I agree that Revelation 11 is definitely referring to Jerusalem. The Gentile reign of forty two months is the reign of the Catholic church, the second Beast of Rev 13.
In 12, the woman is Israel, the child is Christ, and the dragon is Herod, the priests and the scribes. Fleeing into the wilderness was fleeing to Egypt.
The Revelation is not in chronological order, as it would seem at first glance. 13 goes back to Israel walking across the Red Sea. Beast 2 is defined as coming out of the Earth. If you go back to 12:9, Satan and his demons were cast down to Earth and waged war on the saints in 12:17 after Christ’s crucifixion.
After the 42 month (42 generation) reign of the Catholic church, which is coming up soon (42 generations = ~2100 years), Christ will return to reign for 1000 years while Satan is locked away.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?
[quote]I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She had a gold cup in her hand filled with everything vie and with the impurities of her prostitution. On her forehead a cryptic name was written:
BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH
Then I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and on the blood of the witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished[/quote]
The vision, and the explanation, both describe the Catholic church very well.[/quote]
Yes, because the Catholic Church killed all its faithful and wait so you’re cool with Revelation but not the Epistles?
Further, the Great Whore of Babylon is Pagan Rome. Since, John was a Catholic Bishop.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?
[quote]I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She had a gold cup in her hand filled with everything vie and with the impurities of her prostitution. On her forehead a cryptic name was written:
BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH
Then I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and on the blood of the witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished[/quote]
The vision, and the explanation, both describe the Catholic church very well.[/quote]
Yes, because the Catholic Church killed all its faithful and wait so you’re cool with Revelation but not the Epistles?
Further, the Great Whore of Babylon is Pagan Rome. Since, John was a Catholic Bishop.[/quote]
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
You did read the part where all of the Epistles were written to churches that were loyal to Paul?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]John 8:56 and sorta indirectly in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]John 8:56 and sorta indirectly in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
[/quote]
Aw, c’mon guys. That’s reaching a little bit, isn’t it? He said “Abraham your father” or “Your father Abraham” in response to their position that “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
Chris and I disagree on a whole bunch, but he said that Jesus called Abraham “father”. He did. He affirmed that Abraham was their father. Understood properly of course. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has the rich man also calling Abraham “father”. I guess you could argue that since this man was under judgment his word doesn’t count, but that would be stretching. Abrahan IS the father of the covenant and in that sense is MY father as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chris and I disagree on a whole bunch, but he said that Jesus called Abraham “father”. He did. He affirmed that Abraham was their father. Understood properly of course. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has the rich man also calling Abraham “father”. I guess you could argue that since this man was under judgment his word doesn’t count, but that would be stretching. Abrahan IS the father of the covenant and in that sense is MY father as well. [/quote]
Ok, so then what did Christ really mean when He said “call no man on earth father, for you have only one Father, who is in Heaven”?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chris and I disagree on a whole bunch, but he said that Jesus called Abraham “father”. He did. He affirmed that Abraham was their father. Understood properly of course. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has the rich man also calling Abraham “father”. I guess you could argue that since this man was under judgment his word doesn’t count, but that would be stretching. Abrahan IS the father of the covenant and in that sense is MY father as well. [/quote]
Ok, so then what did Christ really mean when He said “call no man on earth father, for you have only one Father, who is in Heaven”?
[/quote]In that exact same passage Jesus also says not to call anyone “kathegetes”, that is, a leader or teacher. Or “rabbi” which he equates with “didaskalos”, also meaning “teacher”. Clearly His point is not that ever using titles and terms in relation to another human being is wrong. He is decrying the unscriptural level of authority that the scribes and pharisees had accorded to themselves as evinced in the fact that they demanded unlawful burdens of their charges and those of such a nature that they were not themselves willing to bear. He is saying let NO man occupy a place in your chain of command that elevates them over God. In short.
Do you really think that? Or are you just trying your best to not agree with me? I ask because you’re putting yourself in a dangerous position by twisting His words to suit your argument.
He said you have only One. He didn’t say you have many fathers but don’t let anyone put himself above Him. He said you have only one.
As in, there should be no one between you and Him.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Or are you just trying your best to not agree with me? >>>[/quote]I do not do this ever with absolutely ANYone. I agreed with you on your interpretation of Aquinas a couple days ago. Remember? The scribes and pharisees manipulated the law and it’s application in such a way as to exalt their authority over God’s. Jesus is saying that that kind of fatherhood, teacherhood and rabbihood belongs to God alone. That’s the way I’ve understood it. There are in my view a mountain of issues within Catholicism that ARE an abomination. Even though I don’t go along with the Catholic (big C) practice here, nit picking this issue is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
I’m not nitpicking. Christ said you have only one Teacher, one Father, one Master. I take that to heart. That’s what this whole debate started over, remember?
He also lamented the traditions of religion and how they nullified the Commandments of God. So yes, you are absolutely correct in what you posted, but that refers to Matthew 15.
We spend so much time teaching Paul in the church, because his teachings make us feel better about sinning, that we neglect the teachings of our one Teacher, Christ. We have been carrying on with our traditions for so long that we have forgotten why we have those traditions. We focus on traditions that make us feel good, rather than do good.
That is Satan’s influence. We’ve been waiting on that old snake to raise up and strike at us like a cobra. He won’t. He slowly, silently coils around us like a constrictor around a sleeping rat. We need to wake up.
Rofl. Aren’t there some floors to roll around on, or some snakes to handle, rather than obsess over Catholics?
Edit: Whew, this Jay fella reminds me of one of those red-faced, sweaty, vein popping, wild-eyed, late night ‘preachers’ on an off-the-beaten-path cable channel unraveling revelation, computer chips as the sign of the beast, and the very identity of ‘the beast’ itself, for his audience. Order now, and you too can find out how events in Africa and China portend the end times! And how bible code reveals the Vatican’s role in it all!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Rofl. Aren’t there some floors to roll around on, or some snakes to handle, rather than obsess over Catholics?
Edit: Whew, this Jay fella reminds me of one of those red-faced, sweaty, vein popping, wild-eyed, late night ‘preachers’ on an off-the-beaten-path cable channel unraveling revelation, computer chips as the sign of the beast, and the very identity of ‘the beast’ itself, for his audience. Order now, and you too can find out how events in Africa and China portend the end times! And how bible code reveals the Vatican’s role in it all! [/quote]Terrible slip up here. Now we know what you’re doin late at night when nobody’s lookin =]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
You did read the part where all of the Epistles were written to churches that were loyal to Paul?
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chris and I disagree on a whole bunch, but he said that Jesus called Abraham “father”. He did. He affirmed that Abraham was their father. Understood properly of course. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has the rich man also calling Abraham “father”. I guess you could argue that since this man was under judgment his word doesn’t count, but that would be stretching. Abrahan IS the father of the covenant and in that sense is MY father as well. [/quote]
Ok, so then what did Christ really mean when He said “call no man on earth father, for you have only one Father, who is in Heaven”?
[/quote]
From Scott Hahn:
"Jesus uses hyperbole to post a warning that no one should pridefully desire honorific titles. His words are not meant literally. The NT writers elsewhere use father for natural fathers (Heb 12:7-11) and spiritual fathers in the Church (1 Cor 4:15; Philem 10).
The spiritual fatherhood of New Covenant priests is an extension of its application to Old Covenant priests (Judg 17:10; 18:19)."