Who is the Harlot AND Her Daughters?

12/3/2012 | self

[DouglasKC]

Question: In the passages below a harlot symbolizes something. The title on her head is "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." One of the titles is "the mother of harlots". This suggests that there are other harlots that have sprung from this harlot.

This is more curiosity then anything else...but what are opinions on what this represents?

Rev 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.
Rev 17:5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
Rev 17:7 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.
Rev 17:10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
Rev 17:11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
Rev 17:12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.
Rev 17:14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful."

[Cronos]

Finally, the entire theory of British-Israelism is anti-Semitic. It claims that the Anglo-Saxons have the blessings while the Jews have the curses alone.

[Cronos]

so, lets summarize:

1. The Anglo-Saxons were/are not part of the Semitic race;
2. The English language is not Semitic, nor does it contain any hints of having a Hebrew heritage;
3. The Anglo-Saxons and Israelites had completely different customs and religions;
4. There are no ancient records that indicate Britain has an Israelite history;

[xzins]

Sure, it could be, but that should never be assumed without demonstration. You’ve provided no such demonstration,

Oh puh...leese. I am writing on a discussion forum on a discussion website. What I'm referring to is common knowledge, and it is silly to have someone demanding I pen a peer-reviewable paper.

Not only was it common knowledge, but you obviously knew exactly what I was talking about from the outset.

If you want more than that, go to a seminary website and enter into their discussions. (However, I'll bet they assume common knowledge, too, and refer to it in passing.)

[haffast]

fake posts get pulled, fake posters get banned. remember.

.'niyas tsuJ .lanosrep gnihtoN

.denrub teg uoy erofeb won gnola nuR .lleh fo tip eht morf snomed ot gniklat eb t'ndluohs uoY ?uoy eracs I diD !!ooB ? niaga triks s'rotaredoM noigileR eht dniheb morf tuo gnikeep uoY

!!sonorC iH

Don't read Demonese?

Find yourself a record player that will play backwards. Set computer screen on turntable and turn on both. Stand on head to read post.

DO NOT sit on the turntable in front of the computer. You'll just get dizzy from spinning around and throw up on things, and people will think you're possessed. Besides, for some people a 78 adaptor would be necessary, or desired, and they're getting hard to find. May also induce a need for an exorcism, and the chances are high that you would wind up with a pedophile priest in the end.

"The True Origin of "Caflicks"

Amusing myself on FR since 1998............

[Cronos]

Don't read Demonese?

should I to read your post?

[Boogieman]

“What I’m referring to is common knowledge, and it is silly to have someone demanding I pen a peer-reviewable paper.”

I’m not demanding that, just asking that you don’t use a fallacious argument, like appealing to the popularity of a thesis as evidence of its validity. Like I said, if you could demonstrate that the argument was valid through nonfallacious means, then you wouldn’t need to appeal to its popularity, and if you can’t do that, then appealing to its popularity demonstrates nothing.

[Boogieman]

“I dispute the poster’s point of saying that we won’t go with Him until His return.”

Sure, but I’d want to see some better evidence from Scripture than that verse, since it doesn’t seem to be talking about heaven at all.

[Boogieman]

“well with due respect, Spacejunkie did cite that he had Biblical knowledge”

Well, Biblical knowledge should be applied evenly for best effect. For example, if you only study the Bible to find out why other what is wrong with one church’s doctrines, but never examine your own doctrines by the same standard, then you have created a blind spot. I think we’re all guilty of stuff like that sometimes, so we need to watch out for it.

The mistranslations are problematic, but on a forum like this, they aren’t any help in supporting false doctrines, since anyone who doesn’t already accept those doctrines would not accept the mistranslations as valid evidence.

[xzins]

We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.

As you also recall, that is, as I stated, the reason that “Church not appearing after chapter 4 Revelation” is to be considered as one evidence for a pre-touchdown rapture.

[Cronos]

Admin moderator — note that this is not the first post by haffast with doctored photographs aimed to inflame

[Boogieman]

“We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.”

No, I didn’t. I said that your position, that an argument’s popularity was evidence of its validity, could be valid, but not without demonstration. However, the point you are missing is that, such a demonstration, for all intents and purposes, is impossible. So, your argument is fallacious for the same reason that the slippery slope argument is fallacious; not because it is never valid, but because its validity can never be reliably demonstrated.

There are many reasons the argument could be popular that aren’t dependent on its validity. How could one ever demonstrate that those aren’t the reasons? It would require seeing into every individual proponent’s heart and mind to make such a demonstration, so it is not reasonable to expect any such demonstration could ever be done. Thus, such arguments must be discarded as fallacious, even if, hypothetically, they could be valid in some circumstances.

[xzins]

Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939[10]—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother.[11] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[12] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer (air force child soldier).[11] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry.[13] As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.[14] As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945.[14] He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

This is the Wikipedia account of the Pope's early years. As stated in that account, every youth was required to be conscripted.

I was eligible for our draft during the Vietnam era, and it didn't once occur to me to question the legitimacy of the government's doing that, even though draft-dodging was a popular thing at the time. I doubt it was any different in the hyper-propagandized Germany of WWII era.

I think your depiction is probably inaccurate, because the person you've highlighted really doesn't appear to be a teen.

[xzins]

And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion. You are also, obviously, aware of some theology, so you don’t really need me to do that for you.

So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.

[haffast]

Not my picture, nor did I “doctor” it. But can you tell me who those two guys are on the left of the questionable Benedict are? Lutheran or (C)atholic?

Maybe the Pope will come under conviction and make a confession of his real role in WWII in his next historical-critical correction of doctrine and history as successor of a long line of popes?

I wonder if he actually manned an anti-aircraft gun and saw a plane full of Americans shot down? Maybe he just polished the rims? More questions than answers.

Pope’s WWII-era activities stir up controversy on Holy Land visit
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/world/fg-pope13

Pope defends WWII’s Pius XII against Jewish critics
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-01-17-benedict_N.htm

Pope visits Auschwitz concentration camp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12964054/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-visits-auschwitz-concentration-camp/#.UL97XmcieSo

Pope Visits German Synagogue and Warns of Growing Anti-Semitism
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/international/europe/20pope.html?_r=0

Profile: Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11141340

“Warning - The links on this page are valuable sources of information but there is no guarantee that all of the information provided is the truth. The truth is elusive at best and if you wish to find it you must listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research.”

“This is the age of deception. We are engaged in an information war. Links will take you to many other websites containing varying degrees of personal belief, religious dogma, truth, lies, misinformation, and disinformation. We urge you to practice due diligence in your quest for truth.” (Warnings credited to William Cooper)

[Boogieman]

“And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion.”

Sufficient how? You tried to use that as evidence that the argument held validity, which is fallacious. Fallacious argument doesn’t suddenly become sufficient if the venue changes.

“So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.”

Again, I’m not acceding what you seem to think I’m acceding. I’m acceding that the argument, even if it could be hypothetically valid, would still be a fallacious form of argument, and therefore not reasonable. So, if you want to trumpet my “accession” that the argument can’t be reasonable, well I guess that is your prerogative.

[Boogieman]

The funny part is, that all the blessings the British Israelists or Christian Identity guys want to usurp, could mostly be obtained by simply becoming a regular old Christian. We’re grafted in and made heirs to the promise through faith, so there isn’t any need to establish some spurious descent to get the inheritance.

[Boogieman]

“I think your depiction is probably inaccurate, because the person you’ve highlighted really doesn’t appear to be a teen.”

I think xzins is right. The eyes and mouth do look very similar, but mainly to middle-aged and older photos of Ratzinger. He looks much different in teenage photos, with a much thinner face and sharper features.

[BlueDragon]

The John Smith part is a logical outcome.

Surely you mean Joseph Smith? I'm really not a part of this conversation otherwise. If not Joseph Smith as in Mormonism, what does a "John" Smith have to do with the B-I set of theorizing?

[Yosemitest]

Elwood McQuaid ?
That's your source?
You can't be serious.

Don't you know that the ... well, here's my source.

Matthew 10:2, “Go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”.

Were they lost?

“To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting”. James 1:1

There seems to be some knowledge of where they are. When the northern tribes were taken out of their land by the Assyrians (from 740-719 B.C.) they were concentrated in a camp in northern Persia. When Babylon grew in power, the Assyrians had to go to war. This gave the Israelites the occasion to escape. The Assyrian guards most likely went along. They escaped to the north and west over the Caucasus mountains.

For your information, the people who came over the Caucasus mountains were called Caucasians, who are described as light skin color, high percent of light colored eyes and hair.

The Caucasus mountains stretch from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, north of Iran (old Persia). The country that is now situated with the foothills of the greater Caucasus mountains to the north and the lesser Caucasus to the south is the Republic of Georgia.

As they proceeded north and west, they fulfilled the prophecy “Israel would become a multitude of nations”. The British helped to fulfill this by having their flag flown over 170 countries at one time; making it the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia, England, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc. Hence the saying “The sun never sets on Great Britain”.

Genesis 48:13 ~ Ephraim(a multitude of nations) and Manasseh( a great nation) were prophesied through Jacob(Israel), God to Abraham in (Genesis 22:17) ~ “Thy seed shall possess the gates of his enemies”. The British did this for a long time, then were joined by America in control of all the sea gates. “Let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth”. Gen. 48:16

It is pretty well established that Great Britain is basically Ephraim
and America is Manasseh.
Each have some portion of the other tribes.
All Israelite nations have some Levites and the tribe of Simeon in them, going back to Genesis 49:5-7.
They shall be peoples scattered among all Israel.
Even Judah is scattered among all the nations.

Naturally we are lead to believe that the Danish (Denmark) are the tribe of Dan, but the prophecy in Genesis 49 says, “Dan shall judge his people. He shall be a serpent by the way.“
Dan seems to have left his mark/name every where ~ Danube, Dardanelles, Denmark, Don.
These and many others may be misleading us to believe that Dan went along with the other tribes.
There is an interesting study ~ The Bible Probe.
They ask could Dan have gone from northern Israel (Lebanon) to Greece, either via Turkey or by water to found Troy?
According to the Iliad by Homer, the founder of Troy was named Dardanus. Over the centuries, Troy was populated by Trojans and Spartans, which migrated to southern France and into Germany.
In the Apocryphal book of I Maccabees 12:20-21, there is an account about the Spartans of Southern Greece claiming
they were related to the Jewish people and were in fact of the stock of Abraham.
Historian Flavius Josephus also has recorded this letter.

Prophecy through Moses in Deut. 33:22; that Dan as a lions whelp would leap from Bashan.
Bashan is located in ancient Lebanon.
Dan went into obscurity ~ Europe? Germany? Denmark? Danube River? Irish Tuatha de Danann? Rome? Greece?
Has he become an enemy to the ten tribes of Israel?
As a serpent in the way, judging his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
Maybe this is why Dan is not included in the twelve tribes in Revelation 7:4-8.

Another thought ~ Paul in his missionary travels went mostly to the Greek people. Gentiles or lost Israelites?
Someday we will get answers to these and other questions.

As for Denmark and Iceland; the prophecy to Asher in Genesis 49:20 “out of Asher, his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties.
Could this elude to danishes (desserts)?

Rueben is represented in France [south]. Their ensign was a “man”.
The northern part, Normandy ~possibly Benjamin . The inhabitants of Sweden, Norway, Finland may be Nephtali.
Judah is in the land of Israel and King David’s throne in Britton.
Gad could be represented in Austria; Issachar - Poland; Zebulon - Spain and Portugal.
The Assyrian guards that escaped with the Israelites are possibly Germany.

We could say, this would constitute a multitude of nations, along with the 170 nations with the British flag flown over them and of course, America.

In II Samuel 7:10 ~ “I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them anymore, as before time.” [second witness ~ I Chronicles 17:9]


The Throne of David (Israel) is no longer in Israel, the Jewish state, but God said several times in scripture that the throne was established forever. [ I Kings 9:5; Jeremiah 33:17, 20-21]

So where is the throne now?. . .in Britain (England)
It is rumored that while Israel was in Egypt, Judah’s younger son Zarah, traveled to the north and west.
His elder twin, Pharez, was awarded the kingly line. (Genesis 49:10; 46:12)
Zarah established the kingship and a kingdom in the British Isles.

And the story goes on from there. Ezekiel 17:22-24
"Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar,
and will set it;
I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one,
and will plant it upon a high mountain and eminent:
In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it:
and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar:
and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing;
in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish:
I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

There is a chapter in Isaiah that doesn’t correspond with the ones before or after.
I find it interesting. Isaiah 18 ~ America?
“Woe to the land shadowed with eagles wings ( God’s wings Psalm 91:4. The eagle is also the national emblem);
which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia (beyond Ethiopia is the Sahara Desert, the Atlantic Ocean and America) ;
saying, go to a nation scattered (Strong’s #4900 ~ tall) and peeled (shaven);
a people terrible from their beginning till now, a nation meted out and trodden down (
meted out means measured and marked by the square mile; a job that Abraham Lincoln took as part time work for a while);
whose land the rivers spoiled (the Mississippi cuts it in half from north to south.
The Ohio river runs east to west, beginning in Pittsburgh, PA, to the Mississippi)


Deuteronomy 28:1-12,13 ~ These scriptures were and are for Israel, but only actually fulfilled in the last two centuries.
The people in the land of Israel (Jews) can’t claim this; they are not lenders, but borrowers.
The head and not the tail is questionable; they are still a part of Israel.

Other scriptures give credence to Israel being in the isles to the north and west. (Isaiah 49:12, Jeremiah 31:10)
“The one who scattered Israel, will gather him”.
Hear ye nations and declare it in the isles afar off.

Scripture gives us an idea where Israel comes from in the world.
All over, but most concentrated in the Isles to the north and west of Jerusalem.
This includes the lands and other nations that are in the north and west also.

It would seem that we as Israel are certainly a blessed multitude of nations.

Study, study, study to prove all things!!

Genesis 49:1
“And Jacob called unto his sons, and said,
Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days."

You really need to think about this.