Mystery Babylon

[michaelvpardo]

I ALREADY answered that question several posts back.

The answer once again, is:
Because Scripture is Authoritative. It's just not our "SOLE" Authority, Einstein - and you have YET to show me where Scripture makes this claim about itself. CAN you do that?

Now - if you could just have a conversation where you respond honestly without injecting your LIES - then I'll more than happy to prove you wrong on whichever thread you want me to go.

Good points but you're mistaken about the source of lies.
Jesus was pretty clear about just who is "the father of all lies" and I'm reasonably sure that you aren't communicating with him. I hope that you don't believe that Roman Catholics never lie.

 

[robert derrick]

Remedial thinking. Noah found grace. He wasn't a "good" man. The scripture doesn't give a full account of Noah's life, but does take the time to tell us that after the flood he chose to make a batch of wine and got drunk.
You'll never be justified before God until you recognize your own iniquity and "there is no one good but God." I didn't make that up, God said it in the person of His Son.
Get over yourself and you'll grow in Christ.
Sanctification is the life long process of recognizing and confessing sin. If you think that you've been perfected, well, there are medications for that.

You'll never be justified before God until you recognize your own iniquity and "there is no one good but God." I didn't make that up, God said it in the person of His Son.

There is a difference between repenting of dead works and past sins, and having our minds renewed from evil and vain imaginations, as well as putting off these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.

And saying we have no sin, nor have we sinned. (1 John 1)

I do wonder exactly how some people leap to conclusions about something, that has nothing to do with what was said or written about. Or don't at least quote the reason why they conclude things.

My manner is to be as honest and accurate as possible to understand exactly what they are saying and talking about. I don't leap to unjustified conclusions and false imaginations about them. And if I do, then I apologize and repent and back track to try and get it right.

Get over yourself and you'll grow in Christ.

I'm thinking you need to get over your heart feelings, when a made a joke at your expense. You have obviously taken it as harmful jesting.

And although that's mostly your imagination, nevertheless, I'm and won't do it again. (I'm doing this mostly to try and get more substance from you, because I can see you've done much study)

So, we agree in the fantasy of pre-tribulation rapture. What do you think of Mystery Babylon?

Also, pre-tribulation is nonsensical: the world is always in tribulation at one time and place or another. And in our own lives we are exhorted not to try and avoid tribulation, but rather to grown by it, if and when it does come our way.

It would be more accurate to claim the first Resurrection has passed before the final great tribulation on earth and the Lord's coming in the air.

And since He will receive all His own in the air, what are they doing there for the next '7 years'?

 

[michaelvpardo]

by teaching me and protecting me from every evil.

You certainly don't mean from every evil imagination?

The truth is always simple but human minds are extremely complex and our imaginations only evil all the time.

Also, you are quoting from before the flood, not after. But I still stand by the correction to your judgment of all men.

Now, if you were suggesting that there are still reprobates in the world as there was before the flood, then I certainly do not disagree.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

These are them that once knew God. Believers. Returning to the evil imaginations that once had, and now become far worse in them. (2 Peter 2:20)

What scripture says is entirely true and God has always protected me, even from my evil imagination.
Believe scripture, it's important, almost as important as believing the gospel. Deny scripture and it's only to your own peril.

 

[michaelvpardo]

You'll never be justified before God until you recognize your own iniquity and "there is no one good but God." I didn't make that up, God said it in the person of His Son.

There is a difference between repenting of dead works and past sins, and having our minds renewed from evil and vain imaginations, as well as putting off these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.

And saying we have no sin, nor have we sinned. (1 John 1)

I do wonder exactly how some people leap to conclusions about something, that has nothing to do with what was said or written about. Or don't at least quote the reason why they conclude things.

My manner is to be as honest and accurate as possible to understand exactly what they are saying and talking about. I don't leap to unjustified conclusions and false imaginations about them. And if I do, then I apologize and repent and back track to try and get it right.

Get over yourself and you'll grow in Christ.

I'm thinking you need to get over your heart feelings, when a made a joke at your expense. You have obviously taken it as harmful jesting.

And although that's mostly your imagination, nevertheless, I'm and won't do it again. (I'm doing this mostly to try and get more substance from you, because I can see you've done much study)

So, we agree in the fantasy of pre-tribulation rapture. What do you think of Mystery Babylon?

Also, pre-tribulation is nonsensical: the world is always in tribulation at one time and place or another. And in our own lives we are exhorted not to try and avoid tribulation, but rather to grown by it, if and when it does come our way.

It would be more accurate to claim the first Resurrection has passed before the final great tribulation on earth and the Lord's coming in the air.

And since He will receive all His own in the air, what are they doing there for the next '7 years'?

You'll have to answer the last question yourself because I'll be here (on the planet that is) ministering to the lost and the decieved, just as I've been doing for about 55 years now if you include childhood interventions. The 5 solas are a reasonable, though incomplete, framework for understanding, but they aren't inspired and remain the construction of corrupted minds. They tend to ignore Love and established order (order established by God.) In case you haven't seen my previous comment on it, soli deo gloria is in my opinion insane, because glory seeking is entirely a human enterprise and Jesus Christ is the glory of God (the bible tells me so.)

 

[robert derrick]

You'll have to answer the last question yourself because I'll be here (on the planet that is) ministering to the lost and the decieved, just as I've been doing for about 55 years now if you include childhood interventions. The 5 solas are a reasonable, though incomplete, framework for understanding, but they aren't inspired and remain the construction of corrupted minds.

Ok. I didn't realize you were only here by curiosity.

I did get at least one good thing out of it.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Ok. I didn't realize you were only here by curiosity.

I did get at least one good thing out of it.

More like boredom than curiosity. Some of us move from mission to mission through life and are clueless about what to do with all the time in between. It's a hard thing to understand if you weren't born to it, and harder to understand if you were. God hasn't explained this in His word so anything more is just speculation and I think you understand my "opinion" on the imagination of man, redeemed or not.

 

[Marymog]

We agree that the leaders of the church, with the help of God, decided what was canonical or what books were to be in our bible. This means that you trusted men, guided by the Holy Spirit, to decide what books were inspired. Right?

Right and wrong. We agree such men were guided by God and we thank God for it. However, it is God I trust that had men do so, and so I trust the Bible I have as all the Scriptures of God. I do not trust the men that did so, except in that their work was led by God.

That makes zero sense.

You say you trust that “men were guided by God” (in putting the right books of the NT together) but then go on to say that you “don’t trust the men that did so” with the caveat that their work was led by God. So you trust that God led them to give Christians the correct books for our NT but you don’t trust that God would guide them to the proper interpretation of the NT books after that???? Huh....

I think what you are saying is you trust YOU to properly interpret Scripture and no one else....

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi again, BOL. Glad to see that insult is still alive and well in the church. We tend to be good at that, but it never strengthens an argument.
Does the 13th chapter of Corinthians still apply to the RCC or do apologists have special exemption. I hope that there is an exemption because, technically, I'm still Roman Catholic (it says so on my dog tags). Just the same, I'm attempting to be less acerbic.

Ummmm , pointing out when a person makes a foolish and almost blasphemous comment is not a "violation" of 1 Cor. 13.
If anything - I was showing him love by rebuking what he said - not him personally.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good points but you're mistaken about the source of lies.
Jesus was pretty clear about just who is "the father of all lies" and I'm reasonably sure that you aren't communicating with him. I hope that you don't believe that Roman Catholics never lie.

What are you talking about?

I never said that he was the "Father" of lies or the "source" of lies.
I simply pointed out that he lied - which he DID.

As for whether or not Catholics lie - I'm sure they do.
However - I have NEVER told a lie on this forum - ever.

 

[robert derrick]

That makes zero sense.

You say you trust that “men were guided by God” (in putting the right books of the NT together) but then go on to say that you “don’t trust the men that did so” with the caveat that their work was led by God. So you trust that God led them to give Christians the correct books for our NT but you don’t trust that God would guide them to the proper interpretation of the NT books after that???? Huh....

I think what you are saying is you trust YOU to properly interpret Scripture and no one else....

You say you trust that “men were guided by God” (in putting the right books of the NT together) but then go on to say that you “don’t trust the men that did so

True. I don't put my trust in men at all. I will give any and all a fair hearing and trust their honesty and sincerity, but I will only trust what they say by Scriptural confirmation that it is true of God.

Scripture judges as foolish to put our trust in men, and as I said also before, the Lord never told us to put our trust in His own prophets and apostles, but rather to trust only in His Word given to them for us to read and know.

I quoted you the Scriptures and I will not bother to cast the pearls before you anymore, because Scripture is only a plaything to you.

Like seed on the wayside, Scripture given to you doesn't even get a passing glance from you.

The only things you trust in and hear and obey are the things told to you by 'your leaders'.

You are completely blinded to reading Scripture and actually using it as the basis for your way and walk in life by faith.

That makes zero sense.

Scripture makes zero sense to you, because Scripture is meaningless to you, when it comes to the true things and deeds of life in Christ.

I think what you are saying is you trust YOU to properly interpret Scripture and no one else....

Exactly! Now you got. See how easy that is?

And since I am going to answer for myself anyway, then I might as well know I am completely responsible for my own answer to God, and won't be trying to point fingers at others like Adam did, and like you will.

Since you plainly do not trust yourself to know what God is saying to you in His Word, and so you put your blinded trust in men, contrary to the Scripture that judges you as foolish. But then you don't care what Scripture says.

If Paul himself were to come preaching to me in our assembly, you know what I would do? If I didn't readily believe what he was saying by reason of known Scripture, then I would go to Scripture to check to see if it was so. Just as the Bereans did, to which Paul did not object, and just as he exhorts and warns us to do as well:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul said that if he came back preaching other than what he preached at the first, then he was to be anathema to others. And how do we know what he preached at the first? By Scripture written as such.

Scripture is nothing but a passing fad for you. If your traditional fathers and their inheriting rulers were to tell you something from the wind or a spirit or as an angel of light, you would swallow it up whole, because you have absolutely no faith to read and believe and do the Word of God for yourself.

Not only have you never gone beyond cradle-hood. You drink a spoiled and poisoned milk from a man-made bottle.

Mystery Babylon:

Them that saw the true Light and confessed His name Jesus by word of Scripture, then changed their faith in Scripture to that of men's traditions, and go on to seek and search out and find another light and confess by another religion, which is no light nor religion, but is darkness indeed and idolatry in practise.

 

[Davy]

You seem to be misreading me. I never said all prophecy has been already fulfilled. Afterall, Revelation is a book of prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

I say however that Revelation is not a book of symbolic prophecy about old prophecy fulfilled according to old covenant understanding, nor with an old covenant physical seed of promise.

That last statement just doesn't make sense. You're trying to sound like a Legalist. Speak plainly.

There are symbols in the New Testament, FROM the Old Testament, of things fulfilled in Old Testament times. Example? The BABYLON HARLOT prophecy written in Revelation 14 and 18 which is an exact repeat of the words via Isaiah in Isaiah 21, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen". The event in Isaiah 21 was about the historical fall of the geographic city of Babylon. The Revelation 14 & 18 examples are about the fall of the HARLOT "great city" at the end of this world, which is about Jerusalem when Jesus returns.


The rest of your post sounds like you're just talking in circles to me. Even Christ's Book of Revelation is written like how the Old Testament Books of God's prophets were. And it requires study like Paul said, rightly dividing. And also the way God said to do it in Isaiah 28, line upon line, precept by precept, here a little and there a little. But you appear to be jumping around all over the place, not making sense.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Ummmm , pointing out when a person makes a foolish and almost blasphemous comment is not a "violation" of 1 Cor. 13.
If anything - I was showing him love by rebuking what he said - not him personally.

Ok, I'm reasonably sure that I've done as much, but which comments were blasphemous? Do you consider all contradictions to established religious authority blasphemous? Do you equate the RCC to God?
Maybe you don't see the primary concerns of the reformation to be valid, but a large part of the body of Christ does.
Do you believe that all the confirmed Roman Catholics who walked away and found themselves members of other churches are simply reprobates and deceived?
I can't tell you if we were all "right or wrong", but I can tell you that former Catholics in reformed and bible churches in the New York metro area exceed any other group of "converts" to those churches and the vast majority left because of either personal abuse by those in authority or the perception that Catholic leadership behaves in ways somewhat less than christ like. I'm not saying that hypocrisy is unique to any institution, but it's always easier to see the sin of others than your own.

I've actually seen a number of different definitions of blasphemy, probably all defined by unbelievers, so what do you define as blasphemy?
I'm only asking so that I and others here understand and don't go out of our way to offend you. Offense is not the purpose of fellowship, but Christian social forums are primarily established for fellowship.
You'll sometimes hear reformed Christians justifying heated arguments with the statement "iron sharpens iron ", but that's erroneous from the start. Anyone with even the simplest understanding of mineral and elemental hardness knows that you can only sharpen a hard substance with a harder substance, and a false metaphor is just that, false.
It's unfortunate that there were apostates among the Popes and that their activities were recorded for posterity. An atheist in the Vatican is always an antichrist by definition, but it seems more than unfair to label repentant sinners recognized as godly men by their peers, as antichrist, just because they were elected to the "office" of Pope. Yet that was actually written into the Westminster confession of faith, and the same thinking that put it there persists today, even if that point of the confession proved false.

 

[Davy]

And that’s the city Jesus saves from destruction by Arab armies that surrounded it, and wipes them out, then makes His home, in Zechariah 14.

That would be kinda contradictory, to destroy the city He will save from destruction, don’t ya think?

What did it say in Revelation 11 on the 7th trumpet - 3rd woe?

Rev 11:13-15
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever."
KJV


Also have this...

Rev 16:19
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.
KJV


So what were you saying, some false assumption that I said all of Jerusalem was going to be destroyed by Christ's return??? I never said any such thing, you tried to infer that I did, but it was really just in your OWN mind by not having studied the above Scriptures.

 

[Curtis]

What did it say in Revelation 11 on the 7th trumpet - 3rd woe?

Rev 11:13-15
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever."
KJV


Also have this...

Rev 16:19
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.
KJV


So what were you saying, some false assumption that I said all of Jerusalem was going to be destroyed by Christ's return??? I never said any such thing, you tried to infer that I did, but it was really just in your OWN mind by not having studied the above Scriptures.

Mystery Babylon is totally destroyed if memory serves - therefore if you claim Jerusalem is that city, then that’s exactly what you’re claiming.

 

[michaelvpardo]

What are you talking about?

I never said that he was the "Father" of lies or the "source" of lies.
I simply pointed out that he lied - which he DID.

As for whether or not Catholics lie - I'm sure they do.
However - I have NEVER told a lie on this forum - ever.

A lie is still a lie even though you believe it. But does repeating a lie make you a liar? One is a deed, a verb, the other is a character flaw.
So do you believe that everyone who disagrees with dogma and has a different interpretation is a liar?
I don't doubt that you never lied on this forum ever, but how do you know that all you've said (written) was actually true?

 

[Marymog]

You say you trust that “men were guided by God” (in putting the right books of the NT together) but then go on to say that you “don’t trust the men that did so

True. I don't put my trust in men at all. I will give any and all a fair hearing and trust their honesty and sincerity, but I will only trust what they say by Scriptural confirmation that it is true of God.

Scripture judges as foolish to put our trust in men, and as I said also before, the Lord never told us to put our trust in His own prophets and apostles, but rather to trust only in His Word given to them for us to read and know.

I quoted you the Scriptures and I will not bother to cast the pearls before you anymore, because Scripture is only a plaything to you.

Like seed on the wayside, Scripture given to you doesn't even get a passing glance from you.

The only things you trust in and hear and obey are the things told to you by 'your leaders'.

You are completely blinded to reading Scripture and actually using it as the basis for your way and walk in life by faith.

That makes zero sense.

Scripture makes zero sense to you, because Scripture is meaningless to you, when it comes to the true things and deeds of life in Christ.

I think what you are saying is you trust YOU to properly interpret Scripture and no one else....

Exactly! Now you got. See how easy that is?

And since I am going to answer for myself anyway, then I might as well know I am completely responsible for my own answer to God, and won't be trying to point fingers at others like Adam did, and like you will.

Since you plainly do not trust yourself to know what God is saying to you in His Word, and so you put your blinded trust in men, contrary to the Scripture that judges you as foolish. But then you don't care what Scripture says.

If Paul himself were to come preaching to me in our assembly, you know what I would do? If I didn't readily believe what he was saying by reason of known Scripture, then I would go to Scripture to check to see if it was so. Just as the Bereans did, to which Paul did not object, and just as he exhorts and warns us to do as well:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul said that if he came back preaching other than what he preached at the first, then he was to be anathema to others. And how do we know what he preached at the first? By Scripture written as such.

Scripture is nothing but a passing fad for you. If your traditional fathers and their inheriting rulers were to tell you something from the wind or a spirit or as an angel of light, you would swallow it up whole, because you have absolutely no faith to read and believe and do the Word of God for yourself.

Not only have you never gone beyond cradle-hood. You drink a spoiled and poisoned milk from a man-made bottle.

Mystery Babylon:

Them that saw the true Light and confessed His name Jesus by word of Scripture, then changed their faith in Scripture to that of men's traditions, and go on to seek and search out and find another light and confess by another religion, which is no light nor religion, but is darkness indeed and idolatry in practise.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your honesty. I think you are the first person on here to flat out tell me that they trust no other man, except themselves, to properly interpret Scripture. To be clear, that practice is opposite of what Scripture says, but I applaud you for your complete honesty.

The Bereans searched Scripture, what we now call the OT, to see if what Paul was telling them about Jesus meeting the requirements for being the the Messaiah was true. Jesus fit all the requirements from what Paul told them so they then became Christians. The Bereans didn’t read Scripture and come up with their own interpretations of it. They trusted the word of another man, which you are against, to become Christians.

Scripture says that some men will twist Scripture to their own destruction and to obey our leaders and submit to them for they are in charge of our soul. Scripture gives us the requirements for those leaders and speaks of how they are in charge of the flock. It also says we should be with one mind and one voice so that we may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So your lone wolf theory about trusting you and only you to properly interpret Scripture and trusting yourself not to interpret Scritpure etc etc is all actually you twisting of Scripture to your own destruction.

Simple question for you Robert: How can we all speak with one mind and one voice (Romans 15:6) if all 2 billion Christians take the lone wolf approach like you have? Jesus prayer in John 17: 20-23 will never be answered if all Christians believed/practiced and swallowed up whole what your preaching here. You are promoting division, not unity, which is opposite of what Jesus prayed for. Scripture teaches opposite of what you teach. So continue to drink from the poisoned bottle of milk you have given yourself. Continue to twist Scripture to fit YOUR belief and blindly trust yourself to know what the truth is. In the end when you are asked who taught you such anti Scriptural things you will have to point at yourself and ask for grace.

 

[BreadOfLife]

A lie is still a lie even though you believe it. But does repeating a lie make you a liar? One is a deed, a verb, the other is a character flaw.
So do you believe that everyone who disagrees with dogma and has a different interpretation is a liar?
I don't doubt that you never lied on this forum ever, but how do you know that all you've said (written) was actually true?

Nope - and I've made that crystal-clear on HUNDREDS of posts.

A person who LIES about what Catholics believe, teach and practice is a liar - not someone who simply "disagrees".

 

[michaelvpardo]

Nope - and I've made that crystal-clear on HUNDREDS of posts.

A person who LIES about what Catholics believe, teach and practice is a liar - not someone who simply "disagrees".

Thanks for a response, but I'm still curious about how you define blasphemy.
It's never been my purpose to destroy anyone's faith or simply "win" arguments, but rather to promote unity in the body of Christ. Doctrine and the "proper" interpretation of scripture has been the principle subject of division in the church, so a return to "sound doctrine" contributes to unity, but sound doctrine is entirely dependent upon recognizing a sound standard of authority and there is no authority on Earth that doesn't change with time except God.

Carnal thinking predisposes us to division, not unity, but His Spirit is not divided. I'm inclined to believe that the disunity of the church is the result of the lack of submission to the authority appointed by God, but ultimately to a lack of submission to the Holy Spirit or His absence in professing believers who never asked God to give Himself as promised by scripture (disbelief in the promises of God.)

Carnality seeks out enemies, but the Spirit of God seeks reconciliation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for a response, but I'm still curious about how you define blasphemy.
It's never been my purpose to destroy anyone's faith or simply "win" arguments, but rather to promote unity in the body of Christ. Doctrine and the "proper" interpretation of scripture has been the principle subject of division in the church, so a return to "sound doctrine" contributes to unity, but sound doctrine is entirely dependent upon recognizing a sound standard of authority and there is no authority on Earth that doesn't change with time except God.

Carnal thinking predisposes us to division, not unity, but His Spirit is not divided. I'm inclined to believe that the disunity of the church is the result of the lack of submission to the authority appointed by God, but ultimately to a lack of submission to the Holy Spirit or His absence in professing believers who never asked God to give Himself as promised by scripture (disbelief in the promises of God.)

Carnality seeks out enemies, but the Spirit of God seeks reconciliation.

I'm not sure why you're asking me that question.
I haven't accuses anyone of blasphemy here.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm not sure why you're asking me that question.
I haven't accuses anyone of blasphemy here.

Ok, if you're not comfortable with answering, just don't. I remember forming an opinion about the meaning of blaspheme, blasphemy, and blasphemous from looking through the Strong's definitions and it's a bit removed from Webster's. The worldly view expressed by common dictionaries is about religious offenses to people, while the biblical usage implies offense to God. The former refers to interpersonal relationships with mankind, the latter to our relationship with God, a subtle but significant difference.
My question should probably be "is blasphemy what offends us about the words and behavior of others, or is it about how we offend God?"
You don't have to answer that either, but I'm always interested in educated opinion on matters which aren't clearly defined as of a carnal perspective or a spiritual one based upon the language of the biblical text.