Revelation; Harlot Babylon pt3 (Twinned with Rome)

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 

I'm fairly familiar both with history in general and with church history, so I can see other ways of telling the story.

First, in the early days, a fairly loose structure. Nobody is really "at the top". The real strength of the church, in the beginning, is at the eastern end of the empire, the Greek end, because that's where most of the population is. It's all happening in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople. Rome dangerously close to being a backwater.

Then the Lombards invade Italy. Chances of getting help from Constantinople dwindle. The Pope appeals to the Franks, and they become the new patrons. 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. But, from the viewpoint of the eastern church, which had never been in any real sense under papal authority, this probably looked like a case of "big fish in a small pool".

The two events that changed this perspective were the political collapse of the eastern Christian world under the muslims, and the astonishing expansion of the western Christian world after Columbus. That made it possible for the institution under the authority of the Pope to gain a world-wide presence, and then try to create, retrospectively, the historical illusion that it had been "in charge" from the beginning.

You see, once we get away from the idea that any of the institutional bodies we have decided (slightly confusingly) to call "churches" are actually "The Church", it all begins to look a bit different.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I understand the frustration with which the Pope is viewed.
And I know how a few Popes in history have acted in a less than flattering way.
However, that does not take away the fact that the one Church and flock that
Jesus Christ established was the Roman Catholic Church, which was the enduring
Christian faith, taught by His Apostles for centuries before any significant schisms
occurred. It was founded on the Cross, and grounded on Pentacost Sunday, 53 days
after the Crucifixtion, 33 A.D.

Also, it is useful to recall that Jesus Christ Himself included one person in the Twelve who
was a real scoundrel. Should we consider all Jesus Christ said and did suspect because for whatever
reasons of God's He had Judas Iscariot around for three years?

Remember, the Pope is only a man, fallible as any, only his official teachings issued
from the Chair of Peter, in his official capacity, spoken as binding upon the entire Church,
on a matter of faith or morals is viewed as infallible- inspired by the Holy Spirit. In all other things,
the man is fallible as any other person who is a daily Mass attendee, prays daily, attends Adoration
for hours, and does various devotions, as well as Confesses daily. He still is a man and viewed as such.

The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Churches are still in Communion with the Church, even though the "great schism" of the 11 century occurred. They may still receive full sacraments at Mass.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodearth
However, that does not take away the fact that the one [A]Church and flock that
Jesus Christ established was the Roman Catholic [B}Church,

My problem with this sentence is that it switches from one definition of the word "Church" to another in mid-sentence, and that invisible switch invalidates the argument. I have labelled the two different senses "A" and "B", for clarity.

What Jesus Christ founded was the "Church" in sense "A"- the whole community of Christians, the "blessed company of all faithful people".I myself am a member of the church that Christ founded, because I belong to Christ. That is it. That is how you become a member of the [A]Church.

Then at the end of the sentence you start talking about the Church in sense "B"- the Roman Catholic community, those who accept the authority of the Pope. This is a different meaning of the word, and a different body of people- though included, hopefully, in the Church in sense "A".

So I can acknowledge the point that Christ established [A]Church, and yet still insist that this has no relevance to any claims that might be made on behalf of [B]Church, because they are two different meanings of the word. Establishing the first does not mean establishing the second.




edit on 28-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be deliberately ambiguous... I was actually trying to show the link between the two with Peter.

Jesus established His Church with His Apostles, with Peter as the head, the rock upon which he built his Church.
That rock, St. Peter, established the headquarters of the Church in Roman, hence the Roman Catholic (universal) Church.

That was what I was meaning to show...
Sorry for not being more concise~
God Bless~



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodearth
That rock, St. Peter, established the headquarters of the Church in Rome

This is the link in the chain which we regard as unestablished...
Announcing a community, and telling an individual that he must take the lead in getting it going is one thing.
Setting up a permanent line of authority is another.
The early church was a loosely organised commonwealth, not a hierarchical structure.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
And truly, would Christ, after commanding the Apostles to preach and teach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing all in His name, stating He would be "with them" to the end of the age...
do an about face, and then take off, leaving them with no precise instructions on what kind of Church he wanted implemented, what He wanted done, precisely?

He was very precise in what His expectations were. I doubt he would leave them without any firm plan in place.
They were scared to death of being without Him, up to watching Him ascend... their saving grace was Pentacost Sunday, and that was even with the knowledge I truly believe He gave them regarding the Church.

Also, remember in Acts 8, when the man reading Isaiah asked Philip the Apostle to explain it to him. Then afterwards, he beseechs Philip to baptize him, and the Holy Spirit of God comes upon the man.

Furthermore, in Acts 10, the Angel of God has Cornelius, the centurion, in answer to his prayers, go to Peter for teaching, and similarly, goes to Peter and commands him to meet with Cornelius and those like him, even though they are Gentiles. So God's Messenger appears to Peter to instruct him on faith and morals, to pass along his teachings.
The Holy Spirit also came upon them, and Peter ordered them to be baptised, and they asked Peter to stay a few days.

If these passages, in addition to all I have posted previously in all my posts do not at least make you think a little bit about what Christ started here on earth...

Consider- if your resistance is really the Chair of Peter... the Papacy itself and all it appears to represent.

What it really represents to me is a place of holy and inspired instruction. Guided by the Holy Spirit, as stated by Christ Himself in the Scriptures, and supported by the Epistles of the Apostles.

It is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth, as St. Paul writes... the household of God.

And infallible in official teaching of faith and morals.

For those that may feel "they have an infallible Bible and that is the only infallibility they require"...

I pose this:

You may perhaps be infallibly certain that your particular interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Or you are not.

If you maintain yourself to be infallibly certain of your particular interpretation, then YOU claim for your particular self a very personal infallibility which you deny only to the Pope, and which Roman Catholics claim only for him.

You also cannot deny this same particular infallibility for every single person on Earth to feel for themselves and their own particular interpretation of their same 'infallible Bible'. Therefore, according to this point of view, you are allowing each of the hundreds of millions of readers of the Bible, their own personal infallibility and in essence, their own ability to be their own Pope.

While, the only one who is not to be the Pope is the Pope himself.

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.

Sounds very fair, logical, and....infallible... doesn't it?
edit on 29-11-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Announcing a community, and telling an individual that he must take the lead in getting it going is one thing.
Setting up a permanent line of authority is another.
The early church was a loosely organised commonwealth, not a hierarchical structure.


I respectfully disagree.
I have cited where Peter was completely set apart from the others. How was Jesus announcing a "community" in proclaiming Peter the rock He was building His church on, and giving Peter the keys to Heaven?
Do you entrust the keys to your kingdom, your sanctuary, to just anybody?
Gee whiz... no one trusts their keys to their mailbox to anyone these days...
Why did Christ give the keys to Heaven to Peter then, if Peter was no one special? Why?

Why at the Last Supper did He tell Peter that He had prayed for him specifically, that he (Peter's) strength would not fail, and that when he (Peter) turned back, he was to strengthen and confirm his brothers, if Peter was no big deal?
Why not tell them all these things, for them all to comfort each other? Give them all the keys, if it were a community?
Why not they all "feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my lambs" if it were a community?
Why only Peter?
Why tell only Peter that he would someday be chained and led to a place he wouldn't want to go? (indicating the kind of death he would glorify God)... indeed crucified upside down- by choice upside down, instead of like Christ, as St. Peter to his death carried the profound shame of his desertion of Christ on Golgotha, and chose to be hung upside down.

Jesus Christ put Peter in charge.

In addition to what I have already stated in previous posts, Peter proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, and is proclaimed as blessed by Christ with revealed knowledge from God the Father; Peter walked on water with Christ...

Also in the Letters, the Apostles were constantly instructing on priests, deacons, procedure, conduct...
there was a heirarchy, baptisms, sacraments, the Eucharist. There was much going on, and that was just in the Bible, not to mention the writings of the early Church Saints, like Polycarp, who wrote about the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church by St.'s Peter and Paul and their martyrdom for Christ.
edit on 29-11-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I can't help but think that you are following a long standing tradition amongst christian "theologians" of radical interpretation to get away from the fact the events of Revelations transpired thousands of years ago. The "prophesies" were actually a combination of historical precedent and the strategic/tactical examination of how the religion fueled power politics of the region were going to play out.

This was all written in code so that strategies and analyses could be shared without intervention from hostile forces.

Christ did not die for all humankind. He died for his immediate circle of followers, a scapegoat so that they could go forth and continue the movement.

He is not coming back. "He" already returned with the rise of the christian churches. Of course, at this point, his true teachings were abandoned in exchange for the power structure that is all to familiar to this day as the once oppressed became the oppressors and the Wheel of Karma has continued to turn. But the Return as it would be yearned for by his fanatical and revenge driven followers has already happened. The "Beast" and the "Whore" have risen, the great battles have played out. The perceived damned have been punished the metaphorically dead rose from their metaphorical graves etc.

We are living in post-biblical times. The Apocalypse and Armageddon have already happened. People far more versed than myself in the history of the region and the content of the bible have already documented this.

The churches continue to allow and/or embrace speculation regarding Revelations because it is the perfect combination of carrot and rod to motivate the hapless sheep into compliance.

Put aside the bible and start looking at the reality of the world around you. We may be coming up on another SHTF scenario, and sure you may find paralells in the bible, but that has more to do with the cyclical nature of global geo-politics and the timeless nature of the human lust for power than the "prophetic" abilities of the bible's authors.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
Christ did not die for all humankind. He died for his immediate circle of followers, a scapegoat so that they could go forth and continue the movement.

OK, I take the point that you don't accept the authority of the New Testament.
That's your privilege.
I do, and I write from that standpoint. There is sufficient evidence in the teaching of Paul, for example, that the death of Christ, followed by the resurrection of Christ, was for the benefit of the world at large.
"Then as one mans trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men"- Romans ch5 v18;
"But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ"- Ephesians ch2 v15


We are living in post-biblical times. The Apocalypse and Armageddon have already happened.

If this is true, then it must be the case that we are already living in the New Jerusalem described in Revelation chs 21&22. If you can believe this, then you're the one who's living in a dream world..


Put aside the bible

You're not the first person who's tried to give me this instruction while I've been pursuing this project.
Why are they all so keen to make me stop?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I"Then as one mans trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men"- Romans ch5 v18;
"But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ"- Ephesians ch2 v15


Put aside the bible

You're not the first person who's tried to give me this instruction while I've been pursuing this project.
Why are they all so keen to make me stop?


Your two quotes above are from after the death of Christ. They do not come from his mouth. Never in the Bible does Christ claim that his sacrifice and the "salvation" it brings will be for anyone but a "you" and he was always addressing these remarks to a specific gaggle of co-revolutionaries. Considering these words come from people who were on a recruiting mission to glorify their fallen guru, I hold these statements to be both baseless and unreliable.

I literally could not care less if you proceed or stop. Keep on going with your delusion. More power to you. If you come up with an elaborate scheme wherein you discover that the Mary of the catholic church is actually Mary Magdalene, and that she was not just a prostitute but a pagan priestess and that a secret sect of the catholic church that honors her ancient tradition will be the harlot that will ride the beast of the papacy into the apocalypse that you seem to long for, than I hope you have fun with it.

I just wanted to let you know that you are barking up, not only the wrong tree, but a tree that has been dead for nearly 2000 years.

Peace be with you.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
They do not come from his mouth. Never in the Bible does Christ claim that his sacrifice and the "salvation" it brings will be for anyone but a "you"

"This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many (HYPER POLLON)"- Mark ch14 v24.


If you come up with an elaborate scheme wherein you discover that the Mary of the catholic church is actually Mary Magdalene, and that she was not just a prostitute but a pagan priestess and that a secret sect of the catholic church that honors her ancient tradition will be the harlot that will ride the beast of the papacy into the apocalypse that you seem to long for,

No, my approach in these threads is much more measured than that, much less sensational.
But you're not going to read them, so you won't discover that.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
"This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many (HYPER POLLON)"- Mark ch14 v24.


12 apostles and a few dozen various accomplices would also constitute "many". I'm just saying. Chris never expounded a belief system comparable to the modern christian notion of salvation through the crucifixion. The fact is that his suffering, while great, was not enough to redeem every sinner that has ever lived. Too many people have done too much genuine evil only to "find Jesus" and supposedly be saved.

The bible is the ultimate Rohrchach test. The only difference is that few if any people have been killed over differing interpretations of Standardized Inkplot No. 3.

And I've read your other threads. More of the same vague interpretation and shoehorning of questionable source material (the bible) into modern day scenarios.
edit on 29-11-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
The fact is that his suffering, while great, was not enough to redeem every sinner that has ever lived.

This brings in the question of the Incarnation.
Not so much the extent of the suffering, as the person who was doing it.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
The fact is that his suffering, while great, was not enough to redeem every sinner that has ever lived.

This brings in the question of the Incarnation.
Not so much the extent of the suffering, as the person who was doing it.


Which even further negates the idea of salvation since such suffering as that which was supposedly visited on Christ would be nothing to a being as vast, timeless and powerful as god.

I am not the best person to try and have this discussion with since I consider the Rube Goldberg like machinations of the immaculate conception, the crucifiction, the resurrection etc etc all in the interest of an all powerful being giving his "forgiveness" to a world of such puny, insignificant creatures as humankind to be supremely ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
of an all powerful being giving his "forgiveness" to a world of such puny, insignificant creatures as humankind to be supremely ridiculous.

You agree with the Bible, then, for the Bible also finds it astonishing that the Creator God should care about such insignificant creatures;
"What is man, that you are mindful of him...?" Psalm 8 v4


edit on 29-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
of an all powerful being giving his "forgiveness" to a world of such puny, insignificant creatures as humankind to be supremely ridiculous.

You agree with the Bible, then, for the Bible also finds it astonishing that the Creator God should care about such insignificant creatures;
"What is man, that you are mindful of him...?" Psalm 8 v4


edit on 29-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Cute sidestep of the issues raised.

You ignore the fact that supposed incarnation (which is pretty ludicrous in itself) further negates the idea of salvation through the crucifiction.

You also ignore the larger context of my statement, specifically the fact that aparatus that god supposedly created in order to provide forgiveness which is his to give freely; is either a ridiculous fabrication designed to make the ways of the divine inscrutible and therefore the exclusive domain of a priestly class or is a sign of clear pathological psychosis on the part of the creator.

You instead focus on an off-handed remark pointing out that the notion of god is considerably more vast than the reality of humankind.

Weak.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
that aparatus that god supposedly created in order to provide forgiveness which is his to give freely; is either a ridiculous fabrication designed to make the ways of the divine inscrutible and therefore the exclusive domain of a priestly class or is a sign of clear pathological psychosis on the part of the creator.

There is a third possibility, which is that it is simply the nearest the human mind is able to get towards understanding what is happening, based on the information which the Bible has provided for us.

Apparently you are wise enough to know better than God about the way these things should work, and feel able to sit in judgment on him.
I'm not.
edit on 29-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Apparently you are wise enough to know better than God about the way these things should work, and feel able to sit in judgment on him.
I'm not.
edit on 29-11-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


I do not feel wise enough to sit in judgement of any deity. I will, however, gladly sit in judgement of a book with questionable provenence, with a spotty chain of possession and historical documentation of censorship and editing at the hands of organizations with much to be gained from the crafting of that book's message and interpretation.

Indeed, the shaggy dog story that is Christ's life may be ridiculous because of the limited information the bible gives us. However, the sheer fact that bible is so deeply and chronically flawed, is no more the word of god than the witticism inside my fortune cookie and, at the same time, seen as an infallible work that is worth killing over strikes me as one of the primary causes of pain, suffering and evil in this world.

I'll sit in judgement of that nonsense until my dying day. But, of course, I'm a bit of prick that way.


Edit: Also, you still sidestep my question ignoring the illogic of the salvation and veering into the supremely irritating "matter of faith" gambit.

Peace be with you.
edit on 29-11-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
I'll sit in judgement of that nonsense until my dying day. But, of course, I'm a bit of prick that way.

Perhaps this is what Paul told his employers when he was setting out on that road to Damascus.
You'd better watch your step.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
I'll sit in judgement of that nonsense until my dying day. But, of course, I'm a bit of prick that way.

Perhaps this is what Paul told his employers when he was setting out on that road to Damascus.
You'd better watch your step.



Considering that you have posted once again without addressing how the incarnation would enhance rather than diminish the passion/crucifiction I accept your concession of this point. Have a nice day.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join