I would like to have a debate with a catholic regarding this question. It was generally taught in America and in the beginning of the Protestant Reformation it was naturally accepted among Protestants who left the catholics, many of whom like the Waldenses were murdered mercilessly by them- that this was very fact. Over time, likely due to the catholic counter-reformation and catholic infiltration of Western Protestant and Anglican societies, this interpretation of the scripture has been largely toned down to being only a theory that can't be proven.
I propose that this change of teaching is an unfortunate demise in Christian critical thought and departs from what would otherwise be a quite natural interpretation of the scriptures if an informed understanding of Church history were had by such a Bible reader. Also modern events even support this old interpretation as well.
My stance in this debate would be that the interpretation of Rev 17 by the ante-nicene exegetes lends support to the belief that the catholic organization is the harlot of Rev. 17.
I could attempt to support the stance that the Roman catholic church is the harlot of Rev. 17 through other supporting arguments, but in order to limit this debate and not allow it to be too wild I would like to systematically cover this topic one debate at a time. Whoever wishes to debate should be willing and able to stay on topic. The point is to debate whether or not the ancient exegetes and their interpretation of the passage in scripture pertaining to the woman on the beast would support the interpretation of the early Protestant Churches generally, that the woman on the beast is the catholic institution with allegedly on or about 1 billion adherents.
I propose that this change of teaching is an unfortunate demise in Christian critical thought and departs from what would otherwise be a quite natural interpretation of the scriptures if an informed understanding of Church history were had by such a Bible reader. Also modern events even support this old interpretation as well.
My stance in this debate would be that the interpretation of Rev 17 by the ante-nicene exegetes lends support to the belief that the catholic organization is the harlot of Rev. 17.
I could attempt to support the stance that the Roman catholic church is the harlot of Rev. 17 through other supporting arguments, but in order to limit this debate and not allow it to be too wild I would like to systematically cover this topic one debate at a time. Whoever wishes to debate should be willing and able to stay on topic. The point is to debate whether or not the ancient exegetes and their interpretation of the passage in scripture pertaining to the woman on the beast would support the interpretation of the early Protestant Churches generally, that the woman on the beast is the catholic institution with allegedly on or about 1 billion adherents.
