The whore of Babylon

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndrewL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When the author of revelations refers to harlotry, it certainly seems to me that the issue is not that the whore of Babylon was once in covenant with God; rather she is symbolic of an institution that has aped Christianity and morphed it into something that is offensive to God. You see that as having occurred within the Catholic Church. But as I have already demonstrated, the antichrist must be someone that denies that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is God. The Catholic Church just doesn’t fit the mold.

Now interestingly enough, there are dozens of examples in the history of the world that do fit the mold. I don’t mean to be critical on this point, but it appears to me that if you didn’t spend so much time and energy trying to pigeonhole Catholicism into this form, the true whores would be so glaring as to be unmistakable to you.

The one that should be most obvious to you is Nazi Germany. The leader of the Third Reich, Adolph Hitler, was an antichrist for the ages. The war he spawned killed 60 million people including 6 million Jews who were murdered in an effort to wipe the Jewish race, God’s people of Old, from the face of the earth. Think about it. How many times did Hitler endorse the deity of Jesus Christ? He didn’t. If anything, he styled himself as God (as did the pagan Roman emperors). He was in his own estimation the savior of the “holy” Aryan race.

I read a book some years back called “Salvation is from the Jews”. It was written by Roy Schoeman, a convert to Catholicism from Judaism. It was a fascinating read, and in it Schoeman catalogs the manner in which the Nazis both subtly and overtly aped their master race religion onto Christianity. One cannot do the book justice with one quote but let me offer a taste of what the book offers. This is a quote from a man named Alfred Rosenberg. He was the official spiritual ideologist and theologian of the Nazi party, so designated by Hitler himself. In his 1930 book “Myth of the Twentieth Century” he writes:

We now realize that the central supreme values of the Roman and the Protestant Churches, being negative Christianity, do not respond to our soul, that they hinder the organic powers of the people determined by their Nordic race, that they must give way to them, that they will have to be remodeled to conform to a Germanic Christendom. Therein lies the meaning of the present religious search.

He goes on to write: “The faith embodied by the fullest realization, that he Nordic blood constitutes that mystery which has supplanted and overwhelmed the old sacraments.” Rosenberg went so far as to draw up a program for the “National Reich Church”. In his plan, Christian places of worship would be confiscated by the state. All crosses, crucifixes and Bibles would be ejected. On the altar, or the pulpit, the only thing permitted would be a copy of “Mein Kampf” along with a sword. In place of the cross, the swastika would preside.

These words should speak for themselves. Aryan blood more precious than the blood of Christ. Swastikas supplanting crosses and crucifixes. Mein Kampf replacing the Word of God. Now how’s that for harlotry?

It is interesting to me that Rosenberg, himself a henchman for the antichrist, saw both the Roman and Protestant Church as a common enemy. Read the book. And when you get finished with that one, get some material on the French Revolution. And when you have done that, read about the persecution of the early Church under pagan Rome. There you will find your whore of Babylon. There you will find your antichrist. There too will you find the future form of the whore of Babylon and the preeminent antichrist to come.

As a final note, I would simply ask you to tread lightly when identifying the whore of Babylon with the Catholic Church. Have you considered in doing so the consequences if you are wrong? Man dare not call unholy what the Lord has consecrated to Himself. Except that you have been granted a divine revelation from God, acknowledge in your heart the possibility that you have gotten it wrong. If you want to logically explore the facts to see if the Catholic Church is the whore of Revelations, fine. Study and pray on the subject and then come to your conclusion. But yes or no, please do not wager you soul on the answer. As much time as you spend condemning the Catholic Church in thought or word, spend that much praying for her. If you are right in your condemnation, may you’re your petition inspire God’s grace to rescue adherents from her grasp. If you are wrong in your condemnation, may your blessing return to you amplified by the love you put into it.

AndrewL, I will spend the next month remembering you by name in my daily prayers. I will simply pray that God assist you in your quest for truth. I will do this before God without pretense. I will not presume to judge you correct or incorrect on this matter, acknowledging as I do that I am a flawed, imperfect human being as capable of perverting God’s truths as anyone. In that I admit and embrace this fact, I would be most appreciative if you would do the same for me and my family. As a show of unity in faith, I would ask one additional favor. Please end your prayers by quoting Mark 9:24: “I believe; help my unbelief!” I will do likewise.

May the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

Regards,

RodK
 
Well, if nothing else, this thread has shown me that I am not the only person in the world who thinks that the city in Revelation may well refer to San Francisco.
 
OK Andrew you caught us. We’ve been pulling the wool over the whole worlds eyes for 20 centuries…that is until you came along. Drat! We’ve been foiled!
 
Sorry for taking so long to reply to you all . Have been extremely busy over the last 3 weeks .

The replies which I received are mainly in this 4 big groups :
  1. Rome is not Vatican
  2. How was the RCC unfaithful ? When did the transformation of the original “true church” into the “Whore” happened ?
  3. Was the Pope unfaithful to Christ in Assisi , 1986 ?
  4. The issue about “Nihil obstat”
The rest of the replies not covered in the above four groups will be answered separately .
 
  1. The objection "Rome is not Vatican "
Some objected that it is Rome , and not that small part of it known as Vatican City, which is built on seven hills, Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, and the Vatican can hardly be called a “great city,” Though these objections are true, the words “Vatican” and “Rome” are universally used interchangeably. Just as one would refer to Washington and mean the government that runs the United States, so one refers to Rome and means the hierarchy that rules the Roman Catholic Church.

Take for example a placard carried by a demonstrator outside the November 15-18, 1993, meeting in Washington D.C. of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Protesting any deviation from the pope’s wishes, it read:

“ROME’S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” (Our Sunday Visitor, December 5, 1993, p. 3).

Obviously by “Rome” it meant the Vatican. Such is the common usage. So closely are Catholicism and Rome linked that the Catholic Church is known as the Roman Catholic Church, or simply the Roman Church. As “the most definitive Catholic encyclopedia since Vatican II” declares:

“…hence, one understands the central place of Rome in the life of the Church today and the significance of the title, Roman Catholic Church, the Church that is universal, yet focused upon the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. Since the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, Rome has been the central of all Christendom” ( Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, 1991, p. 842).

Rome and Vatican is interchangable in its association with the Catholic church. Even Catholic scholars agree ( eg Scott Hahn’s “ Rome , sweet home”) . It is with Rome that the Catholic church most distinctively associates
 
Andrew << The replies which I received are mainly in this 4 big groups : >>

Well well well, what do you know, AndrewL is back. 😃 Nice to “see” you again. 😃

Andrew << 1. Rome is not Vatican >>

Yep, that’s pretty well established. Next…

Andrew << 2. How was the RCC unfaithful ? When did the transformation of the original “true church” into the “Whore” happened ? >>

Yeah that’s what I wanna know. 👍 Show me the (Roman) Catholic Church of 700 AD is a different (Roman) Catholic Church from 500 AD, 400 AD, 300 AD, 200 AD, 100 AD and yep you guessed it, 30 AD. 😃 Looks like pretty much the same visible Church to me, with a little doctrinal development tossed in, the Trinity, the New Testament canon, and the rest. Next…

Andrew << 3. Was the Pope unfaithful to Christ in Assisi , 1986 ? >>

Well, that’s a matter of opinion I guess. Only if you think dialogue with any non-Christian religion is being unfaithful to Christ. And how do we know you are being faithful to Christ in whatever church you think is teaching the truth. But if you have more on Assisi, please provide. Next…

Andrew << 4. The issue about “Nihil obstat” >>

Yep, you clearly blew that one. But we’ll let that slide… 😃

I see you are going into more detail, OK prepare for the onslaught.

Phil P
 
  1. How was the RCC unfaithful ? When did the transformation of the original “true church” into the “Whore” happened ?
The church in Rome became unfaithful when centuries later she taught salvation by works in addition to faith as well as teaching about indulgences and the merits of these for souls in purgatory . The Bible’s description for the whore in Rev 18:11-12 says that her merchandise includes “the bodies and souls of men.”. The transformation started in the church of Rome after she was freed from persecution when the city of Rome was Christianized. The transformation was a gradual one but was definitely completed by the time of the Council of Trent when these false doctrines were clearly stated .
 
AndrewL << Though these objections are true, the words “Vatican” and “Rome” are universally used interchangeably. >>

Nice try, but whether or not in common usage “Rome” and “Vatican” are used interchangeably is irrelevant. If “the city on seven hills” (or seven mountains or kingdoms, etc) in the book of Revelation is not Vatican City, that’s all that matters. The city of Rome is not the Vatican, and Vatican is not the city of Rome.

As Akin pointed out in the tract:

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City – the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered – and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

ERGO, the city of Rome is not the Vatican.

AndrewL << “ROME’S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” (Our Sunday Visitor, December 5, 1993, p. 3). Obviously by “Rome” it meant the Vatican. Such is the common usage. >>

True again, but “common usage” means nothing. The question is what is the “city on seven hills” in the book of Revelation. It can be at least two things (among others): Rome, or Jerusalem, NOT the Vatican which is not a city built on seven hills.

<< Rome and Vatican is interchangable in its association with the Catholic church. Even Catholic scholars agree ( eg Scott Hahn’s “Rome Sweet home”). It is with Rome that the Catholic church most distinctively associates >>

Again, finding all the common usages of Rome = Vatican means nothing. You need to establish that the “city on seven hills” mentioned in the book of Revelation is the Vatican. It cannot be for various reasons: (1) the Vatican is not a city on seven hills, (2) the Vatican technically didn’t even exist in the first century when John wrote the book of Revelation. Either of these facts are enough to sink your point that the Whore of Babylon = “Vatican.”

But yep, Scott Hahn was right about Rome Sweet Home, however I’m sorry he doesn’t support your thesis about the Great Whore.

But please keep trying, I want to see the rest. 😃 I’m particularly interested in when you think the Catholic Church officially went apostate, and your documentation for that.

Phil P
 
  1. Was the Pope unfaithful to Christ in Assisi , 1986 ?
The following statements which the Pope made during that event :

“…I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, ‘peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near’” (Cf. Eph 2.17).

and

“His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased” (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, ‘He is our peace.’" (Eph.2:14).

are both true . But neither of these two quotations cancel out his error in his acknowledgement that all these different religions are " praying to the same God . “And his action of replacing the Cross in a church ( a building that is dedicated to Christ ) with a statue of the Buddha is certainly abdomination of the worst kind . The Bible says that God " is a jealous God. " Exodus 20:5 : "
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”. His jealousy is warranted , of course , for He is the only true God . All glory should go to Him . Anything other than that is a great sin .
" Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God " Exodus 34:14
The Pope not only facilitated the worship of false gods but does it in a church , in a building dedicated to Christ ! It is a tremendous error .
 
AndrewL << The church in Rome became unfaithful when centuries later she taught salvation by works in addition to faith as well as teaching about indulgences and the merits of these for souls in purgatory. >>

Each of these require a separate thread. Can I recommend the tracts or articles here on Indulgences and Purgatory?

Salvation by works is condemned by the Council of Trent (see Session 6 on Justification, the first 3 canons), and the Catechism. You need to read your sources a little closer.
  1. Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
  2. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life [John 1; Rom 8; 2 Peter 1].
  3. Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
Merit does not mean “to earn” something, but what St. Augustine taught, “God crowning his own gifts.”

"What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace, and, when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts to us? (St. Augustine, Letters 194:5:19)

“Merit” or “awards” in the biblical sense are clearly found in 2 Cor 5:10; Matt 16:27; Romans 2:5-10; Rev 22:11-12; many other places.

See also rewards and merits in the Fathers.

AndrewL << The transformation started in the church of Rome after she was freed from persecution when the city of Rome was Christianized. The transformation was a gradual one but was definitely completed by the time of the Council of Trent when these false doctrines were clearly stated. >>

Oh really? When the city of Rome was Christianized? You mean 4th century A.D. and Constantine? And what false doctrines were taught by the Council of Trent that were not taught in all the early Fathers of the Church? I suspect that many of the doctrines you think are false have a strong biblical basis.

Please you need some better objections, but I appreciate you visiting here.

Phil P
 
  1. The issue of Nihil Obstat :
To say that the whore refers to Apostate Jerusalem or Pagan Rome when it isn’t is a doctrinal error . Even if “Nihil obstat” (Latin for “no problem” ) is not given by Vatican , it would still imply that the bishop who certified the articles to be in error . All the articles in Catholic Answers are stamped " Nihil obstat " but all of them cannot be trusted for this stamp is prone to error and is not even the official Vatican view . What’s the use of this stamp then ?

" The mind was designed not to defend what we want , but to discover what is ultimately true , which should shape our wants and satisfy them more deeply in God." --John Piper
 
AndrewL << But neither of these two quotations cancel out his error in his acknowledgement that all these different religions are “praying to the same God.” And his action of replacing the Cross in a church (a building that is dedicated to Christ ) with a statue of the Buddha is certainly abdomination of the worst kind. >>

I’m sorry but you’re going to have to quote the Pope directly and document what you say. Others here may be more knowledgeable on the Assisi event. I suspect you are getting your information from Dave Hunt or similar persons. Quote the Pope directly as I have, or direct me to a primary source where you are getting your information.

Phil P
 
Reply to Post 3
" woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witness to Jesus.

I just have to ask…are Christians being killed by the vatican? "

Many Christians were killed by the Roman Catholic church during the Inquisition
 
Reply to post 5
" AndrewL << Now, the destruction happened in AD 70 , and that was 20 years BEFORE Revelations was written ! >>

Depends of course when you date Revelation. The tome Before Jerusalem Fell is a large exegetical and historical defense by a Reformed scholar of a pre-AD 70 date. He is a “preterist” and not a “dispensationalist” which explains his position."

For a refutation of the preterist dating see donnieguy.org/pastors_and_wives_retreat.htm
 
Reply to Post 8

RyanL : “The association of Babylon and seven hills does not bring Jerusalem to mind . It is highly debatable as to whether Jerusalem sits on seven hills , and it was never well known in John’s context to refer to Jersusalem as Babylon .” - debatable to whome? The people who live on the seven hills of Jerusalem? Perhaps you should write Kaduri Elementary School in Israel and tell them their geography is wrong
(www2.yarden.ac.il/bloss/pro2…norah/tigeo.htm scroll down to “Jerusalem”).

A: The claim that Jerusalem sits on seven hills is refuted elsewhere. (See geocities.com/ba_org/sevenHills1.htm ) , so it is a debatable point, unlike Rome for which no one disputes that it sits on seven hills. Also, you didn’t reply to the point that “ it was never well known in John’s context to refer to Jersusalem as Babylon “ “ Rome was called ‘Babylon’ – Jerusalem never was (Beale : The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. 1999:25 )

RyanL :“Pagan Rome is Pagan by definition and therefore does not have a relationship with Christ…” - Just so I know - you’re the authority to say who does and does not have a relationship with Christ? Not knowing him does not necessitate no relationship - if it did, billions of babies and mentally impaired would be completely hosed…"

A; When I mean relationship with Christ, I mean “covenantal relationship” . Spiritual adultery is used consistently in Scripture to refer to the breaking of this relationship. Pagan Rome certainly did not made a covenant with God.

RyanL : “Finally,
You speak a lot about Rome breaking a covenant relationship with God and adultry. Could you please elaborate on that? Could you please tell us why, if Rome is the Church married to Jesus (which you have said is the case or the charge of adultry and breaking covenant relationships won’t stick), faithfully or not on Rome’s part, and Jesus is not polygamous…WHY AREN’T YOU MARRIED TO JESUS?!? Why aren’t you a member of the Bride of Christ, as He has called you to be?!?”

A: “ Married to Christ “ does not refer to a single individual or a single body of professed believers . Everyone and every institution which profess to believe in Christ are married to Christ in the sense that they all made a covenant with Christ . Doesn’t mean all of them are truly God’s people though . Just like in the Old Testament " not all Israelites are true Israelites " in a spiritual sense , and yet the whole of Israel ( including false believers ) is still referred to as God’s bride ( eg . Ezekial 16 ) In Revelations 18:4 it says “Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins “
God call all true Christians who are inside her to come out of her , the unfaithful whore , and that’s why I am not inside her.
 
Reply to Post 25 :

Tom : “ I agree Akins is giving his understanding, as you are giving your understanding, neither of which is stated in Scripture.”

A ; The problem is the Akins understanding ( limiting Rome to “ preChristian ) contradicts the fact that 1. Pagan Rome cannot be accused of spiritual adultery 2. the Rome which exist from the 1st to the 4th century was never utterly thrown down in one hour with violence , famine and fire to such an extent that she “shall be found no more at all “ , and 3. “ The Rome which exist from the 1st to the 4th century was obviously never associated with THE ultimate Antichrist ( the Beast of Revelation 17” , all of which was elaborated in post 1 , whereas my understanding (which does not limit Rome to pre-Christian or Christian ) does not have these contradictions .

Tom: " It is “My” understanding that Rev is referring to Rome, not the Vatican, and that indeed Rome fit the Scripture perfectly; the ultimate antichrist was the Roman Empire. It has been conquered by Jesus and His Catholic Church"

A : Has the Roman empire been utterly thrown down in one hour with violence , famine and fire to such an extent that she “shall be found no more at all “ when the Catholic church conquered it ?
 
Reply to Post 27 Tom

AndrewL:
In the Bible, the imagery of a people or city committing adultery, or being labeled a harlot, is CONSISTENTLY a reference to COVENANT UNFAITHFULNESS.A multitude of passages in various prophetic books use the harlotry theme to condemn Israel for her sin. ( cf. Ezek 16:15, 17, 28, 35, 41; 23:1–21, 44; Isa 1:21; 57:3; Jer 2:20; 3:1; 13:27; Hos 2:2–5; 4:12, 15, 18; 5:4; 9:1; Mic 1:7) In fact, of the many passages that illustrate this constant theme, the only two exceptions to Israel being the referent are two prophecies against Tyre and Nineveh, both of which had formerly been in covenant with Yahweh.

Tom: “You have just disproved your contention that spiritual adultery only applies to a Christian”

A ; Let me clarify , spiritual adultery applies to those who made a covenant with the God of the Bible , whether is it with Jehovah in the OT or Jesus in the New Testament.
 
Reply to Post 30

Tom: “The Rome which exist from the 1st to the 4th century was obviously never associated with THE ultimate Antichrist ( the Beast of Revelation 17, who is the same as the Beast in Revelation 13 ) , who has yet to appear ! Yet we see that the Woman in Rev 17 is associated with that Antichrist .
The “ultimate Antichrist” is the reformation and those who follow it. They are the ones attacking the Church that Jesus established.”

A; Now you mentioned in post 25 that according to your understanding the whore is Pagan Rome . In Rev 17 we read that the whore was associated with the Beast , who was the ultimate Antichrist , and according to you the Beast is the Reformation. Now I want to hear from you how was Pagan Rome associated with the Beast ie the Reformation?
 
Reply to Post 37

Adventist no more :“Chilton’s comments on the spiritual harlotry of Nineveh are correct. Having forsaken their reentence and turnign to God has made them harlots. Still, it is difficult to contend that Tyre “was converted to the worship of God.” 1 Kings 5 and 9 only establishes that Israel and Tyre enjoyed a political alliance, and perhaps that the people of Tyre accepted the worship of YHWH. No reference is made to the influence of that worship, nor to any rejection of other gods on the part of the Tyrans, such as would place them in a spiritual relationship with God. (A spiriual relationship with God demanded repentance for wicked acts and a turning towards the worshipof YHWH alone).”

A: Spiritual adultery refers to the breaking of covenant with God. It may be possible ( as you suggested ) that people of Tyre made a sign of a covenant ( eg . through the worship of Jehovah and the building of the temple ) without a true covenant of the heart ie total repentance and tearing of idols. Nevertheless breaking of a sign of covenant is still breaking a covenant . Just like many Israelites who had the sign of covenant through circumcision but still worshipped idols and they were also accused of spiritual adultery.

Adventist nomore : “ Many nations are described as women, including Babylon. “

A: Many other nations are described as women , but they are not accused of spiritual adultery

Adventist noMore : " One should reaize that identifying pagan worship as adultery, sensuality, or prostitution is not exclusively applied to God’s people."

A: The terms “sensuality” may or may not be applied to those with covenant relationship with God. You have given examples ( eg Babylon) of how the term sensuality is used to describe the behavior of those who did not have a covenant relationship with God but you have not given examples how the term adultery can be used as such.

Adventistnomore: " This is because altough Israel had a singular covenant relationship with God, all nations have ALWAYS been under the demands of God’s law and universal covenant. (Isaiah 24:5) "

A: But spiritual adultery in the Bible consistently refers to those who made a covenant with God’s special revelation , as shown by the case of Israel in the OT , and Tyre and Nineveh through their association with Israel. You never see the accusation of spiritual adultery used in the Bible for other countries that were never associated with a covenant with His special revelation , even though they were under a “ universal covenant “ by their understanding of God through the general revelation of nature ( Romans 1 ) .

Adventist nomore :" As for the denial that pagan Rome is represented in this passage beause the city of Rome "was never utterly thrown down in one hour with violence, famine and fire to such an extent that she ‘shall be found no more at all,’’ I remind you that the city of Rome met its swift (though long-anticipated destruction) durng the Barbarian attacks of 476 CE. The collpase of imperial power in the Western Roman Empire was gradual in coming (as it was long under threat of invasion and faced insurrmountable difficulties within its infrastructure, as was the case Babylon, Nineveh, etc.) but like these powers, when its hour did arrive…it arrived with one potent stroke.

For the most part, Rome, the most feared city of the Mediterranean, was reduced to ruins "

A : The partial destruction of Rome which you described above obviously does not fit the Bible’s description that it was “utterly thrown down in one hour with violence, famine and fire to such an extent that she 'shall be found no more at all “ . ( Rome was still found after the 4th century to this day.) Therefore your description above is an irrelevant point.

Adventistno more:"Ex 34:15 "…otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and THEY would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice…“Pagan nations do play the harlot.”

A; Notice that the inhabitants of the land are accused of harlotry AFTER they made a covenant with the people of Israel . The Nation of Israel of the Old Testament are the people representing God .
 
Reply to post 40

RodK :
"For starters, the early Church clearly identified the person of the antichrist with a particular Roman Caesar, and therein the whore of Babylon as pagan Rome itself. In the original Greek manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John, the number of the beast is given to be 666. But by the end of the second century Latin translations began appearing that identified the number as 616. Was it simply a misprint duplicated by many copyists along the way? Unlikely. "

A: The Bible is the word of God which is infallible and does not change. The opinion of the church with regards to the antichrist is the opinion of man which is fallible and which does change . Changing the number 666 to 616 is obviously man’s idea and not God’s.

RodK"…In that Nero was an antichrist, it can be surmised that he will not be the last, or even the worst.

A: But the Beast in Rev 17 is the Beast who appeared in Rev 13 who IS the last antichrist who is to appear in the last three and a half years of the end time Tribulation which has obviously not arrived.

RodK: "But, if Nero is an antichrist type, and therein pagan Rome a type of the whore of Babylon, then clearly, the condition that the whore of Babylon must have at one time been in covenant with God is false. "

A: Nero may be an antichrist , but he was not THE final Antichrist whom Rev 17 refers to , therefore your whole argument is false.

RodK: "It is interesting to me to note that whenever non-Catholics try to typecast the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon and therein the Pope as the antichrist, they never reconcile these beliefs to anything outside of Revelations, especially John’s first epistle:
Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. "

A: Many antichrists have come, and Nero may be considered as one of them , but he is not THAT antichrist who is coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top