Babylon and the Beast

Participant

Hey nate ^_^

It is insanity to believe that an act is above the person, that a way of acting, is the origion of an act and not the person or being themselves.

Deception is an act of a being, If the being did not decieve, as in make the act of deception, then deception would not be in existance, as an observation of an act, for it is in itself by definition, The observation of an act. And not by itself an identity.

Deception is a lie. Now, i think you took me as saying that Deception is not an act?? No by no means, when someone lies, they decieve. That is what i ment by “deception is a lie”.

Deception takes no form, Deception is an act of an entity that god has entitled that entity to be concious of lie's and capable of liing. It is a play on words and a deception itself to say “Deception takes many forms”

It is a incorrect use of our language to say that Deception takes Forms. The same as saying violence takes many forms. Buracratical way of thinking, which is insane and besides the point. Why not clearly state that it is the name given to “someone who err's the truth, the name of an act that someone commits”. That definition is best fitting, and not able to be warped into thinking deception is an entity itself that influences other entities.

As for not being decieved by the beast. Very easy, Just Dont get the mark, and dont worship his image. lol. If you dont get the mark then you are beheaded, therefore, there is no beast At this present time. So nothing to worry about.

September 11, 2004 at 11:53 am#41589

Anonymous

Guest

hey ringo,

i did not say that an act is above a person – i said that if you choose to see deception as a force, that is up to you, but i am neither trying to imply it or refute it…

i really don't see what linguistics has to do with babylon, but seeing as you brought it up: deception cannot be an act, because it is a noun, not a verb. it can either be a subject, as in “the deception filtered into the message…” or an object, as in “the message led to deception”. now, “[to] deceive” is a verb, and therefore an act, as in “the beast deceived them”, but deception is not an act, it is a noun, which is the part of speech that is used to name a person, place, thing, quality, etc… to say that deception is a force, would make it a “proper name”, but as i mentioned before, i am neither trying to imply or refute this… oh, deception can also be an adverb, as in “the onus of deception” (which i used in my last post)… an adverb is that part of speech that modifies a verb, adjective, or other adverb… under similar circumstances deception can be an adjective (which modifies a noun)…

so when i agreed that deception was a lie, i meant insofar as a lie is a noun. now, “to lie” is a verb, but we weren't talking about “to lie” (or lying), we were talking “a lie”, which of course is a noun (ie. subject or object). so, when i talk about deception or “a lie”, i'm talking about a subject or an object…

when i say that deception takes many forms, i'm using deception as a metaphorical noun – a quality – rather than a proper name. i'm not saying that deception is an entity which possesses a form (or another entity), but that the form takes on the quality of deception. so, the bible says that satan was a liar from the beginning – this means that deception has “taken form” as satan. from now on – in a paragraph, and also beyond the paragraph if the theme is established – i can refer to satan in a sentence as the liar, as in “the liar told me such-and-such,” and as long as the theme is established, people will know who the liar actually is. but is satan the only liar? no! the antichrist is a liar, because through lies he deceives. so, now deception has taken on “two” forms… but false prophets are also liars, so deception has taken on “three” forms… at this point it behovens me to replace “three”, or “four” with “many” – because we know that there are many antichrists, many false prophets, and at leadt two (as you say) beasts… so, i re-iterate, deception takes many forms. but in so doing, i'm not specifically associating “deception” with physical beings, because these beings leave their mark in many ways (btw this is not a literal mark – just in case you think i'm refering to the mark of the beast). many christians would agree that the book of mormon is a deception, as with the quran, so now deception has not only taken on many “vital” [living] forms, but also logial [written] forms… and of course, the list goes on… deception taken the form of cultural prejudices, or policies, of mindsets… etc… this is why i said that we must be watchful against deception.

now, there is no such thing as “correct” language usage (at least of english) – shakespeare proved that beyond doubt by juxtaposing nouns for verbs, etc. but there is such a thing as “good” language usage. equally, there is such a thing as “good” language analysis. in english, word order and the use of participles, prepositions and conjunctions, etc. help us to determine what the subject, verb and object are, and thereby understand what is being said. other languages, such as latin, use suffixing to determine this – which would be much easier – but unfortunately, english is not so endowed so we have to rely on the above navigation tools to help convey and interprete meaning. so good language usage helps the communicator to convey their meaning with clarity. similarly, good language analysis helps the communicatee to better understand the message being conveyed. but communication is a two-way street. if the communicatee doen't make the effort to understand the communicator, then they will inevitably misunderstand, and thereby misrepresent them…

so the upshot is – if you wish to discuss babylon, then i suggest you use semantics by all means, but use it to understand the message rather than to deconstruct it.

cheers,

nate.

September 12, 2004 at 2:41 pm#41590

Participant

Hey nate, Thnx for bothering to write, and taking the time man.

Quote

i'm not saying that deception is an entity which possesses a form (or another entity), but that the form takes on the quality of deception. so, the bible says that satan was a liar from the beginning – this means that deception has “taken form” as satan.

You seem to be confused here……

Deception does not take a form, It does not become Satan!!! Never in bible does it suggest such a belief.
It is not an entity made by another things act. It is a discription of somebodies act!!
Why continue to use that manner of speaking??

You have written allot about nouns, and whatever. I sorta got lost in it. I know by the fact that Deception is an observation of somebody's act, and never takes the form of anything, For it is not a substance or anything to then form, or be formed.

If you hold to such a teaching, Then you have been decieved. You said that

Quote

i am neither trying to imply it or refute it…

This is why I say you seem to be confused. Because then you use the language supporting such a view, which i quoted first in my post. I'll quote a main bit.

Quote

this means that deception has “taken form” as satan.

Like,… the disciples never used that. They didnt ever say that lies took the form of anyone.. like,.. example, Anias and Sahpiara. But they would say, that someone lied. Because, that is correct.
It is not correct biblically to say that Lies took form as Anias and Saphiara.
But correct to say that they lied.

Please think about it?

Oh well, I think Ive said enough.

l8rz man.

ps.

I dont like shakspeare. Really boaring, not to the point, That why I like Jesus. Jesus is straight to the point, rox so much. Shakspeare just ripped off bible stories mainly, and from what my bro tells me, Most people ignore the main points of shakespears plays. He does extension english 4 unit, Yr 12. He told me about King lear… I think it was.. well, he told me how its mainly a play warning people of the dangers of listening to flattering people. And everyone else is like. Oh no I dont see that at all, And his like. You stupid people, or somthing. People Just see what they want in most cases, or what the demonics want them to see. But yeah thats just another reason why i sit, and want to die, and not think anymore… not have too. Its so crazy life. But then I ask GoD, I Dont want to live GoD, this world too hard, so many things, so many beliefs, GoD, you my only hope at knowing whats right. So Im like, GoD U my strength, Please gimme strength. And its cool, submitting myself, Bowing down to the great GoD the great creator Guy, and asking for mercy cause im just a gentile and not a Jew, I am a Dog as Jesus called us. And as Peter saw in his vision, saw us as scorpians and spiders, GoD made us clean, But left us as such creatures, As wild olive branches. Whatever, Submitting to GoD is real good, No-wonder Jesus did it allot. Cause I feel the strength GoD gives Just for bowing to him, Like the people in Old testiment. Rox so much. Its good. But GoD makes it like a panadol, pain killer, u gotta go bak for more all the time, Like Jesus was. Coolies, I have a friend and heaps of people at his school are christians now, and reading bible in his school. But its not crap christianity, LoL, My friend, people say to him, All christians are F$%##@ except you. LoL, and then he buys them bibles, and tells them, to submit to GoD, and do whats right. Its Coolies. Oh yer, He doesnt drink alchahol, nor break any Laws, He doesnt own any pirated music at all, He got rid of it. So they are seeing him as genuine, not a hypocrite Christian, like they dont say his cool cause he does what they do, Just cause he isnt full of sh^t like most christian. Hmm, just writting, if u interested at all. lol, cool later. Submit to GoD for strength is really coolies though. l8r

September 13, 2004 at 2:29 am#41591

Anonymous

Guest

ringo,

it is difficult for me to reason with you, because you don't listen, but i will try one more time…

satan is a liar – this means that the act of lying (verb) has become personified in satan (proper name), making true the former statement. if this wasn't true, we couldn't call him a “liar” (noun). but we can – therefore the noun “liar” (or deception) is associated with the proper name (or the person of) “satan”. therefore deception has taken form as satan – this is not a “literal” form, but metaphorical form. if we can apply this rule to other “forms” (ie. the beast, the antichrist, false prophets, etc), then we can say “deception takes many forms”. it is a basic function of language, which we use in everyday life, and not a philosophical argument.

to say that deception takes many forms, is not to see deception as an entity – that would mean that it is a “proper name”, but as i've said before, i am only using it in the sense of a “noun”. i am refering to the “quality” known as deception, and not an actual being. this is why i said that, you can believe in a being named deception if you like, but i am not trying to imply or refute that! because i spoke of deception as a quality (a noun), and not as an entity (a proper name).

please don't try to analyse my words again, but try to grasp my meaning! what i have said is very basic, so if you don't understand, don't jump to conclusions and call people deceived – unless you are without sin, of course – just ask…

cheers,

nate.

btw. shakespeare can be boring at times, but he was a master of the english language, and many linguistic forms which we take from granted today, were initiated by the poet… shakespeare did not rip off bible stories, he ripped off historical events. your friend may see biblical principles in the writings of shakespeare, but this is probably because he is viewing them from a biblical perspective. it is true to say that some of his plays were pointedly allegorical… richard ii, for one… but most of them were just standard story-lines reworked with the pen of a genius.

September 13, 2004 at 5:43 am#41592

Participant

Nate

Quote

Wrong, Therefore, Satan is deceptive! Deception has taken no form! For it is not a thing to form. It is only a description of a persons act. Not taking anyones form. You are using a flawed way of speaking.

Quote

this is not a “literal” form, but metaphorical form.

And then you contradict your previous statment, by saying It is only metephorical? Please wake up, this is in itself Deceptive speach

Quote

if we can apply this rule to other “forms” (ie. the beast, the antichrist, false prophets, etc),

Now you call these other beings with who choose do do acts, and use the same word “Form” to refer to them. Surely u can see how It is being deceptive and evasive manner of speaking, using form for actual beings, and observations of beings, is very harming for you, or anyone.

Quote

then we can say “deception takes many forms”.

No!! Deception took noones form, they were deceptive and acted in deception, decieving many!! But never did Deception take theyre form.

Quote

it is a basic function of language, which we use in everyday life, and not a philosophical argument.

It is a fallen way that makes words turn into mush, called buerocracy, which means way too much stupid unspecific wording, to complicate issues so everyones confused and doesnt know what to do. Like how they make 1 million page long laws, or conracts for no real purpose, but to make many loopholes so they can manipulate.

I know of a few people who talk like that, like, celebrities, that want to be seen as articulate. But it is just nonspecific rambling. That gives air to insane beliefs.

You see, saying Deception takes Form of A person, Is insane, That means, Someone could say “Deception took my form, I wasnt to blame, It was deception that was to blame , I am inocent” Which is insane to think, Yet that is what you said, by “deception has taken form as satan”

Why then contuniue this wording?? It is not biblical, It is deceptive in itself to say Deception takes form as a person or being.

I so thought the last post was enough, seems as though you have allready made up your mind, so I write for maybe if anyone else reads.

But hoping maybe, not so bad, laterz.

As for shakspeare, lol, what you think shakespeare didnt write with the greatest story book in mind?? (the bible)?? LoL sif not!! even now, our great entertainers have biblical reference and parrallells throughout theyre material. Does it say that in a study on shakspeare somewhere? Or is it a university thing?? Im sure the university lecturers would hate to think that shakspeare was nothing more but a rearranger of bible stories. Seen as GoD is something they detest with great enthusiasm.

September 13, 2004 at 6:48 am#41593

Anonymous

Guest

hey ringo,

i persist because you remind me of a younger version of myself, and i would hate to think of anyone giving up on me (even though at times i fully deserve it)…

now, you said:

Quote

then you said:

Quote

in the first quote you imply that your understanding of shakespeare is based on what a friend told you… but in the second quote you claim to know and understand all there is about shakespeare, and to know more than people who have spent their entire tertiary and post-tertiary years studying shakespeare… can you see how ignorant this sounds? well, your arguments against my “phrasiology” based on your understanding of language sounds just as ignorant. you persist in deconstructing my arguments so as to analyse the individual phrases without giving heed to their context… in this way you will never grasp my meaning… you need to understand the whole argument (the message), before you can grasp the complexities of individual phrases…

i understand now that this is how you approach the scriptures too – absolute literalism… this might work in some instances, but the scriptures themselves laugh at such an approach – jesus spoke in parables so that “seeing they would see and not perceive, and hearing they would hear and not understand”… this means that things aren't as literal as they appear. when jesus said, “the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl of great price…” he was using a metaphor. if you then go on to say that finding a pearl of great price “is” finding the kingdom of heaven, people will laugh at you… but this is exactly how you are interpreting the end-time scriptures… the revelation was given in a vision, and as we can see from the visions of the old testament prophets, these are not (generally) meant to be taken literally. the beast won't “look” like a beast, but a man. the harlot (the whore of babylon) is not a literal woman, nor the literal city of babylon…

i don't want want to appear as though i know it all, because god knows i don't, but please listen to me when i say that your understanding of language analysis is almost as attrocious your spelling! i don't care if you disagree with my arguments, but i do care if your disagreement is based on the fact that you haven't bothered to understand what i'm saying – which all your analyses to date have proved to be the case. it makes you sound ignorant, and discourages people from attempting to discuss things with you… which after all is the whole point of a forum…

i hope you will take this criticism in the spirit that it is meant.

cheers,

nate.

September 13, 2004 at 7:48 am#41594

Is 1:18

Participant

Hi guys
Im interested in your thoughts on the identity of the Beast of Rev 17 Nate. I strongly believe that scripture interprets scripture and never is this more important to apply than in the Book of Revelation (which I love) – 400 odd verses and over 800 allusions to the OT. I can't post as much as I want to on this subject tonight, bc my wife and 3 yr old are due back from an out of town Wiggles concert any minute now and I want to spend time with them. Anyway, I think that Dan 7:23-28 points to the beast's identity as being some sort of geo-political system. Not an actual person.
Will post more later but really just wanted to change the subject….
God Bless

September 13, 2004 at 3:26 pm#41595

Participant

Well Nate.

Why have you ignored the points about the phrase in question? and went to just cheap shot tactics, which has so many flaws. lalala

Quote

hey ringo,

i persist because you remind me of a younger version of myself, and i would hate to think of anyone giving up on me (even though at times i fully deserve it)…

now, you said:
Quote

then you said:
Quote

in the first quote you imply that your understanding of shakespeare is based on what a friend told you… but in the second quote you claim to know and understand all there is about shakespeare,

Where did I claim that?? Where did i claim i knew all there was to know about shakespeare?? I really would like to know, Lol.
i said great entertainers have bible in mind, even athiests. And especially as had studied in an english school. Points to a significant biblical base. 😛

Quote

and to know more than people who have spent their entire tertiary and post-tertiary years studying shakespeare… can you see how ignorant this sounds?

And what about Jesus, hmm sounds familiar, Not saying I am the Jesus of Shakespeare writings, LoL, But The principle has been set before, and Legitimetly. Notice how I was theorising, I did not say that university lecturers taught such a thing, But if they did, It would be a predictable ignorance.

Quote

well, your arguments against my “phrasiology” based on your understanding of language sounds just as ignorant.

Once again, find me a place in scripture where It calls someones act a form Of a being!! It does not for it is deceptive!!

Quote

you persist in deconstructing my arguments so as to analyse the individual phrases without giving heed to their context…

I know your meaning, I allready spelt it back to you, You mean to group an action, call it Metaphorical, call that metaphore “form” and say that this “Form” takes the “form” of other people, after those people Have Made that act. Which is in itself non-specific and deceptive. An articulate mirage of spaced out delusion.

You see the problem is that you contradict yourself. You say “delusion takes the form of Satan” Then say that delusion is a metaphore, Which is contrary to your statement. Why not say what you mean. That is the problem with your expression of delusion, for delusion is a description of another or many acts, And is also a form of action of an individual, But Delusion is not the form of a person, that is a realm of fantasy.

Quote

in this way you will never grasp my meaning… you need to understand the whole argument (the message), before you can grasp the complexities of individual phrases…

You would like to think its that complex wouldnt you. But no, what you are using is nonspecific Jiberish. And not just a greater understanding as you would like to think it as. As i pointed out above.

Quote

i understand now that this is how you approach the scriptures too – absolute literalism…

So when Jesus says, The kingdom of heaven is like treasure in a field, you dont think its literally, like a field?? That a man finds??? And then sells all everything he has to buy that field?? Jesus then told his disciples to sell everything they had and give to the poor. Now, Very straight forward, and a literal metaphore. Not a spacey remody. Please Find a parable that Jesus does not say that It is an actual “this is like that” statement before he begins, outlining the that he is in fact speaking metaphorically.

Quote

this might work in some instances, but the scriptures themselves laugh at such an approach – jesus spoke in parables so that “seeing they would see and not perceive, and hearing they would hear and not understand”… this means that things aren't as literal as they appear. when jesus said, “the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl of great price…” he was using a metaphor. if you then go on to say that finding a pearl of great price “is” finding the kingdom of heaven, people will laugh at you…

Quote

Not so, I allready showed how, Jesus shows literally, that he was giving a likness, That is very literal, and directive. And not disconnected.

but this is exactly how you are interpreting the end-time scriptures…
the revelation was given in a vision, and as we can see from the visions of the old testament prophets, these are not (generally) meant to be taken literally.
the beast won't “look” like a beast, but a man. the harlot (the whore of babylon) is not a literal woman, nor the literal city of babylon…

Well, u accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing, disconnecting reality, and making up your own perception.

It clearly states in revelation, when things are Figurative or literal. And many people do not follow the clear direction of the writer of revelation, and want to say to him. “nah, your wrong, I think its articulate and non-specific garbage, I'd rather just walk in the dark, and fall into a pit – yey” Now that seems to be the way you want to approach revelation, If you do not agree with the graffic, and straight forward literal and chilling events in revelation.

Now when a parable was told, and is told in bible, It is started as a likeness, But as for revelation, he says, “the whole world saw this and that” and then people DID this and that. then other people wanna come along and say, “oh no, what he said happened, doesnt really happen, its a metaphore” Thats insanity, What ?? u wanna say Jesus didnt die on a cross?? that thats a metaphore too?? insane people. When the guy is like, people ar
e beheaded, and blah blah, and physical acts. So obvious, unless you prescribe to insanity, then why bother at all??

Quote

i hope you will take this criticism in the spirit that it is meant.

cheers,

nate.

So what, spelling is not the most important, unless you absolutly cannot understand what is written. But as arguments sake, which is interesting, I was sent an email, that the spelling was allot worse than mine. I'll get it.

This was the email.

Try to read this. If you read fast, you basically miss no word.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh an! d I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt

******************************************

So yer, Mr spell perfect man 😛 as you see GoD has equiped us with brains to understand poor spelling quite well. So Your correct spelling is of no real value 😛 nore gives you a higher grounding. Now what was it Jesus said about the wise and learned 😛

l8r.

I also hope you Dont get too offended. jst a lil is good, 😛 Just as long as maybe you think about what been said?

Whatever, 1:30am, hope up looking was a good read l8rz

September 14, 2004 at 1:32 am#41596

Anonymous

Guest

hey is1:18,

um… yes, perhaps you're right – it makes sense… although, there is always a person (or a small group of people) in control of these systems, so i wonder what it means when it says “kings”… i've heard people say that the united nations fits this description, or the security council, but as we've seen in recent events the un is rather powerless when it comes to war-politics, largely because the un military consists of what individual nations contribute, and nation-states have a tendancy to do what is in their best interests, rather than what is in the best interests of humanity… but i think that all these systems are to some extent taking the world down the path towards the beast (so that when the beast appears, people won't see the difference)…

i remember reading that in germany in the years before wwii, when the “no jews” signs began appearing on doors, there was very little outcry, and people (jews and non-jews) generally got used to how things were, so that when jews were ordered off the footpaths, then required to wear the star of david, then ordered to the labour camps, no-one really thought much of it… and it should be added that the rest of the world saw this happening and didn't do much about it… i think this is how the beast will become so powereful, so evil, and yet so accepted…

regarding the second beast – i think there is a parallel between this and the two witnesses… the two witnesses have the power to shut heaven, and turn the waters to blood – their power comes from god. the second beast has two horns (like the two witnesses) and it also has power to perform miracles, but its power comes from the devil (it speaks with the voice of a dragon)… i think those who seek signs and wonders (like the pharisees in jesus' day), but lack discernment will think that this beast speaks with the voice of god, and will be led astray…

but what do you think?

cheers,

nate.

October 9, 2004 at 2:44 am#41597

Participant

Hi nate,
The woman described in Rev 17 mat also be the same woman in Zech 5.5f.There she is called 'wickedness' and she is taken to Babylon [Shinar] where a temple is built to worship her?

The beast is seated on a scarlet beast which verse 8 identifies as Satan[cf Rev 20 .2 where he is taken out of the picture 1000 yrs but returns] But in verse 11 the beast is now identified in exactly the same way but now IS a world leader-so it seems likely to me that Satan is incarnate in this man. Satan is worshipped as is the first beast[13.4].

The second beast is later called the false prophet and seemed to be the enforcer for the first beast.

November 17, 2004 at 9:35 pm#41598

Participant

Hi,
The same woman is seen in Nahum 3.3f?
“They stumble over the dead bodies because of the many harlotries of the harlot, the charming one, the mistress of sorceries, who sells nations by her harlotries and families by her sorceries.'Behold I am against you' declares the Lord of Hosts 'and I will lift up your skirts over your face and show to the nations your nakedness, and to the kingdoms your disgrace. I will throw filth on you and make you vile and set you up as a spectacle”

It reads as though the harlot will be publically exposed and punished with humiliation and disgrace as well as death.The public exposure of paedophilia and sexual abuse in the church of the world that is currently causing international outrage and expense may be part of that fulfillment?

Many have been disillusioned and left what they thought was a holy institution when they discover it's behaviors are evil and worse than any other group of men.

November 18, 2004 at 8:50 am#41599

Participant

Martin Luther took a trip to Rome in 1510, and was disgusted at the Papacy's greed and corruption. It was all so confusing to him, when as a Catholic he thought that Rome was the city of God. But he saw her true colours.

November 18, 2004 at 8:56 am#41600

Participant

I quote this from the following website. This is not my endorsement of the site, and I am sceptical about their conclusion, but I offer it as food for thought. They/he/she believes that Jerusalem is the city on 7 hills that John mentions in the Book of Revelation. I quote the first part as it is related to this discussion.

It was common custom in the centuries before Christ for people in the Roman world to refer to the City of Rome itself as the “City of Seven Hills.” The references are numerous and consistent. And indeed, when Romulus and Remus wanted to build a city in the area of the Tibur River (just inland from the coast to afford a greater protection for the city from sea pirates or from the naval warfare of hostile powers), it was divinely selected, in Roman parlance, that the city had to be on “seven hills.” The number “seven” was a universal symbol that signified “completion” or “perfection,” and the ancients who founded Rome wanted people to know that this particular city was destined to have a world influence and fame, and that it was no ordinary city that was being constructed in the eighth century B.C. The very fact, that Rome was designated “The Seven Hilled City” was significant enough to render it as a sacred and holy city that was designed to have world power and authority. This is one of the reasons the ancient people of the world always respected the City of Rome, whether they were its arch defenders and supporters or its enemies and were alien to its political and religious concepts. Even when the city in the time of the Empire finally grew beyond the strict limits of the “Seven Hills” (and reached out to embrace other hills in the vicinity and even hills on the other side of the Tibur River, such as Vatican Hill), the people for nostalgic reasons still retained the name of the city by its original designation: “the City of Seven Hills.”

November 19, 2004 at 7:07 pm#41601

Participant

Hi t8,
The role of Martin Luther in history was to help to reduce and eventually disempower the huge and dominating political influence [rev 18.3]of catholicism on the world of the time and I thank God for that. When you go through catholic Europe you can still see how the whore of Babylon bewitched people and enslaved nations as her churches tower over every town every few kilometres along the way.
The unspeakable horrors of the Inquisition clearly demonstrated how evil this control was. So many were tortured and killed for not believing false doctrine that it is no wonder all the deaths of christians are laid at her door in Rev18.24.
But was Martin Luther an inspired teacher or a false teacher? Did his personal fruit demonstrate the work of the Spirit? I favour the second choice, a false teacher, as his teachings do not mirror the Bible but continue the teachings of catholicism, with cosmetic changes, under a different human authority in my view.
He did not seem to repent and preach the gospel of Jesus but railed against the obvious excesses of catholicism and produced the first of the protestant churches-based on protest not truth.
I feel these are the daughters of the harlot.They also face the wrath of God in my view.

January 3, 2005 at 2:18 am#41602

Participant

Hi ,
I think we need to look deeper at the Whore of Babylon.

Why is it a woman?
Why a whore?
Why called “Babylon the Great”?
What is her relationship to Babylon the place and ir's history?

I guess the whore must have been “paid” for her services. Whores are not usually in high office or given much glory or power.
Why is she so elevated?
Who was she working for?
Seduction away from the faithful partner and destruction of the trust between the two partners is the work of the whore.
Idolatry and dependence on men is usually described as 'whoring' in the bible. Does that apply here?

January 3, 2005 at 5:27 am#41603

Participant

Hi Nick,

Yes I also wonder about Martin Luther. Was he of God or of himself. Yes he helped to show the people that the Catholic Church was corrupt and he did restore some much needed doctrine. But as far as I can tell, he still upheld the Trinity doctrine and other Catholic doctrines. Does anyone else have more info regarding this?

January 3, 2005 at 6:25 am#41604

Participant

Hi Nick,

From what I can tell I think the following can be applied to the questions you raised.

Why is it a woman?

Perhaps because all those that love, worship and serve a god are referred to in a feminine sense. E.g. We are the bride of Christ and Jesus is our bridegroom. We are also referred to as virgins and virgins remain pure till they are united with their bridegroom. They then become united and as one with the bridegroom. A womans love is often in response to the masculine. So a love of a god is seen as a femine type of love. Paul teaches us that husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the Church and that woman should submit to their husbands as to the Lord. So I guess that love for any god even false gods is a type of love and submission.

Why a whore?

A whore on the otherhand has many lovers or husbands or even just one lover who is not her true husband. Israel often gave credence to other gods and God treated them as if they were unfaithful to him. Spirtual harlotry is to worship and serve other gods as the Most High God or other gods that are not ordained as representives by the true God.

Why called “Babylon the Great”?

Great because of her influence and size and because she was conceived in ancient Babylon the city.

What is her relationship to Babylon the place and it's history?

False religion came from there or at least was instituted there. Even the Queen of Heaven was worshipped. Looks like she was resurrected too and is alive an well in Catholicism. Even though God destroyed ancient Babylon, she lives on in mens hearts. She is the mother of all false religion and she has made the whole world drunk on her wine (spirit). She has affected not just the world, but also some of God's children.

Listen to what John says about her.

Revelation 17:7
When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

So we can see that the woman is supported by the beast and is not the beast itself.

Now ancient Babylon was/is part of the Beast system as far as I know. She was one of the heads or kingdoms along with Rome, Greece etc.

Babylon had 2 faces. The commercial side and the religious side. The commercial side seems to be described as part of the beast but the religious side may well be the woman that rides the beast. Even Rome which was one of the heads of the beast had a spirtual side. She embraced or should I say infiltrated the Body of Christ to create her Church. She is possibly her latest manifestation of Babylon's religious spirit. Even her rebellious daughters are connected to her and under her influence through her doctrines such as the Trinity and her baptisms.

Some say that the Mysterous Babylon of Revelation is the USA or New York and that may or may not be true. But I think political powers are best described as the beast or extentions of the beast that are under her influence. The woman seems sperate to the beast in identity but is supported by the beast in the following description.

I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

So it may well be Rome as Rome is called the city of the 7 hills and was home to the prostitute Church that is called by the name of the beastal empire that conceived her. And yes it was the Roman Beast and the Roman Church that gave the edict to kill the disciples of Christ.

Babylon and Rome part of the same beast. Babylon and Rome part of the same prostitute. Perhaps?

January 4, 2005 at 8:07 am#41605