"Whore of Babylon?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter BListon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The “Whore of Babylon” is actually the Emperor Nero; his temples were dedicated to many false Roman gods - and yes, “Babylon” is code for Rome - but not the Vatican.

The Book of Revelation was written in about 95 AD, and refers to the situation as it existed during that era. The way some Protestants talk, you would think it was written last weekend - it does not actually apply to us, or refer to any situation that is going on today.
Unless you take the preterist view that states the WOB as Jerusalem prior to Titus’s attack in 70 AD.
😉
 
The Lutheran Confessions state that the Papal Office is the Anti-Christ, not the person that occupies it.
Then the Lutheran Confessions are anti-Jesus Christ, because it is Jesus Christ who instituted the office of Peter, and gave the office of Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven not anti-christ;

How can the Papal office of Peter be ever anti-christ when Jesus promised to be with Peter always? and promises Peter that the gates of hell will come against him, but they will never prevail.

Yet the Lutheran Confessions have the gates of hell prevailing the office of Peter?

When history proves Peter’s office is the only apostolic see that has never been infected with heresy.

See Matthew 16:14-119, John 21:15-17
 
An angel warned Luther not to go ahead …

The Church was already attempting to reform, there were parishes in Germany that were building lay associations to offset corruption with authentic spirituality in following the Gospel. There was a nationalist movement as well in German Christians wanting more of their own jurisdiction akin to the Orthodox.

There were increasing tensions, miscommunications, mistrust between Rome and the Orthodox patriarchs. The Council of Florence attempted to ‘put the house in order’, but failed because the impetus was political…again reflecting the conditions of the Church and temporal society at that time.

Along side this in regards to Luther, there was a Catholic priest who was the most abusive and commercial in regards to indulgences…and his actions caused many priests to be labelled beyond their practice of them. Luther was a great theologian, and likewise, he was very scrupulous.

Likewise, secular thinking was emerging within the heart of Christendom… Descartes philosophy, "I think therefore I am’…was the beginning of relativism…there was a growing rise to remove the Church from temporal rule as the Church itself did not want emperors choosing its bishops, and even popes…a great change in culture was happening.

But to claim the Catholic Church as the ‘w’ of Babylon, that represented vice and flesh and already was destroyed before Christ’s beginning, is totally ignorant of the life of the Church that we experience.
 
=Gabriel of 12;9006816]Then the Lutheran Confessions are anti-Jesus Christ, because it is Jesus Christ who instituted the office of Peter, and gave the office of Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven not anti-christ;
How can the Papal office of Peter be **ever anti-christ **when Jesus promised to be with Peter always? and promises Peter that the gates of hell will come against him, but they will never prevail.
We may agree that Christ instituted the office and chair of the St. Peter, but that is not the issue for Lutherans who, by the same confessions, state clearly that division is not the intent of Reformation. If we state clearly that our goal and desire is reconciliation, it must also be true that we d o not consider the papacy as the* EVER *anti-Christ.
The confessions state three basic complaints regarding the papacy at that time:
1]The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
While the second is probably irrelevent totay, and the first half of the third has been “developed”, it is the first that remains an issue not only for us, but also Orthodoxy.
Yet the Lutheran Confessions have the gates of hell prevailing the office of Peter?
That is not what scripture says. It says that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against His Church which, while it certainly and clearly includes the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, it is not exclusive to it, and must also include the Church Triumphant. No one here is claiming that the gates of Hell will prevail against His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, here on Earth or in Heaven.
When history proves Peter’s office is the only apostolic see that has never been infected with heresy.
I won’t use the word heresy, but we believe that there are errors in your teachings. But these errors deserve none of the terms hurled about, like “Whore of Babylon”.

I find the term “anti-christ” to be among these terms. It has taken on meanings among the radicals that I don’t believe was inteneded by the reformers. Further, there has been change, as I mentioned above. Finally, terms like these do not advance the mutually agreed upon hope and prayers for eventual reconciliation.

Jon
 
First, Tommy, I sinncerely wish you all God’s blessings in word and sacament in the Catholic Church.
=Tommy555;9005273]
I was a Lutheran LCMS prior to coming to the Catholic Church. Lutherans believe the Pope is Anti-Christ. I asked what would the litmus test be as far as being Christian. The answer, unanimously, was the Nicene Creed. Well, I believe the Pope is baptized and believes the Nicene Creed. As a matter of fact, it is the Catholic Church which wrote the Nicene Creed.
I do not believe the pope is anti-Christ. I do believe he is a devote Christian, and frankly, a great leader of the whole Christian Church today. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that there are errors in Catholic teaching.
Only the Catholic Church can trace its roots to the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Peter was Pope and was martyred in Rome.
Honestly, Tommy, the Orthodox would correctly contest this. And as you know as a former Lutheran, we as part of the western Church also trace our roots to the apostles.

Jon
 
The Lutheran Confessions state that the Papal Office is the Anti-Christ, not the person that occupies it.
So… just out of curiosity, why are some Popes (ex. Gregory the Great, Leo I, Anastasius, etc. ) canonized as Saints by the Lutheran Church if that office is “Antichrist.” I’m not trying to come across as mean or anything, just wondering
 
So… just out of curiosity, why are some Popes (ex. Gregory the Great, Leo I, Anastasius, etc. ) canonized as Saints by the Lutheran Church if that office is “Antichrist.” I’m not trying to come across as mean or anything, just wondering
Well, we don’t canonize, but the popes mentioned here are before the schism, and before the development of what Lutherans would consider the hstorical and reasonable primacy for the Bishop of Rome, into the supremacy and universal jurisdiction that came later. IOW, we accept the jurisdiction set for the pope as it was set at the Council of Nicea.
Secondly, your queston relates to the question of what is the term or duration of the charge of anti-Christ, and the answer is so long as the papacy claims for itself jurisdiction not provided in scripture or the early councils. But again, understand we are not saying the papacy is the end-times beast that some more radical groups claim. We are just saying that the claim is opposed to Christ.

Jon
 
**The Lutheran Book of Concord states, “[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14). **

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 25:6 states “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can** the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.**”
 
**The Lutheran Book of Concord states, “[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14). **
Certainly harsh words from Luther here, but harsh words went back and forth. The pope he spoke of is long since dead, so he can’t be the Antichrist. That said, the complaint remains the papal claim for itself of supremacy, which we and others do not find in scripture or the early councils.

As Ive said before, the term has lost its intention and has taken on newer meanings. I do not violate the Confessons when I say that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, and others before him are/were not the Antichrist.

Jon
 
Ellen G White the founder of the SDA church is beleived by them to be an inspired “prophetss”, her writtings equivalent to the bible.

She wrote and plagarised a book called the “Great Controversy”. part of the SDA canon.

That book is full of historical inacuracies about the church. and downright lies.
Oh yeah! Lots of historical perversions and lots of lies and trust me any college freshman taking Western Civ 101 would catch them.
 
Certainly harsh words from Luther here, but harsh words went back and forth. The pope he spoke of is long since dead, so he can’t be the Antichrist. That said, the complaint remains the papal claim for itself of supremacy, which we and others do not find in scripture or the early councils.

As Ive said before, the term has lost its intention and has taken on newer meanings. I do not violate the Confessons when I say that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, and others before him are/were not the Antichrist.

Jon
Unfortunately my brother in Christ, none of the councils neither mention a canon where the pope is merely “first among equals” unless I have missed it? I believe there exist 50 NT passages clearly showing Peter’s primacy over any other Apostle. Second, there exist plenty of writings from many ECF (West & East) confirming quite the opposite of those rebuking Rome’s primacy. Third, there also exist numerous and historical cases of Eastern bishops taking serious and grave matters to Rome. As I once said: If no bishop had jurisdiction over others and the pope is “first among equals” than why would any bishop go to Rome? Why not settle it in-house,if all are equal?
 
Okay… so i keep hearing from some Christian denominations (mainly 7th Day Adventists), that the Roman Church is the “Great Harlot” of Revelation. They support this claim by stating that the city of Rome sits on seven hills (which it does), that certian ranks of clergy wear scarlet and purple (also mentioned in Revelation), that both are decked out in precious pearls and gems (mentioned in Revelation). Some even go so far as to say that the Vatican is the "Temple " in which the Pope (Antichrist/ False Prophet) pretends to be God. So who or what REALLY is the Whore of Babylon, and how do I counter such accusations against the Church.🤷
Revelation is a mystery. I’ve heard different views. Some think John was describing the destruction of the Jewish Temple, some think that the Roman Church is the harlot. I’ve heard that european union would play a big role. I’ve even heard that revelation is just a description of catholic mass. All very interesting.
 
The “Whore of Babylon” is actually the Emperor Nero; his temples were dedicated to many false Roman gods - and yes, “Babylon” is code for Rome - but not the Vatican.

The Book of Revelation was written in about 95 AD, and refers to the situation as it existed during that era. The way some Protestants talk, you would think it was written last weekend - it does not actually apply to us, or refer to any situation that is going on today.
Thanks for the info. i’m also don’t know about it.
 
Hi, my friend in Christ.
=Nicea325;9012850]Unfortunately my brother in Christ, none of the councils neither mention a canon where the pope is merely “first among equals” unless I have missed it? I believe there exist 50 NT passages clearly showing Peter’s primacy over any other Apostle.
Correct, but canon 6 of Nicea does not give additional primacy than it does to the others. It clearly lays the jurisidiction as the western. If, in fact, Rome had the kind of supremacy if now claims, canon 6 is either unnecessary, or worse, false. I tend to believe that it is neither, but instead lays out the jurisdictions of the early Church.
Second, there exist plenty of writings from many ECF (West & East) confirming quite the opposite of those rebuking Rome’s primacy.
It depends upon what one means by Rome’s primacy.
Third, there also exist numerous and historical cases of Eastern bishops taking serious and grave matters to Rome. As I once said: If no bishop had jurisdiction over others and the pope is “first among equals” than why would any bishop go to Rome? Why not settle it in-house,if all are equal?
And why not take serious and grave matters to someone they had great admiration and trust in? This seems perfectly reasonable, without construing it into universal jurisdiction.

But you know my position, my dear friend. I will accept any reconciliation of the issue as true.

Jon
 
Jon:
Hi, my friend in Christ.
Blessings my friend.
Quote:
=Nicea325;9012850]Unfortunately my brother in Christ, none of the councils neither mention a canon where the pope is merely “first among equals” unless I have missed it? I believe there exist 50 NT passages clearly showing Peter’s primacy over any other Apostle.
Jon:
Correct, but canon 6 of Nicea does not give additional primacy than it does to the others. It clearly lays the jurisidiction as the western. If, in fact, Rome had the kind of supremacy if now claims, canon 6 is either unnecessary, or worse, false. I tend to believe that it is neither, but instead lays out the jurisdictions of the early Church.
Which to a degree supports my argument: Then why take grave matters to Rome at all? Then that would make all sides guilty of disobeying a canon.
Quote:
Second, there exist plenty of writings from many ECF (West & East) confirming quite the opposite of those rebuking Rome’s primacy
.
Jon:
It depends upon what one means by Rome’s primacy.
Jurisdiction. As I said there are 50 NT verses clearly showing Peter having the primacy. I do not understand why universal jurisdiction would be against God’s will? Jesus preached the Kingdom of God,not the democracy of Heaven. Is not God universal? I believe God can set-up His Church any fashion regardless if many disagree with Him. Jesus chose the best office (papacy) for the man,not the best man for the office. To many want to convey Christ Church as being democratic in nature and structure. Why is it impossible or out of God’s character to establish the Bishop of Rome with primacy over His entire church?
Quote:
Third, there also exist numerous and historical cases of Eastern bishops taking serious and grave matters to Rome. As I once said: If no bishop had jurisdiction over others and the pope is “first among equals” than why would any bishop go to Rome? Why not settle it in-house,if all are equal?
Jon:
And why not take serious and grave matters to someone they had great admiration and trust in? This seems perfectly reasonable, without construing it into universal jurisdiction.
I am sorry my friend,but I would have to take a bit deeper than just pure admiration and trust. The words of those ECF’s convey more than just admiration.
But you know my position, my dear friend. I will accept any reconciliation of the issue as true.
And as always…much appreciated and respected. God bless my friend
 
I posted this in Sacred Scripture.

It is a link to show the Early dating of Revelation. Prior to 70 A.D.
I always found the early dating of Revelation compelling. The problem is there is no evidence from the early Church.
 
I always found the early dating of Revelation compelling. The problem is there is no evidence from the early Church.
Here is some evidence.

When you take some Early Church Fathers, Historical Evidence, and Internal evidence, the witness is compelling!

Testimony from Early Church History

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
(On the Timing of John’s Banishment)
“And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of **John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, **in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit.” (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero.

Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403)
“[John], who prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]…the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed.”
(Epiphanius, Panarion/Heresies 51:12,33)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
“the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.”

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and “John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all.” The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)
“The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.” (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)

Arethas (sixth century)
“Arethas in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event”
(From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871)

Papias (first century)
“Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned.”
(John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

Papias newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top