Skip to comments.Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes
Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Read before you post. I do have a problem with the word "whoring" in this context.
Essentially the same thing? Would you rather your mother were called a "heretic" or a "whore"? If it takes more than a few seconds to figure it out, don't bother responding.
Gosh, is it OK if I respond? Gee, I hope so.
Maybe you're just sensitive to the word "whore," but I see no real difference between "heretic" and "whore" in this context. In fact, I think "heretic" may be worse. Calling someone's religion a heresy is extremely harsh, don't you think?
What is the simple, true worship of God as revealed in Holy Scripture? Come on now, you have all the answers at your fingertips. Don't disappoint.
I understood that you did not like purely religious discussions. Did I get that wrong?
You should have said, "end of the 7-Hilled, Mystery Babylon" system.
As a matter of fact, Malacy says it himself at the end of the article leading this thread: "after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."
The words "whore" and "harlot" are not banned on the Religion Forum. But when you use the words on the Religion Forum it had better be academic and/or in reference to a passage from the Bible.
Using such words to characterize another confession is hate mongering per se - on the order of Jack Chick - and will not be tolerated.
There will no further warnings - this thread is on zero tolerance.
Heresy is a verfiable accusation. It's a word that has an actual religious or theological connotation. "Whoring" is being employed as imagery of societal pondscum (as it were) to personify our holy mother Church. Given the context of the "Whore of Babylon", Topcat is calling us in league with Satan. If Topcat needs a Thesaurus, there are plenty of online resources. Using the word "whore" is intellectually lazy and designed to shock, not make efficacious.
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
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)
I don’t think that Rome does today, either. It did in the days that John wrote the Revelation.
Neither does or did Jerusalem or Cincinnati.
In any apparent sense, none of those cities currently rule over the kings of the earth.
Rome is the only candidate from John’s era. And it is a certainty, and because of that, it must be considered a candidate.
One important question for me is this: what was the dominant religion of Rome at the time John wrote Revelation?
It certainly was NOT Christianity.
We’ve heard of the pantheon of Roman gods, but was there a dominant expression of that religion? a dominant worship?
There is no temple there, so a Jew cannot see it that way about Jerusalem.
Typically - typically - it's ex-Catholics who need to feel more secure in their decision to leave the Church by returning in the night to burn it down.
There may well have been at the time John wrote Revelation. (Yes, I know the arguments about the dating. I find the arguments for the late dating of Rev unpersuasive. In fact, I find arguments for the late dating of most of the NT unpersuasive.)
That's the blessing of being in the Religion Forum rather than having dinner together. :-)
It like pope and protestant hurtling all those anathemas at one another from a distance.
Also, keep in mind that the status of individuals in any communion before God is a matter between them and God. Just because the system they are involved with is apostate, that does not necessarily mean they are themselves lost for eternity.
YMMV, but it would seem to me that the dominant expression was the worship of the emperor. Their refusal to offer even so much as a pinch of incense in worship of the emperor was what got the early Christians in trouble with the state.
The modern equivalent would seem to be the Totalitarian State, as exemplified by fascists, national socialists, and the various international communists.
Are you a member of the Thought Police?
You've just said -- in a cute sidways way -- that Protestants follow a false religion.
Now you're putting words into my mouth. There are elements of truth in all Christian denominations - some more than others. However, the fullness of truth resides in Catholicism, if only because Protestant denominations don't believe in the sacraments as a source of grace.
But let's look at it logically. If God is One, how can His body ever be more than one? Do you proclaim Buddhism and Islam to be on a par with Christianity? If you tell someone you think Christianity is superior to those religions, why are you so "hateful"? Aren't all religions equal? Aren't the Branch Davidians practicing by the same Truth as you?
Philosophically, why have any religious affiliation whatsoever unless you think it's the right one? What kind of faith do you have if you're not sure? What kind of benevolent God would build a Church filled with uncertainty of where He really is? God does not sow confusion. That's the work of the devil. There was one, Apostolic, Catholic Christian Church until the Reformation. 1500 years. Enter confusion.
There is One Truth. It's Jesus Christ. And He built His Church upon Peter so that we would not be abandoned to No other denomination has a rightful claim to this mandate but those which enjoy Apostolic succession.
Feel free to disagree. I promise I won't call you a hater if you think I'm wrong. I don't think God loves me any less than you. I don't think He wants me in heaven any more than He does you. But there is a Way, and that Way was built on Peter.
Where there's life there's hope.
Like I said, hatred. Just said with a touch of sugar. Have you read the entire thread? I'm not part of the "thought police." I didn't ask to have two posts removed. When they were removed, however, I did think it fair to ask to have post 44 removed. I see it remains. And I see how the game on this forum is played.
Oops, almost forgot this choice bit. How kind. But you didn't use that word, so who cares?
Rome of John's day could not have been the "harlot" since, as a pagan nation, it was never in a covenant relationship with Jehovah God. Only Israel (Jerusalem) qualified for the designation "great harlot" in the 1st century. Old Jerusalem was the "harlot" who happened to be involved with spiritual fornication with pagan Rome against the Christian church. It was the apostate Jews by the hands of "lawless men" (Rome) who crucified the Messiah (Acts 2:23).
The Reformers saw the spiritual entity we call the Roman Catholic Church as fallen in much the same way as ancient Israel. Rome was in covenant relationship at one time, but had abdicated their position and gone after foreign gods through a gradual process of assimilation of false practices.
And Post 43, to which 44 was a response, also remains.
Not so hypocritical after all.
However, one of the possibilities and the best one because of the 7 hills explanation remains Rome.
I, however, dont 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)
Could be. Along these lines, though, I think it will be not necessarily "Christian" per se, but something that seems to bear the promises of Christianity - peace, eternal life, abundant blessing, and a benevolent supreme being.
Consider: the secular world is steeped in these pursuits -
1. peace (tolerance, relativism);
2. eternal life (health at any cost; embryonic research, cloning, genetic manipulation and screening);
3. abundant blessing (materialism, comfort, gluttony, sexual freedom);
4. a benevolent supreme being ("me").
The way I see it, Christianity in its entirety will be rejected. The Catholic Church - by far the biggest target -will, by its teachings, be seen as the enemy of eternal life, the enemy of abundant blessing, then enemy of the peace, the enemy of the supreme being. Christians will have to choose either the secular idea of salvation, or the Church's.
All of this dovetails into the number of the beast - "666".
1. "6" being the number of man (created on the 6th day)
2. "7" being the number of perfection - or "God".
3. "6" iterated three times at once emphasizes something of intensely human (thus, flawed) characteristic striving after "7" (God, perfection).
4. Therefore, the Mystery Babylon is that which mimics the qualities of the Gospel by all appearances, but is woefully, intensely short of perfection.
IMHO, secularism is that which is the Beast, that which is Mystery Babylon, and that which will crucify the Church. It is the all-powerful city on the seven hills...
Did you ask to have it removed?
Potato, po-tah-to. Loosely assigning values like "hate" to someone's expressed opinion is a tool of the far left. It's the argument of last resort because, like calling my Church a whore, it's designed to evoke an emotional reaction and doesn't convey any useful information.
As I asked you before, did you read the whole thread? Including the moderator's reasoning for tossing out two posts? We've been informed that "stirring up hate" isn't allowed; hence my ironic use of the word "hatred."
Go back, for goodness' sake, and read from the beginning. Find out who had the posts pulled and why. Find out what the moderator said about "hate mongering." Don't talk to me about tools of the far left. Flipping hypocrisy.
Please note the substance of my observation: #43 ascribes blasphemy to "Rome", #44 ascribes heresy to "protestantism".
To object to #44, while ignoring #43 strikes me as very odd.
It was a inexact term better applied to loose women.
I think keeping track of who called whom a heretic is a waste of the Internet’s electromagnetic flux.
My whole point.