Who is the Whore of babylon

[brakelite]

Who is the Whore of babylon

 

[Illuminator]

I never said the Vatican Hill was one of the seven hills of Rome. When I deferred to the Vatican, I didn't especially mean the modern Vatican but the Vatican that literally ruled Rome from 756AD until 1870AD. Prior to that the Pope was influential in Rome's government. When Rome was the capital of the papal states, the Vatican was the seat of the papacy, but obviously many other buildings in Rome were occupied by the church too. Also the city must be Rome generally so it would include pagan Rome, indeed Rome as a continuum. Rome was destroyed on more than several occasions after Revelations.

There are issues with your interpretation too, but there are issues with mine. So one major issue is that the woman sits on the beast with seven heads and ten horns. The beast heads are commonly thought to represent empires, so it suggests that Babylon is being used as a generic term here for any number of antichristian empires: the traditional ones being Assyria, Eqypt, Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece, Rome etc. Anyone can look this up. Also seven may be generic, as denoting the complete set of satanic world empires, figuratively called Babylon. Yet Jerusalem was never construed to be amongst the antichristian world empires, although it was contemptuously labelled as Babylon, but never remotely on the same scale as Babylon. Also it can't be discounted that the city of seven hills is in fact denoting “mountains” only as a symbol for kingdoms that correspond to the kings. So it may not be a city of literally seven hills, and the whole prophecy may be more generic than at first appears, but on the other hand, if it is intended to infer a literal city of seven hills, then it is likely to be Rome over Jerusalem for the following reasons:

(a) Rev 17:6 "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Although there were a few martyrdoms of Christian Jews in Jerusalem, such as Stephen and James the Just, the Jews at Jerusalem generally obeyed the law, and were not exterminated. So to defer to Jerusalem as "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" is only marginally correct, and a better fit is the persecutions of Christians by pagan Rome, and afterwards by the papal inquisitions and temporal agents of the papacy.
(b) Rev 17:16 "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." By the time of the writing of the book of Revelation (near the end of the 1st century AD) the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70) was in the past, and it wasn't rebuilt until AD130. All prophecy is future and so it couldn't apply to Jerusalem unless Revelation was written prior to AD70, which is not consistent with scholarship that says 95AD.
(c) Rev 17:18 "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." Never could Jerusalem be described as the "great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth." That could only apply to Rome at the time the prophecy was written.

You, like Dave Hunt, refuse to make the distinction between PAGAN Rome and CHRISTIAN Rome, and erroneously project PAGAN concepts onto the Vatican with false histories and twisted interpretations of Revelation. You are unaware that the first 40 or so popes were killed by PAGAN Romans, not Catholics killing Catholics, as the SDA would want us to believe. 40 popes takes us to the end of the 2nd century where the writings of the Early Church Fathers are ignored or dismissed by Whore-duh-Babble-on psychos. You refer to the "Blood of the Saints" but are unable to name ONE of them who were executed under later Herodian dynasties. Just opinions of biblical text. The Blood of the Saints continues to be spilled to this very day, Catholics and Protestants, and more so than ever before. Wake up and smell the coffee.

You are also unaware that the PROTESTANT INQUISITION was arguably worse than what Catholicism has been repeatedly and inaccurately accused of. The bottom line is that fundamentalist thinking exists because they are jealous of the sheer size and age of the Catholic Church, and bear a spirit of rebellion to God's authority He granted to sinful human beings. St. Paul talks about the anti-Christ, but nowhere does he say the Church would be overtaken by him. BUT YOU DO. Nowhere does the Bible attack the Church the way you do, you do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition. Please, knock of the anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The Vatican is NOT the Whore of Babylon and never was.
...+
Is the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon? or The Lies of Dave Hunt Exposed

BREAKING NEWS! THE WORLD'S LARGEST CHARITY IS NOT RUN BY A WHORE!!!

 

[Illuminator]

Who is the Whore ofbabylon?

All forms of the Ecumenical movement. It's a whore by definition. Rome seems to be leading it up but many 'Protestant' bodies are just as involved.

"Rome" is not leading up to any one-world-government/religion. These are conspiracy theories invented by anti-Catholics. For "Rome" to do such things would violate dozens of Catholic encyclicals. This nonsense is interpreted from secular news media that is at war with the Catholic Church.

 

[hermeneutics]

I've been told multiple times that the whore of babylon from revelation is the Roman Catholic Church and the vatican yet I have read revelation 17 and 18 multiple times and a better match seems to be pagan rome which took place in the time revelation was written, why do people keep claiming that the whore of babylon is the catholic church when alot of the evidence suggests pagan rome

The bad figs are!

 

[eik]

You, like Dave Hunt, refuse to make the distinction between PAGAN Rome and CHRISTIAN Rome, and erroneously project PAGAN concepts onto the Vatican with false histories and twisted interpretations of Revelation. You are unaware that the first 40 or so popes were killed by PAGAN Romans, not Catholics killing Catholics, as the SDA would want us to believe. 40 popes takes us to the end of the 2nd century where the writings of the Early Church Fathers are ignored or dismissed by Whore-duh-Babble-on psychos. You refer to the "Blood of the Saints" but are unable to name ONE of them who were executed under later Herodian dynasties. Just opinions of biblical text. The Blood of the Saints continues to be spilled to this very day, Catholics and Protestants, and more so than ever before. Wake up and smell the coffee.

It is a flagrant putting of words into someone's mouth to suggest that I identified the Vatican with paganism, or that I suggested that any of Roman church leaders of the first two centuries were anything other than Christian. Moreover the papacy didn't suddenly become heretical overnight. It was rather a case of it succumbing to an increasingly number of unsanctioned additions to apostolic christianity, starting with the idolization of the unmarried state, which nowhere appears in scripture as a ground of enhanced sanctification. Such that by the 9th and 10th centuries, it would be difficult to find any religion in some of the popes e.g. John XII (955–964)

You are also unaware that the PROTESTANT INQUISITION was arguably worse than what Catholicism has been repeatedly and inaccurately accused of.

I'm not disputing for a moment that Calvinist inquisitions could be as persecuting as Catholicism, and even more so. Yet Calvinism embraced many of the errors of Catholicism.

The bottom line is that fundamentalist thinking exists because they are jealous of the sheer size and age of the Catholic Church, and bear a spirit of rebellion to God's authority He granted to sinful human beings. St. Paul talks about the anti-Christ, but nowhere does he say the Church would be overtaken by him. BUT YOU DO.

Do I? Are you not putting words into my mouth again? You are of course aware that the Catholic church did undertake to reform itself in the 16th century after protestantism had arisen as a political force. To pretend that the Vatican was never guilty of inciting shedding the blood of Christians is far-fetched, when you consider the number of wars waged throughout Europe against prostestants and non-conformists at the urging of the papacy.

Nowhere does the Bible attack the Church the way you do, you do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition. Please, knock of the anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The Vatican is NOT the Whore of Babylon and never was.
...+

I didn't ever say the Catholic church was the whore of Babylon. Again you're misrepresenting me. (Will you ever stop it?) I specifically distanced and distinguished the Vatican from the Catholic church in my first post, because the whore is a "city" (Rev 17:18). A city is not a church. Yet if we ask, why a city is described as a "whore" we have to look for a reason, which will be in the rulers of that city, which was the Vatican for a long period, undeniably, in the case of Rome, but pagan rulers also for a long period, but that's not to say that every ruler of Rome was a non-Christian or a persecutor. Clearly that isn't the case and not the point of Revelation. It's also not the point of Revelation to suppose that every official in an antichrist kingdom is a non-Christian. I don't need to read your book, as I never admitted the premise that it supposes.

 

[prism]

"Rome" is not leading up to any one-world-government/religion. These are conspiracy theories invented by anti-Catholics. For "Rome" to do such things would violate dozens of Catholic encyclicals. This nonsense is interpreted from secular news media that is at war with the Catholic Church.

That's not what I said, here is what I said...

All forms of the Ecumenical movement. It's a whore by definition. Rome seems to be leading it up but many 'Protestant' bodies are just as involved.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory is coming from your side of the aisle.

 

[Earburner]

But there is only one entity in all of world history that has shed the blood of the apostles and prophets, and that was Jerusalem.

Correct!

 

[Illuminator]

It is a flagrant putting of words into someone's mouth to suggest that I identified the Vatican with paganism, or that I suggested that any of Roman church leaders of the first two centuries were anything other than Christian. Moreover the papacy didn't suddenly become heretical overnight. It was rather a case of it succumbing to an increasingly number of unsanctioned additions to apostolic christianity, starting with the idolization of the unmarried state, which nowhere appears in scripture as a ground of enhanced sanctification. Such that by the 9th and 10th centuries, it would be difficult to find any religion in some of the popes e.g. John XII (955–964)

This is rhetoric of the so called "reformers" amplified by liberals and atheists in the Enlightenment Era. 10 bad popes doesn't prove what you assume it proves. If you want to deny the Scriptures where God promises to protect His Church, then you have to fill the gaps with man made traditions, like sola scriptura. "unsanctioned additions" is an admission of ignorance to Development of Doctrine while committing "unsanctioned subtractions" like denial of apostolic succession, denial of baptismal regeneration, denial of The Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, abolishment of the sacrificial priesthood.... You guys have been playing names with Greek grammar for 500 years. The doctrine of the papacy does not rest on just one verse. The flames of the reformation have cooled, and Protestant scholars who take a more dispassionate look at the grammar agree: Peter himself is the Rock upon which Christ builds His Church. Dividing the human element from the divine element in this construction project has been the goal of the reformation from the beginning. Jesus doesn't build junk. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. In order for the reformers to justify their break from Rome, they had to teach division between the human and divine, and their chief target was the papacy.

We hold to the infallible Jerusalem Council as the pattern for all councils, whereas you guys reject or ignore that because it doesn't fit in with the man made Protestant tradition of a non-infallible Church. Yes, corruption happened

I'm not disputing for a moment that Calvinist inquisitions could be as persecuting as Catholicism, and even more so. Yet Calvinism embraced many of the errors of Catholicism.

If you are going to make such dogmatic statements, name the alleged errors. There is a short list of things that we have in common with Calvinists. Whatever Catholic distinctives Calvin retained it's because they have been preserved since the days of the Apostles. You have to re-write history to prove otherwise. Calvin 'embracing' what was always there doesn't make sense.
Top 15 "Catholic" Beliefs of Protestant Leader John Calvin

Do I? Are you not putting words into my mouth again? You are of course aware that the Catholic church did undertake to reform itself in the 16th century after protestantism had arisen as a political force. To pretend that the Vatican was never guilty of inciting shedding the blood of Christians is far-fetched, when you consider the number of wars waged throughout Europe against prostestants and non-conformists at the urging of the papacy.

Revisionist history, I could see it coming. This kind of demonizing crap needs to stop because it opens up old wounds to unity, causes more division and distrust of one another. We accept Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ. (CCC817-820) The Church extends an olive branch in many formal teachings, but I suppose there is some kind of comfort holding on to outdated hostilities with a Monty Python Flying Circus mentality.

Your claim the "the Vatican" ran around inciting wars is stupid and absurd. Scholarly evidence please. By that I mean any reputable Protestant historian after 1960. Before that date, anti-Catholic Protestantism was just regurgitating the garbage from the false philosophies of the enlightenment era, they have been refuted a million times. Today, few, if any, Protestant historians accept the lies about the Inquisition that has been commonly accepted as truth. Popes have apologized for wrongs committed centuries ago, (as if it were relevant in today's world in the first place),
they will not apologize for wrongs invented.

I didn't ever say the Catholic church was the whore of Babylon. Again you're misrepresenting me. (Will you ever stop it?) I specifically distanced and distinguished the Vatican from the Catholic church in my first post, because the whore is a "city" (Rev 17:18). A city is not a church. Yet if we ask, why a city is described as a "whore" we have to look for a reason, which will be in the rulers of that city, which was the Vatican for a long period, undeniably, in the case of Rome, but pagan rulers also for a long period, but that's not to say that every ruler of Rome was a non-Christian or a persecutor. Clearly that isn't the case and not the point of Revelation. It's also not the point of Revelation to suppose that every official in an antichrist kingdom is a non-Christian. I don't need to read your book, as I never admitted the premise that it supposes.

The link I posted exposing the lies of Dave Hunt was not meant for you. It was meant for the Babylon-obsessed pschos who fashion weapons out of scripture to attack the Church (the Bible never does that) (a form of witchcraft, IMO). It was posted to challenge anti-Catholic fundamentalists and Trinity denying cults who infect this forum. Too bad they will never read it if it's longer than 3 lines.
Is the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon?

additional reading:
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

 

[Davy]

I've been told multiple times that the whore of babylon from revelation is the Roman Catholic Church and the vatican yet I have read revelation 17 and 18 multiple times and a better match seems to be pagan rome which took place in the time revelation was written, why do people keep claiming that the whore of babylon is the catholic church when alot of the evidence suggests pagan rome

It is a certain 'city' as written in the last verse of Revelation 17. So all pointers to something else is just hype by the 'hirelings' that God did not call, so they have to make stuff up to sell to their congregations.

 

[Truth OT]

Get over it folks, it was a reference to Jerusalem in the 1st century. Stop reading modern entities and establishments into the context that was focused on a time long since past.

 

[Davy]

Get over it folks, it was a reference to Jerusalem in the 1st century. Stop reading modern entities and establishments into the context that was focused on a time long since past.

It is a reference to Jerusalem, but NOT... in the 1st century A.D.

It's the Preterists who believe that is already past history, and that idea definitely IS... from "establishment" circles.

 

[Truth OT]

It's the Preterists who believe.....

Many readers of the New Testament writings are convinced that those writings are preterist-makers.

 

[Base12]

Quit looking outside the Bible for answers. Just read the Word of God...

Revelation 18:24
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth"

Mystery Babylon drinks blood. In fact she drinks everyone's blood according to the verse above. All means All.

That would mean that Mystery Babylon was around when the very first person died... and she drank their blood...

Genesis 4:11
"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand"

Thus, Mother Earth is Mystery Babylon. Your Mother. My Mother. Everyone's Mother.

But wait... there's more!

Matthew 23:35
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar"

Jesus just made Jerusalem responsible for Mother Earth's crimes.

Now Mother Earth as well as Jerusalem share the title as Mystery Babylon!

If you are into Apocrypha...

Ecclesiasticus 40:1 (KJV)
“Great travail is created for every man, and an heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother's womb, till the day that they return to the mother of all things”