The Woman Dressed in Purple and Scarlet

[jcrichton]

“Babylon is fallen! Is fallen!” And the merchants stand far off and weep. This is an economic system, and Jack Van Impe suggests the European Union is a great candidate for the revived Roman Empire of Daniel and John’s Apocalpyse.

666/616 is the number of Solomon’s profane tax or tariff. Again, an economic system.

The Mark of the Beast is needed to buy or sell. Economic system.

But nooooo! The Pope is sporting a hat that says wicked stuff in Latin as if nooooobody in the Catholic Church noticed that. Right…This is ear-tickling error at its rebellious finest. Get faithful and true and stand on the Rock.

…I tried but failed to understand your exposition… could you clarify?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

My third thought was, don’t hurt your brain or your heart over these matters. Trying to discern as yet unknown patterns in mystical prophecy is unwise. What will come to pass will come to pass as it is written and all will be revealed in due time. If your heart is with Christ and you are otherwise certain that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, then ignore whatever parallels may appear to be in the Book of Revelation. It has no bearing on your faith or the Catholic Church. In fact, if you end your faith because of such things, you would be in a bit of a contradiction because you have to take as a pre-existing premise to the Book of Revelation the truth and legitimacy of the Church. And you can’t necessarily become Protestant because at 40-some-odd years old, you’ve already been drilled on their lack of claim to apostolic succession, leaving them with no claim to legitimacy at all.

PS I had a thought about the distinction between the Catholic Church and the Catholic institution. As an institution, I think perhaps no more atrocities have been committed than by the Catholic institution and a hefty handful of members of such, but it is otherwise undeniable that the Church is the one true, just Church. So on the off chance that the Book of Revelation may describe the Catholic institution, it could never describe the Church.

I’m confused… we do not need to pay attention to prophecy (the Word of God)? Are anti-Catholics correct in applying negative spin to everything Catholic? …no other institution has committed more atrocities than the Catholic Church/ institution?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MJDorry]

I’m confused… we do not need to pay attention to prophecy (the Word of God)? Are anti-Catholics correct in applying negative spin to everything Catholic? …no other institution has committed more atrocities than the Catholic Church/ institution?

Maran atha!

Angel

I don’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to prophecy, but being that it takes an extraordinary degree of discernment when reading prophecies, we also shouldn’t wrack our minds over them. Not especially when those ‘prophecies’ are less likely prophecies than they are mystical experiences of what is. Also, it does one well to note that mystical experiences of this caliber are bigger arena of thought and discussion. At least, those are some of my thoughts about matter like this. Clearly, the OP is in a bit of a bind precisely because she/he is putting way too much thought into it and hasn’t been graced with great discernment about it.

As to your second question, in the context of what I’ve said and what you’re asking me, I don’t quite understand the question. As a standalone question, I answer no. By nature of being anti-something and putting a negative spin everything ‘that something’, one presents biased, if not illegitimate points. I also doubt that many anti-Catholics–whose intentions it was to put a negative spin on anything Catholic–has ever been correct. That, or if they have been correct about something, they were only partially correct, sometimes merely incidentally in the bulk of their argument.

To your third question, I wonder if you ask it merely because you are offended at what I have said and not given it much thought, or if you are asking me a serious question as to whether any other institution has committed more atrocities or not. In the Church’s long, long history, I think you would hard pressed to find more atrocities committed than by those of the Catholic institution. And I think that if you refuse to acknowledge that because you want the Church to be nothing less than totally shiny and holy, as a Catholic, you are deluding yourself. In a great grace, it is in light of many of these atrocities that we can truly see how untouched the Mother Church is. As one priest wrote (Unfortunately, I cannot find the source any longer), Rodrigo Borgia was one of the most detestable and evil men in history, but Pope Alexander VI never once altered doctrine for his own selfish purposes. How many millions of innocents were killed in the name of the Church over the centuries, and yet its doctrines have never changed to justify or include those acts as part of the teachings. Indeed Maran tha

 

[inkaneer]

To your third question, I wonder if you ask it merely because you are offended at what I have said and not given it much thought, or if you are asking me a serious question as to whether any other institution has committed more atrocities or not. In the Church’s long, long history, I think you would hard pressed to find more atrocities committed than by those of the Catholic institution. And I think that if you refuse to acknowledge that because you want the Church to be nothing less than totally shiny and holy, as a Catholic, you are deluding yourself. In a great grace, it is in light of many of these atrocities that we can truly see how untouched the Mother Church is. As one priest wrote (Unfortunately, I cannot find the source any longer), Rodrigo Borgia was one of the most detestable and evil men in history, but Pope Alexander VI never once altered doctrine for his own selfish purposes. How many millions of innocents were killed in the name of the Church over the centuries, and yet its doctrines have never changed to justify or include those acts as part of the teachings. Indeed Maran tha

You paint with a broad brush. Have you forgotten about Stalin or Hitler? As for the church committing atrocities I submit that the church has not committed 99% of the atrocities that she is alleged to have committed. Here the broad brush that you painted with becomes a spray gun. History can be fictionalized and a prime example is the Galileo trial and the “atrocity” supposedly perpetuated by the church. But the transcripts of the Galileo trial are preserved but are not consulted, or ignored, by most historians. Why, what motive would an honest historian have to do so? The answer is none, provided they were an honest historian. If you were writing the history of any event and there was a primary source of information dating to the very time of the event would you not want to employ it as part of your search for the truth, if, indeed, the truth was your aim in writing the history of the event? Another event is the sack of the city of Constaninople by the Crusaders. This too has been laid at the doorstep of the church by so called historians. But does any of them even mention that the Crusaders were specifically told by the pope, in writing, to do no harm to the city or its people? Do they mention that the real cause of the sacking of Constantinople was due to the massacre of 400 merchants from Venice and that the leader of the Crusade was from Venice? Now you know why the pope specifically wrote not to harm the city. The list goes on and on.

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to prophecy, but being that it takes an extraordinary degree of discernment when reading prophecies, we also shouldn’t wrack our minds over them. Not especially when those ‘prophecies’ are less likely prophecies than they are mystical experiences of what is. Also, it does one well to note that mystical experiences of this caliber are bigger arena of thought and discussion. At least, those are some of my thoughts about matter like this. Clearly, the OP is in a bit of a bind precisely because she/he is putting way too much thought into it and hasn’t been graced with great discernment about it.

I concur with you that we should not wrack our minds over prophecies (specifically the most obscured ones)–Christ’s concern was never about who (how many) understood the prophecies… rather His concern was “…when the Son of Man returns would He find Faith on earth?”

As to your second question, in the context of what I’ve said and what you’re asking me, I don’t quite understand the question. As a standalone question, I answer no. By nature of being anti-something and putting a negative spin everything ‘that something’, one presents biased, if not illegitimate points. I also doubt that many anti-Catholics–whose intentions it was to put a negative spin on anything Catholic–has ever been correct. That, or if they have been correct about something, they were only partially correct, sometimes merely incidentally in the bulk of their argument.

…I was making reference, perhaps too obscurely, to the many efforts to enlist the Church as the anti-Christ/the whore of Babylon, etc.

To your third question, I wonder if you ask it merely because you are offended at what I have said and not given it much thought, or if you are asking me a serious question as to whether any other institution has committed more atrocities or not. In the Church’s long, long history, I think you would hard pressed to find more atrocities committed than by those of the Catholic institution. And I think that if you refuse to acknowledge that because you want the Church to be nothing less than totally shiny and holy, as a Catholic, you are deluding yourself. In a great grace, it is in light of many of these atrocities that we can truly see how untouched the Mother Church is. As one priest wrote (Unfortunately, I cannot find the source any longer), Rodrigo Borgia was one of the most detestable and evil men in history, but Pope Alexander VI never once altered doctrine for his own selfish purposes. How many millions of innocents were killed in the name of the Church over the centuries, and yet its doctrines have never changed to justify or include those acts as part of the teachings. Indeed Maran tha

I do understand that there were errors committed in the past and in the not so distant past of Church history… I recognize that the Church being composed of human kind can and has suffered derailments from the “perfect” Truth; but my concern is not hidding the errors committed by the Church but rather not accepting blanket statements such as:

In the Church’s long, long history, I think you would hard pressed to find more atrocities committed than by those of the Catholic institution.

…I’m not a historian nor do I play one on tv but I know that humanity has inflicted more horror on humanity in the name of king and country than in the name of God and Church… just take Count Vlad III (Vlad the Impaler: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler) history depict him as extraorinarily cruel, is the Church to blame for his cruelty? …as Father Mitch Pacua stated “in the past 2000 years there has been less than 6 million deaths attributed to religious war/battles vs. over 260 million in the last 70 years of Commnism.” (Paraphrased, I can get you the direct quote if you wish it.)

…was Hitler Catholic? …some say he was… somehow, some believe that once you are Catholic you are forever Catholic–consequently they ascribe his heinous acts to a Catholic/Christian… is that truly a reasonable conclusion?

…here you lost me, again!:

and yet its doctrines have never changed to justify or include those acts as part of the teachings

…I’m not quite clear what your statement means to say.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You paint with a broad brush. Have you forgotten about Stalin or Hitler? As for the church committing atrocities I submit that the church has not committed 99% of the atrocities that she is alleged to have committed. Here the broad brush that you painted with becomes a spray gun. History can be fictionalized and a prime example is the Galileo trial and the “atrocity” supposedly perpetuated by the church. But the transcripts of the Galileo trial are preserved but are not consulted, or ignored, by most historians. Why, what motive would an honest historian have to do so? The answer is none, provided they were an honest historian. If you were writing the history of any event and there was a primary source of information dating to the very time of the event would you not want to employ it as part of your search for the truth, if, indeed, the truth was your aim in writing the history of the event? Another event is the sack of the city of Constaninople by the Crusaders. This too has been laid at the doorstep of the church by so called historians. But does any of them even mention that the Crusaders were specifically told by the pope, in writing, to do no harm to the city or its people? Do they mention that the real cause of the sacking of Constantinople was due to the massacre of 400 merchants from Venice and that the leader of the Crusade was from Venice? Now you know why the pope specifically wrote not to harm the city. The list goes on and on.

I find it interesting that “scholars” and “historians” are constantly wrong about very important facts and are quick to exploit any seeming fault of the Chruch… till today English and Spanish vernacular attest to the sun rising and going down–yet none jump up an down to remove such error from the books… but those same scholars/historians continue to blatantly claim that the Church taught a “flat” earth! :doh2::doh2::doh2:

…and as for the Crusades… an answer to the Muslim threat whose effectiveness caused such greed and infight that it destroyed the very effort that was innitiated–why did the Pope innitially asked the Catholic monarchs for assistance?.. the Muslims were set to take not just Spain (which they occupied for about 800 years) but Rome–the Vatican specifically–and, as they thought, the rest of Europe (take down the Church and the West falls)–why aren’t the scholars/historians including this tidbit with their outcries about the bad bad crusades? (…even hollowood as late as NCIS ascribes to the poor occupied Muslims–never mind the 800 years of Moros in Spain! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_presence_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pastormarkm]

I was studying the whore of Babylon and found this thread. I was intrigued and thought I would share what I have found out about her from the Bible.

Rev 17
-taken away into a wilderness (GK: eremos = abandoned place, uninhabited place)
-she is called mother of harlots and abominations
-she is drunk with the blood of the saints
-beast was and is not and is about to come up and go to destruction

• those who are not written in the book of life will wonder at the reappearance of the beast
  -Seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits and they are seven kings (Clearly a euphemism for kingdoms, NOT 7 Literal hills)

-5 of seven have fallen by the time of John
-One currently is and one is to come
-the beast which was and is not is also an eighth and one of the seven

-10 horns have not yet received a kingdom but will rule with the beast and give their power to him
-harlot sits on peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues
-woman is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth (“Rules” in Perfect active)
-she is burned up with fire (Rev. 18:8)
-she lived in luxury and wealth
-she bought bodies and people

*** For example, some say she is Saudia Arabia but the Saudi’s have never ruled over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18 gives this as the interpretation of who she is… points to Rome or some other world power as the harlot??? )

I know this thread is quite old, but is still very interesting to me.

God bless…