How close to the 'end' of this earth as we know it?

[cgaviria]

But if you connect the harlot with the roman catholic church. Then that means once she was of God and was not faithful. That's who the harlot is in the book of revelation... Therefore then she does come from the 12 apostles and she fall from grace; so the mother of harlots is the 12 apostles and back to jesus. ..

The meaning of a harlot, is that as a church, she sells herself for money. So when you look at the Roman Catholic church, look how rich it has made itself, look at the Vatican and all its treasures. These are things that a church of God ought not to do, as all in the early assemblies sold all their properties, and possessions, and lived humble lives, and met daily in their homes. So already, you can see that there is a grave error in how the roman catholic church has operated from the beginning, while still borrowing many of the teachings of the apostles, but implementing its own religion, and thus most of the world, even protestants that branched out from it, are all in grave error.

 

[justcoolforyou]

The meaning of a harlot, is that as a church, she sells herself for money. So when you look at the Roman Catholic church, look how rich it has made itself, look at the Vatican and all its treasures. These are things that a church of God ought not to do, as all in the early assemblies sold all their properties, and possessions, and lived humble lives, and met daily in their homes. So already, you can see that there is a grave error in how the roman catholic church has operated from the beginning, while still borrowing many of the teachings of the apostles, but implementing its own religion, and thus most of the world, even protestants that branched out from it, are all in grave error.

Ok but that's your interpretation... Just focusing on the harlot of scripture that book of revelation does state she was of God and fall from grace ; therefore her origin comes from the 12 apostles. Whether or not she is the catholic church is a different point...

 

[Wgw]

The meaning of a harlot, is that as a church, she sells herself for money. So when you look at the Roman Catholic church, look how rich it has made itself, look at the Vatican and all its treasures. These are things that a church of God ought not to do, as all in the early assemblies sold all their properties, and possessions, and lived humble lives, and met daily in their homes.

They didn't, actually.

So already, you can see that there is a grave error in how the roman catholic church has operated from the beginning, while still borrowing many of the teachings of the apostles, but implementing its own religion, and thus most of the world, even protestants that branched out from it, are all in grave error.

"From the beginning" is rather too broad a definition; in its first few centuries the Roman church was a veritable bastion of piety.

To give an example of how it was not a harlot: the heretic Marcion, who taught that the Old Testament was written by a false, evil demiurge, in opposition to the true God, made a large donation to the Roman church with proceeds from his shipping business. When the Roman clergy found out about his blasphemy, they demanded he repent, and when he refused, although it was a hardship, his donatiom was refunded entirely.

That was the Roman church of the second century: a bastion of piety, of the apostolic tradition, a stalwart and unflinching champion of Christian Orthodoxy.

 

[cgaviria]

They didn't, actually.



"From the beginning" is rather too broad a definition; in its first few centuries the Roman church was a veritable bastion of piety.

To give an example of how it was not a harlot: the heretic Marcion, who taught that the Old Testament was written by a false, evil demiurge, in opposition to the true God, made a large donation to the Roman church with proceeds from his shipping business. When the Roman clergy found out about his blasphemy, they demanded he repent, and when he refused, although it was a hardship, his donatiom was refunded entirely.

That was the Roman church of the second century: a bastion of piety, of the apostolic tradition, a stalwart and unflinching champion of Christian Orthodoxy.

The Roman church is a bastion of heresy, blasphemy, and of murder. They will indeed be judged for the blood they have spilled, and the blasphemies they have spoken.

 

[Wgw]

The Roman church is a bastion of heresy, blasphemy, and of murder. They will indeed be judged for the blood they have spilled, and the blasphemies they have spoken.

In the second century, the inquisition had not happened, so your charge of "murder" is entirelt inapplicable. Obviously, things have changed, which is why the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, but this is to be lamented, in that at one time the Roman church was something special.

 

[cgaviria]

In the second century, the inquisition had not happened, so your charge of "murder" is entirelt inapplicable. Obviously, things have changed, which is why the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, but this is to be lamented, in that at one time the Roman church was something special.

They were never of God, this church came forth from the fourth beast of Daniel, which was the Roman empire. It is the great false church that was prophesied to come. And thus has fulfilled prophecy in the blasphemies it has spoken, and in the murders it has committed.

 

[Wgw]

They were never of God, this church came forth from the fourth beast of Daniel, which was the Roman empire. It is the great false church that was prophesied to come. And thus has fulfilled prophecy in the blasphemies it has spoken, and in the murders it has committed.

If that were the case, then the Roman church would not have been blessed by an epistle of St. Paul, nor would it jave had the honour of ministering to him before his martyrdom.

 

[cgaviria]

If that were the case, then the Roman church would not have been blessed by an epistle of St. Paul, nor would it jave had the honour of ministering to him before his martyrdom.

Even the greatest can fall into heresy.

The apostle Paul was murdered by the Romans. And there were even men that were taught by the apostles, that then left from them, hence,

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. (1 John 2:19 [NIV])

The blasphemies and murders they have committed demonstrates that they were never of the apostles.

 

[Wgw]

The apostle Paul was murdered by the Romans. And there were even men that were taught by the apostles, that then left from them, hence,

He was not murdered by members of the Roman church, but rather the Imperial government of Nero.

The blasphemies and murders they have committed demonstrates that they were never of the apostles.

Not true; it only demonstrates that after many centuries of piety, they fell away. One can point to no blasphemies or murders committed by the Roman church of the second century; the blasphemy was comitted by the Emperors who viewed themselves as gods and demanded worship, and who murdered the Christians of Rome.

Rome produced a great many martyrs, which is why your sweeping generalization must be rejected according to your own standards.

 

[cgaviria]

He was not murdered by members of the Roman church, but rather the Imperial government of Nero.



Not true; it only demonstrates that after many centuries of piety, they fell away. One can point to no blasphemies or murders committed by the Roman church of the second century; the blasphemy was comitted by the Emperors who viewed themselves as gods and demanded worship, and who murdered the Christians of Rome.

Rome produced a great many martyrs, which is why your sweeping generalization must be rejected according to your own standards.

He was murdered by the Romans. Nero was a Roman. This Roman empire, then became the Roman church. And this Roman church was a church of falsehood, that from the beginning taught doctrines contrary to what the apostles taught. It's obvious from looking back in history, anyone that refuses to see this clearly has a bias in favor of this church, when in truth this church surely has blood on its hands, has spoken terrible blasphemies that have led the world astray, and has fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Wgw]

He was murdered by the Romans. Nero was a Roman. This Roman empire, then became the Roman church. And this Roman church was a church of falsehood, that from the beginning taught doctrines contrary to what the apostles taught. It's obvious from looking back in history, anyone that refuses to see this clearly has a bias in favor of this church, when in truth this church surely has blood on its hands, has spoken terrible blasphemies that have led the world astray, and has fulfilled prophecy.

So is your view now that everyone who happens to have been ethnically a Roman was and is evil?

 

[cgaviria]

So is your view now that everyone who happens to have been ethnically a Roman was and is evil?

Not ethnically, but anyone associated with that governmental power when it was an empire, then as a church, yes. Both powers taught teachings contrary to what the apostles taught, and both powers also committed murder. That empire was not of God, neither was the church that came from it. And history proves it. Anyone who refuses to see this clearly has a bias, it is so obvious its not even funny. It's like saying Hitler was a saint, yet history shows he was a genocidal maniac with twisted ideas and killed millions. The catholic church has martyred and killed many, and had twisted scripture. Yet it is still "respected" because people are still being deceived by it, which is also a fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[Wgw]

Not ethnically, but anyone associated with that governmental power when it was an empire,

Well, that definition excludes the second century Roman church, which was not associated with the Roman State but was rather persecuted by it.

then as a church, yes. Both powers taught teachings contrary to what the apostles taught, and both powers also committed murder. That empire was not of God, neither was the church that came from it.

I disagree on this point. I regard the post-Constantinian Roman Empire to have generally been a force for good.

And history proves it. Anyone who refuses to see this clearly has a bias, it is so obvious its not even funny.

History proves your argument regarding the second century Roman church to be bogus, in that it is applicable only to later centuries.

It's like saying Hitler was a saint, yet history shows he was a genocidal maniac with twisted ideas and killed millions. The catholic church has martyred and killed many, and had twisted scripture. Yet it is still "respected" because people are still being deceived by it, which is also a fulfillment of prophecy.

There exists a logical flaw here. Arians and other non-Trinitarians martyred and killed many; by this logic, we should embrace the Trinity. Or alternately reject a belief in God. Take your pick; when logic is discarded, the "right" answer becomes non-deterministic and is reduced to aesthetics.

 

[cgaviria]

Well, that definition excludes the second century Roman church, which was not associated with the Roman State but was rather persecuted by it.



I disagree on this point. I regard the post-Constantinian Roman Empire to have generally been a force for good.



History proves your argument regarding the second century Roman church to be bogus, in that it is applicable only to later centuries.



There exists a logical flaw here. Arians and other non-Trinitarians martyred and killed many; by this logic, we should embrace the Trinity. Or alternately reject a belief in God. Take your pick; when logic is discarded, the "right" answer becomes non-deterministic and is reduced to aesthetics.

The apostles killed no one, so it is their teachings that I go by, and I suggest any man that wishes to follow after Jesus Christ to do the same. If any church deviates from their teaching in any way whatsoever, they are in error.

 

[Wgw]

The apostles killed no one, so it is their teachings that I go by, and I suggest any man that wishes to follow after Jesus Christ to do the same. If any church deviates from their teaching in any way whatsoever, they are in error.

I agree. My church has also killed no one, so this is rather a non-point.

 

[roamer_1]

1 Corinthians 3:18 - Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.​

Good post.

I tend to have a much wider view of these things than most - Beginning with a difference in 'the latter days (in it's various forms)', which most Christians confuse/conflate with the 'end times (in it's various forms)'.

Both Paul and John declare they were living in 'the latter days', so this thing must necessarily be ongoing for the last 2000 years. It is an interesting study, the latter days, as distinct from the time of the end or end times... Pan way back, and consider.

The Pathriarchal inheritance is in the latter days... Nebuchadnezzar's dream is in the latter days. The latter days is when 'they will search for the truth and will not find it'...

I think the lie is so deep and has been running so long, that virtually everything we think we know is suspect, especially that which has transpired in the last two hundred years, wherein the basic lifestyle of all the time past has been subjugated to something else - Something quick and busy, distracting - Distraction is the tool of the magician and the con artist... moving those walnut shells faster and faster... Is it any wonder that one cannot find the pea?

I think we are the proverbial 'frog in the pot'. With that sense in mind:

If so, then one of the 'things' described as 'happening first' is that the 'world' would be followers of something other than the truth. It states that there 'must come a falling away first'.

The falling away began long ago.

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. ​

What is the 'falling away'? Certainly it isn't a 'falling away from religion' or a 'falling away from faith', for these things would endure no matter what. They always have been an integral part of the existence of man, so it must be something else. It is my belief that the reference is to 'truth'. That directly before the return of Christ, mankind will have 'fallen away' from the 'truth'. Following truth of their own design instead of the 'truth' as delivered by God through prophet, His own Son and the apostles.

I think it is both. I think that science, ever the companion of false religion, has blinded us.

So, if what I have offered is the truth, then that would mean if we are 'closer than every'

Well, of course we are closer than ever. We are ALWAYS getting 'closer than ever'... And tomorrow will be closer than today. Keep your eyes on those walnuts...

That means that Satan has been working towards turning men away from the truth and to follow him instead of God for thousands of years.

YEP.

That is what I believe the 'falling away' to be. Satan replacing God's truth with his truth and convincing men that it is 'their own'. Teaching men to teach each other that he is God and bringing them to bow to him instead of God.

Pay attention to Torah. It defines the variables at the beginning of the code. It tells you what is sin... It tells you how to worship, how to live... A false teacher will not be able to abide in Torah.

A tricky question: If one did not 'know' God, if Satan pretended to be God, how would one 'know' the difference? In other words, if Satan is capable of 'lying wonders' and miracles, how does one 'know' how to distinguish the difference between his miracles and lying wonders from the Spirit of God?

Torah.

And if Satan has introduced a 'false Christ', how does one 'know' the difference between Satan's 'false Christ' and the 'true Christ'? If Satan is able to mimic the true Christ, how does one distinguish the difference between the Son of God and the Son of Satan?

Torah. Isn't it amazing that the one thing that can keep folks from being fooled is the one thing that most people reject, to include Christians?

Understand, we do not battle against 'flesh' but against evil influence in high places. Those that have the ability to alter the perceptions of this world in a profound manner. Those in POWER to control what we are exposed to the most.

No, the powers and principalities are demonic. Fallen Ones, and their spawn.

Media, the churches, schools, governments, political and social leaders, doctors, lawyers, the courts and judges. What if 'all' those in a place of power are being manipulated by Satan in order to influence the rest of us. University professors, kindergarten teachers, mayors, governors, presidents. What if these are the individuals referred to as 'powers and high places'?

No, merely the tools of those that are. Hoomins are deceived/oppressed/posessed... even the ones that practice evil. The PTB are demonic... It is hard for me to remember that my ex-wife is only deceived (and not demonic), but when I do, it is much easier to forgive her.

And what we see more than anything else in the world today is an attempt at conformity. We are being manipulated by governments to be 'good citizens'. To 'do' that which we are 'trained' to do for the betterment of the 'whole'. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Is it really that difficult to see just how easily such a mantra could be used to turn one away from the truth and towards a 'worldly goal'?

Conformity in and of itself is not the problem. It is what we are conforming to. No question that is being promulgated by leaders in unison... But just two generations ago, we all conformed to something that was a whole lot more Christian.

So who close are we really? For it is without any doubt that the closer we get the more the 'falling away' will become fulfilled. Every day closer, the more the 'falling away' will become closer to being manifest. At what point does the 'falling away' become complete?

When the frog in the pot reaches par. I think I will see the day (I am 54)... If not, then I know of a certainty that my children will.

If we use the Bible as an example, each time that God has chosen to destroy men, there was only ONE left that God considered 'worthy' to be saved.

Not true. It was not just Noah - it was eight. It was not just Lot, it was his family. When Elijah thought all was lost, YHWH told him there were still seven thousand who had not bent a knee to Baal. Look up! Be of good cheer. Salvation (Yeshua is his name) draweth nigh!

One of the things that is often lost on Christians is that for all it's woes, the greatest revival and conversion happens in these days that draw near. The fall harvest is much greater than the spring.

 

[roamer_1]

It really might be 20-30 more years.

It really might be longer than that... There's a whole lot of the prophecy that remains undone.

 

[justcoolforyou]

He was murdered by the Romans. Nero was a Roman. This Roman empire, then became the Roman church. And this Roman church was a church of falsehood, that from the beginning taught doctrines contrary to what the apostles taught. It's obvious from looking back in history, anyone that refuses to see this clearly has a bias in favor of this church, when in truth this church surely has blood on its hands, has spoken terrible blasphemies that have led the world astray, and has fulfilled prophecy.

Then if thats true then the Vatican is the beast not the harlot... for the harlot is the "woman" who was of god and fell from grace...

 

[MerriestHouse]

The destruction of the Vatican is one of the last signs, as the prostitute of Babylon will be destroyed by the ten, before the coming of the Lord.

Babylon was where "our Lord was crucified." Our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, not Rome.

Babylon was the "once faithful city." Was Rome ever the "once faithful city?"

 

[Imagican]

So Jesus Christ intentionally misled His apostles into believing a lie, and purposely gave them false hope, so they wouldn't "feel sad"?


Preposterous.
To insinuate that ANY part of the Bible did not have direct meaning and application to it's original audience is untenable.

That you would suggest ALL the generations of Christians prior to the present one should have simply torn up and thrown away whole segments of scripture as they were utterly useless to them is unfathomable.

I'm so glad you brought this up.
What was the mechanism by which the Kingdom would be taken away and given to others?
How does scripture say that was to be accomplished?
​

Much of the Bible was written in a manner that 'can't be understood' until it actually 'takes place'. The reason being so that those that are present when it takes place will know that it had to be divinely revealed once fulfilled.

I can guarantee you that John understood very little if 'any' of the vision he recorded. He was told to 'record it', not to 'understand it'. The vision wasn't for him so much as those that would read it thousands of years later.

Newton spent most of his life believing that he had the 'key' to unlocking Revelation. He did not succeed. For it wasn't meant to be understood during 'his time'.

So yes, there are some pretty large portions of the Bible that have had little relevancy to the 'people' so far. Not that it needs to be 'torn out' of the Bible or ignored. It's just pretty vague and of little significance until it becomes fulfilled.

Blessings,

MEC