- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi CA,
Have you got permission to read it?
This unholy domination demands the right to tell all what is truth.
Instead of accepting their lies be really brave and read all the word of God and let God teach you.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,11:31) Quote (942767 @ Oct. 02 2009,09:27) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 01 2009,06:47) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 30 2009,11:38) Hi CA: Quote Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Quote Luk 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? Love in Christ,
Marty
What is your interpretation of these verses?The Church's makes me say “Amen” to them.
Hi CA:So then, the Catholic church rules over you by force “making you say amen”.
I would not be a part of any organization where I am not able to read and interpret the scriptures for myself.
To tell someone that you agree with what they are teaching when you don't would be hypocrisy. I can never do this.
Love in Christ,
Marty
That's because what you don't see is that you have placed yourself as your own authority and don't want to let go…even though it is not working out for you.Evidence abounds for the authority of the Church, yet you refuse to consider it.
Hi CA:I have confessed Jesus as my Lord. He is the authority in the church.
Quote 1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cr 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.I will follow someone if they are following Christ, but if not, I will not follow lest both of us fall in the ditch.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote Show me the Scripture that says in effect “And if any doctrine comes to you that is not written in these books, matthew, mark, luke, john, acts, etc. etc. you shall reject it as false.” Not even a hint of anything of the kind. you are being contradictive with your own church, they choose to bring certian books together, say this is the inspired word of God, then say you don't have to abide by the word, what these books are just for the 'public' to view? what kind of father when their children ask for bread gives them a stone.
Quote (princess of the king @ Oct. 02 2009,12:40) Quote Show me the Scripture that says in effect “And if any doctrine comes to you that is not written in these books, matthew, mark, luke, john, acts, etc. etc. you shall reject it as false.” Not even a hint of anything of the kind. you are being contradictive with your own church, they choose to bring certian books together, say this is the inspired word of God, then say you don't have to abide by the word, what these books are just for the 'public' to view? what kind of father when their children ask for bread gives them a stone.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be one of the happiest people alive.No contradiction because your statement is false. We don't say “you don't have to abide by the word.”
Hi CA,
Exactly.You are free to teach whatever comes into your heads.
That is because your church has no connection with our God or His Son.Is Catholicism Pagan?
If few Fundamentalists know the history of their religion—which distressingly few do—even fewer have an appreciation of the history of the Catholic Church. They become easy prey for purveyors of fanciful “histories” that claim to account for the origin and advance of Catholicism.
Anti-Catholics often suggest that Catholicism did not exist prior to the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 313 AD and made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. With this, pagan influences began to contaminate the previously untainted Christian Church. In no time, various inventions adopted from paganism began to replace the gospel that had been once for all delivered to the saints. At least, that is the theory.
Pagan Influence Fallacy
Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.
The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this “pagan influence fallacy.” Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic “freethinkers” such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.
The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.
Use of a round wafer implies sun worship?
Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Ex 29:1-2).
Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, “Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament . . . just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc.” Unless the Fundamentalists are willing to honestly examine the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, they are left defenseless. Fortunately, like the attacks on Catholicism in particular, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called “pagan influence fallacies.”
Anything can be attacked using fallacy
The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., “No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer”).
Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”) fallacy—e.g., “Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source.” Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc (“Similar to this, therefore because of this”) fallacy.
When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that it is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committing it, it may be helpful to illustrate with cases where the pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his own position (e.g., the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of peoples—including the Egyptians—but few Jews or Christians would say that its divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of “pagan corruption”).
To help a secular person see the fallacy involved, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving those of his perspective (e.g., “Nobody should accept this particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist”).
Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:
1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.
For example: “The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.
2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very g
ood reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.
3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).
For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries (H. A. Guerber, The Norsemen, 339f).
4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?
For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed “neutral” Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a
religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.
Examples of negative parallels are often found in Genesis. For instance, the Flood narrative (Gen. 6-9) has parallels to pagan flood stories, but is written so that it refutes ideas in them. Thus Genesis attributes the flood to human sin (6:5-7), not overpopulation, as Atrahasis’ Epic and the Greek poem Cypria did (I. Kikawada & A. Quinn). The presence of flood stories in cultures around the world does not undermine the validity of the biblical narrative, but lends it more credence.
Criticism, refutation, and replacement are also the principles behind modern holidays being
celebrated to a limited extent around the same time as former pagan holidays. In actuality, reports of Christian holidays coinciding with pagan ones are often inaccurate (Christmas does not occur on Saturnalia, for example). However, to the extent the phenomenon occurs at all, Christian holidays were introduced to provide a wholesome, non-pagan alternative celebration, which thus critiques and rejects the pagan holiday.This is the same process that leads Fundamentalists who are offended at the (inaccurately alleged) pagan derivation of Halloween to introduce alternative “Reformation Day” celebrations for their children. (This modern Protestant holiday is based on the fact that the Reformation began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.) Another Fundamentalist substitution for Halloween has been “harvest festivals” that celebrate the season of autumn and the gathering of crops. These fundamentalist substitutions are no more “pagan” than the celebrations of days or seasons that may have been introduced by earlier Christians.
Historical truth prevails
Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism “pagan” fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.
In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,11:32) …and no one MAKES me say Amen. I am a Catholic by choice. I happen to believe all of the teachings of the Church by my own free will.
Yes, but that is surprisingly easy to do. You only need to turn a blind eye to much scripture, and let the organisation do the thinking for you.Scripture says one thing and the Catholic Creed (Vatican endorsed one) says another.
look in revelation 19;10 'for the testimony of Jesus' is the spirit of prophecy- now look up genesis 3;15 this is the first prophecy abode Christ,not abode you or any body else, all pages between those two verses talks abode Christ in a maner that only the right people were there when he came has it was rwitten and when he comes back the same kind of people is whaiting for him ,the right people resembel ,Abraham,Moses,Noah,David,JoB,and the apostels,how do we compere ourselfs to them in view of the scriptures Jesus said knowlege of the scriptures is the key to the way to God,not our opinion,if you do then you put you self above God,God is the only one who gifs understanding in your heart and spirit and based on how is word is applied and received and practice. If you see it differently explain it to me.please
CA……..I guess if they had cameras back then and took pictures of all these things that took place You still would not believe it would you. If you give yourself over to something it can brain wash you, into believing it. But we are told to be as the Breans are and check scripture for ourselves to see it what is being said it true or not. WE are never told to believe a Church or pope and except that as our proofs. As T8 said you have taken the easy way out, let someone else do the thinking for you and tell you.
gene
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,18:49) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,11:32) …and no one MAKES me say Amen. I am a Catholic by choice. I happen to believe all of the teachings of the Church by my own free will.
Yes, but that is surprisingly easy to do. You only need to turn a blind eye to much scripture, and let the organisation do the thinking for you.Scripture says one thing and the Catholic Creed (Vatican endorsed one) says another.
That is YOUR opinion. This is the inherent problem with Private Interpretation. You don't need to enter a Catholic into the equation with you all to get a multitude of contradictory opinions.We confess the same faith.
You are filled with confusion and contradiction. Is that the wisdom that is from above?
“But the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation.” – Jas. 3:17
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 06 2009,11:11) You are filled with confusion and contradiction.
I am not confused and I don't contradict. OK, I am not perfect either.Show me where I am confused and where I contradict.
If you cannot, then an apology would be good.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,11:12) G,
But you too offer your own thoughts which the Bereans would not be able to confirm either.
Nick…….If i can prove it, i am sure the Brean's could also.gene
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,11:41) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 06 2009,11:11) You are filled with confusion and contradiction.
I am not confused and I don't contradict. OK, I am not perfect either.Show me where I am confused and where I contradict.
If you cannot, then an apology would be good.
You say that the apostolic creed (I assume you mean the one formulated at Nicea?) contradicts the Bible.My point is that your interpretation of the Bible and the Church's interpretation of the Bible are at odds. Who is right? We could both post pages in debate. Yet at the end we would disagree with one another because we cannot agree on the one common thing instituted by Christ to bring us into unity: the Church.
You protestants disagree and bicker among yourselves all you want.
I'll stick with the unity of the Spirit to be had in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 06 2009,12:33) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,11:12) G,
But you too offer your own thoughts which the Bereans would not be able to confirm either.
Nick…….If i can prove it, i am sure the Brean's could also.gene
It was the Catholic faith accepted by the Bereans.Hi CA,
The apostles would be horrified by the evil behaviours of the denomination that claims them as leaders.CatholicApologist,Oct. wrote:[/quote]
Quote
If ignorance is bliss, you must be one of the happiest people alive.No contradiction because your statement is false. We don't say “you don't have to abide by the word.”
only ignorant when it comes to your false teachings and ramblings of your church.
don't be jealous of me being happy, it is no fault of my own your church does not schedule it in for you, take it up with them.
Php 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice;
you and your church are double and unsound minded, you or your church could not explain how to be saved in your dying breaths. you would be too busy with your priests so you would have your viaticum or should we call it Charon's obol, witchever.
Well, be ignorant no more:
Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots
Now, what does Revelation say about the Great Whore? Look at the following verses:
“How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.”
“For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.”
“They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.”
“But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them.”
OK, so I tricked you. Those verses aren't from Revelation; they are Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 2:20, Jeremiah 3:1-3, and Ezekiel 16:15-18 respectively. And the identity of the harlot? It is Jerusalem.
And this is really what Revelation says about the Whore:
Revelation 17:15-18
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. and the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.“Great city”? Which city is “the great city”?
Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified..Now, was Jesus Christ crucified in Rome — or in Jerusalem?
But — but — it says stuff like “jewels” and “golden cup” and “scarlet” and “purple” — that's just gotta be the “Romish Church”! Well, considering that Catholicism is the Old Covenant fulfilled, it shouldn't be too surprising to find in it liturgical colors, vestments, and implements that are partly rooted in the Old Testament (see Exodus 28). But the Jerusalem Temple is undoubtedly what Revelation is referring to, and Flavius Josephus left us writings that tell us what the Jerusalem Temple looked like at the time of its destruction by pagan Rome in A.D. 70. Here are a few tidbits:
The holiest part of the Temple:
“Its front was covered with gold all over… But that gate which was at this end of the first part of the house was, as we have already observed, all over covered with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines above it, from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man's height. But then this house… had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful.”The exterior of the Temple:
“…the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men's minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays.”The priests' vestments:
“But that girdle that tied the garment to the breast was embroidered with five rows of various colors, of gold, and purple, and scarlet, as also of fine linen and blue, with which colors we told you before the veils of the temple were embroidered also. The like embroidery was upon the ephod; but the quantity of gold therein was greater. Its figure was that of a stomacher for the breast. There were upon it two golden buttons like small shields, which buttoned the ephod to the garment; in these buttons were enclosed two very large and very excellent sardonyxes, having the names of the tribes of that nation engraved upon them: on the other part there hung twelve stones, three in a row one way, and four in the other; a sardius, a topaz, and an emerald; a carbuncle, a jasper, and a sapphire; an agate, an amethyst, and a ligure; an onyx, a beryl, and a chrysolite; upon every one of which was again engraved one of the forementioned names of the tribes.”You can read the entire 5th Chapter of the 5th Book of Josephus' War here.
Exodus 28:36-38 tells us that the Temple High Priest was to have worn on his forehead an insignia:
“And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.”
But Jerusalem apostasized and failed to recognize and then killed (with Roman power) the Messiah of prophecy. St. John the Divine tells us what “the woman,” Jerusalem, came to have upon her forehead:
“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Revelation 17:5)
But — but — it says something about seven mountains! Glad you noticed. Because:
*
even if “the Seven Mountains” are a reference to Rome (see “The Beasts” below) — which some of the Church Fathers, thinking of godless Rome, thought — that city, with its Caesar-gods, was thoroughly pagan at the time and certainly part of a cruel, evil empire. The Jews of Jerusalem (the Mother of Harlots) used Rome (“rides the beast”) all throughout the New Testament, using Roman power to kill the Messiah and try to destroy the People of God, the Church (see the entire Book of Acts).
*
even though they're usually lumped together and “Rome” is used as shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church, even by Catholics, Vatican City is its own city state and isn't “Rome”;
*
Rome isn't built on seven mountains, anyway; it's built on seven hills, as are Constaninople, Edinburgh, San Francisco, and Cincinnati, for that matter. Mountains are big, hills are small. There are two separate words for them and Scripture is familiar with both (see Luke 3:5 and Luke 23:30). Rome's seven hills are Palatine, Aventine, Capitoline, Quarinal, Viminal, Esquiline and Caelian (hey, how come Vatican Hill is never listed?).
Jerusalem, however, is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and M
t. Moriah. There are even Psalms about them, “As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.” {Psalms 125:2)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
