Who do you recognize is the harlot of revelation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fireandflames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So when the bible references her being drunk with the blood of the holy ones you mean roman armies and thier conquests?
 
fireandflames said:
So when the bible references her being drunk with the blood of the holy ones you mean roman armies and thier conquests?
Click to expand...
The pagan Roman Empire (not the Christian Roman Empire) destroyed Jerusalem.
The pagan Roman Empire also severly persecuted and martyred many of the early Christians.
In another thread you claim to be a Jehovah’s Witness, anyone can guess who you are trying to imply the harlot is.
fireandflames said:
C.T Russel was a man, and a small part of the modern day christian congregation, the reason JW’S do not speak of him alot is that this man is not our focal point. The kingdom of Jehovah and his son is.
Click to expand...
Church_Militant said:
Boy…you will believe anything won’tcha?

    • There is nothing anywhere in the Book of Revelation that tells us that it is recounting history, and you cannot provide anything to support that interpretation, so that is false.
    • “A day is a year…” That is also false, What does the Bible actually say? “For a thousand years in thy sight
      are but as yesterday when it is past,
      or as a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90:4)
    • The flight into the desert could also refer to the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt. How long were they there?
    • “…keep the commandments of God…” Bad news for you here, this verse shows that Sola Fide, one of the fundamental errors of the reformation cannot possibly be correct doctrine because this says their works had a part in their salvation and not just their confession of their faith in Christ.
    • “outlines the truth church until the reformation” This is also false since we have verifiable historical writings of the early church fathers (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans and The Martyrdom of Polycarp) and they very clearly indicate that these two friends and disciples of the apostle St. John the Evangelist (both of whom were bishops in their respective areas and martyrs for their faith) were very clearly and distinctly Catholic in their teachings. Ignatius even calls the Church by its name, the Catholic Church. One can trace the verifiable historic writings of these Catholics all the way back to the New Testament era (CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache) and the departure from sound doctrine glares when one reaches the 16th century and the so-called “Reformation”.
    • “To this day…” This is hogwash and nothing more than anti-Catholic polemics. Moreover, I don’t see any of us kicking in doors today, but I do see a great deal of anti-Catholic polemics and propaganda being disseminated with varying amounts of vitriol every day. Joseph Stalin is famously said to have asked an adviser, dismissively, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” The answer is NONE, and you cannot supply evidence of such “persecution” because in every case, the groups that caught grief from the Church were those who had departed from
    • The scriptures were made available to people and the Gospel preached in their own languages by the Catholic Church long before 1512, This is wishful thinking at best and specious propaganda at worst. The allegation is historical bunkum.
    Better have a look at this chapter from Where We Got the Bible on the vernacular translations before Wycliff.
    “Before Gutenberg printed the first Bible around 1455 (A Catholic version in Latin with 73 books) there were already popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in English, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemiam, and Hungarian.”

    "There were nine editions of the Bible in German by the time Martin Luther was born in 1493 and twenty-seven editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

    Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people."

    (Where We Got the Bible, pages 69,74,& 75)

    As for this whole topic…it’s well and truly refuted in the following excellent articles in the CA online Library.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top