22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[BreadOfLife]

Now, you are lying. I have NEVER said mystery Babylon was the Catholic Church. Do you know that lying is a sin? Maybe it's not a sin in your false Catholic Bible.

And you noticeably said NOTHING in response to me THOROUGHLY refuting your claim that Revelation 11:8 is talking about Jerusalem by using SCRIPTURE.

Like Superman - I never lie. At least not on this forum . . .

The only claim I made was what YOU said in post #8234:
"I didn't say that the Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon, I said it is PART of Mystery Babylon."

BUSTED . . .

 

[PinSeeker]

Your posts are very colorful... :) And large... :) And as such very... excessive... :) But that's neither here nor there, I guess... :)

This passage clearly uses the word “Epignosis” in reference to who ios it talking about – which is only used about a DOZEN times in the NT. As I explained before – this word connotes a full, experiential and relational knowledge – not unlike marriage.

I agree with this, but it has different connotations depending on the context in which it is used. (As an aside, this is also true of the Hebrew of the Old Testament.) This is why I cited what Jesus said He would say at the Judgment to those on His left ~ "depart from Me... I never knew you" (Matthew 25:46). Another example can be seen in Romans 8:29, where Paul speaks of "those whom (God) foreknew." Of course, God ~ the Father and the Son ~ knows everybody in a mere cognitive sense. But In both of these cases, only a limited group of folks are being talked about as being known/not known, so 'knew' and 'foreknew' (in Matthew 25 and Romans 8, respectively) denote much, much more than a mere cognitive knowing. You agree, I think; in both of these passages (and in other places), this "knowing" and "not knowing" is virtually synonymous with "loving" and "not loving."

But... you knew there was a "but" coming, I'm sure... :) But, let's take a closer look at that 2 Peter passage, and it would be very helpful to go back a little further than verse 20. Beginning in verse 15:

15 "Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray..." 20 "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."​

In verse 20, it is important to note that they escaped through the knowledge of Jesus. Peter is acknowledging that there really is a knowledge of Christ in the sense that you mean it, but that they ~ false teachers, remember ~ were merely walking in the way of Christians ~ with a false profession of faith ~ and at some point abandoned that path and returned to a life of sin and darkness. They never really had this true knowledge. So Peter is referring to those who appeared to be Christians but then showed by their apostasy and their behavior that they never truly belonged to Christ. This would fit perfectly with what what John said, as I cited before, that "(t)hey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you have all knowledge" (1 John 2:19-20),

To make a long story short, one can surely cognitively know the Gospel ~ and be in the midst of folks who truly have this knowledge (epignōsis), and even consider themselves Christians for a time. But, for those who are not of God's people, they will eventually go back to rejecting it and even counting it, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1, as foolishness. The world is filled with people like that, then as well as now, and much more so now. They may not remain that way, but many will.

As I explained before – this word connotes a full, experiential and relational knowledge – not unlike marriage. ONLY born again believers can have an Epignosis of Christ.

Agreed, actually. See above, though...

He is telling them that they ARE the salt of the earth and they ARE the light of the world. Those who hate Him cannot be the light of the world.

Well, right, but what He's saying all through His sermon on the mount is that everyone is eligible. He's not talking specifically to believers.

Yes, God is ABLE to jeep us from stumbling – NOTcoercive. He doesn’t MAKE us stop stumbling. He avails the necessary grace and guidance...

Agree, to this point, but to this point only and no further, in this particular statement.

Without our cooperation, He cannot help us.

God's grace and mercy is initially free. But it does demand a responsibility from us, for sure. But with regard to our salvation, God's mercy does not depend in any way on our willing or working, either initially or in the ongoing sense. In that context, what you say here flies directly in the face of what Paul says in Romans 9:14-18...

"Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills."​

Unmistakably, God's helping us ~ His having mercy on and compassion toward us ~ does not depend on our "cooperation."

Protestants think that when Catholics talk about “works” – we violate Eph. 2:8-9 because it says that it is NOT of our own doing. HOWEVER, in verse 10, we read that those works that we consider as an essential element of our faith are NOT our own. They were created by GOD for us to do. THIS is the cooperation I am talking about. Completing works that HE created.

Ah! Now, there are some protestants to think this way or similar. They're wrong. :) So, quite obviously, I'm a Protestant, and I agree with you here. :) And I'm most assuredly not alone... :)

The Spirit DOES sustain us – IF we let Him.

Nope. Well... in a sense, I agree, but in another I do not. I guess what I would say to this is ~ and I hope you would agree ~ that because we are born again of the Spirit, even while we still possess our natural sin nature, there is a spiritual battle within each one of us. This is what Paul is talking about in exhorting us to put off the old man and put on the new. In this life, it is a continual struggle. This is the Christian experience, and sometimes it's not fun... :) Consider what Paul says to the Galatians, that "...the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do" (Galatians 5:17). And here again I would point out what Paul says to the Philippians, that we are to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for..." ~ BECAUSE ~ "...it is God Who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Our willing and working for His good pleasure is BECAUSE of His work ~ both initial and ongoing ~ in us. And remember, this only a few verses after Paul has said, "He Who began a good work in you will..." ~ WILL ~ "...bring it to completion at the day of Christ" (Philippians 1:6). Elsewhere, he says it this way, that "God... make(s) (us) worthy of His calling and... fulfill(s) every resolve for good and every work of faith by His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:11).

Consider this: Our good works are the result, the natural outpouring of praise to Him and His glorious grace, both initially and ongoing... "...He created us in Christ Jesus for good works, which He prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that our good works are absolutely essential element of our faith, but our faith is not of ourselves but the the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8) "...that no one may boast"... it is not something that we somehow conjured up or manufactured in ourselves. If it were, then we would be responsible, at least to some extent, for our own salvation and thus owe praise and worship to ourselves, which, of course, is a ridiculous thought. Our faith is not our contribution to our salvation, which I think you agree with, but that is really the effect ~ unintentional, I'm sure ~ of what you are saying. The credit ~ the praise and the glory ~ can only be ascribed to Him, and Him alone.

Grace and peace to you, Bread of Life!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then why is there no cross-reference to the apoxrypha in Matthew 12:42?

You got your three strikes previously.

You're out.

No - there are no cross-references to 1 Kings 10 in Matt. 12:42 in your PROTESTANT Bible.

So far, I'm 4 for 4 . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then YOU Protestants have a problem, don't 'cha?

Because . . .
Some Protestant factions believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

Don't blame ME - I'm NOT the one who started this perpetual-splintering.
Your Protestant FATHERS did . . .

Perhaps you have a bad memory, but I already told you that I'm not part of any denomination. I have no problem since I don't identify as a Protestant. I'm obviously anti-Catholic, but is that all it takes to be a Protestant in your mind? If so, that's pretty stupid. I don't accept a label that includes so many contradictory teachings. Or one that contains many false teachings, like Catholicism.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So far, I'm 4 for 4 . . .

I agree. You are 4 for 4 in giving examples of passages from your non-scriptural books that are not referenced in actual scripture.

 

[covenantee]

HUH??

The CONTXT is the same.
The SUBJECT is not.

This is beyond stupid, and demonstrates the risibly absurd manner in which cults attempt to contort and mutilate language to perpetuate their errors and fabrications.

The answer is precisely the opposite. The subject is fruit in both Scripture and aploprypha, and the context (notice that spelling?) is deeds in the former, and speech and mindset in the latter.

Thank God that Einstein was no papist.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[covenantee]

No - there are no cross-references to 1 Kings 10 in Matt. 12:42 in your PROTESTANT Bible.

So far, I'm 4 for 4 . . .

Explain how Jesus' references in Matthew 12:42 to the queen of the south and to Solomon, were not cross-references to 1 Kings 10.

What kind of references were they? They certainly weren't papist references.

You're a confirmed loser.

 

[Illuminator]

Are you unable to read? I didn't say that the Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon, I said it is part of Mystery Babylon.

How is that LESS insulting???

It encompasses more than just the false Catholic Church as it is the spiritual opposite of the heavenly new Jerusalem (Christ's church).

Yes, according to laughable morons like Alexander Hislop or fundie bigots like Dave Hunt. The same nonsense is propagated by the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses plus all their splinter groups, along with the Christadelphians and legions of other made-in-America Bible clubs, all trying to deceiving good Christians into demonizing an institution that focuses on helping people.

Also, Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem. Not surprising that your biblical knowledge is lacking since you've been inundated with so much false teaching.

Then enlighten us as to where Jesus was crucified.

John 19:20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Yea, "near the city" is just as good as "part of Mystery Babylon". Polemics.

Hebrews 3:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

"outside the city gate" "near the city", so it's not Jerusalem??? What city anywhere in the world excludes it's surrounding areas as being part of the city? You are playing word games.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Like Superman - I never lie. At least not on this forum . . .

The only claim I made was what YOU said in post #8234:
"I didn't say that the Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon, I said it is PART of Mystery Babylon."

BUSTED . . .

You insinuated that, like others had done (who I couldn't care less about), I changed my view and that I formerly thought that the Catholic Church itself was Mystery Babylon. I have never believed that. Saying it is PART of Mystery Babylon is not the same as saying it IS Mystery Babylon, genius.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How is that LESS insulting???

I honestly couldn't care less what you find to be insulting. Catholicism is so clearly full of false teaching that you have to be blind not to see that.

Yes, according to laughable morons like Alexander Hislop or fundie bigots like Dave Hunt. The same nonsense is propagated by the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses plus all their splinter groups, along with the Christadelphians and legions of other made-in-America Bible clubs, all trying to deceiving good Christians into demonizing an institution that focuses on helping people.

Then enlighten us as to where Jesus was crucified.

The great city is Mystery Babylon, but it is neither a literal woman nor a literal city even though it is described as both a woman (harlot) and a city. Open your spiritual eyes. It is the spiritual opposite of the new Jerusalem. It encompasses ALL false religion that opposes the true church of Christ. Where Christ was crucified was in this evil world that is full of false teachings and hatred of Christianity.

Yea, "near the city" is just as good as "part of Mystery Babylon". Polemics.

"outside the city gate" "near the city", so it's not Jerusalem??? What city anywhere in the world excludes it's surrounding areas as being part of the city? You are playing word games.

Is being outside of a city and near a city the same as being in a city to you? I am not playing word games at all. You are playing word games as if scripture that speaks of ancient cities includes suburbs or other cities surrounding them. LOL. Get a clue. I'm accepting the scriptures as written. You are not because of your doctrinal bias.

 

[Illuminator]

The Catholic Church is certainly part of the great city Mystery Babylon, at least, even if not Mystery Babylon itself.

Revelation 18:15 The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16 and cry out: “‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! 17 In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!’

View attachment 32735View attachment 32736View attachment 32737

Look at the haughtiness of these guys who just happen to be dressed "in fine linen, purple and scarlet". Fits the description of the passage above very well.

Now in Technicolor

For his fourth argument, Hunt (similar to @Spiritual Israelite) states, “She [the whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (v. 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He cites the Catholic Encyclopedia (with photos to prove it!!!) to show that bishops wear purple and cardinals wear scarlet (red). This line of reasoning has problems.

Rather than assigning the whore’s colors their symbolic meaning (purple for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.

Besides, purple and red are not the dominant colors of clerical clothing. Black and white are. Consider the average priest’s “clericals” (black suit with white Roman collar); priests’ clerical garb is never purple or red, and for only a short time during the liturgical year do they wear chasubles with purple or red. But every priest wears a white alb at Mass. Even bishops and cardinals usually wear black (look at the bishop or cardinal who heads your diocese). And the pope, of course, always wears white.

The purple and scarlet of the whore are contrasts to the white worn by the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This makes two more problems for Hunt (@Spiritual Israelite) :

1. The clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints” 19:8) implying that the clothing of the whore should also be given a symbolic meaning, and the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the whore may be old, apostate Jerusalem–a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25-26).
2. Another problem for Hunt (@Spiritual Israelite) is that he ignores the liturgical meaning of the colors purple and red. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs–both of these things being noble, whereas in Revelation these colors reveal how ignoble the whore is.

It is entirely appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet because these have been liturgical colors ever since ancient Israel. In fact, together with blue and white, they were the dominant colors of the Israelite liturgy.

• God commanded that the curtains which formed the walls of the Tabernacle be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 31, 36, 27:16, 36:8, 35, 37, 38:18, 39:34).
• He commanded the tabernacle to have a ceiling made of ram skins dyed red (Ex. 26:14, 36:19, 39:34).
• He commanded that when they were being moved the table of the bread of the presence be covered with a scarlet cloth (Num. 4:8) and the bronze altar with a purple cloth (Num. 4:13).
• He commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52, Num. 19:6).
• He commanded that the vestments for priests be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29).

(one would think that a person with a user name like "Spiritual Israelite" would know this.)

If there was nothing sinister about the Israelites using these God-commanded colors then, there is nothing sinister about the Catholic clergy using them now.

At the risk of making the same point too often, it should be noted that the colors purple and scarlet, taken literally or symbolically, may stand for pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. Both were capital (royal) cities, and both shed the blood of Christian martyrs.

Hunt-ing the Whore of Babylon: Part I

Anti-Catholic writer Dave Hunt is at it again. Large portions of his previous books have been devoted to attacking the Catholic Church. Now he has written an en...

www.catholic.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your posts are very colorful... :) And large... :) And as such very... excessive... :) But that's neither here nor there, I guess... :)

I agree with this, but it has different connotations depending on the context in which it is used. (As an aside, this is also true of the Hebrew of the Old Testament.) This is why I cited what Jesus said He would say at the Judgment to those on His left ~ "depart from Me... I never knew you" (Matthew 25:46). Another example can be seen in Romans 8:29, where Paul speaks of "those whom (God) foreknew." Of course, God ~ the Father and the Son ~ knows everybody in a mere cognitive sense. But In both of these cases, only a limited group of folks are being talked about as being known/not known, so 'knew' and 'foreknew' (in Matthew 25 and Romans 8, respectively) denote much, much more than a mere cognitive knowing. You agree, I think; in both of these passages (and in other places), this "knowing" and "not knowing" is virtually synonymous with "loving" and "not loving."

But... you knew there was a "but" coming, I'm sure... :) But, let's take a closer look at that 2 Peter passage, and it would be very helpful to go back a little further than verse 20. Beginning in verse 15:

15 "Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray..." 20 "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."​

In verse 20, it is important to note that they escaped through the knowledge of Jesus. Peter is acknowledging that there really is a knowledge of Christ in the sense that you mean it, but that they ~ false teachers, remember ~ were merely walking in the way of Christians ~ with a false profession of faith ~ and at some point abandoned that path and returned to a life of sin and darkness. They never really had this true knowledge. So Peter is referring to those who appeared to be Christians but then showed by their apostasy and their behavior that they never truly belonged to Christ. This would fit perfectly with what what John said, as I cited before, that "(t)hey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you have all knowledge" (1 John 2:19-20),

To make a long story short, one can surely cognitively know the Gospel ~ and be in the midst of folks who truly have this knowledge (epignōsis), and even consider themselves Christians for a time. But, for those who are not of God's people, they will eventually go back to rejecting it and even counting it, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1, as foolishness. The world is filled with people like that, then as well as now, and much more so now. They may not remain that way, but many will.

I think you’re leaving out those who really DID follow Christ faithfully – THEN fell away into false teaching.

This happens to a LOT of people. Tertullian, for example was of the great Early Church Fathers and teachers in the mid 2nd /early 3rd century who eventually fell into Heresy. So, as false teacher CAN start out with an epignosis of Christ – who later becomes a false teacher.

Well, right, but what He's saying all through His sermon on the mount is that everyone is eligible. He's not talking specifically to believers.

He is presupposing that they are followers. “You are salt and light” is aimed at His followers, not everyone in general.

Agree, to this point, but to this point only and no further, in this particular statement.
God's grace and mercy is initially free. But it does demand a responsibility from us, for sure. But with regard to our salvation, God's mercy does not depend in any way on our willing or working, either initially or in the ongoing sense. In that context, what you say here flies directly in the face of what Paul says in Romans 9:14-18...

"Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills."​

Unmistakably, God's helping us ~ His having mercy on and compassion toward us ~ does not depend on our "cooperation."

Ah! Now, there are some protestants to think this way or similar. They're wrong. :) So, quite obviously, I'm a Protestant, and I agree with you here. :) And I'm most assuredly not alone...

Good to know.

Nope. Well... in a sense, I agree, but in another I do not. I guess what I would say to this is ~ and I hope you would agree ~ that because we are born again of the Spirit, even while we still possess our natural sin nature, there is a spiritual battle within each one of us. This is what Paul is talking about in exhorting us to put off the old man and put on the new. In this life, it is a continual struggle. This is the Christian experience, and sometimes it's not fun... :) Consider what Paul says to the Galatians, that "...the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do" (Galatians 5:17). And here again I would point out what Paul says to the Philippians, that we are to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for..." ~ BECAUSE ~ "...it is God Who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Our willing and working for His good pleasure is BECAUSE of His work ~ both initial and ongoing ~ in us. And remember, this only a few verses after Paul has said, "He Who began a good work in you will..." ~ WILL ~ "...bring it to completion at the day of Christ" (Philippians 1:6). Elsewhere, he says it this way, that "God... make(s) (us) worthy of His calling and... fulfill(s) every resolve for good and every work of faith by His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:11).

Consider this: Our good works are the result, the natural outpouring of praise to Him and His glorious grace, both initially and ongoing... "...He created us in Christ Jesus for good works, which He prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that our good works are absolutely essential element of our faith, but our faith is not of ourselves but the the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8) "...that no one may boast"... it is not something that we somehow conjured up or manufactured in ourselves. If it were, then we would be responsible, at least to some extent, for our own salvation and thus owe praise and worship to ourselves, which, of course, is a ridiculous thought. Our faith is not our contribution to our salvation, which I think you agree with, but that is really the effect ~ unintentional, I'm sure ~ of what you are saying. The credit ~ the praise and the glory ~ can only be ascribed to Him, and Him alone.

Grace and peace to you, Bread of Life!

You posted Phil. 1:6 as “proof” that God will sustain us no matter what – but you left OUT the preceding verse that has the CONDITION:

Phil. 1:5-6
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

In EVERY case of a promise – there is a condition.
Once again, cooperation with God’s grace is the key.

Finally – our good works were planned ahead for us.
HE created them,. We’re just the instruments that finish them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is beyond stupid, and demonstrates the risibly absurd manner in which cults attempt to contort and mutilate language to perpetuate their errors and fabrications.

The answer is precisely the opposite. The subject is fruit in both Scripture and aploprypha, and the context (notice that spelling?) is deeds in the former, and speech and mindset in the latter.

Thank God that Einstein was no papist.

LOL. Well said. This guy is blatantly redefining English words to support his false claims. No wonder he calls us "Einstein". He recognizes that we are all far more intelligent than he is since we actually know what English words mean.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Perhaps you have a bad memory, but I already told you that I'm not part of any denomination. I have no problem since I don't identify as a Protestant. I'm obviously anti-Catholic, but is that all it takes to be a Protestant in your mind? If so, that's pretty stupid. I don't accept a label that includes so many contradictory teachings. Or one that contains many false teachings, like Catholicism.

If you are a Baptized Christian and you're not Catholic or Orthodox - then you are a Protestant by definition , whether you "identify" as one or not.
Get over yourself . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now in Technicolor

For his fourth argument, Hunt (similar to @Spiritual Israelite) states, “She [the whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (v. 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear purple and cardinals wear scarlet (red). This line of reasoning has problems.

Rather than assigning the whore’s colors their symbolic meaning (purple for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.

You are not getting it. I don't agree with his take on all of this. I posted those pictures mostly to be humorous. I don't think that the text in Revelation 18 is meant to be taken literally. It's just interesting how Catholic bishops and priests dress the same way that is described there. I think that is interesting and funny. Their haughtiness reminds me of the description of Babylon as well. However, I do NOT believe that the Catholic Church itself is Babylon. I believe Babylon encompasses all false religions and beliefs, including those of Catholicism.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If you are a Baptized Christian and you're not Catholic or Orthodox - then you are a Protestant by definition , whether you "identify" as one or not.
Get over yourself . . .

LOL. For you to tell someone else to get over themselves is the funniest and most ironic thing anyone can ever say. If I'm a Protestant by your definition, good for you. I'm not by my definition. Who cares, anyway? You like to focus on meaningless things like this to distract from the fact that your Catholic doctrines are a joke. Go kiss the pope's feet or drink some of Jesus's blood or something since those are activities that you approve of wholeheartedly.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree. You are 4 for 4 in giving examples of passages from your non-scriptural books that are not referenced in actual scripture.

And YOU are 39 for 39 in your blind adherence to your OT Canon proclaimed by a FALSE prophet who also proclaimed a FALSE Messiah in the 2nd century.

Good job. . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Explain how Jesus' references in Matthew 12:42 to the queen of the south and to Solomon, were not cross-references to 1 Kings 10.

What kind of references were they? They certainly weren't papist references.

You're a confirmed loser.

I guess we'll have to do the the preschool way . . .

Open you Bible to Matthew 12:42.
Do you see a cross-reference icon or number next too that verse.
Do you see a footnote at the bottom of the page?

If so - congratulations.
I've searched a DOZEN or so Protestant translations that didn't.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And YOU are 39 for 39 in your blind adherence to your OT Canon proclaimed by a FALSE prophet who also proclaimed a FALSE Messiah in the 2nd century.

Good job. . .

Let's say that the books you have in the Old Testament of your Bible were all actually scripture as you believe. Why is it that you don't interpret New Testament scripture correctly? Regardless of which books you believe are part of the OT, you still interpret much of the NT falsely. What is your excuse for that? No wonder you want to focus on what books should be in the OT so much. It distracts from the fact that you butcher the NT scriptures with your false interpretations.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let's say that the books have in the Old Testament of your Bible were all actually scripture as you believe. Why is it that you don't interpret New Testament scripture correctly? Regardless of which books you believe are part of the OT, you still interpret much of the NT falsely. What is your excuse for that? No wonder you want to focus on what books should be in the OT so much. It distracts from the fact that you butcher the NT scriptures with your false interpretations.

More hogwash . . .

Can YOU show me where Sola Scriptura (Scripture ALONE) is definitively taught in the NT?
How about Sola Fide (Faith Alone)?

Those are the 2 main pillars of Protestantism.