Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » If Vatican Catholicism is mystery Babylon what are the daughter religions spun from her that have been accepted back?

If Vatican Catholicism is mystery Babylon what are the daughter religions spun from her that have been accepted back?

Posted - January 11, 2018

Responses


  • 13071
    Nationalist.
      January 11, 2018 10:42 PM MST
    1

  • 1812
    You called for me?
      January 11, 2018 10:43 PM MST
    1

  • 13071
    Yes fellow Patriot. ;))
      January 11, 2018 10:46 PM MST
    1

  • 16841
    Babylon is Mesopotamia. Vatican Catholicism isn't the dominant religion there, Sunni Islam is. The daughter religions are Shia and Druze - they haven't been accepted back (yet).
      January 12, 2018 1:18 AM MST
    1

  • 34479
    Ouknow is not talking about literal Babylon, but Mystery Babylon in Revelation.
      January 12, 2018 6:35 AM MST
    0

  • 16841
    One and the same. It's a prophecy - neither Vatican Catholicism nor Islam existed at the time John the Seer wrote on Patmos. Catholicism is on the decline. Islam is growing, already has more adherents than the Catholic church. The mystery is the church, the location is literal.
      January 14, 2018 3:48 AM MST
    1

  • 3191
    You are correct that the mystery is the church.  The location is irrelevant, as the religion spoken of in the prophecy is worldwide.  Babylon, in my opinion, is metaphoric of the mindset of the people of Babylon in ancient times.  Whatever religion it ends up being, I doubt it will be either Catholicism or Islam, as it will have to be something virtually all will embrace.  JMHO  
      January 14, 2018 4:31 AM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Hi Bozette. Nice thinking. Do you think it could be all religions in opposition to truth?

    (Revelation 14:8) Another, a second angel, followed, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, she who made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality!”
    (Revelation 17:1, 2) One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me: “Come, I will show you the judgment on the great prostitute who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and earth’s inhabitants were made drunk with the wine of her sexual immorality.”
    (Revelation 18:2, 3) And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit and every unclean and hated bird lurks! 3 For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth became rich owing to the power of her shameless luxury.”
      January 14, 2018 3:10 PM MST
    0

  • 34479
    We disagree. I believes the Bible talks about the literal Babylon which it prophesied would be destroyed before the Endtimes and then we have the mystery Babylon which is still prophesied to be destroyed but at the end of Tribulation in the Rev. 
    Exactly Catholicism did not yet exist and still the Bible predicts its headquarters. (Jesus said I told you all things ahead of time....so that when you see it, you will believe)
    I also believe Islam is in Rev as well. 
      January 14, 2018 4:36 AM MST
    0

  • 2657
    Are you saying the location is a literal city like Baghdad or something?
    I am sure you know that much of Revelation is symbolic. I think that the keys to Revelation are in the rest of the Bible.

    [Figurative Use. In the Hebrew Scriptures, cities are used figuratively. (Pr 21:22; Jer 1:18) We find Jesus employing cities in his illustrations (Mt 12:25; Lu 19:17, 19), and Paul likewise in a figure of speech. (Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14) In Revelation cities are used to illustrate a number of things: “the holy city” trampled by the nations (Re 11:2), “the great city” called Sodom and Egypt in a spiritual sense (Re 11:8), the “great city, Babylon” (Re 18:10-21; 17:18), and “the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”—Re 21:2-27; 22:14, 19; 3:12.]
      January 14, 2018 3:00 PM MST
    0

  • 34479
    Rome, the Vatican, will cause the one world religion. 
      January 12, 2018 6:33 AM MST
    0

  • 13277
    But they're all derived from Judaism - including Catholicism.
      January 12, 2018 7:19 AM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Very little of Catholicism resembles biblical Judaism. 
      January 12, 2018 11:50 AM MST
    1

  • 13277
    It may not resemble it, but it was completely derived from it, starting with baptism.
      January 12, 2018 12:19 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    I would have to research that as I don't know that Jews were baptized before the first century? Even then they didn't baptize babies, did they?
      January 12, 2018 2:19 PM MST
    0

  • 13277
    No, but the conversion ceremony involves immersion under water at a Mikveh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh
      January 12, 2018 3:21 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Do you consider the Mishnah to be equal to the Hebrew scriptures? The law and the prophets or whatever you refer to the first 39 books of the Bible?
      January 14, 2018 3:05 PM MST
    1

  • 13277
    It supplements them. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge if they're equal.
      January 15, 2018 8:00 AM MST
    0

  • 1393
    "I don't know that Jews were baptized before the first century?"

    Jews were baptised before Jesus. We don't need to look back beyond John known as the Baptist. The JWs, for reasons I have not inquired into yet, don't refer to him as the Baptist but as the Baptiser
      January 23, 2018 8:11 AM MST
    0

  • 2657
    Haven't researched it but were Biblical Jews baptized before John the Baptist came baptizing? If so, what verses can I read that?

    JW's refer to John as the Baptist, the Baptizer or even just as John.

    See if this helps:
    MATTHEW
    Study Notes—Chapter 3
    3:1

    the Baptist: Or “the Immerser; the Dipper”; referred to as “the Baptizer” at Mr 1:4; 6:14, 24. Evidently used as a sort of surname, indicating that baptizing by immersing in water was distinctive of John. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of “John, surnamed the Baptist.”


    MARK
    Study Notes—Chapter 1

    1:4
    the Baptizer: Or “the Immerser; the Dipper.” The Greek participle rendered “Baptizer” here and at Mr 6:14, 24 could also be rendered “one who baptizes.” The form is slightly different from the Greek noun Ba·pti·stesʹ, which is rendered “Baptist” at Mr 6:25; 8:28 and in Matthew and Luke. The two designations, “Baptizer” and “Baptist,” are used interchangeably at Mr 6:24, 25.—See study note on Mt 3:1.


    JOHN
    Study Notes—Chapter 1

    John: That is, John the Baptist. The writer of this Gospel, the apostle John, refers to John the Baptist 19 times but, unlike the other Gospel writers, never uses the designation “the Baptist” or “the Baptizer.” (See study notes on Mt 3:1; Mr 1:4.) The apostle John does distinguish between the three Marys. (Joh 11:1, 2; 19:25; 20:1) However, he did not need to make such a distinction when referring to John the Baptist, since the apostle never refers to himself by name and no one would misunderstand which John was meant. This is another confirmation that the apostle John wrote this Gospel.—See “Introduction to John” and study note on John Title.




    https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mar/6/1/t_bibles_963014Mark 6:14 (ESV) King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’[fn] name had become known. Some[fn] said, “John the Baptist[fn] has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.”

    “John the Baptist[fn]  Greek baptizer; also verse 24
     
      January 23, 2018 8:30 AM MST
    1

  • 1393
    TY 

    I detected a preference for "Baptizer" over "Baptist" among JWs and thought that was doctrinal.

    There doesn't appear to be any reference to the practice in the OT, at least not under the the label of baptism. According to Mark 1:4, it was "John the Baptist [who] appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." I have highlighted the phrase at the end of that verse because it's quite curious. However, what is significant for our purposes here is that when the priests confronted John they were not concerned with the act of baptism, and therefore did not question it, but questioned the capacity in which John was baptizing.  They ask, according to John 1:25, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” 
      January 23, 2018 3:37 PM MST
    0

  • 2657
    Apparently the Pharisees and some other sects did something like the baptism of some utensils and possibly some type of ritualistic baptism for some people for different reasons without divine authorization? Also not sure if it involved complete immersion?

    See if this helps:
    [John’s Baptism. The first human authorized by God to perform water baptism was John the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth. (Lu 1:5-7, 57) The very fact that he was known as “John the Baptist” or “the baptizer” (Mt 3:1; Mr 1:4) implies that baptism or water immersion came to the attention of the people especially through John, and the Scriptures prove that his ministry and baptism came from God; they were not of John’s origin. His works were foretold by the angel Gabriel as from God (Lu 1:13-17), and Zechariah prophesied by holy spirit that John would be a prophet of the Most High to make Jehovah’s ways ready. (Lu 1:68-79) Jesus confirmed that John’s ministry and baptism were from God. (Lu 7:26-28) The disciple Luke records that “God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. So he came . . . preaching baptism.” (Lu 3:2, 3) The apostle John states of him: “There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John.”—Joh 1:6....]
      January 23, 2018 3:57 PM MST
    1

  • 1393
    TY Tex

    The subject is very intriguing and full of curiosity.

    You mention the existence of "baptism" by the Pharisees of some utensils and possibly some type of ritualistic "baptism" for some people for different reasons and wonder whether it was "without divine authorization"

    You might be aware that among the Children of Israel [aka Jacob] there was ritualistic consecration for some people for different reasons and even of some utensils. However, these consecrations were referred to as anointing, not baptism, and were done using oil, not water. People were anointed for different reasons, for example, as prophets, high priest, kings or for service to God in other capacities. We also know that all these anointings had divine authorisation including the anointing of utensils, as can be seen from the following verses.

    "He sprinkled the oil on the altar seven times, anointing it and all its utensils, as well as the washbasin and its stand, making them holy." Leviticus 8:11
    "You shall also consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them" Exodus 30:29-30
    "They also drove out many demons and healed many of the sick, anointing them with oil." Mark 6:13

    What is curious here apart from those being anointed becoming "most holy" is that even those they touch become holy. It is also curious that those who are anointed would in English be referred to as anointed, a word which when translated into Greek would be christos [anglicised as christ] and in Hebrew anglicised as messiah.

    Coming back to baptism, we see that it is administered by one with higher authority or ranking to one with lesser authority or ranking. So it strikes one as curiosity that it was John who baptized Jesus and not the other way round. What is even more curious, since John was "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.", is the need fo Jesus to undergo such a baptism.

    Interesting subject
      January 24, 2018 4:35 AM MST
    0

  • 2657
    If you are that intrigued by non-biblical Jewish customs, you can read the link posted above by Stu Bee as well as other research like the Mishnah and such.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh

    If you wan't to get the view of Jesus on some of the customs and motives behind it, you can read:
    Matthew 23 and Luke 11.
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/l/r1/lp-e?q=matthew+23%3B+Luke+11
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/l/r1/lp-e?q=matthew+23%3B+Luke+11



    If you wan't to know more about the Mosaic Law Covenant and the anointing of certain utensils like in the Holy and the Most Holy you can do research in "Insight on the Scriptures" or any other biblical dictionary or encyclopedia or whatever:
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=anointed%2Butensils&fc%5B%5D=it
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=anointed+utensils&p=par&r=occ

    Or just the Bible:
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=anointed+utensils&p=par&r=occ
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=anointed%2Butensils&fc%5B%5D=bi


    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002243?q=jesus+baptism+forgiveness+sins+john&p=par
    6 The baptisms performed by John differed in purpose from immersions carried out by Jesus’ followers. (John 4:1, 2) John baptized people as a public symbol of their repentance over sins against the Law.* (Luke 3:3) But something new was involved in the baptism of Jesus’ followers. At Pentecost 33 C.E., the apostle Peter urged his listeners: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:37-41) Though he was addressing Jews and proselytes, Peter was not talking about baptism to symbolize repentance over sinsagainst the Law; nor did he mean that baptism in Jesus’ name pictures the washing away of sins.—Acts 2:10.

    Footnote

    Since Jesus was sinless, he was not baptized to symbolize repentance. His baptism symbolized his presentation of himself to God for the doing of his Father’s will.—Hebrews 7:26; 10:5-10.

    n
    (EDITED to try to fix the links)
    (EDITED again to add the following):

    BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE

    6, 7. (a) Explain the significance of John’s baptism. (b) What unique baptism did John perform?

    We first read of baptism in the Bible in reference to that performed by John the Baptist. (Matt. 3:1-6) Those submitting to John’s baptism did so as evidence of their repentance over sins against the Mosaic Law. It is noteworthy, however, that the most important baptism that John performed had nothing to do with repentance. John had the unique privilege of baptizing Jesus, the perfect human Son of God. (Matt. 3:13-17) Jesus was without sin, so he did not need to repent. (1 Pet. 2:22) His baptism symbolized the presenting of himself to do God’s will.—Heb. 10:7.

    During the course of Jesus’ earthly ministry, his disciples also performed baptisms. (John 3:22; 4:1, 2) Like those performed by John, these baptisms symbolized the individuals’ repentance over sins against the Mosaic Law. However, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, baptism would take on a much different meaning for his followers.


    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014615?q=jesus+baptism+sins+john&p=par

    This post was edited by texasescimo at January 24, 2018 8:24 AM MST
      January 24, 2018 8:11 AM MST
    0