The Whore of Babylon

[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.

[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.

[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?