The Whore of Babylon

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would like to see people's opinions on the historicist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which states that the Church of Rome is Babylon, mother of harlots and abominations upon the earth. Rather than focusing on all the misguided practices of the Catholic Church (that would take a whole discourse, far too much there for one post), instead I am focusing here on the Book of Revelation as indentifying Rome for what it is. You don't hear a lot of this position nowadays, people are too fascinated trying to identify American Presidents or Muslims leaders as the antichrist. However, such interpretations just don't stack up. Nowadays, the historicist interpretation is very limited, seen only in the more conservative Reformed circles and also in the Seventh-Day Adventist church. Anyway, from the evidence given below, I think it is hard to deny the Church of Rome is Mystery Babylon the Great, and will give rise to the antichrist when he comes. From what I can see this should be obvious from the Book of Revelation, but sadly Rome is wielding a new sword in the form of ecumenical work, and has inflitrated once sound churches to enslave their congregations with all the trappings of Popery. Anyway, below is my case:


1. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters (Rev 17:1)

This is the first clue as to the identity of Babylon. In prophetical language, a false or unfaithful church is called a harlot or a whore, both in the OT and the NT, and so immediately it is clear that Babylon is not just a malicious power to Christians, but a false and deceitful church. Mariology, prayers to saints, the veneration of angels, worship of idols and relics... these are all signs of unfaithfulness to Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church has institutionalised every one of them. Also, the bit about sitting upon many waters means having influence over many people in Bible prophecy, which the Roman Catholic Church (the RCC from now on) undoubtedly does.

2. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication (Rev 17:3-4)

Again, here all the clues point towards the RCC being this woman, Mystery Babylon the Great. Purple and scarlet are the most prominent colours to be used outwith the lower ranks of the RCC, and at any gathering in the Vatican the Pope is surrounded by a sea of scarlet and purple.

Just as Babylon is described, so too are the clergy, leaders, and buildings of the RCC decked with gold and precious stones.

3. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Rev 17:6)

This point hardly needs any further explanation when it comes to the RCC. The persecution with which Rome has sought to remove its enemies has taken many different forms. Most famous is the Inquisition, and besides this you have the brutal suppression of any new religious ideology seen as a threat to Roman power. Even prior to the Reformation the RCC crushed any opposition, be it from the Cathars, Hussites, Wycliffians etc. As the Reformation progressed, Rome would promise to uphold kings through its episcopal hierarchy, enforcing dogmas supporting the divine right of kings, and giving support to attrocities such as the St. Bartholomew Days massacre, and the Killing Time in which thousands of Scottish Covenanters were executed by the closet Papist Charles II. There is no doubt that the Roman Church has claimed the lives of far more honest Christians than any other single church could ever aspire to.

4. And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. (Rev 17:9)

Here, the seven heads of the beast on which the woman (the harlot church) is said to sit are said to be representative of seven hills. Again, this points blatantly to the city of Rome, which is as far as I know the only great city to be famous for being built upon seven hills. This is so obvious there's not really much I can add to it.

5. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. (Rev 17:18)

To remove any doubt, Babylon is said to be synonymous with a single city. Where else could this be, but the city of Rome? What other city on earth is synonymous with the church based in it? The city of Rome is the seven hills on which the RCC, the harlot church, sits. No other city could have been said to "reigneth over the kings of the earth" in John's time when he wrote the Book of Revelation.

In fact, the city of Rome itself is identified at numerous points throughout the NT as being the new Babylon, that would persecute the saints just as literal Babylon had done to the Israelites throughout the OT. The similarities between the old literal Babylon and the new mystery Babylon are very clear. "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isa 14:13). "I shall be a Lady for ever. I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a Widow, neither shall I know the loss of children" (Isa 47:7-8). And now Rome is well known today as the Eternal City. Indeed, after the destruction of the temple and the carrying away of Jewish ceremonial pieces to Rome (in the same manner as the Babylonian captivity), the name of Rome was used synonymously with Babylon by the Jews. They even have a proverb, "the Redemption of Israel will not be accomplished, before Rome is destroyed." Just as ancient Babylon called itself "Queen of the world" (Isa 47:7), now with rapid Mariology, the RCC calls Mary "Queen of the world", "Mother of God"! This is clear Babylonianism, nothing but paganism and never Christianity.

6. To those who object that Revelation refers to Imperial Rome, and not Papal Rome, that doesn't stack up. The whore of Babylon is not a openly heathen power, is described as being shrouded in mystery, disguised as a lamb, being an unfaithful bride to Christ. And the claim that the fall of Imperial Rome matches the fall of the beast doesn't stack up either. Indeed, the city of Rome was sacked a number of times. There was Alaric with his Goths, Attila with his Huns, Genseric with his Vandals, Odoacer with his Heruli etc. However, the nature of their relationship with Rome doesn't stack up for John's prophecies to have been fulfilled. Were these kings ever of the ten horns of the beast? Did they ever share power with Rome and rule the world with her? Having given their support to Rome, did they then betray her having leagued with the false prophet? The answer to all this is no, and so if we take the sacking of Rome by these kigns to be the fulfillment of Revelation, then John's prophecies failed completely.

Furthermore, Paul himself speaks of another power which was hindered from taking power by imperial Rome. "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2 The 2:6-7). The Papacy could only take power once heathen Rome was "taken out of the way", and this is what happened. Just like heathen Rome, it sits on the beast (the seven heads of which are said to represent the seven hills of the city of Rome), and is surely the emergent power Paul and John spoke of, and which Tertullian said that Christians prayed would be delayed from emerging by maintaining heathen Rome's power.

7. And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Rev 13:11-12).

Given the previous points, this shows that the (not a) antichrist will be a Pope. There are three beastly creatures mentioned in Revelation. Firstly is the dragon which fights with God in heaven and is cast down to earth, and this creature is said by John to be the satan himself. Then there is the first beast, which emerges out of the sea. The imagery is important, since remember in prophetical language the sea represents multitudes of people. Of course, the Papacy is a man-made instituation, which emerged from the greatest city of its time and came to rule over many people/waters. However, this second beast, disguised as a lamb (meaning he will impersonate Christ and pretend to be the second coming) is said to rise out of the earth. This beast is not a person, or an institution, but the son of perdition himself. Note how in the passage quoted above, it is said that this second beast "exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him", this means he must take power directly from the RCC, in other words he, the antichrist, will be a Pope.

8. The antichrist will take all the influence he is described as having through the modern ecumenical movement, which has allowed the Pope to become the single most respected religious leader amongst Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Muslims, pagans, whoever. We can be sure that the antichrist is not a secular power such as the Obamachrist as many US Evangelicals often imagine, since "He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 The 2:4)". With claims to being the "Vicar of Christ", and infallability since 1871, the Pope is dangerously close to clamiing such authority. And the harvest will be ripe for such a figure, as "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned into fables (2 Tim 4:3-4)". The observance of Biblical principles is almost unheard of these days, with people instead valuing man made traditions over them, whether it is observing holy days (condemned outright Galatians 4:10), repeating prayers in ritualistic fashion (condemned somewhere else, too tired to look it up), or any of the vast variety of un-Biblical doctrines that have consumed the "Christian" churches of today. All these are trappings of the whore of Babylon, designed to replace a relationship with God through ritualistic ceremonies and comforting doctrines.

And now that the Jews are retaking their homeland (a miracle in itself - considering the existence of a Jewish identity was seen as proof of God's existence hundreds of years ago, if they knew a Jewish state existed in the Holy Land they would run for the hills). Jerusalem is divided as Daniel prophecied, and so now the Pope will surely be the figure respected by Jew and Muslims alike who will stand on the temple mount and declare a seven year ceasefire, filling everyone with such joy and respect that they will bow down and worship him.

So... how do Catholics defend against this?

[ajaxfetish]

that the Church of Rome is Babylon
I think you'd be closer if you removed 'the church of.' At the time Revelation would have been written, the empire, not the pope, would be the one persecuting Christians. I don't think predicting the downfall of an institution that hardly existed yet, and which would be a strong point of Christianity once it was firmly established, would have resonated too well with the faithful. And as far as I know, in spite of internal concerns about corruption and efforts for reform, the papacy wasn't really villified by Christians until the reformation. Of course, I'm not an expert on the period. Maybe the papacy was already flexing its muscle, and this was resented in the east?


In prophetical language, a false or unfaithful church is called a harlot or a whore, both in the OT and the NT
I'd be interested to see convincing support for that claim.


Furthermore, Paul himself speaks of another power which was hindered from taking power by imperial Rome. "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2 The 2:6-7)
Most of your arguments against the imperial Rome interpretation are highly subjective, and could be interpreted either way. I'm not really sure of the meaning of this passage, for instance, and would be interested to hear the opinion of a disinterested Koine Greek scholar.

Ajax

[Louis VI the Fat]

I dunno. Is Materazzi involved? Then I'm tempted to agree.

[Beskar]

Washington DC was first named Rome and America was modelled after Rome. The whore of babylon has been often associated with the statue of Liberty,

America is the end of the world!

[Cute Wolf]

Resisting to post a link to a faithfreedom article that point that thingies on someone certain instead....

You never live where the Christianity is an oppresed minority don't you :grin:

[miotas]

Why must the seven hills be referring to Rome, couldn't it just as easily be referring to Jerusalem?

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyway, from the evidence given below, I think it is hard to deny the Church of Rome is Mystery Babylon the Great, and will give rise to the antichrist when he comes.

Is this serious? Do you really believe all this stuff or am I missing something?

[G. Septimus]

Is this serious? Do you really believe all this stuff or am I missing something?

well, I don't believe this end of the world thing................

[Strike For The South]

ha you used the word poppery

/drunk

[Banquo's Ghost]

Your problem, Rhyfelwyr, is that your position starts weakly.

You start with
the Book of Revelation, which states that the Church of Rome is Babylon (my emphasis) and then go on to draw biased conclusions from woolly metaphors. Since Revelation has long been included in the Catholic bible (usually worth remembering that there are many differing collections used as bibles) one would be tempted to think the Roman Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to your interpretation.

Finally, one wonders why it is important to have the Catholics "defend" their position against your interpretation.

[HoreTore]

Why must the seven hills be referring to Rome, couldn't it just as easily be referring to Jerusalem?

Bergen is a lot more fitting than both of them. And the whore is obviously Sissel Kyrkjebø (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissel_Kyrkjeb%C3%B8).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your problem, Rhyfelwyr, is that your position starts weakly.

You start with (my emphasis) and then go on to draw biased conclusions from woolly metaphors. Since Revelation has long been included in the Catholic bible (usually worth remembering that there are many differing collections used as bibles) one would be tempted to think the Roman Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to your interpretation.

Finally, one wonders why it is important to have the Catholics "defend" their position against your interpretation.

I think that is more or less the point I would make as well. Rhy, you start with the assumption that the Roman Church is Babylon.

Your basis for this is your Reformed theology, which casts the originator of Catholic theology as the Antichrist.

The problem is that the prophecy is extremely mercurial, and while it may refer to Rome in the authors mind, Isiah refers to Cyrus the Great in passages that have since been taken to refer to the Messiah.

[gaelic cowboy]

Goes to say summit decides meh theres cows to feed so the cowboy logs off

[Major Robert Dump]

The antichrist has to be someone the world will listen to and obey. So it definitely would not be the pope.

POPE: GO TO BED
WORLD: LOLZ

[Fragony]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/ohohoh.jpg

[Hax]

The antichrist has to be someone the world will listen to and obey. So it definitely would not be the pope.

The Dalai Llama?

http://duplicitous46xyprimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dalai_lama.jpg

Oh my!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm just having a bit of fun with y'all with the dramatic language and the epic apocalyptic scenario, I was reading a piece on Ian Paisley's EIPS site before I made the post lol...

But regardless to the extent to which I actually believe it, I do think that this position is dismissed too easily. Contrary to modern popular opinion, the belief that the Pope is the antichrist is not just some thing for lunatic fringe fundemantalists, it was in fact the dominant position of nearly all Protestants until probably the 20th Century. And tbh at first glance Rome is a pretty obvious option. I mean, we know that, in a tl;dr version of the OP:

1. the beast is said to sit on seven hills, which are those of a great city (given the context at the time Revelation was written, Jerusalem and then Rome first spring to mind)
2. this city will exercise great authority over the people of the earth (Rome appears much more suitable to this than Jerusalem)
3. the whore that rides the beast (in other words the church that sits on the city) will be decorated in purple and scarlet and great gems (purple and scarlet beign Roman colours to signify royalty/authority, and we all know the wealth of the Vatican)
4. the city is called Babylon (known to be a code word amongst Jews for Rome, when they couldn't identify it as such openly for fear of persecution)
5. the beast is called 'mystery', and is disguised as a lamb (ruling out the openly heathen Imperial Rome as the beast)
6. the beast will be destroyed by powers in league with the antichrist (again, ruling out Imperial Rome since it has fallen long before the antichrist has arisen)

As I said, I'm not really sure on this topic, but I would be happy if people at least concede that it's not ridiculous to come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation.


I think you'd be closer if you removed 'the church of.' At the time Revelation would have been written, the empire, not the pope, would be the one persecuting Christians. I don't think predicting the downfall of an institution that hardly existed yet, and which would be a strong point of Christianity once it was firmly established, would have resonated too well with the faithful. And as far as I know, in spite of internal concerns about corruption and efforts for reform, the papacy wasn't really villified by Christians until the reformation. Of course, I'm not an expert on the period. Maybe the papacy was already flexing its muscle, and this was resented in the east?

Revelation speaks of a woman sitting riding upon a beast, with the woman being decked in fine jewels and drinking of the cup of her fornication etc. My argument is, as you say, that the city of Rome is the beast. The Catholic Church is as the thread title states, the whore that sits upon the beast. And that is why Paul's comment in 2 The 2:6-7 that an even more monstrous power would arise within the city of Rome once the old power of Imperial Rome was removed. And this belief is why there are records from Tertullian of Christians praying for the preservation of Imperial Rome, since the power which would emerge after it would be far more terrible.

[Centurion1]

are you ********** i have never seen such blatant intolerance.

Hey congratulations if you think a single man is the antichrist for three centuries and he nver fufills that role over and over again dont you think your theory is probably wrong. Im, Im just done. always the world bashes Catholicism and we never defend ourselves, im not even going to have this argument.

go create a world in 2000 years or whatever you believe.

[bobbin]

It's clearly not talking about the roman catholic church because it was written before the institution even really existed and certainly well before it had any power. If you were talking about it in the prophetic sense, your interpretation fits better but so would many others.

In my opinion its pretty clear that the guy (or guys) that wrote it was completely batsh*t crazy and that trying to make sense of the whole thing is a waste of time.
Personally I think the world would have been better off without the book of revelations, as it seems to be the number one source material for the more ugly side of christianity, ie like preachers who just condemn everyone as sinners or the people who kill abortion doctors.

[Rhyfelwyr]

are you ********** i have never seen such blatant intolerance.

Hey congratulations if you think a single man is the antichrist for three centuries and he nver fufills that role over and over again dont you think your theory is probably wrong. Im, Im just done. always the world bashes Catholicism and we never defend ourselves, im not even going to have this argument.

go create a world in 2000 years or whatever you believe.

Boohoo, so Christianity doesn't have the peace and tolerance morality you got spoonfed out a textbook. Yes what a shocking thing to say, I must be a bible-thumper. But really, if the skeptics here actually think about is, how they can expect a text from ancient Palestine to reflect modern concepts of morality is beyond me.

To clarify here, I am not saying Chrisianity is a militant religion that wants to kill the infidels. Peace is great, but outright pacifism is stretching it. Likewise, it would be unChristian to force your beliefs on others, but Jesus nonetheless says he is the way the truth and the life. So if you follow someone else then its not my place to stop you, but Jesus was a hardline dude when it came to doing what was right. Funny how we never hear the stories about how he would turn people away if they refused to leave everything when they wanted to follow him. Tolerance is about letting people do their thing when you disagree with it, not saying that everyone must be right, which people nowadays seem to think (I blame multiculturalism).

In any case, I never said that all Pope's are the antichrist (obviously), what I said is that the antichrist will arise from within the Catholic Church, and take power for himself.

[ajaxfetish]

As I said, I'm not really sure on this topic, but I would be happy if people at least concede that it's not ridiculous to come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation.
Oh, I don't think it's ridiculous (I'm pretty sure that has been my church's official position). I just think it's wrong.

Ajax

[KukriKhan]

C'mon... the antichrist will be whomever sits as head of the UN with an actual army at his/her disposal. If thought everybody knew that.

[drone]

In any case, I never said that all Pope's are the antichrist (obviously), what I said is that the antichrist will arise from within the Catholic Church, and take power for himself.
Wait a minute. So Obama's Roman Catholic?

~D

[gaelic cowboy]

Scanning the thread the Cowboy tut tuts to himself about how silly it all is really in the modern day world. Unbeknownst he pick's up throwaway mobile phone and dials the number of a double glazing firm thereby setting in motion an improbable set of conincidences that will end in the Beast returning to Earth. The cowboy returns to normal service unaware he is effectively a catholic cylon in service to the beast mwah ha ha ha hears music in background Ave, Ave! Versus Christus! Ave Satani!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

C'mon... the antichrist will be whomever sits as head of the UN with an actual army at his/her disposal. If thought everybody knew that.

Nooooo.... It's the EU, treaty od Rome, remember?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nooooo.... It's the EU, treaty od Rome, remember?

The Pope will take seat number 666 in the EU. :yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Contrary to modern popular opinion, the belief that the Pope is the antichrist is not just some thing for lunatic fringe fundemantalists, it was in fact the dominant position of nearly all Protestants until probably the 20th Century. And tbh at first glance Rome is a pretty obvious option.

Well, the dominant position of nearly all Catholics until probably the 20th century was the belief that Protestants were devilish heretics that should be tortured/broken on the wheel/used for garden mood lighting upon detection. This is why Religion is Fun ® and should be available to all children. :juggle2:


4. the city is called Babylon (known to be a code word amongst Jews for Rome, when they couldn't identify it as such openly for fear of persecution)

Just to indulge my curiosity, why is the city called Babylon not, y'know, the actual city called Babylon? (Yes, I know - too simple).


As I said, I'm not really sure on this topic, but I would be happy if people at least concede that it's not ridiculous to come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation.

What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous. :beam:

[gaelic cowboy]

The Pope will take seat number 666 in the EU. :yes:

Evidence if any was needed that Ian Paisley is a Loon the seat 666 is indeed empty (http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=666)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Evidence if any was needed that Ian Paisley is a Loon the seat 666 is indeed empty (http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=666)

Actually, whilst I loathed the man for years, it cannot be disregarded that in the end, Dr Paisley overcame enough of his prejudices to emerge as one of the great statesmen of our island. In the end, it took the ultimate hardliners on both sides of the political divide to make the peace, and he deserves to be remembered fondly for making that peace, whatever his beliefs. In my opinion, that's the real truth of Christian charity - finding it in one's heart to abandon long-held "interpretations" of hatred and find the way to peace when all about you want the much easier road of war.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, the dominant position of nearly all Catholics until probably the 20th century was the belief that Protestants were devilish heretics that should be tortured/broken on the wheel/used for garden mood lighting upon detection. This is why Religion is Fun ® and should be available to all children. :juggle2:

Aye, a fine example of the Catholic Church to adapt to maintain its power. 500 years ago if you disagreed on a minor point of doctrine you were burnts at the stake, now they are building a palace of all religions in Rome and JP2 says every person in the world is saved.


Just to indulge my curiosity, why is the city called Babylon not, y'know, the actual city called Babylon? (Yes, I know - too simple).

A fair point, but put it to the rest of the criteria. Was it built on 7 hills (was it, I don't know?)? Did it exercise great influence over the peoples of the earth? Is it clad in scarlet and purple and fine gems (apparently not, since it's rubble now). As I said, the term Babylon was a codeword which Jews used for Rome since for obvious reasons they couldn't speak against Rome directly.


What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous. :beam:

And to the early patriarchs, the idea that one might claim supremacy over all others was ridicolous. To a Catholic in the Reformation, the idea that a Pope might claim infallability was ridiculous. To a Catholic 100 years ago, the idea that a Pope might build a palace of all religions in Rome was ridiculous. To everyone 2,000 years ago, the idea that the Jews might survive unlike any other diaspora was ridiculous. To anyone 200 years ago, the idea that a Jewish state might once again exist in its historic homeland was ridiculous. In the early days of the Jewish settlement when Palestine barren and Jews and Arabs shared their Palestinian identity, the idea that Israel might be divided along the lines Daniel states seemed ridicolous. A lot of crazy stuff has happened, how much is left to complete the picture...

[gaelic cowboy]

A lot of crazy stuff has happened, how much is left to complete the picture...

Zero is left to complete the picture because its all tribal iron age mythmaking

[Rhyfelwyr]

Zero is left to complete the picture because its all tribal iron age mythmaking

And yet it's all happening all around us.

[Kadagar_AV]

Isn't it cute when people try to drag christian beliefs into an intellectual debate?

It's like having a worldview centered around the easter bunny, only, you dont get candy :(

WHERE IS MY CANDY, damnit!

[G. Septimus]

*MK Fatality music*

[Rhyfelwyr]

Isn't it cute when people try to drag christian beliefs into an intellectual debate?

It's like having a worldview centered around the easter bunny, only, you dont get candy :(

WHERE IS MY CANDY, damnit!

Well, it was a debate on Christianity in the first place...


Your problem, Rhyfelwyr, is that your position starts weakly.

You start with (my emphasis) and then go on to draw biased conclusions from woolly metaphors. Since Revelation has long been included in the Catholic bible (usually worth remembering that there are many differing collections used as bibles) one would be tempted to think the Roman Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to your interpretation.

I didn't ever read up on this stuff presuming the RCC was the whore of Babylon, in fact I used to presume it was a Christian church that was just a bit corrupted. The thing is, it doesn't just give obscure whoolly metaphors. If it just said something obscure about an unfaithful church or something generic like that, I would say fair enough, it could mean anything. But it says the beast is a city built on seven hills, the church built on it will be decked in scarlet and purple. As for what the Catholic Church thinks of it, well past theories include that Rome is indeed the beast (since tbh I think people have to twist things to think that it is not), but this beast was only Imperial Rome. Another theory is that Rome is the beast, but that the prophecy speaks of future apostacy within the Roman See. Interestingly, on that last point, there are some quotes from old Popes that certain things which more recent Pope's have done would be a sign that he is the antichrist.


Finally, one wonders why it is important to have the Catholics "defend" their position against your interpretation.

That's what debates are for. So far, my argument has been dismissed mostly on the grounds of Revelation being nonsense, but that doesn't work for Catholics when it's part of their holy scripture.

[PanzerJaeger]

What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous. :beam:

Thank you. :bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous. :beam:Rubbish! The antichrist, this spawn of the whore of Babylon, is amongst us, and he's wearing the marks of the Beast. He's killed our Lord the Saviour already. :furious3:


https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7919/materazzitattoo650x547.jpg

[Banquo's Ghost]

That's what debates are for. So far, my argument has been dismissed mostly on the grounds of Revelation being nonsense, but that doesn't work for Catholics when it's part of their holy scripture.

It may well be part of their scripture, but most Roman Catholics that I know (being in a country full of 'em) don't take said scripture literally. Great story, lots of good stuff for working the guilt muscle, but not a political position.


Thank you. :bow:

Hi PJ! ~:wave: Good to see you back.


Rubbish! The antichrist, this spawn of the whore of Babylon, is amongst us, and he's wearing the marks of the Beast. He's killed our Lord the Saviour already. :furious3:

I'm no theologian, but that looks like a Materazzi Daemon from the eighth circle of Hell.

[gaelic cowboy]

It may well be part of their scripture, but most Roman Catholics that I know (being in a country full of 'em) don't take said scripture literally. Great story, lots of good stuff for working the guilt muscle, but not a political position.

Here here well said

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, my Bible makes it clear the Whore is a City, not an institution. So the City is Rome, torn down by the Beast and Ten Kings.

If the prophecy refers to anything it surely refers to the sack of Rome, which has already come to pass.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well the antichrist was originally supposed to be Michael Ironside, but then the devil tricked him and wanted that guy from LOTR to be the antichrist, which prompted Michael Ironside to yell "You said I could be the chosen one!!!!!!1" and shoot the devil.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, my Bible makes it clear the Whore is a City, not an institution. So the City is Rome, torn down by the Beast and Ten Kings.

If the prophecy refers to anything it surely refers to the sack of Rome, which has already come to pass.

I agree this idea works on quite a lot of the levels, but still in some it doesn't appear to add up. I gave examples of the various sackings in the OP, but in each case their relationship with Rome isn't the way John said it should be. Also, if the sacking on Rome was what John prophecied, we should have been living on the new heaven and new earth by now!

As for the woman being the city (Rev 17:18?), I suppose that is correct (sorry if I caused confusion by making the city and not just the seven hills appear to be the foundation that the woman rides on). Although it is synonymous with the Church of Rome, since the latter is the means by which the woman does all the things said of her (exercising authority over the multitudes etc).


What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous. :beam:

Hmm... you are not a hardline atheist are you? Would you call all religious beliefs ridiculous? If not, I don't see why my interpretation of Revelation has to be so absurd. Nowadays if you know nothing about the Bible or theology and just say that everything is an allegory then people will say wow isn't he knowledgeable and reasonable. But all I'm trying to do is make an honest understanding of what it's saying. If you'll concede the guy in the sky is there, then I don't see how this is far-fetched.


In my opinion, that's the real truth of Christian charity - finding it in one's heart to abandon long-held "interpretations" of hatred and find the way to peace when all about you want the much easier road of war.

Yeah, there is this sense due to the 'peace and tolerance' morality I was talking about earlier than somehow doing cartwheels to come to the conclusion that everyone is right is somehow the honest thing to do, always the hard path when its easy to descend into dispute. But this just isn't the reality much of the time. It would be much easier for me to join hands with the ecumenical movement instead of holding unpopular views, and just dismiss everything John says as an allegory that could mean anything - when in fact what I see in front of me is a very specific set of criteria for which only Rome fits the bill.

Also, your post holds the assumption that any interpretations which lead to dispute must be backward and wrong, something we are raised to believe as soon as we enter Primary School. The majority of replies haven't been about actually studying Revelation, instead just people saying its nonsense and that it can't be Rome. Why? Well just because Rome is such a big part of western culture and is so important both spiritually and politically, that it seems crazy to say that it could be the whore of Babylon. You have too many underlying assumptions, so whatever you see in Revelation can't point to Rome. Much the same way that if you tried to suggest to any Protestant in the 16th century that Rome wasn't the whore, then they would just dismiss you. Why? Because it's something that underlies such a huge part not just of obscure theology, but of the very world around them. I try not to get these ideas in the way of making an honest interpretation of what Revelation is saying (as you can imagine, I have influences which would sway me either way, what with being a Scottish Protestant on the one hand and we all know what it's known for lol, but at the same time being part of a modern liberal society that respects Rome as a spiritual centre).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also, I should point out that the anti-Christ isn't in Revelation, nor are "The Four Horsemen", there are four horsemen, true, but they aren't War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Also, I should point out that the anti-Christ isn't in Revelation, nor are "The Four Horsemen", there are four horsemen, true, but they aren't War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

There is a lot of debate over whether the second beast is the antichrist (since it mimicks a lamb but speaks like a dragon), or whether in fact its two horns are symbollic of the two witnesses. Although, this thread isn't actually about the antichrist remember.

[miotas]

The anti-christ has already returned to earth, he's locked up in a mental institution.

[Hax]

(since it mimicks a lamb but speaks like a dragon),

We know it now, the Beast must live in Indonesia!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Waran.jpg

It could be Cute Wolf (as he's Roman Catholic!)...he might just be the "wolf in sheepsclothing" you've been looking for!

Quick, fetch my torches and pitchforks!

[gaelic cowboy]

Its well know that the beast lives on Craggy Island

It has claws as big as cups (Dougal)
It has four ears, two for listening and two "are sort of back-up ears". Some might be on the inside of its head (Dougal)
It has a retractable leg so it "can leap up at you better" (Dougal)
It has magnets on its tail, so "if you're made out of metal, it can attach itself to you" (Dougal)
It lights up at night (Dougal)
It has a tremendous fear of stamps (Dougal)
Its yawn sounds like Liam Neeson chasing a load of hens around inside a barrel (Dougal)
It has no mouth, but instead has four arses (Dougal)
It only has eyebrows on Saturdays (Dougal)
It lives "on the place where there should be moors" (Mrs. Doyle)
The locals think it is some sort of giant fox (Mrs. Doyle)
It makes a "terrible howling noise" (Mrs. Doyle)
It is the size of a jaguar (Hud)
It has got big white teeth, as sharp as knives (Hud)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2798302234_31be7f9768.jpg

[HoreTore]

That's Victoria Beckham, right?

[Cute Wolf]

It could be Cute Wolf (as he's Roman Catholic!)...he might just be the "wolf in sheepsclothing" you've been looking for!

Quick, fetch my torches and pitchforks!

Wrong :clown: --> I attend Dutch Reformed (Calvinist) Church....... :wink:
And for me, the Pope is just another a little misguided priest..... :laugh4: he will end up still in heaven btw, as the only thing you need to save you is believe in Jesus..... :angel:

[Lemur]

I think the moral of this story is that we all would have been a great deal better off if the Revelation of John had been classified as Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha). And if someone had smothered Nostradamus in the crib, while we're at it.

[Cute Wolf]

I think the moral of this story is that we all would have been a great deal better off if the Revelation of John had been classified as Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha). And if someone had smothered Nostradamus in the crib, while we're at it.

Hope Armageddon comes more than 1000 years from now... amen.....

[bobbin]

I think the moral of this story is that we all would have been a great deal better off if the Revelation of John had been classified as Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha). And if someone had smothered Nostradamus in the crib, while we're at it.

It was consider that by some of the early chruch leaders, shame it never stuck.

[ajaxfetish]

Also, if the sacking on Rome was what John prophecied, we should have been living on the new heaven and new earth by now!
No kidding! Of course, Jesus did say something about 'this generation' not passing before his coming. I've heard that interpreted as the 'generation of mankind,' but that does seem a little farfetched, doesn't it? What would he say if it were the opposite? Don't worry about looking for signs, cause you'll be extinct by then, anyway? As I understand it, early Christians were ready for a second coming to happen any moment. And . . . it didn't. Now most of us are a little less edgy, just getting into a furor when some big calendar event hits, like the year 2000. What do we do if AD 7000 rolls around? The 7 seals/7000 years idea will be a little hard to sustain then, unless we're willing to start treating history with as much skepticism as geology. Ultimately, you just need to read your bible a little less literally, Rhyfelwyr. It could get you into trouble. Most of the prophecies you'll find are either gonna be things that had already happened when prophesied, or they'll be really vague and subjective, or they'll be things that happen all the time, like wars and natural disasters.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

No kidding! Of course, Jesus did say something about 'this generation' not passing before his coming. I've heard that interpreted as the 'generation of mankind,' but that does seem a little farfetched, doesn't it? What would he say if it were the opposite? Don't worry about looking for signs, cause you'll be extinct by then, anyway? As I understand it, early Christians were ready for a second coming to happen any moment. And . . . it didn't. Now most of us are a little less edgy, just getting into a furor when some big calendar event hits, like the year 2000. What do we do if AD 7000 rolls around? The 7 seals/7000 years idea will be a little hard to sustain then, unless we're willing to start treating history with as much skepticism as geology. Ultimately, you just need to read your bible a little less literally, Rhyfelwyr. It could get you into trouble. Most of the prophecies you'll find are either gonna be things that had already happened when prophesied, or they'll be really vague and subjective, or they'll be things that happen all the time, like wars and natural disasters.

Ajax

I don't usually tend to read it literally, I just felt like throwing this thread out there since I think people are too complecent in just dismissing everything as an allegory, and also in terms of their attitude to the ecumenical movement.

Also, I have came across the issue you raised with Jesus comments, and the most common explanation I have seen is that given the context in which he was speaking, he was referring to the first generation after the various other prophecies he had just mentioned had been fulfilled (in other words the first generation after Israel was founded, with the standard Biblical generation being seen as 70 years long). Alternatively, preterists say that Jesus did fulfil his prophecy and raptured all believers around 70AD. However, IMO, the most solid view is that of all the major Reformers that has apparently since been forgotten, aka partial-preterism, or the belief that Jesus spoke of events in 70AD, but given the nature of various other prophecies, this was a shadow of the later apocalyptic scenario, with the destruction of the temple following that old pattern of the Old Testament features foreshadowing their New Testament equivalent.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't usually tend to read it literally, I just felt like throwing this thread out there since I think people are too complecent in just dismissing everything as an allegory, and also in terms of their attitude to the ecumenical movement.

So you believe in the ravings of a half mad if not full mad middle easterner who likely never met Jesus if he existed at all who in all probability was writing a piece of fiction likely stolen from the Book of Daniel.

This colection of fariy stories is nothing more than a reimagining of various apocaliptic writings it's the ancient equivalent of a Battlestar Galactica reboot.

[Centurion1]

protestants are just jealous of Catholics.

and spell check says to capitalize catholic but not protestants. therefore we are a proper noun and you are not.

:tongue:


superior in all ways there's a Catholics contribution.

:clown:

[gaelic cowboy]

protestants are just jealous of Catholics.

and spell check says to capitalize catholic but not protestants. therefore we are a proper noun and you are not.

:tongue:


superior in all ways there's a Catholics contribution.

:clown:

Lol

[ajaxfetish]

he was referring to the first generation after the various other prophecies he had just mentioned had been fulfilled (in other words the first generation after Israel was founded, with the standard Biblical generation being seen as 70 years long).
I wonder how popular that interpretation was before the mid 1900s. I can see it being forgotten pretty quickly after 2018. Everyone likes to keep 2nd coming revelations in the immediate future, and have been doing their best to keep them that way for the last two millennia. I'll stick to the 'coming like a thief in the night' idea. I expect my personal '2nd coming' to happen when I die. That, to me, is a much more immediate possibility, and requires just as much readiness on my part. The very idea of the 2nd coming seems almost like a diversion from the fact that we need to be doing our best to be moral in the here and now. Whether Christ returns tomorrow or 50,000 years from now doesn't make a shred of difference in how we should live today. I don't think trying to eke a meaning out of opaque prophecies intended for a long-dead audience will help too much, either.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

superior in all ways there's a Catholics contribution.

Bah! I care not for the wordly splenodour of the Vatican, since just about every aspect of its 'holiness' directly contradicts Biblical teachings. Oh, how great and splendid are their bishops (check Mat 23:5-6)! Look how piously the bow before God (check Mat 6:6)! Look how they chant 'Ave Maria' till they're blue in the face (check Mat 6:7)! Look at how their monks remove themselves from the world and live with such discipline (check Mark 7:8-9)!


I wonder how popular that interpretation was before the mid 1900s. I can see it being forgotten pretty quickly after 2018. Everyone likes to keep 2nd coming revelations in the immediate future, and have been doing their best to keep them that way for the last two millennia. I'll stick to the 'coming like a thief in the night' idea. I expect my personal '2nd coming' to happen when I die. That, to me, is a much more immediate possibility, and requires just as much readiness on my part. The very idea of the 2nd coming seems almost like a diversion from the fact that we need to be doing our best to be moral in the here and now. Whether Christ returns tomorrow or 50,000 years from now doesn't make a shred of difference in how we should live today. I don't think trying to eke a meaning out of opaque prophecies intended for a long-dead audience will help too much, either.

Ajax

Thanks for your good posts btw. :bow:

But as I said to PVC, remember, this thread isn't actually about a literal reading of the end of the world scenario with the antichrist, rather it is about the historicist position that the Church of Rome is the whore of Babylon. I understand what you're saying about us always thinking its the end of the world, but I would point out that ever since 1948 this is the first time we are seeing the situation prophecied as being able to have a literal fulfilment. Back in the Reformation days which everything else seemed to fit the bill, they glossed over the issue of Israel. Often, they adopted the idea that national Israel was symbolism for spiritual Israel, or the church of all believers. So when the Puritans in England thought the end was near, they tried to finish the puzzle themselves by making England the Israel spoken of, by resettling all the Jews that had been exiled to the Netherlands, and giving the Barebones Parliament 70 members to model the Jewish Sanhedrin. I just think it's intersting that today we have the scenario for a more literal fulfillment.

[gaelic cowboy]

this thread isn't actually about a literal reading of the end of the world scenario with the antichrist, rather it is about the historicist position that the Church of Rome is the whore of Babylon

Historicism is a school of interpretation which treats the eschatological prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as finding literal earthly fulfillment. Hmm seems pretty definite to me that you believe it's literal if you believe its historicist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Historicism is a school of interpretation which treats the eschatological prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as finding literal earthly fulfillment. Hmm seems pretty definite to me that you believe it's literal if you believe its historicist.

Rubbish. Calvin, as a historicist, argued that Jesus was the third temple spoken of in the prophecies, as opposed to a literal third temple based in Jerusalem.

Historicism and the interpretation of end times events are two separate issues. You can be a historicist and believe in that there will be a literal third temple, or you can believe in a literal third temple without being a historicist. The reason why Calvin viewed Jesus' body as the symbolic third temple was due to his belief in Covenant theology (commonly innapropriately known today as 'Replacement theology'), as opposed to dispensationalism (which is most common amongst the Brethren in Northern Ireland), which has a different understanding on the changing nature of the covenants and their significance.

[gaelic cowboy]

Rubbish. Calvin, as a historicist, argued that Jesus was the third temple spoken of in the prophecies, as opposed to a literal third temple based in Jerusalem.

Historicism and the interpretation of end times events are two separate issues. You can be a historicist and believe in that there will be a literal third temple, or you can believe in a literal third temple without being a historicist. The reason why Calvin viewed Jesus' body as the symbolic third temple was due to his belief in Covenant theology (commonly innapropriately known today as 'Replacement theology'), as opposed to dispensationalism (which is most common amongst the Brethren in Northern Ireland), which has a different understanding on the changing nature of the covenants and their significance.

And yet it will all still be wrong as its all rubbish try and paint people as minions for the Anti-Christ all you want it wont change the fact there is no GOD.

[seireikhaan]

Alright, let's say you're right, and that the Roman Catholic church is the whore of Babylon. And....? What do we draw from this? Something we're supposed to actually do?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the moral of this story is that we all would have been a great deal better off if the Revelation of John had been classified as Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha). And if someone had smothered Nostradamus in the crib, while we're at it.

Quite. Luthor was inclined to agree, and so am I. Given that the Revelation is anti-Calvinistic I can only imagine that Calvin kept it in to scare people. It's worth noting that Revelation doesn't say any of the things it's commonly thought to say, the number of the Beast is not even certain, it could be 616!

[Rhyfelwyr]

And yet it will all still be wrong as its all rubbish try and paint people as minions for the Anti-Christ all you want it wont change the fact there is no GOD.

No reply regarding what we were actually talking about? Nice diversion, but that's another thread for another time. Note that the OP was specifically adressed to Catholics and those for whom the scripture is of some significance.


Alright, let's say you're right, and that the Roman Catholic church is the whore of Babylon. And....? What do we draw from this? Something we're supposed to actually do?

Fear the Lord? Now you mention it, I have no idea lol. I might make a video for my family so they know what to do if they miss the rapture.


Quite. Luthor was inclined to agree, and so am I. Given that the Revelation is anti-Calvinistic I can only imagine that Calvin kept it in to scare people. It's worth noting that Revelation doesn't say any of the things it's commonly thought to say, the number of the Beast is not even certain, it could be 616!

I'm familiar with Luthers changing views on the scripture, but what maketh ye say that Revelation is anti-Calvinistic? Also, I know your position on the scripture, but if you try to look at it from the perspective of someone who believed it was all inspired (without necessarily being a literalist), how would you interpret it? I still think the historicist position is a perfectly reasonable one to take, despite the outrage it draws due to how perceptions of the RCC have change since the idea was first formulated during the Reformation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm familiar with Luthers changing views on the scripture, but what maketh ye say that Revelation is anti-Calvinistic? Also, I know your position on the scripture, but if you try to look at it from the perspective of someone who believed it was all inspired (without necessarily being a literalist), how would you interpret it? I still think the historicist position is a perfectly reasonable one to take, despite the outrage it draws due to how perceptions of the RCC have change since the idea was first formulated during the Reformation.

Well, the Revelation says that people will be judged according to their deeds; it also says people can be removed from the Book of Life.

To be honest, I think John had too much Hash that night. Even if an Angel was talking to him clearly not all of it came through without some static.

Also, the whole "Seven Hills" thing doesn't stand up too well when you consider the extreme, even by Biblical standards, the prophecy has for the number.

[gaelic cowboy]

No reply regarding what we were actually talking about? Nice diversion, but that's another thread for another time. Note that the OP was specifically adressed to Catholics and those for whom the scripture is of some significance.

Hmm the cowboy scan his reply and see's he did highlight the words Argued, Belief and Interpertation in your post seems they would be pertinent to the discussion. Oh I am aware it's about catholics and thats why I was mildly amused earlier on in the thread posting jokes but I have become more and more concerned you believe it this silly fiction would also endanger my own life if your idea is allowed to flourish unchecked.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, the Revelation says that people will be judged according to their deeds; it also says people can be removed from the Book of Life.

Ah, fair points. Although, comments in the same vein on both of those issues can be seen elsewhere throughout the scripture. The Epistle to James is practically dedicated to showing the importance of works and how they impact your judgment, and IIRC Moses asks not to be blotted out of the Book of Life at one point.


Also, the whole "Seven Hills" thing doesn't stand up too well when you consider the extreme, even by Biblical standards, the prophecy has for the number.

Aye, that is one thing that crossed my mind. Seven is one of those 'Biblical numbers', along with 3/12/40/70 etc. In the case of seven, I think it is generally used to signify the resurrection. Plus of course it is used a lot throughout Revelation with the seven seals etc.

But then it does specify the seven as referring to hills (or mountains in some translations)....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hmm the cowboy scan his reply and see's he did highlight the words Argued, Belief and Interpertation in your post seems they would be pertinent to the discussion.

How so, not even in the OP did I argue that it was anything more than that. Especially when given the context in which John was writing Revelation, we can be sure that much of it was put in a sort of riddle-form, due to the authorities of Imperial Rome.


Oh I am aware it's about catholics and thats why I was mildly amused earlier on in the thread posting jokes but I have become more and more concerned you believe it this silly fiction would also endanger my own life if your idea is allowed to flourish unchecked.

Yes, and I live in permanent fear that the Pope is sending out his Jesuit agents to kill me in my sleep for not taking communion with him...

[Crazed Rabbit]

So... how do Catholics defend against this?

I'm planning on ignoring it, which seems the most productive use of my time.

Seriously, when I saw this as the most recently replied to thread when browsing the forums, I thought it was the name of some mafia game.

How can one believe that the Church founded by an apostle of Christ is the 'beast of revelation'?

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

How can one believe that the Church founded by an apostle of Christ is the 'beast of revelation'?

One of your Holy Fathers puts it best:

"It is very difficult to bear patiently that one who is our brother and fellow bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of Antichrist are near?" (Lib. iv. Ep. 76)

And so with the doctrine of Papal supremacy, the old Popes themselves denounce their successors as antichrist.

[rvg]

Rubbish. Calvin, as a historicist, argued that Jesus was the third temple spoken of in the prophecies, as opposed to a literal third temple based in Jerusalem.

Historicism and the interpretation of end times events are two separate issues. You can be a historicist and believe in that there will be a literal third temple, or you can believe in a literal third temple without being a historicist. The reason why Calvin viewed Jesus' body as the symbolic third temple was due to his belief in Covenant theology (commonly innapropriately known today as 'Replacement theology'), as opposed to dispensationalism (which is most common amongst the Brethren in Northern Ireland), which has a different understanding on the changing nature of the covenants and their significance.

Since Calvin wasn't a Christian his "findings" are irrelevant.

[Lemur]

How can one believe that the Church founded by an apostle of Christ is the 'beast of revelation'?
For that matter, how can one believe in a literal beast of revelation, anyway? Really, the Revelation of John has to be the most abused and misused book in the Bible.

[gaelic cowboy]

For that matter, how can one believe in a literal beast of revelation, anyway? Really, the Revelation of John has to be the most abused and misused book in the Bible.

Yeah I posted earlier its nothing more than a Battlestar Galactica style reimagining of The Book of Daniel anyway which ties in nicely with my assertion that I must be a Lapsed Catholic Cylon sleeper agent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How can one believe that the Church founded by an apostle of Christ is the 'beast of revelation'?

CR'tis mostly a Scottish / North Ireland belief, methinks. They're pretty serious about their sectarianism up there.

I've heard it once before, some guy preaching to me on the street. You know, standing next two big boards, 'whore of Babylon', 'end of the world', 'repent now!' and all that. But I think he was referring to the seven hills of Paris, the five slain kings as the five monarchies. Would be cool, decadent Paris bringing about the apocalypse. But I think not.


Me, I'm still convinced it refers to the Italian football team. 'Five slain kings' - that's the five World Cup finals. The seven hills are obviously Rome, where these hounds of hell celebrate their devilish accomplishments. And Materazzi has the marks of the beast tattooed all over his wretched body.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since Calvin wasn't a Christian his "findings" are irrelevant.

It's all in your Bible too, just go by it and not your man-made traditions and philosophies.


For that matter, how can one believe in a literal beast of revelation, anyway? Really, the Revelation of John has to be the most abused and misused book in the Bible.

I'm not taking it literally, since I'm not arguing that Jesus is going to rapture us all from a giant seven-headed monster.


'tis mostly a Scottish / North Ireland belief, methinks. They're pretty serious about their sectarianism up there.

'twas the belief of just about every Protestant until really a century or two ago. I wish people didn't take such knee-jerk reactions to it. If it wasn't a reasonably thorough interpretation then none of the great reformers like Calvin or Luther would have held it. I've laid down why I think it's a reasonably interpretation. Even many Catholics accept its speaking of the city of Rome (since that much is pretty much undeniable). And I've said why it refers not just to Imperial Rome.

Now, I'm not saying it's the only interpretation, but IMO it looks right now to be the best.

[Louis VI the Fat]

'twas the belief of just about every Protestant until really a century or two ago. And what of your boy Knox? Paisley? That direct line between 'em over the last five centuries?


I wish people didn't take such knee-jerk reactions to it.

Now, I'm not saying it's the only interpretation, but IMO it looks right now to be the best. Lord knows I'm never the last to speak evil of Rome. But I can't accept this whole Babylon stuff because it describes the Catholic Church from an internal Christian perspective.

Then again, I do not think it is all any more...erm...'at first glance contrary to common logic', than believing that three is really one, or that one can heal the wretched by talking to water and sprinkling it on them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what of your boy Knox? Paisley? That direct line between 'em over the last five centuries?

Of course there is a link, and I'm glad of it, it's good that some people have kept alive the spirit of the Reformation. When it comes to the Bible, its truth should be no different 500 years ago than it is today.

Although I wouldn't over emphasise the anti-Catholicism within Scottish Protestantism nowadays. If the literature my Plymouth Brethren relatives send me is anything to go by, its still very big in Northern Ireland, but not so much here. Most of the Kirk membership are happy to hold prayer serives with Catholics, and walk around town waving palm leaves and generally being idolatrous. There are some people that are more hardline, a sort of unholy alliance of evangelicals and Orangemen. But really, don't overestimate the strictness of the Kirk and its observance of Protestant principles. If you read the bottom paragraph on this link (http://www.confessingchurch.org.uk/news-events/ga09-statement/lochcarron-sky-overture/), it's sadly revealing.


Then again, I do not think it is all any more...erm...'at first glance contrary to common logic', than believing that three is really one, or that one can heal the wretched by talking to water and sprinkling it on them.

Well when you add in the omnipotent God it all makes sense. :wink:

[Hax]

It's all in your Bible too, just go by it and not your man-made traditions and philosophies.

The Bible is man-made too. What, did you think it dropped out of the air in exactly the same version you have now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course there is a link, and I'm glad of it, it's good that some people have kept alive the spirit of the Reformation. When it comes to the Bible, its truth should be no different 500 years ago than it is today.

Although I wouldn't over emphasise the anti-Catholicism within Scottish Protestantism nowadays. If the literature my Plymouth Brethren relatives send me is anything to go by, its still very big in Northern Ireland, but not so much here. Most of the Kirk membership are happy to hold prayer serives with Catholics, and walk around town waving palm leaves and generally being idolatrous. There are some people that are more hardline, a sort of unholy alliance of evangelicals and Orangemen. But really, don't overestimate the strictness of the Kirk and its observance of Protestant principles. If you read the bottom paragraph on this link (http://www.confessingchurch.org.uk/news-events/ga09-statement/lochcarron-sky-overture/), it's sadly revealing.



Well when you add in the omnipotent God it all makes sense. :wink:

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church, specifically Augustine and Jerome, edited and translated the Bible. So if Rome is anti-Christ, then the Bible is a product of anti-Christ.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Bible is man-made too. What, did you think it dropped out of the air in exactly the same version you have now?

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.


The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church, specifically Augustine and Jerome, edited and translated the Bible. So if Rome is anti-Christ, then the Bible is a product of anti-Christ.

It's more the Church that emerged after they started to develop the idea of Papal Supremacy that is criticised. As the quote I gave a few posts up shows, the Papacy clearly shifted it's doctrine in order to push that idea. Until that point, the ancient theologians and scholars that it produced are treated like any other in the Reformation writers. Heck, Augustine was Calvin's hero figure.

[Centurion1]

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.

First off you are just picking and choosing what you find convinent about he catholic church. "oh well he was okay but they aren't." Second, lol at what you just said. i hope that is a joke. otherwise *facepalm*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's more the Church that emerged after they started to develop the idea of Papal Supremacy that is criticised. As the quote I gave a few posts up shows, the Papacy clearly shifted it's doctrine in order to push that idea. Until that point, the ancient theologians and scholars that it produced are treated like any other in the Reformation writers. Heck, Augustine was Calvin's hero figure.

So God decided that the Roman Church would be good until.... when exactly? 1200? 1382? 1415?

This, more than anything Calvin's legacy. Wyclif may have denounced the Church of his own age as Anti-Christ and irredeemably corrupt, but he was a priest living in a country under pressure from Rome and faced with TWO POPES!

Calvin's theology is deterministic, if the Church has fallen it is because God has withdrawn his Grace, and for no other reason. Ockham's Razor suggests the proposition is absurd, because it makes a mockery of the divine mind and is needlessly complex.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So God decided that the Roman Church would be good until.... when exactly? 1200? 1382? 1415?

It's just been a story of gradually increasing corruption, gradually spreading it's dominion over the earth. Until we get the apocalyptic finale. *yay*


Calvin's theology is deterministic, if the Church has fallen it is because God has withdrawn his Grace, and for no other reason. Ockham's Razor suggests the proposition is absurd, because it makes a mockery of the divine mind and is needlessly complex.

Far from making a mockery of God, the purpose of election is to show his own glory. Rather than people saving themselves through their own merits, God reveals his power through them. Did God make a mockery of himself when he withdrew his presence from the ancient Israelites? No, but rather in returning to them he showed how entirely dependent the church was on him for its deliverence, even for its daily bread when he fed them manna.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's just been a story of gradually increasing corruption, gradually spreading it's dominion over the earth. Until we get the apocalyptic finale. *yay*



Far from making a mockery of God, the purpose of election is to show his own glory. Rather than people saving themselves through their own merits, God reveals his power through them. Did God make a mockery of himself when he withdrew his presence from the ancient Israelites? No, but rather in returning to them he showed how entirely dependent the church was on him for its deliverence, even for its daily bread when he fed them manna.

So the body of Christ is perpetually rotting? That certainly does not glorify God.

As to the reformed definition of election, it simply cuts down the number of the saved from the whole of God's children to merely His prophets. One cannot reconcile with a Reformed Christian because he believes he is justified and sanctified, and his opposer is a limb of the Devil.

Calvinism has caused division within the body of Christ beyond mere schism. It's totalitarian doctrine belittles Man, God's greatest creation and therefore belittles God.

[gaelic cowboy]

Awright lads lets all calm down (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIsTKpAoE4)

[Hax]

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.

...why do we call it "the gospel of [apostle]" then?

[Centurion1]

...why do we call it "the gospel of [apostle]" then?

im praying hes kidding because if not hes a flipping imbecile (no offense unless he believes it of course). KJV was written in King Jame's time......... yah know the king of ENGLAND! bit beyond 25ad

I do liket he KJV i use one and im a godless popist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So the body of Christ is perpetually rotting? That certainly does not glorify God.

Given the individualistic manner in which Protestants treat the issue of salvation, I would disagree with this. It also displays too earthly a focus, since the body of the church is all the saints wherever they may be, that's why Catholics pray through the dead after all (yes I said 'through', not 'to', don't panic!).


As to the reformed definition of election, it simply cuts down the number of the saved from the whole of God's children to merely His prophets.

I don't understand what you mean by this? Why would only people blessed with the gift of prophecy be saved?


One cannot reconcile with a Reformed Christian because he believes he is justified and sanctified, and his opposer is a limb of the Devil.

Almost every branch of Christianity believes there are the elect, and the reprobate (man that word sounds harsh but it's what they use). The only difference is how they came to be that way, and for all a Calvinist knows the other person could be destined to be saved on their deathbed.


Calvinism has caused division within the body of Christ beyond mere schism. It's totalitarian doctrine belittles Man, God's greatest creation and therefore belittles God.

Far from being totalitarian, Calvin actually argues extensively on the importance of 'liberty of conscience'. It was practically Cromwell's cathphrase and I've seen other figures like Edwards used it a lot as well. I do indeed believe everything takes place within the framework of God's providence, but that does not mean that people are not all rational actors. Also, with the Calvinistic understanding of human nature, surely it glorified God more than any other, since the regeneration that he grants is fully transformative, taking sin and making it into righteousness. As opposed to other understandings, in which God merely helps people along a bit, usually at thier own bidding.

[Rhyfelwyr]

im praying hes kidding because if not hes a flipping imbecile (no offense unless he believes it of course). KJV was written in King Jame's time......... yah know the king of ENGLAND! bit beyond 25ad

I do liket he KJV i use one and im a godless popist.

Actually it is known as the KJV because it only became widely published during James' time when the Puritans wanted to read it more. KJV-onlyism can be traced back to the Culdees who brought it to Britain in the 3rd century to defend against Romish expansionsim.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given the individualistic manner in which Protestants treat the issue of salvation, I would disagree with this. It also displays too earthly a focus, since the body of the church is all the saints wherever they may be, that's why Catholics pray through the dead after all (yes I said 'through', not 'to', don't panic!).

Ah, but the Church can reasonably be said to be the felowship of God's servants. If the Catholic Church was ever just then it would follow that it was the earthly manifestation of this fellowship. It's proposed decline into depravity therefore constitutes an abandonment by God of the greater part of what should be the body of Christ. Since in Calvinistic theology the precise membership of said body is defined by God, that means he has allowed the Earthly manifestation of the body to rot. Further, the Roman Catholic Church must have once been the body of Christ, and the Pope it's Earthly head because he authorised the Biblical Canon, which ensured it was those books which Calvin asserted were infallable.

This is why Biblical infallability can ONLY be asserted by Roman Catholicism.


I don't understand what you mean by this? Why would only people blessed with the gift of prophecy be saved?

There is a reason Reformed Churches are smaller than other denominations; they contain only the Elect, and the Elect are God's special servents, his prophets and his servents on Earth. This is the horror of Calvinism, admitted by Calvin but denied today, Calvinism proposes a far less merciful and loving God.


Almost every branch of Christianity believes there are the elect, and the reprobate (man that word sounds harsh but it's what they use). The only difference is how they came to be that way, and for all a Calvinist knows the other person could be destined to be saved on their deathbed.

Actually, the words are praedestini (fore-chosen) and praesciti (fore-known) in Latin. Elect and Reprobate are Early Modern inventions and have no basis in the Latin theological language of the West.


Far from being totalitarian, Calvin actually argues extensively on the importance of 'liberty of conscience'. It was practically Cromwell's cathphrase and I've seen other figures like Edwards used it a lot as well. I do indeed believe everything takes place within the framework of God's providence, but that does not mean that people are not all rational actors. Also, with the Calvinistic understanding of human nature, surely it glorified God more than any other, since the regeneration that he grants is fully transformative, taking sin and making it into righteousness. As opposed to other understandings, in which God merely helps people along a bit, usually at thier own bidding.

"Liberty of Conciense" is only exercised after the application of Calvinistic Grace. It isn't relevent to the discussion we are having, therefore.

[Centurion1]

Ok A. that is not 25 AD.
B. it was heavily Edited for King James from culdee version.
C. Culdees are weird

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

im praying hes kidding because if not hes a flipping imbecile (no offense unless he believes it of course). KJV was written in King Jame's time......... yah know the king of ENGLAND! bit beyond 25ad

I do liket he KJV i use one and im a godless popist.

The RSV or NRSV are much better, the latter glosses extensively.

An unglossed Bible is like an unshod horse, of no use for traveling hard roads.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually it is known as the KJV because it only became widely published during James' time when the Puritans wanted to read it more. KJV-onlyism can be traced back to the Culdees who brought it to Britain in the 3rd century to defend against Romish expansionsim.

Just so eveyone knows: He is talking total rubbish, the KJV is based primarily on the Latin Vulgate.

[Centurion1]

Just so everyone knows: He is talking total rubbish, the KJV is based primarily on the Latin Vulgate.

actually he is partially correct. however, the KJV is only a little bit the culdee "bible". He is stretching the significance. Basically they replaced some vulgate lines with culdee ones. But not very many.

I don't know i dont think god would mind i use a KJV even though im catholic. I just like my family copy its very very very nice.

[Slyspy]

If the Bibles been mucked around with so much, what is the point of this discussion?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

actually he is partially correct. however, the KJV is only a little bit the culdee "bible". He is stretching the significance. Basically they replaced some vulgate lines with culdee ones. But not very many.

I don't know i dont think god would mind i use a KJV even though im catholic. I just like my family copy its very very very nice.

It also took lines from the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles, it was still the Vulgate though.

Found this site; mostly silly nonsense: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html The date it gives for the Culdees though is Dark Age, not Late-Classical. So more of the Vulgate there as well, I suspect. after all, the Bible would have arrived in Britian either via the Vulgate or the inferior Old Latin Bibles.

A Catholic perspective, far less overtly political: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04563b.htm

Wiki seems not to know either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdee

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.


Ah, but the Church can reasonably be said to be the felowship of God's servants. If the Catholic Church was ever just then it would follow that it was the earthly manifestation of this fellowship. It's proposed decline into depravity therefore constitutes an abandonment by God of the greater part of what should be the body of Christ. Since in Calvinistic theology the precise membership of said body is defined by God, that means he has allowed the Earthly manifestation of the body to rot.

The thing is it was never the 'Catholic Church' back then, it was just part of the wider catholic church. The earthly manifestion of a church was your local congregation. As the scripture says, some were given the gift of prophecy, others teaching, others preaching etc... but all were equal members with Christ alone as the head.

And it's hardly surprising that God would allow the earthly state of the church to decline. The prophets themselves give enough indication that this was always going to be the case


Further, the Roman Catholic Church must have once been the body of Christ, and the Pope it's Earthly head because he authorised the Biblical Canon, which ensured it was those books which Calvin asserted were infallable.

This is why Biblical infallability can ONLY be asserted by Roman Catholicism.

The Protestant position on the scripute is justified by the scripture itself (circular I know, but they did argue it was a sort of self-evident truth). Also, the Synod of Hippo which finalised the canon far preceded any concept of the Roman Catholic Church, since the very term 'Roman Catholic' would have appeared to be an oxymoron to the early patriarchs of Rome. And even then, all the fantastical stories about temporal influences suddenly declaring the canon for their own ends are myths, there had increasingly been a general consensus within Christianity in what ought to be regarded as scriptural for hundreds of years prior to that date.

Furthemore, the Reformers never took the Papacy's position on the grounds of Papal authority. Luther of course changed his views a number of times, and Calvin addresses Luther's concerns in the Institutues, and provides his own reasoning for why certain books ought to be considered canonical. They never simply followed the RCC's decision.


There is a reason Reformed Churches are smaller than other denominations; they contain only the Elect, and the Elect are God's special servents, his prophets and his servents on Earth. This is the horror of Calvinism, admitted by Calvin but denied today, Calvinism proposes a far less merciful and loving God.

The way in which God's mercy is displayed is different in Calvinism. Without God's sovereingty in our salvation, people must save themselves, and so really his mercy is revealed to no one. With Calvinism, God saves those that were sin itself, and makes them blameless before him. The fact that God saves some may seem harsh when we are still looking through a glass darkly, but it should be remembered what the chief end of all things are - to glorify the Lord.


Actually, the words are praedestini (fore-chosen) and praesciti (fore-known) in Latin. Elect and Reprobate are Early Modern inventions and have no basis in the Latin theological language of the West.

Good point, unfortunately I have no knowledge of these linguistic things, other than what they sometimes point out during a work. But since neither of us use the "you choose but he knows first" cop out, these terms have a similar effect to 'elect'?


"Liberty of Conciense" is only exercised after the application of Calvinistic Grace. It isn't relevent to the discussion we are having, therefore.

I thought when you called Calvinism totalitarian you were referring to the fact that we are not able to alter our fate, there is no choice as such. Surely if God refused to administer grace to a fallen mankind, that would make him more of an absentee landlord than a totalitarian ruler?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.

The Roman Celtic Church was Nicene etc. and therefore Catholic. Pre-Dark Age Britain probably had four Archbishops. So the whole proto-Protestant thing is just silly rhetoric.


The thing is it was never the 'Catholic Church' back then, it was just part of the wider catholic church. The earthly manifestion of a church was your local congregation. As the scripture says, some were given the gift of prophecy, others teaching, others preaching etc... but all were equal members with Christ alone as the head.

Not so, Episcopacy and Arch-Episcopacy were far more effective in the Roman Empire because of the excellent secular administration.


And it's hardly surprising that God would allow the earthly state of the church to decline. The prophets themselves give enough indication that this was always going to be the case

An assertion, not an argument.


The Protestant position on the scripute is justified by the scripture itself (circular I know, but they did argue it was a sort of self-evident truth). Also, the Synod of Hippo which finalised the canon far preceded any concept of the Roman Catholic Church, since the very term 'Roman Catholic' would have appeared to be an oxymoron to the early patriarchs of Rome. And even then, all the fantastical stories about temporal influences suddenly declaring the canon for their own ends are myths, there had increasingly been a general consensus within Christianity in what ought to be regarded as scriptural for hundreds of years prior to that date.

Hippo was the Domain of Augustine, the great Catholic Christian. Augustine sepnt his whole life as priest and bishop fighting heresy. To suggest he had no conception of a Catholic Chuch as an institution is patently false; he would also have recognised the Pope as its head. After all, Hippo was not a General Synod and Augustine's conclusions had to be authorised by the Pope in order to take general effect.

So that torpedoes your argument pretty neatly, I think. The Bible is Catholic.


Furthemore, the Reformers never took the Papacy's position on the grounds of Papal authority. Luther of course changed his views a number of times, and Calvin addresses Luther's concerns in the Institutues, and provides his own reasoning for why certain books ought to be considered canonical. They never simply followed the RCC's decision.

Calvin and Luthor only had acces to the authorised Catholic texts in Greek and Latin. Do you not see the inherrent problem? Their Bibles were also "textually deffective" as we say.

Sorry, got to go now.... will respond to the rest later.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Roman Celtic Church was Nicene etc. and therefore Catholic. Pre-Dark Age Britain probably had four Archbishops. So the whole proto-Protestant thing is just silly rhetoric.

Of course it's silly rhetoric, as I said I was joking, I thought someone, particularly Gaelic Cowboy, might get what I was on about. And while it's absurd to talk about the Celtic Church as Protestant, there was certainly no such thing as the "Roman Celtic Church" (I've never heard such term bofore). All 'Celtic Christianity' is is a collective term for the various forms of Christiainty which existed before Britain came under Papal influence. Furthermore, although it was episcopal, the nature of episcopal authority was very different from the forms it took on the continent. One of the most distinguishing features within Celtic Christianity was the fact that it was heavily monastic based. All the major religious centres in Britain during this term emerged from monasteries, the best known example being Iona.

That's not to say that the myth of the Celtic Church somehow being purer and less corrupt by power politics is true. Iona is well known to have played a big role in the dynastic politics of Dalriada, with its leaders such as Adomnan coming to support the Cenel nGabrain dynasty, and rewriting their name into the history books. This is what gave Scotland the myth of the ancient King Fergus that founded Scotland in the 6th century.


Not so, Episcopacy and Arch-Episcopacy were far more effective in the Roman Empire because of the excellent secular administration.

How efficiently they maintained their episcopal system isn't the matter at hand. My point was that there was no church based in Rome that claimed to be the sole, universal church of all believers. If anything, Constantinople was dominant after the other 3 centres at Antioch/Jerusalem/Alexandria fell to the Mohammedans. And remember that quote I gave in reply to CR earlier from Pope Gregory - if the See of Rome was to claim supremacy, it would be regarded as a a sign of antichrist.


An assertion, not an argument.

I'm in a bit of a rush now but I'll look up the qoutes later, there is plenty of doom and gloom talk on the fate of the church.


Hippo was the Domain of Augustine, the great Catholic Christian. Augustine sepnt his whole life as priest and bishop fighting heresy. To suggest he had no conception of a Catholic Chuch as an institution is patently false; he would also have recognised the Pope as its head. After all, Hippo was not a General Synod and Augustine's conclusions had to be authorised by the Pope in order to take general effect.

So that torpedoes your argument pretty neatly, I think. The Bible is Catholic.

As I said above, there was no such thing as the 'Roman Catholic Church' during Augustine's time. There was a church based in Rome, but no RCC. There was no RCC when the Synod of Hippo took place, and even then that was as I said merely the consolidation of what was widely accepted throughout almost all the Christian world for well over a century before. The RCC of today cannot rightfully claim any monopoly on the establishment of the scripture.


Calvin and Luthor only had acces to the authorised Catholic texts in Greek and Latin. Do you not see the inherrent problem? Their Bibles were also "textually deffective" as we say.

Sorry, got to go now.... will respond to the rest later.

I thought we were talking about the selection of canon, rather than the differences in accuracy between various translations? When discussing what should be canon, the Reformers tended to look at things such as the extent of their use by early Christian writers, how consistent they are with the scripture as a whole (that's why Luther threw out James/Hebrews/Revelations, he thought some points were against the 5 Sola's), and in particular whether or not they were attributes to an apostle, and the evidence to support this was sufficient.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhy, you are stubonly ignoring historical fact. As early as the 4th Century AD the Pope declared himself leader of the Church, indeed his role as sole Western Patriarch and effective Chancellor of the Emperor made him de-facto ruler of the Western Church. Jerome undertook the Vulgate translation under Papal endorsement and Augustine had Pope Leo authorise the conclusions of the Non-Ecumunical Council of Hippo. ALL Western Christianity, in Britain and elsewhere looked to Rome. The "Celtic Christian" tradition diverged after the Legions abandoned Brittania, but in 400 AD it was as Roman as anywhere else. The point about all this is that there is no independent tradition which the Reformers drew upon. Everything came from within the Catholic Church, including the scripture.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy, you are stubonly ignoring historical fact. As early as the 4th Century AD the Pope declared himself leader of the Church, indeed his role as sole Western Patriarch and effective Chancellor of the Emperor made him de-facto ruler of the Western Church.

Why, I haven't argued against what you just stated (although I am highly dubious that papal supremacy was asserted in the 4th Century, maybe you mean primacy?). You say yourself he was head of the Western Church, and I have no problem with that. What I was complaining of is Papal supremacy, whereby the Popacy claims to be the sole manifestation of the church of all the saints on earth. There are no foundations for such a doctrine, it is heretical. I would not take issue with the Bishop of Rome, if he was indeed all that that title suggests. Furthermore, the nature of his headship of the church has changed. The spiritual authority granted to the Popes has been gradually increasingly for the past 1,500 years or so. The early bishops of Rome would never have dreamt of assuming such authority for themselves, and there are a number of quotes to the effect of the one I gave CR above where the past Popes denouce the actions of their successors as those of antichrist. This poses a major problem for the Pope when his position is based on continual apostolic succesion from those same Popes.


Jerome undertook the Vulgate translation under Papal endorsement and Augustine had Pope Leo authorise the conclusions of the Non-Ecumunical Council of Hippo. ALL Western Christianity, in Britain and elsewhere looked to Rome.

I never denied that all of western Christianity looked to Rome. My point is that you are exaggerating the role of the Papacy in the formation of the canon. Hippo was the conslidation of what was already accepted - the gradual formation of the canon took place by consensus throughout all of Christendom, indeed the greatest single influence came from Athanasius in Alexandria, which Pope Damascus copied a few decades later. There is no reason to attribute the canon as it exists today to Rome.


The "Celtic Christian" tradition diverged after the Legions abandoned Brittania, but in 400 AD it was as Roman as anywhere else. The point about all this is that there is no independent tradition which the Reformers drew upon. Everything came from within the Catholic Church, including the scripture.

Of course, the Reformers never drew upon the Celtic Church, 'tis a myth that the Celtic Church was some sort of pure, uncorrupt predecessor of the later Reformed churches. But it is equally untrue to say that it was as Roman as anywhere else, especially as early as 400AD. The decline of Celtic Christianity only really began after the victory of the Roman faction at the Synod of Whitby in 644 AD in which the old Celtic method of calculating easter was abandoned. Indeed, Scotland only officially came within the authority of a Roman archbishopric in 1151. York and Canterbury had claimed authority over Scotland for some time before that, although it was never recognised in Scotland itself, leaving it in a somewhat ambiguous position. Although it is fair to say that Papal influence was still very strong by that point, it just lacked a formal stance.

[gaelic cowboy]

Wow, I can't believe I started a serious discussion on the Culdees. That was a joke people, as was the 25AD thing. The Culdees were an obscure monastic reform movement from around the 8th century IIRC. But they've gained some sort of mythical status in the Protestant mindset in Northern Ireland with the whole ethnic/religous debate over Celts and Cruithin and Catholicism and Celtic Christianity, with the Culdees supposedly defending the purer Celtic Church from the influence of Rome. Another related favourite is the debate over whether St. Patrick was a Protestant. As for the Celtic Church, well it was distinct from Rome, but it sure wasn't Protestant. It got very superstitious with parading saints bones and things like that.

Yes I remember a lot of that stuff it seemed to start entering public discourse in maybe early to middle nineties especcially the Cruithin stuff which came from an earlier more academic field. It's rubbish really mostly used as a kind of "Lost Tribe of Israel" narrative to further UDI for the North some really bad fellas were involved in spreading that stuff back in the day. I think it was picked up again in the nineties because there was a feeling under the surface the Conservatives were going to betray the UUP and the wider unionist community.

There was no "Celtic Church" as such but it was heavily influenced by a more I suppose Celtic cultural tradition stuff like Abbots being top dog etc. The Abbot of Iona was effectively the boss and there were many differences of doctrine with Rome which for a long time was completely cut off diplomaticaly. It would not be true to say it was separate but it was not administered by Rome either it was on autopilot effectively for a while till Rome got back on its feet.


The decline of Celtic Christianity only really began after the victory of the Roman faction at the Synod of Whitby in 644 AD

Correct. The faction was defeated and retreated to more remote areas of Britain they of course acknowledged the successor of Peter as it were but had wanted a separate system I believe there is precedent for it today in Western Ukraine.

[Shaka_Khan]

Washington DC was first named Rome and America was modelled after Rome. The whore of babylon has been often associated with the statue of Liberty,

America is the end of the world!
I always thought the Statue of Liberty looked hot. She reminds me of a young Brooke Shields.

[Don Corleone]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

[Strike For The South]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.


I knew it....I bet it's the good protastent babies to....with our bonde hair and blue eyes

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmmm heretics

[Centurion1]

i like babies. its how the church has controlled the irish population for so long.

[Strike For The South]

i like babies. its how the church has controlled the irish population for so long.

Racist....my dog is Irish

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded. I didn't create this thread just because I stumbled across Ian Paisley's site, or just because I'm a Scottish Protestant. In the past I just always presumed the Catholic Church was Christian but maybe a little corrupt, when I came across the doctrine first it was in Calvin's 'Institutes' (a very thorough book on doctrine indeed), and that's what made me wonder and take it more seriously.

If you are an atheist and dismiss Revelation, then fine. But if you are a Catholic, can somebody please tell me why I shouldn't believe John speaks of Rome? Or if that is conceded, then why I should think he only speaks of Imperial Rome despite the evidence in the OP to the contrary? Or why the early Bishops of Rome appear to denouce specific actions of their successors as those of antichrist?

And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece (http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=antichrist_intro) is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why, I haven't argued against what you just stated (although I am highly dubious that papal supremacy was asserted in the 4th Century, maybe you mean primacy?). You say yourself he was head of the Western Church, and I have no problem with that. What I was complaining of is Papal supremacy, whereby the Popacy claims to be the sole manifestation of the church of all the saints on earth. There are no foundations for such a doctrine, it is heretical. I would not take issue with the Bishop of Rome, if he was indeed all that that title suggests. Furthermore, the nature of his headship of the church has changed. The spiritual authority granted to the Popes has been gradually increasingly for the past 1,500 years or so. The early bishops of Rome would never have dreamt of assuming such authority for themselves, and there are a number of quotes to the effect of the one I gave CR above where the past Popes denouce the actions of their successors as those of antichrist. This poses a major problem for the Pope when his position is based on continual apostolic succesion from those same Popes.

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.


I never denied that all of western Christianity looked to Rome. My point is that you are exaggerating the role of the Papacy in the formation of the canon. Hippo was the conslidation of what was already accepted - the gradual formation of the canon took place by consensus throughout all of Christendom, indeed the greatest single influence came from Athanasius in Alexandria, which Pope Damascus copied a few decades later. There is no reason to attribute the canon as it exists today to Rome.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.[/QUOTE]


Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

Hay Don,

I know you're offended, and so am I, but you've come up with some doozies in your time too. You once told me Canterbury sought to supplant Rome.


As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.


And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece (http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=antichrist_intro) is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.

The relevance of Papal Supremacy is that it is only once this doctrine is asserted that we can truly say such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church existed, in the sense that it is the sole, catholic/universal church, based in the city of Rome. And while this was an issue of governance within the western church as you said, it is for our purposes here a much more important point. It is only after this (what maybe even you may see as) heretical doctrine was declared that the legitimate position of the Bishop of Rome was usurped by the power that would emerge as the Papacy we know today. The reason why I am saying all this is because you said that in declaring the authority of Hippo, the western church accepted the canon on the grounds of Papal authority. But I would argue there was no Papal authority at this time, since there was no Roman Catholic Church. No claims of supremacy, just the Bishop of Rome.


Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

The fact that more people believe something doesn't make give it any more weight in an argument. Most 'Christians' today wouldn't even be considered such when taking their own statements of their faith and pitting them against Jesus' own words.


Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

Heh, I guess when we have threads like this, there are always going to be so many differences underlying our positions that it's hard to understand where the other person is coming from. If you agree with most Catholic practises, you will see the expansion of the RCC as the flourishing of the church on earth. If you disagree, you will see its expansion as the terrifying and unstoppable fulfilment of apocalyptic prophecies.

Remember, despite assertions, often by atheists, that Catholics/Protestants are forever attacking each other over minor points of doctrine, this simply isn't true. In many respects, Catholicism is the polar opposite of the religion I practice. Catholicism is based on ecclesiastical hierarchy, ritualistic worship, a belief in human goodness, free will, mysticism etc. I don't just slightly deviate from these, my beliefs are the total opposite. 0% agreement.

If this wasn't the case, I would have no problem with the ecumenical movement (which for me, is fast becoming what multiculturalism is to Fragony). I go to a Presbyterian church, even though I disagree with a number of its practises which came about as a result of liberal influence. Another Christian I know wonders why I don't just join his own much more fundamentalist Baptist Church. But, I try not to get all righteous and turn away Christian fellowship just because of minor doctrinal differences. Look what Paul put up with with the Corinthians! But with Catholicism as I said it's more than this, it really is the opposite of what I believe. It's the opposite of my conception of what Christ taught and what he was, hence it is antichrist.

[HoreTore]

Racist....my dog is Irish

You keep an Irishman as your dog?!?