Posted on 03/22/2014 1:35:03 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
Was "Babylon The Great" a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem?
Recall that Jesus said:
"… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33.)
That is a very important statement to keep in mind when considering the following passages: and later in the same chapter of Luke, Jesus added:
"…I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Luke 11:47-51 KJV)
That is pretty clear. Jerusalem is responsible for the blood of all the prophets, and at least some of the apostles. There is more in Matthew:
"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in yoursynagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Mat 23:34-36 KJV)
So, Jerusalem was not only responsible for the blood of all the prophets (and some apostles;) but for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth. And vengeance for that blood was required of the generation that Jesus was speaking to.
We all know that is exactly what happened within that generation: the Roman armies completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, fulfilling this prophecy by Jesus:
"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)
But how do those verses compare to those on Babylon the Great found in the Revelation?
In the Revelation, Babylon the Great is also called the great whore, the mother of harlots, the great city, and the woman. In the context of blood responsibility, John mentions this:
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Rev 17:6, KJV)
The first martyr of Jesus was Stephen, if I recall correctly; and there were many more. The next chapter reveals additional facts:
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24, KJV)
But, according to Jesus, Jerusalem is supposed to be responsible for the blood of all the prophets; and Jerusalem is responsible for all the righteous blood? Yet, in the following verse we see that God avenged the blood of the apostles and prophets on Babylon the Great.
“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” (Rev 18:20, KJV)
And recall the first scripture at the top:
"… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33.)
So what do we know:
1. Jerusalem killed many of the apostles, yet their blood was avenged on Babylon the Great
2. Jerusalem is responsible for the blood of all the prophets, yet their blood was avenged on Babylon the Great.
3. Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of all the righteous, yet Babylon the Great was responsible for "all that were slain on the earth."
There are many other references in the Revelation that tie Babylon the Great to old Jerusalem. This is one of many:
"And their dead bodies [the two witnesses] shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev 11:8 KJV)
It seem our Lord Jesus Christ was killed in both Babylon the Great and Jerusalem. It is difficult to imagine Babylon the Great being any other city than Jerusalem.
Philip
There is not one word about Nero in Revelation, nor any other part of God’s word. Revelation was written in 91 AD.
So the Jews worshiped Nero and that’s why they bore the wrath of God? No kidding? Wow, I wonder how historians and the apostles missed that one?
>>>Knowledge continually decreased after the flood, and that continued to around the time of the renaissance. Knowledge definitely has increased since then, and is increasing exponentially at this time.<<<
That is very interesting claim. I was always under the impression that scholars like Archimedes, Aristotle, Socrates, and Pythagorus (he came after Daniel, didn’t he,) contributed greatly to our knowledge in ancient Greece. Wasn’t ancient Greece considered to be the “Cradle of Western Civilization?” Wasn’t ancient Rome also a heavy contributor to the classics?
Philip
>>>I understand that it’s all meaningless to you Philip. What do you think all of us have been trying to do? It’s trying to get you to understand what scripture is really saying. Alas, it seems futile still.<<<
How about countering my points in #154, if you can. All of them. One shouldn’t ignore scriptures they don’t happen to like; or that don’t fit neatly inside their self-imposed little box. Avoiding the tough challenges is not the sign of an eschatological doctrine grounded in faith.
Philip
>>>You know nothing of “the words of Jesus.”<<<
Please show us how you and your fellow Roodies have mastered the Words of Jesus. We are all very interested. /s
Philip
Knowledge was at the same level at the time of the flood as it was at the 18th century.
There was a long decline in knowledge after the flood. Pythagoras knew less than the late ice age mariners after the flood. Check out James Neinhuis’ site: http://www.iceagecivilizations.com/
It is amusing to see a “sincere milk” beginner such as yourself puffing about Bible knowledge.
.
It would have really been easy to say "Nero" if it was about Nero. I know... it was written in code that only the church of that time would understand... whatever.
Quote: “But these are good things to bring to light. Did knowledge increase during the 500-600 years from the time Daniel wrote the book until the time of Christ? I imagine so.” You “imagine”? We are supposed to comment seriously on your imaginings? Give me a break.
Quote: “More meaningless misdirection. Did Jesus tell John NOT to seal the book of prophecy? Yes. Daniel sealed it; and Christ unsealed it, beginning in Revelation 6, shortly after his resurrection.”
Revelation 6 hasn’t happened yet. Revelation was written after AD70 and that has been proven to you over and over again.
Quote: “Only a remnant was saved, and they became the "144,000" of all the tribes sealed as servants of God and of the Lamb.”
Well then I guess you are sol dude. Good luck with that.
Quote: “And don't believe any of the dispensational spin relating to the the Jews rejecting Christ as their king.”
I haven’t heard anyone claim that. They rejected Him as their messiah.
Quote: “Notice how that passage correlates to the Great Whore, Babylon the Great of the Revelation.”
No, I don’t. That’s in you Philip theology and Preterist thinking. It’s so much drivel.
Get the picture? Your entire post is fodder for jokes but nothing else.
Cynical: >>>So the Jews worshiped Nero and that’s why they bore the wrath of God? No kidding? Wow, I wonder how historians and the apostles missed that one?<<<
This is an example of classis dispensational debating techniques, folks. Avoid the question by claiming your challenger said something he didn't.
You ready for this? This was my actual question:
"Where can I find anything that Jesus blamed on the Romans, except for the forty and two month rampage of Nero, the Beast, in the Revelation?"
He pretended that my question was the statement on the top line; and then pretended to respond to a question I didn't ask or to any statement I have made. Such deceitfulness is always found in the toolbox of cults.
But since he brought it up, now is a good time to point out a very good book on the identity of the beast in the Revelation. It is titled "The Beast of Revelation," by Dr. Ken Gentry. Dr. Gentry is a Reformed Presbyterian Minister and Educator who has authored many great books on the Revelation and other topics, including his doctoral dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell," which is a classic.
Everyone, if you want to know how we ended up in this stalemate; this is the result of a classic, dispensational debating trick: when seriously challenged, redirect the debate to meaningless, philosophical hair-splitting. Start reading at post #154 to see what is being avoided.
Philip
First, the book of the Revelation was written before 70 AD, and you have absolutely no (zero) proof that it was not written before 70 AD.
Second, That is an odd statement from someone who made this claim in post #30:
"The catholic church slaughtered all the real followers of Yeshua, and all the Jews, that they could find, from the fourth through fifteenth centuries . . . The description of Babylon in The Revelation is easily recognized as the Vatican, and the British royal family."
I have to admit: you have a vivid imagination. That is the type of false prophecy that sells books.
I do, however, want to commend you for using the word, Jesus, in your post #200. Isn't the use of the name Jesus some type of heresy, or, generally forbidden speech amongst the Roodies? Did the fact that you placed it in quotation marks make it instantly non-heretical? How does that work?
Philip
>>>There was a long decline in knowledge after the flood. Pythagoras knew less than the late ice age mariners after the flood. Check out James Neinhuis’ site: http://www.iceagecivilizations.com/<<<
I must admit, you do come up with some strange “history.”
That’s one of the problems with your Philip theology and the Preterist view. You don’t know what you are really saying. You said that Nero was the beast of Revelation. Well, the beast of Revelation was worshiped which is what I said.
Revelation 13: 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Now you accuse me of deflecting? By saying that Nero was the beast of Revelation you most certainly said that they worshiped him because that is what scripture says they did to the beast.
>> Dr. Gentry is a Reformed Presbyterian Minister and Educator who has authored many great books on the Revelation and other topics, including his doctoral dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell," which is a classic.<<
ROFLOL! Gentry is a self admitted Preterist. Yet you deny you are one but still rely on his interpretation of Revelation! Early on you claimed you relied on no one. Around here we have been through that Preterist nonsense before and they never last long.
Polycarp was a disciple of John. He was born in AD69, and died in AD 155. He was only one year old when Jerusalem was destroyed. His being tutored by John had to have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward.
Here is Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp.
Irenaeus
Against Heresies
Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
So Irenaeus says it was toward the end of Domitian’s reign that John wrote Revelation. John was later released from Patmos which is what the successor of Domitian did with all of those that Domitian had banished to Patmos.
Oh, no. Not on your life. I have many more mountains to climb before the cult of dispensationalism is brought into the light. Thankfully I am no where near alone in this endeavour. Dispensationalists are leaving the cult in droves; including many of the more serious-minded who see the light while attending Dispensational Indoctrination Schools (aka, dispensationally-bent Theological Seminaries.)
>>>Revelation 6 hasn’t happened yet. Revelation was written after AD70 and that has been proven to you over and over again.<<<
You have a vivid imagination. Imagine if that were true! That would mean people from the days of Jesus were still living:
"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)
And imagine that the disciples were not only still alive after 2000 years, but still preaching the kingdom of God in the cities of Israel for 2000 straight years?
"But when they persecute you 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)
But it makes sense in the fantasy world of dispensationalism, where "this generation" means a generation 2000 years in the future; where "shortly come to pass" means 2000 years in the future; and "the time is at hand" means (again) 2000 years in the future. This is also the fantasy world where the prophecy of Malachi on the coming of Elijah is fulfilled, not once, but twice!
But, that said, if you really want them to be nice to you, ask them to say the Lord's Prayer with you. Twice is even better.
ME: >>>Quote: “Only a remnant was saved, and they became the "144,000" of all the tribes sealed as servants of God and of the Lamb.”
CYNICAL: >>>Well then I guess you are sol dude. Good luck with that.<<<
I noticed you failed to show me why you think I am wrong, as usual; but I must ask:
What does "sol" stand for, Cynical. Is that a Christian term?
ME:>>> Quote: “And don't believe any of the dispensational spin relating to the the Jews rejecting Christ as their king.”<<<
CYNICAL: >>> I haven’t heard anyone claim that. They rejected Him as their messiah.<<<
Oh, that's right. The devil is the one who offered him the kingdoms of the world. The Jews were only the devil's children!
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44 KJV)
Thanks for pointing that out.
ME: >>> Quote: “Notice how that passage correlates to the Great Whore, Babylon the Great of the Revelation.”<<<
CYNICAL: >>> No, I don’t. That’s in you Philip theology and Preterist thinking. It’s so much drivel.<<<
Yea, how foolish of me to think there was any correlation between Babylon the Great with only these (and many other) similarities:
"Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate." (Jer 7:34 KJV)
"And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: " (Rev 18:22-23 KJV)
"And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate." (Rev 18:19 KJV)
"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." (Rev 11:8 KJV)
There are many, many more similiarities, including those in the main post (post #1) that explain who is responsible for the righteous blood.
>>>Get the picture? Your entire post is fodder for jokes but nothing else.<<<
What can I say, except why did you avoid the prophecies of Ezekiel, where I exposed the folly of dispensational claims to be literalists? Maybe you can at least explain how, after the magic kingdom is created, David will be king, and the tribe of Dan will magically appear. Even Jesus didn't know about that one; or if he did he didn't mention it in his Revelation.
I'll remind you again of those points, from time to time.
Philip
>> “and you have absolutely no (zero) proof that it was not written before 70 AD.” <<
.
Nonsense.
We have Polycarp’s testimony to Iraneus that puts it at 91 AD or later.
There are no early writings that put it anywhere else.
And what was their only source? Irenaeus, an early Christian whose book was written about a century after the fact: around 175 AD.
This debate has been rehashed over and over again; and the only honest conclusion is: there is not a shred of evidence that John was banished to Patmos during the days of Domitian.
If you want a good understanding of what really happened; read Dr. Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell." It is available free online from several sources, from what I have been told.
Anyway, Cynical bear offered the following quote:
>>>Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3<<<
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
That is very interesting. But what was seen? That? What is that? Scholars have been wringing their hands over that statement for centuries. It was easy to accept in the early days, with one misinterpretation piled on top of another misinterpretation. But modern scholars (for the past 200 years or so) have almost discounted Irenaeus as a viable source.
For example, this is from the same book and chapter, but two paragraphs earlier:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 1]
Notice anything odd? A "vision" that Irenaeus "claimed" was "almost in our day" had not only been written in a book; but the copies had already become ancient. People don't talk or write with that kind of carelessness.
Conclusion: A reasonable interpretation would interpret the word "that" in paragraph 3 to be either "John" or the "book;" but never the vision. The only scholarly move would be to discount the traditional interpretation as false, and discard Irenaeus as a viable source of a late date for the Revelation.
Philip
What in revelation hasn’t come to pass yet in your beliefs?
>>What in revelation hasn’t come to pass yet in your beliefs?<<
From Revelation 20:8 to the end of the chapter. I believe currently that Satan and his “children” are making war with the Church, world-wide (e.g., the breadth of the earth.) And I believe at God’s appointed time, Satan will be defeated; and that will precede the final judgement.
I also believe that those who do not see it are living very sheltered lives.
I am unsure about Chapter 21 and 22. There is substantial evidence they have been, at least, partly fulfilled.
Philip
>>>That’s one of the problems with your Philip theology and the Preterist view. You don’t know what you are really saying. You said that Nero was the beast of Revelation. Well, the beast of Revelation was worshiped which is what I said.<<<
Actually, this is what you said, while implying I said it:
"So the Jews worshiped Nero and that’s why they bore the wrath of God?"
Will you please show us where I made such claims? You can't because I have not.
>>>Revelation 13: 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?<<<
There was no doubt there was widespread emperor worship under Nero, either real, or due to threat of death or persecution; but not among the Jews, that I am aware of. It is also a fact that there was a horrific persecution of Christians during the last three and one-half years (forty and two months) of Nero's reign.
>>>Now you accuse me of deflecting? By saying that Nero was the beast of Revelation you most certainly said that they worshiped him because that is what scripture says they did to the beast.<<<
Try not to misquote me, or spin what I say, and everything will be just fine.
>> Dr. Gentry is a Reformed Presbyterian Minister and Educator who has authored many great books on the Revelation and other topics, including his doctoral dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell," which is a classic.<<
>>>ROFLOL! Gentry is a self admitted Preterist. Yet you deny you are one but still rely on his interpretation of Revelation! Early on you claimed you relied on no one. Around here we have been through that Preterist nonsense before and they never last long.<<<
Well, Cynical Bear, there you go again. Dr. Gentry does admit he is a "partial preterist;" but he is in no way a preterist by your narrow-minded definition. And you and I can only dream of obtaining research skills approaching his. Besides, if I refused to seek information from scholars who only believe the way I believe, I would have zero references from outside the scriptures. LOL! No one believes the way I do: no one I am aware of. Dr. Gentry and I differ (major league) in our beliefs on the 2nd coming, and on a few other odds and ends. He is a traditional Reformed Presbyterian: even more of a postmillennialist than I.
You may have noticed that I use Matthew Henry commentaries from time to time, even though many things he believes I cannot verify in the scriptures. I also use John Gill and Adam Clarke a lot: and we are way apart in our beliefs. But all of them have performed verifiable research that I find useful. I even study dispensational material from time to time; and I always have handy my 1909 Scofield for debating purposes. But I don't believe a word Scofield writes: even when it is true, he always seems to have ulterior motives.
It is not personal. I go where the scripture leads me. I have found Ken Gentry a very scholarly writer, his interpretive skills are second to none, and his references are top-notched. So are many others; but he is the top scholar on the Revelation, in my opinion.
Philip
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.