Posted on 04/09/2014 9:44:02 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
That was not the point of my title.
>>>The meaning of Babylon is confusion which in large part answers the question "Was Babylon the Great a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem?" IF God is not there then there is confusion, or if there is confusion God is not in it or there. And that is not limited to the city of Jerusalem it applies to any and all.<<<
Again, that wasn't the point of my question. I was simply asking if there were any that believed like I do that Babylon in the Revelation was a "coded" (if you like) synopsis of the destruction of Jerusalem.
>>>Since the claim of the 'complete destruction' in 70 A.D. is incorrect what else is incorrect about these claims.<<<
The complete destruction of Jerusalem--the desolation by the Roman armies--is history. If you are expecting to read about a smooth desert with no dunes or ripples in the sand, maybe you are asking too much of the word "complete." Do you spiritualize any verses to get the answer you are looking for, or must everything be exact?
>>>It is misleading at best to attribute this verse as speaking to the time/days of when His disciples walked this earth.<<<
It is misleading to believe anything else. How many ways does he have to say it? How about three?
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"But when they persecute you [my disciples] in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)
When you add the fact that every apostle wrote of the imminence of the coming of Christ, and that in about thirty places in the Revelation it speaks of imminence of fulfillment, you don't have a leg to stand on.
BTW, how do you explain Matt 10:23 and Matt 16:27-28, listed above? I would love to hear those interpretations.
>>>So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.<<<
There are some very good commentaries that, when taken together, list the fulfillment of everything Jesus said. Even the part about the gospel being preached to all nations and every creature was fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem--maybe not the way you wanted it to be fulfilled; but it was good enough for Paul.
>>>The disciples were NOT on this earth when the parable of the fig tree was planted and thus the 'destruction' of the city/temple did not occur in 70 A.D. because all manner of stones still sit atop one another.<<<
Not in the temple area they don't. You are still clinging to the myth that the so-called wailing wall was part of the temple complex. It was not.
When Jesus said the temple complex was going to be leveled, he meant it. The manner in which it was leveled could only have come from God. It seems the gold of the various parts of the temple complex melted in the fires, and some ended up in the cracks between the stones. The Roman soldiers had to literally pry the stones away from each other to get to all the gold. Thus, not one stone was left upon another.
BTW, your interpretation of the parable of the fig tree is the strangest interpretation of that parable I have ever seen or heard. -:)
Philip
A generation was considered to be about 40 years. I am not sure what you are asking, or why.
He also explained "this generation" to his disciples in other ways:
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"[Jesus said,] But when they persecute you [my disciples] in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
How do you interpret those verses?
Philip
The Wailing Wall was most likely not a part of the temple complex, which was the context of the scripture. Have you read my post #75? It links to three websites that use the words of Josephus to determine the location of the temple and Fort Anatonia, which leads them to conclude that the Wailing Wall was part of the Fort, or part of the city walls. Anyway, there is some very good information on those sites.
Josephus' writings notwithstanding.... Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple:
and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple.
So the subject is not strictly limited to the temple but the whole area.
2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Then right after this, verse 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?"
Think for a minute that Christ did not know what the disciples were thinking?
The first warning Christ gave as a 'sign' of His return was verse 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them,
"Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in MY name, saying, 'I am Christian; and shall deceive many.
So we have near two thousand years since Christ gave the warning of what would be the 'signs' of His return. And right in the midst of these events Christ said Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When *his* branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is night:
This parable sets the time-frame of 'this generation' that Christ is addressing.
Deception is the first tribulation and Christ said all but the elect would be deceived.
Matthew 24:21 (quoting Daniel 12:1) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: BUT for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Here is the 'tribulation' verse 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' or 'there;' believe it NOT.
This is your code is does not come from Scripture. The destruction of 'Jerusalem' that Christ warned would come has not yet come. The sacking of the temple by that Roman general did not remove 'confusion' or Babylon from Jerusalem even to this day. But the 'destruction' Christ foretold is going to remove 'babylon' confusion for ever.
The complete destruction of Jerusalem--the desolation by the Roman armies--is history. If you are expecting to read about a smooth desert with no dunes or ripples in the sand, maybe you are asking too much of the word "complete." Do you spiritualize any verses to get the answer you are looking for, or must everything be exact?
I am not arguing that the Roman armies did not 'sack' Jerusalem. What I am telling you is the Roman sacking is NOT the same 'destruction' Christ said would be at His return.
There is a physical death of flesh and then there is a state wherein the physical body is a live but the 'soul/spirit intellect' is spiritually dead. Meaning the soul does not love the Creator, kinda like the narcissistic mind of the first rebel.
Why do you insist on reading so much into the text? These are the three passages on this matter, in context:
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Mat 24:1-2 KJV)
"And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Mark 13:1-2 KJV)
"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Luke 21:5-6 KJV)
I don't see anything in those passages other than the temple buildings--the temple complex.
>>>The first warning Christ gave as a 'sign' of His return was verse 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in MY name, saying, 'I am Christian; and shall deceive many.<<<
Why did you misquote verse 5? There were many false Christs and prophets prior to 70 AD.
>>>So we have near two thousand years since Christ gave the warning of what would be the 'signs' of His return. <<<
His return with his angels to gather his elect occurred around 70 AD, exactly when he predicted. All the signs he gave were fulfilled prior to his coming in 70 AD.
>>>And right in the midst of these events Christ said Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When *his* branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is night: This parable sets the time-frame of 'this generation' that Christ is addressing.<<<
Exactly! He warned his disciples that when they began to see those signs, they should prepare for his coming and for the destruction of Jerusalem. For example, they should warn their fellow Christians in Judea to flee to the mountains, etc..
>>>Deception is the first tribulation and Christ said all but the elect would be deceived.<<<
I have no idea what that means.
>>>Matthew 24:21 (quoting Daniel 12:1) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: BUT for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.<<<
The great tribulation occurred prior to, and during 70 AD. Since you mentioned Daniel 12, are you aware that the first resurrection referenced in Daniel 12:1-2 was only for Daniel's people, that is, only for the Israelites? Are you also aware that it was a partial resurrection, in that not all were resurrected, but "many?"
>>>Here is the 'tribulation' verse 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' or 'there;' believe it NOT.<<<
Think about why might Christ say that. Could it be that he never returns to the earth, not then, nor in the future? Therefore, anyone claiming to be Christ would have to be an imposter. If he had not said that, his disciples may have believed an imposter.
This is Jesus explaining how he will be not be seen anymore after his ascension:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;" (John 16:7-10 KJV)
Even beloved John, in the Revelation, did not see Christ, but his angel:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16 KJV)
Philip
That is bizarre, to be kind.
>>>I am not arguing that the Roman armies did not 'sack' Jerusalem. What I am telling you is the Roman sacking is NOT the same 'destruction' Christ said would be at His return.<<<
As far as Christ is concerned, there is no Jerusalem. It was destroyed forever in AD 70 when he divorced old Jerusalem and sent the Roman armies to destroy it. He then married heavenly New Jerusalem (the Church,) which is his bride forever.
>>>There is a physical death of flesh and then there is a state wherein the physical body is a live but the 'soul/spirit intellect' is spiritually dead. Meaning the soul does not love the Creator, kinda like the narcissistic mind of the first rebel.<<<
I can't argue with that because I have no idea what it means. LOL!
Philip
Why do you insist on reading so much into the text? These are the three passages on this matter, in context:
Whose context are you using? Christ said on this show and tell visit of the 'buildings of the temple' NOT my words, Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them "See ye not allllllllllllllll these things? verily I say unto you, There shall NOT be left here ONE stone upon another, that shall not (very emphatic, because certain) be THROWN down."
This word THROWN is Strong's Greek #2647 kat-al-oo'-o; from 2596 and 3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), i.e. (by impl.) to demolish (lit. or fig.) spec. [comp. 2646] to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.
Has not happened yet.
Wonder where else this 'destruction' is described. One would think that this event if referring to a Roman generals activities, it being 'history' to us and all, only one mention would suffice? But no as you correctly note it is repeated three times as if to get attention.
Why did you misquote verse 5? There were many false Christs and prophets prior to 70 AD.
Christ is pointing to the fake Jesus, the many Christians, refer to him as the anti-Christ, not knowing who he is. You can call it misquoting if you need, but those that work for the fake Jesus would be calling themselves Christians.
The fake Jesus has yet to be thrown out of heaven, Revelation 12. Christ was specifically referring to the first rebel, and those in the flood of deception (first tribulation) believe him to be Jesus.
Do you know who the 'anti-Christ' is?
His return with his angels to gather his elect occurred around 70 AD, exactly when he predicted. All the signs he gave were fulfilled prior to his coming in 70 AD.
Paul says ICorinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (there are 7 of them) for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed, ..... you can read the rest which is important but I do not feel like typing it out.
So long as there are flesh bodies inhabiting this earth Christ has not returned for anybody, after all He is coming here on God' green earth to establish His kingdom.
Check out Romans 11 the whole chapter. It is childish teaching to claim Christ collected the elect in 70 AD.
Exactly! He warned his disciples that when they began to see those signs, they should prepare for his coming and for the destruction of Jerusalem. For example, they should warn their fellow Christians in Judea to flee to the mountains, etc..
Where exactly did Christ tell the disciples they would see any of the signs? There is a world of difference in what man 'sees' and what Christ declared. Some have the spirit of slumber and have no clue they are asleep.
What exactly is resurrected? We are told once the flesh dies it returns to the dirt from which it came and the soul/spirit intellect returns to the Maker that sent it? This applies to all of God's children the good the bad and the ignorant. So long as there are flesh beings Christ has not returned for His harvest.
I thought I read recently something about Ezekiel? Ezekiel 37:4 Again he said unto me, “Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, ‘O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
Spiritually dead but physically alive bodies.
Who is the parable of the 10 virgins talking to if all this wedding business has already happened. Why, what is the point of the Scripture since all of it has already happened?
>>>Whose context are you using? Christ said on this show and tell visit of the ‘buildings of the temple’ NOT my words, Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them “See ye not allllllllllllllll these things? verily I say unto you, There shall NOT be left here ONE stone upon another, that shall not (very emphatic, because certain) be THROWN down.” . . . Has not happened yet.<<<
What has not happened that Christ said? You are making no sense. Where are you getting the information that he was not referring to the temple complex? You must have a different bible than me, and everyone else I know.
>>>Wonder where else this ‘destruction’ is described. One would think that this event if referring to a Roman generals activities, it being ‘history’ to us and all, only one mention would suffice? But no as you correctly note it is repeated three times as if to get attention.<<<
That is history. The city was destroyed. The temple complex was leveled. Must you be teleported back in time to the event to believe it? Who taught you all this?
>>>Christ is pointing to the fake Jesus, the many Christians, refer to him as the anti-Christ, not knowing who he is. <<<
That is a first. I have heard some very strange things from people trying to fit the bible to their agendas; but I have never heard that before.
>>>You can call it misquoting if you need, but those that work for the fake Jesus would be calling themselves Christians. The fake Jesus has yet to be thrown out of heaven, Revelation 12. Christ was specifically referring to the first rebel, and those in the flood of deception (first tribulation) believe him to be Jesus. <<<
I am serious when I ask, who taught you this stuff? That fellow cast out of heaven was Satan himself. Someone is trying to pull your leg, friend, and it appears they succeeded.
>>>Do you know who the ‘anti-Christ’ is?<<<
There were many antichrists in the days of John, and there still are many antichrists. For example, everyone who practices Islam and Judaism are antichrist. So, my answer is, yes, I know a few of them. Some are my relatives.
>>>So long as there are flesh bodies inhabiting this earth Christ has not returned for anybody, after all He is coming here on God’ green earth to establish His kingdom.<<<
Where does it say he will establish his kingdom on earth, other than the one we already live in?
>>>Check out Romans 11 the whole chapter.<<<
I have read it many times. What are you referring to specifically?
>>>It is childish teaching to claim Christ collected the elect in 70 AD.<<<
I would agree that it is either deceitful or ignorant to ignore the plain teachings and time contexts of Christ and his apostles.
>>>Where exactly did Christ tell the disciples they would see any of the signs? <<<
Have you ever read the Bible, or have you been spoon-fed all this by some charlatan trying to steal your money?
>>>What exactly is resurrected? We are told once the flesh dies it returns to the dirt from which it came and the soul/spirit intellect returns to the Maker that sent it? This applies to all of God’s children the good the bad and the ignorant. So long as there are flesh beings Christ has not returned for His harvest.<<<
It keeps getting stranger and stranger.
How do you know that is what it means? Old testament prophecy is highly metaphorical. Nearly all the Jews didn't understand it. They studied it every day, and still went straight to hell. Only a small remnant were saved.
But since you obviously believe what you are writing is true, then you must also believe verse 24 where it states:
"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." (Eze 37:24 KJV)
So, David is going to be a king, again? That will be a major-league event in the world of Christianity. There should be many references in the New Testament to David becoming a king again. Will you point out a few?
Philip
>>>Who is the parable of the 10 virgins talking to if all this wedding business has already happened.<<<
Jesus was instructing his disciples to “watch” (and, by implication, to teach other Christians to “watch.”) Jesus had already told them that he was coming back in their generation to gather his elect (that is, to get his bride, the Church.) In this and several other parables he was instructing them to not get complacent, nor to get the notion that he was going to delay his coming.
The parable of the ten virgins is similar to the parable of the two women grinding at the mill where one is taken, and the other left. As it turned out, only a small fraction of the Israel was actually saved; therefore it appears Jesus was referring only to Christians in the parables of those who were to be taken or left. Some Christians, it seems, didn’t meet the standards, and were therefore rejected.
Philip
>>>Why, what is the point of the Scripture since all of it has already happened?<<<
The purpose of most of the New Testament scripture was for instruction and warnings to the early Christians. The only scripture remaining to be fulfilled is found in Revelation, chapter 20, beginning in verse 8. Satan must first be defeated, and then comes the final judgement. Afterward, everyone lives happily every after.
Philip
That’s silly Philip, there’s no contortion. It is the exact sentence that Jesus speaks.
This generation is guilty of all the blood from this point to that point.
Matthew 23: 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
Read the sentence:
The blood of Abel to Zechariah will come upon “you” (this generation.
You are entitled to your own opinion, Philip, but the sentence says what it says. You don’t get to make up your own facts.
Answer my question, first, and I'll answer yours. I've answered your up to this point. When Jesus uttered those words were they yet future to the time when He spoke them?
John says the heads are both mountains and kings. As far as the alleged distinction between mountains and hills goes, there's not a specific designation to separate "mountain" and "hill" in Greek or Hebrew: The Greek word oros and the Hebrew word har can mean either.
But even if we ignore John's statement that this city rests on seven hills, the fact is that Jerusalem hasn't sat atop, in a dominant position, over the nations around her since a very brief time in the days of Solomon.
No one really knows what that means.
Just to take a guess, it means that the city in question must rule over the kings of the earth--which is to say, over an empire made up of subjugated kingdoms. You know, exactly what the text says.
This very obvious reading is verified by the city's initial domination over the Beast, symbolic of the Roman Empire, which had absorbed and superceded (per its description in ch 13) the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Persians. It's also verified by its name: It is compared to Babylon, one-time capital of the known world, just as Rome was the capital of the known world in John's time.
By naming it Babylon, God is also setting it in opposition to Jerusalem: Just as Babylon was responsible for destroying the temple and the city and exiling the Jewish people. Therefore, Mystery Babylon would be the city on seven hills who ruled over the kings of the earth in John's time, and who was responsible for destroying the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and for sending the Jews again into exile.
And just as Babylon was eventually cast down in retaliation for the destruction of Jerusalem, so John tells us would Rome be.
Which brings us back to the obvious candidate which was universally understood to be Mystery Babylon until recently: Rome.
If you are willing to admit that you spiritualized a "seaport" out of the book that mentions no seaport, I will concede it is relevant.
So why are those who sail by sea so upset by the destruction of a landlocked city? How did Jerusalem enrich all who trade by sea? Heck, how could they see the smoke of her burning?
While you are at it, can explain how any creature could remain alive for any length of time after all green grass was burnt up (Rev 8:7.)
That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and I see no reason to go down that rabbit trail. If you want to debate futurism vs. preterism in general another time, I may be game.
And why, after a third of all ships were destroyed, and a third of all sea creatures were killed, their loss was not mentioned in any manner in regards to the destruction of Babylon?
Because those events actually take place before Mystery Babylon's destruction, Revelation not being in strict chronological order.
That is not true unless Ezekiel was a false prophet (Eze 16:55 KJV.)
Does your Bible's version of Ezekiel stop at chapter 16? Curious. Mine goes right up to chapter 48.
Would you care to elaborate on those items already mentioned, such as the blood of the prophets and the harlotry?
So you're saying that if you find two common points, you can ignore all of the contrary data? Interesting hermeneutic.
But sure, I'll answer your question if you'll answer this: How was Jerusalem responsible for the blood of the righteous Abel?
Okay, we’ll play this game: List the mountains.
Did you actually read what you wrote? This is what you wrote:
>>>I think He meant what He said. He said "this generation" responsible from this point to that point. From point A to point B. That's what He said. He didn't say "from point A to point B to other future points to be named in a future draft." <<<
LOL! And now you try to explain it with this
>>>This generation is guilty of all the blood from this point to that point.<<<
>>>Matthew 23: 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.<<<
>>>The blood of Abel to Zechariah will come upon “you” (this generation.<<<
I believe I had asked you this question?
"When Jesus said the current generation was responsible for the blood of those murdered by their fathers, you don't think He was going to let them off the hook for their own future murders, do you?"
>>>You are entitled to your own opinion, Philip, but the sentence says what it says. You don’t get to make up your own facts.<<<
You apparently have decided they are only responsible for the murders of their fathers, but not their own murders. That is the way I interpret your response. If you don't believe they were responsible for the murder of the prophets and apostles that Jesus sent them, please explain why! If you do believe they were responsible, please say so, and we can move on.
Philip
>>>Answer my question, first, and I’ll answer yours. I’ve answered your up to this point. When Jesus uttered those words were they yet future to the time when He spoke them?<<<
I thought I made myself clear. I can’t answer your question because I don’t understand your question. All I am asking is you rephrase it.
Philip
The question, again, is: Was Jesus referring to future events when He said,
Matthew 24:" 30 "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 the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. 32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Had all that already happened or was it future?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.