Revelation; Harlot Babylon pt3 (Twinned with Rome)

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
how the incarnation would enhance rather than diminish the passion/crucifiction I accept your concession of this point.

I would not claim to know "how".the Incarnation has that effect.
I only know, Biblically, "that" the Incarnation has that effect.
The statements are clear enough;
"God sent forth his Son, born of a woman...so that we might receive adoption as sons"- Galatians ch4 v5
"For if, while we were enemies we were reconclied to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we ar reconclied, shall we be saved by his life"- Romans ch5 v10

So I can offer you the statements that salvation is made possible through the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.
But I cannot tell you how; I cannot give you a breakdown of the actual mechanism. The full details are beyond my human capacity.
That is because I am not God, and neither are you.
I'm sorry that this reminder irritates you.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I'm cool with not being god. Not irritated in the least. Bible quoting as a source of authority bugs me, but only because I am a fan of logic or at least internal consistency within a given mythology.

To each their own.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

Well, this series is about the interpretation of prophecy in a Biblical book, using the aid of other parts of the Bible, written by someone who accepts the authority of the Bible, mainly for the interest of other people accepting the authority of the Bible.
I'm afraid that Bible-quoting rather goes with the territory.

Originally posted by thegoodearth

Why did Christ give the keys to Heaven to Peter then, if Peter was no one special? Why?

There is a difference between pointing towards an individual, as the person who would be taking the lead in the immediate group's forthcoming work, and setting up a permanent authority intended to last down the centuries.
There is no reason to doubt that Peter, the individual, was active in leadership.
But there is no evidence whatever that Christ was instructing him to set up a permanent authority of any kind, or to set it up in a particular place, and there is no evidence that Peter actually attempted to do either of those things. Thats the missing link I've mentioned before.

What we see instead, in the hostory of the early church, is a more collective leadership.
In Acts ch13 vv1-3, the church at Antioch decided to set apart Barnabas and Saul for missionary work. They felt no need to consult any other authority, apart from the Holy Spirit. That was enough. No sign of any kind of hierarchical authority above them.
In Galatians ch2 v11- "When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned"
No sign there of respectful obedience being given to the outright leader appointed by Christ.

One of the best examples of collective leadership in the early church is the way the Arian controversy was first dealt with- not by Papal decree, but by the calling of an ecumenical Council. This Council also illustrates my point about the way the power and influence within the Church was centred upon the well-populated Greek east, whereas the Latin west was a comparative backwater. All the big guns in the Church. the people who really mattered, like Athanasius, and they were easterners. The west was represented by four or five bishops and a couple of presbyters sent by Pope Silvester.
Over the next couple of centuries, the arbitration of the Roman bishop was sometimes used to help settle disputes in the east. But then the big nations of the world have sometimes appealed to the arbitration of the Swiss- not because they acknowledged the Swiss as the rulers of the world, but because the Swiss were not involved in the big battles themselves and might be able to take a more objective view.

The situation was transformed for Rome by the barbarian invasions of Italy, which cut them off from the support and/or interference of Constantinople. They were left isolated in their own small world, and that small world was one they could dominate- the "big fish in a small pool" effect, as I said before. Then church history shows how, through the centuries, power was gradually drained away from the surviving elements of "collective" leadership (as the struggleof the Conciliar Movement showed) and concentrated in the Papacy. The present position of Papal authority is the natural conclusion of this process, but it was most decidedly not the starting-point.

On the actual wording of the Matthew passage;
The coment about binding and loosing is repeated in ch18 v18, apparently addressing the disciples in general. Collective leadership again.
Similarly in John ch20 v23 Jesus says to all the disciples in the upper room "Receive the HolySpirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven."

And if you think there is any big deal in the giving of the keys, let me observe that even the scribes and the Pharisees held the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
This becomes clear by comparison of two texts;
"Woe to you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter youselves, and you hindered those who were entering"- Luke ch11 v52
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in"- Matthew ch23 v13
Putting the two together, they're obviously two different versions of the same criticism. Taken in combination, they tell us that the real key to the kingdom is the knowledge of how to get in (which makes sense, if you think about it).
Post-Easter, the way to enter the kingdom involves knowledge of the death and resurrection of Christ.
Therefore "I will give you the keys to the kingdom" is an instruction to preach the gospel, and a promise of assistance in doing so.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Again, I respectfully disagree.
I believe that the Biblical passages show that Peter was groomed to be the leader,
by Christ, and that in giving the keys to Heaven to Peter, that Christ was bestowing the
power of His Church on earth to St. Peter, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him- therefore, through him and his successors, with Christ's
promises that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, and He will remain with them throughout
the age, the Church has not succumbed.

In addition, Jesus Christ then also bestowed knowledge upon the Apostles, also instructed them
that whatever they bound and loosed would be bound and loosed. Why would He repeat Himself if he
had already said it once to them when he gave "them" the keys?
At any rate, we can agree to disagree...
I respect your position.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
You avoid ever allowing for any hint of one man being given the grace of the Holy Spirit to discern infallibility in the matters of official faith and morals by multiplying the infallibility by the multitudes of millions of readers of the Sacred Scriptures, to the exclusion of one man.

I'll just respond to this post, because it took me several hours to notice it was there!
I think there is a third option- infallibilty not present on earth at all.
The essence of faith is trust, in the absence of certainty.
One very powerful human failing is to want to trust , instead, in things that are "graspable".
Hence physical idols. Worshipping something which is graspable.
Hence "we must take every text literally". This gets rid of uncertainties by taking hold of a graspable interpretation.
Hence the Calvinist focus on "Assurance", which can be mainly about "feeling" saved. This gets rid of uncertainties by taking hold of a graspable feeling.
And I think the demand for "Infallibility" falls into the same psychological pattern. Get rid of uncertainties by taking hold of a graspable authority.
The main thrust of the argument for Infallibilty is that without it there is no certainty.
Yes, I know. That's the situation called "faith".

My faith is placed in the promise of John ch16 v13;
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth"
In combination with the statement that all those "who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit".- Ephesians ch 1v13

Originally posted by Phanthom
Pointless (tldr) thread,

Would you care to explain the abbreviation TLDR, which has no meaning for me?
And are you ready to reconsider your verdict?

about the rock on which the church is built....yes Peter is significant but faith is the rock on which the church is built. believing in the one yahushua is the rock. faith in Jesus being the one in whom we go to the Father.

reply to post by GBP/JPY

Thank you for that comment.
We could relate it specifically to what Peter had just said;
"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

reply to post by vjr1113

May I ask why you ask that question?
Since this is supposed to be an obscure book, I'm looking for as much light as I can find

so, ones faith IS a rock, these days for sure. in the future for sure. i just got that...i've been shown today and yesterday that all we really have is God...and the joy...but i just got that rock....it can't be dissipated and in the Psalms God is our rock.....i'll be able to hold that no matter what like a rock

reply to post by GBP/JPY

Good for you.
It's been said "A rock that doesn't roll". No idea where that comes from.

PS Larry Norman, apparently

reply to post by thegoodearth
Its real easy to be a little confused about ,church,catholic church, roman church or the roman catholic church ...I want to ask if you have read the reformation by Will Durant ...html-pdf-converter.com... I am in the first chapter and I will tell you now that this is a very well written book ...It has changed my mind about the church ...Starting around 1250 some things started happening ..by 1300 the wolves were in charge of the church...so bad was it that the reformation happened ,and rightfully so ...If there is any true piety there now it is only because it is allowed to exist by the brutal powers of the sword ..The beast that the harlot is allowed to ride is law and commerce ....the guys with the sword make the laws ...not peace .......peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


I am not confused about my faith at all.
I truly believe 100% in the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic faith.
I cannot imagine my life without them.
Truly, I cannot.
The beauty of the Mass is incredible to me.
I attend Daily Mass and Holy Hour.
I go to weekly Confession.
I feel incredible peace, almost all the time.
Prayer is a constant, organized or just mental thoughts
throughout the day.

reply to post by thegoodearth
I thought I read somewhere that at one time there were 3 popes...I could be wrong about that but if so ,how so?
second..peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


I think you are referring to the "Western Schism" event which happened in 1378.

It is explained in detail here:
www.newadvent.org...

The short answer though is that there was only one validly elected pope, that French cardinal was chosen as anti-pope after the first valid election, and the council of Pisa was not approved by either the true pope or the anti-pope, and its sessions resulted in a second anti-pope. The Council of Constance put the matter to rest when the true pope resigned and recognized the Council's authority to appoint a successor.

By substituting a modern political reality, it is easier to see the premises upon which this argument against the Catholic Church was built. Just as the United States did not ever have "two presidents at one time", only a period in late 2000 when there was a question over who was the rightful president of the United States, so the Catholic Church never had "three popes".

This is the chain of Succession from St. Peter to present:
1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) — also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) — also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) — also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) — Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican’s official list) omit him.
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice removed and restored
147. Sylvester III (1045)
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
157. Alexander II (1061-73)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30)
165. Innocent II (1130-43)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81)
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Christmas Day A.D.800, the Pope crowns Charlemagne as Emperor- and THAT, I suggest, marks the real start of "papal power". Rome is now able to dominate the west.

Actually, the "papal power" started with Pepin, the father of Charlemagne. It was Pepin who first began to appeal to the authority of the Pope and to involve him in decision-making in the civil disputes.

Pepin added to his power after Pope Stephen II traveled all the way to Paris to anoint him in a lavish ceremony at the Basilica of St Denis, bestowing upon him the additional title of patricius Romanorum (Patrician of the Romans) and is the first recorded crowning of a civil ruler by a Pope

Pepin's first major act as King was to go to war against the Lombard king Aistulf, who had expanded into the ducatus Romanum. Victorious, he forced the Lombard king to return property seized from the Church. He confirmed the Papacy in possession of Ravenna and the Pentapolis, the so-called Donation of Pepin whereby the Papal States was founded and the temporal reign of the Papacy began.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
By substituting a modern political reality, it is easier to see the premises upon which this argument against the Catholic Church was built. Just as the United States did not ever have "two presidents at one time", only a period in late 2000 when there was a question over who was the rightful president of the United States, so the Catholic Church never had "three popes".

Swapping hats for a moment and putting on my "student of history" hat;
Not as a religious argument, but in the interests of a better understanding of history, I need to point out that the parallel would be closer if;
Starting from a disputed election there were at least two distinct lines of "Presidents" during a period of about half a century..
There was a line of Presidents based in California and recognised mostly in areas west of the Mississippi.
Another line of Presidents based in Washington and recognised in the North-east, and any areas which did not like California.
Then, for a time, the President chosen by a "unification" Congress only succeeded in carving out a third area for himself.
In those circumstances "three Presidents at a time" would be a fair description.
There were "three Popes at a time" to a similar extent.

reply to post by Alethea

Thank you for those additional details.
You're right, of course, but 800 was a near enough landmark for the history-skimming I was doing in the earlier post.

I'm just adding a link to the successor to this thread, which completes the survey of the Har;lot of ch17.

"Drunk with the blood of the saints"