Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Things just don't change! :laugh:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Great Whore of Revelation
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Things just don't change! :laugh:
Do you really think that the pagan religions observed by the Ceasars is restricted to either Woodrow or Hislop?????
There are many history books available to tell you about the "college of Pontiff's" and the pagan religion that the Ceasars were involved in. Just go on line and look up the words "college of Pontiff's" or "Roman Paganism" or go check such histories as the "Decline and Fall of Rome" by Gibbons or any number of history books.
Just go online and look up the term "Pontifex Maximus" and you will see it originated with the high preist of the Pagan Roman religion and was a title that Ceasar took as the god/man.
Just go online and look pu the term "Roman Madonna" and you will see that the Roman Catholic Mary is nothing but the pagan Madonna cult with her child and that Rome gives the same titles to Mary as they did to their pagan Madonna.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You are trying to make loose associations. For instance we name cities after Indian tribes do you think that means we worship what the indians worship? Pontifex Maximus was a title used by Roman emperors meaning the greatest Bridge builder. Just because Rome had vestal virgins or sacred virgins and there are certain christians that choose to remain virgin doesn't connect the two faiths. This is why it is so important to know your history rather than make it up.
You are trying to explain away the obvious! That term is just the BEGINNING of the associations between Roman Paganism and Roman Catholicism.
We could talk about the headdress of the pope and its origin. We could talk about the college of pontiffs, their colors of dress and the college of cardinals - all of which have no Biblical basis. We could talk about Saturnalius. We could talk about the Roman Madonna and her titles, etc., etc. None of these things have their origin with God or His Word but with paganism. There is not a Christian denomination on the face of the earth more pagan and rooted in pagan rituals than Rome because it is "MYSTERY" Babylon the christianized version of Babylonian religion.
Again, ahistorical nonsense! Rome never reigned over the whole world, not even John's world: John would have known about the Parthian Kingdom since it was right next door to his part of the Roman Empire and Rome never conquered Parthia; in fact, one of its generals, Crassus, had been defeated and killed by the Parthians in 53BC in Syria.
Revelation is usually treated as a prophetic text so could easily be referring to Washington, DC
>Just go online and look up the term "Pontifex Maximus" and you will see it originated with the high preist of the Pagan Roman religion and was a title that Ceasar took as the god/man.
Just go on line and look up Greek historical politics and you will find that the words "democracy" and "republic" as used on BB have very little in common with the meanings as used by the people who invented the words.
My point? That "True Believers" in religion and politics are gnostics in the sense that they apply meanings to words that only insiders can understand.
Just go on line and look up Greek historical politics and you will find that the words "democracy" and "republic" as used on BB have very little in common with the meanings as used by the people who invented the words.
My point? That "True Believers" in religion and politics are gnostics in the sense that they apply meanings to words that only insiders can understand.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I don't know if you have ever seen zeitgeist which attempt to connect Jesus to religions existing before his incarnation and suggest that the gospels are a retelling of astrological changes. And because a Christian symbol used a fish it suggest we are in the age of peices and will soon be in aquarius. However, they tie all these loose associations to give themselves relevance when in reality they don't actually follow history and are just speculating but for them loose associations are real. You are doing the Same Thing.
You can't see the forest for the tree in your nose! The Biblical text limits the Great Whore to Rome (Rev. 17:18) and not secular Rome (Rev. 17:1-5) but to the RELIGOUS ROME - "mystery" Babylon. This RELIGIOUS Rome continues until the last "hour" upon earth when the ten kings assemble with the beast and false prophet to fight the Lamb. There is no other RELIGIOUS Rome that continued from that time to the present and will continue until that last "hour" except for Roman Catholicism located, headquartered at Rome as a CITY STATE. There is no other RELIGIOUS Rome that has its roots in "MYSTERY" Babylone from that time to the present which still exists in the city of Rome as a CITY STATE but Roman Catholicism - period - end of story.
One of the 'credible sources' you have used in the past, the research of the Worldwide Church of God founder-Herbert W. Armstrong (who denied the Trinity among other heresy) used such evidence as a church in Rome that he claimed had a depiction of the Sun on the ceiling which he claimed was 'proof' that the Catholic Church had roots in worshipping the Sun. The church, in fact, has a depiction of a dove (depicting the H.S.) with radiant beams eminating from it. These, and many other 'facts' used by such scholars that you use in your need to prove the Catholic Church is pagan in it's origin are laughable.
You seem to be willing to hitch-your-wagon to anybody that opposes Catholicism and not investigate the credibility of your sources. 'Any enemy of my enemy is my friend?'
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I see things as they are. I don't make up loose associations and say with a certainty it is real. First the book of Revelations is a Apocalyptic piece of literature. It deals with symbologies many which are missed because we don't live in the 1st Century Context. Many men more educated than you have differeing interpretations. Many have used this book to say all sorts of people were anti christ or the Whore of Babylone and predicted a date of the 2nd advent. All of them have been wrong. You are just proposing a postulation that was started in the 1500's by the reformers. You want so bad for the Pope and the Catholic Church to be the bad guy loose associations and historical inacurracies are good enough for you. That says more about you than it does the roman catholic church.
you're whole theory falls apart by the simple fact that the great city of Babylon was never under the authority of Rome. That a great Kingdom in the east the Parthians were never conqured by Rome. And everyone in the empire would have known this. But you want to draw loose associations. To prove something that just isn't so. If I were you I would be more conserned with Islamic progress over the Globe than the Catholic Church.
Pleeeeeeease! All I said was go online and find the resources for yourself. The only resource I named was Gibbon's Decline and fall of the Roman Empire a very reputable work recognized by secular educators.
All I said was look up "Pontifex Maximus" for yourself. All I said was look up the Roman "Madonna" for yourself. All I said was look up "the college of Pontiffs" for yourself. There is a wealth of information on these things you can find in common encyclopedias.
You are simply trying to change the subject from the facts I presented in my last post.
The Biblical text limits the Great Whore to Rome (Rev. 17:18) and not secular Rome (Rev. 17:1-5) but to the RELIGOUS ROME - "mystery" Babylon. This RELIGIOUS Rome continues until the last "hour" upon earth when the ten kings assemble with the beast and false prophet to fight the Lamb. There is no other RELIGIOUS Rome that continued from that time to the present and will continue until that last "hour" except for Roman Catholicism located, headquartered at Rome as a CITY STATE. There is no other RELIGIOUS Rome that has its roots in "MYSTERY" Babylone from that time to the present which still exists in the city of Rome as a CITY STATE but Roman Catholicism - period - end of story.
You are purposely perverting my position. I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT ROME WAS UNDER THE CITY OF BABYLON! That is your straw man that you have built which has no basis in the text.
My position does not include that, does not say that, does not demand that but your straw man does.
She is CALLED "MYSTERY" babylon not Babylon! Babylon did not rule over the earth as the one world government when John wrote (Rev. 17:18).
This is a symbolism for babylonian RELIGION that secular Rome practiced and John is referring to this FALSE RELIGION that dominated secular Rome and which was the reason why he was sent to Patmos and why the congregations would be persecuted by the Ceasars due to their RELIGIOUS beliefs that conflicted with Christianity.
More straw men. The Parthians never ruled the world as did Rome. Apply the same standard to the Medes and Persians while Babylon ruled the world. Nevertheless Babylon is presented as the one world government at the time of its power. Apply the same logic to Greece when the Medes and Persians were the dominant one world government. Rome ruled the known world of John and the seven congregations and was the PROMINENT world power just as Rev. 17:18 demands and history verifies.
I know these facts bother you but there is no escape except by perverting and distorting history and the Biblical text.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Nor was Rome ever over Babylon as I've said.
Rome never ruled the world. It ruled the Meditranian, Europe and North Africa. But that was primarily it. You are over trying a point that just doesn't fit the facts.
You might as well believe Zeitgeist.
I never said Rome was! Go back and read my response. Either you did not read what I said, did not understand what I said, or you are simply saving face by perverting what I said.
Rome ruled the world in the very same sense that every other one world government previous to them did. Babylon ruled the world but it did not rule over the WHOLE world becuase much was yet undiscovered, much was outside its reach but those outside its reach did not attempt to challenge Babylon. The same can be said of the Medes and Persian empire, the Grecian Empire and so it is of the Roman Empire.
You know this to be true and your are simply playing your game of mental gymnastics and YOU KNOW IT!
Bottom line, Rome ruled over the known world of John and the Seven congregations and that is the city in Revelation 17:10 as John uses the PRESENT TENSE and no other city on planet earth at that time could be described that way and YOU KNOW IT!
I know these facts upset you but they are facts that no amount of mental gynastics and vain rhetoric can change!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Since it can be any one of those empires and John Knew Rome could not defeat the Parthians. And Parthians were part of the known world Rome therefore did not rule the world in the same sense as anyone else. Alexander ruled the known world Rome did not. Therefore your analogy fails. And since it fails with secular Rome how much more does it fail with Catholicism.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The bible doesn't often interpret itself and on those occassions you should pay attention like here in Revelation 17
So the Angel is going to break it down. What does he say?
So the Angel is going to break it down. What does he say?
So your emphasis on the present is misdirected. Future tense; this will happen. ie
What else does it say?
The beast is not a person but a place with 7 hills which the woman sits. The woman as we said is a city. So the hills could be basis of power or hills. But it is a place. However, note this again
Still future tense here. Now pay attention
Foreign kings will give power to "the beast" so they can make war on the prostitute and destroy her with fire. If, as we agree the prostitute is a city then the world will turn against her for her prostitution and the only earthly city that is married to God in a sense do to his covenants is Jerusalem. But this is all futuristic. It wasn't going on in John's day. Therefore when John says
its in the future context of the rest of the passage. The city may exist in John's day but it hasn't developed to what will happen. You have no idea. One day Jerusalem may yet rule the world.
Here is the fact that proves all your arguments are simply empty arguments. John uses the PRESENT TENSE that demands that a CITY PRESENTLY known to John was ruling over the kings of the earth! What city known to John could that be other than Rome?
You have divorced yourself of common sense to say anthing other than Rome!
Pleeeeeeeeease use common sense in your arguments! You don't know what John knew or did not know about any other nations! Alexander did not rule over the whole world or even over the known world but he was the greatest world power at the time and ruled over the kings of the earth, many literally and those he did not could not overthrow his empire.
The Medes and Persians were part of the known world when Babylon came to power but it still ruled over the kings of the earth as the Medes and Persians could not overthrow it.
When the Medes and Persians were the dominant world empire the Greeks did not challenge it but the Medes and Persians ruled over the kings of the earth as the dominate power. It cannot be denied that Rome ruled over the kings of the earth and the Parthians and Germanic Tribes could not overthrow it.
The fact still remains that John used the PRESENT TENSE which demands that a CITY known to John was PRESENTLY reigning over the kings of the earth and there was no other city that can fit that description WHEN John wrote other than Rome - period - end of story -
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
John uses the future tense throughout the entire description of the woman and the beast. So the city is in the future. John could know lots of cities, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, etc.....
Please you hate Catholicism so much any criticism will do for you. I mean pleeeeeeeeeeese we can see through your blind bigotry.
John does not use the future tense to identify the city! You are simply wrong and wrong on all accounts.
You know he changes from the future tense to the present tense when describing this city and no amount of empty rhetoric or mental gynastics will change that.
This chapter so clearly and conclusively defines the Roman Catholic Church as the Great Whore that you and every devout Catholic will do ANYTHING and/or say ANYTHING to avoid its scathing condemnation.
I know you don't like this but facts are simply facts.
He is talking about the past, present and future history of the beast NOT THE WOMAN! Get your facts straight!
This woman is responsible for killing all the saints upon the earth including the APOSTLES so she cannot still yet be FUTURE unless you believe the Apostles have not died yet????????
This text simply describes what will happen to her in the future and how she will be destroyed in the future but she IS presently reigning when John wrote.