The whore of Babylon

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AndrewL:

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.

Overall, that’s a good argument for BtG to be Jerusalem.​

The only puzzle is how one can say that Nineveh had been in covenant with JHWH - Nineveh had its own gods; and if JHWH had been one of the immportant ones it is very surprising He is not named in the vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon, who was king of Assyria from 681 to 669. Shamash, the god of justice, who is also a god of treaties, is. ##

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.

 

[cuban07]

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

This was posted in page 4 and received no rebuttal. I am looking into catholicism and it is very discouraging to see no one refute this. especially the one about rome sitting between 7 hills

 

[FCEGM]

This was posted in page 4 and received no rebuttal. I am looking into catholicism and it is very discouraging to see no one refute this. especially the one about rome sitting between 7 hills

If you will read Phil’s response again you will see that he is giving precisely a rebuttal to the notion regarding the Vatican (the Church of Rome) and its position within the city of Rome. He is giving a good Catholic rebuttal to anti-Catholic claims.

 

[Church_Militant]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This should answer your problem. It’s really pretty simple.