The City That Sits On Seven Hills.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Does not Jerusalem have both the Mediterranean Sea, and the Jorden River on either side? Could this be "the many waters?" Is not this the symbolic meaning of the Current Israeli Flag the Six pointed Pentagram Star in the middle is symbolic of Jerusalem, and the two blue bars are symbolic of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jorden River, correct?[/quote]

Good grief....the biblical illiteracy is killing me here...

MANY WATERS is a consistant word picture, it ALWAYS MEANS the nations of the world.

The passage can be put in the modern vernacular as follows:

"The ENTIRE WORLD..."

Sigh...this is really tiresome.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062979' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:10 PM']
Budge, even the Jews know the score with Rome wanting to own and run Jerusalem, RIGHT NOW, today, this year.
[url="http://ezinearticles.com/?Mt.-Zion-Under-Siege:-Who-Will-Be-King-of-the-Mountain?&id=130771"]ENTIRE STORY HERE[/url]
[/quote]
Did anyone else burst out into uncontrollable laughter after reading that? Seriously, that made my day that much brighter, very entertaining. The Evil Jesuits are after us. .......................................................oh wait, was that serious?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1062983' date='Sep 14 2006, 08:18 PM']
I believe the senario will be the Pope {FALSE PROPHET} helps to usher in the {ANTICHRIST} though some Christains also believe the Pope himself will the THE ANTICHRIST--a possibility I ponder, Right there in Jerusalem the new one world religion interfaith United Nations WORLD CAPITAL, the ANTICHRIST will take the throne with PAPAL approval.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/john23-enthroned.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


Jerusalem was also know as "city on seven hills" that is a historical fact! Also please tell us where was Christ crucified? Answer, Jerusalem.


The harlot of Babylon is referred to as the "great city," in Apoc 7:18 and in chapter 18. So in Apoc 11:9, "...and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the GREAT CITY which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."

The book of The Apocalypse is telling us that the "Great City 'is Jerusalem, for Jerusalem is where Christ was crucified, it was not ROME, VACTIAN CITY, or anyother city on earth... Jerusalem. That is a fact.
[size=7]
What is your answer to Apoc 11:9?[/size]



[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062985' date='Sep 14 2006, 08:20 PM']
Good grief....the biblical illiteracy is killing me here...
[/quote]

Biblical Illiteracy? This coming from someone that can not logically defend their rejecting of the Apostles Canon!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1062993' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:31 PM']
Did anyone else burst out into uncontrollable laughter after reading that? Seriously, that made my day that much brighter, very entertaining. The Evil Jesuits are after us. .......................................................oh wait, was that serious?
[/quote]

Actually, it made me check out what seaside property in Bulgaria was available....

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062985' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:20 PM']
Good grief....the biblical illiteracy is killing me here...

MANY WATERS is a consistant word picture, it ALWAYS MEANS the nations of the world.

The passage can be put in the modern vernacular as follows:

"The ENTIRE WORLD..."

[/quote]

So...you admit to the use of "coded language" in apocalyptic literature?

Edited September 15, 2006 by Norseman82

[Akalyte]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1063018' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:06 PM']
Jerusalem was also know as "city on seven hills" that is a historical fact! Also please tell us where was Christ crucified? Answer, Jerusalem.
The harlot of Babylon is referred to as the "great city," in Apoc 7:18 and in chapter 18. So in Apoc 11:9, "...and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the GREAT CITY which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."

The book of The Apocalypse is telling us that the "Great City 'is Jerusalem, for Jerusalem is where Christ was crucified, it was not ROME, VACTIAN CITY, or anyother city on earth... Jerusalem. That is a fact.
[size=7]
What is your answer to Apoc 11:9?[/size]
Biblical Illiteracy? This coming from someone that can not logically defend their rejecting of the Apostles Canon!
[/quote]


ive only posted that like 90 million times. lol

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062482' date='Sep 14 2006, 06:20 AM']
Desperate huh?

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia online admits that the "City that sits on seven hills" of Revelation is Rome.
The other qualifiers such when added to the seven hills VERY clearly identifies the Woman riding the beast. And as Pogo was known to say "I have met the enemy, and it is we!"

[/quote]

OK, I admit that Peter identifies Babylon as Rome, but does that not give credence to those who posit that Revelations refers to Rome [i]of the 1st century[/i], given the fact that there were many martyrs in the Nero persecutions ("drunk on the blood oif martyrs') and that 666 was a numerological way of identifying Nero, as was 616, which also appeared in many ancient MSS?

[Budge]

[quote]Rev 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.[/quote]

Who are the Two Witnesses to Preterists?

[quote]First, you have to realize that for centuries [b]The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world's stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City.[/b][u] The story of this production is that this "Messiah" will merge the three monotheistic religions, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this "production" will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem. This so-called "Messiah" that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a "world government" (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in.[/u] This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn't important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel's sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a "regional bloc of nations" in the Middle East. Israel will be pressured to accede to these demands by all world bodies and the superpowers on the claim that "this is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict).[/quote]

[url="http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/vatican.asp"]LINK[/url]

[Eutychus]

[quote]Re 11:9
And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
[/quote]

Note the time, the placement.

You are quoting Revelation 11

[quote]Re 11:9
And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.[/quote]

We are quoting Revelation 17 and 18

WHEN does Rev 11 happen? When does Rev 17 happen?

They are TWO distinct events, in two distinct cities. That is so obvious, that none of us felt obligated to point out the blatantly obvious to you. But you insisted, so I just did.

[Winchester]

OK OK you got us. Any day now, the Pope is going to announce the Catholic Church (all Rites, not just the only one Budgie and Euty hate, the Roman one) is really built on seven hills (there being secret hills built by the Templars on the one hill the Vatican occupies) and that we will no longer support chastity, be anti-abortion, pro-social justice, etcetera.

The good news is that Budge and Eutychusshueshuchsu will be raptured, and God doesn't have internet access.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063167' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:32 PM']
They are TWO distinct events, in two distinct cities. That is so obvious, that none of us felt obligated to point out the blatantly obvious to you. But you insisted, so I just did.
[/quote]

Is this a response to my question? If so... where is this distinction made? Where does Apoc change the meaning of "the great city" from "Babylon" to Jerusalem?

It does not sound like two very "distinct" citys, Apoc is refering to "the great city" (which we know is Jerusalem) in Apoc 11:9 as "allegorically called Sodom and Egypt" sounds like Apoc is still refering to the harlot of babylon to me, as if there is NO distinction made at all.

Show us where in Apoc the meaning of "[u]The[/u] Great City", changes from Jerusalem to "Babylon".

[Eutychus]

[quote]OK OK you got us. Any day now, the Pope is going to announce the Catholic Church (all Rites, not just the only one Budgie and Euty hate, the Roman one) is really built on seven hills (there being secret hills built by the Templars on the one hill the Vatican occupies) and that we will no longer support chastity, be anti-abortion, pro-social justice, etcetera. [/quote]


{ self censorship.....}

But you know what I want to say, and won't....

[Winchester]

No, I don't, because me just dumb pirate. Me not know what to expect from sleeping brain man.

[Oik]

Actually,

Saint Peter established Antioch first. The Peterine see was Antioch. It is only later that the Bishop of Rome comes into promience.

Here's a simple fact of Church Ecclesiology: It's not Rome that makes the Bishop, it is the Bishop that makes Rome. It is not Rome that gives Peter the prominence, it is Peter that gives Rome prominence.

The Pterine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome has little to do with Rome and everything to do with Saint Peter.


Ergo, the city on the hill isn't the Catholic Church because the original 'seat' or sede is the office of Saint Peter given by Christ, not a physical place or material thing.

Even if one could make the claim that somehow Saint Peter's office is somehow literally associated with a physical thing, that physical thing would have to be in Antioch, not Roma.

[Winchester]

Well boo-ya.

Well played.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Here's a simple fact of Church Ecclesiology: It's not Rome that makes the Bishop, it is the Bishop that makes Rome. It is not Rome that gives Peter the prominence, it is Peter that gives Rome prominence.[/quote]

So, Avignion was a VALID SEE for the seven consecutive popes then? And St. John's in Lateran was rendered an INVALID sede for the Bishop of Rome, since the "Bishop of Rome" was terrified to COME TO ROME, for fear of being killed, or lynched, or worse?

You ARE aware I would expect, that the "Bishop of Rome" actually NEVER came to Rome for hundreds of years, living in other cities around Italy, where a cup of poison, or an enraged spouse, was less a threat?

Was the Vatican invalid during those times too?

Just wondering....

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063209' date='Sep 14 2006, 11:20 PM']
So, Avignion was a VALID SEE for the seven consecutive popes then? And St. John's in Lateran was rendered an INVALID sede for the Bishop of Rome, since the "Bishop of Rome" was terrified to COME TO ROME, for fear of being killed, or lynched, or worse?

You ARE aware I would expect, that the "Bishop of Rome" actually NEVER came to Rome for hundreds of years, living in other cities around Italy, where a cup of poison, or an enraged spouse, was less a threat?

Was the Vatican invalid during those times too?

Just wondering....
[/quote]


Yeah and I'm just wondering when you'll answer my questions, as a mature adult.

Just wondering...

[Oik]

Eutychus,

Invalidity is a specific road to walk down. Why discuss it here? Avignon? Why are we speaking of Avignon?

As I said, the sede of Saint Peter is the office, not the Place. Later juridical, political, and moral issues have nothing to do with whether or not the see of Peter and therefore the physical location of the sede is Rome or Antioch or Avignon.


I am well a ware of the many sins of my breathren, and most of all myself. Sadly, I know the corruption that man, being clergy or laity, has littered history with.


As for the idea that Saint Peter was neither a Bishop or had never been to Rome, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Saint Ignatios of Antioch, as you may know, provides us with a wealth of understanding of Ecclesiology and how it worked. This is substantial to be sure, considering he is writing around 100 AD.
The respect and Primacy of the Peterine office was very clear.

To be sure though, in not all places was the monepiscopate prevelant and certainly early on, the prebyteroi and episkopoi seemed to in many places not be distinct.

Now, the diakonia, this is very different. Saint Ignatios had a lot of love for the diakonia.

Needless to say, the face of Ecclesiology seemed to be different, but the office itself has nonetheless been the same from the moment Jesus handed it down to Saint Peter and the 12 Apostles.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062969' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:49 PM']
yeah, like the "English Martyrs?"

Who were convicted of POLITICAL TERRORISM { you think the Palestinians invented that?} who wanted to BLOW UP the parliament building, kill EVERY elected representative and the Queen, and were caught with 30 barrells of gunpowder in a tunnel directly UNDER the parliament building?

That was traced back to the Jesuit handlers and Rome?

Those kind of "Martyrs?"

Hmmmm???[/quote]Yeah, the Catholics had it coming to them. Nice way to justify evil.

I guess we should have killed all the Baptists and Episcopalians when they killed Abe Lincoln.

[Budge]

Things that prove Peter was never a Pope.

1. Christ refused to pick a Pope among the apostles.

Jesus over and over when the apostles disputed among themselves who the greatest was refuted those ideas.

Luk 9:46 ¶ [size=4]Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.[/size]

Luk 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,

Luk 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he [size=4]that is least among you all, the same shall be great.[/size]

2. The Apostles Never Acknowledged Peter As Pope

Peter is even rebuked by Paul.

[quote]Paul considers himself Peter's equal. He says: 'I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.' 2 Corinthians 11:5. If Peter had been Pope would he have dared to speak after this fashion?

Paul censured Peter openly. He says: 'When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.' See Galatians 2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been Pope?[/quote]

3. Peter was completely silent about beinga Pope.

Christ's True Vicar on Earth is the HOLY SPIRIT.

[Oik]

Budge,

You don't have to use Scripture to prove to me that Peter wasn't pope.
The word pope is not formally proscribed until the late fourth, early fifth century.



As for Vicar, the word appears to be of latin etymology and means act in the place of. Since you are, I suppose a Trinitarian Christain, you believe that the Holy Spirit is God. Very clearly then, you wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit acts in the place of God. He is God.

Ergo, the Holy Spirit is not Christ' True Vicar on Earth.


Saint Peter was certainly first among equals and even as early as Saint Ignatios of Antioch, we have the written account and exhortation of such primacy.

The Peterine office of primacy was not debated until recent Church history. Even the Orthodox do not debate it. Only Protestants debate the primacy of the Peterine office. As far as I can see, Peterine Primacy was not formally questioned until Luther in the early 16th century. Now surely, this, along with the countless exhortations of Early Church Fathers spanning the enitre length, should be enough 'evidence' to convince you of the primacy of the Peterine office.

You may decline to assent, but you have 1500 years of tradition of the Catholic Church before Luther against you and 2000 years of tradition of those who are Orthodox, those of whom are not in communion with Rome.