The Whore of Babylon

[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. 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, 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.

[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, it's sadly revealing.



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

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

[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.