The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem.

reply to post by eight bits

BTW, during Jesus' ministry, Jerusalem was under direct Roman rule. If prophets were being killed there, then it would be Pontius Pilate doing it, not any Herod, who reigned elsewhere. By an amazing coincidence, Pontius Pilate's soldiers killed Jesus, according to the Christian version. Jesus' death, then, does not distinguish between "Rome" and "Jerusalem" as factors for early Christian writers. Both cities figure prominently in the Christian Passion narrative, one as place where it happened and the other as the power that made it happen there.

who ruled is important but still secondary, even Bible says that Pilate was not eager to crucify Jesus pbuh. It was done on insistence of jews(Jerusalem) who accused him of blasphemy and tried to instigate roman authority by claiming that he is a traitor declaring himself 'King'
Whose soldiers did try that is irrelavant. Soldiers follow orders period. Pilate and Herod were also shuttling him to the other on 'technical' details. Dint seem eager to be responsible for giving the command of execution.
So Jerusalem(jews) get the blood on their hands, i'l give you that 'Rome' was the executioner, but just that.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Concerning your catholicbible101 passage. You are using a Catholic site promoting Catholic doctrine to say that the Catholic church is not evil and that the her doctrines are not false. Sorry, that's funny.

Your evidence is that it cites no Catholics have control over Presidents or kings or rulership of countries but provides no evidence of the fact and merely tries to turn people away from the accusation by saying it is laughable, to try and dismiss anyone trying to bring up the debate as 'crazy' or a 'conspiracy theorist' perhaps.

Unluckily for you I don't shirk from moronic Catholic argument and know the history of the Vatican and the Jesuits well even to make a good enough cases for them to pin them to that biblical claim (every Biblical claim).

Are you interested to what I have to say in this regard, or will you put the blinders on as usual, spit chips ect. Do you want an evidenced answer or was your 'evidence' (of
ostracizing any descent) meant to be a knock-out blow I wasn't meant to answer?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Some like to pin it on a jew .. a woman of course. Considering that he had just slaughtered the Jews in Khaibar, it could be.

you are confusing two events, he dint slaughter the jews at Khaibar, he laid siege to it before they were planning to march and attack Al Medina. Khaibar was a highly fortified stronghold with superior army than muslims' , however the city was won and Muhammad pbuh agreed not to execute every soldier when offered 50% annual produce by khaibar. Thats one of the reason he accepted the invitation for food from the woman as their were no negative feelings/threat etc.

logical7

who ruled is important but still secondary, even Bible says that Pilate was not eager to crucify Jesus pbuh.

Pilate didn't approach his job with eagerness. So what? The Bible says that Jesus was killed in Jerusalem by Roman soldiers, who were indeed following the orders of their superior officer, a Roman knight. Thus, we see Jerusalem and Rome, not Jerusalem instead of Rome.

by claiming that he is a traitor declaring himself 'King'

Actually, he did, according to the Bible. That's what his triumphal entry procession into Jerusalem was about. Very indiscreet. More than enough to get somebody killed. The Roman Senate decreed who was king of the Jews. The Roman garrison saw to it that nobody flaunted their disagreement and lived. That's what the titulus was for, a placard to explain what happened to people in Jerusalem who had a problem with the Roman Senate picking their king.

Enforcing such stuff is a lousy job when you think about it. No wonder Pilate was unenthusiastic.

Pilate and Herod were also shuttling him to the other on 'technical' details. Dint seem eager to be responsible for giving the command of execution.

Herod was the ruler (according to Roman law) of Jesus' home district. Pilate did Herod the courtesy of checking whether Herod's government wanted to try its citizen, Jesus, on its own charges before proceeding with the Roman charges. The Bible says that that gesture improved relations between Pilate and Herod. That's not reluctance, that's just good bureaucracy and political savvy.

i'l give you that 'Rome' was the executioner, but just that.

And I'll give you that Jesus died in Jerusalem. The incident, then, was a cooperative venture of Jerusalem authorities and Roman authorities. It does not help us disitnguish whether Revelation's "Babylon" refers to Jerusalem or Rome. I do thank you for the reply, though.

reply to post by eight bits


let me put it crudely, someone who plans/plots to kill is more to blame that the bureaucratic machinery and laws used to do it.
Jesus pbuh came for the jews, they tried their best to 'do him in'
he wasnt a traitor, his is famous answer, "give to God what is His and to Ceasar what is his" proves that. Also when asked by Pilate if he is a king, he replied "you say that" i am paraphrasing btw.
I do see that your stand is both 'Jerusalem' and 'Rome' share it equally but if i ask a question "if one is more responsible who would you pick?" what would you reply?

I think Jerusalem is probably the whore of Babylon, but I'm not entirely sure. Revelation's mention of the whore of Babylon towards its end, followed by New Jerusalem coming down from the heavens, supports this theory. We need a New Jerusalem once the old one is destroyed. That must be what Revelation 17-18 is describing, right?

Now we will talk about the 10 horns that come out of the forth beast's head (the legs of iron) that will represent the kingdom present (feet of iron and clay) until the return of the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:22), aka the end of time.

We know that from the following text comparison that the blasphemies spoken against God by the beast from the sea of Revelation 13 is the same as this little horn 'speaking great words against the most High' for the same time period

Revelation 13:5 Then the beast was allowed to speak great blasphemies against God. And he was given authority to do whatever he wanted for forty-two months.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Revelation 12:6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where God had prepared a place for her so that she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

We know from the study of the 'woman' symbol that this corresponds with 'the saints of the most high'.

- Time = 1 year, times = 2 years, dividing of time/half a time = 6 months/0.5 years.................total 3.5 years or 42 months
- 1260 days divided by the Jewish calendar length of 360 days = 3.5 years

In talking about the whore of Babylon with Daniel as our key (sealed book that will be open to our understanding near the end) we see we are well on the right path to identifying the timing of the whore from history.

Daniel 7:24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.

We note a few significant things in the above text. The 10 kings out of the fallen Roman Empire are present all at once and come out first, then the horn that subdues (destroys) 3 of the kings comes up, he is also different in characteristic that the other original 10.

The Huns, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Franks, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the Heruli, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Lombards. These divisions have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms of the Roman empire.
Smith, Uriah (2012-05-26). Daniel and the Revelation (Kindle Locations 1677-1679). . Kindle Edition.


3. THE TEN DIVISIONS OF ROME.
The ten kingdoms which arose out of the old Roman empire, are symbolized by the ten horns on the fourth beast of Daniel 7. All agree on this point; but there has not been entire unanimity among expositors as to the names of the kingdoms which constituted these divisions. Some name the Huns as one of these divisions, others put the Alemanni in place of the Huns. That the reader may see the general trend of what has been written on this subject, the following facts are presented:

- Machiavelli, the historian of Florence, writing simply as a historian, names the Huns as one of the nations principally concerned in the breaking up of the Roman empire. Among those who have written on this point with reference to the prophecy, may be mentioned, Berengaud, in the ninth century; Mede, 1586- 1638; Bossuet, 1627-1704; Lloyd, 1627-1717; Sir Isaac Newton, 1642-1727; Bishop Newton, 1704-1782; Hales, ---1821: Faber, 1773-1854.

Of these nine authorities, eight take the position that the Huns were one of the ten kingdoms; of these eight, two, Bossuet and Bishop Newton, followed by Dr. Clarke, have both the Huns and the Alemanni; only one, Mede, omits the Huns and takes the Alemanni. Thus eight favor the view that the Huns were represented by one of the horns; two, while not rejecting the Huns, consider the Alemanni one of the horns; one rejects the Huns and takes the Alemanni. Scott and Barnes, in their commentaries, and Oswald, in his Kingdom That Shall Not Be Moved, name the Huns.
Smith, Uriah (2012-05-26). Daniel and the Revelation (Kindle Locations 11191-11203). . Kindle Edition.

1. The Huns which is now called Hungary (but included parts of Germany, the Balkans and Ukraine)
2. The Visigoths which is now called Spain
3. The Franks which is now called France
4. The Sueves which is now called Portugal
5. The Burgundians which is now called Switzerland
6. The Anglo Saxons which is now called England
7. The Lombards which is now called Italy
8. The Ostrogoths
9. The Vandal
10. The Herulis

So who wants to solve the mystery first....who subdued the Ostrogoths, Vandals and Herulis...rose up as an official power after they were subdued and was different in characteristic to these civil (political) powers?

logical7

let me put it crudely, someone who plans/plots to kill is more to blame that the bureaucratic machinery and laws used to do it.

You're certainly entitled to that view. As I wrote, my view is that the administrative assassination of Jesus was a conspiracy between specific Romans and specific Jerusalemites. Maybe one or the other group might have done the deed alone, but in actual fact, they worked together.

Jesus pbuh came for the jews, they tried their best to 'do him in'

That certainly is the anti-Semitic reading of the New Testament. Another reading is historical. Jesus was an observant Jew. The homeland Jews in his time were divided over what to do about the Romans and their clients, the Herodians. Jesus had an idea what to do about those things, which brought him into conflict with some other Jews, even while it allied him with other Jews, especially those Jews, like Jesus, who were followers of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist died at the hands of a Roman client ruler, without any recorded protest from Temple authorities, but with Jospehus' testimony that many Jews thought the later defeat of John's killer was God's justice. So, John's death parallels his disciple's death: Roman power behind it all, pulling the strings, with local Jews on both sides of the issue.

he wasnt a traitor

Of course not. You need to be a citizen of a state to be a traitor to that state. Jesus was killed as a non-resident nuisance in a zone under military occupation.

"if one is more responsible who would you pick?"

That he was killed, 51 to 49 percent Roman over Temple authorities. That Jesus' death stretched out for hours rather than minutes is 100% Roman, in my opinion.

reply to post by eight bits

You, not me, introduced the idea that the New Testament falsely reports some visions, while another part which talks about visions you like better is true. You will, therefore, have to tolerate your proposal being examined, as a whole, and shown to be incoherent cherry-picking, as it is.

If you were really interested in examining my proposal as a whole, then you would be going over the verses I posted in the OP which are relevant to the subject about Jerusalem being the whore.

Instead you are taking this all over the place by bringing up Paul (like as if that refutes my claim that Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon)
But, I'll play along and examine this matter as a whole... even from Pauls perspective. So lets see what Paul has to say about those who kill prophets.

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men
-1Thesalonians 2:14-15

This has nothing to do with supernatural visions, but quite bluntly echoes the idea of Jerusalem / Jews being prophet killers. This only further validates the OPs premise about that Jerusalem is the whore.... with the blood of prophets, saints and holy men.

Then we agree that, contrary to your earlier claim, there is nothing in Revelation that says this. Thank you for your correction of your misstatement.

Revelations doesn't directly say Paul is a false apostle, but it tells us about Ephesus testing and rejecting false apostles. So when we look at it as a whole, by cross checking Pauls statements about his rejection in all of Asia (Ephesus included), we can deduce that Paul was one of the many false apostles rejected by the church of Ephesus.

Or do you choose when you scripture is to be examined as a a whole?

But, as we now agree that Jesus' remark doesn't make any unique association between Jerusalem and the death of prophets, where Mohammed died is moot.

I didn't say I agreed. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
Go over Jesus' quotes and you will see that Jesus' associates both Jerusalem AND Jews with killing prophets.

Accusing Jews....
Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets

Accusing Jerusalem...
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,

So my argument is covered both ways... and with Mohammads death ultimately caused by a Jew... it can be concluded that Jews are indeed the prophet killers as Jesus said. They kill prophets within Jerusalem and they kill prophets outside Jerusalem.

And, although you keep trying to rule it out of bounds, it is the same controversy which you have with the epistles of Paul. Revelation presents no isolated problem in exegesis, upon which comparison with other books in the canon with prophetic and visionary form can shed no light.

The only thing I am trying to rule out of bounds are subjects which are extraneous to the subject matter of the OP which is about Jerusalem being the symbolic "whore" of Revelations. I have backed up my claim by showing verses that describe Jerusalem in the same tone as the whore.

The breadth of God's purposes and the many uses of inspired visions are crucial to the correct understanding of Revelation, as well as of Paul, Acts, Daniel, and other visionary material in the canon as well.

Which is what I am doing in the OP by cross referencing the words of Jeremiah, Jesus and the author of Revelations. Why don't you address that.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Now we will talk about the 10 horns that come out of the forth beast's head (the legs of iron) that will represent the kingdom present (feet of iron and clay) until the return of the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:22), aka the end of time.

No we will not talk about the 10 horns in this thread.

Last time you posted all those pictures of the scarlet / purple / gold in the vatican to prove your point about.
I countered that by showing you that those same colors are also the colors of the Jewish priesthood who Jesus condemned.

So basically, the idea of Jerusalem being the whore is reinforced . You need to address that instead of posting your interpretation of Daniel.

1. The Huns which is now called Hungary (but included parts of Germany, the Balkans and Ukraine)
2. The Visigoths which is now called Spain
3. The Franks which is now called France
4. The Sueves which is now called Portugal
5. The Burgundians which is now called Switzerland
6. The Anglo Saxons which is now called England
7. The Lombards which is now called Italy
8. The Ostrogoths
9. The Vandal
10. The Herulis

So who wants to solve the mystery first....who subdued the Ostrogoths, Vandals and Herulis...rose up as an official power after they were subdued and was different in characteristic to these civil (political) powers?

That is but just ONE interpretation of the 10 horns. There are several others. You have just given me an opinion.

If you are trying to prove its the Catholic church, then you will need to show me where in the Bible we read of a future entity being accused of spilling blood of the holy men. The "whore" refers to something that was already in existence - Jerusalem, as the Bible teaches.

Jerusalem meets the criteria for the whore...

a) Scarlet and gold.
b) Location on 7 hills.
c) Having the blood of prophets as said by Jesus.

You are just insisting its the RCC, only by using speculations / interpretations and extra biblical sources.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
You are using a Catholic site promoting Catholic doctrine to say that the Catholic church is not evil and that the her doctrines are not false.

Um ... no. :shk: I was showing Skorpion that much of the Catholic Church agrees with his assessment of Jerusalem being the whore of Babylon. And it's funny that you are whining about a Catholic site expressing the Catholic point of view when you post information from Seventh Day Adventist hate sites and post Jack Chickisms. Hypocrisy.

The information presented from the Catholic site, which was clearly labeled Catholic, is solid. You are just throwing mud at it because it says 'catholic'. You can't argue the facts presented.

Unluckily for you I don't shirk from moronic Catholic argument ...

Unluckily for you .. you follow moronic Seventh Day Adventist cult followings. (to use your words right back atchya) And the information at the Catholic site .. which I was directing toward Skorpion ... isn't 'moronic'. It is well thought out and follows pretty much what Skorpions conclusions are.

Are you interested to what I have to say in this regard, or will you put the blinders on as usual, spit chips ect.

What a funny thing for you, of all people, to say. Considering your indoctrination into that bizzare Seventh Day Adventist hate cult and your inability to see past it's indoctrination.

reply to post by logical7


As you say .. he laid seige to it. He took it over. He forced the survivors to pay tribute. OF COURSE there would be hard feelings. He's a military conquerer. So IF the woman poisoned him .. IF ... she most likely did so because of what he did to her people. He didn't exactly 'live and let live' .. ya 'know??

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
You are just insisting its the RCC, only by using speculations / interpretations and extra biblical sources.

... and because it's the favored target of the Seventh Day Adventists. They have to have an enemy in order to function. Without an enemy, real or imagined, their 'church' couldn't have such a stranglehold on the people. They've chosen the Catholics. So .. every ill on the planet goes back to the Catholics.

Scorpie

If you were really interested in examining my proposal as a whole, then you would be going over the verses I posted in the OP which are relevant to the subject about Jerusalem being the whore.

The success of the literary device is that any one of Babylon, Jerusalem and Rome might stand figuratively for any other. Which one, if only one, is actually meant depends on the author's intenion. For that, we must look elsewhere than the verses themselves.The dispute isn't about what the verses say, but what the verses mean. You're not going to find that in the verses themselves. That is the point of apocalyptic writing, which is what Revelation is.

Instead you are taking this all over the place by bringing up Paul (like as if that refutes my claim that Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon)

You brought up the idea that your reading should be set beside what you think of as a typically Christian reading. The indispensible key to your argument is that your opponents have correctly identified Revelation as a true and literal account of a vision of Jesus. Conversely, the indispensible key to my rebuttal is that it is not, and wasn't intended to be read that way.

Part of that rebuttal is to consult what almost all Christians, not just your atypical favorites, actually do read as true and literal visions of Jesus. Among those are Paul's, as reported in his own hand and in Acts. We immediately see that Revelation is utterly unlike these visions of Jesus generally accepted by Christians as genuine, and clearly parallel to Daniel and other Jewish canonical works. Those are its literary models, not Christian visions of Jesus.

When I look to Paul for making this comparison, I have the benefit of your own commentary on true versus false visions of Jesus. I have a question, however, about how to apply your teaching to the current controversy. My question doesn't concern what your view of Paul is, but only how we are to discern that Paul's isn't a genuine vision of Jesus, but Revelation is, as you teach here, not in that other thread.

Having complained that Paul's visions are irrelevant, you then bring in Paul's non-visionary material, to harp on facts that aren't in dispute.

Nobody denies that "Jerusalem" killed some prophets, and that this was remarked upon before and during Paul's time. In John's time, Rome had done likewise, as soon as the opportunity for Rome to do so presented itself, which was after Paul wrote and while John was writing.

"Jerusalem" was the source of Christian persecution when Paul's career began. In the passage you quote, Paul is remarking on the emergence of Gentile persecutors. By John's time, Gentile persecution will be more than emergent, Rome itself will be persecuting, and Jerusalem will have long since lost the power to persecute anyone.

Killers of prophets, holy men, holy women, and saints? Rome and Jerusalem. Currently, when John was writing? Rome instead of Jerusalem.

but it tells us about Ephesus testing and rejecting false apostles.

Paul had been dead for decades when Revelation was written. Whomever the Ephesians were testing in John's day, that is, doing what Paul instructed his congregants to do, it was somebody living in their own time, not Paul.

Evidently, this straightforward remark eludes you, which you could have grasped with even brief attention to Paul's situation. Yet you put yourself forward as an expert on what Revelation says in one of its most famous and most difficult passages, and you aspire to teach us this while throwing out the rest of the New Testament, and insisting that we do the same. Uh, huh.

I didn't say I agreed. Please stop putting words into my mouth

Speaking of which, what I said was that we both asserted some of the same facts. Which we did, on the point being discussed in what you quoted. Please stop misrepresenting what we disagree about, so you can duck and weave while appearing to answer something.

Which is what I am doing in the OP by cross referencing the words of Jeremiah, Jesus and the author of Paul. Why don't you address that.

That's what I've been doing, Scorpie. You just don't like the parts that I'm bringing up.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Last time you posted all those pictures of the scarlet / purple / gold in the vatican to prove your point about.

And my point was easily and emphatically proven and I laid out from Biblical analysis of the text that it was referring to literal colours of garmets which has forced you to change the meaning of what you put in your initial post about that descriptor

I countered that by showing you that those same colors are also the colors of the Jewish priesthood who Jesus condemned. So basically, the idea of Jerusalem being the whore is reinforced . You need to address that instead of posting your interpretation of Daniel.

Did you miss my post Skorpion. I did address that

I said 'The colour blue stuffs up the clear link '...you never addressed my response, you never addressed my request for talk about a gold cup. I will say for the first time now, I request your literal link now to Jewish garments with jewels.

That is but just ONE interpretation of the 10 horns. There are several others. You have just given me an opinion

Please provide the correct interpretation then that fulfills every other (25 odd) characteristic of the whore and has the overwhelming consensus of historians. The interpretation I put out does and makes commonsense.

You are just insisting its the RCC, only by using speculations / interpretations and extra biblical sources.

You speculate that it is Jerusalem but don't wish to address the 6 clear descriptors that show it isn't (that I gave I believe on p.1) by saying it must be some time in the future....that is speculation and interpretation.

You say that Jerusalem fulfils the blood of prophets. The verse says:

Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

It doesn't say prophets, it is referring to people who expressly follow the Christian faith and are killed for not renouncing their belief in Jesus. Your link is not even a link, it is just plainly wrong.

The blue colour stuffs up your garment colour theory for Jews too.

You have 1 factor out of 25 odd correct. I have 25 out of 25, I don't need to insist anything, complete fulfillment is a testimony to Jesus. It is night and day who's interpretation stands scrutiny (I encourage anyone to bring factors for me to prove, you don't want to answer for other than the 3 you suggested).

reply to post by FlyersFan

Um ... no. I was showing Skorpion that much of the Catholic Church agrees with his assessment of Jerusalem being the whore of Babylon.

That's funny considering that every other part of the post was directed at me and you gave no indication your passage was for anyone other than me.

The information presented from the Catholic site, which was clearly labeled Catholic, is solid.

Arguments laid out in article:

If you look at the very last line (verse 17) above, you will see that the Whore of Babylon is a “great city that has dominion over the Kings of the earth”. Now we all have to ask ourselves if the Vatican has any dominion over any Kings of the earth today.

My (short version off the cuff) argument in response:

[Speaking of the time, about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was crumbling to pieces:] "No, the [Catholic] Church will not descend into the tomb. It will survive the Empire . . . At length a second empire will arise, and of this empire the Pope will be the master--more then this, he will be the master of Europe. He will dictate his orders to kings who will obey them"--Andrea Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, 1915, p. vi.

"Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes, the Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection, and asked him to rule them; and thus, . . . commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Caesar, the vicar of Christ took up the scepter to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages."--American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911

Under the influence of Germanic customs and concepts, torture was little used from the 9th to the 12th centuries, but with the revival of Roman law the practice was reestablished in the 12th century... In 1252 (Pope) Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities upon heretics, and torture came to have a recognized place in the procedure of the inquisitional courts. -New Catholic Encyclopedia, arts. "Inquisition", "Auto-da-Fe'," and "Massacre of St Bartholomew's Day."

They [Catholics] must penetrate wherever possible in the administration of civil affairs... all Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitution of states, and legislation to be modeled on the principles of the true Church." -Encyclical of Leo XIII

But is it the intention of the pope to possess this country? Undoubtedly. In this intention is he aided by the Jesuits and all the Catholic prelates and priests? Undoubtedly, if they are faithful to their religion.
- Catholic Professor Orestes Brownson, Brownson’s Review (January, 1854): 90

The Catholic order's place in Australian politics should not be overlooked. During the three-way Liberal leadership contest between Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott, all three men consulted with Jesuit priests, said the report. source

In 1931, Pope Pius XI explained this initiative in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:

Under the guidance and in light of Leo’s encyclical was thus evolved a truly Christian social science, which continues to be fostered and enriched daily by the tireless labours of those picked men whom we have named the auxiliaries of the Church...The doctrine of Rerum Novarum began little by little to penetrate among those who, being outside Catholic unity, do not recognize the authority of the Church; and these Catholic principles of sociology gradually became part of the intellectual heritage of the whole human race...Thus too, we rejoice that the Catholic truths proclaimed so vigorously by our illustrious Predecessor [Leo XIII in 1891’s Rerum Novarum], are advanced and advocated not merely in non-Catholic books and journals, but frequently also in legislative assemblies and in courts of justice”

Hector MacPherson, The Jesuits in History (Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1914): p. 100

...wherever the Jesuits went, they placed the worldly prosperity and the political influence of their Order above all religious considerations. In accordance with their secret policy they set themselves to gain influence at Court; and, in order to carry their point, they were willing to countenance assassination, sedition, etc.

Catholic World (August 1871): 735:

We do not accept it [i.e., the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America], or hold it to be any government at all…If the American Republic is to be sustained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the principle of the [Protestant] Reformation, and the acceptance of the Catholic principle...

Darryl Eberhart, "The Papacy's Hatred of Liberty," Tackling the Tough Topics:

...the Papacy, despite its “ecumenical rhetoric”, has not changed a bit over the many centuries in the following categories:

* Its deep hatred of Jews, all independent Bible-believing Christians, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians (as recently as the 1940s we find Roman Catholic Ustashi military units in Croatia, led and urged on by Franciscan priests, monks, and friars, slaughtering from 600,000 to one million innocent Serb Orthodox Christian men, women, elderly, and children – many of the victims being first brutally tortured);
* Its long-held dream to bring all Christians under its monopolistic, totalitarian, ecclesiastical control;
* Its long-held dream to head up a totalitarian one-world religious organization; and,
* Its long-held dream to bring all world leaders – especially those in “Christian” countries – under the temporal power of the pope.

Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest referencing Rome's intentions towards America:

Those bloody and anti-social laws of Rome, after having covered Europe with ruins, tears and blood, for ten centuries, have crossed the oceans to continue their work of slavery and desolation, blood and tears, ignorance and demoralization, on this continent. Under the mask and name of Democracy, they have raised the standard of rebellion of the South against the North, and caused more than a half million of the most heroic sons of America to fall on the fields of carnage.

In a very near future, if God does not miraculously prevent it, those laws of dark deeds and blood will cause the prosperity, the rights, the education, and the liberties of this too confident nation, to be buried under a mountain of smoking and bloody ruins. On the top of that mountain, Rome will raise her throne and plant her victorious banners.

Then she will sing her Te Deums and shout her shouts of joy, as she did, when she heard the lamentations and cries of desolation of the millions of martyrs burning in the five thousand auto-da-fes she had raised in all the capitals and great cities of Europe.
- Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome (Chicago: Adam Craig, 1889): p.687

Finally, Let all with such artfulness gain the ascendant over princes, noblemen, and the magistrates of every place, that they may be ready at our beck, even to sacrifice their nearest relations and most intimate friends, when we say it is for our interest and advantage
-Ignatius Loyola (1540), as quoted in W. C. Brownlee, Secret Instructions of the Jesuits (New York: American and Foreign Christian Union, 1857): p.47

At what then do the Jesuits aim? According to them, they only seek the greater glory of God; but if you examine the facts you will find that they aim at universal dominion alone. They have rendered themselves indispensable to the Pope, who, without them, could not exist, because Catholicism is identified with them. They have rendered themselves indispensable to governors and hold revolutions in their hands; and in this way, either under one name or another, it is they who rule the world
- Luigi De Sanctis, Maria Betts (trans.), Popery, Puseyism and Jesuitism (London: D. Catt, 1905): 139.

Jesuit Professor of Cannon Law Adam Weishaupt created the Order of the Illuminati in 1776 in Bavaria, Germany.

The Jacobins currently terrorizing France, Barruel argued in his preface, could not have appeared out of thin air...The principal authors of the conspiracy, he claimed, were Voltaire, Jean-le-Rond d'Alembert, and King Frederick of Prussia, who had secretly planned to destroy Christianity...These "sophists" had formed an alliance with the Freemasons, whose antireligious conspirital origins Barruel traced back to the medieval Knights Templars. The final and most utterly evil group in this triple conspiracy, however, were the Bavarian Illuminati, under their satanic leader Adam Weishaupt. Jacobinism had emerged out of the union of these three groups.
- Richard Levy (ed), Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005): 456.

In 1941, Adolf Hitler put the Ustasha into power, in compliance with the Vatican-Third Reich Concordat, of July 20, 1933. Under that Concordat Dr. Ante Pavelic, the dictator of Croatia—with the direct aid of the Archbishop of Zagreb Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac—instructed the Ustasha to implement a program of forced “conversion” of the Croatia population to Catholicism: 840,000 people were murdered when they refused to become Roman Catholics.
- P. D. Stuart, Codeword Barbêlôn: Danger in the Vatican (London: Lux Verbi, 2008):197.

Former Catholic Priest L. H. Lehmann says:

It was a priest, Father Staempfle, not Hitler, who really wrote Mein Kampf.
- L. H. Lehmann, Behind the Dictators: A Factual Analysis of the Relationship of Nazi-Fascism and Roman Catholicism (1942): 26.

Hitler said:

I learned much from the order of the Jesuits...Until now there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical system of the catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.
- Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the Government of Dantzig: "Hitler m'a dit," Paris, 1939, pp.266. 267

Franz von Papen, Vice-Chancellor of the Reich, said:

The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy
- Franz von Papen, as quoted in Robert d’Harcourt, Franz von Papen l’homme à tout faire," (L’Aube, October 3, 1946).

In 2001 the Bush-appointed US ambassador to the Vatican declared that the, "values of [the Bush] Administration and those of the Vatican line up hand in glove." - Inside the Vatican (December 2002): 25.

Why were Hitler’s closest advisers Jesuits? Why did Mr. Hitler admire and copy the Jesuits? Are these just mere coincidences? Or are we once again seeing the Jesuits playing the chameleon, and eclipsing the wiles of Ovid?

...let us not mince words here, Hitler, the faithful “son of the Catholic Church,” was the Pope’s Malleus Papa—his hammer.
- P. D. Stuart, Codeword Barbêlôn: Danger in the Vatican (London: Lux Verbi, 2008): 202.

The father of Morse Code, Samuel Morse:

The author undertakes to show – that a conspiracy against the liberties of this Republic is now in full action, under the direction of the wily Prince Metternich of Austria, who knowing the impossibility of obliterating this troublesome example of a great and free nation by force of arms, is attempting to accomplish his object through the agency of an army of Jesuits. The array of facts and arguments going to prove the existence of such a conspiracy, will astonish any man who opens the book with the same incredulity as we did.
- Samuel Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States volume 1 (Boston, Massachusetts: Crocker & Brewster, 1835): iv.

President Abraham Lincoln said:

The Protestants of both the North and South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion...are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon III, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free.
Abraham Lincoln, as quoted in Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968): 499.

French General Marquis de Lafayette said:

It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.
- Father Jeremiah Crowley, Romanism: A Menace to the Nation (Wheaton Illinois: Jeremiah Crowley, 1912): 139-140.

----------------------------------

So which city is John talking about anyway? The 7 mountains that the Whore sits on with the 7 Kings gives us a clue. The Vatican does not sit on one of the 7 hills of Rome,

I have already established the verse translates to be 'resides by' so the solid Catholic evidence is a lie right to your face by the people who claim to be authorities on scripture

These pro-catholic arguments have more holes in them than you can poke a stick at...I could go on for much much longer give you quotes and examples of Vatican influence over leaders of the world and countries.

You can't argue the facts presented.

Right

reply to post by eight bits

That certainly is the anti-Semitic reading of the New Testament.

Is saying that Moses pbuh came for the jews and they barely listened to him also an anti-semitic reading of OT.
An observant jew, recruiting 12 disciples for 12 tribes, telling them "not to go to gentiles" pretty much clears for whom he came.
Its a mystery how after his ascension his teachings did the biggest 'miracle' and changed.

Jesus was killed as a non-resident
nuisance in a zone under military
occupation.

thats interesting, so Romans were the military occupiers then, hmm..
Who are taking the place of Romans now?
So Jerusalem(jews) is the new Rome i guess!

That
Jesus' death stretched out for hours
rather than minutes is 100% Roman,
in my opinion.

wasnt it a standard way of execution? I also dint read anywhere that the temple authorities pleaded for a quick painless execution. Jews also have an account that crucifixtion happened on a tree.
I am no fan of Rome, you however do have a soft corner for jews, i am not against jews, i use the word as a general term for people at that time, ofcourse not all jews were against him, the disciples were all jews too but majority dint accept him or judaism would have disappeared replaced by all jews following Jesus pbuh.

First let me say ... and What a load of rubbish.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
source

Dude .. nothing you posted came from that source.

In 1931, Pope Pius XI explained this initiative in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:

Obviously if there were any attempt to control the world IT HAS FAILED.

Hector MacPherson,

Hector info here Sounds like a load of paranoia. We know he actually told the truth .. how? Even if telling the truth - which is highly doubtful - obviously he got it wrong. The Catholics don't run the world.

Catholic World (August 1871):

You provided no source for this. Provide a source and show that it's accurate .. and not some typical Seventh Day Adventist fictional paranoia. BTW .. 150 years later, Catholics don't run the world.

Darryl Eberhart, "The Papacy's Hatred of Liberty,"

No .. you didn't really quote Darryl Eberhart .. OMG .. Yes you did! " Dude .. he's a paranoid obsessed nutter who goes around calling himself 'Brother Darryl' and who is selling his paranoia in high priced books and tapes to poor schmucks who eat that crap up like candy. JACK CHICK eat your heart out!!

Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest

OMG you are on a roll! A disenfranchised ex-priest with an ax to grind against the Catholic Church. He left the church 150 years ago with 'dire warnings about the Jesuits taking over the world'. Obviously he was wrong. They haven't.

- Luigi De Sanctis, Maria Betts (trans.), Popery, Puseyism and Jesuitism (London: D. Catt, 1905):

More bunk from over a hundred years ago with dire warnings that the Jesuits were taking over the world. Obviously the dude got it wrong.

Jesuit Professor of Cannon Law Adam Weishaupt created the Order of the Illuminati in 1776 in Bavaria, Germany.

Dude .. NO ONE knows who really created the Illuminati. NO ONE.

It was a priest, Father Staempfle, not Hitler, who really wrote Mein Kampf.

Hitler dictated a lot of it to Hess while they were in Landsburg prison in '24.
Open a history book.

Hitler said:

The dude was insane. I can't believe you are using him as a source to try to prop up your paranoia about the Catholics running the world. no wait .. yes I can believe you'd do that ...

Franz von Papen, Vice-Chancellor of the Reich, said:

He can get his inspiration from anywhere he wants. That doesn't mean the Catholics are taking over the world.

In 2001 the Bush-appointed US ambassador to the Vatican declared that the, "values of [the Bush] Administration and those of the Vatican line up hand in glove." - Inside the Vatican (December 2002): 25.

So what? The Vatican and Bush43 were both anti-Abortion. The Vatican and Bush43 were not in line when it came to social justice issues or the death penalty or war in Iraq, etc etc. If Bush and the Vatican agreed on certain things and disagreed on others ... SO WHAT? Rome didn't tell DC what to do.

Why were Hitler’s closest advisers Jesuits?

Like who? Nearly all were Lutheran, last I checked.

Hitler, the faithful “son of the Catholic Church,”.

Not even close. Hitlers Religious History . He was raised Catholic but left when he became a teenager. When in power he worked to subvert the churches and sent 100,000 Catholics to the gas chambers.

The father of Morse Code, Samuel Morse:

If there was a conspiracy against the republic by the Catholics from way back then .. it has failed miserably. Sounds like a load of paranoia and bunk. And I'm not buying that Samuel Morse said it. There is no proof of it.

President Abraham Lincoln said:

Not buying it. Totally out of character for him to say anything like that.

French General Marquis de Lafayette said:

He was certainly entitles to his opinion. But his opinion isn't FACT. And as time has shown, the liberties in the USA haven't died because of Jesuit priests. Just the opposite. Those that are taking our liberties hate the Catholic faith .. not follow it.

Father Jeremiah Crowley, Romanism: A Menace to the Nation

Written over a hundred years ago. Time has certainly proven his paranoia wrong.
Can't trust anything he claimed in his book. Obviously a paranoid agenda.
Wonder if he got big book sales from schmucks buying the crap he was selling.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by logical7

 

As you say .. he laid seige to it. He took it over. He forced the survivors to pay tribute. OF COURSE there would be hard feelings. He's a military conquerer. So IF the woman poisoned him .. IF ... she most likely did so because of what he did to her people. He didn't exactly 'live and let live' .. ya 'know??

well if in the event of a muslim army of 1400-1600 laying siege to a fortress with more than army of 10,000 the muslims still seem the agressors to you then so be it.
www.al-islam.org...

Long before the time of the Prophet of
Islam, the valley of Khyber and other
valleys in its north and south, were
colonized by the Jews. As noted
before, these Jews were not only the
best farmers of the country, they were also its leaders in industry and
business, and they enjoyed a
monopoly of the armaments industry. In the times of the Prophet, the best
arsenals of Arabia were all in Khyber.
Those Jews who had been banished
from Medina, had also resettled in
Khyber, and they were noted for their
skills in metallurgy. Betty Kelen The Qaynuqa were banished from
Medina. Chiefly they were
metalworkers, having learned the art
of beating out the splendid shining
armor, the moon-curved swords and
sun-catching helmets that glorified warfare in the desert. They made fine
bronze armor, beaten and burnished,
with helmets to match and gleaming
swords whose swift cut could make
the very air whistle. (Muhammad – the
Messenger of God) The Jews of Khyber also heard about
the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and its terms.
Just as the Quraysh in Makkah and
Umar bin al-Khattab and some other
"hawks" among the Muslims in Medina
had interpreted the treaty as the "surrender" of the Muslims, so also did
the Jews of Khyber consider it a
symptom of the incipient decline of the
power of the State of Medina. Banking
on this theory of "decline," they began
to instigate the Arab tribes between Khyber and Medina to attack the
Muslims. One of these tribes was the
Ghatafan, the allies of the Jews of
Khyber. They began to send their raiding
expeditions into the pastures around
Medina. One of these pastures
belonged to the Prophet himself. On
one occasion, the son of Abu Dharr el-
Ghiffari was grazing the camels of the Prophet when the Ghatafan struck.
They killed him, and captured his
mother who was with him, and they
drove with them the herd of camels.
The Muslims, however, were able, just
in time, to overtake the marauders and to rescue the wife of Abu Dharr el-
Ghiffari. Muhammad decided to put an end to
these gratuitous provocation. He
thought that it would not be prudent
to wait until the Jews and their allies
laid another siege to Medina, and that
it would be better to forestall them. He, therefore, ordered the Muslims to
mobilize, and to march on Khyber.

Originally posted by logical7
well if in the event of a muslim army of 1400-1600 laying siege to a fortress with more than army of 10,000 the muslims still seem the agressors to you then so be it.

You said it ... the 'muslim army layed siege'. And they won. So yes, they are the aggressors. The number of people on either side doesn't matter. The fact is that the muslims layed siege when they could have just 'lived and let live'.

Muhammad was the guy at the top directing all this.
He made himself a legitimate military target.