Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
I see. What you and others say about so-called "Protestantism" is true, so it can't be nasty. What topcat said is untrue, so it's nasty. Are you kidding me? Would you like to be called a heretic? Would you like to be told you're not a Christian? If you don't think that's offensive, we're not on the same planet.
Malachy uses the imagery of the whore of Babylon on 7 hills. John called it in Rev 17, "the city that rules over the kings of the earth."
In John's day that was Rome.
Washington, DC? New York? Tokyo? Beijing? Moscow?
Certainly not Rome of today; even much less so Vatican City (which is not part of classical Rome).
But when the terms used - or the manner of their delivery - crosses over the line, mongering hatred - it will not be tolerated. That is why Jack Chick, the false Jesuit Oath and such are not allowed - nor are any excerpts from Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, National Alliance, anti-Semitic sources, etc.
Does that mean we cannot quote any of the Reformers who used similar language to describe the error of Rome, or the connection they made between spiritual apostasy and Rome?
Is this some sort of PC revisionism that we're witnessing on the forum?
I would never have guessed this could happen on FR.
You are correct. It must be interpreted correctly.
However, one of the possibilities — and the best one because of the 7 hills explanation — remains Rome.
I, however, don’t think that any actively proclaiming believers in Jesus Christ will be the Mystery Babylon religious system based in that city that has 7 hills.
It will be a mock-up of the Bride of Christ that will go along with the False Messiah and His False God and their False Herald. (Satan, Beast, False Prophet)
Well, no, he didn't. He just said that the seven-hilled city would be destroyed. No whores or Babylonians mentioned.
In context, that's probably Rome, which is certainly famous for its seven hills.
John called it in Rev 17, "the city that rules over the kings of the earth."
Are you sure it's the same "it"? John also calls it "the great city," (17:18) and in 11:8 he speaks of a "great city" which is clearly Jerusalem.
That phrase "the great city" is used several times in the OT in reference to Jerusalem. Compare the language of Rev 17 to that of Jeremiah 25, which is certainly speaking of Jerusalem, and the evidence is even clearer. (Rev 17 is also "cribbing" from some texts in Ezekiel which refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.)
And, BTW, ancient Jerusalem is also a "seven-hilled city".
It won’t be.
When it comes to these predictions, I have always wondered who the heck would take the name Peter as a Pope. Really, just seems to be asking for trouble. I personally can’t see the Holy Spirit leading a man to select that name....but then again God does rarely fill me in on His plans.
Rev 17: 1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries." 3 Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 This title was written on her forehead: 6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.
14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers." 15 Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."
Cincinnati is also a 7 hilled city, but it doesn’t rule over the kings of the earth.
Neither does Jerusalem.
Excerpts taken from historical documents may or may not be delivered in a hateful manner. It'll be case by case.
Is there any sense in which NYC rests on "seven hills"? I ask, because that quoted above sounds to me like something the UN would come up with.
I didn't read the two deleted posts so I'm not sure this is appropriate, but it's been my experience that we can quote the Reformers who used similar language to describe the error of Rome.
It's the difference between you and I calling a specific Roman Catholic FReeper a tare, and Scripture calling a man a fool and a liar who falls down to the stock of a tree.
I'm called that every day. I don't appear on Protestant threads and pick fights. It's a patently absurd debate. There's only one Truth and, so far, no one on earth has ever proven the Catholic Church to be false. Anyhow, there are enough people on FR who think I'm going to hell for partaking in Holy Communion. I don't need to get in the gutter to feel better.
Would you like to be called a heretic?
If the right person calls me it, I could be extremely happy. I could never be happy about anyone calling my mother a whore.
What you and others say about so-called "Protestantism" is true, so it can't be nasty.
First, I haven't called anyone a heretic. But if I did, it would be based on theological evidence, not hocus-pocus gymnastics performed with the book of Revelation.
Second - in general - a charge of heresy has an intellectual, theological basis, whether or not it's correct. Using the word "whore" is intellectually equivalent to calling someone you don't like a "Nazi" - its only purpose is to shock or offend.
On the other hand, some could use the term "heretic" as just a slap and without substance. If the context of calling someone a heretic is simple payback, then I agree, it's not good. If it's purpose is to teach, then it shouldn't be offensive.
Religion is innately emotional, but without intelligent conversation, the end result is Islam. Maybe the best advice is what Jesus taught, "shake the dust from your feet", i.e., avoid people who will only raise your ire when they disagree.
If you don't think that's offensive, we're not on the same planet.
People get offended by a lot of things. It would be politically correct folly to never call someone a heretic for fear of "offending". It would be common decency to avoid calling someone's mother a whore.
Thankfully, it is not too late for your prelates to reform their system. They just need the will to do so and the unction of the Holy Spirit, Who is now far from them
AMEN!
The Protestant threads? Where are those? There's practically a "Protestants Need Not Post" sign on the entire Religion forum.
There's only one Truth and, so far, no one on earth has ever proven the Catholic Church to be false.
This is extememly hateful. You've just said -- in a cute sidways way -- that Protestants follow a false religion. But you'll be OK. After all, you're Catholic and you didn't use a bad word.
And compare Jeremiah 25:10:
Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment ...
I’ve thought about that, too.
There are a number of things that make me think that Mystery Babylon is a false religious system. The line in Rev 14 about those who’ve not defiled themselves with women doesn’t make sense in terms of marriage, because the bible declares marriage to be undefiled (Heb 13:4?)
The bible does use “whoring” as a metaphor to describe idolatry throughout the Old Testament. What is telling is that, sure enough, the next few lines in Rev 14 introduce “Mystery Babylon.”
Since it is Satan worship, it is something occult and, in our present time, if it has already risen, it is hidden.
Secret, occult activity centered in the 7-hilled city.
non sequitur, because we do know that John wasn't writing about Cincinnati.
Neither does Jerusalem.
Well, actually, yes, to a Jew, it does, because that is where the shem of YVWH dwells. (1 Kgs 11:36)
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.