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

[Stranger]

I can disagree with whomever I want.

Not and remain a Romanist in good standing? Not without being labeled a 'dissident' or Protestant. Not without having your ability to teach in the Roman Church removed.

You see. That you disagree is not the point. That you are allowed to disagree is.

And, you are not allowed.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not and remain a Romanist in good standing? Not without being labeled a 'dissident' or Protestant. Not without having your ability to teach in the Roman Church removed.
You see. That you disagree is not the point. That you are allowed to disagree is.
And, you are not allowed.
Stranger

I've never been a "Romanist" so that's not a concern for me.

 

[Stranger]

I've never been a "Romanist" so that's not a concern for me.

You have always been a Romanist. And you have always pretended to be Catholic as do your whole ilk. And you hide from the truth that you cannot disagree with the Romanist position without punishment from Rome. Turn over that rock, and my how the roaches run.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

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

Funny how nobody claimed the Pope to be the anti-Christ until the 16th century. I am in the middle of exposing the lie, but the thread keeps getting derailed. Is it because the reformulator anti-Catholics can't refute it?

 

[epostle1]

Hunt's lie #4: Clothed in Purple and Red

Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons:
(a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally;
(b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and
(c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

 

[Stranger]

Funny how nobody claimed the Pope to be the anti-Christ until the 16th century. I am in the middle of exposing the lie, but the thread keeps getting derailed. Is it because the reformulator anti-Catholics can't refute it?

You derail your own thread. I think Romanists have a short mans complex.

Stranger

 

[Enoch111]

Funny how nobody claimed the Pope to be the anti-Christ until the 16th century.

About two hundred years before the Reformation, John Wycliffe deemed the Pope to be the Antichrist:

In his writings and sermons, John Wycliffe declared the Avignon Papacy as the antichrist.

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/john-wycliffe-declares-papacy-antichrist/

 

[Heart2Soul]

Well, you could tell me that you cannot disagree. To disagree would be a dissident. But you don't want to say 'I cannot disagree'. You only say 'you don't disagree'.

I disagree with much of what Protestant teaches today. I can do so, still be Christian, still be Protestant.

You cannot disagree in your Roman faith, and still be Christian.

Stranger

Hello Stranger I see you are a person who likes to do word play...I have fun with it myself once in awhile but not concerning serious matters....that just doesn't bring light to either situation because there is never a conclusion but with one question answered you continue with another....So instead of flipping and flopping the same question and getting the same nothing conclusion is there a way you can phrase your question in such a way that you can achieve the answer without provocation and therefore discover the conclusion of the matter? I have started avoiding some threads because it is just 2 people going back and forth arguing each others beliefs......And seriously I am rolling my eyes thinking why am I even bothering to type this...well you are my brother in Christ and i will keep you lifted up in prayer...God Bless! May the Spirit of Peace win in this situation....

 

[Stranger]

Hello Stranger I see you are a person who likes to do word play...I have fun with it myself once in awhile but not concerning serious matters....that just doesn't bring light to either situation because there is never a conclusion but with one question answered you continue with another....So instead of flipping and flopping the same question and getting the same nothing conclusion is there a way you can phrase your question in such a way that you can achieve the answer without provocation and therefore discover the conclusion of the matter? I have started avoiding some threads because it is just 2 people going back and forth arguing each others beliefs......And seriously I am rolling my eyes thinking why am I even bothering to type this...well you are my brother in Christ and i will keep you lifted up in prayer...God Bless! May the Spirit of Peace win in this situation....

How about this. Save your prayers and go roll your eyes somewhere else.

Your pseudo spirituality is not impressive or believable.

Stranger

 

[Heart2Soul]

How about this. Save your prayers and go roll your eyes somewhere else.

Your pseudo spirituality is not impressive or believable.

Stranger

Brother, if I have offended you I do apologize and ask for forgiveness....I had a feeling my post would provoke you to anger I thought I was engaging in a style of conversation that you prefer..I was wrong....So in correcting me, the Holy Spirit reminded me of these scriptures
Freedom in Christ
…14The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15But if you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out, or you will be consumed by each other. 16So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.…

I confess I was operating in my flesh in an attitude of pride and vanity...I have repented and asked His forgiveness.
This is what His Word tells me to do...
Philippians 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or empty pride, but in humility consider others more important than yourselves.
I have myself felt the spirit of offense try to rise up in me on some replies you have made towards some of my posts but I rebuked it because I have been set free of that spirit of offense....and instead the Holy Spirit put in me a heart of compassion for you and He has led me to intercede on your behalf.....so I am praying for you....Peace and God Bless

 

[brakelite]

Funny how nobody claimed the Pope to be the anti-Christ until the 16th century. I am in the middle of exposing the lie, but the thread keeps getting derailed. Is it because the reformulator anti-Catholics can't refute it?

Very few of the reformers named the actual pope as the Antichrist...it was the system of the papacy they condemned, not necessarily the individual who spoke for it. That said, there were many before the 16th century to claim either the papacy or the pope himself as the Antichrist...the whore...man of sin etc.
Dante named the roman church as the harlot in the 14th century, as did Michael of Cesena. Followed by a many, albeit with a few variations on the theme, Johannes de Rupescissa, Francesco Petrarch, John Milicz, John Wycliuffe, Mathias of Janow, R Wimbledon, John Purvey, Walter Brute, John Huss, and Girolamo Savonarola. As their understanding of scripture grew, the reformers that came after in the 16th century were almost unanimous in charging the Papacy itself, as opposed to the pope, as the Antichrist.

 

[epostle1]

About two hundred years before the Reformation, John Wycliffe deemed the Pope to be the Antichrist:

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/john-wycliffe-declares-papacy-antichrist/

That does not make Wycliffe right. He was tried by the English government and executed because he was a criminal. Had he not inserted so many blasphemies, lies and falsehoods into his translation, he might have gotten somewhere. The Church rejected his translation for the same reason you would reject a gender neutral bible. Protestants hold up Wycliffe as a big hero but don't bother doing any research. He was executed by the state, not the Church, which is another one of many anti-Catholic myths.
But I stand corrected. Who was the first to deem the Pope as the anti-Christ before Wycliffe? Do you see my point?

 

[epostle1]

Hunt's lie #6: A Golden Cup

Hunt states that the Whore "has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’" This is another reference to Revelation 17:4.

Then he states that the "Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world."

To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated "cup."

He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

"A Woman Rides the Beast" belongs on the bottom of a bird cage.

 

[Truth7t7]

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon | Catholic Answers

I'm jumping ahead to lie #4 because the subject came up recently on another thread.

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red

Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons:
(a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally;
(b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and
(c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

Brokelight, you're wrong.

Jerusalem Is Mystery Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots!

Jerusalem Is Guilty Of All The Earths Blood, And That Of The Prophets, As Rev 18:24 States, Rome Didn't Exist To Be Guilty Of The Prophets Blood

Revelation 18:24King James Version (KJV)
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Matthew 23:30-37King James Version (KJV)
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Jerusalem Is The "Great City" Where The Lord Was Crucified

Revelation 11:8KJV
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Revelation 14:8KJV
And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

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

Revelation 18:10KJV
Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Ezekiel 16:15-16King James Version (KJV)
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.
16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so.

Jerusalem Is Built Upon Seven Hills/Mountains, Just As Rome

Revelation 17:9King James Version (KJV)
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.


The Seven Hills Of Jerusalem
By Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.

the City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the "City of Seven Hills." This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an 8th century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills"(recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those "seven hills" are easy to identify.

If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives:The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One],The middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two],The highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13).On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name),The "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five],
To the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six],
And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion."

Wikipedia: Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade

The Jerusalem gay pride parade is an annual pride parade taking place in Jerusalem. Since the first March for Pride and Tolerance in 2002, Jerusalem Pride—"Love Without Border"—has become an established event in Jerusalem, each year bringing in additional partners and supporters.

Since the 1990s an annual gay pride parade takes place in Tel Aviv, Israel and sometimes also in Eilat. Tel Aviv had previously been the venue for the only yearly gay pride parade in the Middle East.[citation needed] Tel Aviv was first city in Israel to have a gay pride parade, which started in the street of Shenkin and expanded to large-scale events in the following years. In 2005, 100,000 people participated in the Tel Aviv gay pride parade.

Jerusalem Is Mystery Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots Revelation Chapters 17-18

Truth7t7

 

[epostle1]

You can't name any martyr after the Bible was written. You do a lot of preaching about them. But that would be history, and history is your enemy.

Nowhere does Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D. make the claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. The thread is about Dave Hunt's anti-Catholic lies. Be grateful I haven't started a thread exposing your lies.

 

[LC627]

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 . . .

CCC 1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."81
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.83

 

[BreadOfLife]

CCC 1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."81
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.83

Amen.

NOW - I'm STILL waiting for you to show me ONE document, declaration or decree from the Catholic Church supporting, condoning or ordering the sale of indulgences at ANY time in history as has been charge on this thread..

I didn't ask you to tell me what an Indulgence is. I already know that.

 

[LC627]

Amen.

NOW - I'm STILL waiting for you to show me ONE document, declaration or decree from the Catholic Church supporting, condoning or ordering the sale of indulgences at ANY time in history as has been charge on this thread..

I didn't ask you to tell me what an Indulgence is. I already know that.

If you "Amen" to it then you are aware that they exist and supported by the Catholic Church. "Applying them to the dead" is in support of it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have always been a Romanist. And you have always pretended to be Catholic as do your whole ilk. And you hide from the truth that you cannot disagree with the Romanist position without punishment from Rome. Turn over that rock, and my how the roaches run.

Stranger

Wrong.

As I've told you dozens of times - I don't even know that a "Romanist" is.
There is NO such Church as "Romanism".

This is something of your OWN invention . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you "Amen" to it then you are aware that they exist and supported by the Catholic Church. "Applying them to the dead" is in support of it.

And AGAIN, there seems to be a communication breakdown.

I never denied the existence of Indulgences. The false charge on this thread is that they were SOLD by the Catholic Church. I asked YOU to show me ANY declaration, document or decree that supported, condoned or ordered the SALE of indulgences.

CAN you do that??
If not - then you need to retract your false statement . . .