Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
The post Dominick links to is hardly authoritative, but is much better than some nonsense I’ve seen. I actually got suckered into believing that Pope John Paul II was born during a solar eclipse because one source was normally very credible.
“after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”
One of the great tip-offs of the slanderous nature of Luther’s is that he didn’t know the geography of Rome, despite basing his deceit on his supposed visit there. The Vatican is in exile from Rome, on an eighth hill, across the River Tiber, where the Romans expelled St. Peter’s remains to. Thus, prior to Luther, Catholics awaited the destruction of Rome as representing the destruction of all things evil, without any disloyalty to the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope.
The other portions of the prophecy should make plain that Peter the Roman is a virtuous Catholic who upholds the truth of the Catholic church.
Incidentally, that final clause of Malachy’s prophecy is recorded in a different handwriting than the rest.
It's obvious you are missing the point of Revelation if you continue to consult topo maps as the source of truth rather than understanding these texts in light of the rest of Scripture.
It’s a common problem in the Church today. Some pastor gets fixated on what they have suddenly "discovered" and ignore everything else in Scripture that does not support their pet theory. They publish a book or get a TV program, and folks not trained in proper Bible interpretation go all gah-gah over this person "wisdom" and "insight".
But Revelation itself is uiote clear as to how it is to be interpreted:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, (1:1)It’s a book full of signs and the relationship between these signs and reality. If you don’t understand the signs (and you won’t if you ignore places in the Bible where the signs are explained), you will most likely come to the wrong conclusion.
So, back to my question, other than your strained reading of Rev. 17, what else in the Bible leads you to think that 1st century pagan Rome was regarded as a spiritual "harlot" by Almighty God?
No, but NYC *is* fairly geographically unique in that it rests substantially on four different land masses: Long Island, Manhattan Island, Staten Island, and North America.
Depending on how one counts hills, there could be up to 9 inside the walls of 100 AD Rome.
The Vaticano is on the western side of the Tiber as you say, and was not inside the walls of 100 AD Rome.
How many hills is Geneva built on. (Trashing the UN, not Calvin ;^D)
Beats me ... maybe xzins' topo maps will tell.
TC, you cannot tell me the bible is making factual mistakes and then turn around and tell me that I’m missing the symbolic.
Let’s settle the factual first.
The topo map is just a map. It’s the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground say that Jerusalem does not have 7 hills.
No matter how much others might want it to have them, it simply does not.
Topo maps do not infallibly explain the meaning of Rev. 17. Relying on topo maps for your interpretation of Rev. 17 in the face of all the evidence is a dangerous approach to understanding the Bible.
You are missing the relationship between the "harlot" and the seven hills, which I explained all the way back in post 92 and followed up in post 208.
Your response is to appeal to topo maps.
But what does the Bible say, my friend? Let’s get back to the text. Or are maps all you have to go on?
>> We’ve heard of the pantheon of Roman gods, but was there a dominant expression of that religion? a dominant worship? <<
By the time of Christ, the emperors seem to have cast aside worrying about whether this god or that would approve of their actions. I’d say that a sort of Nietzchean “might make right” had come to be the de-facto state sect, and indeed, the deification of Emperors after Julius seems to confirm this.
In the days of Luther’s hate-mongering, Rome could sorta fit the bill, given fuzzy enough descriptions. (As I’ve mentioned already, the Vatican isn’t in Rome, but no matter to Luther.) Today, it can’t. I would, however, point out that the United Nations loves to declare its authority over seven continents, when, in fact, there are only five, and only four which are populated. Still waiting to see how many hills Geneva is based on.
Isn’t Switzerland just one big mountain? :>)
There is no temple there NOW... But the Glory of the Olives might build one! And if the Muslims are allowed access, then the Sabbath would be worshiped for three straight days!
>> Seattle has 7 hills also, but all we rule is the coffee kingdom :>) <<
O, wow! BILL GATES is the antichrist!!!!!!!!!
If you read the actual statements of Petrine authority by the church, instead of our short-hand recaps, you would see that the Church finds that Augustine’s and Eusebius’s comments to be fully consistent with papal infallibility: it is not the MAN, but the DOCTRINE asserted BY the man, which is what the papal element of the magisterium consists of. The rock was faith, but Peter was called, “rock” because he embodied that faith, and to he who embodied that faith was given the authority.
Augustine wasn’t questionning papal authority; in fact, he appealed to it frequently. He was seperating the sins of a previous pope from the truth of the Catholic church.
>> Every RC writer on this so called “prophecy” says that “Peter the Roman” is the Anti-Christ. <<
Really? The anti-Christ would shepherd the flock through the end-times tribulations? That’d be one hell of a lousy metaphor! OTOH, Peter the Roman is plainly “merely” the pope. Further, the passage about Peter the Roman was added to the original prophecy.
>> When I search the Word of G-d for “Keys” I only find two citations <<
That’s why proof-texting is a bad idea. “Keys of the kingdom” is the actual expression, and it refers to the authority yielded by an absent king to his vicar, who was called a “regent.” A vicar acts under the authority of another authority, not as his replacement, but does have full authority. Because of this passage, the Pope is referred to as “Vicar of Christ.”
Mind you, Jesus says Peter WILL receive the keys. He was not given them until after the Resurrection (Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd,” but tells Peter, “herd my lambs”.), for Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him three times.
I’ve heard all the arguments for the catholic church and the protestant reformation.
Guess what y’all.....you are all the body of Christ. Wanna win those who are unchurched?
Stop throwing theological “truths” and insults at each other and get on with the Great Commission.
It is no wonder so many are turned off by Christianity.
You should be ashamed....both sides. I am sure Jesus is just shaking his head at us.
“They didn’t get it when I was here, and they don’t get it now”
By the way it is blasphemous to label whorish what God set apart for HIS purpose, and it is just as blasphemous to disregard a portion of the body of Christ because you grew up being told your tradition is the only church.
>>>> Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.
I’ve seen that opinion expressed numerous times in this very forum. <<<<
>> So much for Roman Catholicism being the unified monolith it purports itself to be, eh? <<
Sedevacantism, the belief that the occupant of the chair of St. Peter is apostate or otherwise illegitimate, is considered an epithet by members of the SSPX, who pledge full loyalty to the Pope, while disagreeing with him on issues of obedience (rather than doctrine).
“Old Catholics” were once part of a significant schism in Catholicism. Today, there are few who haven’t gone fully Protestant, or been reunited with the Church... or simply died off. The name has largely been usurped by homosexuals, adulterers, libertines, pagans and womynpriests.
As for sedevacantists: the existence of a handful of schizophrenics and their families or sycophants hardly calls into question the authority of the Pope among Catholics. I’m not being mean or wild in my statement here: Most sedevacantist bishops probably know more sedevacantist bishops than actual congregants.
I lost an argument on FR about whether Jerusalem was built on seven hills. Unknown to me, landscaping has rendered several of the hills indistinct.
I lost an argument on FR about whether Jerusalem was built on seven hills. Unknown to me, landscaping has rendered several of the hills indistinct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.