PDA

View Full Version : Information The Identity Of Babylon



markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 12:45 AM
The Identity Of Babylon

“Babylon” is mentioned only in four books in the New Testament. The first book is the gospel of Matthew. The author is recapping Jesus’ ancestry, and mentions the historical exile to Babylon. The second book is the Acts of the Apostles. Stephen (soon to be the first martyr) makes a defense to the Sanhedrin, and also references the exile to Babylon. The third book is the first epistle of Peter. The author says that “[s]he who is in Babylon … sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.” The fourth book is the Revelation. The author presents Babylon as a persecutor of the followers of Christ, and a great evil-doer. The first and second books are of no problem at all. But the third and fourth books can cause a good deal of confusion to the student who is trying to identify their respective “Babylons.” I maintain that in both cases, “Babylon” is actually the city of Jerusalem.

Peter’s Babylon

I Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

Peter, according to tradition, left Judea and traveled to the city of Rome. This tradition has led to the belief that when Peter wrote “Babylon” in his epistle, he was really referring to Rome. But just for the sake of it, let’s examine the Biblical record of Peter’s ministry.

On the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit is poured out on the followers of Christ, Peter takes the lead at this “founding” of the ministry in Jerusalem. Peter and John are called before the Sanhedrin as the main representatives of the Christians in Jerusalem. When persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, they all fled the city – except for the apostles, including Peter. Following the conversion of many people in Samaria, John and Peter were sent from Jerusalem to preach to them; after this, they each returned to Jerusalem. Peter leaves for Caesarea to witness to Cornelius, and then he returned to Jerusalem. After the death of James, the brother of John, Peter was arrested in Jerusalem by King Herod. Paul says that three years after his conversion he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and that he stayed with him for fifteen days (from this we can infer that Peter was living in Jerusalem). Paul then says he returned to Jerusalem fourteen years later, and again he saw Peter there.

When Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch, they were sent back to Jerusalem to discuss the differences between Jews and Gentiles; when they arrived in Jerusalem, Peter was one of the members of the church who met with them. Notably, when Paul was sent up from Antioch, he was sent “to see the apostles and elders.” Only James and Peter were specifically mentioned as part of the group that Paul was sent to see, and James and Peter sent back a letter in reply, saying it was from “the apostles and elders.” That the people of Antioch expected apostles (Peter being one of them) to be in Jerusalem – and that Peter’s and James’ response attests to this – indicates that Jerusalem was where Peter was making his permanent home. Finally, Peter says that Mark was also sending greetings; (assuming this is the same Mark (called John) in Acts) Peter, following his prison-break, went to Mark’s residence, which is known to have been in Jerusalem (hence we can also infer that Mark was in Jerusalem with Peter).

The New Testament very clearly shows that Peter resided in Jerusalem for his ministry. The manner in which Acts and Paul speak of him, it seems that despite Peter was occasionally seen to travel for his ministry it was a well-known fact to most Christians that he had made Jerusalem his permanent residence. In fact, Paul says that when he went to Jerusalem after fourteen years of being away, he met with the people who were considered “pillars” there, including Peter.

Although Acts depicts Peter as one of the first few people to appeal to the Gentiles, Paul’s letters maintain that Peter continued in his ministry to the Jews, which is especially evident in the Bible’s continual depiction that (A) he resided in Jerusalem and (B) always returned to it if he left. Reading earlier in I Peter, our author is seen addressing the dispersed Christians. But who was dispersed? It seems plausible that Peter may well have been writing to the Jewish-Christians who had been scattered when persecution began in Jerusalem, as seen in Acts. As one writer put it, “[h]ow natural it would be for Peter to write to the Jewish diaspora from their national capital and their ‘mother church’ in Jerusalem,” and another says “[t]hus his salutation makes perfect sense for someone who is writing from Jerusalem to those who had previously left; and makes no sense if he were writing from Rome.” Further notice is made of Peter’s mention of Mark in I Peter, who was seen to have had a residence in Jerusalem, and Peter’s mention that his scribe was Silas, who is also seen in Acts as a member of the church in Jerusalem; these each help to point to Jerusalem as being the location from which I Peter was written.

Given the sturdy amount of support that Peter had made his permanent ministerial home in Jerusalem, it is very probable, then, that Peter’s “Babylon” was Jerusalem.

John’s Babylon

The Great

Revelation 17:5 This title was written on her forehead: Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and of Abominations of the Earth.

The identity of John’s Babylon has been a great debate, but all of the clues to its identity are in the Revelation. A careful reading of the passages concerning Babylon, and comparing them to the rest of the New Testament, can reveal who exactly Babylon the Great is. Here are the verses in the Revelation that refer to “Babylon.”

Revelation 14:8 A second angel followed and said, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”

Revelation 16:19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Revelation 17:5 This title was written on her forehead: Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and of Abominations of the Earth.

Revelation 18:2 With a mighty voice he shouted, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.”

Revelation 18:10 “Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry, ‘Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!’”

Revelation 18:21 Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: “With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.”

Babylon is referred to six times in the Revelation. Four of those six verses also mention “the great city,” three of which say Babylon is “the great city.” In fact, in chapter 17, the angel tells John “[t]he woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

When reading through the Revelation, it is plainly obvious that John speaks of a singular “city,” not multiple cities. He always uses the article “the” to show it is a specific city, and repeatedly calls it “the great city” throughout the book, so it should be evident to all that he speaks of just one “city.” Here are the verses in the Revelation that refer to the “city.”

[B]Revelation 11:8 Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is symbolically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Revelation 11:13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Revelation 14:20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.

Revelation 16:19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Revelation 17:18 “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 18:10 “Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry: ‘Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!’”

Revelation 18:16 “and cry out: ‘Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!’”

Revelation 18:18 “Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, ‘Was there ever a city like this great city?’”

Revelation 18:19 “They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out: ‘Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin.’”

Revelation 18:21 “Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.”

First, when reading the “Babylon” verses along with the “city” verses, it’s easily seen that Babylon is “the great city,” especially since Babylon is directly called “the great city” multiple times. Aside from that, Babylon is called “Babylon the Great” four times or so; the very title of the harlot directly relates it to the city: “Babylon the Great” is “the great city” seen throughout the book.

Second, take note of the Revelation 11:8; this is the first mention of “the great city,” and it is directly called “where [the] Lord was crucified.” This, of course, is Jerusalem. The only objection I have ever heard to this is that Jesus wasn’t crucified “in” Jerusalem. John, however, never says this either. He only says that “the great city” is “where” Jesus was crucified. Even if His crucifixion took place outside of the city gates, it is undeniable that His death is automatically associated with Jerusalem, simply because He was sentenced to death there, carried His cross from there, and was executed outside of the walls.

What we see in the Revelation so far can be summarized in a brief “equation” of sorts:

Jerusalem = where the Lord was crucified = the great city = Babylon the Great

A simple reduction of the “equation” leaves us with this:

Jerusalem = Babylon the Great

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 12:46 AM
The Blood

In Matthew 23, especially in verses 33-35, Jesus places the blame of the blood of the prophets and the righteous directly on the Pharisees and the Jews in Jerusalem. In verse 36 Jesus outright says that the consequences of those sins would be enacted upon that generation of Jews, and that their “house” (the temple of Jerusalem) would be left to them “desolate.” In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus describes the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1-2) and of the city Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15-22), and that it would be “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22) and “wrath against this people” (Luke 21:23). If there can be a summary of Jesus’ eschatological prophecies, it was that He prophesied destruction would come upon Jerusalem as “vengeance” and “wrath” as the culmination of their sins that they held over the few righteous followers of God.

In the Revelation, Babylon the Great is said to be “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus,” the same reason for which Christ placed judgment upon Jerusalem. Further, “the city” faces similar judgment as was prophesied on Jerusalem. In 14:20 the city is “trampled in the winepress [of God’s wrath].” In 16:19, when “the great city” splits apart, it is then said that “God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her … His wrath.” The entirety of chapter 18 is about how “Babylon the Great,” “the great city,” had fallen, how “doom [had] come” with “such violence.”

Some of what Jesus prophesied over Jerusalem is parallels a statement found in the Revelation:

Revelation 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth.

Matthew 23:34-35 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…

Take specific notice of the part in red in Jesus’ prophecy as compared to the Revelation verse – both Jesus and John are placing the blame for the deaths of all of the righteous people of the earth upon the condemned city. Jesus places the blame on Jerusalem, whereas John places the blame on Babylon. But both Jerusalem and Babylon are being assigned the same blame, so it is entirely plausible that they are one and the same city.

The Harlot

Since it is imperative to recognize that there are numerous references in the Revelation to the Old Testament (some say hundreds), likewise a careful study of Old Testament Israel (and Jerusalem specifically) shows that “she” is continually symbolized as a “harlot,” a woman seeking to do sin. In Ezekiel 16, Jerusalem is very metaphorically described as God’s “queen.” Later in the chapter, however, Jerusalem becomes a “prostitute,” seeking to take part in the sins of other nations, directly stated to be committing adultery. And finally, God’s wrath is kindled against the “prostitute” Jerusalem, and the nations she sinned with return to her to destroy her.

Continuing on in Revelation 18, we see that Babylon claims she “sit[s] as queen” and that she is “not a widow.” This is a further metaphoric representation of Babylon as a “harlot.” If it is seen that Babylon is Jerusalem, then what is her claim that she is “not a widow” about? Could it be that she killed her Husband (Jesus)? And that she clings to the idea that she is still the “queen” that God originally had her to be? It certainly seems so. And as Ezekiel says that Jerusalem committed “adultery” with other nations, likewise Babylon is said to have “committed adultery” with “the kings of the earth.” And again, as Ezekiel says that the other nations returned to destroyed adulterous Jerusalem, so is adulterous Babylon brought “to ruin” and “left naked” by the beast (and its kings) that she had been riding upon in her mad drunken fervor.

Jerusalem (and Israel as a whole) is continually given the adulterous prostitute image in the Old Testament: Leviticus 17:7, 20:5-6; Numbers 14:33, 15:39; Deuteronomy 31:16; Judges 2:17, 8:27; I Chronicles 5:25; II Chronicles 21:11; Psalm 73:27; Hosea; Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:2,9,13, 5:7,11, 13:27; and Ezekiel 6:9; 16; 23; 43:7,9.

On a final, minor parallel; in Matthew 12:43-45, Jesus says that when “this wicked generation” would be rid of an unclean spirit, that seven more unclean spirits would return to live there; that is to say, the amount of wicked spirits would build up upon “this wicked generation.” Likewise, Babylon is said to have “become the home for demons, and a haunt for every unclean spirit.”

In my opinion, it can’t be any clearer that John’s Babylon is Jerusalem in a specific sense.

Revelation’s Theme

In the opening of the Revelation, John writes down a very specific statement.

Revelation 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

A good number of Christians and non-Christians alike have recognized this as being the definitive theme of the Revelation. John, here, is making a sort of amalgamation of other statements found in the Bible. Aside from the most well-recognized one (“even those who pierced Him”), the “He is coming with the clouds … and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him” directly goes back to Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse. Simply said, John’s Revelation is being directly connected with the Discourse’s prophecies. In the opening to the Discourse, Jesus is asked by His disciples when the second temple of Jerusalem (this should be hint number one) would be destroyed. Jesus gives a lengthy response to this question, culminating in “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.”

The parallels between the Revelation statement and Jesus’ Discourse statement are undeniable. The original context of the whole Discourse was the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem. That Jesus was making a prophecy as an extension to His prophesied catastrophe looming over Jerusalem’s second temple, and that He states that it would be “wrath against this people,” then for John to hearken to Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” proclamation lends credence to the theme of the Revelation being, succinctly, the judgment of Jerusalem. Hence, the judgment upon Babylon “the great city” from Revelation 11 and onward is seen as one of the prime aspects of the book, which draws upon the theme we find in verse 1:7, which in turn draws upon Jesus’ prophecy against Jerusalem for “days of vengeance.”

Something that some people do not seem to consider, is that the Revelation was not written in a vacuum, where John was shown arbitrary symbols with no context. John was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew, and God was the God of the Jews. Everything in the Revelation can be found in previous Scripture, the majority of which being the Old Testament. Aside from the harlot being a common symbol assigned to Jerusalem in the Old Testament, and aside from other various motifs drawn from the ancient prophets, the Revelation's theme, as presented above, fits perfectly in context with the old prophets. When Ezekiel and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Daniel and Zechariah and Joel et al. prophesied judgments upon people... who were their books primarily focused upon? Yes, the Gentiles played key parts, but the Jews were always the main context of the prophecies, and, if one notices, were always the ones being assigned the blame and having judgment prophesied against.

Jerusalem is found specifically in numerous Old Testament judgment prophecies (and Israel is found generically in many of these as well), so it is not inconceivable that the Revelation follows in suit. Even Jesus prophesied judgment upon Jerusalem in the same vein that the Old Testament prophets did, and John's Revelation draws upon Jesus' prophecies as well. Case in point, the theme of the Revelation can be definitively found in both Jesus' prophecies, can be definitively grounded in the Old Testament prophecies, and can even be found in small portions throughout the New Testament epistles. Bluntly: "judgment upon Jerusalem" carries the strongest Biblical evidence for being the Revelation's theme. And since Babylon is seen as the prime target of God's vengeance, then combined with all of the other arguments, one doesn't reach very far at all to say Babylon is Jerusalem.

Conclusions

In any case, I believe there is sufficient evidence, drawing from all portions of Scripture, to show that the “Babylon” spoken of in the New Testament is the city of Jerusalem. Summarized points:


1. Peter is described throughout the New Testament as living in Jerusalem for his entire ministry – nothing in the Bible says he ever permanently left the city, let alone for Rome (as alleged). So, when Peter said he was writing from “Babylon,” this can be taken as referring to Jerusalem.

2. John’s Revelation provides multiple reasons for Jerusalem being Babylon.


a. Babylon is called “the great city,” which in turn is identified as the place “where our Lord was crucified.” Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem, so it is logical to follow this through and connect Jerusalem with Babylon.


b. Babylon takes on the symbolism of being an adulterous harlot. “She” claims she is a queen, and not a widow. The Old Testament contains a number of passages likening Jerusalem to a harlot. Directly, many of the statements made about Babylon in Revelation 17 parallel the things said about Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. In both of these chapters, the city is symbolized as an adulterous woman who prostitutes herself to foreign nations, each is said to have committed murder, each is mentioned as a “queen,” and each is destroyed by her former lovers.


c. Jesus prophesied vengeance and judgment upon the people of Jerusalem, and made a particular “on the clouds” statement in reference to His prophecy of the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem. John’s Revelation begins by drawing upon Jesus’ “on the clouds” prophecy, showing that John is setting the theme for the Revelation as the judgment upon Jerusalem. Likewise, the Revelation, assuming Babylon is Jerusalem, strongly follows the style of prophecies the Old Testament prophets made. Since the Revelation places a prime focus upon Babylon’s judgment, the connection between Babylon’s judgment and Jerusalem’s judgment in Jesus’ prophecies, along with the parallels between the Revelation and the ancient prophets, is strong enough to consider that Babylon is Jerusalem.

faroutinmt
Sep 12th 2008, 01:33 AM
I agree. What most folks overlook is that the whole context of Matthew 24 is in response to Jesus telling the disciples that the temple would be destroyed. The whole chapter has to do with events surrounding the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Also this chapter is following on the heels of Jesus having told the Jewish leaders the parable about the stewards of the vineyard being destroyed and their vineyard given to others (representing the Jewish nation as the landowners). This is exactly what Jesus is continuing to explain.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 02:22 AM
I Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

I have been meaning to research further what evidence there truly is that Peter ever travelled to Rome, let alone that he wrote the book of Peter from there. This verse also means that Peter's son, Mark, had to also have travelled to Rome at the same time--which makes for an interesting situation, if Peter was crucified upside-down there. You would think his son, Mark, would have made the history books in some way if he was witness to his own dad being crucified.

We DO know, though, that Peter's chartered ministry was to Judea. I think it's a 75/25 chance Babylon was Jerusalem here, not Rome.

Kahtar
Sep 12th 2008, 02:33 AM
Interesting study. And mostly I agree.
One question:
This verse says that 'the great city' rules over the kings of the earth.
Revelation 17:18 “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
At what point in history has Jerusalem, or the Jews, ruled over the kings of the earth? Certainly not in Jesus' time, nor in 70 AD. Rome ruled over Jerusalem then.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 02:50 AM
One question:
This verse says that 'the great city' rules over the kings of the earth.
Revelation 17:18 “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
At what point in history has Jerusalem, or the Jews, ruled over the kings of the earth? Certainly not in Jesus' time, nor in 70 AD. Rome ruled over Jerusalem then.

If you do a study of Zionism, Zionists view themselves as the "rudder of the ship". They're the itty-bitty thing, under the water, secretly nudging, steering the "kings of the earth" around. You can see that behavior in the Gospels; particularly, the interactions between the Pharisees and the Romans concerning the Crucifixion. They thought they had the Roman authorities wrapped around their little finger. Also, in Acts you can see Jews at the forefront of Christian persecution, and that was all over the Roman Empire--not just in Judea.

ServantoftheKing
Sep 12th 2008, 03:19 AM
markedward,

What about the city written about in Chapter 11 indicates that it is Babylon being described there? I see Jerusalem in Chapter 11, but nothing else in that chapter that would indicate that it is referring to Babylon the Great.

ServantoftheKing

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 03:46 AM
markedward,

What about the city written about in Chapter 11 indicates that it is Babylon being described there? I see Jerusalem in Chapter 11, but nothing else in that chapter that would indicate that it is referring to Babylon the Great.

ServantoftheKingThis is a good question, but even a cursory read of the Revelation can provide a simple answer:

11:8 is the first time we are introduced to "the great city." From here onward, John never mentions multiple other "great cities", he continually calls it "the great city" (or simply "the city"), indicating it's singularity and uniqueness. In 11:8 "the great city" is directly stated to be the location at which Christ was crucified.

In chapter 14, we see that "the city" is being treaded upon by God's wrath. By chapter 14, only one "the city" has been mentioned, being "the great city" of 11:8, so the connection between the two is necessarily contextual. Chapter 14: "the city"? Which city? Oh, right, "the great city" mentioned in 11:8.

In chapter 16, God's wrath is seen to come upon "the great city." Again, no other city has been mentioned up to this point beyond "the city" of chapter 14 and "the great city" of 11:8. Immediately after chapter 16's reference to "the great city" we are told that God "remembered" Babylon and poured His wrath upon her. So, John is describing "the great city" as being under judgment, and immediately contextualizes it with the retribution that God had sent upon Babylon.

And, at last, in chapter 17 John is shown the adulterous Babylon, who is directly stated to be "the great city." In the entirety of the Revelation, what "great city" is this? The only description we are given is that it is "where our Lord also was crucified," and given, as I said before, that only one "the great city" is spoken of throughout the book indicates that "the great city" of 11:8 is the same "the great city" found in chapters 16, 17 and 18.

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 04:12 AM
I further note that I forgot to place in my above study.

One of the parables Christ told was of a wedding feast. In this parable, Christ likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a wedding feast. The King (Christ) sent out His servants (Christ's followers) to invite other people to the feast (the Kingdom). However, not everyone responded to the servants of the king favorably:

The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'

This may seem to be mere parable, but it is much deeper even in the symbols Christ uses. Notice His mentioning of burning the city the evil-doers are from. Following this parable, the Pharisees "laid plans to trap Him in His words." Why? Because the Pharisees knew His parable was about them - they were the murderers from the city that would be burned up. Christians try to help others come to know Christ, the people of Jerusalem kill the Christians. The King (Jesus), in turn, pours His wrath upon Jerusalem, and following Jerusalem's destruction is the wedding feast. This is directly parallel to the final chapters of the Revelation.

In bits of the book we see Christians as the servants of Christ, and the Christians are killed. Babylon is then directly stated to be the one responsible for their bloodshed. But in the end, God pours His wrath upon Babylon (Revelation 16:19, Revelation 18), and following this is a victory cry that the servants have been avenged (19:2), and then we see the wedding feast (Revelation 19:9). The two accounts, though obviously containing some differences, are still too incredibly similar to be separate events. The parable of the wedding feast lines up perfectly with the final chapters of the Revelation.

ServantoftheKing
Sep 12th 2008, 04:13 AM
markedward,

I guess we were in different translations. I was in NASB, which did not use the phrase "the great city" in Rev 14:8. It is used in the KJV. i do have another question for you though...and I'm not trying to jab at preterism, I'm trying to understand more of what the partial preterism view teaches. I myself am a post-trib, futurist, leaning towards an amil viewpoint.

My next question for you is this: has Babylon the Great already been destroyed? As I understand it, Rev 16:19 makes it clear that the destruction of Babylon comes at the time of Armageddon (which is also the same time that Jesus returns and defeats the armies of Gog and Magog) and Rev 18:21 makes it clear that after the destruction of Babylon, she will not be found anymore. I would like your thoughts on this. Am I reading this correctly? Am I reading it wrong?

ServantoftheKing

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 04:41 AM
i do have another question for you though...and I'm not trying to jab at preterism, I'm trying to understand more of what the partial preterism view teaches. I myself am a post-trib, futurist, leaning towards an amil viewpoint.No worries.


My next question for you is this: has Babylon the Great already been destroyed? As I understand it, Rev 16:19 makes it clear that the destruction of Babylon comes at the time of Armageddon (which is also the same time that Jesus returns and defeats the armies of Gog and Magog)I don't think there's a connection between "Armageddon" ("Armageddon," or more literally Har-Megiddo, is a place known in history as a battle-site, not a time-frame) and the battle with Gog and Magog. There's no clear connection between the two, aside from gathering of peoples to make war. The context of each, however, is different. Revelation 16 shows armies gathering at Har-Meggido and we see the judgment of Babylon (Jerusalem). Revelation 20 shows armies gathering around God's beloved city, and God Himself destroys these armies to protect the city.

Revelation 16 shows God destroying a city ("the great city"), while Revelation 20 differs by showing God protecting a city ("the city He loves").


and Rev 18:21 makes it clear that after the destruction of Babylon, she will not be found anymore. I would like your thoughts on this. Am I reading this correctly? Am I reading it wrong?I do believe Babylon the Great has been destroyed already (circa 70 AD, of course, as most Preterists tend to believe).

Babylon, in the Revelation, is Jerusalem as an empowered people who persecute the Christians. Looking at history - after Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD, have the Jews as a whole been able to persecute the followers of God (in relation to how Christ described them as doing so in Matthew 23, and as Babylon is described in Revelation 17)? The obvious answer is 'no.' Jerusalem lost its religious authority with its fall in 70 AD and, though the city itself is still around, the "Babylon the Great" we see in the Revelation, as a powerful city, drunk with power, persecuting the saints and prophets and apostles is gone.

This just reminded me of yet another point: Revelation 18:20 says that Babylon the Great persecuted the "apostles." Throughout the New Testament, the term "apostle" is limited to the Twelve, and Paul. No one else. Since Babylon is said to have persecuted the apostles, this, in my opinion, almost necessarily limits it to the first century, being the time when the apostles were alive.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 04:50 AM
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/pop2.gif

ServantoftheKing
Sep 12th 2008, 04:57 AM
I do appreciate the different view. Interesting point about the apostles. Regarding Armageddon and the battle of Gog and Magog we do know that Armageddon is the 7th bowl, in which we see the following:

God's wrath
Great earthquake
Great hail
Mountains and islands removed

In the battle of Gog and Magog found in Ezekiel 38 we see the following:

God's wrath (Ezekiel 38:18-19)
Great earthquake (Ezekiel 38:19)
Great hail (Ezekiel 38:22)
Mountains thrown down (Ezekiel 38:20)

Also following the battle of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 39 we see the birds of the air invited to feast on the flesh and blood of mighty men and princes. It reads a slightly different than Revelation 19's account of the birds being invited to feast on the kings, commanders, mighty men, horses and their riders, free men and slaves, small and great. There are too many similarities between the battle of Gog and Magog and Armageddon as described in the 7th bowl to just be a coincidence. We may need to start a new topic for this one. I don't want to derail the original topic. I'm out for the night.

ServantoftheKing

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 05:01 AM
OK, I can see the line of reasoning here, although I'm not prepared to adopt it, but I'm being open-minded about it. Here's my question, however: In Revelation 18, we see that a whole lot of the world's people seem to be devastated by this city's destruction. The economic impact this city was having on the world at the time of its destruction appears to be considerable. Jerusalem, at the time of the 70 AD Diaspora does not seem to fit this description. There were several other cities around the Roman Empire who were economically far more prosperous than Jerusalem. How do you explain that?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 05:02 AM
I do appreciate the different view. Interesting point about the apostles. Regarding Armageddon and the battle of Gog and Magog we do know that Armageddon is the 7th bowl, in which we see the following:

God's wrath
Great earthquake
Great hail
Mountains and islands removed

In the battle of Gog and Magog found in Ezekiel 38 we see the following:

God's wrath (Ezekiel 38:18-19)
Great earthquake (Ezekiel 38:19)
Great hail (Ezekiel 38:22)
Mountains thrown down (Ezekiel 38:20)

Also following the battle of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 39 we see the birds of the air invited to feast on the flesh and blood of mighty men and princes. It reads a slightly different than Revelation 19's account of the birds being invited to feast on the kings, commanders, mighty men, horses and their riders, free men and slaves, small and great. There are too many similarities between the battle of Gog and Magog and Armageddon as described in the 7th bowl to just be a coincidence. We may need to start a new topic for this one. I don't want to derail the original topic. I'm out for the night.

ServantoftheKingI agree, Ezekiel 38-39 is Armageddon, they are the same. Revelation 20's Gog/Magog is not the same, however. There are too many differences.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 05:05 AM
Revelation 20's Gog/Magog is not the same, however. There are too many differences.

When it says, "After the thousand years are ended..." I think that should tip you off.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 05:30 AM
When it says, "After the thousand years are ended..." I think that should tip you off.What, that the two Gog/Magog's are different? Uh, that's right. :yes:

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 05:37 AM
OK, I can see the line of reasoning here, although I'm not prepared to adopt it, but I'm being open-minded about it. Here's my question, however: In Revelation 18, we see that a whole lot of the world's people seem to be devastated by this city's destruction. The economic impact this city was having on the world at the time of its destruction appears to be considerable. Jerusalem, at the time of the 70 AD Diaspora does not seem to fit this description. There were several other cities around the Roman Empire who were economically far more prosperous than Jerusalem. How do you explain that?Admittedly, I found this troubling when I first began to grapple with the "Babylon is Jerusalem" idea, but I came across a particular thesis that I think is helpful to the apparent problem with Babylon's economic status. It's a little long, but if you don't mind reading it:


As we have discussed above, certain elements of chapter 18 are often seen as troublesome for a Jerusalem connection to Babylon, especially the vast nature of the sea trade described and the overall economic power and influence. In fact, in the beginning stages of compiling the research for this thesis, I must admit that I found this problem quite difficult to handle as well, and wondered if there was a reasonable response to this objection at all. While other evidences seemed quite persuasive for the Jerusalem view, this questioned appeared at least as of yet unanswered, if not unanswerable.

For this reason I am quite indebted at this point to the work of Old Testament scholar Iain Provan, whose article mentioned above, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 From an Old Testament Perspective,” has been a welcome source of insights. For Provan, the complex language of Rev 18 is not only not a hindrance to a Jerusalem perspective, it is one of the strongest arguments for it. Provan’s contention throughout is that it is a false assumption that the detail of imagery present in a passage such as this must be taken at face value in all its particulars as a literal description of the situation of the day when the language being employed is clearly a reapplication of a major portion of an Old Testament text. His reason for believing this is related to his own study in the area of traditional “lament songs,” which informs his understanding of the use of such language in this passage.85 Clearly the “lament” form is at work in Rev 18, as is plain from the fact that much of the content is taken from a previous lament for Tyre found in Ezek 26–28 (combined of course with OT oracle language against Babylon, the namesake of Revelation’s “great city”). The use of such a traditional form is significant to Provan, who notes, “[I]t is not simply Old Testament language and imagery which has shaped Revelation 18, but also the very form and structure of Old Testament texts—the very manner in which they have been composed.”86

The general point that is relevant here is whether we should look for historical reference for each detail of such a reapplication of imagery, or whether the function of the imagery is more properly to provide an echo of the form traditionally used when a city such as Tyre falls from a great height. For instance, regarding the vivid list of cargoes given by John (18:12-13), Provan asks, “[D]oes this list signify economic critique of Rome as such, or is it there simply because it is the sort of thing that one finds in biblical laments and dirges?”87 In other words, if the author is employing Old Testament language to express the fall of a city or people in familiar prophetic terms, can we be sure we have warrant to read the language as (for the author) contemporarily literally applicable? Again, “How can one say [as Bauckham does] that the presence of wheat on John’s list [of cargoes] shows how the general population of Rome survived only at the expense of the rest of the empire, when wheat appears on the very list in Ezek 27 that provides the basis for John’s list?”88 No doubt the details could correspond, but the fact that they are employed rhetorically for their connotations with the fall of arrogant enemies of God in the Old Testament calls us to consider hermeneutical questions of whether the language demands historical correspondence, or is rather subservient to the driving point of the severity of the fall of a people judged by God. The point may simply be, “You, ‘Babylon,’ are tragically fallen just as Tyre and historical Babylon before you.”89 This is certainly the great thrust of the passage; whether or not there is reason to seek application for all of the details is an area that must be admitted to involve some degree of ambiguity. Caution seems quite justified, however, when we recognize the fact that the details cannot even be made to comfortably fit Rome (for most, the necessary referent of the passage) with consistent literalism either, considering it was not a major seaport or trading city.90

However, the argument of Provan’s article is not merely that we ought not get caught up in the details of material that is being structurally appropriated for a rhetorical point. The issue that catches his eye is the fact that at many points, the author of Revelation does not leave the reapplied language in its original form, but instead subtly alters it. It is these fresh literary features, not the details imported from a previous context, that may be of most use to us for tracking with John’s thought. It is these areas in which he has not merely compared the present villain to previous ones, but has added original critique to the message, and has perhaps hinted at the identity of his antagonist.91

Examples of this phenomenon noted by Provan include the addition of chariots to Ezekiel’s cargo list (quite likely an import from the list of goods in 1 Kgs 4, which subtly reminds the Old Testament audience of Solomon’s disregarding of the former command not to widely accrue horses and chariots in Deut 17:16),92 the language of the “clinging” of the harlot’s sins (the term kollavw, having LXX covenant language connotations, being added to a Babylon oracle [v. 5]),93 the use of an Old Testament oracle against Judah and Jerusalem in verses 23–24 in the middle of borrowed Tyre lament language,94 the double recompense (in the Old Testament, only ever used against Israel) warning of verse 2 in the middle of Babylon allusions, and a number of echoes of passages from Lamentations reflecting on Jerusalem’s fall.95

The point of this sampling is simply to show that it is quite plausible that what the author is doing here is adapting an Old Testament lament song for his own purposes by invoking Jerusalem judgment language at various points, thereby redirecting the reader to the true identity of this harlot. Whether this evidence on its own is as noteworthy as the precedent of Rev 11:8, the attire of the woman, or the charge of adultery is up for discussion. But the cumulative evidence of the use of the Old Testament in chapter 18 was at least enough to get one Old Testament scholar’s attention.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 09:04 AM
Admittedly, I found this troubling when I first began to grapple with the "Babylon is Jerusalem" idea, but I came across a particular thesis that I think is helpful to the apparent problem with Babylon's economic status. It's a little long, but if you don't mind reading it:OK, I promise I'm trying to be positive and helpful here, so please forgive me if I word this in a way that makes it seem like I'm just trying to attack a different position.

There seems to be an inconsistency here. In the discussion about Babylon/Jerusalem and the various references to it throughout the New Testament, great care was (admirably) taken to be very consistent in the use of the word "Babylon" and the phrase "great city". In fact, that very attention to detail and the care being used to be consistent about it is the main thing that got me thinking "this might be worth taking a look at".

Then, in the article about Bablyon's economy in Revelation 18, we are basically told not to take that part too literally. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif Examples are cited from the Old Testament that could admittedly be seen from a certain point of view as evidence that Revelation 18 could be taken with some figurativeness. The problem with this is that, if we are going to be so careful to be consistent about applying the name "Babylon" and the phrase "great city", should we not also be just as consistent with the lengthy description of that same city in Revelation 18?

If we are to wave off Revelation 18 as something that shouldn't be taken too literally, then how are we supposed to know that the uses of the phrase "great city" are also not to be taken literally?

It just seems inconsistent.

ross3421
Sep 12th 2008, 10:39 AM
Interesting study. And mostly I agree.
One question:
This verse says that 'the great city' rules over the kings of the earth.
Revelation 17:18 “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
At what point in history has Jerusalem, or the Jews, ruled over the kings of the earth? Certainly not in Jesus' time, nor in 70 AD. Rome ruled over Jerusalem then.

Will not NEW Jerusalem be a great city which will rule over the earth????? Hence a clue that Babylon will be likened after this city.

ross3421
Sep 12th 2008, 10:45 AM
Can we not see that Babylon is playing itself off as New Jerusalem?

faroutinmt
Sep 12th 2008, 12:40 PM
The battle in Ezekiel 38 incorporated the use of bows, arrows and horses. It has been a long time since anyone used those type of weapons. It cannot be a modern day or future battle.

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 01:48 PM
There seems to be an inconsistency here. In the discussion about Babylon/Jerusalem and the various references to it throughout the New Testament, great care was (admirably) taken to be very consistent in the use of the word "Babylon" and the phrase "great city". In fact, that very attention to detail and the care being used to be consistent about it is the main thing that got me thinking "this might be worth taking a look at".The consistency lies in "Babylon" being used as a name for the sinful Jerusalem. In 11 it is compared to "Sodom and Egypt," but that John states this is a "spiritual" application of the names, likewise is the term "Babylon." John is consistent in taking Old Testament points and reapplying them to Jerusalem. The "sun and moon and stars" passage found in the Revelation (as well as Jesus' prophecies) is a reapplication of things also said by the OT prophets. Given that the majority of the Revelation is symbolic to begin with, and that John's use of the term 'Babylon' and his depiction of the city as a harlot, doesn't cause a huge confliction with chapter 18 if it is to be interpreted in the manner described in the short article I posted above - it would just be following in like manner, that John is appealing to several Old Testament prophets and writes in the same styles they did.


If we are to wave off Revelation 18 as something that shouldn't be taken too literally, then how are we supposed to know that the uses of the phrase "great city" are also not to be taken literally?In the assumption that the prior-mentioned scholar, who was stated to have devoted his studies to the OT, knows what he's talking about when he notices a correlation between chapter 18 and "dirges" found in the OT, it only further points to John's reapplication of OT passages, or his reuse of well-founded motifs found in the OT.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 02:47 PM
Will not NEW Jerusalem be a great city which will rule over the earth????? Hence a clue that Babylon will be likened after this city.Considering that the Kingdom of the New Jerusalem is said by Daniel to smash the previous empires into dust, your scenario would require Jerusalem to destroy itself.
Can we not see that Babylon is playing itself off as New Jerusalem?No, but we can sure see your font.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 12th 2008, 02:49 PM
The battle in Ezekiel 38 incorporated the use of bows, arrows and horses. It has been a long time since anyone used those type of weapons. It cannot be a modern day or future battle.I wonder what words Ezekiel should have used for tactical nuclear weapons, fighter jets, stealth bombers, tanks, grenade launchers, and automatic assault weapons? :hmm:

Mograce2U
Sep 12th 2008, 02:50 PM
MarkEdward,
I think the merchants of Babylon in Rev is very similar to a description of the merchants of Tyre in Isa 23. Jerusalem's merchants traded in the things of the temple, while those who traded with Tyre traded in things of idol worship. The comparison is important, because it is one of those Hebraic parallels which reveals how Jerusalem became a city such as Sodom or Babylon - and how Israel could be called Egypt. The judgments that fell on those cities in the past who were Israel's enemies were also warnings given to her if she became apostate. This is what Revelation is telling us about the judgment that was sent on her in 70AD and the reason for it.

Since these parallels have already been made, when we get to Rev 20:7 - ought we not be able to see who Gog and Magog have become? In Ezekiel 39:2 it was said that 1/6th of Gog would return in the latter days. Ezekiel is setting forth the type, but Revelation makes the transition to the future by pointing us to this type. Who is back in the land after having been scattered into the nations - still in their apostasy?

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 03:13 PM
I wonder what words Ezekiel should have used for tactical nuclear weapons, fighter jets, stealth bombers, tanks, grenade launchers, and automatic assault weapons? :hmm:I think it would require a certain amount of... inanity... for anyone to assume that Ezekiel couldn't tell the difference between a horse and a tank even if he hadn't seen a tank before, or a stringed bow and a rifle, when one is clearly a stick with a string tied to it and the other is a high-craft piece of metalwork.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 03:20 PM
I think it would require a certain amount of... inanity... for anyone to assume that Ezekiel couldn't tell the difference between a horse and a tank even if he hadn't seen a tank before

This discussion sounds familiar. I heard the same thing when we were discussing whether John saw the helicopters in Revelation. I am sure they could tell that they were different, but--how could they describe those things to their readers? It would be like you describing a "tree" to someone who has never seen a tree before. If Ezekiel truly saw a futuristic battle, I think it's reasonable to describe a tank as a horse, and a rifle as a bow. What better do you have to compare it to?

I tend to be preterist when it comes to the post-exilic prophets, but I will give Ezekiel's Gog and Magog this much: I can't put my finger on any time in history when it already happened.

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 03:30 PM
This discussion sounds familiar. I heard the same thing when we were discussing whether John saw the helicopters in Revelation. I am sure they could tell that they were different, but--how could they describe those things to their readers? It would be like you describing a "tree" to someone who has never seen a tree before. If Ezekiel truly saw a futuristic battle, I think it's reasonable to describe a tank as a horse, and a rifle as a bow. What better do you have to compare it to?I was thinking of bring this up in my last post. In the case of the 'locusts = helicopters', I think that that interpretation is at least a little more plausible compared to saying a horse is a tank.

When looking at a generic helicopter, it does indeed have a loose "locust" appearance to it (though not to the extent that prophecy teachers such as Hal Lindsey put forth). But trying the same thing with Ezekiel just doesn't work.

This (http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/military/helicopter/helicopter_1.jpg) looks vaguely like this (http://www.guernicamag.com/incl/img/upl/2006/07/hasdai-locust4.jpg).

But this (http://www.itsadventuresouthwest.co.uk/main/en/images/activity_snaps/act_TANK.jpg) looks absolutely nothing like this (http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images18/HorseJackField.JPG).

And this (http://www.defensereview.com/stories/sigarms/SHOT%20Show%202006%20-%20SIG%20SG556%20Rifle_1%20(small).jpg) looks nothing like this (http://www.black-bear-haversack.com/images/Bamboo_Bow.jpg).

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 03:53 PM
Think in terms of their use. A rifle's use = a bow, a tank's use = a horse.

Remember, if true, it is what is going through EZEKIEL'S head that matters, more than it is yours. If he truly did see a vision of a futuristic battle, it is plausible that the best way he thought he could describe a tank to his readership is a horse; because that's what the men were using it for.

I would love to read arguments why Ezekiel refers to a past/preterist battle, but I don't think this is one of them.

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 04:53 PM
Think in terms of their use. A rifle's use = a bow, a tank's use = a horse.

Remember, if true, it is what is going through EZEKIEL'S head that matters, more than it is yours.I didn't say what was going through Ezekiel's head didn't matter: I'm simply calling into question the interpretation of what people claim was going through his head.


I would love to read arguments why Ezekiel refers to a past/preterist battle, but I don't think this is one of them.A few Christian commentators of the past have pointed Ezekiel 38 as prophesying the coming of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

John146
Sep 12th 2008, 05:50 PM
Revelation 11:8 Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is symbolically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.Do you see the context of this verse?

Rev 11
7And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9And 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.
10And 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.

Your view does not explain how "the people and kindreds and tongues and nations" could all view the dead bodies of the two witnesses in Jerusalem.


Second, take note of the Revelation 11:8; this is the first mention of “the great city,” and it is directly called “where [the] Lord was crucified.” This, of course, is Jerusalem.No, it is not, of course, Jerusalem, as I showed you in the other thread.

Hebrews 13
11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

John 19
20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Look at John 19:20. The place where Jesus was crucified was Jerusalem? No, it says the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city.


The only objection I have ever heard to this is that Jesus wasn’t crucified “in” Jerusalem. John, however, never says this either. He only says that “the great city” is “where” Jesus was crucified. Even if His crucifixion took place outside of the city gates, it is undeniable that His death is automatically associated with Jerusalem, simply because He was sentenced to death there, carried His cross from there, and was executed outside of the walls.It's not automatically associated with Jerusalem. It's easy for someone to automatically think that, but please don't try to speak for everyone.

IPet2_9
Sep 12th 2008, 06:13 PM
I just don't see how any objective interpretation of Revelation 11 would arrive at "the city where Jesus was crucified" could be anything other than Jerusalem? The only theory I could come up with is that "Sodom and Egypt" is figurative, so maybe the "Jerusalem" part is, too.



Your view does not explain how "the people and kindreds and tongues and nations" could all view the dead bodies of the two witnesses in Jerusalem.From a futurist POV, obviously this is through television. From a preterist POV:


Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.Note the bold. Jerusalem must have been quite the Mecca of its day.

ross3421
Sep 12th 2008, 07:19 PM
Considering that the Kingdom of the New Jerusalem is said by Daniel to smash the previous empires into dust, your scenario would require Jerusalem to destroy itself

Babylon the great will rise up to be the epicenter of the world. This city will provide all riches to those inhabinants on the earth at this time. The inhabinants on the earth will worship the king of the city whom is claiming to be the return of Christ.

As the king is playing a role of a prophet but is the FALSE prophet, likewise the city is playing the role of the pure women but she is a harlot.

This SHOULD be very clear to understand.


Mark

ross3421
Sep 12th 2008, 07:23 PM
The battle in Ezekiel 38 incorporated the use of bows, arrows and horses. It has been a long time since anyone used those type of weapons. It cannot be a modern day or future battle.

There will be a war and chaos prior to this battle. Matt 24:7 will wipe out all major tech and bring this world back to the dark ages. WWW3.

It will appear to those upon the earth that the end is near as they see these things occur however this war is setting up the arrivial of Babylon and it's king.

John146
Sep 12th 2008, 08:29 PM
I just don't see how any objective interpretation of Revelation 11 would arrive at "the city where Jesus was crucified" could be anything other than Jerusalem? The only theory I could come up with is that "Sodom and Egypt" is figurative, so maybe the "Jerusalem" part is, too.It doesn't mention Jerusalem by name. It does mention "where Jesus was crucified", which wasn't in Jerusalem. I don't believe it is the point of the verse to focus on the actual location where Jesus was crucified but to show that he was crucified in an evil world that was spiritually like Sodom and Egypt.


From a futurist POV, obviously this is through television.Which I think is silly. I believe the text implies that they are actually in the presence of the dead bodies gazing upon them.


From a preterist POV:

Note the bold. Jerusalem must have been quite the Mecca of its day.I see your point, however, it seems to me that the text is giving the impression that people from all over the world are gazing at the dead bodies. Notice in verse 10 that it says "they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them" and that they "tormented them that dwelt on the earth". This is a global scene being portrayed here. This is why I believe the two witnesses symbolically represent the church. I'm curious how the preterist view interprets the identity of the two witnesses. If that event is passed they should be able to tell us who the two witnesses were and when were they resurrected and ascended up to heaven.

faroutinmt
Sep 12th 2008, 10:22 PM
I wonder what words Ezekiel should have used for tactical nuclear weapons, fighter jets, stealth bombers, tanks, grenade launchers, and automatic assault weapons? :hmm:

Do you see any similarity between a horse and a tank? Any similarity between a fighter jet and a bow and arrow? You're supposed to be a literalist. :hmm:

faroutinmt
Sep 12th 2008, 10:25 PM
There will be a war and chaos prior to this battle. Matt 24:7 will wipe out all major tech and bring this world back to the dark ages. WWW3.

It will appear to those upon the earth that the end is near as they see these things occur however this war is setting up the arrivial of Babylon and it's king.

So, where do you see the destruction of the temple in your interpretation? The whole chapter of Matthew 24 flows out of Jesus' statement about the temple being destroyed. After He said this, the disciples asked Him when it would occur. The rest of the chapter is His answer to that question.

aceinthehouse
Sep 12th 2008, 10:54 PM
I agree with the OP that the original Babylon was in the Middle East...

But I think the Bible is telling us of a "new" babylon in the future that will resemble that of the original,but neccesarily in the middle east...

You must read this site... http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-6.html

Someone asked in an earlier thread..Where is America in the Bible?Well...I believe America is in the Bible,but just not said "America".It is my opinion that Amrica is the Mystery "Babylon" we all wondered about.

When you read the scriptures of Revelation 17 and 18,I can't think of a nation on Earth that even remotely sounds like anything other than the U.S....


#1)Did you know there is a City/Town/Village in the United States called Babylon,New York?It is the only City/town in the World called Babylon in this day in age...Read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_(town),_New_York (I think the State of New york or the U.S.A. as a whole is used to reference the name "babylon" in the Bible in Revelations)

#2)Then who is the Harlot?The Harlot is a reference to describe the "Statue of Liberty" who not only sits on many waters in the harbor of New York,but is idol/icon/symbol of power that describes not just the city of New York...but the Country as a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_(town),_New_York

#3)Then how does the 7 heads (or seven mountains)come into play here..?The Statue of liberty has seven spikes on her crown and they symbolize and I quote"The seven spikes on the crown represent the Seven Seas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Seas) and seven continents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent)".

#4)The Statue of Liberty sits on a hendecagram(11-pointed star) check it out.. http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Occult_symbolism_III scroll down to the 11-pointed star...How ironic that we have 1 with the "all seeing eye" like the dollar bills as everyone knows right?So what does it mean?

I got to go,but I'll be back....later for more info

IPet2_9
Sep 13th 2008, 12:44 AM
I think Mystery Babylon is Philadelphia. In fact, right after this next Sabbath Day I predict that the Dallas Cowboys will destroy Philadelphia in an hour. Everyone please root for the Dallas Cowboys--they are only doing God's bidding!

Studyin'2Show
Sep 13th 2008, 02:06 AM
Do you see any similarity between a horse and a tank? Any similarity between a fighter jet and a bow and arrow? You're supposed to be a literalist. :hmm:Not that I have the answer but in his defense, I don't believe Ezekiel or the ancient Hebrew language had words for fighter jet or tank so he would have used words he understood. :dunno:

faroutinmt
Sep 13th 2008, 02:39 AM
Not that I have the answer but in his defense, I don't believe Ezekiel or the ancient Hebrew language had words for fighter jet or tank so he would have used words he understood. :dunno:
I hear ya and I understand what you're saying. :)

It's just that I really do think that Ezekiel 38 was in the past. One of the main reasons is that there is nothing in the whole context of the chapter or surrounding chapters which would suggest that such an event was 2,000 years and more in the future. The whole context of the surrounding chapters is God's promise to restore the nation of Israel from their captivity, which is exactly what happened when they returned from Babylon. I believe that the battle of Gog (although definitely a symbol in Revelation) must have occurred either during the persecution of Esther's day or when the Maccabees revolted against Antiochus Epiphenes.

When it says that they used bows and arrows, I really think they did. :saint:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 04:37 AM
Do you see any similarity between a horse and a tank? Any similarity between a fighter jet and a bow and arrow? You're supposed to be a literalist. :hmm:The "plain sense" of Ezekiel 38-39 does not make sense, so this is a case where another "sense" must be sought. There has never been an occasion in the history of the world that even remotely resembles the events of Ezekiel 38-39 - it ain't happened. Yet.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 04:44 AM
I hear ya and I understand what you're saying. :)

It's just that I really do think that Ezekiel 38 was in the past.When? What was the fulfillment? Names and dates, please.
One of the main reasons is that there is nothing in the whole context of the chapter or surrounding chapters which would suggest that such an event was 2,000 years and more in the future.Neither is there anything to suggest that it is NOT 2000 years in the future. That argument is useless.
The whole context of the surrounding chapters is God's promise to restore the nation of Israel from their captivity, which is exactly what happened when they returned from Babylon.A case could also be made for 1948 as well. Prove 1948 wrong.
I believe that the battle of Gog (although definitely a symbol in Revelation) must have occurred either during the persecution of Esther's day or when the Maccabees revolted against Antiochus Epiphenes.So when did the world's mountains come crashing down, and when did the entire world recognize that God was behind all the events? Looks to me like we're still waiting...
When it says that they used bows and arrows, I really think they did. :saint:I'll remember this statement in your answer to my post - keep in mind that you are interpreting the bows and arrows absolutely literally, so you have to be consistent and show when the mountains absolutely literally all came crashing down and absolutely literally when the entire world recognized that God was the agency behind these events. You also need to show when Israel spent seven years literally cleaning up the mess, and seven months burying the dead. You have to show it all literally. If you can't show it all literally fulfilled, then neither can you insist on literal bows and arrows.

ross3421
Sep 13th 2008, 11:03 AM
The whole chapter of Matthew 24 flows out of Jesus' statement about the temple being destroyed. .


And the end of the world.........


Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

faroutinmt
Sep 13th 2008, 12:38 PM
And the end of the world.........


Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The word translated "world" in the KJV does not actually mean planet earth. It means "age" as in a period of time. I believe that it refers to the age of the old covenant.

You have to remember that the disciples did not realize that Jesus was going to die on the cross, ascend to heaven and return later. They believed that Jesus was going to become King in their lifetime (which He did, of course).

faroutinmt
Sep 13th 2008, 12:46 PM
When? What was the fulfillment? Names and dates, please.Neither is there anything to suggest that it is NOT 2000 years in the future. That argument is useless.A case could also be made for 1948 as well. Prove 1948 wrong.So when did the world's mountains come crashing down, and when did the entire world recognize that God was behind all the events? Looks to me like we're still waiting...I'll remember this statement in your answer to my post - keep in mind that you are interpreting the bows and arrows absolutely literally, so you have to be consistent and show when the mountains absolutely literally all came crashing down and absolutely literally when the entire world recognized that God was the agency behind these events. You also need to show when Israel spent seven years literally cleaning up the mess, and seven months burying the dead. You have to show it all literally. If you can't show it all literally fulfilled, then neither can you insist on literal bows and arrows.

Luke, you ask a lot of good questions and to be honest with you, I don't have the answer to them all. :) I just think that a past event makes more reasonable sense than a future one. I just don't see any real evidence, either contextually or plainly stated, that that event was not to occur in the frame of events of that time period (BC).

It seems that most people today are caught up in trying to predict prophetic events by reading the newspaper and watching world events. They are always trying to superimpose some present world power to the powers mentioned in the scriptures. I believe it is all pure speculation. So many predictions have come and gone.

What was the original post, anyway? :)

ross3421
Sep 14th 2008, 01:09 AM
The word translated "world" in the KJV does not actually mean planet earth. It means "age" as in a period of time. I believe that it refers to the age of the old covenant.

You have to remember that the disciples did not realize that Jesus was going to die on the cross, ascend to heaven and return later. They believed that Jesus was going to become King in their lifetime (which He did, of course).

This "age" is defined for us when the sign of his coming will be seen.

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Of course it is not his first coming as he is before them. We see this sign when Christ returns the second time.

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


So I will have to disagree with you that the disciples did not know that he was going to die, rise, and come again. Surely they understood the scriptures and even had the gift of prophecy however thier flesh doubted.

Mograce2U
Sep 14th 2008, 02:25 AM
This "age" is defined for us when the sign of his coming will be seen.

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Of course it is not his first coming as he is before them. We see this sign when Christ returns the second time.

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


So I will have to disagree with you that the disciples did not know that he was going to die, rise, and come again. Surely they understood the scriptures and even had the gift of prophecy however thier flesh doubted.And that sign that the Lord was at work was when the armies surrounded Jerusalem.

IPet2_9
Sep 14th 2008, 02:48 AM
If premill is true, then "age" can easily be construed to mean just the end of life "as we know it", and not the end of the world. Likewise, it could just as easily mean the end of the world. I have a really hard time believing, though, that 70 AD was the end of any age. I can see the Crucifixion ending one, but not 70 AD.

John146
Sep 15th 2008, 08:21 PM
The word translated "world" in the KJV does not actually mean planet earth. It means "age" as in a period of time. I believe that it refers to the age of the old covenant.

You have to remember that the disciples did not realize that Jesus was going to die on the cross, ascend to heaven and return later. They believed that Jesus was going to become King in their lifetime (which He did, of course).In Matthew 28:20, is Jesus implying that He would only be with those who were taking the gospel into the world until 70 AD and would no longer be with them afterwards?

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (age). Amen.

Of course that isn't what He was saying. But scripture never makes reference to an old covenant age. It differentiates between the new and old covenants, sure. But it never refers to either as an age. Jesus spoke about this age and the age to come. He indicated that in the age to come no one would marry or die (Luke 20:34-36) and He contrasted that with this age when people do marry. So, when it speaks of "the end of the age" it's referring to the end of this temporal age when people still marry and are given in marriage and they still die.

For your reference:

Luke 20
34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage:
35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Luke 18
29And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world (age) to come life everlasting.

Jude
Sep 15th 2008, 09:55 PM
If you do a study of Zionism, Zionists view themselves as the "rudder of the ship". They're the itty-bitty thing, under the water, secretly nudging, steering the "kings of the earth" around. You can see that behavior in the Gospels; particularly, the interactions between the Pharisees and the Romans concerning the Crucifixion. They thought they had the Roman authorities wrapped around their little finger. Also, in Acts you can see Jews at the forefront of Christian persecution, and that was all over the Roman Empire--not just in Judea.

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn303/ClydeElliott/California%202008/HOLLYWOOD/DAYTIME/Hollywood%20Boulevard%20Daytime/intolerance1916.jpg

If you do a study of Ancient Babylon as compared to Rome at the time of Christ you will see more evidence for Rome to fit the description, right down to the Queen of Babylon who was Semiramis, she had a son whose name was Nimrod. Nimrod was killed by his father Shem, Noah's son, because of his evil ways. This could develop into a rather long bible study, but even without going there you can see the similarities. "The Mother son/The Mother Son"

"Ancient Babylon/ Modern Rome" "The Queen Of Heaven Old Testament/The Queen Of Heaven New Testament"

Just my http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

aceinthehouse
Sep 15th 2008, 11:47 PM
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn303/ClydeElliott/California%202008/HOLLYWOOD/DAYTIME/Hollywood%20Boulevard%20Daytime/intolerance1916.jpg

If you do a study of Ancient Babylon as compared to Rome at the time of Christ you will see more evidence for Rome to fit the description, right down to the Queen of Babylon who was Semiramis, she had a son whose name was Nimrod. Nimrod was killed by his father Shem, Noah's son, because of his evil ways. This could develop into a rather long bible study, but even without going there you can see the similarities. "The Mother son/The Mother Son"

"Ancient Babylon/ Modern Rome" "The Queen Of Heaven Old Testament/The Queen Of Heaven New Testament"

Just my http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif


Good read....but imo Jude

"Ancient Babylon/United States

You don't see Rome around the U.S?

babylon,New York:Statue of Liberty(Harlot) (Huge water tower with the words "BABYLON" written on it as you enter the harbor...

Lets also not forget the Stadiums(FOOTBALL,BASEBALL,SOCCER,etc.) that we are in abundant of here in the U.S.,just like Rome and the Colluseums...Did you know that they are built and blueprinted just like the "Colluseum"?

Oh...and we are a SUPERPOWER....Lets not forget that one either

Did anyone not think that why the United States is not in the Bible?(Like the thread)We are Isreals biggest ally,yet they seem alone in the end times Prophecy...I wonder why?

Could it be that the Country of "Mystery" Babylon is Destroyed for it's sins and transgressions..Leaving Isreal pretty much alone...:hmm:

Want to take a wild guess WHO destroys "Mystery" Babylon?Read Rev. 18-19 and you will know...Question is:Does he do it from afar(like the EU or another Country) or from the inside!(like maybe a President.....:hmm:)or someone of high power

If the Countries were going to attack Isreal in a major war,they would know they couldn't do it without taking their BIG BAD BEST FRIEND down 1st...Which is us

But they couldn't do it in a long drawn out war,with power and technology we have...So it would have to be a surprise attack my friends...

An explosion so massive,we would have no idea what hit us or what to do...We would be gone in an "1 HOUR"

I guess quite simular to a 9/11 attack,with the exception of nobody alive to run anywhere in the streets of New York!Or California....Or Florida....or..

Then Isreal would be truly alone with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ!

IPet2_9
Sep 15th 2008, 11:49 PM
If the Countries were going to attack Isreal in a major war,they would know they couldn't do it without taking their BIG BAD BEST FRIEND down 1st...Which is us

Not necessarily. One quick press of the red button and...bye bye Jerusalem.

Jude
Sep 16th 2008, 01:02 AM
Good read....but imo Jude

"Ancient Babylon/United States

You don't see Rome around the U.S?

babylon,New York:Statue of Liberty(Harlot) (Huge water tower with the words "BABYLON" written on it as you enter the harbor...

Lets also not forget the Stadiums(FOOTBALL,BASEBALL,SOCCER,etc.) that we are in abundant of here in the U.S.,just like Rome and the Colluseums...Did you know that they are built and blueprinted just like the "Colluseum"?

Oh...and we are a SUPERPOWER....Lets not forget that one either

Did anyone not think that why the United States is not in the Bible?(Like the thread)We are Isreals biggest ally,yet they seem alone in the end times Prophecy...I wonder why?

Could it be that the Country of "Mystery" Babylon is Destroyed for it's sins and transgressions..Leaving Isreal pretty much alone...:hmm:

Want to take a wild guess WHO destroys "Mystery" Babylon?Read Rev. 18-19 and you will know...Question is:Does he do it from afar(like the EU or another Country) or from the inside!(like maybe a President.....:hmm:)or someone of high power

If the Countries were going to attack Isreal in a major war,they would know they couldn't do it without taking their BIG BAD BEST FRIEND down 1st...Which is us

But they couldn't do it in a long drawn out war,with power and technology we have...So it would have to be a surprise attack my friends...

An explosion so massive,we would have no idea what hit us or what to do...We would be gone in an "1 HOUR"

I guess quite simular to a 9/11 attack,with the exception of nobody alive to run anywhere in the streets of New York!Or California....Or Florida....or..

Then Isreal would be truly alone with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ!

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/israel-ani2bandera.gif
I'm not seeing the United States sitting on top of seven hills :hmm:

danield
Sep 16th 2008, 02:55 AM
We do have seven mountain ranges

1. The Rocky Mountains
2. The Appalachian Mountains
3. The Sierra Nevada
4. The Cascades
5. The Brooks Range
6. The Alaska Range
7. The Coast Range.

The Ozarks being only foothills. I am not sure at what point America looses sight of God, but it sure looks as if somewhere down the line, We may become a very immoral country.


I will also add that we as a country mimic Rome by having a tiered government. Rome’s senate had shared power with its two counsels for a long time before Caesar took over and became the supreme leader. Also Rome allowed its population the freedom to worship the god of its choosing. Granted many Caesars took their power to their head literally and wanted to be worshiped as divinity, but never the less Rome’s procedure of incorporating societies into their reign was to allow them the freedom to worship their own god.

faroutinmt
Sep 16th 2008, 03:45 AM
In Matthew 28:20, is Jesus implying that He would only be with those who were taking the gospel into the world until 70 AD and would no longer be with them afterwards?

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (age). Amen.

Of course that isn't what He was saying. But scripture never makes reference to an old covenant age. It differentiates between the new and old covenants, sure. But it never refers to either as an age. Jesus spoke about this age and the age to come. He indicated that in the age to come no one would marry or die (Luke 20:34-36) and He contrasted that with this age when people do marry. So, when it speaks of "the end of the age" it's referring to the end of this temporal age when people still marry and are given in marriage and they still die.

For your reference:

Luke 20
34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage:
35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Luke 18
29And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world (age) to come life everlasting.

Of course, the resurrection comes at the end of the age in which we now live. The word age certainly has a variety of uses. There are ages past, ages present, and an age to come. I never intended to suggest that every time Jesus speaks of an age, He always meant the same one.

But, the age which is addressed must be interpreted within the context of the passage and the rest of scripture.

The apostle Paul saw himself and his contemporaries as living in a transition from one age to the next. Consider his words in 1 Corinthians 10:11 "...they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

And also the writer of Hebrews echoing the same concept: "...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of sin by Himself." Hebrews 9:26 He is using this term interchangeably with the phrase, the "last days." "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son..." Hebrews 1:1,2

The writers of the new testament referred to their own time as the last days: 1 Peter 1:20, 1 John 2:18 Clearly, they saw their own time as the end of one age ushering in the beginning of another. It was these same disciples who asked the Lord Jesus about the end of the age.

Jude
Sep 16th 2008, 03:56 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/JesusName-1-1.jpg


Can you think of a President that would make these statements?

"[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

--POPE LEO XIII


quoting THE GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII

Vicar of Christ.

A substitute Christ...

"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED."

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)."

POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. It wounds Christ, robs Christ of His glory, puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread in the place of the Saviour....If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls, though we loathe and detest their dogmas...."

C. H. Spurgeon

mattlad22
Sep 16th 2008, 04:25 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/israel-ani2bandera.gif
I'm not seeing the United States sitting on top of seven hills :hmm:



how many continents are thier?

SoldierOfChrist
Sep 16th 2008, 06:28 AM
I think that there is a good argument that Babylon is Jerusalem, however I think symbolically and spirituallity Rome is Babylon.

If you would ask why she is the whore and the mother of the harlots there is only one answer. The kings of the earth bow down to her. Full of names of blasphemy etc... these are all signs of the RCC not Jerusalem.

How many gods do you pray to in the RCC? Who is the father in the RCC? If we are not to bow down before angels why the pope and idols? Are we to bow before statues and pray to images?

These traditions and many others came directly from Babylon and Rome was certainly known as Babylon in its early days. Babylon really is a false religious system and we know where it is still practiced.

Sure Jerusalem is drunken with blood of the saints... but more than Rome? I don't think so.

What about this:
Revelation 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rome and the RCC have made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication not Jerusalem. The RCC teaching of the worship of many gods is in many nations not Jerusalem.

This does seem to indicate Jerusalem, where also our lord was crucified, but it reads which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.
Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Sodom wine is from a different vine.

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Deuteronomy 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:
Deuteronomy 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Have the merchants been made rich by Jerusalem or Rome? The fornication is spiritual... there is one god and one mediator not a litany of saints to pray to.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt where the people were called out. In Egypt the people served the pharaoh and not god just like the RCC. The oath of obedience to serve the church, the pope, Mary and its leaders is not serving god!

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

How are the people to be called out of Jerusalem? What are the names of blasphemy if it is Jerusalem? Does not the RCC's litany of the saints, Mary, Holy Father etc. spell out the names of blasphemy and the whore? How does Jerusalem have any effect on spirituallity in the world at all?

I'm not convinced it is Jerusalem but I do hear the argument.

Michael

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 06:43 AM
Luke, you ask a lot of good questions and to be honest with you, I don't have the answer to them all. :) I just think that a past event makes more reasonable sense than a future one. I just don't see any real evidence, either contextually or plainly stated, that that event was not to occur in the frame of events of that time period (BC).So the bottom line is that you just can't see it happening? Try using your imagination - but go outside the box - look beyond the present world situation. Biblical prophecy doesn't have to fit the world around us. More on that below...
It seems that most people today are caught up in trying to predict prophetic events by reading the newspaper and watching world events. They are always trying to superimpose some present world power to the powers mentioned in the scriptures. I believe it is all pure speculation. So many predictions have come and gone.It is very true that irresponsible people who try to force the present world situation to fit Biblical prophecy have done it a great disservice. If we would just let the prophecies speak for themselves and be patient, we'll find that the fulfillment will fit the prophecies perfectly, just as the ones about Jesus' first coming did.
What was the original post, anyway? :)Um, don't even remember. :D

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 06:45 AM
This "age" is defined for us when the sign of his coming will be seen.

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Of course it is not his first coming as he is before them. We see this sign when Christ returns the second time.

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


So I will have to disagree with you that the disciples did not know that he was going to die, rise, and come again. Surely they understood the scriptures and even had the gift of prophecy however thier flesh doubted.Their brains were part of the flesh, weren't they? How then do you explain Peter's three denials? If Peter really understood everything as you say, they makes his denials truly inexcusable.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 06:48 AM
Good read....but imo Jude

"Ancient Babylon/United States

You don't see Rome around the U.S?

babylon,New York:Statue of Liberty(Harlot) (Huge water tower with the words "BABYLON" written on it as you enter the harbor...

Lets also not forget the Stadiums(FOOTBALL,BASEBALL,SOCCER,etc.) that we are in abundant of here in the U.S.,just like Rome and the Colluseums...Did you know that they are built and blueprinted just like the "Colluseum"?

Oh...and we are a SUPERPOWER....Lets not forget that one either

Did anyone not think that why the United States is not in the Bible?(Like the thread)We are Isreals biggest ally,yet they seem alone in the end times Prophecy...I wonder why?

Could it be that the Country of "Mystery" Babylon is Destroyed for it's sins and transgressions..Leaving Isreal pretty much alone...:hmm:

Want to take a wild guess WHO destroys "Mystery" Babylon?Read Rev. 18-19 and you will know...Question is:Does he do it from afar(like the EU or another Country) or from the inside!(like maybe a President.....:hmm:)or someone of high power

If the Countries were going to attack Isreal in a major war,they would know they couldn't do it without taking their BIG BAD BEST FRIEND down 1st...Which is us

But they couldn't do it in a long drawn out war,with power and technology we have...So it would have to be a surprise attack my friends...

An explosion so massive,we would have no idea what hit us or what to do...We would be gone in an "1 HOUR"

I guess quite simular to a 9/11 attack,with the exception of nobody alive to run anywhere in the streets of New York!Or California....Or Florida....or..

Then Isreal would be truly alone with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ!You know, I dread the day that the United States falls apart and our economy crashes, but one good thing about it will be that I won't have to keep trying to argue with people who are bound and determined to "see" Babylon in the USA. Babylon is in the Middle East, in the plain of Shinar.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 06:50 AM
We do have seven mountain ranges

1. The Rocky Mountains
2. The Appalachian Mountains
3. The Sierra Nevada
4. The Cascades
5. The Brooks Range
6. The Alaska Range
7. The Coast Range.

The Ozarks being only foothills. I am not sure at what point America looses sight of God, but it sure looks as if somewhere down the line, We may become a very immoral country.


I will also add that we as a country mimic Rome by having a tiered government. Rome’s senate had shared power with its two counsels for a long time before Caesar took over and became the supreme leader. Also Rome allowed its population the freedom to worship the god of its choosing. Granted many Caesars took their power to their head literally and wanted to be worshiped as divinity, but never the less Rome’s procedure of incorporating societies into their reign was to allow them the freedom to worship their own god.My home state of Oklahoma also has the Wichitas, the Arbuckles, and Texas has the Guadalupes. How do you objectively determine what constitutes a "mountain" range instead of just conveniently dismissing one as mere "foothills"? Your argument is completely subjective. And by the way, the Alaska Range is part of the Rockies chain, so you have to cross that one off your list. But no problem, you can randomly choose whichever one of the others I've suggested to round out your list.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 06:55 AM
how many continents are thier?Nine - North America, Central America, South America, Antarctica, Australia, Africa, Europe, Indonesia, and Asia

Studyin'2Show
Sep 16th 2008, 11:00 AM
Nine - North America, Central America, South America, Antarctica, Australia, Africa, Europe, Indonesia, and AsiaActually, it is usually taught that there are either 6 or 7. This link explains the confusion pretty well. http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/qt/qzcontinents.htm

Joyfulparousia
Sep 16th 2008, 12:18 PM
I have a question for those who believe that Babylon is something other than Babylon.

Where in scripture does it say "Babylon" and mean something else?

danield
Sep 16th 2008, 01:29 PM
Literalist Luke I did not arbitrarily pull the major land formations out of the blue. Look for yourself at the major land forms at world atlas.com. the Guadalupes mountains are part of the Rockies. And the the Wichitas and the Arbuckles are not major mountian ranges. What I have stated about these mountian ranges is not a misrepresentation of the facts at all. It is extremely accurate. Even if America turns out to not have any influence in scripture, Our citizens do have Seven major mountian ranges with in its boarders.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/nalnd.htm

So it is not my list at all that I am taking notice to. I like you would like nothing better than to see America as the most Godly nation for all eternity, However we both see huge changes in the way we Govern which collide directly with what scripture teaches us.


You know, I dread the day that the United States falls apart and our economy crashes, but one good thing about it will be that I won't have to keep trying to argue with people who are bound and determined to "see" Babylon in the USA. Babylon is in the Middle East, in the plain of Shinar.

I like you believe that the beast will rise up out of the Middle East, but where we differ is that I think this beast will control the harlot as its eight king, and my best guess would be that oil has a huge role in its influence.

Jude
Sep 16th 2008, 02:13 PM
We do have seven mountain ranges

1. The Rocky Mountains
2. The Appalachian Mountains
3. The Sierra Nevada
4. The Cascades
5. The Brooks Range
6. The Alaska Range
7. The Coast Range.




danield you list 7 mountain ranges here. The scripture says 7 hills. We have 7 hills in Seattle. on one of those hills every year the Sodomites hold a Sodomite Pride Parade. :hmm:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 02:17 PM
Actually, it is usually taught that there are either 6 or 7. This link explains the confusion pretty well. http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/qt/qzcontinents.htmCertainly, I knew that. :D My point was that the argument regarding "seven continents" being the seven mountains of Rev 17 is subjective.

danield
Sep 16th 2008, 02:36 PM
danield you list 7 mountain ranges here. The scripture says 7 hills. We have 7 hills in Seattle. on one of those hills every year the Sodomites hold a Sodomite Pride Parade.
I think a mountain is a big hill. It isn’t subjective, but a really straight forward interpretation. If you don’t like what I am saying then correct me on another point because this is an undisputable fact.

John146
Sep 16th 2008, 03:11 PM
Of course, the resurrection comes at the end of the age in which we now live. The word age certainly has a variety of uses. There are ages past, ages present, and an age to come. I never intended to suggest that every time Jesus speaks of an age, He always meant the same one.

But, the age which is addressed must be interpreted within the context of the passage and the rest of scripture.

The apostle Paul saw himself and his contemporaries as living in a transition from one age to the next. Consider his words in 1 Corinthians 10:11 "...they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

And also the writer of Hebrews echoing the same concept: "...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of sin by Himself." Hebrews 9:26 He is using this term interchangeably with the phrase, the "last days." "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son..." Hebrews 1:1,2

The writers of the new testament referred to their own time as the last days: 1 Peter 1:20, 1 John 2:18 Clearly, they saw their own time as the end of one age ushering in the beginning of another. It was these same disciples who asked the Lord Jesus about the end of the age.The same end of the age that He talked about in Matthew 13:24-50 and Matthew 28:18-20. Each of those is speaking about the end of this temporal age. You want to speak about context. Well, Jesus only spoke to His disciples about the end of this temporal age and not any other age. He indicated elsewhere that the day of judgment would occur at the end of the age (Matt 13) and He said He would be with His people (spiritually) until the end of the age. There's your context. Is there any reason to think He was not speaking of the same end of the age in those other passages from Matthew as the end of the age of Matthew 24? I don't believe so.

Jude
Sep 16th 2008, 04:35 PM
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn303/ClydeElliott/California%202008/HOLLYWOOD/DAYTIME/Hollywood%20Boulevard%20Daytime/intolerance1916.jpg

First of all I would like to apologize for trying to squeeze the information
that's in this book into a few posts. I read this book because

of my wifes involvement in the Catholic church + plus

I already had my doubts about them being Christian.
Mind you this text is not an easy read it took me several weeks
to digest the information contained in its pages, if you examine
his findings you'll see what I mean, once again I apologize.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm


http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 06:18 PM
First of all I would like to apologize for trying to squeeze the information
that's in this book into a few posts. I read this book because

of my wifes involvement in the Catholic church + plus

I already had my doubts about them being Christian.
Mind you this text is not an easy read it took me several weeks
to digest the information contained in its pages, if you examine
his findings you'll see what I mean, once again I apologize.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm
I only read the intro, but I do see how the writer views the Roman church as one born of apostacy. The problem is that she is not the picture we are given in Revelation for Babylon. Rather the picture painted for us there is Jerusalem - she is the model for the type that the popery followed. It was Israel's apostacy which the bible concerns itself with when judgment is in view. You can't establish a type for the prophecy unless one already exists - and the RCC was not yet in existence when this vision was given to John. The RCC certainly does seem to give us another model for the Christian apostacy in the world today. But she got her start from the Mother of Harlots.

The comparisons of apostate Jerusalem to Sodom, Egypt, Babylon and Gog & Magog, is possible because scripture already gives us the type in the past judgments that concerned them.

John146
Sep 16th 2008, 08:39 PM
I only read the intro, but I do see how the writer views the Roman church as one born of apostacy. The problem is that she is not the picture we are given in Revelation for Babylon. Rather the picture painted for us there is Jerusalem - she is the model for the type that the popery followed. It was Israel's apostacy which the bible concerns itself with when judgment is in view. You can't establish a type for the prophecy unless one already exists - and the RCC was not yet in existence when this vision was given to John. The RCC certainly does seem to give us another model for the Christian apostacy in the world today. But she got her start from the Mother of Harlots.

The comparisons of apostate Jerusalem to Sodom, Egypt, Babylon and Gog & Magog, is possible because scripture already gives us the type in the past judgments that concerned them.When did Jerusalem reign over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18) and in what way did it sit upon many waters, which represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev 17:1,15)? How did all nations drink "of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" and how was it that "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies" (Rev 18:3)? Was Jerusalem ever "the hold of every foul spirit" (Rev 18:2)? Were all nations deceived by Jerusalem's sorceries (Rev 18:23)?

We can see in Rev 18:4 that God calls His people to come out of her. Who are God's people and where are they? Just believers in Jerusalem? No. God's people are those who have faith in Christ throughout the earth. God is calling people throughout the earth to come out of Babylon. Babylon is described as a world power, which Jerusalem never was. I believe it's the spiritual dwelling place for unbelievers in contrast to the spiritual dwelling place of believers, heavenly new Jerusalem.

2 Corinthians 6
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

So, I believe God is saying to come out of the world and its ways of unbelief, unrighteousness, spiritual darkness, and worshiping false gods and idols. We are in the world but we are not to be of the world.

Also, you mentioned Gog & Magog. In Revelation 20, Gog & Magog represent people from all the nations of the earth, not Jerusalem.

7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Eric

danield
Sep 16th 2008, 09:14 PM
When did Jerusalem reign over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18) and in what way did it sit upon many waters, which represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev 17:1,15)? How did all nations drink "of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" and how was it that "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies" (Rev 18:3)? Was Jerusalem ever "the hold of every foul spirit" (Rev 18:2)? Were all nations deceived by Jerusalem's sorceries (Rev 18:23)?

Eric

This is when I run up against a brick wall when thinking of Jerusalem as Babylon. The answer to all those questions outlined by John146 is a resounding never. I have read and reread this thread several times to see what I am missing and my thoughts always come back to exactly these questions John146 mentions. There are so many extremely smart people on this board that it makes me wonder am I just a complete idiot for not seeing what you guys see. In any event I am still stuck asking myself these questions laid out by John146.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 17th 2008, 03:31 AM
This is when I run up against a brick wall when thinking of Jerusalem as Babylon. The answer to all those questions outlined by John146 is a resounding never. I have read and reread this thread several times to see what I am missing and my thoughts always come back to exactly these questions John146 mentions. There are so many extremely smart people on this board that it makes me wonder am I just a complete idiot for not seeing what you guys see. In any event I am still stuck asking myself these questions laid out by John146.I have to agree with you. I have to totally reject the notion of Jerusalem being Babylon. Babylon is Babylon. The only reason there is so much speculation today about Babylon's identity is because of people who ASSUME that Babylon won't return to its place of pre-eminence among the nations. These people would probably have belonged to the crowd that, 100 years ago, laughed whenever somebody predicted the re-birth of Israel. Well, nobody's laughing today.

Mograce2U
Sep 17th 2008, 04:06 PM
Eric, #75 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1790527&postcount=75)

2 Corinthians 6
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord AlmightyThis scripture is a key to what Rev 17 is revealing.

John is carried away into the wilderness to see this woman. In Rev 12 we saw a woman taken to the wilderness to be fed for 3 1/2 yrs during which she is kept from the serpent, which is after the ascension of Jesus. We are now seeing her metamorphisis into this harlot. If you notice she is dressed with the garb of a priest. Her relationship to the beast is that she has influence upon him and thru him. Ezek 22 also talks about the city of blood as being Jerusalem whose priests had become corrupt.

The description of this city called Babylon is very similar to that of Tyre in Ezek 28 - an idolatrous city whose merchants traded in the things of the idol temple. Jerusalem is being compared to that city. Jerusalem had become the habitation of devils as had Edom who helped sack her in the past (Isa 34:18). There are many comparisons like this to show us why she was to be judged. Jer 16:18; 17:18 and Jer 50:28 speaking of the vengeance of the Lord's temple was to reward her double for her iniquities. Always the tie that binds is how Jerusalem or her enemies were to be judged to show us what is now transpiring again. The things her enemies had done to her, she was now doing to the saints.

Which ought to be noted that one of the first things Israel did a mere 2 yrs after leaving the Nazi death camps herself, was to perform ethnic cleansing upon the land when she arrived. If Jerusalem is not Gog and Magog the peoples who have returned to the land from the nations, who else inhabiting the land is?

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 05:11 PM
Which ought to be noted that one of the first things Israel did a mere 2 yrs after leaving the Nazi death camps herself, was to perform ethnic cleansing upon the land when she arrived. If Jerusalem is not Gog and Magog the peoples who have returned to the land from the nations, who else inhabiting the land is?That is so much propaganda. The Jews have, since the very beginning, wanted to live in peace with their arab cousins even to the point of the absurdity that you see there today with them giving away land for peace that will not come because the muslims around them have vowed to push them into the sea. Israel has offered them Israeli citzenship since 1948 when more than 150,000 accepted that citizenship. They and their decendants now comprise more than 20% of the Israeli population. Those who left chose to do so and there are many who continue to refuse citizenship. Here's a Wiki article that documents Israel's arab citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel Has there been entirely too much bloodshed on both side? Absolutely! But to equate the Israeli Jews fight for survival as ethnic cleansing is a gross misrepresentation of history.

God Bless!

John146
Sep 17th 2008, 07:40 PM
Eric, #75 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1790527&postcount=75)
This scripture is a key to what Rev 17 is revealing.

John is carried away into the wilderness to see this woman. In Rev 12 we saw a woman taken to the wilderness to be fed for 3 1/2 yrs during which she is kept from the serpent, which is after the ascension of Jesus. We are now seeing her metamorphisis into this harlot. If you notice she is dressed with the garb of a priest. Her relationship to the beast is that she has influence upon him and thru him. Ezek 22 also talks about the city of blood as being Jerusalem whose priests had become corrupt.

The description of this city called Babylon is very similar to that of Tyre in Ezek 28 - an idolatrous city whose merchants traded in the things of the idol temple. Jerusalem is being compared to that city. Jerusalem had become the habitation of devils as had Edom who helped sack her in the past (Isa 34:18). There are many comparisons like this to show us why she was to be judged. Jer 16:18; 17:18 and Jer 50:28 speaking of the vengeance of the Lord's temple was to reward her double for her iniquities. Always the tie that binds is how Jerusalem or her enemies were to be judged to show us what is now transpiring again. The things her enemies had done to her, she was now doing to the saints. None of this really answers the questions I raised in my post or addresses the comments I made.


Which ought to be noted that one of the first things Israel did a mere 2 yrs after leaving the Nazi death camps herself, was to perform ethnic cleansing upon the land when she arrived. If Jerusalem is not Gog and Magog the peoples who have returned to the land from the nations, who else inhabiting the land is?Read it a little more closely:

Rev 20
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The nations which are in the four quarters of the earth are called Gog and Magog. It is the nations of the earth, Gog and Magog, that are gathered for battle. You seem to be reading it as if it was saying Jews from all nations are gathered to Jerusalem. How are you getting that from the text above?

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 01:13 AM
Rev 20
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The nations which are in the four quarters of the earth are called Gog and Magog. It is the nations of the earth, Gog and Magog, that are gathered for battle. You seem to be reading it as if it was saying Jews from all nations are gathered to Jerusalem. How are you getting that from the text above?


It makes perfect sense to me. Zionist Jews did gather from the corners of the earth. Gog and Magog basically means "from the north", and the Jews did, primarily, come from Russia and Eastern Europe. Where the mainstream premise is faulty, though, is in the notion that these Jews are the "good guys".

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 01:46 AM
It makes perfect sense to me. Zionist Jews did gather from the corners of the earth. Gog and Magog basically means "from the north", and the Jews did, primarily, come from Russia and Eastern Europe. Where the mainstream premise is faulty, though, is in the notion that these Jews are the "good guys".The verse specifically says 'the nations'. The Jews are NEVER referred to as 'the nations'. I'll be the first to tell you that the Jews are not perfect. But Gog and Magog? :hmm: That I definitely don't see backed up by scripture. :no:

God Bless!

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 01:54 AM
Sure--a bunch of Caucasian people from all nations claiming to be "Jews" emmigrated to Israel. That's part I of the deception--these guys are no more Jewish than the Chinese. And guess where the word "Caucasian" comes from? The Caucasus mountains. Which is exactly where the Khazar Empire existed in 1100 AD--and where 90% of these "Jews'" ancestry comes from. It's an invasion from the north--by deception.

Certainly not the way any of us would have expected this to unfold, but--that's how deception works.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 02:06 AM
Sure--a bunch of Caucasian people from all nations claiming to be "Jews" emmigrated to Israel. That's part I of the deception--these guys are no more Jewish than the Chinese. And guess where the word "Caucasian" comes from? The Caucasus mountains. Which is exactly where the Khazar Empire existed in 1100 AD--and where 90% of these "Jews'" ancestry comes from. It's an invasion from the north--by deception.

Certainly not the way any of us would have expected this to unfold, but--that's how deception works.Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes: I guess the Nazis didn't hear about that 'Caucasian' thing, huh? :hmm:

danield
Sep 18th 2008, 02:35 AM
Sure--a bunch of Caucasian people from all nations claiming to be "Jews" emmigrated to Israel. That's part I of the deception--these guys are no more Jewish than the Chinese. And guess where the word "Caucasian" comes from? The Caucasus mountains. Which is exactly where the Khazar Empire existed in 1100 AD--and where 90% of these "Jews'" ancestry comes from. It's an invasion from the north--by deception.

Certainly not the way any of us would have expected this to unfold, but--that's how deception works.

Studyin'2Show is correct. They are Jewish and it is not a deception.

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 03:46 AM
Nope. Jews are 90% Ashkenazi, they are converts, and they have no more Israelite blood in them than the Chinese. I would gladly give you plenty of supporting evidence, but you can look up "Ashkenazi" and "Khazar" for yourself very easily.

Besides, it's called common sense. They are white. Only thing separating them from any other white is their RELIGION.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 10:17 AM
Nope. Jews are 90% Ashkenazi, they are converts, and they have no more Israelite blood in them than the Chinese. I would gladly give you plenty of supporting evidence, but you can look up "Ashkenazi" and "Khazar" for yourself very easily.

Besides, it's called common sense. They are white. Only thing separating them from any other white is their RELIGION.Color of the skin pigment is not a factor. Two of my three children look Caucasian because the have that color skin. Yet because their mother is black, they are not. But I guess they would be in your book. :rolleyes: Why would anyone choose to be hated by the world if they could simply be German or Russian or Polish or whatever? I'm sorry but your logic is flawed. But hey, if you want to continue hating the Jews, that's your choice. But get in line with the majority of the world. :(

God Bless!

aceinthehouse
Sep 18th 2008, 01:59 PM
If the hatred towards the Jews isn't proof enough that we are in the last days,then I don't know what is...

Sure,I understand that the Jewish community has been going through this,since the beginning of time...I understand that

But when a Country like Iran says (President "imanutjob") says he will wipe Isreal off the map,speaks volumes to how close we really are!

Plus...we see the tension of Isreal's surrounding states that are just waiting to invade their land,not just because they think there is land that is their own,but because of "WHO" they are...

GOD specifically says that "ANY MAN" that's against my people(Isreal) are against me...Yet all these Countries don't even have to "sit in a corner" for the attrocities they inflict on the Jewish State!

You even have many denying the actual Slaughter(Holocaust) of over 6 million jews during WWII as if it were a myth,when we know for sure that this was factual...

If it's so easy for them to deny the Holocaust,imagine how easy it will be for many to deny christ?

I have VERY MUCH respect for the Jewish community not only because Christ himself was jewish,but because it takes alot of faith to endure the attrocities they have had to endure even before they were a nation....



I'm a Christian/Caucasion/American and my name is Michael who lives here in the U.S.....And I will stand by my brothers to the very end, fight with them,fight for them and fight as them.

And I will do this in his holy name..Jesus Christ and no other!

Any man who fights against the Lords people,fights against me!

David Taylor
Sep 18th 2008, 02:20 PM
**OK guys, the Racial digs stop here**

Get back to the OP.

If anyone wants to discuss the ethnic heritage and ancestry of Israelis, then start a new thread to discuss this in the 'Controversial Issues (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48)' subforum; (cause I'm sure it will become controversial quickly, and that will save us having to move it there anyway, and people wondering where the thread went).

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 03:59 PM
Dave,

I can start one, but the reason I would prefer to avoid it moving there is then it opens up to non-Christians, and that adds to the animated discussion with the Fenris's on the board. A discussion within the Christian community is a different one from the one with the outside.

Can I at least open one up, either here or in Bible Chat, regarding the Jewish tradition of matrilineal descent? It's just to show that Scripture is very clearly patrilineal, yet that is not what Jewish tradition has followed for the past 2000 years. This has nothing to do with Arthur Koestler.

markedward
Sep 18th 2008, 05:18 PM
The verse specifically says 'the nations'. The Jews are NEVER referred to as 'the nations'.Incidentally...

Revelation 16:19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Here it states that "the great city split" and also "the cities of the nations collapsed."

Babylon the Great, which we are directly told is "the great city" [17:18] is being differentiated from "the cities of the nations." Since the Jews are never (as you say) referred to as "the nations," then the Socratic method would be as this:

1. Babylon the Great is called "the great city"
2. We are told that...
...a. "the great city split"
...b. "the cities of the nations fell"
3. Through points 2a and 2b, we see that "the great city" is being made distinct from "the cities of the nations"
4. The Jews are never referred to as "the nation(s)," a term reserved for the Gentiles
5. Through points 2b and 4, we see that "the cities of the nations" are cities of the Gentiles
6. Through points 3, 4, and 5, we see that, since "the cities of the nations" is made distinct from "the great city," and since "the nations" essentially means "the Gentiles," then "the great city" would thus not be a city of the "the nations," or "the Gentiles"
7. Through point 7, we would conclude that "the great city," being made distinct from "the cities of the nations/Gentiles," is thus a Jewish city


(President "imanutjob")You may not like the man, but that doesn't mean you, as a Christian, can insult him.

Mograce2U
Sep 18th 2008, 05:20 PM
aceinthehouse, #88 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1792587&postcount=88)
Anti-semitism is just one of the signs of the curse that this land and its people is under. When God was dwelling among them there was peace. But they forsook God and did not want Him to rule over them and He has given them over to their own ways. Israel without the Lord's protection and guidance, suffers the despite of her enemies. Hatred, discourse and violence is the rule of the land, not peace. And this was promised to be the case for those who were scattered into the nations - that a sword would follow after them, their name would be a curse to the nations, and their land would become a habitation of devils.

It is not an excuse for anti-semitism by any means, rather a reason to evangelize them. But their own leaders will not allow this and promote an anti-gospel agenda instead. Which if you recall, was the same scenario in the 1st century when Messiah was sent to redeem them and deliver the promise given to the fathers of eternal life.

What you see in the world today in Israel is the result of this curse they are under. Which if they turn to the Lord who bought them, will be lifted. They hear the gospel with every tour that brings Christians in to visit their land, yet most will not hear it. But some do and this is what we must keep telling them about our Hope in Christ and the reason for it and pray that God give them ears to hear it, before the fire comes and devours them all.

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 05:35 PM
Anti-semitism is just one of the signs of the curse that this land and its people is under.

I agree. The persecution of the semitic people who lived in the land for the past 1000 years in peace, known as the Palestinians, has brought on a renewal to God in the occupied regions. We are seeing many semitic Christians in the West Bank and Gaza now, where before they might have been perfectly content remaining Muslim. It's strangely ironic how this persecution of the semitic people, brought on by Christians nonetheless, are not only leading some to Christ, but it's causing them to flee Babylon, Jerusalem. They're being MADE to flee. They don't have a choice. And if they only converted to Judaism, they could easily claim to be a Sephardic Jew and remain there.

If there's one common thread in biblical prophecies, it's that they NEVER fulfill themselves in the way we expect. This is no exception.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 05:48 PM
Incidentally...

Revelation 16:19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Here it states that "the great city split" and also "the cities of the nations collapsed."
Actually, that response was not concerning Rev. 16 but rather this scripture:

Revelation 20:7-8
7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Another poster has said that Jerusalem (Israel) is Gog and Magog. I simply pointed out that I do not see how that is possible seeing that it equates Gog and Magog with 'the nations'. ;)

As for Jerusalem/Israel being the great Babylon :dunno: Jerusalem, I guess you could make a case though I think the simplest interpretation would be the best one. Why would Babylon not be Babylon? Israel I don't think a case can be made that Israel is Babylon. That's my interpretation based on what I see in scripture, but you know what? I'm perfectly fine watching as things play out. ;)

God Bless!

markedward
Sep 18th 2008, 06:00 PM
Actually, that response was not concerning Rev. 16 but rather this scripture:
[U]

Another poster has said that Jerusalem (Israel) is Gog and Magog. I simply pointed out that I do not see how that is possible seeing that it equates Gog and Magog with 'the nations'. ;)Oh, I know. I was simply taking the same logic (that "the nations" never refers to Jews) and applying it to another verse (to show that "the great city" was being made distinct from the cities of "the nations").


I don't think a case can be made that Israel is Babylon.Denying that any sort of case can be made is simply absurd. A case absolutely can be made (aside from my two OPs, people have written whole books on the subject)... but that doesn't mean the case "can't be made" altogether just because you disagree with it.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 06:08 PM
Denying that any sort of case can be made is simply absurd. A case absolutely can be made (aside from my two OPs, people have written whole books on the subject)... but that doesn't mean the case "can't be made" altogether just because you disagree with it.Israel is a country, not a city. The prophesy concerns a city. As I said a case can be made that Jerusalem is that city (though I wouldn't agree with that case), but to pretend that Israel is a city or even would be referenced to as 'a city' seems absurb to me.

God Bless!

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 06:23 PM
If Jerusalem gets destroyed, that is considered an attack on Israel. It would be like nuclear weapons completely destroying the Midwest. It doesn't destroy the U.S., but it sure comes close to it. And if Russia ever made such an attack, it's not because they hated Indiana--it's because they hated the U.S..

You could argue the same for Vatican City vs. the Catholic Church. They're inextricably tied, to the point that the terms are _almost_ (not quite) interchangeable.

Jude
Sep 18th 2008, 06:29 PM
There should be no confusion about that city unless a great blindness has overshadowed you...

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/babylon-2.jpg



http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

markedward
Sep 18th 2008, 06:37 PM
Israel is a country, not a city. The prophesy concerns a city. As I said a case can be made that Jerusalem is that city (though I wouldn't agree with that case), but to pretend that Israel is a city or even would be referenced to as 'a city' seems absurb to me.Ah, my mistake. Sometimes I see people use the terms (Israel/Jerusalem) interchangeably, so I had assumed you were doing the same. Sorry.

Jude
Sep 18th 2008, 06:43 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/JDM760/Revelation/7headed.jpg

"Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?"
Christopher Wordsworth, D.D.

Whether Babylon in the Apocalypse is the city of Rome.

The subject of our Inquiry is:--

Whether the Prophecies in the Apocalypse (Ch.xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xciii, xix), or Revelation of St. John, respecting Babylon, concern Rome as she now is?

This Question divides itself into two parts;

First; Do these prophecies concern the City in which the Bishop of Rome holds his See?

Secondly; Do these prophecies concern that City in her spiritual as well as her temporal character; that is, do they concern her as a Church, as well as a City? And as exercising power, not merely at Rome and in Italy, but in many other countries, and over many other nations, of the world?

Let us begin with the consideration of the former of these two questions, Do these prophecies concern the City of Rome?

1. First, these Apocalyptic prophecies, which describe the Woman who is called Babylon, and is seated on the Beast with seven heads and ten horns, do not concern the older, literal, Assyrian, Babylon. The inscription on the Woman’s forehead is Mystery; indicating a spiritual meaning. This word had been used by St. John’s brother Apostle St. Paul, in his description of the Mystery of iniquity, opposed to the Mystery of Godliness (2 Thess.ii.7, and 1 Tim.iii.16); and St. John adopts the word from St. Paul, and appears to apply it to the same object as that which had been portrayed by that Apostle (2 Thess.ii.7)

Again, the Babylon of the Apocalypse is described as a City existing and reigning in St. John’s age (Rev.xvii.18); but the literal, or Assyrian, Babylon had long ceased to be a reigning city when St. John wrote. Therefore the Babylon of the Apocalypse cannot be the literal or Assyrian Babylon.

2. What, then, is the City of which St. John speaks?

It is called by him a Great city (Rev.xvii.18), and it is one which existed in his age; and would continue to exist for many centuries, certainly to our own times; as is evident from the fact, that its destruction, as described in the Apocalypse, is represented there as accompanied by events, which, however near they may now be, no one can say have yet taken place

The Babylon of the Apocalypse is, therefore, some Great City which existed in St. John’s age, and which still exists in our own.

Now almost all the Great Cities of his age have fallen into decay; almost the only great City which then existed, and still exists, is Rome.

3. Thirdly, we read in the Apocalypse: Here is the mind, or meaning, which hath wisdom (Rev.xvii.9); the Seven heads of the Beast are Seven Mountains, on which the Woman sitteth.

In St. John’s age there was One City, a Great City, built on Seven Hills,--Rome. The name of each of its Seven Hills is well known: in St. John’s time Rome was usually called "the Seven-hilled City." She was celebrated as such in an annual national Festival. And there is scarcely a Roman Poet of any note who has not spoken of Rome as a City seated on Seven Mountains. Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Silius Italicus, Statius, Martial, Claudian, Prudentius—in short, the unanimous Voice of Roman Poetry during more than five hundred years, beginning with the age of St. John, proclaimed Rome as "the Seven-hilled City."

Nor is this all. The Apocalypse is illustrated, in this respect, from another source, equally obvious to the world—Coins.

On the Imperial Medals of that age, which are still preserved, we see Rome displayed as a Woman sitting on Seven Hills, as she is represented in the Apocalypse.

4. Fourthly, St. John give another criterion by which the Apocalyptic City is to be identified. The Woman which thou sawest (he says) is that Great City, which Reigneth over the Kings of the Earth (Rev.xvii.18).

If we refer to the Latin Poets of St. John’s age, we find that the Epithets commonly applied to Rome are The great, The mighty, The royal, Rome; The Queen of Nations; The Eternal City; The Mistress of the World.

If again, we contemplate the public feelings of the World as expressed on the coins of that period, we there see Rome, as the great City, deified, crowned with a mural diadem, holding in her palm a winged figure of Victory, which bears in its hand a Globe, the symbol of Rome’s Conquests and Universal Sway.

Rome, then, was that Great City; Rome reigned over the Kings of the Earth. Therefore the Woman is Rome.

5. Yet further, St. John gives us another characteristic. The Woman, described by him as sitting on Seven Hills, and as reigning over the Kings of the Earth, is called Babylon. Upon her forehead was a name written—Mystery, Babylon the Great (Rev.xvii.5). This name, as we have seen, is not to be taken literally; it cannot designate the Assyrian City on the Euphrates; but it designates some other great city which was like Babylon, and is therefore called by that name.

To apply this geographically; Babylon has found a remarkable parallel in Rome. Babylon (as S. Augustine says) was the Eastern Rome: and Rome, the Western Babylon.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif