[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Haven't you been warned to quit copying and pasting from catlick.com?

Really?

.... Really?

Is that it?

There's only a couple lines of that being pasted for your information. Of course I don't expect you to understand what it's like talking religion 12 on 1. However, it gets rather laborious. If you really can't read that little paragraph then walk away from this and let someone stand up who can.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Babylon is filled with Iraqi mudslimes. Why are you here blasphemer ?

So you agree that the Babylon as mentioned in Scripture is NOT Rome then?

Well I'm sorry, your Brothers here would beg the differ. So you might as well run off and start your own Church! Why? 30,000 other people did it

[Rev Leroy Jenkins]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Really?

.... Really?

Is that it?

There's only a couple lines of that being pasted for your information. Of course I don't expect you to understand what it's like talking religion 12 on 1. However, it gets rather laborious. If you really can't read that little paragraph then walk away from this and let someone stand up who can.

I couldn't agree more with you that it does get a bit laborious when catholics come here with the same arguments and same copy paste repeatedly.

Maybe you should go sodomize some more altar boys, execute more heretics, advocate for more slavery from Africa, completely wipe out a few more cultures, kiss more fascist dictator ass, burn more libraries and etc.

I have a great idea! Why don't you hold humanity back for another 500 years. Last time under your careful tutelage, humans lost the ability to even make concrete.

It wasn't until people questioned your authority that humanity started to wake up again, papist.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I couldn't agree more with you more that it does get a bit laborious when catholics come here with the same arguments and same copy paste repeatedly.

Maybe you should go sodomize some more altar boys, execute more heretics, advocate for more slavery from Africa, completely wipe out a few more cultures, kiss more fascist dictator ass, burn more libraries and etc.

I have a great idea! Why don't you hold humanity back for another 500 years. Last time under your careful tutelage, humans lost the ability to even make concrete.

It wasn't until people questioned your authority that humanity started to wake up again, papist.

Goodness.

Well it doesn't matter to me if you all bother to refute the argument or not. Because all of the people that come to read this will see that the landovers have no further answers. And hopefully, by God's grace, they will leave this place.

[Levi Jones]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Goodness.

Well it doesn't matter to me if you all bother to refute the argument or not.

Poor papist pugilized repeatedly for plagiarism.

You are becoming like one of those whack-a-mole games. You keep getting destroyed in thread after thread, yet you pop up in the next one pretending like it never happened.

To be truthful, you are starting to become boring, dull, witless and repetitive.

You are doing the exact same things that all your predecessors did, while bringing no new info to the table.



All that ever becomes of these things is a wall of text that no one bothers to read.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Poor papist pugilized repeatedly for plagiarism.

You are becoming like one of those whack-a-mole games. You keep getting destroyed in thread after thread, yet you pop up in the next one pretending like it never happened.

To be truthful, you are starting to become boring, dull, witless and repetitive.

You are doing the exact same things that all your predecessors did, while bringing no new info to the table.



All that ever becomes of these things is a wall of text that no one bothers to read.

If you're bored, please leave. Let someone else come that is ready to support your accusations.

In the time you've spent telling me how boring I am, you could have answered several times.

Seems to me you have no answer. I would say that's enough to say, as you Landovers like so much....


Jesus Wins Again!!

[Levi Jones]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

If you're bored, please leave. Let someone else come that is ready to support your accusations.

In the time you've spent telling me how boring I am, you could have answered several times.

Seems to me you have no answer. I would say that's enough to say, as you Landovers like so much....

Here's the link where you posted all your lies from.

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

Until you can reply to the spotlight of your lies about Ignatius, Clement and the supposed "council of rome". , no one is going to take you seriously.

Add to the fact that you continue to plagiarize from catlick propaganda sites, makes you a priest joke, son.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

So you agree that the Babylon as mentioned in Scripture is NOT Rome then?

Well I'm sorry, your Brothers here would beg the differ. So you might as well run off and start your own Church! Why? 30,000 other people did it

I'm going to quote from your favorite website for a moment:

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

"Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8)."

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

"But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9701frs.asp

"To dispute the fact that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists try to deny that Peter ever went to Rome. But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is completely insupportable. Not only does Peter in his first epistle (1 Peter 5:13) say that he is writing from "Babylon," a first century code-word for pagan Rome, but the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under Nero. Not one Father can be found who denies that Peter went to Rome. The Fundamentalist claim is thus a frantic attempt to contradict one of the planks in the doctrine of the papacy—but much evidence has to be dismissed to do so."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105frs.asp

"In his first epistle, Peter tell his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), a first-century code-word for the city of pagan Rome. The Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero. Not one Father can be found who denied that Peter went to Rome."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9210drag.asp

"In a curious twist, a Catholic priest-professor at the University of Padua claims "Babylon" did not mean Rome, but referred to an actual city named Babylon--not the Babylon to which the ancient Jews were carried off, but to a small city of that name near Cairo. The twist is that the professor promotes this conclusion as a way of undercutting Protestant criticism of the papacy--yet, at the same time, it tends to bolster a common argument used by anti-Catholic commentators.

According to an article in the September issue of 30 Days, Giorgio Fedalto "happened to come across this little Egyptian city which, in terms of the importance of its bishopric, came immediately after the patriarchal see of Alexandria." The placement of the city's name high up in lists suggests that one of its bishops was an important figure in the early Church. Could that bishop have been Peter? Fedalto thinks so. He blames Eusebius, whose Ecclesiastical History appeared in 325, for (erroneously) concluding that "Babylon" meant Rome and that Peter was using the term to imply that the Rome of the first century was as corrupt as the old capital of the Babylonian Empire.

The twist in this interpretation is that Fedalto's argument gives support to the Fundamentalist assertion that Peter never was in Rome at all.

One of the proofs traditionally educed by Catholic apologists (including us) for his presence there (a minor proof, but a proof nonetheless) is that Peter, ensconced in Rome, was wanted by the Roman authorities and needed to disguise his whereabouts. In his private correspondence, which was easily intercepted by the authorities, he referred to his city of residence as "Babylon," a code word for Rome. This way the government wouldn't be as likely to search for him in Rome.

But Fedalto claims "Babylon" really meant the city Babylon, though not the city Fundamentalists claim it meant. They think it referred to the Babylon of the Chaldees; Fedalto says it referred to the small town of Babylon in Egypt. He is not denying that Peter eventually went to Rome and died there. He is just claiming that Peter's letters (or at least his first one) were composed in Egypt.

Another twist: Fedalto is partial to his interpretation because it avoids Peter making an "anti-Roman" statement. Ancient Babylon, the one to which the Jews were carted off, was a place of debauchery. If Peter likened Rome to that Babylon, he was saying Rome was a place of debauchery, but this played into the hands of the Protestant Reformers, who, centuries later, asserted that the Rome of the popes was a place of debauchery. This refrain is repeated by some of today's Protestants. We can undercut their position, implies Fedalto, if the "Babylon" Peter was referring to wasn't Rome at all.

But this is a double-edge sword. Fedalto's position minimizes, however slightly, justification for the Reformation based on debaucheries in papal Rome, but it also tends to minimize the case for Peter being in Rome at all. Of course, if Fedalto's interpretation is correct, so be it. The fact of Peter's presence in Rome is not actually lessened by the removal of one argument for that presence.

But is Fedalto correct? We don't think so. Here's why.

His theory rests on "Babylon" first being used to mean Rome by Eusebius, who writes, "It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon" (Ecclesiastical History, 2:15:4). Eusebius seems to say it was either from Clement of Alexandria's book Sketches, written around the year 200, or possibly from Papias, who lived around 130, that he got his information on the use of the word "Babylon."

If so, then it couldn't have been the case, as Fedalto says, that Eusebius, who was a partisan of Constantinople (being, as he was, in service to the Emperor Constantine), merely said out of dislike of the old capital that "Babylon" referred to Rome. Clement and Papias would have had no preference for Constantinople since that city, in their day known as Byzantium, was insignificant and had no imperial importance--and would not until Eusebius's own time, when Constantine moved the Empire's capital there and renamed the city after himself.

But there's another reason not to give much credence to Fedalto's theory: the Bible. The book of Revelation uses "Babylon" to refer to Rome six times. Ditto for the first-century apocryphal books known as 4 Ezra (3:1) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1). Even the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f.), which were written in Greek from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D., use the terminology.

The result: Eusebius must have been right, Fedalto wrong. Yes, there may well have been a town called Babylon not far from Cairo, but there is no good reason to think this is where Peter wrote from. Fedalto's theory does not stand up to the ancient usage of "Babylon" for Rome, a usage already old by Eusebius's time. Anti-Catholics may poke around and stumble across Fedalto's argument. If they do they will try to use it to their advantage. But they, like he, will be wrong."

So, when it's convenient for you, Babylon is Rome. When it's not, Babylon ISN'T Rome.

Do you find it interesting that the only other time Babylon is mentioned in the New Testament, your church thinks it specifically refers to Rome?

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

So, when it's convenient for you, Babylon is Rome. When it's not, Babylon ISN'T Rome.

Do you find it interesting that the only other time Babylon is mentioned in the New Testament, your church thinks it specifically refers to Rome?

Did you ever ask yourself why they call Rome, "Babylon"?

It is a reference to city of persecution. The early Christians referred to Rome as a "Babylon" because the Babylonian Captivity was a major part in their history. Thus, when Rome comes into the picture and follows suit with the Babylonians, it gets its new name "Babylon".

However, this new title only applies to Pagan Rome. After the conversion of the Emperor their was no further Persecution. Why then would then continue to refer to Rome as Babylon?

It is important to see that the Babylon as mentioned in Revelation is more often called the "great city". Particularly in the verse stating "the great city... where their Lord was crucified." Is it not obvious that this great city is Jerusalem? Or would you like to argue that Jesus was crucified in Rome?

By calling Jerusalem "Babylon" it is a statement entailing a great persecution of Christianity.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I quote from the website you have so often copied from:

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

"Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism." (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.)"

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203revw.asp

"Another frequently misinter-preted symbol in Revelation is the harlot or "whore of Babylon." Certain Fundamentalists continue to claim the harlot is the Catholic Church, despite the clear identification in Revelation 17:18, which reads, "The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth."

"The woman is not a church, but a city. She is also said to be drunk with the blood of the martyrs. This is a reference to Rome, where many Christians were martyred. (Cities are often portrayed in the Bible as women: Jerusalem as virgin or mother and pagan cities as prostitutes.)"

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea4.asp

There are only three options for the location of Babylon. The first is the military outpost in Egypt that was called Babylon. That seems unlikely. There is no record of Peter going to Egypt. The next was the ancient city of Babylon in present-day Iraq. But at the time of Peter's writing that Babylon was just a grubby village in the back of beyond. Thirdly, "Babylon" was a code name for Rome. The book of Revelation gives the answer. In chapters seventeen and eighteen John sees the great city of Babylon with all her depravities. The identity of the city is given in chapter seventeen, verse nine. It is the city with seven hills: the city of Rome. So Peter writes from "Babylon"-or Rome; and "she who is at Babylon" must be the addressees' sister church in Rome."

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Did you ever ask yourself why they call Rome, "Babylon"?

It is a reference to city of persecution. The early Christians referred to Rome as a "Babylon" because the Babylonian Captivity was a major part in their history. Thus, when Rome comes into the picture and follows suit with the Babylonians, it gets its new name "Babylon".

However, this new title only applies to Pagan Rome. After the conversion of the Emperor their was no further Persecution. Why then would then continue to refer to Rome as Babylon? .

The persecution of Christians in the form of the Inquisition just shows the pagan created their false flag "Christian" church. Proof positive is no TRUE Christians has ever prosecuted another TRUE Christian. Not once.

blah, blah, blah. .

You seems to forget that the Anti-Christ is going to present himself as the head of The Church. There is only one guy doing that and it is not Pastor Deacon Fred.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I quote from the website you have so often copied from:

*** A whole bunch of stuff (please see above)

Yes, in scripture Rome is commonly referred to as Babylon. This is because during the time of written scripture Rome was Pagan and persecuted Christians.

However in Revelation, as I have said time and time again, refers to Babylon as a the "great city... in which their Lord was Crucified". This simply cannot be Rome.

It is reasonable to say that John, the author of Revelation, would attribute the same name, Babylon, to the "great city" which persecuted Christians in Revelation. This is Jerusalem.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Yes, in scripture Rome is commonly referred to as Babylon. This is because during the time of written scripture Rome was Pagan and persecuted Christians.

However in Revelation, as I have said time and time again, refers to Babylon as a the "great city... in which their Lord was Crucified". This simply cannot be Rome.

It is reasonable to say that John, the author of Revelation, would attribute the same name, Babylon, to the "great city" which persecuted Christians in Revelation. This is Jerusalem.

John the Divine was speaking in code to get around the Roman censors. At the time of writing Babylon was the capital of the rather monotheistic Zoroastrian Parthians and the great enemy of Rome. Sort of Washington to Rome's Moscow in that ancient Cold War. The Parthians never persecuted the Christians.

Anyway you Jerusalem theory is utter hogwash since Revelation was written in the mid 90s AD about twenty years after a Roman army flatten Jerusalem during the Jewish revolt and claimed that God moved House from the temple in Jerusalem to Rome . The Roman Emperor, was also the Pope, was also claiming to be the head of the Church at that time. (you are aware the pope was originally a pagan Roman office?)

[Sacred Heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

John the Divine was speaking in code to get around the Roman censors. At the time of writing Babylon was the capital of the rather monotheistic Zoroastrian Parthians and the great enemy of Rome. Sort of Washington to Rome's Moscow in that ancient Cold War. The Parthians never persecuted the Christians.

Do you really think the Roman's didn't know that the Jews referred to them this way? You don't give them much credit. And you bet your eternal life on it to. Why not take the more practical approach?

Anyway you Jerusalem theory is utter hogwash since Revelation was written in the mid 90s AD about twenty years after a Roman army flatten Jerusalem during the Jewish revolt and claimed that God moved House from the temple in Jerusalem to Rome . The Roman Emperor, was also the Pope, was also claiming to be the head of the Church at that time. (you are aware the pope was originally a pagan Roman office?)

If the Book of Revelation was classified as a History than this might be a valid point. However, because this is in the form of Apocalyptic Literature, whether Jerusalem was burnt to the ground doesn't matter. This was a "Revelation".

Now, why would you say that the "great city... where their Lord was crucified" refers to Rome? They are without a doubt the same city, this "Babylon" and "great city", so how could you say that Jesus died in Rome?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Yes, in scripture Rome is commonly referred to as Babylon. This is because during the time of written scripture Rome was Pagan and persecuted Christians.

However in Revelation, as I have said time and time again, refers to Babylon as a the "great city... in which their Lord was Crucified". This simply cannot be Rome.

It is reasonable to say that John, the author of Revelation, would attribute the same name, Babylon, to the "great city" which persecuted Christians in Revelation. This is Jerusalem.

Oh dear, someone isn't reading with discernment. I'm going to put repeat some of the quotes I put above (not all), and notice which book of the Bible is being quoted this time:

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

"Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8)."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203revw.asp

"Another frequently misinter-preted symbol in Revelation is the harlot or "whore of Babylon." Certain Fundamentalists continue to claim the harlot is the Catholic Church, despite the clear identification in Revelation 17:18, which reads, "The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth."

The woman is not a church, but a city. She is also said to be drunk with the blood of the martyrs. This is a reference to Rome, where many Christians were martyred. (Cities are often portrayed in the Bible as women: Jerusalem as virgin or mother and pagan cities as prostitutes.)"

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea4.asp

"There are only three options for the location of Babylon. The first is the military outpost in Egypt that was called Babylon. That seems unlikely. There is no record of Peter going to Egypt. The next was the ancient city of Babylon in present-day Iraq. But at the time of Peter's writing that Babylon was just a grubby village in the back of beyond. Thirdly, "Babylon" was a code name for Rome. The book of Revelation gives the answer. In chapters seventeen and eighteen John sees the great city of Babylon with all her depravities. The identity of the city is given in chapter seventeen, verse nine. It is the city with seven hills: the city of Rome. So Peter writes from "Babylon"-or Rome; and "she who is at Babylon" must be the addressees' sister church in Rome."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9210drag.asp

"But there's another reason not to give much credence to Fedalto's theory: the Bible. The book of Revelation uses "Babylon" to refer to Rome six times. Ditto for the first-century apocryphal books known as 4 Ezra (3:1) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1). Even the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f.), which were written in Greek from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D., use the terminology."