no private interpritationKinda' like when they equate the Body of Christ, His Ch

[mclees8]

 Knight >Kinda' like when they equate the Body of Christ, His Church, with the 'Harlot of Babylon', for we all know that the sign of an anti-Christ is the denial of our Lord.  Calling God's Church a wh*re would definitely 'fit that bill' so of course, no one who is a Christian would do that.


Mike>This one thing I know that Babylon is the world, and everything that is in it and of it. Babylon is comprised of three main things. Religion, government., and the monetary system.  Religious Babylon  includes false Christianity, which is an apostate Christian church that has it’s true affections not in Christ but the world and its politics

I do not know about others but I do not call the body of Christ a wh*re? The body is all believers, no Catholic or Protestant division  and is  how I  view the body of Christ . If you love and follow Christ and know Him as Lord and you do not love the world or your life in it, and only await the Lords second coming, then you are his church and not a wh*re. What then constitutes  the wh*re  that is spoken of in Rev 17.  Rev 17 does not speak to every believer, only a specific entity that calls itself Christian yet its interests and ambitions  are worldly. There is no two ways here. Christ and the world cannot be in the same bed together. Either your faith is solely in Christ Who is not of this world or you faith is in the world. You cannot hold hands with Christ on your right and hold hands with the world with your left.   

At the beginning of REV 17 The angel shows John the judgment of the great wh*re. That sits on many waters. Verse 15 says the waters represents peoples, and multitudes, nations and tongues. This is important to remember because it speaks to  an entity that has influence on a world scale. Not just any entity but one that is Christian because the New Testament only concerns itself with Christ church and does not speak to any other entity out side of it. Christ refers to his church as his bride and the use of the word wh*re then only speaks to a bride that has been unfaithful. Paganism or any other relgion or empire cannot be unfaithful because it does not know Christ in any relationship. So when the word says wh*re that sits on many waters it is saying that this entity that claims to be his bride has its true affection in the world, and   its interests in power and influence globally. 1st John 2: 15 says Love not the world neither the things of it, for it any loves the world the Love of the father is not in him.    This is not private interpretation but simply states what is being said here.  The rest of Rev. 17  is specific in its description of this church and many things must be noted.

The second verse should noted for it says of the wh*re ( the apostate church )  With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.           
Now look at Rev 18: 3  For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance# of her delicacies.#

Note the emphasis on fornication with the kings of the earth and the merchants that wax rich through their intimate relationship. Listen,  this is not rocket science. The kings represent the leaders of the nations. And wealth is largely through trade and commerce. Also note that both 17,and 18 speak of Babylon  and speaks of government religion, and merchant trade system

1st  the apostate church is one of  power  and government which would plainly be in relationships with many  nations for trade and commerce. I never saw a government that didn’t seek economic wealth. The Vatican is a testimony of wealth.

2nd point the church is Christian  and not any other entity or religion. There is no other church outside of the RCC that fits  this description.

3rd point it is described in detail and no other entity even Christian fits that description except the RCC This is not personal interpretation. This church is clearly marked and is only described in detail here so that their can be no mistake as to its identity.  God wants his bride to know the church and why it is called the Great Harlot of Babylon.  Rev 18 is a clear call for his bride to recognize her and come out of her. Those who fail to recognize this church and the call to come out will be judged along with her and the government of this world.  I have said many times the word of god will be our indictment for life or death.  Yes death is serious and who wants that. 

[desertknight]

You must have hit the post button twice, Mike.  This is identical to your other thread.

[Fallen Knight]

Ho Hum,
             Another bible lesson from a gentleman who knows niether his bible nor accurate history.

This is sort of like your last post on another thread where you tried to claim "Catholic" was not the same as "Roman Catholic"

Until we pointed out to you that the first person who used the term Catholic Church was actually a Roman Catholic.

More study to do Macca!!

[mclees8]

You must have hit the post button twice, Mike.  This is identical to your other thread.

Guess I was just trying to get your attention dude Please read it carefully before you blast of with all you dogeing giving care thought. It will help to eliminate a lot of nonsense'

[desertknight]

Already answered on the other identical thread.

[mclees8]

Ho Hum,
             Another bible lesson from a gentleman who knows niether his bible nor accurate history.

This is sort of like your last post on another thread where you tried to claim "Catholic" was not the same as "Roman Catholic"

Until we pointed out to you that the first person who used the term Catholic Church was actually a Roman Catholic.

More study to do Macca!!

No he was not Roman Catholic this is only in your head.  The church was the church then and was never referred to as the RCC by any bishop of that time. some may have fancied Rome only because Peter and Paul established churches their but that did not make all the churches of Asia Roman Catholic or look to the church of Rome as supreme. try to fool some one else. All the apostles were given the same authority but it was not a mater of pride of position. Or even a certain location.

 

[winsome]

All the apostles were given the same authority but it was not a mater of pride of position. Or even a certain location.

 

All the apostles were given the same authority???

Who else besides Peter did Jesus say he would build his Church on?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus tell to feed his sheep?

Who else did Jesus tell to strengthen his brothers ?

Who else had their name changed by Jesus (a very significant act) ?

 

[mclees8]

All the apostles were given the same authority but it was not a mater of pride of position. Or even a certain location.

 

All the apostles were given the same authority???

Who else besides Peter did Jesus say he would build his Church on?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus tell to feed his sheep?

Who else did Jesus tell to strengthen his brothers ?

Who else had their name changed by Jesus (a very significant act) ?

 

This he spoke to all his disciples

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I have no doubt that they could forgive sin also.  Picture now if you will Peter sitting on a throne in all his atire of religious authority and the rest of the eleven bowing in his presence. Now think if one needs forgivnes of anything he would have to go all the way to Rome and see the pope. terrible for the many who couldn't make it. think about it

This is you idea.
 

[winsome]

All the apostles were given the same authority but it was not a mater of pride of position. Or even a certain location.

 

All the apostles were given the same authority???

Who else besides Peter did Jesus say he would build his Church on?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus tell to feed his sheep?

Who else did Jesus tell to strengthen his brothers ?

Who else had their name changed by Jesus (a very significant act) ?

 

This he spoke to all his disciples

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I have no doubt that they could forgive sin also.  Picture now if you will Peter sitting on a throne in all his atire of religious authority and the rest of the eleven bowing in his presence. Now think if one needs forgivnes of anything he would have to go all the way to Rome and see the pope. terrible for the many who couldn't make it. think about it

This is you idea.
 

Did I mention forgiving sin? No-one has suggested that Peter alone had the power to forgive sin. This is a straw man of your invention.

Your fantasies of Peter sitting in a throne with the rest bowing to him are just that - your fantasies and as such irrelevant to this discussion; another straw man

Why don't you try answering my questions?

In the points I raised in my questions, and in other ways Jesus gave Peter a precedence over the other apostles. It is also clear in scripture that he took precedence over the other apostles. This has all be gone through before but you just don't want to accept the clear scriptural evidence, and the evidence of those that folowed later.

[mclees8]

All the apostles were given the same authority but it was not a mater of pride of position. Or even a certain location.

 

All the apostles were given the same authority???

Who else besides Peter did Jesus say he would build his Church on?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus tell to feed his sheep?

Who else did Jesus tell to strengthen his brothers ?

Who else had their name changed by Jesus (a very significant act) ?

 

This he spoke to all his disciples

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I have no doubt that they could forgive sin also.  Picture now if you will Peter sitting on a throne in all his atire of religious authority and the rest of the eleven bowing in his presence. Now think if one needs forgivnes of anything he would have to go all the way to Rome and see the pope. terrible for the many who couldn't make it. think about it

This is you idea.
 

Did I mention forgiving sin? No-one has suggested that Peter alone had the power to forgive sin. This is a straw man of your invention.

Your fantasies of Peter sitting in a throne with the rest bowing to him are just that - your fantasies and as such irrelevant to this discussion; another straw man

Why don't you try answering my questions?

In the points I raised in my questions, and in other ways Jesus gave Peter a precedence over the other apostles. It is also clear in scripture that he took precedence over the other apostles. This has all be gone through before but you just don't want to accept the clear scriptural evidence, and the evidence of those that followed later.

Of course you know we disagree. But i don,t try to fight you on this. I believe what he expressed to Peter was expressed to all of them. The papacy wants to exalt Peter so they can exalt themselves. It was their lust for power. I don't know what you mean by straw man

I have no fantasies of Peter  sitting on any throne because i know he would not have, nor would he have surrounded himself with grandeur, nor would he ware special garments to bring  attention to himself. I don't believe for one moment that Peter would let anyone exalt him to be called your Eminence or Holy Father.

You see the popes of the fifth century papacy wanted recognition. they had to show a visible authority and needed a grand cathedral to sit in. They made a big thing out of their authority all with the blessing of Rome. Yes i know why they wanted to exalt Peter.  they wanted to sit like a king and have everyone bow at their feet, and yes they wanted it so bad they lied to get it can't you see this?

I don't think for one moment that he would have encouraged any successor or bishop to do this. Do you ? really be honest. 

[normfromga]

Who else besides Peter did Jesus say he would build his Church on?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to?

Who else besides Peter did Jesus tell to feed his sheep?

Who else did Jesus tell to strengthen his brothers ?
 

Whom else...

[normfromga]

BTW

To whom else did Jesus say "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" ?

[Hint:  it wasn't Judas... ]

[winsome]

BTW

To whom else did Jesus say "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" ?

[Hint:  it wasn't Judas... ]

Irrelevant. Mclees raised an issue about authority and claimed All the apostles were given the same authority. Your point does not address that issue

[mclees8]

Of course you know we disagree. But i don,t try to fight you on this. I believe what he expressed to Peter was expressed to all of them. The papacy wants to exalt Peter so they can exalt themselves. It was their lust for power. I don't know what you mean by straw man

I have no fantasies of Peter  sitting on any throne because i know he would not have, nor would he have surrounded himself with grandeur, nor would he ware special garments to bring  attention to himself. I don't believe for one moment that Peter would let anyone exalt him to be called your Eminence or Holy Father.

You see the popes of the fifth century papacy wanted recognition. they had to show a visible authority and needed a grand cathedral to sit in. They made a big thing out of their authority all with the blessing of Rome. Yes i know why they wanted to exalt Peter.  they wanted to sit like a king and have everyone bow at their feet, and yes they wanted it so bad they lied to get it can't you see this?

I don't think for one moment that he would have encouraged any successor or bishop to do this. Do you ? really be honest.


Do you even think Jesus ever said that his church was anything about worldly show buisness authority or hat it was to act as a government. Give one inteligent answer that supports what the papacy was. They  was up to their dunce cap with worldly ambition and Catholics still deny any connection the wh*re of Babylon.

One brother has called some of us embittered. Yes i am because they misrepresent Christ before the whole world and keep Catholics in bondage to their claim. its more like righteous indignation.  

[winsome]

Of course you know we disagree. But i don,t try to fight you on this. I believe what he expressed to Peter was expressed to all of them.

Except that it wasn’t and you can’t show that it was. To take just two examples.

Why do you think that Jesus addressing all of the apostles when he said “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers"?

Why do you think Jesus was addressing all of the apostles when he said to  Peter  “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter)."?

The papacy wants to exalt Peter so they can exalt themselves. It was their lust for power.

Opinion, opinions. No evidence presented

I don't know what you mean by straw man.

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. (Wikipedia)
Something you keep doing all the time.

You see the popes of the fifth century papacy wanted recognition. they had to show a visible authority and needed a grand cathedral to sit in. They made a big thing out of their authority all with the blessing of Rome. Yes i know why they wanted to exalt Peter.  they wanted to sit like a king and have everyone bow at their feet, and yes they wanted it so bad they lied to get it can't you see this?

More opinions but no facts
Here’s a fact. The Basilica of St. John Lateran was given to the Pope by Constantine in the 4th century . Nothing to do with the 5th century.

Do you even think Jesus ever said that his church was anything about worldly show buisness authority or hat it was to act as a government. Give one inteligent answer that supports what the papacy was. They  was up to their dunce cap with worldly ambition and Catholics still deny any connection the wh*re of Babylon.

More opinions but no evidence. And of course Catholics deny any connection between the Catholic Church and the wh*re of Babylon. No serious exegist holds any such connection.

One brother has called some of us embittered. Yes i am because they misrepresent Christ before the whole world and keep Catholics in bondage to their claim. its more like righteous indignation.   

Catholics do not misrepresent Christ.

All you arguments are nothing but unsubstantiated opinions.