Question for X-SDA or knowledgeable Catholic

[Church_Militant]

Losh 14
CLAIM 8: Antichrist is a church that revives ancient Babylon’s paganism, which is the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: This is where it becomes so contrived I’m just not going to waste more time going further. For one, where is the description of Babylonian worship? I’ll say it again:

The church has many practices and doctrines that are not biblical. She validates them by saying there are traditions and that traditions are equal with the bible. Where did they originate? I believe the statement to refer to confusion. This is also the meaning of Babylon. I am not going compile a long list, for me one error is enough for others I know more may be required, but look at this. The church and many Christians believe that at death the righteous goes to heaven, they also believe that Jesus would return for His saints. How can that be? We are in heaven! What will he come for? That is confusion! A man you are agreed to meet is in your house and then you are going to get up to go for him. How can we not see these things?

By all means show us specifically where the Bible says that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. I’ve read the Bible completely many times and read it still, and can tell you for a fact that even including the 7 Deuterocanonical books that we have…that doctrine is nowhere to be found.

Your whole eschatology is fouled up. It’s like Jesus Himself said, “And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”

 

[juliamajor]

Losh 14
CLAIM 3: The Antichrist is a worldwide church, so it must be the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: Non-unique. Accrording to adventist.org, the SDA church is active in 125 nations - thus also sitting on many waters. This could easily reference) pagan Rome - which was arguably the center of the world at the time - but would not exclude Israel.

Out of all these the Catholic church truly can make such a claim. She supersedes the others.(Who says it’s an institution-why not a person?you read Revelation as if it were a narrative(which it is not) and not as a highly symbolic apocalyptic tale(which it is).Now , anyone can be the anti christ or antichrists via the internet.)
CLAIM 4: The Antichrist is a wealthy church, so it must be Catholic.
OBJECTION: The GDP of Vatican City - as a nation - is less than that of Rhode Island. Too much is made of the wealth in Church property - honestly, what is the value of the Sistene Chapel, or the Agony of St. Theresa? Most dioceses run at a deficit with the bulk of their spending on social welfare. Hardly the mark of a harlot.

We all know that wealth is measured in property and in this age is more valuable than cash, that devalues more than any other asset. ]((I love how you justify your presumption"we all know"actually we all don’t know.And again ,via scripture eisegesis reading into something that is not there -that was made for a historical past and so fanciful as to be indecernible.One of the main reason it almost didn’t make the canon-it becomes a danger because it is so easy to twist, manipulate and read anything you want into it,which you and yours have done with wild abandon)

CLAIM 5: The Antichrist is a church built on seven hills, which is Rome and so is the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: The seven hills of Rome are: Quirinal, Viminal, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Coelian, Aventine. Vatican City is named for the only hill on which it is built - the Vatican. It’s not part of the Rome that John understood and the reference, if it were to the Vatican, would be lost on his audience. The seven hills refer to the pagan Roman Empire that was situated there.

Do not forget that the church came out of Rome. Daniel’s prophecy clearly states that: and the church took the name to further verify the fact, “Roman Catholic Church”. ( actually the church came out of the east-it developed in the west.Besides Daniel was speaking of ancient Rome-he was speaking of political and military power.I tend to take the Jewish view of Daniel-that it is not prophetic but an apocalyptic work-a big difference. besides Jerusalem sits a seven hills also)CLAIM 6: The Antichrist is a religious power that dominates civil powers.
OBJECTION: This is not substantiated by Rev 17. The Whore’s fornication is not equivalent to her control of them, and Scripture does not go so far as to assert an equivalence. The Whore’s guilt is her relatons with them, and may very well be her submission to their control. Again, 1st century Israel submitting to Roman rule.

“She commits fornication with them”. What better way to get what you want. Women have gotten there way for years by the same. Thousands have lost their lives by the same, leave families, lost money by the seduction of women. The church is cast in such a role.(I gotta say this is my favorite piece of tripe.what utter trash and insult.Women always get their way by seducing you poor gullible little sweethearts!oh, boo hoo.the poor innocents-us women have had sooo much power over the centuries -yeah right-what history books have you been reading?
Besides you should know in the Bible that whore.whoredom. fornication was used by the prophets to describe the unfaithfulness of Israel-or don’t you know that? nah -you know that but you prefer the ywisted version because it fits your agenda but not the truth)CLAIM 7: The Antichrist is a persecuting church.
OBJECTION. Persecuting? Yes. Church? No, Roman Empire. We have evidence of pagan Imperial Rome’s persecution of Christians (ie, the martyrdom of Polycarp). So far, what you have produced is biased sources, one of which (American Textbook of Popery) is reproduced in the link.

How did the church react to what it called heresy? How best to deceive than the look like the real think? Remember wolf in sheep clothing?(like E.G. White?) Many are looking for a wicked person to do the job but thatl would be obvious(remember Occam’s razor?the obvious is also the most likely and the most logical.). Jesus said that even the elect is in danger of being deceived. What is obvious can not deceive and a church is beat to do this job in the context.( your SDA you gotta know alot about twisting scripture deceiving folk(White did a great job with that one along with her bud, alexander hislop)We are talking a particular place and time.We know that “the beast” is a Roman emperor.as far as persecutions ,you have the Empire and Israel-logic would tell you, if you actually used logic that is)

 

[christian_777]

That’s funny since we have both scripture and history that shows clearly that the earliest believers were very much Catholic in what they believed.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Please stop spreading this lie. The Catholic Chruch came about long after the first christians and apostles. This claim is an attempt to validate the church.

 

[christian_777]

All this from the denomination/cult whose leaders have several times now predicted the day and time of Christ’s return in direct contravention of the New Testament…and been proved wrong each time.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible that says that everything that we Christians believe and practice has to be found in its pages, and I defy you to provide any such scripture.

I even offered the opportunity twice here on these forums and no one could do it.

• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

It is clear that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
and Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
These two quotations from the bible make it clear that any and all things that do not comply with the bible is not of God. Tradition has no claim as the will of God only God’s word. Even Jesus said that he did not come to change but to fulfill Matt.5;17-18. Who else had the right but Him.

 

[christian_777]

That has to be one of the more bizarre quotes by sedevacantists.One othe unique things about the Catholic church is papal infallibilty.Are you denying that?If you do that takes you out of mainline Catholicism.Do you believe that Jesus lied when He said that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail?
What sacraments have been changed-?I’m pre vatican II and I’ve seen no change in the sacraments.Pope teaches contrary to the Church?Which Pope is that?Somebody who doesn’tmeet your doctrinal standards(whatever they are)?What you gonna do -pick up your marbles and go somewhere else because a pope doesn’t live up to your standard of fidelity?What about your fidelity? Does it shift with what you like and dislike?

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; even Popes. Who should I believe the bible or the church?

 

[juliamajor]

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; even Popes. Who should I believe the bible or the church?

Should I believe a real history book or the ersatz claptrap that SDA’s promote as history?And Yeah popes sin-so what does that have to do with anything? apparently you know nothing about the Catholic dogma or doctrine. Only the venom you’ve been poisoned with
.Ugly ,ugly-poisoning of minds and hearts is always ugly, unchristian and vile. But you seem very comfortable with this sanctimonious perjury.

 

[cevaughnjr]

This is for my Protestant brothers and sisters:
I am not equipped to argure the various points that he/she raise but I wil say this: only prayer will change the hearts of those who go strictly by their own interpretation of scripture and non-acceptance of Tradition. It is superfluous to argue or discuss with those who only accept the literal translation of scripture. If every Protestant really accepted the literal translation of scripture, they too would be receiving the body and blood of Christ at Mass as we Catholics do. Why do they only accept the literal translation that fits their teachings?
Charles

 

[christian_777]

Should I believe a real history book or the ersatz claptrap that SDA’s promote as history?And Yeah popes sin-so what does that have to do with anything? apparently you know nothing about the Catholic dogma or doctrine. Only the venom you’ve been poisoned with
.Ugly ,ugly-poisoning of minds and hearts is always ugly, unchristian and vile. But you seem very comfortable with this sanctimonious perjury.

So if Popes are sinner how can they be infallible? Let me make it clear that at least six days a week I recited the catechism but what is believed by the Church and others who have not deviated from her doctrine is not of the Bible and not of God.
The teachings of death is not biblical, confession to a priest is not biblical, calling a priest father is not biblical, Mary as an intercessor is not biblical, praying to saints is not biblical and certainly as the bible indicates, she is the antichrist. This is a pure case of obeying God or man not hating you or any other catholic. I believe that there are some catholic that are more faithful to God than many S D A’s but the principles that the church upholds are not built on God’s word. As the faithful ones become aware of the unbiblical teachings in the church they will leave as those that did before and were label as heretics. This is not a case of hatred, this is a case of salvation. I hope the day will never come went I hate you or any other catholic. God Bless

 

[christian_777]

This is for my Protestant brothers and sisters:
I am not equipped to argure the various points that he/she raise but I wil say this: only prayer will change the hearts of those who go strictly by their own interpretation of scripture and non-acceptance of Tradition. It is superfluous to argue or discuss with those who only accept the literal translation of scripture. If every Protestant really accepted the literal translation of scripture, they too would be receiving the body and blood of Christ at Mass as we Catholics do. Why do they only accept the literal translation that fits their teachings?
Charles

When our name come up in the Judgement, what will we be judged by, Our obedience to tradition or to the law of God. Matthew 7:22-24 (King James Version)

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Obviously there are those who call apon the name of the Lord but do not His will. His will is contained in the word of God that is why He say “those that heareth”. His word is not in tradition. So call tradition must be maitained by the Church for without it many of there doctrine will fall. they have no other basic. The question really is Do you love God or the traditions of the Church?

 

[Cristian_B]

When our name come up in the Judgement, what will we be judged by, Our obedience to tradition or to the law of God. Matthew 7:22-24 (King James Version)

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Obviously there are those who call apon the name of the Lord but do not His will. His will is contained in the word of God that is why He say “those that heareth”. His word is not in tradition. So call tradition must be maitained by the Church for without it many of there doctrine will fall. they have no other basic. The question really is Do you love God or the traditions of the Church?

Just to complete what you said: if anyone turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are detestable.

 

[juliamajor]

So if Popes are sinner how can they be infallible? Let me make it clear that at least six days a week I recited the catechism but what is believed by the Church and others who have not deviated from her doctrine is not of the Bible and not of God.
The teachings of death is not biblical, confession to a priest is not biblical, calling a priest father is not biblical, Mary as an intercessor is not biblical, praying to saints is not biblical and certainly as the bible indicates, she is the antichrist. This is a pure case of obeying God or man not hating you or any other catholic. I believe that there are some catholic that are more faithful to God than many S D A’s but the principles that the church upholds are not built on God’s word. As the faithful ones become aware of the unbiblical teachings in the church they will leave as those that did before and were label as heretics. This is not a case of hatred, this is a case of salvation. I hope the day will never come went I hate you or any other catholic. God Bless

As I stated before -you know nothing about catholic doctrine! And your ignorant statements prove it.I’ve argued using trying to use logic, history, statements of proof and all I get back is rhetoric that is canned,rote and propaganized that has been passed down by the plagarist,White, and her favorite phoney writer Hislop. And then you say we are not biblical?Your whole church was build on a foundation of stolen ideas, twisted scripture , lies, Nativist principles and prejudice.If you find THAT biblical then I really feel sorry for you all. Ah, but you Quote the bible-so that makes you and yours somehow better?Everyone of your views are classic , classic anti-catholic crud.Their are whole books and a cadre of Apologists that dismantle junk like this.I could repeat it to you ,but to what avail?It’s like talking to a child who doesn’t want to hear but sticks his fingers in his ears and says"la,la,la la -I can’t hear you." You repeat propaganda-there is no thought behind it -only endlessly repeat non- historical, non biblical ,man made doctrine(and yes, you are doctrinaire,tradition burdened ,man made, false prophet laden institution) who can only hold it together not with biblical concepts of faith , hope and charity, but with that which you have been conditioned to repeat endlessly.You hold conferences promoting hatred of all things Catholic via the “Prophetess” and bogus preachers like alexander Hislop.Is that biblical?Loving kindnes,“hesed” is nowhere to be found…Like every Jehovah’s witness I’ve ever met(SDA was the parent to that delighful bunch)-they are afraid to look outside of their church’s brainwashing techniques(be afraid of those outsiders, don’t trust anything anyone says outside of SDA-get approval fromyour elders etc.)you instill a paranoia of any and all things not SDA. You are not allowed to think, cogitate, or ruminate anything that is not SDA- you might become “polluted” by others.Reducing the membership to well trained children who wouldn’t open their mouths without mommy and daddy pouring words into their ears. all I hear is a lot of blah, blah blah, some innuendos, a few scriptures tossed in to make it look good and more palaver…Making hatred one of the hallmarks of being SDA and not only that but TRAINING -starting as children, to hate-and making it one of the tenets of your church is beyond the pale.Hey, but that makes you feel superior,“saved”, the “chosen” few, the “remnant”…Making hatred “holy” and teaching it to your children as holy -it’s all rather pathetic.

 

[juliamajor]

When our name come up in the Judgement, what will we be judged by, Our obedience to tradition or to the law of God. Matthew 7:22-24 (King James Version)((How’s about Matt.7:1-5)
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Try Matthew 7:15-20-False prophets?fits White well.Bad fruit?Hatred fits that one)
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.( try Matt.31-46- for faith based works not -being hateful, degrading of humans,no matter how “pious” one appears.)

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Obviously there are those who call apon the name of the Lord but do not His will. His will is contained in the word of God that is why He say “those that heareth”. His word is not in tradition. So call tradition must be maitained by the Church for without it many of there doctrine will fall. they have no other basic. The question really is Do you love God or the traditions of the Church?

 

[Church_Militant]

Please stop spreading this lie.

Lie? Hardly, since the New Testament clearly teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence in the passages that I cite in that article.

Furthermore, the letter of Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was a close friend and disciple of the apostle St. John) to the church at Smyrna dates from the very early 2nd Century and is very clear about this doctrine. It is a matter of documented historical fact that this is so, so the only lie here is the one that you have been fed and believed from the SDA.

The Catholic Chruch came about long after the first christians and apostles.

Prove this with authentic historical documentation. You can’t because all it is is SDA polemical propaganda without basis in fact.

Speaking of which…the SDA certainly has no historical roots in the early church since they knew better than to predict the date and time of Our Lord’s return. (Oops!)

They didn’t try to teach that St. Michael the archangel and Jesus are one and the same. (http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png)

This claim is an attempt to validate the church.

Attempt no…documented evidence yes. Too bad the same cannot be done for the SDA.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is clear that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

Look at what that verse actually says and not what you wish it said. It in no way supports your position.

and Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Actually verses 9-15 sound more like the SDA today.
9 Gather yourselves together, O ye people, and be overcome, and give ear, all ye lands afar off: strengthen yourselves, and be overcome, gird yourselves, and be overcome. 10 Take counsel together, and it shall be defeated: speak a word, and it shall not be done: because God is with us. 11 For thus saith the Lord to me: As he hath taught me, with a strong arm, that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying: 12 Say ye not: A conspiracy: for all that this people speaketh, is a conspiracy: neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. 13Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself: and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 14 And he shall be a sanctification to you. But for a stone or stumbling, and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel, for a snare and a ruin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And very many of them shall stumble and fall, and shall be broken in pieces, and shall be snared, and taken.

These two quotations from the bible make it clear that any and all things that do not comply with the bible is not of God.

Really? How so? The context does not support you at all in either case, nor does the rest of the New Testament.

Tradition has no claim as the will of God only God’s word.

Really? Then why does St. Paul and other apostles refer to the facts of Tradition in their inspired New Testament writings?

• Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
• Tradition? No way!

Even Jesus said that he did not come to change but to fulfill Matt.5;17-18. Who else had the right but Him.

Not the question and irreverent to this topic.

 

[juliamajor]

To all those on this thread or others- I will probably bow out for awhile .My son was caught in the earthquake in Chile-so my computer will be mainly used for SKYPEing… Pray for him , please to stay safe(he’s ok now) and protect him from the aftershocks.Pray for our family so that we will not be overcome with sadness and anxiety.God Bless and Keep you all -until next time.-Julie- Juliamajor

 

[Church_Militant]

So if Popes are sinner how can they be infallible?

The same could be said for your own E.G White and company, and yet you don’t question their teachings to you even when we Catholics show you the errors again and again. Why is that do you think?

Let me make it clear that at least six days a week I recited the catechism but what is believed by the Church and others who have not deviated from her doctrine is not of the Bible and not of God.

You have yet to prove any such about the Catholic Church, but I personally have shown at least 2 places where the SDA has done exactly that and yet you continue to defend them without success.

The teachings of death is not biblical,

Will I die or just sleep?

confession to a priest is not biblical,

Completely untrue!

• Catholic Confession
• Scriptures About Penance
• "I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

calling a priest father is not biblical,

Again, completely untrue. Call No Man Father?

Mary as an intercessor is not biblical, praying to saints is not biblical

Again, you have believed erroneous teachings.

• The Intercession & Communion of Saints

and certainly as the bible indicates, she is the antichrist.

Hogwash…but nothing new. When you can’t support your propaganda scripturally you resort to ranting polemics which have no basis in fact. Something that is common on all the SDA literature that I have read.

• Hunting the Whore of Babylon

This is a pure case of obeying God or man not hating you or any other catholic. I believe that there are some catholic that are more faithful to God than many S D A’s but the principles that the church upholds are not built on God’s word.

And yet I am most of the other Catholics here have already showed you the errors that you have believed, both scriptural and historical. The fact is that you need to commit yourself to believing and following the truth, no matter where it leads and until then you will cling to the lies you have been fed.

As the faithful ones become aware of the unbiblical teachings in the church they will leave as those that did before and were label as heretics. This is not a case of hatred, this is a case of salvation. I hope the day will never come went I hate you or any other catholic. God Bless

That’s real noble of you. Let us know when you get some real facts and you can try again, but for now you have done nothing but express specious polemics and propaganda of contempt for our most holy faith.

May God grant you the grace of repentance and conversion.

 

[Church_Militant]

To all those on this thread or others- I will probably bow out for awhile .My son was caught in the earthquake in Chile-so my computer will be mainly used for SKYPEing… Pray for him , please to stay safe(he’s ok now) and protect him from the aftershocks.Pray for our family so that we will not be overcome with sadness and anxiety.God Bless and Keep you all -until next time.-Julie- Juliamajor

You got it Julia.
May the Lord be with him and all of Chile.

 

[PJM]

=Annie39;6182369]I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie

FROM Hatdock’s Catholic Commentary [available on line]

REV.13:11

"Ver. 11. I saw another[2] beast, &c. He had two horns like those of the Lamb, pretending to imitate Christ by an outward sanctity, and by working strange things. (Witham) — This second beast with two horns may be understood of the heathenish priests and magicians, the principal promoters both of idolatry and persecution. (Challoner) "

 

[descout]

I am neither an ex-Adventist nor a “knowledgeable Catholic”, but hopefully a knowledgeable Anglican will be acceptable.

At the time of the Reformation the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church was frequently mentioned in connection with the Beast of Re 13. This was not only the case with regard to some of the Reformers but among some who remained within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I have done considerable study in the Apocalypse since I felt it necessary to make some sense of this volume of the canon which seemed to have disparate and even bizarre interpretations. I have come to the conclusion that the Beast of Re 13 was not one of the Roman Emperors nor the Pope nor the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, the number of the Beast, 666, was a way to refer to the Beast as being a false trinity (3 X 6). The number 6 was used to signify man himself since man was formed on the 6th day of creation. The Beast is thus the unholy trinity in opposition to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When man makes himself the center of the universe and attempts to determine all matters on his own apart from that which God has set forth, he becomes the Beast.

But was man created on the 6th day?? Or was it the first day?? Cause the two different creation stories in Genesis do not include time, we dont know how long a day was. I feel that in both stories it does tho say that man was the most important, since he was either created last or created first. It makes man stand out in the stories as an important figure.

 

[losh14]

Losh 14
Do not ignore that the church is called Israel. Gal Galatians 3:29

When Isaiah and Ezekiel spoke to Jews about Israel, they were talking about Israel, not the Church that belongs to Christ. To take the prophets as speaking only of a future that their hearers would not be able to witness dismisses far too much history and risks being egocentric.

I think this is a watershed difference between you and I, SDA and Catholic, that we take Scripture to be relevant to all ages but to have an intended initial audience, while you take Scripture to be primarily focused on 21st century Christians, and Christians of a particular denomination.

And there are others that will clearly verify that the church and those who are of God are refer to as a woman or bride Hosea depicts the relationship of a husband and his wife at God’s instructions to reflect the attitude of Israel in her relationship with God. There are too many references to such to deny that a woman is used as a symbol of the church in relation to God.

I’m not denying that marriage is used as metaphor for covenantal relationship. What I disagree with is that a woman ALWAYS is means metaphor for church, and in particular is the use of the woman as a whore to refer uniquely to a church in the Christian age. As a religious institution - yes, and I argue that the Whore refers to Israel of the time who embraced her Roman captors too readily and adultered with them, so to speak.

What about the woman in Rev. 12 - which church does she represent? Which church gave birth to the savior?

What about the parable of the 10 virgins.

Is a parable about vigilance, nothing more. If the wedding of the Lamb has come, why are there still true Christians - whether you define as SDA or an invisible church - on earth in the flesh? Why the delay in unfolding the rest of the End Times?

CLAIM 2: The Whore is a corrupt church that teaches false doctrines.
OBJECTION: The Whore is punished for her adultery - and this is consistent with the language in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It is that she broke her marriage vows and is thus playing the harlot - again, the Jews are John’s intended target.

The Jews are not the object of God’s special attention at this time but the church, spiritual Israel. All can agree that she lost that when she rejected Christ and Paul speaks of it in Roams 11

Again, weasel words. In what sense did Israel ‘lose out’? Was this not part of Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant? Do we now think that God has forsaken the Jews and written them out of the plan of salvation?

Again, my objection is that the Whore in Revelation was Israel at the time. God’s consideration of her currently was not John’s concern.

One very important point is that what is writen in Revalations is for us not those in John’s time.

This is an assumption that you must proceed on in order to make sense of your points. And it is an assumption that frankly I don’t see Scripture asserting.