Catholic Preist Sings Song About Lucifer

[Phoneman777]

Not if they're smart Catholics and do their research on this song.

First of all, the song was originally written in Latin, and started showing up in Latin manuscripts (to be used during certain celebratory Masses, such as Easter) no later that the 7th century.

Secondly, the only part of the song that's being translated from Latin to English is the last part of the song. So, we don't get the whole context unless we have the translation of the song in it's entirety. Since the whole song is about Jesus/God, what went askew?

The translation.

Thirdly, the song is being translated from Latin. Lucifer in Latin, is translated to mean "morning star.' In the original Latin text, it is NOT capitalized. It is not "Lucifer", but "lucifer." It is not a proper noun, nor are the subtitles a proper translation.

Fourth. In scriptures (the Bible), the "morning star" is ALWAYS a reference to JESUS; not satan.

This is just another example of those who love to (try to) find fault with the Catholic Church.

Sources: Exsultet - Wikipedia

Who Is The Bright Morning Star: Jesus Or Lucifer?

You may have noticed that the title “Bright Morning Star” is used to refer to both Lucifer and to Jesus in the Bible. So, which is it? First, let’s

www.patheos.com

Also, Google translator, Latin to English

You don't have to look far to find fault with catholicism, friend.

The entire premise of the catholic priesthood is based on the supposed insufficiency of Christ's blood alone to atone for man's sin, which is wrong. The earthly priesthood was dissolved forever when the veil was ripped from top to bottom. A man need only look in faith to the Cross to find both forgiveness for sin and power to obey.

But, alas, prophecy says the Little Horn would "cast the truth to the ground" - the truth of the heavenly sanctuary above in which Christ is High Priest, robbing Christ of His dignities, duties, and titles and casting it down, seen in every confessional, eucharist, Christmas and Easter mass, etc.

Our High Priest Jesus is interceding for us before the Father in the heavenly sanctuary, the antitype to which the Old Testament type pointed. Catholics need not "come home" - they need to "come to Christ".

 

[Taken]

I like what Paul said in Galatians 3:1-5.

I like what Paul said in Galatians 3:1-5.

Amen.

 

[Robert Pate]

You don't have to look far to find fault with catholicism, friend.

The entire premise of the catholic priesthood is based on the supposed insufficiency of Christ's blood alone to atone for man's sin, which is wrong. The earthly priesthood was dissolved forever when the veil was ripped from top to bottom. A man need only look in faith to the Cross to find both forgiveness for sin and power to obey.

But, alas, prophecy says the Little Horn would "cast the truth to the ground" - the truth of the heavenly sanctuary above in which Christ is High Priest, robbing Christ of His dignities, duties, and titles and casting it down, seen in every confessional, eucharist, Christmas and Easter mass, etc.

Our High Priest Jesus is interceding for us before the Father in the heavenly sanctuary, the antitype to which the Old Testament type pointed. Catholics need not "come home" - they need to "come to Christ".

Excellent. Jesus did it all and he did it perfectly.

 

[Taken]

I like what Paul said in Galatians 3:1-5.

Obviously, "morning star" has more than one meaning.

“Morning star” is indicative of a “FIRST” being.

In the beginning, The Heavens WERE LIGHT and BELOW the Heavens was DARKNESS.

God DIVIDED the Heavens FROM the Darkness.

God CREATED and MADE, His FIRST “being(S)” IN Heaven…
Called “ANGELS”.

The “FIRST” Angel “being” created AND made was LUCIFER, called “A” morning star,

A “NON-CREATED” being was “made” a Bright Morning Star….indicating a FIRST “being” ALSO present AS God WAS Creating and Making A “HABITAT” for subsequent “beings” that would “thereafter” Be Created and Made….called Animals and Mankind….and their Habitat called Earth.

* Regarding “Gods Word”….IN the Beginning WAS Present….SPEAKING forth OUT of Gods Mouth….His Creations INTO Existence….EFFECTED “BY” the Absolute POWER (Spirit) OF God.
( And revealed bit by bit, such of Gods Speaking, CALLED Gods Word, The Bright Morning Star, Truth, Life, Way, Jesus…)
( And revealed bit by bit, such of Gods Power, CALLED Gods Glory, Gods Spirit, Gods Power, Christ…)

Gen. 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said…

The Beginning, was God Speaking His Word and Gods Power…..Creating.

Gods Making has specific Applications regarding His specific Creations.
(Habitats, Dry/Wet, Light/Dark, angels, plants, fruit, herbs, animals And manKIND…
AND God giving LIFE…BIRTH AND taking LIFE… DEATH, With God AND Without God; DIVISIONS and SEPARATIONS.

The Word of God, The Power of God, was revealed from the Beginning of Creation.
The NAME of the Word of God…was KEPT Secret for 4,000 years.
The EXPECTATION of Gods SAVIOR/MESSIAH was revealed to particular Righteous/Faithful God Believing ancient men, who were TASKED with the MISSION to TEACH other men ABOUT God, His Absolute Power (Spirit) AND His GIFT of “FAITH” promised BY God TO: ALL of manKIND WHO freely, willingly, heartfully, BELIEVE IN God and His Word and His Power.

THAT ^ remains constant TO THIS DAY.
TWO “FIRSTS”…ie “morning stars”….
* One…(uncreated) MADE the BRIGHT morning star….aka JESUS.
* Two….(the created) MADE a morning star…
Aka LUCIFER.

* JESUS, was and remained/remains FAITHFUL. (His NAME revealed and Kept the Same and His Habitat also Kept the Same.)
* LUCIFER, was Faithful and deflected from his FAITHFULNESS. (His NAME revealed and Changed As was his Habitat ALSO Changed.)

** The Creation OF individual “Beings” IS OF Gods WILL /DESIGN, “WITHOUT” the Individual “Beings’ CONSENT.
** The Making OF individual “Beings” IS OF Gods WILL /Design, “WITH” the Individual “Beings” OWN WILL, CONSENT.

What an Individual “being” IS CALLED, IS dependent UPON the individuals OWN CHOICES and Gods established “words” to CALL individuals, WITH or WITHOUT Him.

Lucifer WAS holy, WAS a morning star.
Satan IS NOT holy, IS not a morning star.
The Word of God, was Holy, IS Holy, IS the Bright Morning Star, IS called Jesus, Who IS the Christ (Power of God).

Even WHEN Jesus was ABOUT to be REVEALED ON EARTH, Shepherds were Notified, to LOOK UP into the Sky, and FOLLOW the DIRECTION of the BRIGHTEST Star in the Sky, CALLED “His Star”, that those Shepherds would be following a path TO the SEE the Christ Messiah men had been waiting for (for centuries) TO SEE.

Num. 24:
[17] I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

Matt 2:
[2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Luke 2:8-20

Perspective between WHAT was CREATED and WHAT is MADE….and WHY.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Mink57]

You are aware that Morning Start refers to Lucifer?????

The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.”

I agree that Isaiah 14:12 is referencing an individual, BUT, I don't agree that the individual it's referencing to is "Lucifer", a.k.a. satan.

Isaiah 14:4 says, "you will take up this taunt-song against the king of Babylon..." The Hebrew word for "taunt-song" is 'ham-ma-sal'. The word ham-ma-sal has been translated to mean, "a parable", a proverb, taunt or taunt-song.'

But the point is, that from 14:4 through 14-:21 is the proverb (or parable or taunt, taunt-song) itself, being sung against the king of Babylon, as in 14:4. And while 14:12 is part of the discourse of 14:4-21, the 'morning star' (or more accurately in Hebrew, "shining one") is a satire against the king of Babylon.

It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan.

No. The rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to is the king of Babylon.

And be it Lucifer or even Satan , Christ was never his son.....

This is blasphemous

There is no indication in the Exultant that Christ was Lucifer's son. Once again, one has to read the Exultant in its entirety to understand it.

 

[Robert Pate]

I agree that Isaiah 14:12 is referencing an individual, BUT, I don't agree that the individual it's referencing to is "Lucifer", a.k.a. satan.

Isaiah 14:4 says, "you will take up this taunt-song against the king of Babylon..." The Hebrew word for "taunt-song" is 'ham-ma-sal'. The word ham-ma-sal has been translated to mean, "a parable", a proverb, taunt or taunt-song.'

But the point is, that from 14:4 through 14-:21 is the proverb (or parable or taunt, taunt-song) itself, being sung against the king of Babylon, as in 14:4. And while 14:12 is part of the discourse of 14:4-21, the 'morning star' (or more accurately in Hebrew, "shining one") is a satire against the king of Babylon.

No. The rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to is the king of Babylon.

There is no indication in the Exultant that Christ was Lucifer's son. Once again, one has to read the Exultant in its entirety to understand it.

The priest said that Jesus was the son of Lucifer. Why would you have to read the entire exultant to understand that?

 

[Mink57]

You don't have to look far to find fault with catholicism, friend.

One doesn't have to look far to find fault with ANYTHING and/or ANYONE. Heck, some people find fault with Jesus. After all, he preached against becoming angry, and yet he overturned the tables in the synagogue out of anger, right?

And plenty of people find fault with God Himself. How many times have I heard that if "God's so great, how come He doesn't eliminate cancer or prevent babies from dying?"

You've also probably heard some say, that the bible is "filled with contradictions."

One can find fault where one WANTS to find fault.

The entire premise of the catholic priesthood is based on the supposed insufficiency of Christ's blood alone to atone for man's sin, which is wrong.

Not true. Please show me why you believe this about the Catholic priesthood.

The earthly priesthood was dissolved forever when the veil was ripped from top to bottom. A man need only look in faith to the Cross to find both forgiveness for sin and power to obey.

Hebrews says (to paraphrase) that Christ is our "High Priest". There's still a need for priests. It's not that there's no longer a need for priests, but that the priesthood took on a different meaning/role.

But, alas, prophecy says the Little Horn would "cast the truth to the ground" - the truth of the heavenly sanctuary above in which Christ is High Priest, robbing Christ of His dignities, duties, and titles and casting it down, seen in every confessional, eucharist, Christmas and Easter mass, etc.

Our High Priest Jesus is interceding for us before the Father in the heavenly sanctuary, the antitype to which the Old Testament type pointed. Catholics need not "come home" - they need to "come to Christ".

Catholics believe they're already "in" Christ.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I agree that Isaiah 14:12 is referencing an individual, BUT, I don't agree that the individual it's referencing to is "Lucifer", a.k.a. satan.

Isaiah 14:4 says, "you will take up this taunt-song against the king of Babylon..." The Hebrew word for "taunt-song" is 'ham-ma-sal'. The word ham-ma-sal has been translated to mean, "a parable", a proverb, taunt or taunt-song.'

But the point is, that from 14:4 through 14-:21 is the proverb (or parable or taunt, taunt-song) itself, being sung against the king of Babylon, as in 14:4. And while 14:12 is part of the discourse of 14:4-21, the 'morning star' (or more accurately in Hebrew, "shining one") is a satire against the king of Babylon.

No. The rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to is the king of Babylon.

There is no indication in the Exultant that Christ was Lucifer's son. Once again, one has to read the Exultant in its entirety to understand it.

Well take it up with the Ancients.....

From the Hebrew/English Interlinear Isaiah 14:12 is stating in English without the English added punctuations.

"[How] you are cut down of the morning son Lucifer from heaven you are fallen How

the nations on You who weakened to the ground"

Now....
Lets look at the Septuagint LXX

They do not call this Isaiah but Esais..... and it says.
Esias 14 - LXX - Bible Study Tools

12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

Add to this these translations ... and then tell me how all of these are wrong. KJV certainly can be.... but the others?

Brenton Septuagint Translation
How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Webster's Bible Translation
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Catholic Public Domain Version
How is it that you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who used to rise like the sun? How is it that you have fallen to the earth, you who wounded the peoples?

 

[Mink57]

The priest said that Jesus was the son of Lucifer. Why would you have to read the entire exultant to understand that?

For the same reason that you'd have to read Isaiah 14 in its entirety to understand that 14:12 isn't about "Lucifer."

The priest didn't say that Jesus was the son of Lucifer any more than Isaiah said that the 'morning star' is Lucifer.

It's about context, Robert. To read that "Jesus is the son of Lucifer" is taking the whole Exultant out of context, just like reading that the 'morning star' in Isaiah is "Lucifer" and/or satan, is taking ALL of Isaiah 14 out of context.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

The priest said that Jesus was the son of Lucifer. Why would you have to read the entire exultant to understand that?

Which I understood also.... It is blasphemous... and in line with Lucifer who wanted to exhalt himself over God.

 

[Mink57]

Well take it up with the Ancients.....

From the Hebrew/English Interlinear Isaiah 14:12 is stating in English without the English added punctuations.

"[How] you are cut down of the morning son Lucifer from heaven you are fallen How

the nations on You who weakened to the ground"

Now....
Lets look at the Septuagint LXX

They do not call this Isaiah but Esais..... and it says.
Esias 14 - LXX - Bible Study Tools

12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

Add to this these translations ... and then tell me how all of these are wrong. KJV certainly can be.... but the others?

Brenton Septuagint Translation
How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Webster's Bible Translation
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Catholic Public Domain Version
How is it that you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who used to rise like the sun? How is it that you have fallen to the earth, you who wounded the peoples?

Please show me a Hebrew translation of Isaiah 14:12 that translates from Hebrew to English the word "he-lel" into "lucifer".

The Hebrews even TODAY don't believe that "he-lel" in Isaiah 14:12 is "lucifer."

If they don't believe it, why should WE?

 

[Mink57]

Which I understood also.... It is blasphemous... and in line with Lucifer who wanted to exhalt himself over God.

Did you read the entire Exultant?

 

[BreadOfLife]

There was no church in Rome. The book of Romans was to believers in Rome, Romans 1:7. Rome was hostile towards Christianity. So, Rome came up with a religion that was compatible with their pagan beliefs and called it Catholicism.

John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, Revelation 1:11. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of a Church in Rome. The closest thing to a church in Rome is the great whore church, Revelation chapter 17.

Paul said that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16. Not a church. Catholicism places a lot of importance's on works. Jesus said, "Many will say to me on that day (judgement day) "Lord, Lord, didn't we do many wonderful works" Matthew 7:22. Jesus said, depart from me I never knew you, Matthew 7:23.

Jesus didn't come into the world to show you the way, He is the way, John 14:6.

Your entire response is drivel . . .

Not only does the Bible mention the Church at Rome (1 Pet. 5:13) – both Peter and Paul were martyred there.

As for the 7 Churches in Revelation – why WOULD it mention the Church in Rome.??
John was writing about the 7 Churches in Asia Minor.

He doesn’t mention the Church in Jerusalem, in Thessalonica, in Corinth, in Pamphyllia, in Colossae - or ANY other church NOT in Asia Mino. Does that mean these churches “didn’t” exist??
You have absolutely zero grasp of reality.

Finally – the Whore of Babylon ids not the Church.
If you actually understood the symbolism of the Scripture – which you obviously don’t – you would see that apostate Jerusalem fits the description closer than ANY other entity. Pay attention . . .

The Bible states the following about the Whore:

1. She "sits on 7 HILLS" (Rev. 17:9)
- Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome: Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill
- Jerusalem DOES sit on 7 hills: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built

2. She is called "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18)
- Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

3. She is "Drunk on the blood of God's Holy people" (Rev 17:6)
- Not ONLY did Jerusalem kill the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) - she persecuted the Early Church (Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26) along with pagan Rome.

4. "Jerusalem is the "Faithful City" that became a “Whore”
- Isaiah 1:21 laments, "How the FAITHFUL CITY HAS BECOME A WHORE, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers."

5. Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).

What happened in 70 AD? The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by pagan Rome.

Nothing about the Catholic Church even comes CLOSE to the comparison between the Whore of Babylon and apostate Jerusalem.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Did you read the entire Exultant?

And I read, carefully, the entire Isaiah 14 where you said

"For the same reason that you'd have to read Isaiah 14 in its entirety to understand that 14:12 isn't about "Lucifer.""

Wrong...The verses 12-15 are and can only be about Lucifer as is the entire chapter.

The following link is long, BUT A MUST READ. I tried to post some of it, but it was too many characters. It is broken into Points, each covering specific verses.... If you go to point 2 (3-8) and start at c and go on to the end I think you will understand what is explained.

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Isaiah Chapter 14

David Guzik commentary on Isaiah 14 describes the fall of the King of Babylon and the judgment that’s coming on Assyria and the Philistines.

enduringword.com

ISAIAH 14 – BABYLON AND LUCIFER​

Point 2 ( 3-8) paragraph c

 

[Mink57]

And I read, carefully, the entire Isaiah 14 where you said

"For the same reason that you'd have to read Isaiah 14 in its entirety to understand that 14:12 isn't about "Lucifer.""

Wrong...The verses 12-15 are and can only be about Lucifer as is the entire chapter.

Says WHO? YOU? Do you think the Hebrews who wrote the book think the same way? Believe the same thing?

The Hebrews see Isaiah 14:12 as directed to the "king of Babylon". Who are YOU, or anyone else to say different?

Read 14: 4....SERIOUSLY! Even the modern Hebrews of TODAY don't see that verse as related to "lucifer" or "satan."

The Hebrews back then had no concept of "lucifer" as satan. Let's not put words into the ancient Hebrews mouths...

What you're doing is to apply modern translation to ancient translation. It's like...seeing the word "gay" written in the 1700's, and believing that "gay" back then...several hundred years ago... meant "homosexual". It didn't. It meant "joyful... exuberant...happy." And not "joyful, exuberant or happy' BECAUSE they were homosexual back then.

The Jews wrote Isaiah. They did NOT mean for "hal-el" to mean "lucifer."

The following link is long, BUT A MUST READ. I tried to post some of it, but it was too many characters. It is broken into Points, each covering specific verses.... If you go to point 2 (3-8) and start at c and go on to the end I think you will understand what is explained.

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Isaiah Chapter 14

David Guzik commentary on Isaiah 14 describes the fall of the King of Babylon and the judgment that’s coming on Assyria and the Philistines.

enduringword.com

ISAIAH 14 – BABYLON AND LUCIFER​

Point 2 ( 3-8) paragraph c

 

[Phoneman777]

Your entire response is drivel . . .

Not only does the Bible mention the Church at Rome (1 Pet. 5:13) – both Peter and Paul were martyred there.

As for the 7 Churches in Revelation – why WOULD it mention the Church in Rome.??
John was writing about the 7 Churches in Asia Minor.

He doesn’t mention the Church in Jerusalem, in Thessalonica, in Corinth, in Pamphyllia, in Colossae - or ANY other church NOT in Asia Mino. Does that mean these churches “didn’t” exist??
You have absolutely zero grasp of reality.

Finally – the Whore of Babylon ids not the Church.
If you actually understood the symbolism of the Scripture – which you obviously don’t – you would see that apostate Jerusalem fits the description closer than ANY other entity. Pay attention . . .

The Bible states the following about the Whore:

1. She "sits on 7 HILLS" (Rev. 17:9)
- Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome: Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill
- Jerusalem DOES sit on 7 hills: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built

2. She is called "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18)
- Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

3. She is "Drunk on the blood of God's Holy people" (Rev 17:6)
- Not ONLY did Jerusalem kill the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) - she persecuted the Early Church (Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26) along with pagan Rome.

4. "Jerusalem is the "Faithful City" that became a “Whore”
- Isaiah 1:21 laments, "How the FAITHFUL CITY HAS BECOME A WHORE, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers."

5. Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).

What happened in 70 AD? The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by pagan Rome.

Nothing about the Catholic Church even comes CLOSE to the comparison between the Whore of Babylon and apostate Jerusalem.

Hi, DB, the Whore of Babylon is not Jerusalem - Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with the fulfillment of end times prophecy.

According to Galatians 6, the "Israel of God" are those who "walk by this rule" of the "new creature in Christ Jesus".

 

[Robert Pate]

Your entire response is drivel . . .

Not only does the Bible mention the Church at Rome (1 Pet. 5:13) – both Peter and Paul were martyred there.

As for the 7 Churches in Revelation – why WOULD it mention the Church in Rome.??
John was writing about the 7 Churches in Asia Minor.

He doesn’t mention the Church in Jerusalem, in Thessalonica, in Corinth, in Pamphyllia, in Colossae - or ANY other church NOT in Asia Mino. Does that mean these churches “didn’t” exist??
You have absolutely zero grasp of reality.

Finally – the Whore of Babylon ids not the Church.
If you actually understood the symbolism of the Scripture – which you obviously don’t – you would see that apostate Jerusalem fits the description closer than ANY other entity. Pay attention . . .

The Bible states the following about the Whore:

1. She "sits on 7 HILLS" (Rev. 17:9)
- Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome: Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill
- Jerusalem DOES sit on 7 hills: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built

2. She is called "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18)
- Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

3. She is "Drunk on the blood of God's Holy people" (Rev 17:6)
- Not ONLY did Jerusalem kill the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) - she persecuted the Early Church (Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26) along with pagan Rome.

4. "Jerusalem is the "Faithful City" that became a “Whore”
- Isaiah 1:21 laments, "How the FAITHFUL CITY HAS BECOME A WHORE, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers."

5. Apostate Jerusalem has the blood of God’s holy people on her hands (prophets and martyrs) – NOT the Catholic Church (Rev 17:6, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).

What happened in 70 AD? The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by pagan Rome.

Nothing about the Catholic Church even comes CLOSE to the comparison between the Whore of Babylon and apostate Jerusalem.

There were many persecutions in the early church, but to say that Rome was not one of them is a lie. You need to buy a copy of "Fox's Book of Martyrs". I have had a copy for years, but I am not able to read it. It is a book of horrors. They need to tear down that arena in Rome where Christians were fed to the lions, even children. And then they would cover Christians with oil and set them on fire. The list of atrocities committed against Christians in Rome is endless.

And now you want us to believe that a Holy Christian Church evolved out of that mess. What evolved was a great Gospeless church called Catholicism. I will admit that there are parallels between Rome and Jerusalem when it comes to persecutions. They both shared in their hatred of Christ and his Gospel. Your Catholic church opposes Christ and his Gospel and is under the judgment of God. If I were you I would bail out like the building was on fire.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi, DB, the Whore of Babylon is not Jerusalem - Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with the fulfillment of end times prophecy.

According to Galatians 6, the "Israel of God" are those who "walk by this rule" of the "new creature in Christ Jesus".

- Apostate Jerusalem sits on 7 hills (Rev. 17:9).
- Apostate Jerusalem Is called the “Great city” (Rev. 17:18).
- Apostate Jerusalem killed/persecuted the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) and the early Christians – God’s holy people.
- Apostate Jerusalem was the “Faithful city” that became a “Whore” (Isa. 1:21).

And Apostate Jerusalem was destroyed by pagan Rome in 70 AD., as per Rev. 17:16:
“They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire”.

Apostate Jerusalem, along with the Temple was destroyed by pagan Rome in 70 AD.

 

[Robert Pate]

- Apostate Jerusalem sits on 7 hills (Rev. 17:9).
- Apostate Jerusalem Is called the “Great city” (Rev. 17:18).
- Apostate Jerusalem killed/persecuted the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) and the early Christians – God’s holy people.
- Apostate Jerusalem was the “Faithful city” that became a “Whore” (Isa. 1:21).

And Apostate Jerusalem was destroyed by pagan Rome in 70 AD., as per Rev. 17:16:
“They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire”.

Apostate Jerusalem, along with the Temple was destroyed by pagan Rome in 70 AD.

The Jewish temple was destroyed when God tore the veil that covered the "Holy of Holies" from the top to the bottom, Matthew 27:51. This was the end of the law, and the Jewish religion and all religions. Access to God in no longer by laws, rules and religions. Access to God is only by faith in Christ and his Gospel and not by eating wafers and drinking grape juice. Since Catholicism does not believe the Gospel there is no access to God, Galatians 3:2.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Jewish temple was destroyed when God tore the veil that covered the "Holy of Holies" from the top to the bottom, Matthew 27:51. This was the end of the law, and the Jewish religion and all religions. Access to God in no longer by laws, rules and religions. Access to God is only by faith in Christ and his Gospel and not by eating wafers and drinking grape juice. Since Catholicism does not believe the Gospel there is no access to God, Galatians 3:2.

WRONG.

That signified the end of the Law, but the Jews didn’t get the memo – UNTIL 70 AD. That's when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

Jesus prophesied this Luke 21:5-38.
In Acts 2:46 and Acts 3:1, we see the Apostles meeting in the Temple.