It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mystery Babylon; the Harlot and the Antichrist

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Dave Hunt really knows his stuff

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


He should have stuck to one theory or the other.

It did serve Martin Luther at the time.

Resulting nationalist movement breaking off from a centrally controlled (virtual empire). The ripple effect throughout Europe was quite significant.

Somehow I don't think it's useful to view the Vatican in the same way it was viewed before the Reformation.
edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena
But the "Harlot" theory on its own would have had the same effect.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DaathSader


So if the Catholic Church is Babylon so is Christianity and the Bible.


Romans 11:15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the first part of the dough is holy, so is the whole batch; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root,…

The question can be extended back even further. The Apostle Paul was the first to write anything that we have in the Canonical New Testament. It is by reading Paul that we can get a clue as to what the intent of the new religion was.

The intent was (in my opinion) to establish one tribal group as the only source of "truth" in the World. The tribal group claiming descent from Abraham.

Now the tribal groups, Jewish and Arab, would like for no one to ever read Paul again. Why? Because that's where the plan can be best exposed to the light of scrutiny. Get rid of Paul and no one will ever figure it out.

The very notion that one racial (or sub racial) group has the monopoly on channel of "truth" is quite disturbing. And no amount of one group of Christians pointing at another group of Christians is of any use to people, except as a distraction from people figuring it out.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


But the "Harlot" theory on its own would have had the same effect.

I don't think I've ever read much of Luther with detail on his breakdown. So I wouldn't really be able to say. Mostly observation from History, what little I know. Spain and Portugal seemed to be only ones left to the Papal States control. France was somewhat split even with the purges.
edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

Now that I look and can't find my Book of Concord, I think I gave it away at some point, I may have to defer to someone who has studied the breakdown of Luther's presentation. Plus it was a long time ago that I read Luther.
edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

Right, he didn't make a distinction. He didn't have to at the time because the Civil and Religious authorities were so intertwined. Not like one carrying the other at all, but more of a lover's embrace. With some resentment perhaps.
edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: DISRAELI


But the "Harlot" theory on its own would have had the same effect.

I don't think I've ever read much of Luther with detail on his breakdown. So I wouldn't really be able to say. Mostly observation from History, what little I know. Spain and Portugal seemed to be only ones left to the Papal States control. France was somewhat split even with the purges.
Now that I look and can't find my Book of Concord, I think I gave it away at some point, I may have to defer to someone who has studied the breakdown of Luther's presentation. Plus it was a long time ago that I read Luther.
Right, he didn't make a distinction. He didn't have to at the time because the Civil and Religious authorities were so intertwined. Not like one carrying the other at all, but more of a lover's embrace. With some resentment perhaps.


When one of my son's had to do a paper for English on Luther, I told him to research him. The stuff in the "Christian" English book he was supposed to use, made Luther look like a hero. Heck, even I'd seen him as such, due to all the indoctrination I had received in church and various other sources. But, by this time, I'd realized the truth about Paul and already showed that to my sons.
So, this particular son decided to do his homework on Luther. He was 13 at the time. He found some of Luther's thesis' online and was appalled at the venom and disgusting language Luther used when talking about Jews. I mean, it was bad.
He discarded the opening paragraph his Christian English book gave him, in favor of the truth about Luther. The paper was damn good, too. His sweet 24 year old, Christian English teacher, failed that paper...because he didn't keep to the format of the BS paragraph. Oh, and he did the same thing on a paper about Paul. You should have seen her face when he turned that one in. She actually approached me and wanted to know where he was getting that from. I told her, "I teach my boys to dig for the truth". Well, that didn't go over to well.
That particular son told me, "mom, how can ANY woman think Paul was good?" He read Paul's epistles (on his own) and found them awful....esp. Paul's comments about women and it being shameful for them to speak in church.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
I think I've said it before. There are powerful, influential cabals which would like nothing better than that Paul never be read. Why?
because then people won't find out for themselves what his agenda was. My view is a couple posts above this.

Paul did not write 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians. Those are Pseudepigrapha written long after he was gone.


Junia or Junias (Greek: Ιουνια / Ιουνιας, Iounia[s]) was a 1st-century Christian highly regarded and complimented by apostle Paul. Paul probably refers to Junia as an apostle. The consensus among most modern New Testament scholars is that Junia was a woman.

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
— Romans 16:7 KJV
Junia

How could Paul be anti-woman teaching if his female relative was an Apostle before him?



Wikipedia Cabal
A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue, usually unbeknown to persons outside their group. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship

edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

I forgot to congratulate you on your son's upbringing. Good for you!


Here's a link to a conversation between Akragon and myself starting Here
My attempt at putting the Paul vs Jesus into historical context.
edit on 11-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Belcastro
Martin Luther missed one crucial point here; the Harlot rests on the support of the Beast, the same Beast which later attacks her.
Therefore no entity can be both at the same time. He should have stuck to one theory or the other.



Correct, the Beast hates Mystery Babylon, they destroy the city in 1 hour. There is another city, that is a religious city, it's the richest city in Earth, it's in a desert, everyone trades with it, all the leaders of the countries bow down to the ruler there, it's by a sea, it also sits on 7 hills, the entire world is drunk on its wine, and it is in the area of the ancient Babylonian Empire.

And is HATED by the other people of this religion. Any guesses?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro


Thus by very definition the pope is the antichrist.


Can't be friend, a pope very well could be the false prophet. But the antichrist has particular titles in the Bible, there are 33 total titles for this man of sin, the 11th horn. And 4 of them are:

1. The Assyrian (Turkey and Syria)
2. King of Babylon (Iraq and Saudi Arabia)
3. Prince of Tyre (Lebanon)
4. Pharaoh of Egypt (Egypt)

There are many nations the Lord judges and wars with when He returns to Earth, not a single one of them is in Western Europe, or the Western leg of the Roman Empire, plus the western leg of the Roman Empire was never conquered by the 7th Empire (mountain) of prophecy, it couldn't have transferred it's horn. Now, the eastern leg of the Roman Empire lived 1000 years after the western leg and it did lose its horn to the 7th empire (mountain) of Bible prophecy.

The eastern leg of the Roman Empire is called the Byzantine Empire, it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, the 7th mountain/Kingdom/empire.



edit on 7 11 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro


i had made another thread where i thought jerusalem was the harlot and that it also sits on seven mountains and i thought that the only reason there would need to be a new jerusalem come down from heaven would be because jerusalem was the harlot.


Good work though brother, but allow me to tweak a couple things.. Remember, in prophetic language, or dreams/visions a mountain means a kingdom. The same metaphors are carried throughout the Bible by the Holy Spirit.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro


Nope, its not the Vatican.


Mystery Babylon biblically is NO mystery because its explained in detail in the Bible.



Good posts NOTurTypical



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
originally posted by: NOTurTypical

Can't be friend, a pope very well could be the false prophet. But the antichrist has particular titles in the Bible,




The false prophet that gave power unto the beast/Islam is Mohamad and lets not forget their awaited Mahdi said to reign 7 years before the day of judgement, its the antichrist that also reigns 7 years Biblically.

The antichrist spirit is anyone who denies Christ as the Son of God who died on the cross for us all, Islam fits that to the letter.

Also The Quran admits that Allah is Satan..

Side by side Quranic and Biblical verses, Proof.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gps777

No sir, I mean the false prophet who will cause the black stone to "speak", who will do many false miracles, even call fire down from heaven. The antichrist's sidekick. Revelation says he is a "lamb with two horns" and that's why I think it will be a pope who will lead an apostate church and Catholicism.

Islamic Eschaetology says that the Mahdi will be joined by Jesus (Issa) and he will tear down the crosses, and tell everyone that God has no sons, that he was just a man and to worship the Mahdi, who is God.

See below:






edit on 7 11 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
I'm sorry I was so abrupt in my last response.

But it's like this. If you're going to bash someone, you should at least bash them for what they actually did, and not for what someone else did in his name.

For instance, if someone said, "Oh Pthena is evil, look what he does:

He's a cat juggler!"

Let me assure you that the guy in the movie is not me.

On the other hand, if someone said, "Don't listen to Pthena because he's an apostate and infidel." Well then that's OKay because I don't deny it.

See, the same should apply to Paul. He did not write the letters with his name on them decades after he was gone.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
originally posted by: NOTurTypical



No sir, I mean the false prophet who will cause the black stone to "speak", who will do many false miracles, even call fire down from heaven. The antichrist's sidekick. Revelation says he is a "lamb with two horns" and that's why I think it will be a pope who will lead an apostate church and Catholicism.


This my friend is the Mahdi (false prophet) Mohamad's successor, all the nations destroyed are all nowadays Islamic nations, no where does it describe Rome destroyed. Though Catholic church has MUCH to answer for.



Islamic Eschaetology says that the Mahdi will be joined by Jesus (Issa) and he will tear down the crosses, and tell everyone that God has no sons, that he was just a man and to worship the Mahdi, who is God.

See below:






Yep very informative vid NOTurTypical and on point, thanks for posting.

There is still much to happen and especially with Israel before this takes place, but Bro things are moving quickly to the day I`m sure you agree.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: gps777

I need to do a study again, apparently. I always understood there was an antichrist and his sidekick, the false prophet. Even Islam says their Mahdi will be joined by Issa who descends from heaven carried by two angels. You and I both know Satan game Muhammad the end times doctrine for Islam based on the prophecies of the Bible, only reversed.

So let me look this matter over again, it's been some time since I considered it.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
I'm sorry I was so abrupt in my last response.

But it's like this. If you're going to bash someone, you should at least bash them for what they actually did, and not for what someone else did in his name.

For instance, if someone said, "Oh Pthena is evil, look what he does:

He's a cat juggler!"

Let me assure you that the guy in the movie is not me.

On the other hand, if someone said, "Don't listen to Pthena because he's an apostate and infidel." Well then that's OKay because I don't deny it.

See, the same should apply to Paul. He did not write the letters with his name on them decades after he was gone.


It's been a few years since I was heavy into studying Paul. Someone started a thread in this forum on Paul being the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees. I read it a minute ago. Those very points brought up by the OP and several others in agreement on that thread (with the OP), are the same things I've found. Paul never sat right with me, and that began over 20 years ago. I found contradictions between his writings and the words of Jesus. I also found that Paul contradicted himself (or rather lied to cover his butt). He was also very arrogant. I also picked up on a false humility coming through from him. It's rather hard to explain a "gut feeling" you have about someone, or maybe it's "women's intuition".
Now, when I finally started researching it, that's when I found more to support that uneasiness I had.
Even if some of the letters were not actually written by him, the others are enough to still show him being a liar. I too, believe he was deceiver, who infiltrated and twisted the message of Jesus. Honestly, you can't go to a church without the message usually being something out of Paul's epistles. You might get a small verse of something Jesus said, but even that is rare. Most pastors LOVE them some Paul. It's sad, really. The very fact that there are people who think Paul is a liar...should say something (and they still love or admire Jesus). This claim is not made about any of the other true apostles, either. Just Paul.
Thanks for the apology. No offense taken.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



He was also very arrogant. I also picked up on a false humility coming through from him. It's rather hard to explain a "gut feeling" you have about someone, or maybe it's "women's intuition".

I just posted on the theological problems thread. I actually examine one of his passages. arrogant may be a good way to describe it?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



He was also very arrogant. I also picked up on a false humility coming through from him. It's rather hard to explain a "gut feeling" you have about someone, or maybe it's "women's intuition".

I just posted on the theological problems thread. I actually examine one of his passages. arrogant may be a good way to describe it?


I'll post something on the Paul/wolf of Benjamin thread in response.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Can we not let this thread drift into a debate about Paul? There are several dozen ones about him and he didn't even author the book of Revelation to which this OP is about.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join