Whore of Babylon

[Pegg]

Are you so unaware of church history whereas you can't make the connection with those in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that were an extension of the church of the apostles?

there were no apostles besides the 12. If more apostles were being selected, then we would have been told who they were. The precedent for this is when Judas betrayed Jesus and the apostles selected someone to take his place.

But you never read of any more apostles being selected after Judas was replaced. Why is that?

Are you so unaware of early church history whereas these same people were the ones who eventually canonized "Revelations" and the Bible you now use? Are you so unaware of church history that you seemingly think that the appointees of the apostles seemingly just disappeared into thin air?

canonizing the scriptures doesnt make them apostles.

Do you not realise what the canonisation implied? Why did they have to do it and what was the basis for the scriptures selected?

They needed to confirm which scriptures were written and approved by the 12 Apostles. Why? Because by the 2nd/3rd century there were so many imitation scriptures and false teachings that they needed to distinguish true christian teachings from the false.
They only included the scriptures known & accepted by the 12 Apostles and everything else they classified as apocryphal....or we could call them 'false' scriptures.

But I return to the point that you are totally contradicting yourself because you were the one who made the statement that the church did not feel the Nero was viewed by some as the "anti-Christ", and you simply cannot bring yourself to admit to your error. And to say "Their teachings are wrong. Plain and simple.", while providing not even one shred of evidence to support your claim is truly "unfortunate". You simply seem to be unwilling to accept Truth, preferring instead to formulate your own "truth". As the saying goes, you can have your own beliefs but not your own facts.

The evidence i put forward was simply the date of writing of revelation.
It was written after Nero's death....so how could he be the anti-christ.

Its not a single person. If you read what the apostles wrote, you'd see that they viewed many people as the anti-christ and the antiChrist came from within the christian congregations. I dont think Nero was ever a christian was he?

1John 2:18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.

Can you tell me when Nero converted to Christianity???


The antichrist comes from 'within' the church plain and simple. They are the false teachers and they are the reason why the christian scriptures needed to be canonised in the first place. But of course the false teachers wont want to put the Apostle Johns teaching forward on this matter....they will tell you it was some pagan or other political person or organisation when in fact it was they themselves who John was speaking about.

 

[metis]

there were no apostles besides the 12. If more apostles were being selected, then we would have been told who they were. The precedent for this is when Judas betrayed Jesus and the apostles selected someone to take his place.

But you never read of any more apostles being selected after Judas was replaced. Why is that?...

canonizing the scriptures doesnt make them apostles.

I didn't say the appointees were apostles but that the apostles appointed others to make decisions after the 12 were gone and in areas where they weren't present. That process is mentioned in Acts and also some of the epistles. This is what is meant by "apostolic church", and that was the mark of verification of the early church, especially since the canon had not been selected and there were disputes over which books should be used.

They needed to confirm which scriptures were written and approved by the 12 Apostles. Why? Because by the 2nd/3rd century there were so many imitation scriptures and false teachings that they needed to distinguish true christian teachings from the false.
They only included the scriptures known & accepted by the 12 Apostles and everything else they classified as apocryphal....or we could call them 'false' scriptures.

Not all the scriptures were written by the apostles. Luke was not an apostle and neither was Paul (he appointed himself-- not the Twelve). Also, the book of Hebrews has an unknown author, and some of Paul's epistles experts are quite certain were not written by Paul himself. Back then it was customary to write but then give credit to one's mentor, which is a practice we certainly do not use today.

The evidence i put forward was simply the date of writing of revelation.
It was written after Nero's death....so how could he be the anti-christ.

I already explained that.

Its not a single person. If you read what the apostles wrote, you'd see that they viewed many people as the anti-christ and the antiChrist came from within the christian congregations. I dont think Nero was ever a christian was he?...

The antichrist comes from 'within' the church plain and simple. They are the false teachers and they are the reason why the christian scriptures needed to be canonised in the first place. But of course the false teachers wont want to put the Apostle Johns teaching forward on this matter....they will tell you it was some pagan or other political person or organisation when in fact it was they themselves who John was speaking about.

Yes, there can be more than one "anti-Christ" but that doesn't go against what I had posted. Nero was viewed by many in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to possibly be an "anti-Christ", and I have supplied you evidence for that. You said it's not true but have not supplied one shred of evidence to substantiate your position. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you keep throwing stuff up against the wall, which is quite disingenuous for you to do.

So, are you going to admit you were wrong about Nero or are you just going to go through another round of charades?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Doesn't luke mention the 77 that were sent out?

 

[Prophet]

The Mark of the Beast - 666 or 616? - The American Vision

 

[Pegg]

I didn't say the appointees were apostles but that the apostles appointed others to make decisions after the 12 were gone and in areas where they weren't present. That process is mentioned in Acts and also some of the epistles. This is what is meant by "apostolic church", and that was the mark of verification of the early church, especially since the canon had not been selected and there were disputes over which books should be used.

right, so if the appointees were not apostles, then i have no need to accept their teachings as truthful. And thats why we should only use the bible as the basis for our beliefs as christians because the foundation for true teachings are found therein....they are not found in the writings of origen or augustine or any other of the popes and scholars you care to name.

Not all the scriptures were written by the apostles. Luke was not an apostle and neither was Paul (he appointed himself-- not the Twelve). Also, the book of Hebrews has an unknown author, and some of Paul's epistles experts are quite certain were not written by Paul himself. Back then it was customary to write but then give credit to one's mentor, which is a practice we certainly do not use today.

the basis of the canonizing of scripture was this: which books were 'accepted', authored, and being circulated while the apostles were alive. They are the books which are the basis for christian teaching and belief. Any other teachings not based on those are not christian.

Yes, there can be more than one "anti-Christ" but that doesn't go against what I had posted. Nero was viewed by many in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to possibly be an "anti-Christ", and I have supplied you evidence for that. You said it's not true but have not supplied one shred of evidence to substantiate your position. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you keep throwing stuff up against the wall, which is quite disingenuous for you to do.

So, are you going to admit you were wrong about Nero or are you just going to go through another round of charades?

Did John view Nero as an antichrist?

Would John have written about a dead man?

The answer is NO to both of these questions because we know who John was talking about when he coined the term 'anti-christ'....he was talking about false/apostate christians.

So i have no need to admit i was wrong. What you need to ask yourself is why you believe an idea that does not originate with the Christian church or the teachings of the apostles

.

 

[Pegg]

Doesn't luke mention the 77 that were sent out?

while there were only 12 apostles, there certainly were many more disciples who were carrying out a 'ministry' on behalf of Christ.

Those 70 others were Christs followers who he trained to go and tell people about him....but the 12 apostles were selected to be his official representatives and the ones who were authorised to lay down the basis of his teachings to the congregations. They were his official 'witnesses' to all that Christ did and taught.

 

[metis]

right, so if the appointees were not apostles, then i have no need to accept their teachings as truthful. And thats why we should only use the bible as the basis for our beliefs as christians because the foundation for true teachings are found therein....they are not found in the writings of origen or augustine or any other of the popes and scholars you care to name.

If you actually read Origen, Augustine, and the scholars you would know that the above is totally false. Matter of fact, it was Origen who was the first biblical scholar who insisted that the scriptures should be more relied upon than church tradition.

Secondly, you elevate the Bible to a level that even the apostles never stated or implied. Yes, the writings were considered important in general, but we see Paul, for instance, saying that the church was to be "one body", and this should tell you something. Is the church "one body" today? Notta chance.

One therefore could argue that the church you may belong to is simply not of that "one body", therefore not part of the apostolic tradition that has been passed down. Remember, it was this element that chose the canon that you use and not the other way around. When Origen was asked whether salvation was possible outside the apostolic church, his response is a classic (paraphrased): "the church is the scarlet thread that binds, and who would be foolish enough to try to seek salvation outside of it?".

the basis of the canonizing of scripture was this: which books were 'accepted', authored, and being circulated while the apostles were alive. They are the books which are the basis for christian teaching and belief. Any other teachings not based on those are not christian.

See above, as you have put the cart before the horse.

Did John view Nero as an antichrist?

Would John have written about a dead man?

The answer is NO to both of these questions because we know who John was talking about when he coined the term 'anti-christ'....he was talking about false/apostate christians.

Again, you have a problem with logic here. I have provided you with evidence, and yet you turn around and deny the evidence without providing any evidence yourself.

Secondly, John seemingly recognizes Nero as Nero's name put to numbers was "666" (there's also a "616" variation if one takes Nero's name into Koine Greek). If you understand what Nero did in the context of the early church plus what Nero said, you would see how he fits all too well into Revelations. And we know for a fact-- not speculation-- that many in the church did believe that Nero was indeed an "anti-Christ", and you're denying this is absolutely silly because we know because they wrote as such.

So i have no need to admit i was wrong. What you need to ask yourself is why you believe an idea that does not originate with the Christian church or the teachings of the apostles

.

It's not possible to know exactly what the apostles were thinking, except for maybe John, because we don't see them directly referring to Nero or even the Roman persecution of them other than what's in "Revelations". OTOH, your position is totally absurd because you simply make flat-out statements with literally no evidence other than just your own opinions.

It's obvious you have never done much reading on the subject, much of which can be found in the non-canonical books and the writings of the patriarchs. By pooh-poohing these sources, you elevate your own opinions to the point of absolute facts minus any scholarship to support you. It is highly important to take controversial areas and then seek out how the early church dealt with these controversies as a continuation of that early church tradition because this can often clarify some uncertainties. Since you are unwilling to do that, all you are doing is walking in the dark on this matter.

 

[Shiranui117]

right, so if the appointees were not apostles, then i have no need to accept their teachings as truthful. And thats why we should only use the bible as the basis for our beliefs as christians because the foundation for true teachings are found therein....they are not found in the writings of origen or augustine or any other of the popes and scholars you care to name.

And what makes you think the Watchtower is truthful or trustworthy? They have absolutely no connection to the Apostles whatsoever. At least the Church Fathers were in an unbroken line of consistent and unchanged teaching that is visibly traceable back to the Apostles. If the personal students and hand-picked successors of the Apostles, (many of whom were disciples of the Lord or at least learned for decades from the Apostles) aren't trustworthy, then what makes you think that a bunch of 1900's American schmucks pulling ideas out of their heads are trustworthy?

the basis of the canonizing of scripture was this: which books were 'accepted', authored, and being circulated while the apostles were alive. They are the books which are the basis for christian teaching and belief. Any other teachings not based on those are not christian.

Actually, we don't know who wrote Hebrews, and it's doubtful that 2 Peter was even by Peter. The New Testament as we have it today wasn't put into one volume for at least 400 or 500 years. And the Old Testament as found today among the Protestants and the Jehovah's Witnesses is not the Old Testament used by the Apostles, but rather, it came from Martin Luther, who not only took out OT books that he disagreed with, but also wanted to take out the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation, because these two NT books contradicted his teachings. I just thought you should realize that the version of the Old Testament you're using was organized by a guy who willingly removed from the Bible whatever he didn't want in there.

 

[metis]

Also, Luther included the Apocrypha and put them in-between the "O.T." and "N.T.". Some Christian Bibles to day have them also in their text as Luther did.

As you seemingly are aware of, some people unfortunately tend to feel that the Bible floated down from heaven and landed in their church, and only they have the correct interpretations. Nothing could be further from the truth both in terms of how the canon was selected, which was very contentious, and how variable many of the interpretations are because of variations within the text and/or just an uncertainty as to what the author was really trying to communicate.

 

[Pegg]

If you actually read Origen, Augustine, and the scholars you would know that the above is totally false. Matter of fact, it was Origen who was the first biblical scholar who insisted that the scriptures should be more relied upon than church tradition.

and he was also the first 'scholar' who castrated himself.
You know it was at the council of Nicea that a resolution was passed which expressly forbid any man from the priesthood who had emasculated themselves.

He was also a pupil of the greek philosopher Plato....and he introduced the unchristian doctrine of the eternal soul (which he copied from Plato) into church doctrine.

Again, you have a problem with logic here. I have provided you with evidence, and yet you turn around and deny the evidence without providing any evidence yourself.

Biblical evidence is the best sort of evidence imo.

1John 2:18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.

Johns teaching here is that the anti-christ came from WITHIN the congregation. And i dont think you'll find any evidence for Nero being a christian at any time in his life.

 

[Pegg]

And what makes you think the Watchtower is truthful or trustworthy? They have absolutely no connection to the Apostles whatsoever. At least the Church Fathers were in an unbroken line of consistent and unchanged teaching that is visibly traceable back to the Apostles. If the personal students and hand-picked successors of the Apostles, (many of whom were disciples of the Lord or at least learned for decades from the Apostles) aren't trustworthy, then what makes you think that a bunch of 1900's American schmucks pulling ideas out of their heads are trustworthy?

what makes me think the Watchtower is trustworthy? Hmmmm, i would have to say its the fact that they stick to the teachings of the scriptures. Thats what makes them trustworthy.

Origen introduced a teaching of Plato into the church. Immortal Souls was not a christian teaching.
The church has an epic fail on its hands because they did not remain in Gods word.

 

[Shiranui117]

what makes me think the Watchtower is trustworthy? Hmmmm, i would have to say its the fact that they stick to the teachings of the scriptures. Thats what makes them trustworthy.

Funny, I'd say the same about the Orthodox Church.

Origen introduced a teaching of Plato into the church. Immortal Souls was not a christian teaching.
The church has an epic fail on its hands because they did not remain in Gods word.

And Origen was condemned for that idea. Our souls aren't immortal by nature as Origen or Plato claimed, nor do our souls pre-exist our conception as Origen said. Rather, our souls are immortal because of God's grace--just as the world would cease to exist should God remove His Energies, so our souls would cease to exist should God remove His sustaining Energies.

 

[kjw47]

I personally will not post any any links that espouse this false doctrine but I will post a link that refutes this doctrine:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp

I personally feel that the view of the Catholic Church as the whore of babylon is simply based upon bigotry and ignorance.

Every false religion on earth( 99%) = Babylon the great
God never had use of more than a single religion. Not in the ot, not in the nt, and not in Gods kingdom.

 

[Pegg]

Funny, I'd say the same about the Orthodox Church.

have you really examined the teachings of the church and compared them to the bible?

And Origen was condemned for that idea. Our souls aren't immortal by nature as Origen or Plato claimed, nor do our souls pre-exist our conception as Origen said. Rather, our souls are immortal because of God's grace--just as the world would cease to exist should God remove His Energies, so our souls would cease to exist should God remove His sustaining Energies.

the soul is the living body. they do cease to exist when we die.

The bible says:

Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul who sins is the one who will die.


Souls do die.

 

[metis]

and he was also the first 'scholar' who castrated himself.
You know it was at the council of Nicea that a resolution was passed which expressly forbid any man from the priesthood who had emasculated themselves.

He was also a pupil of the greek philosopher Plato....and he introduced the unchristian doctrine of the eternal soul (which he copied from Plato) into church doctrine.



Biblical evidence is the best sort of evidence imo.

1John 2:18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.

Johns teaching here is that the anti-christ came from WITHIN the congregation. And i dont think you'll find any evidence for Nero being a christian at any time in his life.

"Anti-christs" is plural, and you are denying the fact that this is what some in the early church believed. Again, all you are doing is creating your own "reality" and avoiding what history tell us. You may not agree with their opinion, which is fine, but you simply cannot deny that which has been written.

As far as what you say above about Origen, that does not relate to what we were actually discussing, and if it really did, then actually that would undermine your own position. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Pegg]

"Anti-christs" is plural, and you are denying the fact that this is what some in the early church believed. Again, all you are doing is creating your own "reality" and avoiding what history tell us. You may not agree with their opinion, which is fine, but you simply cannot deny that which has been written.

I stated quite some time ago that the teachings of some christians do not reflect the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

According to the Apostle John, the anti-christs came from WITHIN the congregation. They were christians who had turned to false teachings. Thats what an anti-christ is according to the Scriptures.

Do you not believe the Apostle John???

As far as what you say above about Origen, that does not relate to what we were actually discussing, and if it really did, then actually that would undermine your own position. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

no, i'm pointing out that you can't assume that these sorts of teachers (origen etc) were teaching according to the teachings of Jesus. They were not. They are the very anti-christs we were warned about.

 

[metis]

I stated quite some time ago that the teachings of some christians do not reflect the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

According to the Apostle John, the anti-christs came from WITHIN the congregation. They were christians who had turned to false teachings. Thats what an anti-christ is according to the Scriptures.

Do you not believe the Apostle John???

John was not the only one warning of "anti-christs", which let me remind you is plural.

no, i'm pointing out that you can't assume that these sorts of teachers (origen etc) were teaching according to the teachings of Jesus. They were not. They are the very anti-christs we were warned about.

Whatever happened to "...judge ye not or you will be judged..."? My suggestion to you is that you'd better watch your theological step because whom are you to judge others? Certainly Origen had faults, but do you have any faults, or do you see yourself as somehow being perfect? Since Origen was a Christian who believed in Jesus and taught as such, how does that make him an "anti-christ"?

Again, it seems that you are quite blind to church history and all too willing to judge others, so maybe you should leave that to God.

 

[Pegg]

John was not the only one warning of "anti-christs", which let me remind you is plural.

But John is a hand selected apostle of Christ... he was teaching with authority. Therefore it stands to reason that his teaching as found in the scriptures is Gods inspired word.

And if he said that the antichrist comes from within the congregation, but someone else says it comes from the roman empire.....which one should i believe??

Whatever happened to "...judge ye not or you will be judged..."? My suggestion to you is that you'd better watch your theological step because whom are you to judge others?

the scriptures tell us to judge the teaching of those who claim to be Christs followers:

1John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.


And its not wrong to judge the conduct and teachings of those claiming to follow Christ for that is what we are instructed to do:

1Cor 5:11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

Titus 3:10 As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition,

2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him



If we did not judge those on the inside, then we too might get led astray by the deceptive talk of wicked imposters. And if I just think about some of the hideous crimes leaders of various religious groups have been involved in, then its easy to see why we are told to do so.

Certainly Origen had faults, but do you have any faults, or do you see yourself as somehow being perfect? Since Origen was a Christian who believed in Jesus and taught as such, how does that make him an "anti-christ"?

he did not remain in Christs teachings. He led many astray just as Gods Word warned would happen:

Matthew 7:15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.


2 Peter 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.

1 John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[metis]

But John is a hand selected apostle of Christ... he was teaching with authority. Therefore it stands to reason that his teaching as found in the scriptures is Gods inspired word.

And if he said that the antichrist comes from within the congregation, but someone else says it comes from the roman empire.....which one should i believe??



the scriptures tell us to judge the teaching of those who claim to be Christs followers:

1John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.


And its not wrong to judge the conduct and teachings of those claiming to follow Christ for that is what we are instructed to do:

1Cor 5:11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

Titus 3:10 As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition,

2 John 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him



If we did not judge those on the inside, then we too might get led astray by the deceptive talk of wicked imposters. And if I just think about some of the hideous crimes leaders of various religious groups have been involved in, then its easy to see why we are told to do so.




he did not remain in Christs teachings. He led many astray just as Gods Word warned would happen:

Matthew 7:15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.


2 Peter 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.

1 John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Sorry as there simply is nothing meaningful for me to respond to above because all you are doing is recycling statements over and over again that express your opinions, which are not necessarily facts. As long as there are alternative explanations, one cannot do what you are doing by discounting them.

The early church well understood this and struggled through various interpretations and even what the canon should consist of. Since you obviously have never really studied that, there's simply nothing more to discuss with you until you do.

An excellent and very objective theological book that does this is "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson, who is an Anglican theologian. What's so great about that book is that it's heavily documented and takes the reader through various decisions that were made, including the selection of the canon. Of all the Christian theological books I've read over time, this one is still the best, imo. Even "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson does a good job and is probably easier to get than Hanson's book.

 

[Pegg]

Sorry as there simply is nothing meaningful for me to respond to above because all you are doing is recycling statements over and over again that express your opinions, which are not necessarily facts. As long as there are alternative explanations, one cannot do what you are doing by discounting them.

The early church well understood this and struggled through various interpretations and even what the canon should consist of. Since you obviously have never really studied that, there's simply nothing more to discuss with you until you do.

An excellent and very objective theological book that does this is "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson, who is an Anglican theologian. What's so great about that book is that it's heavily documented and takes the reader through various decisions that were made, including the selection of the canon. Of all the Christian theological books I've read over time, this one is still the best, imo. Even "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson does a good job and is probably easier to get than Hanson's book.

I would recommend the Christian Greek Scriptures.