By Request: Why the Catholic is NOT the Great Whore of Babylon.

[cheddar]

Thanks AlienS,

You’re one of the few Adventists who refuses to let a history book be the final word on prophecy.

If we look and the little horn power, king of the north and beast from the earth – they are all talking about the same power. The pope and the RCC will be a major player in the last days but they only have influence over other Catholics and maybe Christians. They will have no influence over Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all the others. Our understanding of the last days needs to be bigger than just the RCC.

Ellen White actually identified this power and I don’t think she even realized it at the time. She made the statement that in the last days Satan will come and impersonate Jesus Christ. This is one thing that she said that I absolutely agree with and it barely ever gets a mention. Satan with the aid of his fallen angels and lying wonders is the only one who could ever unite the whole world with all its varied peoples, languages and religions under one banner.

In Rev. 13 the beast from the earth is a combination of a lamb (Jesus) and a dragon (Satan) and he does miracles and calls fire down out of heaven. Satan’s impersonation fits this far better than the USofA. The fire that is called down out of heaven will probably be for the dedication ceremony of the 3rd temple. Any king will want to have a capital city and what better place than Jerusalem. The rebuilt Jerusalem and temple will be more spectacular than anything Solomon ever built. It might even have streets of gold!

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the GOLDEN CITY ceased! The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts. Isa. 14, 4-23.

[Musicman1228]

Who or what exactly is Babylon in the Revelation prophecy? Is it a person, place or thing?

Babylon is certainly a symbol, but of what? All prophetic symbols have a literal meaning or the symbol is in itself literal. A symbol can never represent another symbol. If this was the case then deciphering the symbol would be impossible, and God would not have us do the impossible.

Here Babylon is the literal kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar was king -

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), Jer. 25:1

Next, Daniel speaks to Nebuchadnezzar about his dream in which a head of gold represents the king of Babylon -

“You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening.   (32) The head of this image was of fine gold, Dan. 2:31-32.

Daniel again speaks to Nebuchadnezzar -

You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,   (38) and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. Dan. 2:37-38.

Now we get to the fun part:

Babylon is the 'Great City'.

The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. Rev.16:19.

They will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, “Alas! Alas! You great city, you mighty city, Babylon! For in a single hour your judgment has come.” Rev. 18:10.

We can identify the name of this 'Great City' in the following verses:

And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that rises from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them,   (8) and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. Rev. 11:7-8.

The Lord of the Two Witnesses that lie in the street of the Great city in which their Lord, Jesus Christ, was crucified. This WAS NOT ROME. This great city is Jerusalem.

Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.” Rev. 14:8.

And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. Rev. 18:2.

It is only Jerusalem that has twice fallen, sending her inhabitants into captivity two times. This confirms that Babylon is Jerusalem and not Rome.

[Musicman1228]

Cheddar,

You and I were working on our posts at the same time and had no contact during this process, yet we came to the same conclusion using different routes. How about that. God certainly wanted us to do this to confirm the true identity of the principle enemy of the Kingdom of Heaven during the Great Tribulation.

Wow! We do work for a Great God.

[Gustave]

But Antiochus IV never fulfilled this prophecy. 2300 days don't fit anywhere in the events that occurred.

[cheddar]

LOL, this is true, we had no contact.

I'm not Catholic but I agreed with what Gustave said at the beginning of this thread and what you said in your last post.

[Gustave]

LOL, this is true, we had no contact.

I'm not Catholic but I agreed with what Gustave said at the beginning of this thread and what you said in your last post.

At least that's a start - there's two that can admit the Great City is Jerusalem....

...According to the Scriptures.

[jasd]

>>...but seventh day adventists did not originate the interpretation that the catholic church is the great whore of babylon.<<

Indeed not! It was asserted centuries, read centuries, ago.

>>SDA maybe one of the few, if not the only, institution that still holds to this belief,<<

Dogma?

>>All the reformers believed this. Luther, all of them.<<

..who also believed in Sunday sanctity, the Immaculate Conception, the razing of Synagogues, etc. Is the .Org in agreement with any of these views of Luther? If not, it is

‘pick and choose’.

>>Interpretations of dan 7, 8, 9 regarding the RCC is what launched the protestant reformation.<<

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book (H5612=book), [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

H5612 cepher = book

That is – book. Not a portion, not a vision, not this, not that, but – book. The entirety of the book of Daniel. Sealed. By Gd.

Yet, willfully, expositors since Josephus (Antiquities Book 10:11.7) – have been proffering their own interpretation of this and/or that of the book of Daniel.

Sealed? By Gd? But He didn’t seal it for me – so listen up – I know, I know, I know; because, away back then – its meaning was revealed...

Perhaps reason enough for the Hebrew canon to reject the placement of the book of Daniel among the prophets. Yet, not we Protestors. We’ve wrested to heart’s content...

>>A Pope was the 1st person to refer to the catholic church as the anti christ.<<

Of course that “Pope” was unBiblical, as is everyone who agrees. One has only to read the epistles of St John to ascertain that...

>>The only doctrine that is unique to the SDA church is the sanctuary.<<

And, begging pardon - that “doctrine” was entirely misapprehended by the early pioneers and is a continued misapprehension among those adhering to that mistimed (Dan 12:4) doctrine today. The sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 is not a thing.

Not a thing. It has an improper verb stem to be a thing. (ref: (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175).

Ps 114:2 Judah was his sanctuary, [and] Israel his dominion.

It was Judah which was to be cleansed – to be made righteous; and not a thing, as most suppose – given....

Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

>>The whole 'great whore of babylon' deal is old news, true, but old.<<

Indeed, old news conjoined to the book of Daniel in its exposition. That is why it is as untrue today, as it was away back then...

[Gustave]

>>...but seventh day adventists did not originate the interpretation that the catholic church is the great whore of babylon.

[jasd]

You're conflating Kountzer's observations with my responses.

It is difficult to follow that manner of posting...

[Gustave]

Sorry about that jasd, got ahead of myself.

[Kountzer]

I'm happy being an sda christian. I believe their interpretation of scripture and prophecy. I'll leave it at that. 'winning' an argument here proves nothing. A waste of time..

[Gustave]

I'm happy being an sda christian. I believe their interpretation of scripture and prophecy. I'll leave it at that. 'winning' an argument here proves nothing. A waste of time..

Especially when it's demonstrated there isn't a valid reason which stands up to Scripture / history...

...That the SDA's can put forth.

...I'm happy you are happy Kountzer.

[Kountzer]

I've been around the present truth of the adventist message since I was a little boy. I've always perceived that it is the truth. I've fought against it. I've looked for loop holes. There are none, not any that are legitimate anyway.

I've also spent quite a bit of time on msg boards, like this one. It has been my experience that sda type msg boards are mostly filled with people who have an axe to grind against the church. Most of the stuff posted is anti sda. Then you have the bold ones who blow in from who knows where. They try to question established beliefs. Their MO is always the same: they try to win the day, so to speak, with a sea of copy and paste. They never have a simple explanation for anything. Just and ocean of mumbo jumbo.

They can tear down, but they can never explain what is, not logically anyway, not to my satisfaction. Who is the great whore of revelation 17? SDA didn't coin that phrase. It was around long before this church was thought of. Devine inspiration didn't just allow that to be put in scripture for nothing. The only logical and succinct explanations I've heard and read lead to Rome, and the Catholic church. I doubt anything here will be posted that will change that.

[John317]

The pope and the RCC will be a major player in the last days but they only have influence over other Catholics and maybe Christians. They will have no influence over Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all the others. Our understanding of the last days needs to be bigger than just the RCC.

OK, you've identified the sea-beast of Rev. 13, but what about the earth-beast? The sea-beast is really only successful because of the support it gets from the earth-beast.

What is the identity of this earth-beast? Can anyone know who he is now?

And doesn't the Bible predict that "all who dwell on the earth" will obey these two beasts? Rev. 13: 8.

All who dwell on the earth clearly includes the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. So something will happen that will eventually cause all the people in these various groups to obey the sea-beast. I don't know how we can reasonably conclude anything else.

[John317]

Who or what exactly is Babylon in the Revelation prophecy? Is it a person, place or thing?

Babylon is certainly a symbol, but of what?

Babylon in the Apocalypse is clearly a symbol of false religious systems in opposition to God.

Babylon is declared to be "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17: 4-6, 18). Rome is the only city in the world that fits that description.

Babylon is also said to be "the mother of harlots." This could not be Jerusalem. In what sense is Rome the mother of harlots? Are there any groups who come out of Rome that could be referred to as "daughters"? What does history show us?

[John317]

Especially when it's demonstrated there isn't a valid reason which stands up to Scripture / history...

...That the SDA's can put forth.

But this teaching is not dependent at all on what SDAs teach. The teaching is based on what Christians taught long before SDAs came along.

Have you ever seen the evidence compiled, for instance, in a fascinating, well-documented book titled, Two Babylons?

I'd be interested to know who or what you believe Revelation's Babylon to be. Who are the "daughters"? How can we be sure? What is the evidence?

[John317]

...We can identify the name of this 'Great City' in the following verses:

And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that rises from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them,   (8) and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. Rev. 11:7-8.

The Lord of the Two Witnesses that lie in the street of the Great city in which their Lord, Jesus Christ, was crucified. This WAS NOT ROME. This great city is Jerusalem.

Verse 8 says clearly that it is speaking in symbolic terms. Christ was literally crucified in Jerusalem. So we know that it is not talking about Jerusalem. It is, rather, talking about a city where Christ was spiritually crucified. Rome was called "Babylon" by many of the early Christians.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Another angel, a second, followed, saying, &#147;Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.&#148; Rev. 14:8.

Can you see that this must be talking in spiritual, not literal, terms? Nations weren't made literally drunk on literal wine, nor is the sexual immortality referred to literal. It is speaking of spiritual unfaithfuliness and a spiritual fall from truth. So this is talking about a church that has fallen and has made the nations of the earth drunk on false doctrines and been unfaithful to Christ. One of the other marks of identity is that it has killed many of God's people. (REv. 17: 6) Yet near the time of Christ's return, Babylon still has many of God's people in it and God sends a message to them to come out of Babylon so they are will not receive the seven last plagues. (Rev. 18: 4) That message, of course, is found in the Three Angels' Messages of Rev. 14: 6-12. The proclamation is given a relatively short time before Christ's return, and it results in people who keep God's commandments and the faith of Jesus. However, tragically, the Bible tells us that most people won't accept the messages and consequently almost the entire world will follow the beast and be lost.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

It is only Jerusalem that has twice fallen, sending her inhabitants into captivity two times. This confirms that Babylon is Jerusalem and not Rome.

Jerusalam doesn't fit the prophetic specifications. If you believe it does, present the evidence.

You'll need to consider the fact that the Apocalypse is not about literal Jews. It's about the Gentile church-- Christians of all nations. It takes in both the pagan phase and the papal phase of the Roman Empire. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially the first part of vol. 2.

[John317]

But Antiochus IV never fulfilled this prophecy. 2300 days don't fit anywhere in the events that occurred

Originally Posted By: Gustave

They fit much closer than the SDA rubric has them fitting.

Give the documentary evidence of this. Give the time when it was profaned and when it was cleansed or dedicated. No approximations.

[John317]

A major problem with seeing Antiochus IV as "the little horn" is that he was actually a fairly minor fulfillment of the four notable ones which came out of the "large horn" described in Daniel 8: 8. That is to say, Antiochus IV came out of the empire of Alexander the Great. Specifically, we know from history that Antiochus IV was in the middle of the Seleucid division of the Greek empire. Antiochuys IV, then, ruled over Syria, Babylon, and the rest of Alexander's dominions in the east.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Where's the problem John? Between Antipater, Antigonus, Ptolemy & Seleucus....

...Which ONE do you believe A.E. came from?

...You do agree that it's A.E.IV we are talking about right?

You're apparently assuming that when Daniel 8: 9 says, "And out of one of them came a little horn..." that it's talking about coming out of "one of the notable ones," but in actuality it is saying that the little horn came out of "one of the four winds of heaven."

So Antiochus IV was one of the line of "notable ones" that followed the kingdom of Alexander the Great, and since AE was a minor actor among the Seleucids, he could not have been the little horn that grew exceedingly great and grew up to the host of heaven (v. 9, 10). As I've said before, Antiochus IV never did grow "exceedingly great," or greater than Alexander the Great (who is said to have grown "very great.") Antiochus IV was easily kicked out of Egypt by an unarmed legate of Rome, who drew a line in the sand and told him not to step out of it until he had decided whether to obey Rome's demand or not. Antiochus IV decided to obey the demands of the Roman legate. That is not the mark of a great military power or Empire.

Daniel 8: 12 says that this power did "all this and prospered." But Antiochus IV didn't "prosper." He was a failure. He never was able to accomplish anything he set out to do. His father was much more successful than he was and was known as "Antiochus the Great." Antiochus IV, however, was known as a madman.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But Antiochus IV never fulfilled this prophecy. 2300 days don't fit anywhere in the events that occurred.

So says SDA historicist interpretation.

Can you show how they are wrong with respect to Antiochus IV?

First, can you show the historicist understanding of Daniel 8: 8-14 and then show why it is wrong?

How do you fit the 2300 days into the view that the little horn power was Antiochus IV?

[John317]

When did the profanation occur?

And when was the temple re-dedicated?

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Approximately 1150 days previous to the 25th of the Jewish Month Kislev in the Jewish year 3622...

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article_cdo/aid/600519/jewish/The-Dedication.htm

Which equates to 2,300 evening & morning sacrifices.

"And he saith unto me, Till evening -- morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right"

Did your link say when the profanation of the temple occurred? I didn't see it if it gave this date.

In any case, a statue of the Greek god Zeus was erected on the alter of burnt offering on Chislev 15, 168 BC. Then ten days later, on Chislev 25, they began to sacrifice unlean animals on the alter, probably including pigs. See 2 Macc. 6:5; also see 1 Macc. 1: 54, 59.

Devout Jews removed the old altar and dedicated a new one three years to thje day after the offering of unclean sacrifices had begun, three years and ten days after the statue of Zeus had been erected. So the temple was dedicated on Chislev 25 (December 25), 165 BC.

How many days is that, and does it agree with the prophecy? Isn't it three years and ten days?

Therefore, neither the literal 2300 days, nor the 1150 days fits Antiochus' desecration of the temple or his persecution of the Jews. This is readily acknowledged by by candid critical commentators. 1150 days turns out to be 3 years and 70 days.

By the way, have you studied Vol. 1 of the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series? This first volume is entitled Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation.I think you'd enjoy seeing what SDA scholars are saying.

[Musicman1228]

John317 said, "Verse 8 says clearly that it is speaking in symbolic terms. Christ was literally crucified in Jerusalem. So we know that it is not talking about Jerusalem. It is, rather, talking about a city where Christ was spiritually crucified. Rome was called "Babylon" by many of the early Christians."

John, I am stunned at this. You admit that the text says that Jesus was literally crucified in Jerusalem and then say that this proves that it could not have been Jerusalem but had to be Rome because EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC.

Does one symbol mean that it is another symbol. How far down does one go in transplanting one symbol for another? Does not a symbol stand for something that is literal. If a symbol means another symbol then any symbol can mean anything to anyone, they just have to pick their interpretation out of thin air, and this can leave the prophecies wide open to any interpretation, not the correct one.

The symbology says that this 'great city' is Sodom and Egypt; there is no question that these are symbols. Then is defines what those symbols mean in the very next sentence; 'where also their Lord was crucified'. We have always been taught that a symbol in prophecy will be defined in that prophecy. Here is a perfect example of that, and you refuse to acknowledge it. To you the 'great city' must be Rome, not because the prophecy indicates it but because a person you revere as a prophet said it. Either prophecy interprets itself or we as individuals do. If it is the latter then the prophecy can be interpreted in any way that individual chooses, and it will always be right, to that individual. If we leave the interpretation of the prophecy to that prophecy then this takes private interpretation our of the mix and we come to truth.

The 'great city' is Jerusalem according to the prophecy, because Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. This is the simplest explanation, which means it is the best explanation. Now I know this throws a 'sabot' in the gears of your prophetic understanding, but as the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits . . ."

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Where's the problem John? Between Antipater, Antigonus, Ptolemy & Seleucus....

...Which ONE do you believe A.E. came from?

...You do agree that it's A.E.IV we are talking about right?

Originally Posted By: John317

You're apparently assuming that when Daniel 8: 9 says, "And out of one of them came a little horn..."

I'm just reading the text as it exists John.

Daniel 8,8

Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; "and for" IT came up four notable ones TOWARD the four winds of heaven. And out of one of THEM came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land

Originally Posted By: John

that it's talking about coming out of "one of the notable ones," but in actuality it is saying that the little horn came out of "one of the four winds of heaven."

The Scripture reads that great horn was broken = Alexander died....

...And in place of that broken horn 4 notable ONES ( horns ) came "TOWARD" the 4 winds.

...Out of ONE of those 4 notable horns came forth a "little" or insignificant horn.

...Who ONLY waxed great TOWARD the South, East AND toward Judea.

The Goat is "Greece" & the single horn is Alexander....

...Do you agree with that John?

Alexander dies at the age of 25 at the apex of his power....

...And his kingdome is divided into 4.

... 1) Thrace, 2) Macedonia, 3)Egypt & 4)Syria

...The little horn comes from ONE of the above.

...And waxes great ONLY "towards" the directions given in the text.

Originally Posted By: John

So Antiochus IV was one of the line of "notable ones" that followed the kingdom of Alexander the Great

Yes, that's exactly what the text says.

Originally Posted By: John

and since AE was a minor actor among the Seleucids, he could not have been the little horn that grew exceedingly great and grew up to the host of heaven (v. 9, 10).

This is where you fall down John and here is why.

1st, Scriptures tells us that A.E. was "small" or insigificant compared to the "notable" horn he proceeded from.....

...2nd, A.E. waxed great ONLY in the directions Scripture said he did.

...Toward the SOUTH, toward the EAST and toward Judea.

...That's the ONLY thing A.E. waxed great in John - and because Judea was directly in line with WHERE A.E. was waxing great.

...Judea suffered due to A.E. attacking the Jewish Religion.

Originally Posted By: John317

As I've said before, Antiochus IV never did grow "exceedingly great," or greater than Alexander the Great (who is said to have grown "very great.")

You continue to ignore what the text says because of the SDA rubric...

...The Bible does NOT say A.E. grew exceedingly great in general.

...It says A.E. grew great TOWARDS the South, East AND TOWARD Judea.

Originally Posted By: John

Antiochus IV was easily kicked out of Egypt by an unarmed legate of Rome, who drew a line in the sand and told him not to step out of it until he had decided whether to obey Rome's demand or not. Antiochus IV decided to obey the demands of the Roman legate. That is not the mark of a great military power or Empire.

And that's WHY Scripture called A.E. a "little" or "insignificant" horn John.....

Originally Posted By: John

Daniel 8: 12 says that this power did "all this and prospered." But Antiochus IV didn't "prosper." He was a failure. He never was able to accomplish anything he set out to do. His father was much more successful than he was and was known as "Antiochus the Great." Antiochus IV, however, was known as a madman.

[/quote']

The little horn prospered exactly as Scripture said he would....

...By attacking the true religion and fouling the temple, ceasing the evening and morning sacrifices.

[John317]

John317 said, "Verse 8 says clearly that it is speaking in symbolic terms. Christ was literally crucified in Jerusalem. So we know that it is not talking about Jerusalem. It is, rather, talking about a city where Christ was spiritually crucified. Rome was called "Babylon" by many of the early Christians."

John, I am stunned at this. You admit that the text says that Jesus was literally crucified in Jerusalem and then say that this proves that it could not have been Jerusalem but had to be Rome because EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC.

That's because it tells you that it's speaking in spiritual or figurative, NOT literal, terms. Revelation, of course, is a book of symbols. The first verse says that the messages were "sign-i-fied," or put into symbols and signs. Therefore the text is not telling us about the city where Christ was literally killed.

[cheddar]

Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit the little horn power of Dan. 8

The little horn power establishes ‘the transgression of desolation’ which Jesus talks about in Matt. 24

Jesus spoke of this event as being future from his day and A.E. lived almost 200 years prior to Christ even being born.