Mystery Bablyon...

Yep , and so the fire from heaven is used to decieve them into worshiping the Beast or his image .

I would like to zip back to the first beast and show what this worship is   ( it is not of a religious nature  )

 

 and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

I believe they are worshiping the strength and might of a military machine ,  and the fire from heaven could very well be a military satelite ( can't spell that word  )  with the latest zap em and knock em dead type lazer ,  this would give them the confidence to band together a large group of nations to take what is left of the earths resorces  , remember , all types of ivory are bought into babylon , at this moment elephants are a pretected species , this won;t be the case at the time of the end , total lawlesness will rule and the beast will have the biggest gang to do as he pleases .

If you want to get into the guts of all this , please read the book of Habakkuk , it's a difficult book to understand but is well worth the read .

 

Ps  Here's more proof of military might  :

<SUP>10</SUP>He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Originally posted by ladylove
Frank,

You misunderstand what Peter is saying, he referenced Rome as "Bablyon" so as not to rouse the ire of Roman officials at the time he wrote his epistle. It was a used as a common reference among early Christians at the time for safety reasons. It doesn't sound like you have studied alot of early church history. But now you know.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely amusing.&nbsp; How do you know that I haven't studied a lot of early church history?&nbsp; In fact, if YOU have studied enough early church history, you should know that Jerusalem was in fact called Babylon by the first century christians, and that Peter was an elder in the church in Jerusalem and he never even left Palestine.&nbsp; So again, when examined in detail, your scholarly claims fail to stand on their own merits.&nbsp; I ask AGAIN, what biblical evidence do you have to show me that the Babylon that Peter was talking about, which was in existence at the time when Peter was writing, is NOT the same Babylon that John was writing about in the book of Revelation?

I find this extremely amusing. How do you know that I haven't studied a lot of early church history? In fact, if YOU have studied enough early church history, you should know that Jerusalem was in fact called Babylon by the first century christians, and that Peter was an elder in the church in Jerusalem and he never even left Palestine. So again, when examined in detail, your scholarly claims fail to stand on their own merits.

Click to expand...

If you had studied early Church history, Frank, then you would have undoubtedly run across myriad documentation of Peter's having gone to Rome and died there, instead of remaining in Jerusalem as you assert. A few examples:

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church. . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to William Jurgens’ three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, which contains in excess of thirty references to Peter's being in Rome, or to any good collection of Patristic writings.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

You may reject the idea that Peter went to Rome because "it doesn't say he did in the Bible", but that's like going into court and saying, "I'm going to present my case, but I'm only going to make use of half the evidence." There is more than enough ancient documentation to prove that Peter was in Rome, and if it isn't contained in Holy Scripture, well, there's a lot of things that aren't contained in Holy Scripture. They exist as truth, nonetheless.

I find your zealous reliance on early uninspired writings quite disturbing, and it is obvious that tradition is clouding your common sense.&nbsp;

Most of the people that you quoted also said many other stupid things that you would probably disagree with, and I don't see you quoting them here.

Irenaeus wrote that Jesus lived to be 45 years old and died from old age.&nbsp; You believe that?&nbsp; Why don't you, it comes from an early church father that had first-hand experience and knowledge of events in the first century, so it MUST be true...&nbsp;

Eusebius also wrote that Peter founded the church in Antioch, and then headed for Rome, which is a blatant error, but you must believe Eusebius because we can't ignore the early church fathers right?

Tertullian joined the Montaninsts which were labeled as heretics.&nbsp; He did not believe that Christians were supposed to flee from persecution, that people that married a second time were adulterers, and that adulterers were doomed forever with no chance of ever being forgiven, but he MUST be right on Peter being in Rome since that is beneficial to your argument right?

I would much rather stick with what the INSPIRED writers of the New Testament wrote.&nbsp; Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote to the church in Rome and NEVER ONCE mentioned Peter's name.&nbsp; Your tradition pretends that Peter was in Rome from about 42 to 67 AD, yet Paul writes in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be ESTABLISHED".&nbsp; Paul was writing this about 15 years AFTER Peter supposedly went to Rome.&nbsp; The incompetent Peter was unable to establish a church in Rome in 15 years?

Furthermore, in Acts 8:1 we read "And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles".&nbsp; In acts 12 we also read that Peter spent time at Mary's house (the mother of John who was also called Mark).&nbsp; Mary's house was in Jerusalem, and Mark was Peter's student, which provides me with solid evidence to make claim to the fact that 1 Peter was NOT written in Rome, but in Jerusalem, thus making Jerusalem the "Babylon" that Peter is talking about.

You showed me ZERO solid evidence for the claim that Peter was EVER in Rome, and that the Babylon in Revelation is the city of Rome.&nbsp; No prohets ever died in the city of Rome like the book of Revelation says it happens in Babylon, and the Bible never mentions Peter being in Rome.&nbsp; You are saying that I am presenting half of the evidence in my case, but you have no evidence to show for.&nbsp; The writings of Tertullian, Eusebius and "Erroneous" are no different than my writings today...there is nothing special about these guys, and when 10,000 years from now someone will quote me as saying something really stupid, and call it "truth", then I will have a good laugh...hopefully.

Originally posted by ladylove
Religious dogmatism, the last great prejudice...

Click to expand...

Non-sequitur...your only answer

Originally posted by Frank
I find your zealous reliance on early uninspired writings quite disturbing, and it is obvious that tradition is clouding your common sense.

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly.

Most of the people that you quoted also said many other stupid things that you would probably disagree with, and I don't see you quoting them here.

Click to expand...

Peter denied that he ever knew Christ; that was pretty stupid, as well as being an outright lie, but I suspect you wouldn't have a problem quoting him.

Irenaeus wrote that Jesus lived to be 45 years old and died from old age. You believe that?

Click to expand...

Cite?

Eusebius also wrote that Peter founded the church in Antioch, and then headed for Rome, which is a blatant error, but you must believe Eusebius because we can't ignore the early church fathers right?

Click to expand...

Why do you believe this is erroneous?

Tertullian joined the Montaninsts which were labeled as heretics. He did not believe that Christians were supposed to flee from persecution, that people that married a second time were adulterers, and that adulterers were doomed forever with no chance of ever being forgiven, but he MUST be right on Peter being in Rome since that is beneficial to your argument right?

Click to expand...

Tertullian wasn't the only Patristic Father to fall into heresy. So did Origen. So did Augustine. However, the Church sorts out their writings and establishes which are orthodox and which are not, just as she did with the Bible you rely on so much. In any event, your comparison is apples and oranges. We're not debating doctrinal points here, but the historical record.

I would much rather stick with what the INSPIRED writers of the New Testament wrote. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote to the church in Rome and NEVER ONCE mentioned Peter's name.

Click to expand...

He wrote to the churches in Colossae, Phillipi, Corinth, and Galatia, too; how many times did he mention the bishops of these places?

Your tradition pretends that Peter was in Rome from about 42 to 67 AD, yet Paul writes in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be ESTABLISHED". Paul was writing this about 15 years AFTER Peter supposedly went to Rome. The incompetent Peter was unable to establish a church in Rome in 15 years?

Click to expand...

Greek, my dear fellow, Greek. King Jimmy's translators used the English word "established", true. However, the Greek word in question here is sterizo, which means "to confirm" or "to strengthen". You can't confirm or strengthen something that hasn't been established yet.

Furthermore, in Acts 8:1 we read "And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles".

Click to expand...

And that's where the story ends. No Apostle ever left Palestine from that point forward forever, right?

In acts 12 we also read that Peter spent time at Mary's house (the mother of John who was also called Mark). Mary's house was in Jerusalem, and Mark was Peter's student, which provides me with solid evidence to make claim to the fact that 1 Peter was NOT written in Rome, but in Jerusalem, thus making Jerusalem the "Babylon" that Peter is talking about.

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that most scholars agree that 1 Peter was written between 62 and 64 AD, when Peter was also generally acknowledged to have been in Rome? Also despite the fact that the events described in Acts 12 took place some twenty years previous to this, in approximately 44 AD? Herod Agrippa starts this chapter out, and Agrippa died in 44 AD.

You showed me ZERO solid evidence for the claim that Peter was EVER in Rome, and that the Babylon in Revelation is the city of Rome.

Click to expand...

You have likewise countered with zero evidence to contradict my claim that he was.

No prohets ever died in the city of Rome like the book of Revelation says it happens in Babylon, and the Bible never mentions Peter being in Rome. You are saying that I am presenting half of the evidence in my case, but you have no evidence to show for. The writings of Tertullian, Eusebius and "Erroneous" are no different than my writings today...there is nothing special about these guys, and when 10,000 years from now someone will quote me as saying something really stupid, and call it "truth", then I will have a good laugh...hopefully.

Click to expand...

I expect there's likely to be a lot of laughter going around once we have both shuffled off this mortal coil, Frank.

There is no need for 'mistakes'. Who is a 'her' or a 'woman' in scripture? What is a harlot & a Daughter of an Harlot? Who in the past history of the professed church has a record of millions of real Christian martyr's. Drunken with the blood of the saints?? Who has attempted to change God's law with an [cultic additional book] for their doctrinal study, one that voids the 10 commandments, by instituting Sun. for God's Sabbath day?
-------P/N/B/

PS: ---As the sign of the authority of the Catholic Church, papal writers cite, ... "the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Prostestants allow of; ... because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church's power .." --Henery Tuberville, Am Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, pg. 58

Originally posted by Pastor N.B.
There is no need for 'mistakes'. Who is a 'her' or a 'woman' in scripture? What is a harlot &amp; a Daughter of an Harlot? Who in the past history of the professed church has a record of millions of real Christian martyr's. Drunken with the blood of the saints?? Who has attempted to change God's law with an [cultic additional book] for their doctrinal study, one that voids the 10 commandments, by instituting Sun. for God's Sabbath day?
-------P/N/B/

PS: ---As the sign of the authority of the Catholic Church, papal writers cite, ... "the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Prostestants allow of; ... because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church's power .." --Henery Tuberville, Am Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, pg. 58

Click to expand...

Uh?&nbsp; Are you implying that the Catholic church is Babylon?&nbsp; Again, for the millionth time, Babylon is a specific CITY and PLACE.&nbsp; It is very well described in Revelation and it can be BIBLICALLY identified as&nbsp;Jerusalem.&nbsp; Where does the Bible say that Babylon will change the Sabbath into Sunday?

Originally posted by Wolseley


You have likewise countered with zero evidence to contradict my claim that he was.

I expect there's likely to be a lot of laughter going around once we have both shuffled off this mortal coil, Frank.

Click to expand...

So instead of further wasting our time, maybe we should both agree that what the church fathers provide for us is useless as far as establishing solid doctrinal issues goes, and instead we should look at the Bible as the ultimate source of revelation?&nbsp; I would encourage everyone to take early writings with a grain of salt and be careful about blindly accepting something just because it was written by a church father.&nbsp; These people were not inspired as the apostles...it's just that simple.

Let's try a few biblical points:

1. John calls Babylon "great city"
This same term is used in Rev. 11:8 to describe Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt.&nbsp; It is also used in Jer. 22:5,8.&nbsp; I think it would be logically flawed to claim that it is acceptable for Jerusalem to be called Sodom and Egypt, but not Babylon.&nbsp; In fact, it makes no sense for a city to be named "New Jerusalem" once the Babylon was destroyed.&nbsp; Why "New Jerusalem" and not "New Babylon", or "New Rome" if the city is indeed Rome?&nbsp; What happened to the "Old Jerusalem?"

2. The focus of the Bible is not secular, but redemptive.
In other words the Bible contains a limited amount of historical reference but only in relation with the covenant of God's people.&nbsp; Gentiles are rarely described in detailed.&nbsp; I believe that the only prophetic reference to Rome is in Daniel, and it has been already fulfilled.&nbsp; Daniel does not talk about a "revived" roman empire but THE Roman empire...which only exited once in history, and never will exist again.

3. The city which killed all the prophets.
Babylon is the city "drunk with the blood of saints and martyrs", and having in her the "blood of prophets and saints".&nbsp; Comparing this with Matthew 23:37, and Luke 13:33, we can safelu assume that Jerusalem falls into this category much easier than the city of Rome.&nbsp; Babylon was destroyed to "avenge the apostles and prophets" (Rev. 18:20).&nbsp; Jerusalem was immediately responsible for most persecution in the first century.

Well, what you have to keep in mind, Frank, is that from the Catholic perspective, the Bible is NOT the ultimate source of revelation.

We believe in the "Deposit of the Faith", which consists of what Jesus told the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on to us. Some of this teaching was passed on orally and became known as Sacred Tradition; some of it got written down and was passed on as Holy Scripture (2 Thess 2:15). Both are equal to the other, both are Divinely inspired, both are the Word of God, and both compliment and interpret the other.

The Church is the final authority (1 Tim 3:15) on which traditions and which Biblical books are actually Divinely inspired, and which are not. She does this by comparing the writings or the traditions with the Deposit of the Faith; if it matches up, it's considered orthodox. If it doesn't, it goes out. This is why the Bible contains the Acts of the Apostles, but not the Acts of Pilate; and why it has the Gospel of Luke, but does not have the Gospel of Thomas. It's also why the Church consideres the writings produced by Tertullian from 197 to 206 AD to be orthodox; his writings from 207 to 212 to be iffy; and his writings from 213 to 220 to be heretical. They did this by comparing them to the original Deposit, the teachings of the Apostles, both oral and written.

The early Church Fathers themselves are not Divinely inspired; but they do make mention of much of the Sacred Tradition which came to us from the Apostles, and that's why they are important for studying the context of Scripture and doctrine. Taking the Bible without Tradition, or vice-versa, is limiting yourself to half the evidence. This is why Catholics and Protestants can take the same verse of Scripture and come up with totally different interpretations. Protestants interpret Scripture in light of itself; Catholics interpret Scripture and Tradition in light of each other.

Taking one without the other is like cutting off one of your legs. Can you still get around on one leg? Sure, but not half as well as you could if you still had both.

I realize that equating Tradition with Scripture is a very hard pill for Protestants to swallow. Your mileage may vary; nobody says you have to agree with me.

Originally posted by ladylove
Yes, anti-christ will be the political power of the day during the 70th week. I agree, but it is not the ONLY influence over the world. Political power on its own never has gained total world submission. History has revealed this time and time again. Shall I go thru the list of casualities? I think you know most of them. So your answer is not sufficent and falls short of what Scripture teaches. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;

Ladylove&nbsp; ,&nbsp; I'm all ears ,&nbsp; please give me your version&nbsp; .

Originally posted by ladylove
Version? Care to explain...

Click to expand...

&nbsp;

Gee ,&nbsp; if i'd known you were going to be that uptight about it&nbsp; I wouldn't have asked .

What are you&nbsp; ?&nbsp; a man hater or something .&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Originally posted by ladylove
No. I just simply want a further clarification of your statement. It appears you are the one who is defensive in tone here. Your man hater comment was inappropriate and shows your defensiveness. Please relax and restate your request, please. I will not be able to answer further as I will be out of town so you will have plenty of time to rethink and clarify your request. Thank you for your cooperation.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;

You sound like a robot , do you realise you are speaking to another human being ,&nbsp; Man this is the funniest conversation i'v had in quite a while .

Hey Ladylove , your a bit weird but I like ya&nbsp; ,&nbsp; does this bother you&nbsp; ?

Originally posted by Frank
Uh?&nbsp; Are you implying that the Catholic church is Babylon?&nbsp; Again, for the millionth time, Babylon is a specific CITY and PLACE.&nbsp; It is very well described in Revelation and it can be BIBLICALLY identified as&nbsp;Jerusalem.&nbsp; Where does the Bible say that Babylon will change the Sabbath into Sunday?

Click to expand...

******
It is hard to have 'milk' drinkers figure out a 'meat' diet perhaps? And I agree that both 'might' be saved. But these [FALSE] doctrines are what makes her a Babylon of CONFUSSION. (Rev. 18:4) Kneel to a man & kiss his ring??? Confess your sins to a human being! Hardly! see Rev.22:8-9 for starters.

Do you understand Dan. 2's dream? And then Dan. 7's? Both are prophecy of the last ending of our days in progression. Rome is the legs of Iron & Rome is the forth beast of Dan. 7:19 on, as time runs out! (NO SCRETET RAPTURE EITHER)
This is fairly well excepted knowledge for most 'mature' ones perhaps.

I doubt that this is your case? But for maybe later on, or for one or two others, let me print the answer for a question that you raised about changing the Sabbath to Sunday? (first off the bible goes by numbers, not days such as sun. or Sat.)

Dan. 7:21-25 in part & highlighted says,
"MADE WAR WITH THE *SAINTS ... [*until the time that the saints *possessed the kingdom]. Thus the FORTH KINGDOM shall come forth upon [THE EARTH], which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and [SHALL DEVOUR THE WHOLE EARTH]. ... (notice the RELIGOUS Rev. 3:9 description & the earth is populated with whom today of this doctrine) And [HE SHALL SPEAK GREAT WORDS *AGAINST THE MOST HIGH, AND WEAR OUT THE SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH, *AND THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS]."

This is really the largest 'cult' in the whole earth discribed. That of Rome. She or HER [EXTRA] book (other than the Bible) [CHANGED THE ROYAL LAW OF GOD], The 10 Commandments.

Inside the 10 Commandments there is the SABBATH COMMANDMENT, which [IS THE MEMORIAL OF CREATION] (earths *birthday!) Rome has OPENLY CONFESSED & DOCUMENTED that [it is they] who have changed the day of WORSHIP from the 7TH. day to the 1ST. day of the week. Read Rev.'s last few verses of the Bible! That is one reason for Rev. 18:4! Try 1 John 2:4!
Even the Easter of Acts 12:4 found that the Jews were the ones that were still keeping the FEAST DAYS that were nailed to the cross, NOT the [new church]! Read 1-5 ibide. And where were the others, the NEW denomination?? Read verse 12. But [today] we see more of this Rome feastday stuff! And HER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE GODS MEMORIAL!

And now for the Memorial of Creation? James says that to break one commandment makes one GUILTY OF BREAKING THEM ALL! James 2:10-12!
The Sabbath DAY is the GodHead's Everlasting Gospel & [THEIR] EVERLASTING ETERNAL COVENANT. Notice in Psalms 135:13...

"Thy Name, O Lord, *endureth for ever, and [thy Memorial], O Lord, throughout *ALL generations." Look up in Webster what a memorial is?
-----P/N/B/

PS: And the Universe?? Try Isaiah 66:22-23! And the 'other world(s) of Hebrews?? Read the Master's last book verses 8-10!! Even the Angels KEEP THE SAYINGS OF THE WORD OF GOD!!
***************************************

Kneel to a man &amp; kiss his ring???

Man this eschatoligy forum is getting funnier by the minute , personly I would have said : Kiss his boots , but anyway .&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

P/N/B/ here:
At least you are honest in your admission of using others work to establish your doctrine. And I recognize that Catholic is perhaps the largest 'CULT' on earth. Judging her by what Protestants call cults, additional books for doctrine. Such as Mormans, Jehovah Wittnesses, Adventists as some have discribed cults to be? But for me & my house, we will let the Master's total Word do that for us!
******

Originally posted by Wolseley
Well, what you have to keep in mind, Frank, is that from the Catholic perspective, the Bible is NOT the ultimate source of revelation.

We believe in the "Deposit of the Faith", which consists of what Jesus told the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on to us. Some of this teaching was passed on orally and became known as Sacred Tradition; some of it got written down and was passed on as Holy Scripture (2 Thess 2:15). Both are equal to the other, both are Divinely inspired, both are the Word of God, and both compliment and interpret the other.

The Church is the final authority (1 Tim 3:15) on which traditions and which Biblical books are actually Divinely inspired, and which are not. She does this by comparing the writings or the traditions with the Deposit of the Faith; if it matches up, it's considered orthodox. If it doesn't, it goes out. This is why the Bible contains the Acts of the Apostles, but not the Acts of Pilate; and why it has the Gospel of Luke, but does not have the Gospel of Thomas. It's also why the Church consideres the writings produced by Tertullian from 197 to 206 AD to be orthodox; his writings from 207 to 212 to be iffy; and his writings from 213 to 220 to be heretical. They did this by comparing them to the original Deposit, the teachings of the Apostles, both oral and written.

The early Church Fathers themselves are not Divinely inspired; but they do make mention of much of the Sacred Tradition which came to us from the Apostles, and that's why they are important for studying the context of Scripture and doctrine. Taking the Bible without Tradition, or vice-versa, is limiting yourself to half the evidence. This is why Catholics and Protestants can take the same verse of Scripture and come up with totally different interpretations. Protestants interpret Scripture in light of itself; Catholics interpret Scripture and Tradition in light of each other.

Taking one without the other is like cutting off one of your legs. Can you still get around on one leg? Sure, but not half as well as you could if you still had both.

I realize that equating Tradition with Scripture is a very hard pill for Protestants to swallow. Your mileage may vary; nobody says you have to agree with me.

Click to expand...