk down to others, one might at least make certain they actually know more than those to whom they are talking. There was no separation between Church and State. That is why it was called "The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition".

Nice try, though.

Anyway - WHO are the Martyrs of Gorkum killed by Dutch Calvinists in the 16th century??
WHO are the more than 72,000 Catholics killed during the reigns of Henry VIII and his equally blood thirsty daughter, Elizabeth I??

To point to the Catholic Church alone is ludicrous. There is PLENTY of blood on everybody's hands . . .

This might work but only if you ignore the other points of comparison that were provided.

WHAT are you talking about??
I was talking about apostate JERUSALEM - not any "Protestant" city. Pay attention . . .

That reply was because I "paid attention" to your rebuttal about protestant acts of persecution. But you make it sound as if I didn't pay attention to what you said. This is not an honest rebuttal. You spend a lot of time barking orders, giving commands, declaring ignorance and lack of knowledge of history when your opinion is challenged. This serves to lower everyone to whom you are speaking (in your own eyes at least) and to elevate, by implication, yourself in comparison to them

That is an unfruitful way.

Besides, Catholicism doesn't "wield" any power on earth.

Context. The Pope is believed to be by his followers, and is actually called, the "Vicar of Christ". In Greek, that's "Anti-Christos". Since the context here is The Revelation, tell everyone how the Catholic Church with its "Anti-Christ" will exert ZERO power on earth. The Catholic church has wielded great power on earth in the past and who is to say it will not exert great power on earth in the future? Some haughty, discourteous poster on a discussion board?

PAY ATTNENTION to what I have posted before you make any further comments.
I never said that Babylon was Jerusalem. I acknowledged that Babylon was Pagan Rome, as we see in 1 Pet. 5:13.

She is the "Whore OF Babylon" - not FROM Babylon. Apostate Jerusalem prostituted herself TO Pagan Rome against the Early Church. Remember John 19:15??
“We have no king but Caesar.”
And Pagan Rome eventually destroyed her in 70 AD (Rev. 17:16).

18. "The woman whom you saw is the great city having kingship over the kings of the earth."

So, was Jerusalem the great city having kingship over the kings of the earth? Did you really do your homework? Is your opinion undermined here? Yes, it is. You're simply wrong. The description doesn't fit all the points of comparison that are provided for it to be Jerusalem.

The Partial Preterist view is FAR more accurate in determining the symbolism and unanswered questions from Revelation.
Much of this has already passed. To assume that this is ALL in the "future" is a gargantuan mistake.

OK. That's what you think. But as all can see, your cherry-picked points of comparison are not comprehensive and they ignore other points of comparison in the text that clearly don't support your opinion.

Therefore, you are not in a position to talk-down to people who disagree with you. Even if you were in such a position, talking-down to your brothers is not a fruit of the Spirit.

By their fruits you shall know them.

 

[MarysSon]

So he points out one of the 93 cities and it's silly. You point out one of the 93 cities too but because he pointed one out, it's silly. If you point one out it's not silly.

Yeah, sure.

No - you're missing the point because you don't pay attention.

I gave an example of ONE city - but I backed it up with actual Biblical and Historical evidence.
His post hade NONE of that - just conjecture and the usual anti-Catholic bias.

If one is going to talk down to others, one might at least make certain they actually know more than those to whom they are talking. There was no separation between Church and State. That is why it was called "The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition".

Nice try, though.

That's nonsense.
The Spanish Inquisition was promulgated NOT by any Pope - but by King Ferdinand of Spain.

Nice try, though . . .

Ok, but that's only one point of comparison. The other points of comparison that clearly fail and do not support your view, you simply ignore (perhaps because you can't explain them).

This might work but only if you ignore the other points of comparison that were provided.

That reply was because I "paid attention" to your rebuttal about protestant acts of persecution. But you make it sound as if I didn't pay attention to what you said. This is not an honest rebuttal. You spend a lot of time barking orders, giving commands, declaring ignorance and lack of knowledge of history when your opinion is challenged. This serves to lower everyone to whom you are speaking (in your own eyes at least) and to elevate, by implication, yourself in comparison to them

That is an unfruitful way.

Context. The Pope is believed to be by his followers, and is actually called, the "Vicar of Christ". In Greek, that's "Anti-Christos". Since the context here is The Revelation, tell everyone how the Catholic Church with its "Anti-Christ" will exert ZERO power on earth. The Catholic church has wielded great power on earth in the past and who is to say it will not exert great power on earth in the future? Some haughty, discourteous poster on a discussion board?

18. "The woman whom you saw is the great city having kingship over the kings of the earth."

So, was Jerusalem the great city having kingship over the kings of the earth? Did you really do your homework? Is your opinion undermined here? Yes, it is. You're simply wrong. The description doesn't fit all the points of comparison that are provided for it to be Jerusalem.

OK. That's what you think. But as all can see, your cherry-picked points of comparison are not comprehensive and they ignore other points of comparison in the text that clearly don't support your opinion.

Therefore, you are not in a position to talk-down to people who disagree with you. Even if you were in such a position, talking-down to your brothers is not a fruit of the Spirit.

By their fruits you shall know them.

And YOUR problem is that you don’t pay attention – yet you respond self-righteously.
So civil conversation with you is fruitless.

Point #1: I NEVER stated that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon.
I pointed out that the chances of it being the Catholic Church are absolutely ridiculous, given the evidence that more closely fits apostate Jerusalem.

Point #2: I haven’t “talked down” to anybody for simply “disagreeing” with me.
I condescended to the OP because of his anti-Catholic idiocy - and YOU for your complete dismissal of what I have said. You’re making claims that I never stated.

Point #3: - You LIED when you said that the Book of Revelation speaks of the Catholic Church “with its ‘Anti-Christ’ will exert ZERO power on earth”. It says NO such thing about the Church.

And your red herring that the Pope is the “Anti-Christ” is based on your ignorance of languages.

Summary: The idea that the “Whore of Babylon” is the Catholic Church is nothing more than a Scripturally-bankrupt anti-Catholic slur that is only perpetuated by those who are ignorant of the Bible – and has ZERO to do with the fact that you “disagree” with me.

 

[ad finitum]

And YOUR problem is that you don’t pay attention – yet you respond self-righteously.
So civil conversation with you is fruitless.

If civil conversation be fruitless, how much less uncivil. Don't you think?

Point #1: I NEVER stated that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon.
I pointed out that the chances of it being the Catholic Church are absolutely ridiculous, given the evidence that more closely fits apostate Jerusalem.

Hmm. What was all that about Jerusalem prostituting itself if not arguing for Jerusalem being the woman?

Regarding your arguments for Jerusalem, you said, "I was simply wondering when you were going to try to attempt to counter that argument with equally-solid evidence . . .".

In response, I pointed out that Revelation 17:18 says the woman is the city whose kingship is over the kings of the earth. This doesn't fit Jerusalem being the woman. Where is its kingship over the kings of the earth?

Doesn't that count as "countering your argument with equally-solid evidence"?

Point #2: I haven’t “talked down” to anybody for simply “disagreeing” with me.
I condescended to the OP because of his anti-Catholic idiocy - and YOU for your complete dismissal of what I have said. You’re making claims that I never stated.

I have paid close attention to what you've said. You suggested Jerusalem is the whore, not Vatican City.

Point #3: - You LIED when you said that the Book of Revelation speaks of the Catholic Church “with its ‘Anti-Christ’ will exert ZERO power on earth”. It says NO such thing about the Church.

That's an interesting ad hominem argument. I never said that Revelation says this. The context of my defense of the argument simply works from that interpretation, just like your view does.

I also made a case for the mention of wisdom (Revelation 17:9). This is a clue that the answer is not laying on the surface. And we know from scripture that the attainment of wisdom requires humility, faith, patience, and faithfulness -- all signs of spiritual maturity. We should all ask ourselves, "Where are the signs of spiritual maturity in my discourse? What would be wisdom there?"

And your red herring that the Pope is the “Anti-Christ” is based on your ignorance of languages.

I'm eager to learn from your more vast knowledge of the languages. Maybe you'll explain (please).

Summary: The idea that the “Whore of Babylon” is the Catholic Church is nothing more than a Scripturally-bankrupt anti-Catholic slur that is only perpetuated by those who are ignorant of the Bible – and has ZERO to do with the fact that you “disagree” with me.

The idea that the whore is Catholicism is an opinion. Do I think the whore is the Catholic Church? No. Do I think a case can be made for it? Yes. Do I think people who believe in that case are evil and must be denigrated in the forum? No.

I read somewhere about speaking the truth to one another in love.

 

[MarysSon]

If civil conversation be fruitless, how much less uncivil. Don't you think?

Hmm. What was all that about Jerusalem prostituting itself if not arguing for Jerusalem being the woman?

Regarding your arguments for Jerusalem, you said, "I was simply wondering when you were going to try to attempt to counter that argument with equally-solid evidence . . .".

In response, I pointed out that Revelation 17:18 says the woman is the city whose kingship is over the kings of the earth. This doesn't fit Jerusalem being the woman. Where is its kingship over the kings of the earth?

Doesn't that count as "countering your argument with equally-solid evidence"?

I have paid close attention to what you've said. You suggested Jerusalem is the whore, not Vatican City.

That's an interesting ad hominem argument. I never said that Revelation says this. The context of my defense of the argument simply works from that interpretation, just like your view does.

I also made a case for the mention of wisdom (Revelation 17:9). This is a clue that the answer is not laying on the surface. And we know from scripture that the attainment of wisdom requires humility, faith, patience, and faithfulness -- all signs of spiritual maturity. We should all ask ourselves, "Where are the signs of spiritual maturity in my discourse? What would be wisdom there?"

I'm eager to learn from your more vast knowledge of the languages. Maybe you'll explain (please).
The idea that the whore is Catholicism is an opinion. Do I think the whore is the Catholic Church? No. Do I think a case can be made for it? Yes. Do I think people who believe in that case are evil and must be denigrated in the forum? No.

I read somewhere about speaking the truth to one another in love.

To your statements in RED - I STILL never stated definitively that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon.

Once again - you don't pay attention. I was making the case that the Scriptural similarities fit apostate Jerusalem's relationship with Pagan Rome FAR more closely than the Catholic Church.

I guess YOUR problem lies in the fact that you actually believe that ALL of these prophecies are still in the future. The Partial Preterist view, which I think is far more accurate, holds that much of this has ALREADY passed. And, if you DO believe this, then your argument for Rev. 17:9 gores right out the window because the Catholic Church has NO kingship over the kings of the earth.

Finally, as for ignorance of languages - your belief that "Vicar of Christ" means "Anti-Christ" is preposterous on its face.
Read ANY Greek Lexicon and you will see that "anti" doesn't mean "against" - it means "in place of", which is the English understanding of the term "Vicar". You anti-Catholics make the same blunder when it comes to one of Mary's unofficial titles, "Co-Mediatrix".

 

[Hobie]

With all due respect, the argument against Hobie doesn't work, even if he is still wrong. The beast is a person and the puzzle is that the heads are mountains. The woman sits atop the beast/person/heads/mountains. The imagery is symbolic while your argument is about literal mountains and the technicality that the Vatican doesn't sit on one of them. That's not the point. The imagery suggests a seeming control from the "riding" but rather apparent "dominance" of one over the other.

All one has to do is look and see what entity came out of Pagan Rome and is still with us today.... the answer is clear, and Papal Rome fits with all what scripture says to a exactness that is undeniable.

 

[MarysSon]

All one has to do is look and see what entity came out of Pagan Rome and is still with us today.... the answer is clear, and Papal Rome fits with all what scripture says to a exactness that is undeniable.

No - "All one has to do" is to do their homework as I did - and YOU didn't.

I shot Scriptural, historical, geographical and linguistic torpedoes through your woefully-ignorant anti-Catholic drivel.
And the BEST you can do is a childish, 'It's true because I say so!' response?
REALLY??

As I educated you in my last post – the Whore of Babylon Is referred to as “The Great City where their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8).

-Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was ever known as “The Great City where the Lord was crucified” in Scripture – but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

- Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was referred to as the "Whore" in Scripture (Isaiah 1:21) – but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

-Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was made naked and desolate and destroyed (Rev. 17:16).– but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

And Vatican Hill is NOT one of the “7 Hills” of Rome – as you also learned in my last post.

I also pointed out the fat that Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – as testified by Scripture NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).
And to say that ONLY the Catholic Church killed Christians is false because many Catholics were killed by Protestants as well – so there is blood on YOUR hands.

My advice to you is simple:
Do your homework and stop violating God’s Commandment against bearing FALSE witness (Exod. 20:16). Testifying to the TRUTH - and not falsehood is what pleases God . . .

 

[Hobie]

No - "All one has to do" is to do their homework as I did - and YOU didn't.

I shot Scriptural, historical, geographical and linguistic torpedoes through your woefully-ignorant anti-Catholic drivel.
And the BEST you can do is a childish, 'It's true because I say so!' response?
REALLY??

As I educated you in my last post – the Whore of Babylon Is referred to as “The Great City where their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8).

-Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was ever known as “The Great City where the Lord was crucified” in Scripture – but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

- Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was referred to as the "Whore" in Scripture (Isaiah 1:21) – but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

-Neither the Catholic Church NOR Rome was made naked and desolate and destroyed (Rev. 17:16).– but guess who WAS??
Apostate Jerusalem.

And Vatican Hill is NOT one of the “7 Hills” of Rome – as you also learned in my last post.

I also pointed out the fat that Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – as testified by Scripture NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).
And to say that ONLY the Catholic Church killed Christians is false because many Catholics were killed by Protestants as well – so there is blood on YOUR hands.

My advice to you is simple:
Do your homework and stop violating God’s Commandment against bearing FALSE witness (Exod. 20:16). Testifying to the TRUTH - and not falsehood is what pleases God . . .

Please tell me what other religious entity came out of Pagan Rome and is still here to this day and has as its head, a man who considers himself as 'acting in the place of God'. This Antichrist power spent centuries chasing true believers into caves, persecuting millions, and burning unnumbered of them at the stake trying to stamp out their faith in what they found from Gods Word. It is clear cut from history as well as scripture who this is...

 

[MarysSon]

Please tell me what other religious entity came out of Pagan Rome and is still here to this day and has as its head, a man who considers himself as 'acting in the place of God'. This Antichrist power spent centuries chasing true believers into caves, persecuting millions, and burning unnumbered of them at the stake trying to stamp out their faith in what they found from Gods Word. It is clear cut from history as well as scripture who this is...

Sooooooo, I guess this means that you could NOT refute the point-by-point ANNIHILATION of your weak case in my last post (#70).

So, now - instead of addressing these irrefutable points - you introduce idiotic opinion, historical perversion massive frustration. Good job.

Come back when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation based in facts - not FALSE witness . . .

 

[ad finitum]

... your woefully-ignorant ...drivel.
... the BEST you can do is a childish...response....
...As I educated you in my last post...
...Testifying to the TRUTH - and not falsehood is what pleases God . . .

[1Co 13:1-13 KJV] 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.​

 

[utilyan]

Please tell me what other religious entity came out of Pagan Rome and is still here to this day and has as its head, a man who considers himself as 'acting in the place of God'. This Antichrist power spent centuries chasing true believers into caves, persecuting millions, and burning unnumbered of them at the stake trying to stamp out their faith in what they found from Gods Word. It is clear cut from history as well as scripture who this is...

From the cradle SDA are instructed to hate Catholics.

 

[MarysSon]

[1Co 13:1-13 KJV] 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.​

Funny how you anti-Catholics think:
“I will spew ALL sorts of filthy lies about Catholicism – but if they put me in my place, THEY are not being charitable!!”

Exod. 20:16
“You shall NOT bear false witness against your neighbor.

1 Tim. 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Solution:
BEHAVE yourself and show some Christian charity and there will be NO need fore rebuke.

 

[ad finitum]

Funny how you anti-Catholics think:
...
Solution:
BEHAVE yourself and show some Christian charity and there will be NO need fore rebuke.

Guilt by accusation? I'm an anti-Catholic? Where did you get that idea? Maybe one should behave himself first before commanding others to behave.

Besides which, you didn't reply to the criticism (from me) of Jerusalem being the Woman riding the beast because she only fits one or two points of comparison. It fails on all the other descriptions of the woman. And by that argument, the she cannot be Jerusalem, QED. Is this interesting to you? Is the issue for you simply Catholic dogma instead of actual scholarship? After all, the Catholic Church have had issues with Jews for millenia. Is that why they insist that the woman is the capital of the Jews?

The bottom line is that your argument only works on some points of comparison, not all of them. On this criticism you are silent. Why?

I'm not a Catholic but I'm also not anti-Catholic. Let us all edit ourselves like true men of the Faith. Let it not be said of us in the Judgment that we justified ourselves with all this angry rebuking of one another in Jesus' name. I can guarantee the answer will be, "I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of iniquity."

 

[utilyan]

Guilt by accusation? I'm an anti-Catholic? Where did you get that idea? Maybe one should behave himself first before commanding others to behave.

Besides which, you didn't reply to the criticism (from me) of Jerusalem being the Woman riding the beast because she only fits one or two points of comparison. It fails on all the other descriptions of the woman. And by that argument, the she cannot be Jerusalem, QED. Is this interesting to you? Is the issue for you simply Catholic dogma instead of actual scholarship? After all, the Catholic Church have had issues with Jews for millenia. Is that why they insist that the woman is the capital of the Jews?

The bottom line is that your argument only works on some points of comparison, not all of them. On this criticism you are silent. Why?

I'm not a Catholic but I'm also not anti-Catholic. Let us all edit ourselves like true men of the Faith. Let it not be said of us in the Judgment that we justified ourselves with all this angry rebuking of one another in Jesus' name. I can guarantee the answer will be, "I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of iniquity."

Who said that was catholic dogma?
It’s not reasonable to believe there’s some anti-Catholic bias at work when we get a shotgun of misrepresentations like this?
When is it our turn to tell you what we believe and tell instead of you telling us what we believe?

 

[ad finitum]

Who said that was catholic dogma?
It’s not reasonable to believe there’s some anti-Catholic bias at work when we get a shotgun of misrepresentations like this?
When is it our turn to tell you what we believe and tell instead of you telling us what we believe?

What misrepresentation? I put question marks in there, didn't I? BTW, any answers to the points presented or questions asked? I'm actually curious. I'm listening.

 

[utilyan]

What misrepresentation? I put question marks in there, didn't I? BTW, any answers to the points presented or questions asked? I'm actually curious. I'm listening.

Yeah no accusations thrown there.

The Pope is believed to be by his followers, and is actually called, the "Vicar of Christ". In Greek, that's "Anti-Christos".

How about a source for that etymology?

 

[ad finitum]

How about a source for that etymology?

Emphasis in underlined bold is mine:

The Pope is Vicarius Christi in Latin. Transliterated into English, the Vicar of Christ.

Latin, vicarius -- taking the place of a person or thing.

Greek antichristos -- Strongs Lexicon: 500 antíxristos (from 473 /antí, "opposite to, in place of" and 5547 /Xristós, "Christ") – properly, opposite to Christ; someone acting in place of (against) Christ; "Antichrist."

Usage: antichrist, either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah.​