Dave Hunt says RCC is Babylon

Affinity said:

No, but the city/empire of Rome at the time when John wrote the revelation does.

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong.

Unless you can prove indisputably that "the great city" of Revelation 11 is different than "the great city" of chapters 16-18, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can prove two different cities, other than historical Sodom, are "spiritually called Sodom," Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can show that Jesus was slain in two different cities, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you are willing to ignore or deny the united testimony of the Lord, and the apostle Paul, as to the identity of the slayer of Jesus, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Athanasian Creed said:

So what??? Many of the Prophets and Apostles had less than prolific 'careers' when God called them (and used them mightly)

Whom the Spirit of the Lord calls to teach/admonish/warn He enables with His power and wisdom.

Back to the OP - i believe 100% that Dave Hunt is correct in his identifying the 'harlot of Babylon' I've read the book twice and he delves exhaustively into the history of the RCC and it's doctrines, backing up his premise using secular, Catholic and Christian sources.

He most certainly did his homework!

FYI - Mystery Babylon = Rome = Vatican City - the words "Rome" and "Vatican" are universally used interchangeably.

The Great harlot and the Antichrist

1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. (Revelation 17)



The Great harlot is identified as:

• A woman
• A harlot
• Dressed in scarlet and purple
• Decked with gold, precious stones, etc.
• Drunk with the blood of saints and martyrs
• Is located in the city on seven hills
• Mother of harlots and abominations
• In league with the Antichrist (the beast)

The Roman Catholic Church in light of these biblical markers:

• The RCC has always referred to herself as a woman (sic., "holy mother the Church.")
• The Bible consistently identifies apostate religion as a harlot.
• Scarlet and purple are the colors of the college of cardinals (top leaders of the RCC).
• The pope, cardinals and bishops are ever "decked with gold, precious stones, expensive garments.
• The history of the RCC is one of great inquisition and slaughter of Bible believing people.
• Rome is the only "city on seven hills" in the world.
• Pope John Paul II has been performing abominations, such as kissing the Qu'ran and becoming a disciple of a Hindu Shiva Priestess. (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/occult_pope_receives_mark_of_shiva.htm)
• The RCC is headquartered in Rome, the city of seven hills.
• The very term "Rome" is understood as a reference to the RCC.
• The "league with the Antichrist" is yet future.

http://www.angelfire.com/ma/romewatch/page18.html


Ray

Click to expand...

I have my suspicions about the NWO and associated World Religion. However, I don't think the RCC is Babylon.

This article you posted is really shocking!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...k_of_shiva.htm

Wow.

OU

OttawaUk said:

...This article you posted is really shocking!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...k_of_shiva.htm

Wow.

OU

Click to expand...

There is far, far more that could be revealed about the former Pope organizing "prayer meetings" with occult religious leaders, and allowing the worship of a false god on the altar (Buddah) of the Roman Catholic Church at Assisi, of his ecumenical interfaith agenda - to unite all religions under her wing - apparently without Christ.



“[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, ..”
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Zenit news story, “Are Believers of Other Religions Saved?”, Sept. 5, 2000

This is an abominable, blasphemous statement made by the so-called 'Vicar of Christ' - Jesus the Christ, the eternal God in the flesh Who said He ALONE was the way, truth and life and no one comes to the Father (unto salvation) but by Him!



On 11/30/05, Pope Benedict XVI declared to the masses in St. Peter's Square in Rome:

"Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcedent, will be saved even if he lacks Biblical faith."

Benedict XVI did not tell his fawning audience the truth but what they wanted to hear (2 Timothy 4:3,4) The Pope's words are unbiblical and misleading. Having a "desire for the transcendent" does not equal seeking the one true God. Nor can seeking "peace and the good of the community" be equated with receiving as personal Saviour the One who "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20) Nor has anyone a "pure conscience": "There is none righteous, NO, NOT ONE...ALL HAVE SINNED, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:10,23) It is by 'Biblical faith' that we are saved - "faith comes by hearing...the Word of God" says God's Word! The Pope and his Church offer false hope to sinners!



Ray

Athanasian Creed said:

The Pope and his "Church" offer false hope to sinners!
Ray

Click to expand...

Hi Ray.
I'm curious as to how any of what you said indicts the "office" of Pope and/or the Church?

You indict men only, yet you infer indictment of the office or organization itself.

If we are to apply your logic with any consistancy, the fact that Bill Clinton Lied under oath should call into question the legitmacy of the office of President of the United States itself, no matter who occupies it..

Thankfully, such is not the case, with President Bill Clinton or ANY Pope.

Men who hold the office may or may not live up the the honor and integrity inherent in that office, but the mere fact that there are men who do not, hardly supports your argument that the office itself is without honor, integrity, and in the case of the office of Pope, Apostolic Authority.

Why don't you support your case by providing evidence that the office itself is flawed, and not merely the fallible men who hold it from time to time are flawed?

Dave Hunt thinks that everyone other than Dave Hunt is in the occult.

I have no doubt that the Woman referred to in revelation 17 is linked to Rome, but she is an entity which long predates the Roman Catholic Church. She is the world system of false religion (in our modern parlayance we would see it as some kind of mixture between new age and humanism).

I don't think she is the Roman Catholic Church, but I do expect that before too long we will see some world wide entity, possibly the UN propose a one world religious/philosophical system which is humanistic and new age in nature.. it will not presented as a replacement for all other religions at first, but as a system to which all religions can adhere to show their commitment to world peace and loyalty to the global community.

I expect it will be HQ'd in Rome or otherwise linked to Rome. I also expect it will inaugerate great troubles for the Roman Catholic Church as it will for the rest of Christendom.

parousia70 said:

You couldn't be more wrong.

Unless you can prove indisputably that "the great city" of Revelation 11 is different than "the great city" of chapters 16-18, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can prove two different cities, other than historical Sodom, are "spiritually called Sodom," Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can show that Jesus was slain in two different cities, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you are willing to ignore or deny the united testimony of the Lord, and the apostle Paul, as to the identity of the slayer of Jesus, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Who can argue against that?

Gala 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem [Law/Death] which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Reve 12:7 And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon [Law/Death?] did war, and his messengers, 8 and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven;

parousia70 said:

You couldn't be more wrong.

Unless you can prove indisputably that "the great city" of Revelation 11 is different than "the great city" of chapters 16-18, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can prove two different cities, other than historical Sodom, are "spiritually called Sodom," Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you can show that Jesus was slain in two different cities, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Unless you are willing to ignore or deny the united testimony of the Lord, and the apostle Paul, as to the identity of the slayer of Jesus, Babylon was Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between the city where "our Lord was crucified" and the city that commited fornications with the kings of the earth and made its inhabitants drunk with the wine of her abominations.

We are presented with two different end time scenarioes for both cities. With Sodom and Egypt, only a tenth of the city falls and the remnant GIVE GLORY TO GOD.

With Babylon, the ten kings utterly destroy her with fire, which means that no one will be giving God glory from within her walls, people will be mourning from far away, seeing the smoke of her torment rise forever.

The fact that there are two different endtime scenarioes, should signify that these are two different cities spoken of.

Barraco said:

There is a significant difference between the city where "our Lord was crucified" and the city that commited fornications with the kings of the earth and made its inhabitants drunk with the wine of her abominations.

Click to expand...

1st century Jerusalem fits both descriptions.

We are presented with two different end time scenarioes for both cities. With Sodom and Egypt, only a tenth of the city falls and the remnant GIVE GLORY TO GOD.

Click to expand...

Explain how scripture teaches you that a tenth of the city falling in an earthquake precludes the same city from further judgement?

With Babylon, the ten kings utterly destroy her with fire, which means that no one will be giving God glory from within her walls, people will be mourning from far away, seeing the smoke of her torment rise forever.

Click to expand...

Again, fits 1st century Jerusalem perfectly.

The fact that there are two different endtime scenarioes, should signify that these are two different cities spoken of.

Click to expand...

So far, you have shown no such evidence for two different scenerios. but your welcome to keep trying

Seaioth said:

Dave Hunt's book A Woman rides the Beast, says that Babylon is none other than the Roman Catholic Church.
Comments?
à

Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me.

parousia70 said:

1st century Jerusalem fits both descriptions.

Explain how scripture teaches you that a tenth of the city falling in an earthquake precludes the same city from further judgement?

Again, fits 1st century Jerusalem perfectly.

So far, you have shown no such evidence for two different scenerios. but your welcome to keep trying

Click to expand...

Carefull P70, you may be accused of being "anti-jewish".

Matt 23:33 `Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna? 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous,

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

LUKE 16:24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'"

Revelation 14:11 and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages; and they have no rest day and night,
[SIZE=+2] [/SIZE]

LittleLambofJesus said:

Carefull P70, you may be accused of being "anti-jewish".

Click to expand...

I am anti Jewish like I am anti Atheist, Anti Bhuddist, Anti Hindu, Anti Muslim, Anti New Age, etc...

I Love 'em all as Gods Children, and am ANTI-(Insert whichever Christ rejecting religion they choose here)

God does not discriminate between Christ rejectors. Neither should I.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." (John 15:9-12)

OU

JERUSALEM: THE "GREAT CITY" OF REVELATION

Jerusalem is the Great City in the book of Revelation (Rev 11:8). She is Babylon (1 Pet 5:12-13), the Harlot that rode on the Beast's back (her alliance with Ancient Rome) before the Beast turned on her and made her desolate and burned her with fire (Rev 17:16; Lk.21:20).

Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was the preeminent city among all nations. The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

Yet, Jerusalem was also famous for becoming The Harlot City -- an unfaithful spouse to her King (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-10; Ez 16:37-39). She had become "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev 17:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16) as Christ had prophesied she would (Mt 23:33-37; Lk 11:50-51).

Sadly, the "great city," Jerusalem (Rev 11:8), had fallen, and had become the habitation of demons and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (Rev 18:2). The Queen City Jerusalem (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1), which had been great among the nations (Lam 1:1), had become a widow (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1). And She, having become an unfaithful Harlot to God, was thus "burned with fire" (Rev 18:8/17:16) as her covenant law demanded for her (Lev 21:9). The blood of all the apostles and prophets who she famously killed (Matt 23:33-36; Matt 21:34-39; Lk 13:33; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15-16; Lk 11:47; Neh 9:26; 1 Ki 19:14) was avenged upon her (Matt 23:33-37; Rev 16:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16).

parousia70 said:

1st century Jerusalem fits both descriptions.



Explain how scripture teaches you that a tenth of the city falling in an earthquake precludes the same city from further judgement?



Again, fits 1st century Jerusalem perfectly.



So far, you have shown no such evidence for two different scenerios. but your welcome to keep trying

Click to expand...

And you likewise show me evidence.

Scripture teaches that the seventh trumpet is when our Lord returns, which we see happens at the seventh plague as well, in which Jesus returns and slays those gathered against him. Correct?

The reason why the testimony of the two witnesses is placed between the sixth and seventh trumpet is to show what happens at the seventh trumpet: we are resurrected and raptured.

We also know that during the seventh plague, Babylon is destroyed. Now how could a tenth of the city be destroyed in an EARTHQUAKE but later be destroyed by ten kings when the Lord himself is returning? I'm not speculating a bit of prophecy here, like most do. I'm showing you what the Bible says. Lets not draw up a bunch of scenarios, because that will get us no where. The Bible is clear about what it says.

There are two cities affected when the Lord Jesus returns: Sodom and Egypt (in which the end result is the remnant GIVE GOD GLORY or Babylon in which SHE IS GIVEN DOUBLE FOR HER INIQUITY. The two don't fit the same picture, yet both happen at the same time; right before the end.

I don't how the 1st century Jerusalem fits a tenth of the city falling by a great earthquake right after a resurrection and rapture as well as the thought that the city is burned competely by ten kings who at the time hadn't even existed. There's too many holes in that idea.

parousia70 said:

I am anti Jewish like I am anti Atheist, Anti Bhuddist, Anti Hindu, Anti Muslim, Anti New Age, etc...

I Love 'em all as Gods Children, and am ANTI-(Insert whichever Christ rejecting religion they choose here)

God does not discriminate between Christ rejectors. Neither should I.

Click to expand...

Then, in relation to the Jews, you should, instead, be anti-rabbinical Judaism (as opposed to Torah Judaism) NOT anti-Jewish (Jewishness is an identifier of a race of people as well as a religion) As to the others, you should be anti-ATHEISM, BUDDISM, HINDUISM, ISLAMISM, NEW-AGEISM.

And, also, not ALL mankind is 'God's children' God's children are those who have believed in Jesus (John 1:12,13) God is CREATOR of all - He is not FATHER of all!


Ray

KerrMetric said:

The Bible has never interpreted itself and never will.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!




Peace

Just The Facts said:

Hi kerr

The Bible does interpret itself.

Click to expand...

No, it is an oxymoron to say the bible interprets itself.

The bible CAN'T interpret itself! Ut is a physical object and can take no action.

Interpretation is an ACTION. Only living creatures can take ACTION.

Since the bible is a physical book that has no natural life, it cannot take ANY actions whatseover, let alone interpret itself!


It takes a PERSON to interpret the scriptures, and the scriptures are not a person.


Now, what is right to say is that the bible contains clues to help us interpret it, but it does not interpret itself.

As far as our own interpretation goes, it is only as good as we are. It is as fallible as we are.

We can see clues where none exist and miss clues that do exist.

Premillenialists do this. Having been one for 30 years, I can say this from first hand experience.

Every single symbol is explained.

Click to expand...

Then why is the symbolic number of 1000 taken as literal?

The problem is every one IGNORES THE PLAIN WORDS OF GOD and instead puts their own explanation on the symbols.

Click to expand...

There are very few "plain words" in Revelation. It is a highly symbolic book. Yet premillenialists need to make the words they need to be literal, literal, and the words they need to be symbolic, symbolic. . yet they often get it backwards. Again, speaking from my experience as a premillenialsts for 30 yeasr, this is what happens. If what premillenialists need to be symbolic isn't symbolic, or if what they need to be literal isn't literal, their whole belief system begins to fall apart.

For example, it is crucial that the number 1000 be literal in Revelation. Yet, never is the number 1000 used literally in all of scripture, and in fact, the only other place it is used, it says a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years. . . symbolic, figurative ..

So, if this number 1000 in Revelation is symbolic, the whole millenial belief system falls apart, for it mandates a literal 1000 years and a symbolic 1000 years does not provide biblical proof for it.

Another example is this: according to premillenialists, Christ's reign over the kings of the earth is in the future . .

Yet, before John starts the actual revelation, he speaks plainly, and tells us that Christ is the ruler over the kings of the earth NOW. (Rev 1:5 I believe - or near there) That was said 1900 years ago. So it is not in the future.

That is why there is 1,000,000 plus understandings of prophecy.

Click to expand...

No . . there are so many understandings of prophecy because so many want to ignore what Peter said . .

That NO prophecy of scripture is of PRIVATE interpretation . . . yet so many want to disrerd this clear admonishment from scripture and do what Peter said couldn't be done.


So .. you have premillenialists who tell the rest of us ammillenialists, preterists, post millenialists, etc, that we are all wrong.


Yet, of all four, it was premillenialism that was rejected by the Early Church.


Peace

Athanasian Creed said:

There is far, far more that could be revealed about the former Pope organizing "prayer meetings" with occult religious leaders, and allowing the worship of a false god on the altar (Buddah) of the Roman Catholic Church at Assisi, of his ecumenical interfaith agenda - to unite all religions under her wing - apparently without Christ.

Click to expand...

You know, I find this very disengenuous .. for we have shown before how such things misrepresent what really happened in previous conversations with you about this. You are presenting a falsehood. You offer no proof, just make claims.

None of what you said happened the way you say or imply it did. No prayer meetings were organized with occult religious leaders. Catholics di not pray with any occult groups. Though leaders from many religions came together to discuss serious world problems, all groups prayed on their own.

Your words, however, make it sound as if everyone prayed together. The Catholic Church cannot control how other groups pray, but She does not condone praying with them in their ways.

She did not allow a buddah on the altar either. We have been through this before. Yet your post presents the falsehood anyway.

“[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, ..”
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Zenit news story, “Are Believers of Other Religions Saved?”, Sept. 5, 2000

Click to expand...

So you prooftexted a quote, stripped of its proper context and provided no link so we can read it IN its proper context - we are just supposed to accept your word for it?

I don't think so.

Provide the link to the whole context or stop with this foolishness.

This is an abominable, blasphemous statement made by the so-called 'Vicar of Christ' - Jesus the Christ, the eternal God in the flesh Who said He ALONE was the way, truth and life and no one comes to the Father (unto salvation) but by Him!

Click to expand...

No, if it was made, it was not made by the vicar of Christ, but by a Cardinal. But, what was really said? You haven't provided the context - just a quote stripped from its proper context. So, until you can prove that this means what you are trying to make it mean (notice that you had to edit the beginning of the quote) you are making baseless accusations.

Just provided more conclusions which are falsehoods.

On 11/30/05, Pope Benedict XVI declared to the masses in St. Peter's Square in Rome:

"Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcedent, will be saved even if he lacks Biblical faith."

Click to expand...

Again, STRIPPED OF ITS CONTEXT.

This means nothing.

Again, no link, no context. Nothing. Just an attempt to manipulate the words of our Pope to your own ends and now obvious agenda against the Catholic Church.

Please answer this for us:

Do you believe that those who have never heard of Christ go to hell? Or do they have the chance to be saved too?


Please answer for the benefit of everyone here.

Benedict XVI did not tell his fawning audience

Click to expand...

"fawning audience" ?

Are you deliberately trying to be offensive?

the truth but what they wanted to hear (2 Timothy 4:3,4) The Pope's words are unbiblical and misleading.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Having a "desire for the transcendent" does not equal seeking the one true God. Nor can seeking "peace and the good of the community" be equated with receiving as personal Saviour the One who "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20) Nor has anyone a "pure conscience": "There is none righteous, NO, NOT ONE...ALL HAVE SINNED, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:10,23)

Click to expand...

Jesus was a human being . . does that mean Jesus sinned too? If "all" means "all" it has to include Jesus . .

So "all" does not mean "all"

But that aside. . . are you suggesting that God cannot provide a way for someone, for example, who has never heard of Jesus to find salvation through Jesus?

Since the Catholic Church teaches all who are saved are saved through Jesus only, the Catholic Church teaches there is a way unknown to us that those who are unable to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, through no fault of their own, may be able to find salvation through Jesus.

There is no salvation apart from Jesus, and this is clear Catholic teaching . .teaching that, even though you have been told this many, many times in the past, you seemingly choose to ignore, presenting these falsehoods about our faith instead.

It is by 'Biblical faith' that we are saved - "faith comes by hearing...the Word of God" says God's Word! The Pope and his Church offer false hope to sinners!

Click to expand...

So . .what about all those who have died never seeing bible, never hearing about Jesus?

Has God provided no way for them to be saved through Jesus?

Did they all go to hell?

What about babies? Do babies go to hell?


Please answer for everyone's benefit here.


Peace

Just a few questions.

If God provided a way for Salvation for all of those who did not hear of Jesus, then spreading the Gospel would be the worst thing we could do as Christians! In fact the early Apostles shouldn't have said anything at all!

Jesus Himself commissioned us to preach the Gospel to all nations!

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19)

Why would He do this if people who haven't heard the Gospel will all be saved some other way!? People don't go to Hell because they haven't heard of Jesus, they go to Hell because they've broken God's Commandments. This is why its of the utmost of importance to share the Gospel in a love and Truth. People need to hear about sin, they need to hear about God's Law and righteousness, but most importantly they need to hear about our Saviour!!

I'm sure Satan loves the fact that people are complacent and not willing to go out of their way to spread the Gospel because they feel those who don't hear are saved anyway.

Let's be honest, if you're saying they're saved some other way than Christ's sacrafice was meaningless and God's Law does not stand! Does that sound right?

OU

Barraco said:

I agree. The woman mentioned in Rev. 12 stands for the pure Church, which started with Christ's advent. It went into hiding when the Church of Rome became corrupt. This all started in the middle of the third century when the Roman Emperors started persecuting Christians. They threatened them with death if they did not practice pagan practices. Many of priests shrank from death. Now, around 254 i think, there was a conflict within the Church of Rome about whether those apostate priests were allowed back into the Church and become priests again. Novatius was against it. Cornelius I said that the Bishop of Rome had the authority to forgive such sins. Well, Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome and thus were the apostates allowed back into the Church. Novatius left, which is where we get Novatianism from. The Donatists also took the similar route because of the apostasy. They believed the Church of Rome was corrupted and apostate.

Click to expand...

Tell me . .. had those who apostatized repented before they were allowed back in?

What did Jesus do when Peter apostatized?

Your rendition of hsitory is leaving out some very key factors.

There is nothing that demonstrates that the return of these Bishops did not involve repentance and a full return to the true faith.

Those who opposed their return opposed it even though the men had repented. They didn't want them restored no matter what.

That was not in keeping with Christ's example with Peter.

Well, it just so happens that this is the same Church that influenced Constantine to legalize Christianity.

Click to expand...

LOLOL. Again, this revisionist version of history is flabbegasting!

Constantine was on the battle field when he was given a dream/vision of the cross and was told that in this sign he would conquer.

It was after he conquered in that sign that he sought out the religion that used it and discovered it was Christianity.

So, no . . the Christian Church did not influence him to make it legal . . .God did.

His legalization of it was simply to stop the persecutions, so that Christian worship became legal . .

Are you suggesting that this wasn't a good thing for the Christians?

They also compromised much of their doctrines at the Council of Laodicea, including the observance of the seventh day sabbath to the first day, which there was no authority upon any man to do such.

Click to expand...

This is also patently false.

1st day observance had been going on since biblical times. There was no change in doctrine at the Council of Laodicea.

You are very much in error. It is because such error is spread so perniciously that it necessitates someone coming out in a clear stand against it.

The 7th day sabbath observance was given as a sign between the Jews and God. . . it is n the OT. In the New Testament, there is no longer Jew or Greek, but one new man. The sign between God and the Jews no longer has any obligation to those in the Church, who are a NEW Creation.

The 7th day sabbath is part of the OLD creation.

We are a NEW Creation and we worship on the 1st/8th day, the day of the RESURRECTION, the DAWN of the NEW Creation.

This was understood in the Early Church even of the 1st century.

Well, through time, many kings were influenced by the Church of Rome to make imperialistic decisions. The heads of the beast that she rides on are these: They are seven hills, which indicates the city of Rome.

Click to expand...

7 Hills also represent the City of Jerusalem.

And there are seven kings. Now to understand who the kings are, you have to remember what Rev. 17:6 says, and its very important. It says that the woman was DRUNKEN with the blood of the saints, which indicates the time frame of which head she is sitting on. This was the sixth head, which 'is.' Now during the time that the most saints and martyrs were slaughtered by her was during the German Holy Roman Empire. This dynasty of emperors was set up by Otto the Great in 962. So the five heads that had fallen are these: Romans (Constantine 325), Heruli (Odaocer 476), Ostrogoths (Theodocius, I think that is his name. Theo something ), the Byzantines (Justinian I 538), and the Franks (Charlamagne 800.) This is all from my memory of history, so please look it up if you are dissatisfied. I love correction. The seventh head that 'is not yet' was the Italians who by aid of Benito Mussolini in 1929 returned the Papal power back to the pope with the papal states.

Click to expand...

The papacy never lost its power or authority and it is not dependent on any secular king. I am sorry, but your rendition and interpretation of history is very, very flawed . . .this is much like people trying to figure out who 666 refers to and coming up with Henry Kissenger.

Then, after WWII, the Catholic Church began influencing all these once more. Thus the eigth head is all of the seven put together. I'm not certain about the ten kings. I'm not Einstien ya know. lol.

Click to expand...

See . . it falls apart. . . yet it appears to me, IMHO, that presents no problem because it is so important to believe that the Catholic Church is the one who sits on 7 hills . . .

<edit>

Peace