T
turtleoompa
Guest
See Jerome’s Commentary on the Bible.
Thanks. I’m glad I could help!Hi una fides,
thanks for the two quotes and related commentary, that was really helpful - I am Catholic (thanks be to God’s calling) but still fairly new and still learning
Re: The Georgia Guidestones or America’s stonehenge-This is a response to Annie—You ask if the “Catholic Church is the beast”? If what you ask is true then Jesus is a liar and if Jesus is a liar then our faith is forfeit! The Catholic Church is NOT–I repeat–is NOT the BEAST! The “beast” has ten horns and seven heads. According to the foot notes in my bible the beast is ancient Rome with Nero and the other rulers in power.
If you want to equate it today, you can say the beast is the Free Masonic Order, which is a Satanic power in the world. Our lady calls Communism the “red dragon” and the Free Masonic Order, “the Black Beast” The beast in my opinion is any group or groups of people who are against God and the Free Masonic Order fits the definition. There are ten Satanic Commandment listed in a little town in Georgia. You might want to.look up “The Georgia Guide Stones” in your computer. They exist in Elbert, Ga.
I hope I have been of some help to you.
Are you familiar with the view that apostate Jerusalem was the harlot. I read about it in the book “Rapture” by David Currie.I personally favor a preterist view - that the Beast and Whore already occurred in ancient Rome as Nero and the personal cult of emperor worship. The defeat of the Beast and the Whore aren’t the end of the battle against evil, indeed we still await the final defeat of Satan and his angels at Armageddon. Note also the word antichrist does not appear in Revelation but rather in the epistles of John and to the Thessalonians (as ‘man of sin’) which suggests to me that this type of person or force will remain although the Beast and Whore were specific to the time.
Wiki actually has a decent overview of the preterist view of the Beast, tying in bits from contemporary historians Suetonius and Tacitus, whose views I am more apt to take on the subject because they were closer to the original audience of John’s Apocalypse than we are. It’s indeed grating to see (as many have) an attempt to render one’s political or religious opponent’s name in numerology to get 666, especially to take a name in English (which did not exist at the close of Scripture) and render it so.
On her forehead was written a name, which is a mystery, “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth.” I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. When I saw her I was greatly amazed. (Rev 17:5-6)The sea beast is simultaniously Nero and Rome. The land beast is the Temple Jews. The false prophet/whore was forced to offer sacrifice to Nero as a God. They did it in order to survive, which is how they were in league/bed with one another. Others were forced to do the same or they were executed. Those who offered sacrifice to Nero recieved the mark of the beast (which is a spiritual mark by the way). Eventually the whore stopped the sacrifice and then the beast turned and devoured her. This was the destruction of the great city Jerusalem and the trampling of the Temple.
I’ve heard that and I think there’s merit to the argument. Harlot was a commonly used metaphor (especially among the prophets) for those Jews who participated in Assyrian, Amelkite or other idolatries.Are you familiar with the view that apostate Jerusalem was the harlot. I read about it in the book “Rapture” by David Currie.
The Days of Vengeance, a book by the late David Chilton, a Calvinist pastor, is recommended in Scott Hahn’s audio series on the Revelation (“The End”). Here is how Pastor Chilton addresses “sits on many waters” (all emphases in the original):I’ve heard that and I think there’s merit to the argument. Harlot was a commonly used metaphor (especially among the prophets) for those Jews who participated in Assyrian, Amelkite or other idolatries.
I think where it more lends itself to pre-Christian Imperial Rome is in Rev 17:1-5. The Whore is identified as sitting on many waters (having many multitudes of people within), having been visited by the kings of the earth, and being covered in auspicious wealth. While this is probably true for Jerusalem it is certainly true for Rome.
In context with Mt 23 and Ek 16, though, it would be more apt for Jerusalem.
". . .sits on many waters, an image taken from Jeremiah’s description of Babylon in his famous oracle of judgment against her (Jer. 50-51). The expression many waters of Jeremiah 51:13 refers both the the Euphrates, which ran through the middle of the city, and to the canals surrounding it. Ultimately, it refers to the blessings which God has bestowed on Babylon, and which she prostituted for her own glory. Thus St. John describes the Great Harlot of his day in terms of her prototype and model. Later, in 17:15, we are informed of one aspect of the symbolic meaning of the ‘many waters,’ but for now the point is merely the identification of the Harlot with Babylon.
Chilton goes on to comment on “many waters” as appears in 17:15:"At the same time, however, we must recognize that at every other point in Revelation where the expression many waters is used, it is set within a description of God’s covenantal relationship and liturgical interaction with His people. We have noted that the Voice from the Glory-Cloud sounds like many waters, and that this Voice is produced by the innumerable angels in the heavenly council (Ezek. 1:24). Similarly, in Revelation 1:15 Christ’s Voice is ‘like the sound of many waters’ (cf. Ezek. 43:2). . .The expression is thus reminiscent of both God’s gracious revelation and His people’s liturgical response of praise and obedience. Given the Biblical background and context of the phrase, it would come as no surprise to St. John’s readers that the Woman should be seen seated ‘on many waters.’ The surprise is that she is a whore. She has taken God’s good gifts and prostituted them (Ezek. 16:6-16; Rom. 2:17-24).
“The angel now explains the significance of the waters. . .where the Harlot sits. These are described in terms of a fourfold designation: peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues, i.e., the world. The identification of the ungoldly rebellions nations of the world with the raging sea is a familiar one in Scripture. Isaiah wrote of 'the uprorar of many peoples who roar like the rumbling of many waters, but He will rebuke them and they will flee far away, and be chased like chaff in the mountains before the wind, or like whirling dust before a gale” (Isa. 17:12-13). . . .
"Jerusalem could truly be portrayed as seated on ‘many waters’ (i.e., the nations) because of the great and pervasive influence the Jews had in al parts of the Roman Empire before the destruction of Jerusalem. Their synagogues were in every city, and the extent of their colonization can be seen in the record of the Day of Pentecost, which tells us that ‘there were Jews staying in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven’ (Acts 2:5), The Days of Vengeance, David Chilton, pgs. 423-4 and 438-9.
I suspect the original context refers to pre-70A.D. Jerusalem, and the ECF’s saw this fulfillment as a prefigurement to the fall of Rome.I’ve heard that and I think there’s merit to the argument. Harlot was a commonly used metaphor (especially among the prophets) for those Jews who participated in Assyrian, Amelkite or other idolatries.
I think where it more lends itself to pre-Christian Imperial Rome is in Rev 17:1-5. The Whore is identified as sitting on many waters (having many multitudes of people within), having been visited by the kings of the earth, and being covered in auspicious wealth. While this is probably true for Jerusalem it is certainly true for Rome.
In context with Mt 23 and Ek 16, though, it would be more apt for Jerusalem.
See me an address.Mine is knarrrj@ori.netHmmm I think that I got something wrong. I re-read an article that I had read on this topic and it seems that the Adventists think this particular beast is the USA, not the Catholic Church. I do know however that they do believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ and the Church is the whore of Babylon and if I’m not mistaken they get this from their interpretation of Revelation at least in part. Would anyone like to comment on this?
Thanks
Peter was never part of the Catholic Church.Pure speculation. Stick with the father’s and the teachings of the true Church. A lot of our protestant “brethren” it seems believe such lies about holy mother Church. If that is the case, then they would have to conclude that St. Peter was the first anti-Christ!!
Hmmm.Maybe. But I know one thing for certain he was no SDA.Peter was never part of the Catholic Church.
Matt.7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.The Catholic Church been proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ for 2000 years. How could it be, therefore, the anti-Christ? As Jesus says (Matt 12:25) “a house divided among itself can not stand.” If the Catholic Church were the anti-Christ it would have collapsed long before now.
1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.In replacing the Sabbath with Sunday worship, the Church is not replacing what God has ordained. Rather the Church is acknowledging what God has done for us. In the Person of Jesus, God humiliated Himself and became man for our sake, dwelt among us, and died and rose again. This is the means through which God offers salvation and eternal life to all people (not just the Jews, though God has not abandoned them cf Rom 11).
Though the NT does not speak of Sunday worship, we do see St Paul challenging the requirement of circumcision. To continue to follow the Old Covenant (including Sabbath observance) would be to ignore what God has done for us. Jesus is “the Way” (& is “Truth and Life”) and no one can come to the Father except through Him (Jn 14:6). He established the Catholic Church (& the Orthodox) and gave her authority, so to deny this or denounce her as the Beast would be to deny or denounce Christ.
For the millionth time-Sunday was the Lords Day,on the sabbath the christians did not rest as the Jews did but sunday was celebrated with rejoicing -not rest.this was done in apostolic times.So if you gonna blame anyone blame the apostles.Then tell Jesus it was very rude of Him to rise on a sunday because that just doesn’t fit in with SDA agenda.1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.
God gave a commandment. Who have the right to usurp God?
Then what church was peter part of… the protestant church!Hmmm.Maybe. But I know one thing for certain he was no SDA.![]()
Then what church was peter part of… the protestant church!
Hmmmmm.NO!
Matt
C77 has a very narrow boxed in view of everything .Never mind him trying to wrap his head around anything CatholicI sure would like to know what church peter was part of if not the catholic church. It looks like christian777 can’t even come to terms on that.
Matt
I have a very close friend who is also very narrow minded. Trying to convince her of anything has been like trying to raise the titanic with tweezers.C77 has a very narrow boxed in view of everything .Never mind him trying to wrap his head around anything CatholicTo him and others like him we are “the Great Satan”.So trying to get him accept even historical truths is like teaching a sheep to cha-cha-It just can’t be done.
It should be clear that the Lord’s Day is not Sunday. The lord’s Day is Sabbath, Mat. 12:8For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.For the millionth time-Sunday was the Lords Day,on the sabbath the christians did not rest as the Jews did but sunday was celebrated with rejoicing -not rest.this was done in apostolic times.So if you gonna blame anyone blame the apostles.Then tell Jesus it was very rude of Him to rise on a sunday because that just doesn’t fit in with SDA agenda.![]()