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

[cheddar]

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 . . ."

Well said... Prove all things, hold fast that which is good or true.

Everyone needs to pass the test of the scriptures, including EGW.

If we read Eze. 16, it's almost a mirror image of the description of Babylon and it's talking about Jerusalem not Rome.

[Dr. Rich]

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 . . ."

I'm glad your wrote this as I would not have been so kind. I have come to the conclusion that some people here will never admit that they are/were wrong and no matter what type of evidence or how much evidence, they will not change.

You pointed out how incredible it is for some people to refuse to see what is right before their eyes. These same people can't see that the woman of Rev. 12 is the Holy Spirit because they have chosen to believe in a self appointed prophet who said this woman is the church. To them, it is not important for them that this church woman gave birth to Jesus and that Jesus is now going to become the groom for their same 'woman'. That would be insest and a death penalty. How silly???

[Gustave]

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.

Given what I gave you I was expecting a little more than this John...

...The way to do it is to show me how you feel the texts don't say what I said they did.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Given what I gave you I was expecting a little more than this John...

...The way to do it is to show me how you feel the texts don't say what I said they did.

I didn't say it-- cheddar did.

I will reply fully to your post tomorrow. I had to be away from the computer until just a short time ago. Cheddar did give you a correct answer, however, but there is much more that could be said in response to your post. I'll do my best to do that on Thursday.

[John317]

These same people can't see that the woman of Rev. 12 is the Holy Spirit because they have chosen to believe in a self appointed prophet who said this woman is the church.

This is ridiculous, Dr. Rich. Not believing the woman of Rev.12 is the Holy Spirit has absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of Ellen White as God's last-day prophet. It has everything to do with the exegesis of Rev. 12.

The proof of this is the fact that millions of Christians who've never so much as heard of Ellen White-- but who know their Bibles-- also don't believe the woman of Rev. 12 is the Holy Spirit. Such a position has not a leg to stand on and people who teach such a thing only make themselves look foolish-- almost as foolish as those people who ignorantly claim that Acts 5: 3 should read "a tongue" instead of "tongues," and that this "true reading" is proof that Satan inspired Peter on the day of Pentecost.

[John317]

... That would be insest and a death penalty. How silly???

If you're going to write about "insest," you might as well learn how to spell it.

[Dr. Rich]

Who said I was good a spelling? I'll spell the way I want and you are free to do the same. I do not use spell check for this blog as you know what I mean anyway. So get off your high horse [John3:17]! [ed. by moderator]

So if enough people believe the world is flat, does that make it flat? It's getting old the way you spin, twist, and tiptoe your way through all of these issues.

Answer this please: Is it possible that you could be wrong? You set the rules, tell me, what would it take for you to see that EGW and Paul were false?

[Gustave]

Dr. Rich, do you believe that the Son of Man was Resurrected in the manner as taught...

Within the historic Orthodox Christian Creeds - as in the Councils of the Catholic / Orthodox Church?

[Musicman1228]

Dr. Rich,

People like [deleted] have an arrogance that can't be assuaged with logic, reason, or facts. Their faith is too strong for that. It is impossible to prove a point of theology to them, such as the Woman of Rev. 12 being the Holy Spirit, because it doesn't fit their already preconceived paradigm which is confirmed by both the church, his special prophetess, and the rest of the Christian world. Heaven forbid he could think outside of the box that he has already put his own personal God into.

Most of the people we deal with (like our new friends we met last Sabbath) are honest enough with themselves such that they will at least look at what we have found in our 15 plus years of Biblical investigation without the prejudice we see in people such as [deleted], that already believe they know everything. Our new friends are the antithesis of the Leodcean attitude we see in [deleted] and his friends; that because of the fact that they are wretched, poor, blind and naked spiritually with little to no hope of finding their way out of that mess because they 'have need of nothing' other than what they already have.

It is a shame, but not surprising, because even the most sincere SDA is now sound asleep as described in the prophecy of the 10 Sleeping Bridesmaids of Matt.25:1-13. So it's really not their fault, as of now.

Therefore, I really think it is time to give it a rest and not put any more pressure on John and company. Let's let them pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on a job well done of putting us in our place, so they can go on believing their own rhetoric and lies that they believe to be the truth, developing their faith to the highest levels possible so that no facts or evidence to the contrary will disturb their slumber. When the cry at midnight happens they will be awakened to a whole new world of truth that will either cause them to accept something new, or to stay with the tried and true. In the first case they will go into the wedding feast with the Bridegroom, the 144,000 and the 5 Wise bridesmaids; in the second they will be left outside of the door to the wedding feast gnashing their teeth because God told them that He never knew them, even though they gave their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to His service. That day is coming much sooner than they think; I only hope that when that time comes they will remember what we tried to do for them here on the forum by exposing them to the new truths that will appear before them when they wake up from their slumber.

That is not to say we won't continue here on the forum, it just means that we will merely state our case and leave the fighting and name calling to them, when they disagree with what we present. This is just a suggestion, however. You can, of course do what you want.

[Dr. Rich]

Dr. Rich, do you believe that the Son of Man was Resurrected in the manner as taught...

Within the historic Orthodox Christian Creeds - as in the Councils of the Catholic / Orthodox Church?

Jesus was called the 'son of man' and the 'Son of God' because while being physically born of Mary, He was still Michael, the Prince of the Kingdom of Heaven. As such, the grave could not hold Him because He was perfect and without any sin.

We know that Paul taught that Jesus was just a human who was declared the Son of God after being resurected by God the Father. (Rom. 1) On the other hand, Jesus said He came down from heaven to be born of a human and for this reason to testify to the world the truth, that being the words of Father by His Son, Jesus Christ. (John 18:37)

It matters not what anyone else teaches other than what Jesus said and taught about this issue.

[John317]

...

We know that Paul taught that Jesus was just a human who was declared the Son of God after being resurected by God the Father. (Rom. 1) On the other hand, Jesus said He came down from heaven to be born of a human and for this reason to testify to the world the truth, that being the words of Father by His Son, Jesus Christ. (John 18:37)

Those statements don't contradict each other.

Paul's statement doesn't mean Christ was not the Son of God before the resurrection. However, the resurrection made it unmistakable and clear as noonday that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God. Remember that it was at his resurrection that the disciples understood who He actually was. Did their realization mean that Christ wasn't the Son of God, i.e., God, BEFORE the resurrection? No, of course not.

It is kind of like the difference between being President-elect and being President. The real difference is that at the inauguration, the President-elect is declared officially to be who he already was, the President. That's not exactly the same thing but it is close. Christ was God even when He was a baby in the manger, but His divinity was hidden underneath His humanity. At the resurrection, it was proven-- shown--- that He is God.

This is a good example of why you reject Paul and Ellen White, the main reason being that you don't understand what they wrote or taught. I won't presume to guess why you continue to miscontrue their writings and their meaning, but I have to believe that it has to do with a desire to believe that they are false. There's just no other reason for anyone to keep repeating false interpretations such you did in your quote, after it has been pointed out at least half a dozens times on the Forum over the last two years.

[John317]

Answer this please: Is it possible that you could be wrong? You set the rules, tell me, what would it take for you to see that EGW and Paul were false?

But you mean more than EGW and all of Paul's letters, right? Don't you also want to persuade people that

the book of Mark is false

the book of Luke is false

the book of Acts is false

the book of Hebrews is false

the book of James is false

1 Peter is false

2 Peter is false

Jude is false?

[Dr. Rich]

I am not the one wearing dark glasses John. I repented because I was once where you are today. I have been given insight and have tried to share that insight. But as Miz3 or someone else said, it is no use shouting in deaf ears. Such a pitty! Like Jesus said many time; he who has an ear, LISTEN UP!

[Dr. Rich]

No John, lets just start with EGW and Paul. Are you going to change the issue again as you keep wanting to do to avoid the questions? I am willing to play by your rules, just let me know what it would take to get you to admit that EGW and Paul were either duped or mistaken and are false?

I know I am wasting my time as MM said because it appears that you are never going to change your opinion like those found in the last of the seven messages to the KOH in Rev. 3. But, I will give it one more try.

[jasd]

Following is a proffered cut and paste – much the sort of ‘cut and paste’ logarithmic scale one might avail to him or herself. It is functional; therefore, desirable, yes?

Hence the very good reason why one might cut and paste – as did the compilers of the SDA Commentary with so much of its content; that is, they cut and pasted so very, very much of EGW.

I suppose that functionality was considered...

Et voilà!

“ “The Hebrew word that is usually translated cleansed or restored in this passage is nisdaq. The term or root from which this word was formed is the verb sadaq. "It occurs 22 times in the active form (qal), 5 times in the intensive (piel), 12 in the causative (hiphil), once in the reflexive (hithpael), and once in the passive (niphal). This last type is found in Daniel 8:14; hence the form nisdaq. This passive form of the root sadaq unfortunately is a hapax legomenon (a word which occurs only once in the Bible). This raises the question, How shall it be properly translated?" (Frank B. Holbrook, Editor, Symposium on Daniel, p. 479). This same source explains just how easily this is done:

"The Qal forms mean ‘to be in the right, be right, have a just case, be vindicated, be just, righteous.’ The intensive forms of the Piel mean ‘to declare someone to be right, to make someone appear righteous, innocent, to desire oneself just.’ The causative Hiphil forms mean ‘to give or bring justice, to declare righteous, to justify, vindicate.’ And finally, the one Hithpael form means, ‘to justify oneself’" (ibid), p. 452. On page 479:

"The causative form (hiphil) of sadaq will mean ‘cause to be right,’ ‘cause to be just.’ The reflexive form (hithpael) will mean ‘make oneself right,’ or ‘justify oneself.’ In the same way nisdaq is simply the passive of sadaq, and will have the meaning ‘be made right,’ ‘be made just,’ or the like." "This", they say, "would be the simplest and most straightforward translation, and is the one followed by most recent Bible translators." "They have followed the immediate, ordinary meaning of the word" (ibid), p. 479.

Some have in mind that "the basic meaning of sadaq is ‘just,’ ‘right,’ or some similar term" (p. 495). This kind of reasoning is somewhat oversimplified and misleading. "All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’” ” (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175).

Well, given the above together with “Judah was his sanctuary,” (Ps 114:2) – one can hardly continue bruiting that the “Cleansing of the Sanctuary” indicates a cleansing of a thing of ‘bricks and mortar’, if you please, situated in the heavenlies. It is more plausible that the “cleansing” in Daniel 8:14 refers to the House of Judah. Moreover, given that Gd’s imperative was to

“...shut up the words, and seal the book (H5612 cepher=book), [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” (Dan 8:14)

It seems rather hopeful to reiterate interpretations wrested from the book of Daniel – that predates ”...the time of the end:” – as were the ‘interpretations’ of Josephus re the book of Daniel – nigh-on two millennia ago (hardly the time of the end).

The “Time of the End” is signified by the confluence of both – many running to and fro – and the increase of knowledge.

The honest expositor must needs rid him or herself of all ‘hand-me-down doctrines” re the book of Daniel which predates the qualifier – “The Time of the End” – else he or she deals in untruths – and withstands Gd.

[JawgeFromJawja]

I don't think anyone here on Earth will be born again until a resurrection occurs, hence, "born again". It is, essentially, cloning, or a reincarnation of sorts, but unrelated to returning as animals or insects. We might imagine ourselves as "born again" Christians in this life, but in reality, the event hasn't yet occurred. The best we can do for now is to muddle our way through life by doing the best we can to obey the LORD until the Last Days, when the Kingdom of God is clearly explained to us, and we can make an informed choice, along with the rest of humanity.

1 Thess 4:

Quote:

13. We want you to be quite certain, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, to make sure that you do not grieve for them, as others do who have no hope.

14. We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that in the same way God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

15. We can tell you this from the Lord's own teaching, that we who are still alive for the Lord's coming will not have any advantage over those who have fallen asleep.

16. At the signal given by the voice of the Archangel and the trumpet of God, the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise,

17. and only after that shall we who remain alive be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. This is the way we shall be with the Lord forever.

This event, the return of Jesus the Messiah, occurs at the end of a great time of upheaval, as he stated in Matt 24. Preceding this, all of humanity is resurrected, the Four Beasts rise and fall, the 3 Angels and the 2 Witnesses explain the Kingdom of God to the whole world, and an unknown number of those who declare their loyalty to God are tortured, imprisoned, and/or executed. Those who have had the seal of God inscribed on their foreheads during this time will be safe from the 2nd death, the Eternal Lake of Fire.

If truly resurrected as physical clones, there would be a blank mind. No recall of anything. The resurrected clone would not actually be the person from whom the resurrected entity was cloned. Not a very enticing promise.

If given total memory of life prior to dying, then the resurrected entity would possibly be the old entity, cloned. But the interlude in "soul sleep", disruption in stream of consciousness, makes it problematic whether the clone would actually be the cloned person living prior to death. Again, not particularly desirable. Even should the resurrected clone actually be the personality of before death, many religions teach that very few achieve salvation. The resurrected clone would be a very unhappy camper with the loss of most friends and family. Morbid and sad. However, we are the sum total of our memories and behavior patterns. Should we have no recall those friends and family who didn't make the cut for immortality, the resurrected clone would not be the actual personality existing prior to death.

But we are created in the Image of God. The Bible makes it quite clear that God is a Spirit. Therefore, our essence, in the Image of God, is a spirit. Spirits do not sleep, and the stream of consciousness is continuous. That "resurrected" spirit would be the same personality existing before, unless some of its memories were erased.

Any speculation you consider for the resurrection smacks of science fiction, but the least problematic version is the one that accepts we are the Image of God, therefore a spirit.

Jawge

[Aliensanctuary]

Our memories are transmitted and stored by the Spirit of God, I believe, and are downloaded instantaneously into our resurrected bodies. While our memories are in storage after death, there would be no consciousness, and as Jesus indicated, we would be considered asleep.

In Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, Jesus indicated to his listeners that they would experience the trials of the Last Days just before his return. Although some believe that they have been dragging on for centuries, it is more likely that the Last Days will occur in a short time span before the return of the Messiah. Extrapolating, we, too, will be resurrected at the beginning of the Last Days, along with nearly everyone else who has lived and died on this planet. As Rev. indicates, we must all be tested---and as Jesus has said, whoever lives will die, and whoever dies for Christ and the gospel, will live.

Although we will likely be resurrected in the buff, maybe around 20 years old or so, with all of our memories intact, we needn't worry about food or clothes, because they will be provided. We will wake up to find ourselves among a sea of people, from Adam on down through the ages. Somehow, we will be able to locate family members, all about the same age as we are. Even though most of the world will engage in the sins they practiced before death, the LORD will teach those who will listen the truth about the Kingdom of God. The latter, will unfortunately, become targets of the God-Haters, ending up in prison, or dead.

The Fourth Beast, the Kingdom of Darkness, will have no regard for humanity as it destroys the world's great cities and slaughters its inhabitants without mercy, until the LORD comes.

But you're right, there can be no proper resurrection without the Spirit of God.

[Guest]

It matters not what anyone else teaches other than what Jesus said and taught about this issue.

But, what Jesus said and taught in no way resembles the "theology" that you try to put forth.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

It matters not what anyone else teaches other than what Jesus said and taught about this issue.

But, what Jesus said and taught in no way resembles the "theology" that you try to put forth.

Your words are empty as they stand, therefore please give an example.

BTW 'AS', I like what you wrote. Not sure if I agree, but it shows some wisdom.

[John317]

The Whore of Babylon = Papal Rome but not the Antichrist??

by Marcos S.

A prominent teaching found in Dispensational Protestantism today is that the Whore of Revelation meets its fulfillment in the Roman Papal System. But most do not see this Whore as the same power as the beast she rides, therefore, they conclude that the Papacy cannot be the Antichrist or Beast power of Daniel and Revelation. They conclude that while the Whore of Babylon is realized in the Papal System, the great Antichrist power can only be one single man, exclusively in the future, and is a completely separate entity from the Whore of Babylon. This is a common problem I encounter time and time again when I run into Bible students who study the prophecies from a Dispensational-Futurist perspective. They consistently declare that the Papal System cannot be the prophesied Antichrist because it represents the Harlot Woman riding the Beast in Revelation 17, and since according to them the Harlot Woman is a distinct entity from the Beast she rides, the Papacy can never be the Antichrist power of Bible prophecy. This problem must be dealt with head on.

With this in focus, I therefore propose that dispensationalists have an enormous amount of stretching to do in making the whore of Babylon appear as a wholly distinct power from the Antichrist Beast. We have clear parallels from scripture to equate these two symbolic powers as one unified Antichrist force. Before I expound upon a number of Biblical reasons for equating these two powers as essentially one and the same, I will quote D.S. Farris:

“It is absolutely amazing that dispensationalists can see the fact that the Papacy is the continuation of the Babylonian system of Pontiffs, and yet, not grasp that the supreme number of that system is 666. Somehow, they are not grasping the fact that “666” was the mystical number of the Sun’s rotation in the Zodiac and became the number of the pontiffs who were believed to be the Sun incarnate. Larkin, back some pages in this chapter, presents a clear example of how the Dragon of Revelation 12 (the embodiment of Chaldean worship in Pagan Rome) gave its seat of authority to the Beast (the Papacy). Dispensationalists teach that the Antichrist will come from Rome and bare the number 666. This is perfectly fulfilled in Papal Rome; and yet, dispensationalists miss this. One of the reasons—out of the monstrosity of reasons—they cannot identify the Papacy as the Antichrist is because—in Revelation 17—they separate the Harlot from the Beast as being two different entities. Larkin claims:

All Protestant commentators insist that the “Papal System” is described in Rev. 17: 4, 5, under the figure of a “Woman” arrayed in “purple and scarlet color,” and decked with “gold and precious stones and pearls.” This is undoubtedly true, but this “Woman,” the “Mother of Harlots,” is represented as riding upon a “Beast,” universally admitted to be the Antichrist. If the “Beast” is the Antichrist, the “Woman” cannot be, and that they are separate and do not signify the same thing is clear (Dispensational Truth, 115).

This interpretation may appear sound to those who have a hazy knowledge of prophetic symbolism, but it does not stand as factual to those who are accustomed to comparing this depiction with other depictions in Revelation. For example: Larkin wants us to believe that the Beast and the Harlot are not the same, because they are two different objects. Yet, in another book concerning Revelation 12, he allows the 12 stars, a different object from the sun-clad woman, to be identical to her (See The Book Of Revelation, 89, 90). Someone may say, “Yea, but history and scripture both prove that they are one in the same.” We agree! Consequently, this same method can also be employed to Revelation 17, for we read in verse 3 that the “Scarlet Colored Woman” sat upon a “Scarlet Colored Beast.” They are the same color, because they are essentially the same, just as the “crown of 12 stars” is the same as the “sun clothed woman.” Dispensationalists acknowledge that the 7th head on the Beast of Revelation 13 is the Antichrist, and this head is a separate object on the beast like the woman on the beast. While there are indeed separate objects that can be proven as separate (like the 10 horns on the Beast), these separations do not preclude that in some places separate objects really are just two different illustrations of the same entity. Another example of this is seen in the fact that the seven heads of the Beast can represent the Seven Hills of Rome . In time past, was the city of Rome separate from the seven hills? No! One symbol was understood by the other symbol as an explanation of one and the same place.

Larkin’s argument is wishful thinking in an attempt to escape the inevitable conclusion that the Papacy is the Antichrist; and not only that, but the only possible conclusion: that 666 is truly manifested in the Papacy. Therefore, statements such as: “This information (information about 666) about how to identify the Antichrist is of no practical value to the Church since we will be watching from the balconies of heaven by the time he is revealed” (John Hagee, Beginning Of The End, 135) becomes vain to those who have really understood the character of Papal power and the visible fruits of her manifestation. The confusion in dispensationalism becomes glaring when one reads statements— in an attempt to disqualify the Papacy from being the Antichrist—such as: “The ‘Papal System’ worships the ‘Virgin’ and the ‘Saints,’ but it is not true that it worships the Devil,” while on another page, one reads: “Easter is not a Christian name. It means ‘Ishtar,’ one of the titles of the Babylonian Queen of Heaven, whose worship by the Children of Israel was such an abomination in the sight of God” (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, 115, 140). Why was this worship an abomination to God? The worship of Mary comes from the worship of Ishtar, and the worship of Ishtar comes from the worship of the sun, which is the primary symbol of serpent worship. Therefore, the Papacy does worship the Devil.” ~ D.S. Farris, Prophetic Toolchest for Dismantling the Dispensational Delusion, Chapter 6 – The System of Antichrist: Part 2, pp. 50,51)

In addition to the clear parallels Mr. Farris has already established regarding the scarlet colored woman riding a scarlet colored beast, I wish to add a few more significant factors that I feel Dispensationalists are ignoring. It becomes obvious that the scriptures portray more than one symbol to represent the same entity, but is done so to get a point across regarding various components and characteristics of that entity. Dispensationalists are forced to acknowledge that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 represents the same entity as the Beast of Revelation 13. They both make war with the saints for a three and a half times or a period of 1260 prophetic days. Yet the Little Horn growing out of the 4th beast in Daniel 7 is clearly a different object from the Beast or seventh head in Revelation 13! If prophecy teachers throughout the centuries have unanimously agreed that these 2 objects represent the same entity, why is it that Dispensationalists have such a hard time acknowledging that the principle can just as accurately be applied to the Harlot Woman riding the beast? Just as the Little Horn can sit atop the head of the Beast in Daniel 7, so in a similar fashion the Harlot Woman can sit atop riding the Beast in Revelation 17!

Continued

[John317]

Continued

Let us not forget that the Little Horn in Daniel 7:21,25 “makes war with the saints and prevails against them...” and “shall wear out the saints of the most high”, and yet we see the Harlot Woman of Revelation 17 exercising this same characteristic: “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (verse 6).” Can Dispensationalists not see the glaring parallel here?? Notice that there is no mention of a Harlot Woman in the book of Daniel, but it does speak of a Little Horn persecuting the saints. Also notice there is no mention of a Little Horn in the book of Revelation, but it does speak of a Harlot Woman persecuting the saints. Did you just catch that? Can one honestly conclude that the angel Gabriel completely failed to reveal the power represented in the Harlot Woman to Daniel? When viewing this from a Dispensational-Futurist perspective, could God have completely missed revealing this key figure, the Papacy, in Bible prophecy to Daniel? This is most unlikely. The power that God conveyed as the Little Horn persecuting the saints to Daniel He likewise conveyed in more detail as a Harlot Woman persecuting the saints to John. I believe this to be sound and logical exegesis.

Dispensationalists acknowledge the Beast of Revelation 13 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 are both applicable to the Antichrist. Additional parallels, however, will reveal the woman of Revelation 17 to be essentially the same power as the beast she rides and the Little Horn of Daniel 7. In Daniel 7:8, 20 and 25 the Little Horn is identified as having a “mouth speaking great things” against the Most High. In Revelation 13:5 the beast is identified as being given a “mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.” Thus far, these striking parallels leave us no choice but to conclude that these two powers are one and the same. But what about the Harlot Woman in Revelation 17? Is she essentially the same Antichrist power as the Beast of Revelation 13 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7? In Revelation 13 we find that the Beast has “upon his heads the name of blasphemy” (verse 1), is given a mouth speaking “great things and blasphemies” (verse 5), and opens his mouth in “blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name” (verse 6). We find this SAME blaspheming characteristic with the Beast and Harlot Woman of Revelation 17! Verse 3 says “and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” (17:3) Yet we see the Harlot Woman described as the one doing this persecuting (verse 6). This is juxtaposed to the Beast of Revelation 13 making “war with the saints, and to overcome them” (verse 7) and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 which makes “war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (verse 21) and “shall wear out the saints of the most High” (verse 25).

The Harlot Woman is also paralleled with Babylon , that great city (17:18), and we know that Babylon is a kingdom, and the Beasts of Daniel 7 represent kingdoms (7:23)! Babylon is also represented as a male lion beast with wings in Daniel 7:4. Since both a Woman and Beasts are represented as kingdoms in scripture, how proper it becomes to equate the Harlot Woman as part of the same entity as the Beast she rides. The symbolism is accurate, and finds completeness once we understand the characteristics of the Papacy.

We agree with Luis F. Were as he succinctly parallels the Beast of Revelation chapter 13 with the Beast of chapter 17 in his book, The Woman, and the Beast in the Book of Revelation:

The addition of a woman—the apostate church—to Rev. 17 should not convey the idea that there is a vast difference between the beast of Revelation 13 and the one of Rev. 17. The beast of Rev. 13, we are informed by God’s servant, represents “the Papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State”. That beast’s mouth is said to be “as the mouth of a lion” (the symbol for Babylon in Dan. 7). Thus Babylon is said in Rev. 13 to speak for the kingdoms that included the beast. Babylon also in Rev. 17 is pictured as controlling the beast. Thus in the essential features, the two chapters deal with exactly the same things. By picturing the woman sitting on the beast the same truth is presented in a clearer, plainer way: the Church controls th eState. Any effort to differentiate between the beasts of Rev. 13 and 17 because in Rev. 17 a woman has been added to the picture, misses the obvious reason why that woman is brought prominently to view, namely, to stress the fact that already indicated in Rev. 13, that the Church controls the State. There are a number of similarities between the Beast of Rev. 13 and 17, such as both having ten horns, seven heads, names of blasphemy on their heads, in both there is a death and a resurrection, in both there is followed by the world wondering after the beast.

The additional symbol of the woman in Rev. 17 must not conceal the many similarities between the two beasts. In both instances it represents the State that becomes a part of the Babylonian system and enforces Babylonian dogmas. The number and name of the beast are not said to be the name of the woman. The image of the beast is not said to be the image of the woman. The warning message (Rev. 14:9-12) is not said to be against the worship of the woman, her image and the reception of her mark. The beast of Rev. 13 combines both Church and State; in Rev. 17 there is still the same combination of Church and State, but the woman is shown as a separate entity from the State in order to make clearer the deceptive part that Babylonian teachings have in causing the State to persecute God’s people. In Rev. 19:19, 20, and 20:4 we do not find that the woman appears as well as the beast, the Scriptures merely refers to “the beast” in these instances which occur after Rev. 17. As we all know, the beast in these references means the apostate church and the nations under her guidance; thus the woman is again included (in Rev. 19:19, 20; 20:4) in the term “the beast”, which shows that the mention of the woman in addition to the beast in Rev. 17 was only for the purpose of revealing and emphasizing the part which the Babylonian teachings and system play in deceiving the world to war against God and His people.

Continued

[John317]

Continued

It would be foolish to seek to make a wide divergence between the woman and the beast when the Scriptures before and after Rev. 18 employ the term “the beast” when portraying the same work which is accomplished by the woman and the beast of Rev. 17. In Dan. 7 the “little horn” of “the beast” utters great words against the Most High, and persecutes His saints “until a time, times, and the dividing of time”, which is the same as the 42 months of Rev. 13. In Rev. 13 it is “the beast” that blasphemes God and makes war on His saints for 42 months. The “little horn” is said to do what “the beast” is said to do. The difficulty of making a clear-cut distinction between the “little horn”, or church aspect, and the “the beast”, or civil aspect, is illustrated by the fact that in Dan. 7:11 we are informed that “the beast” will continue until it is slain at the time of the second advent “and his body destroyed and given to the burning fame”. In Rev. 13 it is “the beast” whose head receives a “death-stroke”; it is ”the beast” that is “killed with the sword”. In Rev. 17:8, 11, it is “the beast” that goes “into perdition”, and yet in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4 it is “the man of sin”—the Papacy—that is called “the son of perdition”. (Luis F. Were, The Woman and the Beast in the Book of Revelation, pp. 165,166)

It must ever be remembered that the Papacy possesses both Political and Ecclesiastical influence and power. How does the Papacy accomplish her religious agendas? Through her Political prowess with the kings and nations of the earth! Thus the symbolism is accurately portrayed where we see the Beast representing the Political power and system of governments which carries its Religious agenda. The Catholic Church relies heavily on its political influence with the kingdoms and nations throughout the world. The Papacy is the only global religio-political kingdom on the earth! Said another way, the Antichrist power is a composite of two aspects: 1. The Roman Catholic Church (Woman), and 2. The Nation of Vatican City (Beast)

[Note: In another sense, there is much documentation to support that the Papacy is working through the United Nations, European Union, and numerous Secret Societies to accomplish her goals. In essence, these political powers are really, behind the scenes, working for the Papacy who calls the shots and exercises its political control through its Jesuit Order. In essence, these political powers are really one and the same with the great Antichrist system, with the Papacy and its crafty Jesuits at its head. These political government powers are what help to carry her religious agendas. They are Rome ’s “tentacles”].

This is all a repetition and enlargement of the Little Horn of Daniel 7. The principle of “repetition and enlargement” is found all the way through Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 10-12 and even into Revelation. The ten horns that turn against the whore in Revelation 17:16 are future, and are symbolic of the very end when the Antichrist/Beast/Whore is exposed and the nations become enraged for being deceived by her, and will end up burning her with fire and leaving her desolate. This takes place at the end of the final tribulation, just before the Second Coming. Although there is no doubt a discernable difference between the Harlot Woman and the Beast she rides, that difference does not draw the kind of distinction as Dispensationalists would like to have it—to the point of making the Antichrist and the Harlot two separate and distinct entities. Such an interpretation is just off the scale based on the points we have covered.

We will allow Luis F. Were to continue expounding on this point:

The difficulty of differentiating between Church and State in such symbolism is rendered thus because the same people are often involved in the two aspects of national life. That is to say, men who are kings, rulers, politicians, or people who support them, are often also at the same time church people. It is the same nation but in it are the throne or Parliament house and the cathedral; the same people hold an allegiance to both the civil and religious life of the nation. Two separate nations are easily portrayed as symbols entirely separate because different people and different territories are involved; but such clear-cut distinction cannot be made between the civil and religious life of the same people and the same territory. However, from these prophetic symbols involving Church and State it is made clear that the apostate church with its assumptive claims to be “the” only true church, being founded upon “the primacy of St. Peter”, and claiming the right to use the strong arm of civil power in the enforcement of her dogmas, must have the power of the State as an agent of persecution. It is in this capacity that the beast of Dan. 7 is shown as the agent of the little horn. The beast of Rev. 17 is also revealed as the agent upon which the woman depends for her execution of her designs against the true church. While the woman is said to be drunken with the blood of the saints (Rev. 17:6), the beast also is charged with making “war with the saints” (Rev. 13:7). Thus the Scriptures do not make a wide distinction between the woman and the beast, only when seeking to emphasizing the important part that doctrines, false teachings, have in leading the States to persecute the people of God. (Luis F. Were, The Woman and the Beast in the Book of Revelation, pp. 166,167)

In closing, I should also not fail to mention that in Roman times, the Roman empire was figured on Roman coins—on some a winged beast, on others a beast full of horns, on others a woman riding a beast, and on others as a woman sitting on seven hills—all pictorially demonstrated in Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume 1, pp. 158-160, 259.). Hence, the arguments put forth by Dispensationalists to support the Harlot Woman and the Beast being two distinct powers do not impress me.

Conclusion: The Papacy is the Antichrist/Little Horn/Beast of Daniel and Revelation, whether Dispensationalists choose to like it or not. Once we understand that the Papacy is both the Harlot and the Antichrist, Dispensationalism runs into a brick wall.

[Musicman1228]

John317,

This is too much reading all at once for me so I will not read it, except for the conclusion, which is in error. I am only interested in why you believe something not why someone you agree with believes something. I read everything you say when you say it. This kind of thing bores me to tears, and is a waste of your time in putting it together. Don't be lazy and let someone else do your work for you. You are smart, well read and well spoken; do it yourself.

[Dr. Rich]

And neither do the many words from Luis F. Were impress me!

[tribeofjudah]

I like how you referred to the 4th beast as Satan's kingdom.

If we read in Isa. 14, Lucifer is referred to as the 'king of Babylon'.

Ancient Babylon is a type of the kingdom of Babylon spoken of in Revelation.

-Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon -> Satan is king of the final Babylon

-Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image and commanded everyone to worship it -> Satan will set up an image to the beast and command the world to worship it

-Nebuchadnezzar tried to kill anyone who didn't worship the image -> Satan will also kill all who don't worship the image and receive the mark

-Nebuchadnezzar's image had 2 sixes (height 60, width 6) -> Satan's number of the beast will have 3 sixes

And despite all of that, Nebuchadnezzar is saved and will be in the Kingdom....NICE