DAVE HUNT: THE LIES OF "A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST" EXPOSED

[epostle1]

Dave Hunt: Lie #2: "Babylon"—What’s in a Name?

Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great."

The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."

"The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where the Lord was crucified."

Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

 

[LC627]

It’s a yes or no question. Do you agree with the pope with what he said about homosexuality..."It doesn't matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this." Does God make people gay? See, if you can’t disagree then you twist scripture to stand in alliance with what a man says. By the way, how much of an indulgence do I have to pay now to save a family member from hell?

 

[aspen]

David Hunt must be thrilled by this thread! My, my.......just think how many people will be running out to buy his crappy, slipshod, and painfully outdated tome; just to shout down the Catholics.....

 

[aspen]

Hans Kung was a prophet

 

[Stranger]

Kung is a known dissident. He was reprimanded for his radical views. He lost his mandate to teach theology. He was never excommunicated. That is not the only option. What's the point of singling out a rare exception?
Was Theologian Hans Küng Ever Excommunicated?

I see. You can disagree, but just don't tell anyone.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

It’s a yes or no question. Do you agree with the pope with what he said about homosexuality..."It doesn't matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this." Does God make people gay? See, if you can’t disagree then you twist scripture to stand in alliance with what a man says. By the way, how much of an indulgence do I have to pay now to save a family member from hell?

First, you are trying to derail the thread. Second, the media said what an editor said what a reporter said about a private conversation with no recording devices. The Pope doesn't contradict the teachings of the Church. He always emphasizes the love of God. If you think the Pope is endorsing homosexual behavior, it's because you are an idiot.

God doesn't make people with alcoholism.
God doesn't make people born with cancer.
God doesn't make people with any given disease.
That's why I don't believe the Pope said that.
Of course, you give him no credit for meeting abuse victims and homosexuals face to face. How many Protestant leaders do that? Oh, I forgot, you have no leaders. But you are quick to gobble up media lies. What you should do is burn some homosexuals at the stake, just to prove how straight and holy you think you are. Regarding your question on indulgences, its so insulting and offensive it's not worth replying to. Surely you can't be that stupid.
Myths about Indulgences | Catholic Answers
You want to derail the thread because you don't like your ignorant buddy Dave Hunt exposed??? Is that it?

 

[epostle1]

Hunt's LIE #3: Commits Fornication

Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy."

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

 

[brakelite]

Seeing as how my 'name' has been annotated as a reference I suppose I had better offer a comment or two. First kepha I have never read Dave Hunt's books, nor have I ever used them as a reference point for any of my studies. I couldn't care less what Hunt writes about, nor whether he is right or wrong. His work is not the basis for any of my understanding of scripture and its relation to the RCC, therefore any errors he propagates has no effect on what I write whatsoever. None.
Second, it isn't just scarlet and purple that scripture says the whore has as a point of recognition and identity. Allow me to quote the appropriate verse. 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:
There is also gold, and I agree with you that these colours are reminiscent of those worn in ancient Israel, and for good reason. It is clearly and attempt on the part of this whore to be a counterfeit representation of the priesthood of the OT sanctuary service, albeit an incomplete or corrupted one, for what is more significant than the colours which are included, is the colour which is excluded in the whores description, as if God is proclaiming that what that particular colour represents the whore has no right to be associated with: that colour being blue, which in the OT was as predominant as the purple and scarlet. Notice also the inclusion of gold...
Ex 25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair...
Ex 26:1 Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.
Ex 26:4 And thou shalt make loops of blue upon the edge of the one curtain from the selvedge in the coupling; and likewise shalt thou make in the uttermost edge of another curtain, in the coupling of the second.
Ex 26:31 And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:
Ex 26:36 And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework.
Ex 27:16 And for the gate of the court shall be an hanging of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework: and their pillars shall be four, and their sockets four.
Ex 28:5 And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen.
Ex 28:6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.
Ex 28:8 And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.

I also agree that the colours do have significance...yes the purple for sovereignty...the scarlet for blood (of the Lamb)...the gold for righteousness, or in the case of the whore of course, a fake righteousness. But what of the blue you think? Why would that be missing? Why would God forbid the whore to be associated with that colour? And why is that colour not predominant at all in the ecclesial system of the Roman priesthood? I can answer that in just a few verses, and everyone with spiritual understanding should be able to understand the significance.

Of the 'little horn' aka Antichrist, Daniel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says,
Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
(Please notice the parallels between this passage describing the little horn, and the description of Babylon the Great...
great words against the Most High...full of names of blasphemy
wear out the saints of the Most High....And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus:
think to change laws...shall I quote a catechism?


Numbers 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

As for the 7 hills business. There are numerous cities around the world built on seven hills. I never use that as part of the criteria to identify the whore...because it isn't about literal hills. The scripture tells us that the 7 mountains are 7 kings. Thus the whore is a descendant of, or a part of a composite system of seven major world empires that in her day would characterise her. So again, don't compare me to Hunt. That little rabbit trail kepha is but a strawman. And a very flimsy one at that. Try something else.

 

[brakelite]

Hunt's LIE #3: Commits Fornication

Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy."

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

Because others are guilty of spiritual adultery doesn't exempt the Vatican from that same charge. BTW, I disagree with Hunt that the whore, Babylon the Great, is the city of Rome. The whore is a church. Just as Jerusalem was representative of God's people who chased after other gods and trusted in them, so also the apostate church because through her many dalliances with secular powers and her use of them to carry out religious decrees, she is committing spiritual adultery. She has committed her life to the world and placed her trust in the kings of the world to spread her false gospel and increase the power and prestige of the church, and forsaken the true God. THis the RCC has done since her inception in the 6th century and her use of Clovis, king of the Francs in her war against the Arian powers of the Ostrogoths. Add to that the many kings and queens throughout European history that the church has relied on to war and propagate her heresies and persecute her enemies. The prophecy of a whore fits better than you could ever imagine, and better than even Hunt describes.

 

[brakelite]

You sure you want to continue down this road? Seems you are hitting a few pot holes and meeting a few road blocks. Beware of the brakelites ahead of you. They are warning you of dangers ahead.

 

[twinc]

It’s a yes or no question. Do you agree with the pope with what he said about homosexuality..."It doesn't matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this." Does God make people gay? See, if you can’t disagree then you twist scripture to stand in alliance with what a man says. By the way, how much of an indulgence do I have to pay now to save a family member from hell?

according to Christianity homosexuals like the rest of us are sinners and homosexuality is a sin, so like adultery or fornication to indulge in it is sin imho - twinc

 

[LC627]

First, you are trying to derail the thread. Second, the media said what an editor said what a reporter said about a private conversation with no recording devices. The Pope doesn't contradict the teachings of the Church. He always emphasizes the love of God. If you think the Pope is endorsing homosexual behavior, it's because you are an idiot.

God doesn't make people with alcoholism.
God doesn't make people born with cancer.
God doesn't make people with any given disease.
That's why I don't believe the Pope said that.
Of course, you give him no credit for meeting abuse victims and homosexuals face to face. How many Protestant leaders do that? Oh, I forgot, you have no leaders. But you are quick to gobble up media lies. What you should do is burn some homosexuals at the stake, just to prove how straight and holy you think you are. Regarding your question on indulgences, its so insulting and offensive it's not worth replying to. Surely you can't be that stupid.
Myths about Indulgences | Catholic Answers
You want to derail the thread because you don't like your ignorant buddy Dave Hunt exposed??? Is that it?

Pope Leo X was all about indulgences, it was done to raise money for the construction of St. Peter's Basiclica.

 

[Enoch111]

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

It is not just "some anti-Catholics". The Reformers believed this also. And it could very well be applicable to the RCC.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pope Leo X was all about indulgences, it was done to raise money for the construction of St. Peter's Basiclica.

Really??
PROVE it.

There was never a Pope who supported OR condoned the selling of indulgences - PERIOD.
This was an abuse by some clergymen like Johann Tetzel of Germany.

This is another anti-Catholic whopper that you have been fed over the years and is absolutely false.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Which means, you are not allowed to disagree with the Roman Church. Correct?

Stranger

I can disagree with whomever I want.

 

[LC627]

Really??
PROVE it.

There was never a Pope who supported OR condoned the selling of indulgences - PERIOD.
This was an abuse by some clergymen like Johann Tetzel of Germany.

This is another anti-Catholic whopper that you have been fed over the years and is absolutely false.

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred. You guys don't remember Martin Luther? What I am realizing is that it is pointless to discuss these things with Catholics since everything is just a "lie" and the RCC is "perfect" and can do no wrong. I'm done with this pointless thread. God bless.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred. You guys don't remember Martin Luther? What I am realizing is that it is pointless to discuss these things with Catholics since everything is just a "lie" and the RCC is "perfect" and can do no wrong. I'm done with this pointless thread. God bless.

No - what is "pointless" is discussing matter of history when one of the parties either invents part of it or proliferates some tired old lies.

I'll make you a deal:
Show me ONE document, declaration or decree from the Catholic Church supporting, condoning or ordering the sale of indulgences at ANY time in history - and I will concede defeat and leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

I think that's a fair challenge . . .

 

[epostle1]

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred. You guys don't remember Martin Luther? What I am realizing is that it is pointless to discuss these things with Catholics since everything is just a "lie" and the RCC is "perfect" and can do no wrong. I'm done with this pointless thread. God bless.

You don't like it when your lies get exposed, then you cry nonsense as above. Martin Luther taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and invented "Bible alone" theology. I believe what has been handed down since the Apostles. You believe whatever you choose.

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred. You guys don't remember Martin Luther? What I am realizing is that it is pointless to discuss these things with Catholics since everything is just a "lie" and the RCC is "perfect" and can do no wrong. I'm done with this pointless thread. God bless.

While we're on the subject of Luther - did you know that NOT all of his so-called "95 Theses" were gripes against the Church?? SOME of them were agreements.

Study these things before bringing them up in a debate . . .

 

[epostle1]

This is typical anti-Catholic methodology. If you can't refute something, introduce as many rabbit trails as possible to derail the thread..

Indulgences was basically the reason why the protestant reformation occurred.

It was about power, politics, and propaganda, and re-inventing Christianity. Luther was mentally ill.
In 1937, a Copenhagen Psychiatrist, Paul J. Reiter MD wrote a 2 volume study, Martin Luther's World Character and Psychosis and the Influence of These Factors on his Development and Teachings which also demonstrated in detail from his own writings that Luther was mentally disturbed.

There is a review of Reiter's book here:

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PAQ.012.0261A

Luther, Exposing the Myth