Abominable Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boulder257
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boulder257

Guest
While conversing with one of my friends recently someone made a passing comment about the Church that was named an abomination in the book of revelation. They are LDS and I think trying to take a jab at the Catholic Church, but I let it roll of my back.

I assume they are referring to the Revelation Chapter 17 verse, but not quite sure. Can anyone help me to understand this verse and it’s actual reference?
 
One veiw is: The beast is first century Rome and the harlot is first century Jerusalem. The Ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire (Rev 17:16), refers to Jerusalem being destroyed by Rome in (70 AD) after they rebelled.
 
Just looking around for why St. John would have used that type of language.

psychicinvestigator.com/Relig/Babyln.htm

Found this information about the Temple of Ishtar in Babylon and their organized hierarchy which either encouraged women or required women to serve as sacred prostitutes for plate money.
The Greek historian Herodotus (3 BC) tells us:
Click to expand...
'Babylonian custom compels every woman of the land once in her life to sit in the temple of love and have intercourse with some stranger…the men pass and make their choice. It matters not what will be the sum of money; the woman will never refuse, for that were a sin, the money by this act made sacred.
Click to expand...
After their intercourse she has made herself holy in the sight of the goddess and goes away to her home; and there after there is no bribe however great that will get her. So then the women that are tall and fair are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfill the law; for some of them remain for three years or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus."
Click to expand...
When I visited the ancient city of Ephesus - which contained the Temple of Artemis (from Acts 19) - we were shown an ancient walking stone that indicated the direction to walk to locate the temple prostitutes. That carved footprint is seen in the stone on the video below.

It’s well known that St. John lived in Ephesus and it’s also believed that he took the BVM with him. The video discusses those points.

youtube.com/watch?v=AZLB0DkkJnA&feature=player_embedded#at=201
 
ryanoneil said:
One veiw is: The beast is first century Rome and the harlot is first century Jerusalem. The Ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire (Rev 17:16), refers to Jerusalem being destroyed by Rome in (70 AD) after they rebelled.
Click to expand...
One problem with that is that the Book of Revelation seems to have been written after A.D. 70. However, I wonder if it would be too much of a stretch to say that this referred to the Jesusalem of Simon Bar Kokhba’s day (the 130’s).
 
Young_Thinker said:
One problem with that is that the Book of Revelation seems to have been written after A.D. 70. However, I wonder if it would be too much of a stretch to say that this referred to the Jesusalem of Simon Bar Kokhba’s day (the 130’s).
Click to expand...
Actually, because of this interpretation, St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It is given a late date today because modern scholars deny that St. John wrote the book to begin with.

Pax Christi.
 
shocktrooper said:
Actually, because of this interpretation, St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It is given a late date today because modern scholars deny that St. John wrote the book to begin with.

Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
That is very interesting.
 
shocktrooper said:
Actually, because of this interpretation, St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It is given a late date today because modern scholars deny that St. John wrote the book to begin with.

Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
I just want to clarify that I was speaking of the Book of Revelation when I wrote “St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD…”.

I meant to say, “The Book of Revelation is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD…”

Pax Christi.
 
Boulder257 said:
While conversing with one of my friends recently someone made a passing comment about the Church that was named an abomination in the book of revelation. They are LDS and I think trying to take a jab at the Catholic Church, but I let it roll of my back.

I assume they are referring to the Revelation Chapter 17 verse, but not quite sure. Can anyone help me to understand this verse and it’s actual reference?
Click to expand...
In the Book Of Mormon which they believe to be the most “perfect” book it says in 1 Nephi13:4-6 “And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church and the angel said to me: Behold the formation of a church which is the most abominable above all other churches which slayeth the saints of God and tortureth them and bindeth them down…and I saw that the devil was the founder of it.”

There are other verses as well. They teach this abominable church founded by Satan is the Roman Catholic Church.
 
shocktrooper said:
Actually, because of this interpretation, St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It is given a late date today because modern scholars deny that St. John wrote the book to begin with.

Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
Well, it does seem very unlikely, as writers tend to not become less educated, or change their “voice” so dramatically, or not know grammar they previously used correctly. Apocalyptic literature was quite popular in the latter 2nd century, as I understand it, and the convention to claim to be someone well-known was also common. Sort of like Anne Rice’s fictional accounts of Jesus’ life in her Christ the Lord series, she writes in 1st person, as Jesus. But we don’t think she is Jesus or trying to pretend to be.
 
Young_Thinker said:
One problem with that is that the Book of Revelation seems to have been written after A.D. 70. However, I wonder if it would be too much of a stretch to say that this referred to the Jesusalem of Simon Bar Kokhba’s day (the 130’s).
Click to expand...
shocktrooper said:
I just want to clarify that I was speaking of the Book of Revelation when I wrote “St. John is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD…”.

I meant to say, “The Book of Revelation is given an earlier date than what modern scholars have given it, e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD…”

Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
It appears that the setting and time frame portrayed in Revelation is pre-70, despite when it was actually penned. So, it could be written before or after the fact and I wouldn’t have a problem either way. My point being, John intended the Apocalypse to be read as describing world events that transpired from 66 to 70 A.D.

Even if his actual audience was Christians under Domitian they could see their own stuggle, compaired to the Christains under Nero, and find hope that they will also be victorius by remaining faithful to Christ. And that God will inevitably triump over every human institution that opposes him and uses its authority for evil.
 
HUNT-ING THE WHORE OF BABYLON: PART 1 (This Rock: September 1994)

Hunt-ing The Whore of Babylon: Part II (This Rock: October 1994)

Those might help.
 
Mumbles140 said:
usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation17.htm

The whore of Babylon and the beast refer to pagan Rome and the emperors. It prophesied the triumph of the Church over persecution in the Empire.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the whore of babylon is yet to come.

The seven heads are seven hills, Jerusalem not Rome.
They will go to war against the lamb, Why would the church do this?
The woman has great authority over the cities of the earth, Most countries ignore the Pope especially mine.

Many saints gone have said Jerusalem and not Rome.
 
Nelka said:
Wrong, the whore of babylon is yet to come.

The seven heads are seven hills, Jerusalem not Rome.
They will go to war against the lamb, Why would the church do this?
The woman has great authority over the cities of the earth, Most countries ignore the Pope especially mine.

Many saints gone have said Jerusalem and not Rome.
Click to expand...
I was just paraphrasing the footnotes from the link. If you have another source that provides a different interpretation, I’ll gladly look over it.
 
Mumbles140 said:
I was just paraphrasing the footnotes from the link. If you have another source that provides a different interpretation, I’ll gladly look over it.
Click to expand...
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and the Essential Catholic Survivors Guide says it refers to Jerusalem and Rome.

The text itself suggests Jerusalem. The harlot is called “the great city” in (Rev 17:18) a title earlier given to the city where Jesus was crucified (Rev 11:8). She is “seated” on the beast/waters (Rome). “Seated” symbolizes their unholy alliance in oppositon to Christians. Harlotry was a familiar charge against Jerusalem in the OT for her spiritual promiscuity with pagan nations (Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20; Ezek 16:1-25; 23:1-4, 11, 30). “Making her naked” in (Rev 17:16) recalls how the Lord punished Jerusalem with Gentile lovers who stripped her naked in the OT (Ezek 16:30-43) and “burning her up with fire” is found in (Ezek 23:22-31).

There is also a note: those who interpret the harlot as Rome (or Jerusalem) exclusively read this in terms of self-destruction caused by infighting and civil-war.
 
Boulder257 said:
While conversing with one of my friends recently someone made a passing comment about the Church that was named an abomination in the book of revelation. They are LDS and I think trying to take a jab at the Catholic Church, but I let it roll of my back.

I assume they are referring to the Revelation Chapter 17 verse, but not quite sure. Can anyone help me to understand this verse and it’s actual reference?
Click to expand...
Articles on the Whore of Babylon
The Whore of Babylon
catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp
Hunting the Whore of Babylon
catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp

Hunt-ing The Whore of Babylon: Part II
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410fea2.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top