Prophets of Abrahamic Religions - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14994755
Zionist Nationalist wrote:and the Christians who are waiting for Jesus, or the Muslims waiting for the mahdi
its the same concept in all Abrahamic religion

Not exactly the same because Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah that has already come fulfilling most of the prophecy of Daniel 9, but was rejected by His own people and will return again after the great tribulation. The Jews and the Muslims are awaiting for an only appearance of a false messiah.

https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/i ... e-prophet/

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Jesus = Yahshua meaning Yah saves
HalleluYah
#14994779
Hindsite wrote:. The Jews and the Muslims are awaiting for an only appearance of a false messiah.


Muslims believe Jesus, called the Prophet Isa, is the Jewish Messiah. The Mahdi is somesort of second Messiah.
User avatar
By Ter
#14994783
colliric wrote:Muslims believe Jesus, called the Prophet Isa, is the Jewish Messiah. The Mahdi is somesort of second Messiah.


The Jews had their religion.
Then the Christians took it over, added Jesus and changed a couple of things.
Then the Muslims came, took all of it over, added Mohammed and changed a couple of things.
Then the Bahais came, ....
#14994788
Ter wrote:The Jews had their religion.
Then the Christians took it over, added Jesus and changed a couple of things.
Then the Muslims came, took all of it over, added Mohammed and changed a couple of things.
Then the Bahais came, ....


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)
#14994790
colliric wrote:Muslims believe Jesus, called the Prophet Isa, is the Jewish Messiah. The Mahdi is somesort of second Messiah.

Muslims believe Jesus is a lesser prophet than Mohammed. They don't accept Jesus as the Messiah any more than the Jews do.

Mahdi is the AntiChrist

#14994791
Hindsite wrote:Muslims believe Jesus is a lesser prophet than Mohammed. They don't accept Jesus as the Messiah any more than the Jews do.

Mahdi is the AntiChrist



Not so. ''Babylon'' is Old Rome (seven heads are seven hills), and the ten horns of the Beast (same as the ten toes or ten horns in St. Daniel) are the ten kingdoms which the Roman Empire has been divided into after the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD to 1453 AD. Now, the Beast is the Antichrist, clearly ridden by the Whore of Babylon, which is equally clearly the Latin ''church'' after she fell from grace in 1054 AD.
#14994795
Ter wrote:The Jews had their religion.
Then the Christians took it over, added Jesus and changed a couple of things


Actually a bunch of Jews on a mission from Elohim created Christianity....

Then they gave it to the Goys as a present...

Another group of Jews wrote the Talmud as a Whoopsie, shut the door...
#14994801
annatar1914 wrote:Not so. ''Babylon'' is Old Rome (seven heads are seven hills), and the ten horns of the Beast (same as the ten toes or ten horns in St. Daniel) are the ten kingdoms which the Roman Empire has been divided into after the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD to 1453 AD. Now, the Beast is the Antichrist, clearly ridden by the Whore of Babylon, which is equally clearly the Latin ''church'' after she fell from grace in 1054 AD.

That is one popular interpretation, but it could be wrong. The following is close to your idea, but not exactly.

Who is THE WHORE OF BABYLON?

Fr. William Nicholas
Published on Oct 25, 2018

How to Identify Mystery Babylon

Published on May 28, 2014
Last edited by Hindsite on 19 Mar 2019 03:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14994804
Hindsite wrote:That is one popular interpretation, but it could be wrong.


It isn't, because it's the one interpretation St. John's own disciples were writing about in their day. And St. Peter writes in 1 Peter 5:13 that;

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.


''Babylon'' being code for Old Rome, because Babylon was no longer a city at the time of St. Peter, having being overtaken by Selucia and Ctesiphon. Rome is the city with seven hills that has ruled a world empire, and all commentators for almost 18 centuries agreed that the symbolism in Daniel and the Book of Apocalypse speaks of Rome and her Empire.
#14994810
annatar1914 wrote:It isn't, because it's the one interpretation St. John's own disciples were writing about in their day. And St. Peter writes in 1 Peter 5:13 that;

''Babylon'' being code for Old Rome, because Babylon was no longer a city at the time of St. Peter, having being overtaken by Selucia and Ctesiphon. Rome is the city with seven hills that has ruled a world empire, and all commentators for almost 18 centuries agreed that the symbolism in Daniel and the Book of Apocalypse speaks of Rome and her Empire.

Wrong. the city of Babylon still existed at the time of John and Peter. Remember it was Paul that was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the apostles John and Peter. That Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed.

Under the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, Babylon (like Assyria) became a province of these Persian Empires for nine centuries, until after AD 650. It maintained its own culture and people, who spoke varieties of Aramaic, and who continued to refer to their homeland as Babylon. Examples of their culture are found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Gnostic Mandaean religion, Eastern Rite Christianity and the religion of the prophet Mani. Christianity was introduced to Mesopotamia in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and Babylon was the seat of a Bishop of the Church of the East until well after the Arab/Islamic conquest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the center of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in (Psalms 87:4) perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and here their Babylonian Talmud was written.

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
(Revelation 17:5 KJV)

MECCA - Mystery Babylon the Great
Last edited by Hindsite on 19 Mar 2019 05:46, edited 1 time in total.
#14994816
Wrong. the city of Babylon still existed at the time John and Peter. Remember it was Paul that was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the apostles John and Peter. That Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed.


Not so, and your own quote indicates why;

Under the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, Babylon (like Assyria) became a province of these Persian Empires for nine centuries, until after AD 650. It maintained its own culture and people, who spoke varieties of Aramaic, and who continued to refer to their homeland as Babylon. Examples of their culture are found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Gnostic Mandaean religion, Eastern Rite Christianity and the religion of the prophet Mani. Christianity was introduced to Mesopotamia in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and Babylon was the seat of a Bishop of the Church of the East until well after the Arab/Islamic conquest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon


The PROVINCE of Babylon, not the CITY of Babylon. Even today there is a village near the ruins of the old city of Babylon, al-Hillah, but the city has been dead pretty much since the Selucids and the later Parthian Arsacids. There has always been cities very near where Babylon was (I mentioned Ctesiphon and Selucia earlier) and today Baghdad is still thriving.... But Babylon is dead.

However, again you throw many centuries of learned and good Christian men's wisdom to the four winds to support your novelties, as it's clear from Saint John's Apocalypse itself that he is speaking about the City that in his time ruled the Earth and continues to do so, for it is a City with Seven Hills;

Aventine Hill (Latin, Aventinus; Italian, Aventino)
Caelian Hill (Cælius, Celio)
Capitoline Hill (Capitolinus, Campidoglio)
Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus, Esquilino)
Palatine Hill (Palatinus, Palatino)
Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis, Quirinale)
Viminal Hill (Viminalis, Viminale)


And to anyone of good will this should be obvious.

It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the center of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in (Psalms 87:4) perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and here their Babylonian Talmud was written.

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
(Revelation 17:5 KJV)



As i'm trying to say, this is utter nonsense which ignores basic facts mentioned within the relevant Scripture passages, and the understanding of those Scriptures by the Early Church.

MECCA - Mystery Babylon the Great
[/quote]

Yeah, I know the guy who started all this with the ''Mahdi is the Antichrist'', Walid Shoebat, and he's a convert from Islam to Roman Catholicism with an agenda of diverting people from thinking Rome has anything to do with Antichrist. All your end-times beliefs ultimately come from similar previous attempts by the Latins to do the same thing.

Mecca doesn't have seven hills.
#14994817
annatar1914 wrote:Not so, and your own quote indicates why;

The PROVINCE of Babylon, not the CITY of Babylon. Even today there is a village near the ruins of the old city of Babylon, al-Hillah, but the city has been dead pretty much since the Selucids and the later Parthian Arsacids. There has always been cities very near where Babylon was (I mentioned Ctesiphon and Selucia earlier) and today Baghdad is still thriving.... But Babylon is dead.

It does not matter if it was a city or a province because it was clearly referred to as Babylon during the 1st and 2nd century as my reference indicates and as your 1 Peter 5:13 also refers to. Peter was not referring to Rome in a cryptic manner, but to the real Babylon of that time. This was not the MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT of of the prophecy in Revelation which was located in the wilderness or the desert. Rome is not in the wilderness or the desert Revelation 17:3, but MECCA is.

And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
(Revelation 17:3 Douay-Rheims Bible)

annatar1914 wrote:Mecca doesn't have seven hills.

Mecca in Saudia Arabia isn’t built on seven hills but in the center of them. The hills are Jabal abu Siba’ , Jabal Safa, Jabal Marwah, Jabal abu Milhah, Jabal abu Ma’aya, Jabal abu Hulayah, and Jabal abu Ghuzlan.

Islam is an Antichrist religion since it denies God as Father and Son, which John defines as Antichrist.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
(1 John 2:22 KJV)
#14994931
It does not matter if it was a city or a province because it was clearly referred to as Babylon during the 1st and 2nd century


Huge difference between a CITY, and a PROVINCE, because the latter was indicative of the home of the Chaldeans, who still exist. Not that you'd care about them because they are pretty much the sort of Christians like me that you don't think of as actual Christians anyway.

as my reference indicates and as your 1 Peter 5:13 also refers to.


You sure you are a kind of Christian and not some LARPer? Because if you were Christian it would be ''our'' or ''from'', not ''your'' 1 Peter 5:13.


Peter was not referring to Rome in a cryptic manner, but to the real Babylon of that time.


It didn't exist except as a village by then, the original Babylon, nor is it built on seven hills. He was referring to Rome and all the commentators have agreed with this except for a few modern lunatics. Why they are lunatics I will demonstrate shortly.


This was not the MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT of of the prophecy in Revelation which was located in the wilderness or the desert. Rome is not in the wilderness or the desert Revelation 17:3, but MECCA is.


1. Rome is a SPIRITUAL WILDERNESS AND DESERT, and Apocalypse 17:3 clearly is of a piece with what the rest of Apocalypse says about ''Babylon'', a City that rules the world, persecutes Christians during St. John's time (Mecca or the Mesopotamian Babylon didn't persecute Christians then), and is built on seven hills, and one of whose ''heads'' represented the Empire present in St. John's day.

2. The people you get these ideas from are insane. They are insane because Mecca didn't exist in the time of the Apostles (we have only the Muslim belief that Mecca existed, no written or archeological proof prior to Muhammad.), and because they seemingly can't decide whether their Babylon is in Mesopotamia or in Arabia.

And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
(Revelation 17:3 Douay-Rheims Bible)


Yep, Old Rome.


Mecca in Saudia Arabia isn’t built on seven hills but in the center of them. The hills are Jabal abu Siba’ , Jabal Safa, Jabal Marwah, Jabal abu Milhah, Jabal abu Ma’aya, Jabal abu Hulayah, and Jabal abu Ghuzlan.


Exactly. The Woman in Apocalypse 17:3 IS SITTING ON the Seven Hills, not surrounded by them.

Islam is an Antichrist religion since it denies God as Father and Son, which John defines as Antichrist.


Glad you said that, for St. John also says it is he who ''dissolves'' Jesus Christ, or theologically makes Jesus not present where He should be.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
(1 John 2:22 KJV)


If one preaches ''Another Jesus'', as St. Paul says, one denies the Unoriginate Father and the Only Begotten Son (and the Holy Spirit Who Proceeds from the Father, Who only speaks of the Father and the Son, never Himself) also. So that is a false heretical and schismatic ''Christianity''.
#14994963
annatar1914 wrote:Huge difference between a CITY, and a PROVINCE, because the latter was indicative of the home of the Chaldeans, who still exist. Not that you'd care about them because they are pretty much the sort of Christians like me that you don't think of as actual Christians anyway.

Like I already said it doesn't matter in the context of 1 Peter 5:13.

annatar1914 wrote:You sure you are a kind of Christian and not some LARPer? Because if you were Christian it would be ''our'' or ''from'', not ''your'' 1 Peter 5:13.

I said "your" because I was talking about "your" quote of 1 Peter 5:13. But let me assure you again that I am a real Christian believing in Yahshua (Jesus) as the Messiah (Christ).

annatar1914 wrote:It didn't exist except as a village by then, the original Babylon, nor is it built on seven hills. He was referring to Rome and all the commentators have agreed with this except for a few modern lunatics. Why they are lunatics I will demonstrate shortly.

In the contest of 1 Peter 5:13 it does not matter if it existed as a province, a city, or a village. They still referred to it as Babylon and Peter never said it was built on seven hills. Those commentators that thought he was referring to Rome, when he said Babylon, were wrong. Peter was not stupid. He knew the difference between Rome and Babylon.

annatar1914 wrote:1. Rome is a SPIRITUAL WILDERNESS AND DESERT, and Apocalypse 17:3 clearly is of a piece with what the rest of Apocalypse says about ''Babylon'', a City that rules the world, persecutes Christians during St. John's time (Mecca or the Mesopotamian Babylon didn't persecute Christians then), and is built on seven hills, and one of whose ''heads'' represented the Empire present in St. John's day.

John was not speaking of something in his time but in the future, since he was seeing prophetic visions of things which shall be hereafter. It was also to be given to the seven churches in Asia. The city of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church is not in Asia. This mystery Babylon is the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth that originated out of Asia. In our time this fits Islam with the beheading of Christians and other abominations performed by those that align themselves with it. Islam's holiest city is Mecca that is located in the wilderness or desert where they practice ancient pagan religions. John says he was carried away in the spirit to a wilderness or desert. The city of Rome or Vatican City is not in a wilderness or desert and it represents Christianity, not paganism and other abominations.

annatar1914 wrote:2. The people you get these ideas from are insane.

I don't see them as insane. They are simply trying to use common sense to make sense of the prophecy.

annatar1914 wrote:Exactly. The Woman in Apocalypse 17:3 IS SITTING ON the Seven Hills, not surrounded by them.

Actually, 17:1 first says the great whore sits on many waters, a scarlet colored beast, and seven mountains. The seven mountain are around Mecca, and Saudi Arabia has many waters, (Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Mediterranean, Caspian, and Black Seas. Rome definitely doesn't carry the matching qualities Mecca obviously does. Rome does have seven hills but scripture specifies Mountains and not hills. Mecca has seven Mountains instead of hills. And the word that the KJV translates as "sit" can mean dwell by.

annatar1914 wrote:Glad you said that, for St. John also says it is he who ''dissolves'' Jesus Christ, or theologically makes Jesus not present where He should be.

I don't think so.

annatar1914 wrote:If one preaches ''Another Jesus'', as St. Paul says, one denies the Unoriginate Father and the Only Begotten Son (and the Holy Spirit Who Proceeds from the Father, Who only speaks of the Father and the Son, never Himself) also. So that is a false heretical and schismatic ''Christianity''.

Islam does preach another Jesus.
#14995092
Like I already said it doesn't matter in the context of 1 Peter 5:13.


Say it all you want, it doesn't make it so. Your comments in fact are devoid of historical or theological context, so repeating what is untrue over and over again like a mantra persuades nobody of anything.

I said "your" because I was talking about "your" quote of 1 Peter 5:13. But let me assure you again that I am a real Christian believing in Yahshua (Jesus) as the Messiah (Christ).


Again with the ''magic Hebrew words'' making it more special in the Lord's eyes to see :roll:

But no, real people don't generally write like that, referring to your reply to my original quote. It's suspicious.


In the contest of 1 Peter 5:13 it does not matter if it existed as a province, a city, or a village.


Actually it does, especially if you are a Christian, and happen to believe that the Word of God is inerrant and doesn't contradict Itself and believe that therefore ''Scripture explains Scripture''.

They still referred to it as Babylon and Peter never said it was built on seven hills.


St. John in the Apocalypse did.


Those commentators that thought he was referring to Rome, when he said Babylon, were wrong.


So everybody before the 2000's AD was wrong, until some convert from Islam to Roman Catholicism with a chip on his shoulder against his original religion and a desire to please people in his new one, Walid Shoebat, started in with his ''Babylon is Mecca'' and ''The Mahdi is the Antichrist of Christian prophesy'' nonsense? :excited: :lol:



Peter was not stupid. He knew the difference between Rome and Babylon.


You don't seem to know what a ''Code'' is or the solid reasons he might call Rome ''Babylon''.... Such as Rome persecuting Christians, the Israel of God in the New Testament Covenant era. Such as Rome destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, just as the Babylonians did. Or Rome as being the Gentile World Power in it's time as St. Daniel writes, just as Babylon was in it's day.

John was not speaking of something in his time but in the future, since he was seeing prophetic visions of things which shall be hereafter.


Before, During, and hereafter to the Second Coming.



It was also to be given to the seven churches in Asia.


That was contemporary messages St. John wrote to the Bishops of those cities, so what's your point?


The city of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church is not in Asia.


Again, no point.



This mystery Babylon is the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth that originated out of Asia.


The text does not say anything about anything originating out of Asia.


In our time this fits Islam with the beheading of Christians and other abominations performed by those that align themselves with it.


Tell me; is it better to lose your head, your life? Or is it better to lose your soul to spiritual deception?



Islam's holiest city is Mecca that is located in the wilderness or desert where they practice ancient pagan religions.


Actually it isn't, it's on a trade route in a mountainous region called the Hejaz, which is close to the Red Sea. And what Paganism is practiced by Islam is irrelevant because St. John speaks about ''Babylon'' saying she isn't a widow.... Speaks of her apostasy. A harlot who commits spiritual fornication from God. Mecca never knew the true God to fall away from or commit fornication against, ''Babylon'' (Rome) did and has.

John says he was carried away in the spirit to a wilderness or desert. The city of Rome or Vatican City is not in a wilderness or desert and it represents Christianity, not paganism and other abominations.


A spiritual desert. St. John is using Apocalyptic symbols after all.


I don't see them as insane. They are simply trying to use common sense to make sense of the prophecy.


No, they're insane. They are trying to apply everything in Scriptural prophesy to their own time, divorced from context of Scripture, or even accurate context of their own time, either. It doesn't get much more unhinged than that.


Actually, 17:1 first says the great whore sits on many waters,


''Waters'' are peoples in Apocalyptic symbolism. ''Sitting'' on them means rule over them. Mecca never ruled but was ruled by other powers and cities during the Islamic period to this day. Rome ruled over many people, and spiritually still does.



a scarlet colored beast, and seven mountains.


''Scarlet'' means an Empire in Apocalyptic symbolism, Mecca never ruled an Empire.


The seven mountain are around Mecca


The Apocalypse says the woman sits ON the Hills/Mountains, not AROUND. You are repeated untruths in hopes that it'll magically change the facts.

, and Saudi Arabia has many waters, (Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Mediterranean, Caspian, and Black Seas.


I don't think you did well in geography, because Saudi Arabia does not border the Mediterranean, the Caspian, or the Black seas :excited: :excited: :excited: . And besides, ''Waters'' mean ''Peoples'' in Apocalyptic symbolism.


Rome definitely doesn't carry the matching qualities Mecca obviously does.


Mecca carries none.

Rome does have seven hills but scripture specifies Mountains and not hills.


Go back to the Koine Greek.


Mecca has seven Mountains instead of hills. And the word that the KJV translates as "sit" can mean dwell by.


Mecca is in a Valley. Those aren't hills.

No, go back to the Koine Greek.


And in fact, just go back period, because your obduracy is embarrassing to look at.


I don't think so.


You should just stop with ''I don't think''.


Islam does preach another Jesus.


''Jesus'' is mentioned in Islam. But there is no theology developed about their ''Jesus'' and his role in their religion comparable to the Christ of Christian Scripture. Aside from the name, it could be just as well an entirely different person.
#14995099
annatar1914 wrote:''Jesus'' is mentioned in Islam. But there is no theology developed about their ''Jesus'' and his role in their religion comparable to the Christ of Christian Scripture. Aside from the name, it could be just as well an entirely different person.


I agree with the rest of your post, but this is slightly mistaken.

Islam teaches in the Koran that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. They do not however believe he is the Son of God or divine. They believe he is the last Prophet that came to the Jewish people alone, and they call him the Great Prophet as a result. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran MORE than Mohammed is.

They believe that Jesus will return for a second coming to destroy the Dajjal and some believe he will team up with the Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal.

So they do believe Jesus has a theological Messianic role in their Religion, but it is without considering him divine.

(Which I've always found funny because to come back in the way Islam says he will logically implies divinity to me, but Islam often refuses to accept logicalities).
#14995102
colliric wrote:I agree with the rest of your post, but this is slightly mistaken.

Islam teaches in the Koran that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. They do not however believe he is the Son of God or divine. They believe he is the last Prophet that came to the Jewish people alone, and they call him the Great Prophet as a result. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran MORE than Mohammed is.

They believe that Jesus will return for a second coming to destroy the Dajjal and some believe he will team up with the Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal.

So they do believe Jesus has a theological Messianic role in their Religion, but it is without considering him divine.

(Which I've always found funny because to come back in the way Islam says he will logically implies divinity to me, but Islam often refuses to accept logicalities).


You got me there, sorry, lol...

I guess what I wanted to say about Jesus in Islam is that he is a human being just as with the rest of us. When I think of ''Theology'' I think of God, and the God-Man Jesus Christ, and the experiential knowledge of the Holy Trinity, and so Islam has no theology in that sense.

But still, Islam is more ''Christian'' than Mormonism in my opinion, and about the same as the JW's, and it would do no good to create yet another hateful and false eschatology just to score more points against them.
#14995108
The Mormon church produces nice videos about the life of Jesus, and I don't mind watching them.

They're basically Life of Jesus: King James Edition...

But everything else looks way too similar in style and tone to the Church of Scientology to me. I reckon one day they'll acually try to merge. The COS has already overtaken the Nation of Islam. Next it'll be a merger with the Mormon Church one day.
#14995147
annatar1914 wrote:Say it all you want, it doesn't make it so. Your comments in fact are devoid of historical or theological context, so repeating what is untrue over and over again like a mantra persuades nobody of anything.

I gave you a quote from Wikipedia that gave the historical context.

annatar1914 wrote:Again with the ''magic Hebrew words'' making it more special in the Lord's eyes to see :roll:

Nothing magic there. I was just revealing the truth that our Lord and Savior came in His Father's name as He said.

annatar1914 wrote:But no, real people don't generally write like that, referring to your reply to my original quote. It's suspicious.

I am a real person.

annatar1914 wrote:Actually it does, especially if you are a Christian, and happen to believe that the Word of God is inerrant and doesn't contradict Itself and believe that therefore ''Scripture explains Scripture''.

The Word of God is inerrant and doesn't contradict itself and "Scripture explains Scripture" if one has correct understanding. The Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 is the physical location in Asia at the time of Peter after the old Babylon was destroyed, but was still referred to as Babylon by the Jews that had been taken captive there, as my Wikipedia historical account revealed.

annatar1914 wrote:St. John in the Apocalypse did.

John was not talking about the same Babylon as Peter. John referred to a future Mystery Babylon the Great, which is to be utterly destroyed in the end times.

annatar1914 wrote:So everybody before the 2000's AD was wrong, until some convert from Islam to Roman Catholicism with a chip on his shoulder against his original religion and a desire to please people in his new one, Walid Shoebat, started in with his ''Babylon is Mecca'' and ''The Mahdi is the Antichrist of Christian prophesy'' nonsense?

It appears that way. Jesus said, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18 KJV)

annatar1914 wrote:You don't seem to know what a ''Code'' is or the solid reasons he might call Rome ''Babylon''.... Such as Rome persecuting Christians, the Israel of God in the New Testament Covenant era. Such as Rome destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, just as the Babylonians did. Or Rome as being the Gentile World Power in it's time as St. Daniel writes, just as Babylon was in it's day.

Peter was not using code, but speaking in plain language. John in Revelation is another matter. But this Mystery Babylon that John saw was a mystery to him that the angel had to explain. I don't see how Rome would be much of a mystery to John.

annatar1914 wrote:Before, During, and hereafter to the Second Coming.

Yes, this whore and beast where hereafter to the Second Coming. The beast empire in that area after Rome was the Ottoman Empire. The whore represents the Islamic Babylonian religion of the beast. All those nations in that area today except Israel are Islamic.

annatar1914 wrote:That was contemporary messages St. John wrote to the Bishops of those cities, so what's your point?
Again, no point.
The text does not say anything about anything originating out of Asia.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia:
(Revelation 1:4 KJV)
Obviously, Revelation is prophecy for Christians in Asia. Asia is the location of the whore religion and the beast kingdom. That religion today is obviously Islam.

annatar1914 wrote:Tell me; is it better to lose your head, your life? Or is it better to lose your soul to spiritual deception?

I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands...
(Revelation 20:4 KJV)

annatar1914 wrote:Actually it isn't, it's on a trade route in a mountainous region called the
Hejaz, which is close to the Red Sea.

Considerably, more than half the area of Saudi Arabia is desert.

Mecca is situated at an elevation of 909 feet (277 metres) above sea level in the dry beds of the
Wadi Ibrāhīm and several of its short tributaries. It is surrounded by the Ṣirāt Mountains...

Definition of wadi. 1 : the bed or valley of a stream in regions of southwestern Asia and northern
Africa that is usually dry except during the rainy season and that often forms an oasis : gully,
wash. 2 : a shallow usually sharply defined depression in a desert region.

Definition of oasis. 1 : a fertile or green area in an arid region (such as a desert) The caravan
stopped to rest at an oasis.

annatar1914 wrote:And what Paganism is practiced by Islam is irrelevant because St. John speaks

about ''Babylon'' saying she isn't a widow.... Speaks of her apostasy. A harlot who commits

spiritual fornication from God. Mecca never knew the true God to fall away from or commit

fornication against, ''Babylon'' (Rome) did and has.

...for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow...
(Revelation 18:7 KJV) see also Isaiah 47:8. She is not speaking of her apostasy, which is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief, for she goes on and says that she will see no sorrow. Fornication is sexual intercourse between people not married to each other. Islam is a false pagan religion that has never been married to the true God, so Mecca fits the definition of fornication better than Vatican City in Rome.

annatar1914 wrote:A spiritual desert. St. John is using Apocalyptic symbols after all.

It doesn't say anything about a spiritual desert, it simply states that the angel transported him in the spirit to the desert or wilderness, most likely the great Arabian Desert of Asia.

annatar1914 wrote:''Waters'' are peoples in Apocalyptic symbolism. ''Sitting'' on them means rule over them. Mecca never ruled but was ruled by other powers and cities during the Islamic period to this day. Rome ruled over many people, and spiritually still does.

Mecca is regarded as the holiest city in the religion of Islam and a pilgrimage to it known as the Hajj is obligatory for all able Muslims. Mecca is home to the Kaaba, by majority description Islam's holiest site, as well as being the direction of Muslim prayer. Mecca was long ruled by Muhammad's descendants, the sharifs, acting either as independent rulers or as vassals to larger polities.

Today, more than 15 million Muslims visit Mecca annually, including several million during the few days of the Hajj. As a result, Mecca has become one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the Muslim world, although non-Muslims are prohibited from entering the city.

Another name for Mecca, or the wilderness and mountains surrounding it, according to Arab and Islamic tradition, is Faran or Pharan, referring to the Desert of Paran mentioned in the Old Testament at Genesis 21:21.

According to Islamic tradition, the history of Mecca goes back to Abraham (Ibrahim), who built the Kaaba with the help of his elder son Ishmael in around 2000 BCE, when the inhabitants of the site then known as Bakkah had fallen away from the original monotheism of Abraham through the influence of the Amalekites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca

annatar1914 wrote:''Scarlet'' means an Empire in Apocalyptic symbolism, Mecca never ruled an Empire.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool..
(Isaiah 1:18 KJV)
Scarlet and crimson were the firmest of dyes, and thus not easily washed out. So we see that scarlet represents sin in the Bible.

annatar1914 wrote:The Apocalypse says the woman sits ON the Hills/Mountains, not AROUND. You are repeated untruths in hopes that it'll magically change the facts.

The fact is that it says "mountains" and nothing about "hills" and the Greek word translated as "sitteth" in the KJV is Strong's Greek number 2521 to sit down, reside fig. to remain'reside: - dwell, sit (by, down).

annatar1914 wrote:I don't think you did well in geography, because Saudi Arabia does not border the Mediterranean, the Caspian, or the Black seas . And besides, ''Waters'' mean

''Peoples'' in Apocalyptic symbolism.

Okay, I failed geography, but the point is that Saudia Arabia is close to many seas which supports the following verses:

For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

(Revelation 18:17-19 KJV)

Also, casting dust on their heads to denote grief is a Middle Eastern custom and not something those around the city of Rome would likely do.

annatar1914 wrote:Go back to the Koine Greek.

Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
(Luke 23:30 KJV)

Clearly there are two different Greek words, one for mountains and another one for hills.

annatar1914 wrote:You should just stop with ''I don't think''.

Okay, how about... You are probably wrong.?

I will return later to answer your other concerns.

annatar1914 wrote:''Jesus'' is mentioned in Islam. But there is no theology developed about their ''Jesus'' and his
role in their religion comparable to the Christ of Christian Scripture. Aside from the name, it
could be just as well an entirely different person.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran is so opposed to this belief that it condemns Jesus worshipers to Hell (5.72).

According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

Islam roundly condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing in contrast its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

The Christian God, both in terms of what he is (Triune) and who he is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim God; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.

The Trinity is an elaboration of Jewish theology, not a rejection. By contrast, Tawhid is a categorical rejection of the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, and the Fatherhood of God, doctrines that are grounded in the pages of the New Testament and firmly established centuries before the advent of Islam. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, incorporating their encounter with Jesus into their Jewish theology. Nothing of the sort is true of Muhammad, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Islam did not elaborate on the Trinity but rejected and replaced it.

Christians worship a Triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, an incarnate Son who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not what the Muslim God is; it is not who the Muslim God is; and it is not what the Muslim God does. Truly, the Trinity is antithetical to Tawhid, fundamentally incompatible and only similar superficially and semantically. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.

https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/d ... e-same-god

While Muslims agree with Christians on many crucial details surrounding Jesus’ life (e.g., His angelic annunciation, virgin conception, and miracles), they reject the core elements relating to the gospel (i.e., His divine nature, sacrificial death, and resurrection).

Tne Muslims claim Jesus was not crucified to death, but was just taken up to Heaven and will return.

The most common Muslim position today is that Allah miraculously disguised Judas to look like Jesus. Then Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place, while Jesus was taken safely to heaven. The standard Islamic understanding of Jesus’ rescue seems to require a second coming. If Qur’an 4:157–8 asserts that Jesus was taken to heaven alive, this claim must be reconciled with other passages of the Qur’an, which imply that Jesus would die (e.g., 19:33).

To make sense of these conflicting claims, Muslims must believe that Jesus is going to return to Earth at some point in the future, and that he will die and be resurrected. This is exactly what we find in the Hadith.

Indeed, Muhammad affirmed a startling role for Jesus at his second coming: “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary [i.e., Isa (Jesus)] descends amongst you and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Qur’an (as a just ruler); he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).’”

The jizya (poll tax) won’t be abolished because of the abundance of money, but because Allah “will cause all religions to perish except Islam.” According to other traditions, Jesus will wage jihad against unbelievers, kill the Antichrist, get married, have children, take the pilgrimage to Mecca, reign for forty years, die, and be buried near Muhammad in Medina.

https://www.equip.org/article/jesus-in-islam/

It doesn't say (yet). Then maybe you should hang[…]

I'll accept that as your acknowledgement that an[…]

Yeah, he was 30 years old when he did that stupid […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Forgot the past. She intends to call off Brexit, w[…]