Mystery Babylon

[BreadOfLife]

I OPENLY challenge you to do what NO other Protestant has ever been able to do: As a Sola Scripturist - show me the Scripture verses that describe this doctrine.

As I said before, you are a heretic in this, because I have already offered Scripture to prove it, and your reject it out of hand, therefore I reject any further vain effort in offering Scriptural proof of Sola Scriptura.

And why do you even demand such Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura, when the fact of rejecting Sola Scriptura as proof of things of God, is to reject the necessity of Scripture to prove things of God.

Your rejection of Sola Scriptura needs no Scripture to confirm your traditions, because you reject Scripture as the sole and final authority in all matters of God.

1. If any truly rejects Sola Scriptura, and holds to traditions not written Scripture, then Scripture is not necessary to hold them.

2. If any claims their traditions are proven by Scripture, then they confirm Sola Scriptura: the necessity of Scripture to prove their traditions, that are not written therein.

No one can be both 1 and 2. You are trying to be both, and so are contradicting your own stated belief. Your mind has been emptied of any intelligent logic, by the one who emptied himself of any such intelligence, when he by pride rose up in himself to be like God. Now all he has is intellectualized deceit, foolishness, and lies, which you have abundantly swallowed.

You are full of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, to be unto yourself as a god, to hold to your own traditions, rather than Scripture of God only.

Unless, of course, you believe Scripture is necessary to prove all things, both written and oral, as of God, which of course is Sola Scriptura: the only authority of things of God, given by God to mankind for His true worship and pure religion of service to Himself.

And so once simple questions remains: do you truly reject Sola Scriptura? Do you need Scripture to prove what you believe and the traditions you hold to? Is Scripture therefore the sole authority that proves all things of God? I.e. if it's not Scripture, then it's not God.

Yes or No?

(P.s. anyone who does not answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes/no, is proven deceitful.)[/QUOTE]
Just as I thought.
Once again - like EVERY other Protestant I have ever challenged - you FAILED.

The reason you failed is because the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura was invented by your Protestant Fathers in the 16th century.
And, had they NOT invented this doctrine, along with Sola Fide, which is equally unbiblical - the Protestant Revolt couldn't have happened.

 

[robert derrick]

Your point of oral traditions are good. However, your effort to use them as proof of oral tradition to be taken for Scripture is ignorantly made:

You are quoting Scripture. Why? Rejecting Sola Scriptura by definition needs no Scripture to quote as proof of your traditions.

Those oral traditions you quote from Scripture became Scripture, so that you can quote them. They became Scripture, and therefore true, when they were written down as Scripture.

And so, why are you quoting Scripture? You have your traditions apart from Scripture.

Your religion's use of oral traditions to be used as authority of God alongside Scripture, where no Scripture confirms them, is false and self-defeating: If Scripture is not all that is necessary to know the truth of God, then why use Scripture to try and prove the things of God from your traditions, that are nowhere written in nor supported by Scripture.

You are being Sola Scriptura in your effort to use Scripture to prove your traditions, confirming Sola Scriptura remains the Sola Authoritata of all things of God: why do you bother with Scripture to prove anything of God, which you believe your traditions fulfill?

You have your traditions that you rely on, and your religion to worship in, and no Scripture is necessary for it. Why do you need Scripture at all, when you have traditions that contradict Scripture? And if you insist those traditions do not contradict but are indeed verified by Scripture, then you confirm Scripture is necessary to prove all things of God and religion and worship as true, including your traditions.

As in all cults formed out of the true religion of God found in Scripture only, you are a childish people, who have thrown out all intelligent authority, to be left with nothing but endlessly learned intellectualized arguments and traditions, that have no grounding in truth of Scripture. It is the same kind of intellectual prowess with which Lucifer deceives the foolish.

This is an asinine argument.

I refute YOUR doctrine by using YOUR own criteria - your "Sole" Authority - and you have a problem with it??
If I refuted it using Sacred Tradition - you would completely dismiss it "Catholic" teaching - so I used the very Scriptures that YOU purport to be our "Sole" Authority to show you that those Scriptures prove you wrong.

Also - the Scriptures that YOU put so much credence in as your "Sole" Authority were compiled and declared inspired by the very Church that YOU have condemned repeatedly on this thread. In other words - the written Word of God was revealed to the Catholic Church - who declared it to the world as a Sacred TRADITION.

This can ONLY mean one of TWO things:
a. You are a complete hypocrite
b. You're not that bright

Take your pick . . .[/QUOTE]
the Scriptures that YOU put so much credence in as your "Sole" Authority were compiled and declared inspired by the very Church that YOU have condemned repeatedly on this thread.

Whoever they were, that confirmed the Bible from Genesis-Revelation, they are not the Catholic Religion that begin adding and relying more on oral traditions, that Scriptures do not support.

If they called themselves Catholic back then, then they were not the Catholics of your religion.

Whoever started condemning Sola Scriptura, condemned themselves as heretics apart from Scripture.

Sola Scriptura: only Scripture inspired by God is the authority of things of God.

Sola Scriptura condemned as a man-made doctrine? That only God's Word written in Scripture is God's Word of authority on God?

And it's the ones who reject Scripture as the sole authority for God, and hold to added doctrines and traditions of men, not found in Scripture, that condemn Scripture only as man-made?

Pathetic little children with no normal sense.

 

[robert derrick]

I OPENLY challenge you to do what NO other Protestant has ever been able to do: As a Sola Scripturist - show me the Scripture verses that describe this doctrine.

As I said before, you are a heretic in this, because I have already offered Scripture to prove it, and your reject it out of hand, therefore I reject any further vain effort in offering Scriptural proof of Sola Scriptura.

And why do you even demand such Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura, when the fact of rejecting Sola Scriptura as proof of things of God, is to reject the necessity of Scripture to prove things of God.

Your rejection of Sola Scriptura needs no Scripture to confirm your traditions, because you reject Scripture as the sole and final authority in all matters of God.

1. If any truly rejects Sola Scriptura, and holds to traditions not written Scripture, then Scripture is not necessary to hold them.

2. If any claims their traditions are proven by Scripture, then they confirm Sola Scriptura: the necessity of Scripture to prove their traditions, that are not written therein.

No one can be both 1 and 2. You are trying to be both, and so are contradicting your own stated belief. Your mind has been emptied of any intelligent logic, by the one who emptied himself of any such intelligence, when he by pride rose up in himself to be like God. Now all he has is intellectualized deceit, foolishness, and lies, which you have abundantly swallowed.

You are full of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, to be unto yourself as a god, to hold to your own traditions, rather than Scripture of God only.

Unless, of course, you believe Scripture is necessary to prove all things, both written and oral, as of God, which of course is Sola Scriptura: the only authority of things of God, given by God to mankind for His true worship and pure religion of service to Himself.

And so once simple questions remains: do you truly reject Sola Scriptura? Do you need Scripture to prove what you believe and the traditions you hold to? Is Scripture therefore the sole authority that proves all things of God? I.e. if it's not Scripture, then it's not God.

Yes or No?

(P.s. anyone who does not answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes/no, is proven deceitful.)

Just as I thought.
Once again - like EVERY other Protestant I have ever challenged - you FAILED.

The reason you failed is because the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura was invented by your Protestant Fathers in the 16th century.
And, had they NOT invented this doctrine, along with Sola Fide, which is equally unbiblical - the Protestant Revolt couldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]
And as I said. You failed to answer yes or no, and so that is where it will remain. You never respond directly to me, while I also respond directly to any decent point you try to make. And so, we go no further until you begin to act like an adult and do so from here:

1. Your examples of oral traditions being later included in Scripture is flawed, because you confirm those traditions by quoting the Scriptures that confirm them: Sola Scriptura

Any oral traditions not included in Scripture, nor plainly proven by Scripture, are falsely made up by man.


2. If you are using Scripture to try and prove your position on any oral tradition, then you are Sola Scriptura as am I.

If you reject the necessity of Scripture to confirm any oral tradition, then you are in fact not Sola Scripture, and are a heretic, who are insensibly defeating yourself by quoting Scripture to prove any point pertaining to God, worship, religion, church doctrine, obedience to the faith, etc...

Are you against Sola Scriptura? Then you need no Scripture for it, and since I am all Sola Scriptura, any argument is as vain with me as trying to argue Jesus Christ to an unbelieving Jew, that agrees He should have been crucified for blasphemy, in claiming to be the Messiah and Son of the Blessed.

 

[robert derrick]

Can you simplify your point Rob, I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Sorry, I get carried away off point.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

I do not accept this as a mandate from God to obey every human gvt, as in they were raised up with power by God. I believe God no longer does such things to 'chastise' or aid His people. We now have God Himself for that personally: we are the physical body of Christ on earth in natural bodies, but we are not a nation of people with our own borders, that God needs to use other nations to correct or help restore us to our boundary state.

1. God did such things as warned and confirmed by the prophets of old. No such Scripture of the apostles suggest He continues to do so. The God of Israel Who raised up nations and rulers to correct or help restore His people, no longer does so, even as He no longer has such national people to correct.

The Lord Jesus, who now has all power over earth, does not raise up evil people.

2. Let every soul be subject to: Scripture is speaking of our souls, not of men in general. This is a ministerial admonition to obey them that have the rule over us, because they watch out for our souls.

3. It is impossible for these Scriptures to refer to human gvt, because it leaves no area of disobedience. It is firm, that we are to obey them in all things pertaining to the care of our souls.

The Scriptural 'assumption' here is that such rulers over us, are in deed ruling to our benefit: they are ministering Scripture of truth for our soul's sake.

4. The only other reading would be that God only raises up good rulers, and if they are not, then they are not honored by Him, nor are they of His higher power, and so they are to be resisted, rejected.

The Lord Jesus did not raise up Hitler.

Conclusion: Revelation is not speaking of human gvt beasts rising up to purify Jesus' body.

The rise of the 1st beast is the coming of the antichrist on his whited horse in false ministry to the saints: they come out of Christian religion of the apostles, to prey upon Christian believers, in order to corrupt their faith and possibly destroy the souls of the elect.

False religions such as Islam that persecute Christians are not a threat to Christians, but rather a means of martyrdom only, which should be rejoiced at.

The real danger to the people of God has always been from within: false prophets, apostles, christs, teachers, that were once of the people of god, but now are ministering to their destruction.

The dragon doesn't want glorified martyrs, but rather destroyed one time believers, for whom it becomes impossible for them to renew repentance again unto salvation: this can only be done from them that have rule over the souls, and they rule is corrupted to defile the souls.

I do not see Revelation as a world-wide cataclysm of a one world gvt and religious system, who's only purpose to kill the saints and send them to heaven.

The war made with the Lamb and His saints is from within: ministerial mishandling of the Word, using the law of Christ to dominate, merchandize, and finally destroy the faith of the sheep.

 

[robert derrick]

Mystery Babylon has been going on from the beginning, even as there were many antichrists gone out from the apostles. There will be one last great tribulation brought upon believers by false Christian leaders that preach false righteousness in Jesus' name.

This has occurred in any saints' life to one degree or another. Revelation has played out many times over and over with each new saint in Christ Jesus. The last time for it to happen will be with the 1st resurrection. At that time, the tribulation will turn from that of false ministers upon good believers, to that of short tribulation and wrath of God upon those who fought against Him and His people.

The rest of the world will then be divided into two: sheep and goats. All unbelievers, but all not treating the Christians the same.

Christians are God's people, not those that call themselves 'Jews' outwardly and abide still in unbelief.

This is the spiritual teaching of Revelation manifested in physical forms of beasts and locusts and mothers on waters, and mother clothed with the sun, etc...

The beasts and antichrists are false Christian ministers in the flesh. If there is any such that also hold human gvt power to rule with force of law, it will be a Christian, ministering in the name of Jesus, as the Lord God Himself.

He will no doubt be bringing in many damnable heresies brought in from other religions such as Catholic popism, the green fascists, lukewarm unitarianism, etc... But it will all be in the name of Jesus, with uncircumcised lips that once knew the Lord Jesus by heart.

He may be a Syrian Christian, who was also Israel after the flesh, and did live by circumcision of the heart through faith of Jesus, and mortally wounded his own head, when He rose up in himself to be Head over the body of Christ:

And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

 

[Illuminator]

Mystery Babylon has been going on from the beginning, even as there were many antichrists gone out from the apostles. There will be one last great tribulation brought upon believers by false Christian leaders that preach false righteousness in Jesus' name.

Can you name one "false Christian leader" gone out from the apostles that were not deemed as heretics by the early church?

This has occurred in any saints' life to one degree or another. Revelation has played out many times over and over with each new saint in Christ Jesus. The last time for it to happen will be with the 1st resurrection. At that time, the tribulation will turn from that of false ministers upon good believers, to that of short tribulation and wrath of God upon those who fought against Him and His people.

Can you name one martyr from the 1st 3 centuries that believe as you do?

He will no doubt be bringing in many damnable heresies brought in from other religions such as Catholic popism, the green fascists, lukewarm unitarianism, etc... But it will all be in the name of Jesus, with uncircumcised lips that once knew the Lord Jesus by heart.

What is "Catholic popism"? A term invented by hostile fundamentalists?
[/QUOTE]
You have changed "tradition" into a dirty word, a major straw man fallacy.

Many Protestants hold the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism unfortunately often tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive, and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians, under the guidance of the Church’s authority, down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 ad at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8 and in the following three passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition"

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many, if not most, people couldn’t read then anyway).

Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

 

[Illuminator]

Furthermore, the related Greek words paradidomi and paralambano are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, [2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Jude 3 Contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (cf. Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:9, 12; 2 Pet 2:21)

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught … by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9,12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Matt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “Things which have been accomplished among us” were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.

Tradition Isn't a Dirty Word - The Coming Home Network (chnetwork.org)

 

[Robert Gwin]

Sorry, I get carried away off point.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

I do not accept this as a mandate from God to obey every human gvt, as in they were raised up with power by God. I believe God no longer does such things to 'chastise' or aid His people. We now have God Himself for that personally: we are the physical body of Christ on earth in natural bodies, but we are not a nation of people with our own borders, that God needs to use other nations to correct or help restore us to our boundary state.

1. God did such things as warned and confirmed by the prophets of old. No such Scripture of the apostles suggest He continues to do so. The God of Israel Who raised up nations and rulers to correct or help restore His people, no longer does so, even as He no longer has such national people to correct.

The Lord Jesus, who now has all power over earth, does not raise up evil people.

2. Let every soul be subject to: Scripture is speaking of our souls, not of men in general. This is a ministerial admonition to obey them that have the rule over us, because they watch out for our souls.

3. It is impossible for these Scriptures to refer to human gvt, because it leaves no area of disobedience. It is firm, that we are to obey them in all things pertaining to the care of our souls.

The Scriptural 'assumption' here is that such rulers over us, are in deed ruling to our benefit: they are ministering Scripture of truth for our soul's sake.

4. The only other reading would be that God only raises up good rulers, and if they are not, then they are not honored by Him, nor are they of His higher power, and so they are to be resisted, rejected.

The Lord Jesus did not raise up Hitler.

Conclusion: Revelation is not speaking of human gvt beasts rising up to purify Jesus' body.

The rise of the 1st beast is the coming of the antichrist on his whited horse in false ministry to the saints: they come out of Christian religion of the apostles, to prey upon Christian believers, in order to corrupt their faith and possibly destroy the souls of the elect.

False religions such as Islam that persecute Christians are not a threat to Christians, but rather a means of martyrdom only, which should be rejoiced at.

The real danger to the people of God has always been from within: false prophets, apostles, christs, teachers, that were once of the people of god, but now are ministering to their destruction.

The dragon doesn't want glorified martyrs, but rather destroyed one time believers, for whom it becomes impossible for them to renew repentance again unto salvation: this can only be done from them that have rule over the souls, and they rule is corrupted to defile the souls.

I do not see Revelation as a world-wide cataclysm of a one world gvt and religious system, who's only purpose to kill the saints and send them to heaven.

The war made with the Lamb and His saints is from within: ministerial mishandling of the Word, using the law of Christ to dominate, merchandize, and finally destroy the faith of the sheep.

You said a lot that I agree with, I am kind of ignorant on how to get you to see my response to what you said so I copied what you said and will answer in between the paragraphs.

I do not accept this as a mandate from God to obey every human gvt, as in they were raised up with power by God. I believe God no longer does such things to 'chastise' or aid His people. We now have God Himself for that personally: we are the physical body of Christ on earth in natural bodies, but we are not a nation of people with our own borders, that God needs to use other nations to correct or help restore us to our boundary state.

We believe that mandate is still in force, v2.
1. God did such things as warned and confirmed by the prophets of old. No such Scripture of the apostles suggest He continues to do so. The God of Israel Who raised up nations and rulers to correct or help restore His people, no longer does so, even as He no longer has such national people to correct.

The Lord Jesus, who now has all power over earth, does not raise up evil people.

2. Let every soul be subject to: Scripture is speaking of our souls, not of men in general. This is a ministerial admonition to obey them that have the rule over us, because they watch out for our souls.
All living beings are souls, including animals Num 31:28
3. It is impossible for these Scriptures to refer to human gvt, because it leaves no area of disobedience. It is firm, that we are to obey them in all things pertaining to the care of our souls.

The Scriptural 'assumption' here is that such rulers over us, are in deed ruling to our benefit: they are ministering Scripture of truth for our soul's sake.

4. The only other reading would be that God only raises up good rulers, and if they are not, then they are not honored by Him, nor are they of His higher power, and so they are to be resisted, rejected.

The Lord Jesus did not raise up Hitler. We believe satan has control of all governments Mat 4:8,9; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Jn 5:19 so we agree.

Conclusion: Revelation is not speaking of human gvt beasts rising up to purify Jesus' body.

The rise of the 1st beast is the coming of the antichrist on his whited horse in false ministry to the saints: they come out of Christian religion of the apostles, to prey upon Christian believers, in order to corrupt their faith and possibly destroy the souls of the elect.

False religions such as Islam that persecute Christians are not a threat to Christians, but rather a means of martyrdom only, which should be rejoiced at.

The real danger to the people of God has always been from within: false prophets, apostles, christs, teachers, that were once of the people of god, but now are ministering to their destruction.

The dragon doesn't want glorified martyrs, but rather destroyed one time believers, for whom it becomes impossible for them to renew repentance again unto salvation: this can only be done from them that have rule over the souls, and they rule is corrupted to defile the souls.

I do not see Revelation as a world-wide cataclysm of a one world gvt and religious system, who's only purpose to kill the saints and send them to heaven.

The war made with the Lamb and His saints is from within: ministerial mishandling of the Word, using the law of Christ to dominate, merchandize, and finally destroy the faith of the sheep.

We believe Jesus will remove the governments of the earth upon his return and usher in the Kingdom of God.

 

[robert derrick]

Can you name one "false Christian leader" gone out from the apostles that were not deemed as heretics by the early church?
Can you name one martyr from the 1st 3 centuries that believe as you do?
What is "Catholic popism"? A term invented by hostile fundamentalists?

Can you name one "false Christian leader" gone out from the apostles that were not deemed as heretics by the early church?

A false leader gone out from the apostles' doctrine by definition is a heretic. Every antichrist is a false leader, and there are many gone out from the apostles' doctrine. If they are not deemed as such by believers in Christ, then they are in danger from such false leaders.

Can you name one martyr from the 1st 3 centuries that believe as you do?

You seem to miss the point of Mystery Babylon's real danger to the saints: to deceive, seduce, and finally destroy the faith of the saints. The faith of Jesus is the enemy of the devil, in his efforts to ensnare and control mankind. The dragon's effort therefore is to corrupt it int he minds of them that believe, to the point where they receive the mark of his beast in their foreheads, rather than the seal of God:

Mystery Babylon is to replace the true Headship of Jesus over His own people, with another false head of another gospel, that still preaches in Jesus' name. They name the name of the Lord Jesus to gain dominion over our souls, not to be helpers of our joy in Christ. (2 Cor 1:24)

The dragon's main purpose is not so much to send martyrs to heaven, but to return them that forsook him back to his kingdom of darkness by false ministry in the body of Christ: the mystery of iniquity is that man of sin is a destroyer from within, not an attacker from without.

Galatians is all about such persuasion of 'Christian' leaders that lured others to fall from grace, to turn from the faith of Jesus to that of another head. And the rising beast has many such heads, with horns to push the sheep into destruction. (Ezek 34:21)

Mystery Babylon is false ministry destructive to the faith of the saints within the body, not false religion that does not preach the cross at all: 'Christian' cults that sprang out of the gospel of Christ.

 

[robert derrick]

Can you name one "false Christian leader" gone out from the apostles that were not deemed as heretics by the early church?
Can you name one martyr from the 1st 3 centuries that believe as you do?
What is "Catholic popism"? A term invented by hostile fundamentalists?

What is "Catholic popism"? A term invented by hostile fundamentalists?

It is my term playing off papism. To identify it at 'hostile' is to expose your papal worshipping tendencies. I have been mocked, and others I honor in ministry have been mocked. I rebuke them and move on. I don't take them seriously enough to get offended and angry.

What I have learned has shown me that the pope and his religion are not worthy of honor and respect from me as serious followers of the Lamb Jesus. That has not always been the case. And there has been good popes and Catholics aplenty, but the religion itself has so far gone from Scripture, that it may be corrupted from head to foot.

This is not about people, but about doctrine. My warfare is not carnal, but spiritual in matters of ministry and law of Christ, which is a blessing when preached from Scripture, and is a curse when preached without Scripture.

Many Protestants hold the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other. You have changed "tradition" into a dirty word.

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is good tradition and commandments of Christ, and there is false tradition and commandments of men: the good are found in Scripture. The false are not.

I have found that those who reject Sola Scriptura, never acknowledge any oral or written tradition of men is false.

In any case, my conclusion in this matter is simple: If any reject Scripture as the only authority in things of Christ, then they need no Scripture to uphold their traditions, because if they attempt to validate their traditions by Scripture, then they are Sola Scriptura by acknowledging the need of Scripture as the proving authority in things of God.

And so, a simple question: do you reject such Sola Scriptura? If so, why bother with Scripture to believe your traditions?

I am Berean: I look at all Scripture to see if anything ministered to me, whether commandment or tradition, is true of God or not.

 

[robert derrick]

Can you name one "false Christian leader" gone out from the apostles that were not deemed as heretics by the early church?
Can you name one martyr from the 1st 3 centuries that believe as you do?
What is "Catholic popism"? A term invented by hostile fundamentalists?

The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived.

True, and some of those are only found in Scripture, such as contending for the body of Moses. With Jude, that oral tradition was validated as true by being written into Scripture. It is now Scripture.

In addition, if there is an oral or written tradition not specifically written in Scripture, but has the true sense of Scripture that is written, then it is Scriptural and good. If not, it is not.

Sola Scriptura trust but verifies with Scripture only. The Catholics in their religion began to verify Scripture by their traditions, when they determined 'Scripture alone' was not enough to combat hereises, such as that of Aarian.

That was the turning point of their error. Scripture does not need any tradition outside Scripture to verify Scriptural truth. Aarian could be dismissed by just two well known, simple, and unarguable Scriptures: And the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh.

Scriptural truth is proven by Scripture only. Scripture interprets Scripture.

The only warfare I get into is not with people, but with teachings, and the only 'hostility' I have is with them that prove themselves children in argument, rather than serious adults, even if we disagree.

For instance, I make every effort to respond to anyone's point fairly and honestly from Scripture, and I find it intellectually insulting, when others just dismiss things out of hand in order to cling to their beliefs.

You apparently are not such.

the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive, and unbiblical.

Nothing passed down from Christ and His apostles is corrupt. Only things ministered as such without Scriptural proof. Much in the Catholic Religion is corrupt, because it is not Scripture, nor has any sense of Scripture, and also openly contradicts Scripture.

Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

No. Sola Scriptura rejects tradition pitting itself against Scripture.

Sola Scriptura stands in defense of the gospel of the cross against any other gospel that angels or men try to push off as that of Jesus Christ. It is the false traditions, doctrines, and commandments that are on the offensive attack against Scripture, and it is disingenuous at best to then turn and call those who reject such attacks as 'hostile'.

Like Moriarty peevishly declared to Holmes: "I must insist you cease your continual persecutions of me", since Holmes had been foiling his criminal plans.

Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25).

True, and so God made sure that the proving of all such traditions were available in Scripture. Simple. Show me a tradition that is Scriptural, and I'll show you a good tradition. Show me one that is not Scriptural, and I'll show you one that is not any good.

Once again, Sola Scriptura is not suggesting there are no other writings in the world to read and believe in things of God. Scripture is the final authority as to whether such writings and books and oral traditions are true with God or not.

The Bible judges all other books. Many throughout history have hit upon truths of God, because Christ lightens every one that comes into the world, and we know they are true, because Scripture confirms it.

And so we agree: All tradition is not corrupt, and all tradition is not true.

And if you say that Scripture need not prove all tradition and doctrine, then you are rejecting Sola Scriptura indeed.

But if you rely on Scripture to prove any tradition, then you are Sola Scriptura to me.

I do not say to read the Bible only, and no other reading is allowed. That is foolishness. However, we must be grounded in the truth of Scripture, that we can discern accurately between what is true or not anywhere else, especially in matters pertaining to religion, doctrine, and the faith of God.

Rightly dividing the Word of truth begins with rightly dividing between what is written and what is not. Sola Scriptura then goes on to rightly divide between what is not written that is good, and that which is not.

Mystery Babylon is all them that once confessed Jesus from the heart and ministered His righteousness of faith, but then turned from the ministry of Jesus Christ only, to another ministry of one's own making for power and profit, and yet still ministers Jesus' name with lips for effect.

Sola Scriptura prevents such corrupting error, either from the minister, or from them that hear the corrupted minister.

 

[Davy]

True. However, the ministry of Christ is referred to in allegory as a city and mother:

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal 4)

Hagar is now the mother and ministry of the Jews Religion, where they still read Moses of old on their false Sabbaths, and cling to Moses' law of old, trying to keep an old and decayed corpse alive, in a city they call holy, but is no longer, because the God of Israel is no longer there, nor His temple.

Mystery Babylon the Great is the ministerial mother of all harlot ministries, that preach another gospel of their own making, which is not another, for that of Jesus and the cross.

Mohamed was not an antichrist, nor has anything to do with mystery Babylon, because he was never a believer of the God of Israel, nor Jesus as Lord and Saviour. He just came up with his own false religion, desiring to have Ishmael as the seed of promise, rather than Isaac.

You seem... to understand how Jerusalem has fallen since Lord Jesus was crucified there. But you have yet to realize that it will not become the "great city" of Revelation until the "man of sin" that Apostle Paul warned about shows up there at the end of this world.

The relation of Jerusalem as the symbolic Babylon Harlot comes from the examples God gave about Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. He gave Jerusalem that label actually back when His chosen Israel had rebelled against Him in following the pagans and their idols. But the Revelation events involve the very end of this world regarding false idol worship, and that will be about the coming pseudo-Christ that Jesus warned of for the time of "great tribulation" (Matthew 24).

Even in Revelation 18:7 we are given an important symbolic metaphor about the symbolic harlot great city, when she says she sits a queen, and am no widow. We're to think about that logically for a moment. If she is a 'queen', then it means she is saying she is married. Regarding marriage to Jerusalem, Who spoke of that idea long ago? (Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.) And do you recall in Lamentations with mourning over Jerusalem's desolation having become a tributary, God mentions there about Jerusalem in widowhood? (Lamentations 1:1)

When the false-Messiah comes at the end of this world and is setup as God over all that is called God, or that is worshipped, that is when Jerusalem will be married, and claim she is no widow, but she will be married to the wrong one.

 

[robert derrick]

You said a lot that I agree with, I am kind of ignorant on how to get you to see my response to what you said so I copied what you said and will answer in between the paragraphs.

I do not accept this as a mandate from God to obey every human gvt, as in they were raised up with power by God. I believe God no longer does such things to 'chastise' or aid His people. We now have God Himself for that personally: we are the physical body of Christ on earth in natural bodies, but we are not a nation of people with our own borders, that God needs to use other nations to correct or help restore us to our boundary state.

We believe that mandate is still in force, v2.
1. God did such things as warned and confirmed by the prophets of old. No such Scripture of the apostles suggest He continues to do so. The God of Israel Who raised up nations and rulers to correct or help restore His people, no longer does so, even as He no longer has such national people to correct.

The Lord Jesus, who now has all power over earth, does not raise up evil people.

2. Let every soul be subject to: Scripture is speaking of our souls, not of men in general. This is a ministerial admonition to obey them that have the rule over us, because they watch out for our souls.
All living beings are souls, including animals Num 31:28
3. It is impossible for these Scriptures to refer to human gvt, because it leaves no area of disobedience. It is firm, that we are to obey them in all things pertaining to the care of our souls.

The Scriptural 'assumption' here is that such rulers over us, are in deed ruling to our benefit: they are ministering Scripture of truth for our soul's sake.

4. The only other reading would be that God only raises up good rulers, and if they are not, then they are not honored by Him, nor are they of His higher power, and so they are to be resisted, rejected.

The Lord Jesus did not raise up Hitler. We believe satan has control of all governments Mat 4:8,9; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Jn 5:19 so we agree.

Conclusion: Revelation is not speaking of human gvt beasts rising up to purify Jesus' body.

The rise of the 1st beast is the coming of the antichrist on his whited horse in false ministry to the saints: they come out of Christian religion of the apostles, to prey upon Christian believers, in order to corrupt their faith and possibly destroy the souls of the elect.

False religions such as Islam that persecute Christians are not a threat to Christians, but rather a means of martyrdom only, which should be rejoiced at.

The real danger to the people of God has always been from within: false prophets, apostles, christs, teachers, that were once of the people of god, but now are ministering to their destruction.

The dragon doesn't want glorified martyrs, but rather destroyed one time believers, for whom it becomes impossible for them to renew repentance again unto salvation: this can only be done from them that have rule over the souls, and they rule is corrupted to defile the souls.

I do not see Revelation as a world-wide cataclysm of a one world gvt and religious system, who's only purpose to kill the saints and send them to heaven.

The war made with the Lamb and His saints is from within: ministerial mishandling of the Word, using the law of Christ to dominate, merchandize, and finally destroy the faith of the sheep.

We believe Jesus will remove the governments of the earth upon his return and usher in the Kingdom of God.

All living beings are souls, including animals Num 31:28

With Jesus coming Personally to all mankind, it is now all about soul and spirit, not about gvt affiliation and animals. (Doth God care for oxen?) God cares only about souls now, not human gvts and nations of people:

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people...And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I no longer see Revelation as a symbolic manifestation of the nations of the earth banding together against the 'Jews' for one final showdown, which God allows or even raises up to humble them. That is the old covenant God of Israel, not the new testament Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who now has all power over earth. Especially since there are no more outward Jews nor nation of God's Israel on earth, other than the body of Christ circumcised inwardly and walking in His steps in natural bodies.

Revelation rather is the manifestation of the spiritual warfare of false ministry within the body of Christ, and shows how such depths of Satan are expressed by God in physical terms: it is the land of the soul, and the things of spiritual wickedness in high places, that war with the soul to destroy the faith of the elect of Jesus.

We believe satan has control of all governments Mat 4:8,9; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Jn 5:19 so we agree.

And the governors that are godly believers in Jesus Christ? Your generic use of human gvt is old pertaining to the old covenant, where there was only the nation of Israel and the everyone else: Gentiles that knew not God.

The Redeemer came down from heaven Personally as a man to save all mankind, first His own by flesh, and now any by faith. Now He makes covenant with whosoever individually. All nations of the earth are now uncircumcised before Him, including that one calling itself Israel after the flesh.

We believe Jesus will remove the governments of the earth upon his return and usher in the Kingdom of God.

And that would apparently contradict the Scripture prophecy during His reign, of how He will hold all nations on earth accountable for their obedience to Him:

This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

There is only one nation God takes specially care for, and all else are drops in the bucket to Him: the holy nation and peculiar people of Jesus Christ.

I.e. He doesn't care about the nations as groups of people, but only about individual souls, and Revelation is addressed to individuals about their souls, not to people about nations.

 

[Davy]

All living beings are souls, including animals Num 31:28

With Jesus coming Personally to all mankind, it is now all about soul and spirit, not about gvt affiliation and animals. (Doth God care for oxen?) God cares only about souls now, not human gvts and nations of people:

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people...And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I no longer see Revelation as a symbolic manifestation of the nations of the earth banding together against the 'Jews' for one final showdown, which God allows or even raises up to humble them. That is the old covenant God of Israel, not the new testament Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who now has all power over earth. Especially since there are no more outward Jews nor nation of God's Israel on earth, other than the body of Christ circumcised inwardly and walking in His steps in natural bodies.

Revelation rather is the manifestation of the spiritual warfare of false ministry within the body of Christ, and shows how such depths of Satan are expressed by God in physical terms: it is the land of the soul, and the things of spiritual wickedness in high places, that war with the soul to destroy the faith of the elect of Jesus.

We believe satan has control of all governments Mat 4:8,9; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Jn 5:19 so we agree.

And the governors that are godly believers in Jesus Christ? Your generic use of human gvt is old pertaining to the old covenant, where there was only the nation of Israel and the everyone else: Gentiles that knew not God.

The Redeemer came down from heaven Personally as a man to save all mankind, first His own by flesh, and now any by faith. Now He makes covenant with whosoever individually. All nations of the earth are now uncircumcised before Him, including that one calling itself Israel after the flesh.

We believe Jesus will remove the governments of the earth upon his return and usher in the Kingdom of God.

And that would apparently contradict the Scripture prophecy during His reign, of how He will hold all nations on earth accountable for their obedience to Him:

This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

There is only one nation God takes specially care for, and all else are drops in the bucket to Him: the holy nation and peculiar people of Jesus Christ.

I.e. He doesn't care about the nations as groups of people, but only about individual souls, and Revelation is addressed to individuals about their souls, not to people about nations.

Most of that is just men's doctrines, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in God's Holy Writ.

 

[robert derrick]

Most of that is just men's doctrines, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in God's Holy Writ.

All of that is my personal rejection of reading Revelation in terms of flesh and blood. I read the Spiritual teaching of Revelation, with which we are promised a blessing to read and understand:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Revelation is spiritual teaching to prepare the reader against false ministry. If it were only future prophecy of nations and a final antichrist, then there is nothing for them to keep, that read it before that time.

The exhortation plainly states we are to keep those things written therein: even as we are to keep all things written for doctrine and law of Christ.

There will be a final antichrist on earth and false ministry of the dragon, when the Lord returns to destroy all such, and shut up that old serpent in the bottomless pit.

In the meantime, there are plenty of antichrists doing the same things in false ministry, and they have many ways and heads and horns of doing so.

Them with wisdom will know them all and reject them all. Revelation is the spiritual manifestation of them all in physical form. It is the finishing guide book of prophecy to know the difference between true ministry and false. Ministry is prophecy, because prophecy is to speak the true things of God, not just a foretelling of future events on earth.

 

[Davy]

All of that is my personal rejection of reading Revelation in terms of flesh and blood. I read the Spiritual teaching of Revelation, with which we are promised a blessing to read and understand:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Revelation is spiritual teaching to prepare the reader against false ministry. If it were only future prophecy of nations and a final antichrist, then there is nothing for them to keep, that read it before that time.

You can't try to change what Lord Jesus' Book of Revelation is about. It's the end cover of God's Word, and has many parallels to events in Genesis, the front cover of God's Word.

And ALL... of God's Word is spiritual, because it contains God's Plan of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. But spiritual does NOT... mean philosophical. The style of writing of Revelation with its many symbols is no different than the Books of the prophets. So those who show their lack of understanding of those symbols only show their lack of Old Testament study of God's prophets.

God uses symbols, allegories, metaphors, parable, idioms... to make it EASIER to understand His Word. All languages use that, so that method is very common to all peoples. (He knows how we express ourselves in languages). And those things the majority of time are about natural things He created easy to understand that the majority of people USED to know (like agriculture and things in nature He created).

And it's very easy to know when a parable or metaphor is given pointing to something else that is real. The locusts of Joel 1 for example. God's uses how real locusts in nature attack His people in the Book of Joel. But He lets us know He is not speaking of real locusts, but about a certain "nation" that only operates like real locusts, metaphorically speaking. What's difficult about that???

No, it's the crept in unawares that God allows to creep into the Churches that are not aware, to test His people with. Those preacher types push all sorts of spiritualistic philosophizing when preaching God's Word, and turn God's Word into a modern version of Funny Farm, and then speak about Aunt Edna for half an hour. Those will have their reward when Lord Jesus comes, and I do feel sorry for what they do. But God did not call those.

Metaphors, parable, etc., in God's Word always give a whole lot more information than it takes up to declare the parable. Lord Jesus showed this many times in The Gospels. Most all of them in The New Testament were covered first in The Old Testament Books. So there again, it's kind of easy to know who has done their homework in God's Word or not.

 

[robert derrick]

You seem... to understand how Jerusalem has fallen since Lord Jesus was crucified there. But you have yet to realize that it will not become the "great city" of Revelation until the "man of sin" that Apostle Paul warned about shows up there at the end of this world.

The relation of Jerusalem as the symbolic Babylon Harlot comes from the examples God gave about Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. He gave Jerusalem that label actually back when His chosen Israel had rebelled against Him in following the pagans and their idols. But the Revelation events involve the very end of this world regarding false idol worship, and that will be about the coming pseudo-Christ that Jesus warned of for the time of "great tribulation" (Matthew 24).

Even in Revelation 18:7 we are given an important symbolic metaphor about the symbolic harlot great city, when she says she sits a queen, and am no widow. We're to think about that logically for a moment. If she is a 'queen', then it means she is saying she is married. Regarding marriage to Jerusalem, Who spoke of that idea long ago? (Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.) And do you recall in Lamentations with mourning over Jerusalem's desolation having become a tributary, God mentions there about Jerusalem in widowhood? (Lamentations 1:1)

When the false-Messiah comes at the end of this world and is setup as God over all that is called God, or that is worshipped, that is when Jerusalem will be married, and claim she is no widow, but she will be married to the wrong one.

I appreciate this post. It is a direct response to one mine and is Scripturally made.

you have yet to realize that it will not become the "great city" of Revelation

However, I have not said Babylon is that great city Jerusalem on earth, if that is your suggestion. Neither can we say for certain that great city is Jerusalem at all, because Scripture does no say so specifically. Since Jerusalem is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, then it is tempting to make it also Mystery Babylon.

The problem is that Mystery Babylon cannot be a physical place, because like the woman and dragon in Rev 11, it is a Mystery. I.e. it's name alone tells us it is not physical in nature.

I believe the Scriptural fact that a city, Jerusalem that is above, is called our mother, directly ties it to Babylon, as a mother of corrupted believers in opposition to Jerusalem above. I.e. a ministerial mystery. The mystery of another gospel preached in the name of Jesus, in direct opposition to the mystery of God preached by the gospel of the cross:

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

The revelation of the mystery of God is revealed in the ministry of Christ: the preaching of Jesus. Therefore, Revelation is the revealing of the mystery of the dragon, whose ministry Babylon preaches any other gospel than that of Jesus, yet in His name. And there are many other such gospels, even as the beast raised up under that Babylon ministry has many heads and horns.

until the "man of sin" that Apostle Paul warned about shows up there at the end of this world.

That man of sin is revealed, when he that hinders him is taken out of the way. Seduction and deception are done in secret, not in the open plainly and honestly. A deceiver, as was Judas, is not openly known, until he comes out in the open to show and reveal himself as he really is. Jesus knew he had a devil, but the others did not, until he revealed himself a traitor in the garden.

The first beast is seen by John when he appears out of the sea, not when he was rising up through the sea. That beast ascends from the bottomless pit, which is beneath the sea. There was time when he was rising and was not yet seen and revealed for who and what he really was.

No one wakes up one day and decides to be a beast and antichrist, especially not an honest Jesus believer and minister of the cross. It happens over time, and it happens by way of ministerial error that departs from Scripture and, if not corrected, ends in destruction to them that believe. He begins the race good and turns from lawfully running it, until he finally and fully shows himself for what he really is: No longer a minister of Christ to help us in our joy of His salvation, but now the ministry of a beast who dominates the faith of others for power and profit.

A cult leader does not start out as a cult leader, but rather as a sincere minister of the gospel. The power of seduction and mystery of iniquity in the pulpit is that they once were sincere and honest ministers of the gospel of the cross, but became over time corrupted and dishonest ministers of their own themselves, done in secret of their own hearts. They are so seductive, because they are so sincere, but not sincerely wrong. I.e. an antichrist doesn't even know what he really is, until it's too late for himself and them that follow him.

They use the gospel and the law of Christ unlawfully, dishonestly, seductively, and in the end destructively:

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

The warning to Timothy, a rising minister of the Gospel after Paul's own heart was the same he made to others and prophesied among them would rise up to become wolves among sheep, not sparing the church of their Babylonish ministry. They are them that entangle and intertwine the Father's business with the people business for success in the affairs of this life: success-seeking businessmen in pulpits.

The Father's business is not the people business, but the loving people business.

Antichrist beasts in the ministry of Babylon at some time cease to run the race lawfully for an incorruptible crown of glory in Jesus, and begin to run the ministry unlawfully, seeking a corruptible crown of man's own success and glory.

A greater power than love of money, is the love of having power of God over others, that believe their every word as proceeding from the mouth of God. The dragon gives a mouth speaking great things of God, even the name of Jesus, and yet are blasphemies that work to seduce God's people into the ministry of Babylon, rather than to be perfected in that of Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is an asinine argument.

I refute YOUR doctrine by using YOUR own criteria - your "Sole" Authority - and you have a problem with it??
If I refuted it using Sacred Tradition - you would completely dismiss it "Catholic" teaching - so I used the very Scriptures that YOU purport to be our "Sole" Authority to show you that those Scriptures prove you wrong.

Also - the Scriptures that YOU put so much credence in as your "Sole" Authority were compiled and declared inspired by the very Church that YOU have condemned repeatedly on this thread. In other words - the written Word of God was revealed to the Catholic Church - who declared it to the world as a Sacred TRADITION.

This can ONLY mean one of TWO things:
a. You are a complete hypocrite
b. You're not that bright

Take your pick . . .

the Scriptures that YOU put so much credence in as your "Sole" Authority were compiled and declared inspired by the very Church that YOU have condemned repeatedly on this thread.

Whoever they were, that confirmed the Bible from Genesis-Revelation, they are not the Catholic Religion that begin adding and relying more on oral traditions, that Scriptures do not support.

If they called themselves Catholic back then, then they were not the Catholics of your religion.
Whoever started condemning Sola Scriptura, condemned themselves as heretics apart from Scripture.
Sola Scriptura: only Scripture inspired by God is the authority of things of God.
Sola Scriptura condemned as a man-made doctrine? That only God's Word written in Scripture is God's Word of authority on God?
And it's the ones who reject Scripture as the sole authority for God, and hold to added doctrines and traditions of men, not found in Scripture, that condemn Scripture only as man-made?

Pathetic little children with no normal sense.[/QUOTE]
Your completer ignorance of Church history is as pathetic as your understanding of Scripture.

Your entire argument is that Scripture is our "SOLE" Authority - yet you have FAILED in post after post to provide a Scriptural defense for this indefensible, man-made invention. NOW, you're trying to CHANGE history to make us believe that it was "another" Catholic Church who declared the Canon of Scripture. Here's a little history lesson, son . . .

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified by the Catholic Church – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.

- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).

- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.

- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.

- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

So, it is YOU Protestants who removed 7 Books and parts of Esther and Daniel from the Canon of Scripture - NOT the other way around.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[michaelvpardo]

Soooooo, Peter, the first Pope was an "Antichrist"??
HOW so??

As for the Catholic Church preaching our "own rules, commandments, and traditions and interpretations" - this is the BEDROCK of the perpetually-splintering mess that is Protestantism.

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

These are ALL based on the personal interpretations of the FOUNDERS of each Protestant sect.

And as for Believing in "Scripture only" - that is NEVER even hinted at in the Bible - so where do you get that from?
Asa for the name, "Sola Scriptura" - that "degrading" term was coined by LUTHER and his minions - NOT the Catholic Church.

You're not very bright - are you?

Hello BOL, we haven't argued with and insulted each other in quite a while. How have you been, well I hope?
You do realize that Martin Luther was actually part of the Roman Catholic Church when he wrote his theses.
The Catholic church created protestantism, though only by failing in their attempt to murder Luther as a heretic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And as I said. You failed to answer yes or no, and so that is where it will remain. You never respond directly to me, while I also respond directly to any decent point you try to make. And so, we go no further until you begin to act like an adult and do so from here:

1. Your examples of oral traditions being later included in Scripture is flawed, because you confirm those traditions by quoting the Scriptures that confirm them: Sola Scriptura

Any oral traditions not included in Scripture, nor plainly proven by Scripture, are falsely made up by man.

2. If you are using Scripture to try and prove your position on any oral tradition, then you are Sola Scriptura as am I.

If you reject the necessity of Scripture to confirm any oral tradition, then you are in fact not Sola Scripture, and are a heretic, who are insensibly defeating yourself by quoting Scripture to prove any point pertaining to God, worship, religion, church doctrine, obedience to the faith, etc...

Are you against Sola Scriptura? Then you need no Scripture for it, and since I am all Sola Scriptura, any argument is as vain with me as trying to argue Jesus Christ to an unbelieving Jew, that agrees He should have been crucified for blasphemy, in claiming to be the Messiah and Son of the Blessed.

As usual - your argument is ill thought-out and childish.

I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.
I don't adhere to Scripture alone because the BIBLE doesn't teach this - and you have YET to show where it DOES. . .

I pointed out the the Canon of Scripture itself is a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church (see post #58).
In other words, Einstein - the Bible does NOT include a list of Books that belong it in. That was the work of the Holy Spirit - working through His Catholic Church . . .