Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Do you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon written of in Revelation 17?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not that I disagree, but could you expound a little. what in this chapter could be reverenced to the Catholic Church?
I think it represents Jerusalem. Does not Jerusalem also sit on seven hills? At least that's what I've been told.
I believe it's Jerusalem {I'm also an early dater of the Revelation}.
No. It can only be Jerusalem.
Why do we also talk about the Roman Catholics, what about the Eastern Orthodox? (attempt to make it less concise)
The main problem with your theory David is that it asks us to believe that John wrote a letter to some people that he knew (7 churches), to warn them of danger, he repeatedly told them that what he was talking about was coming "soon" (from their perspective) yet the threat that he warned them about would not exist until hundreds of years AFTER they died.
That is not taking the text seriously in my opinion.
If we begin with the view that Scripture is clear and has distinct meaning, and therefore the imagery was designed to be clear enough to the original hearers for them to have at least some inkling of what was meant, then it cannot be the Roman Church. At least not as a primary interpretation. Of course, some Biblical prophecy has meaning first in the immediate setting and then a further meaning revealed in later times. But I try to be very careful before assigning a secondary meaning that conveniently denounces the enemy of the day, no matter how deserving.
Now, applying what we learn from the interpretation as a warning against today's powerful and worldly "beasts" is another matter. In this sense, the passage may apply to our dealings with, and God's judgment on, certain churches.
The Papacy and the church it represents has all the hallmarks of the Whore of Babylon referred to in Revelation 17.
The main problem with your theory David is that it asks us to believe that John wrote a letter to some people that he knew (7 churches), to warn them of danger, he repeatedly told them that what he was talking about was coming "soon" (from their perspective) yet the threat that he warned them about would not exist until hundreds of years AFTER they died.
That is not taking the text seriously in my opinion.
Jesus said he was coming soon. Apparently his idea of soon and ours are different. It's been 2000 years.
The main problem with your theory David is that it asks us to believe that John wrote a letter to some people that he knew (7 churches), to warn them of danger, he repeatedly told them that what he was talking about was coming "soon" (from their perspective) yet the threat that he warned them about would not exist until hundreds of years AFTER they died.
That is not taking the text seriously in my opinion.
Jesus said he was coming soon. Apparently his idea of soon and ours are different. It's been 2000 years.
David, Jesus did exactly what he said He would do. He said that he would come, and He did.
Also, He did more then say soon, He said within the lifetime of His hearers... the timeline is clear.
David, does your interpretation of R22:13 require the creation of the world to take place at the end of time? You seem to be suggesting the idea that "omega", "the end", & "the last" are references to the the "..come quickly..." moment in v12.
If so, then is the "alpha" refered to the creation? And does it take place at the same time?