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
The official website of the APC>br> http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?p=3079
SECOND COMING AND PRETERISM
Preterism is the heresy which teaches that all eschatological events prophesied in Scripture have been fulfilled in the siege and sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They maintain that all of Scripture, including the Book of Revelation, was written prior to that date. Now, if John wrote Revelation after 70 A.D. and the fall of Jerusalem, Preterism falls apart, is totally refuted, and absolutely found to be false.
THE DATE OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Now we know that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of Rome, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. Rev 1:9, I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors did not consider Christianity a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the A.D. 60s. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in A.D. 67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded.
There is no record of Nero’s banishing Christians to Patmos. It was Nero who threw Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance.
After Nero’s death, Christians were not persecuted until the rise of Domitian to power in A. D. 81. Domitian had some Christians killed, the property of others confiscated, Scriptures and other Christian books burned, and many banished to the island of Patmos.
All early sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of John to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. Not one single early source places John’s banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterits claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero’s reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of writers, who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John.
The rest of that article pretty much destroys your contentions and eschatology.
Looks like you’re a Preterist but not a Presbyterian according to the official Presbyterian Church site.
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?page_id=1435
If this be the case with Scripture in general, it is especially the case with prophetic Scripture. As every spoke in the wheel of Providence revolves, the prophetic symbols start into still more bold and beautiful relief. This is very strikingly the case with the prophetic language that forms the groundwork and cornerstone of the present work. There never has been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman “sitting on seven mountains,” and having on her forehead the name written, “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” with the Roman apostasy. “No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has, for its situation on seven hills. Pagan poets and orators, who had no thought of elucidating prophecy, have alike characterized it as ‘the seven hilled city.’” Thus Virgil refers to it: “Rome has both become the most beautiful [city] in the world, and alone has surrounded for herself seven heights with a wall.”
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?page_id=2551
One day the Lord Jesus will return to this earth! His feet shall stand on the Mt. of Olives! Are you looking ahead to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in that resurrection day? Do you say with John, “Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus? Are you waiting for this body of death to be changed? for sin to be eradicated completely? to bow before your Lord and Savior, your King and Judge?
Thanks for the information. This is from the article:
Preterism is the heresy which teaches that all eschatological events prophesied in Scripture have been fulfilled in the siege and sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They maintain that all of Scripture, including the Book of Revelation, was written prior to that date. Now, if John wrote Revelation after 70 A.D. and the fall of Jerusalem, Preterism falls apart, is totally refuted, and absolutely found to be false.
See, they don't think I am a preterist, either. Are you simply confirming that you have been mistaken in the past?
BTW, turn that last sentence on it's head: prove John wrote the Revelation prior to 70AD, and you will see the dispensational cult's entire house of cards crash and burn. What a day of rejoicing that will be!
This is the American Presbyterian Church
This church came out of the Bible Presbyterian Church. They were a group that was more Reformed and wanted to influence the church more in the direction of its professed standards (a modified version of the Westminster standards) and away from the Arminianism and dispensationalism of American Fundamentalism. For its testimony a number of its ministers were cast out of the church for founding a rival Seminary called Reformation Seminary. After their expulsion in 1976 they formed an Old School type Presbyterian church, holding to the regulative principle of worship, exclusive psalmody, no unscriptural holydays etc. They continued the Bible Presbyterian heritage of confessing premillennialism and temperance as the faith of the church.
It appears the American Presbyterian Church doesn't care so much for your cult. They must think there is a significant difference between premillennialism (which they profess) and dispensationalism (which they oppose.) Note they came from this bunch:
Bible Presbyterian Church
This was the other side in the split in the Presbyterian Church of America and was led by Carl McIntire. This was the faction that identified more with the New School tradition and with American Fundamentalism.
LOL! Who would have thunk it? There are more new-ager's than you can shake a stick at.
These are the guys I like most in the bunch:
Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States
These was a small group that left the PCA to form a more conservative and Presbyterian body. Some of their pastors such as Dr. Morecroft have strong Theonomist leanings. They have since split into several smaller bodies including the RPCUS, Hanover Presbytery led by Dr. Edwin Eliot, the RPCUS, General Synod led by Dr. Kenneth Talbot, and the RPCUS, Covenant presbytery led by Dr. Joseph Morecraft.
Add to that list John Otis, a fine Reformed Presbyterian minister. Ken Gentry also may be part of them, but I am not certain. Anyway, they believe most of Matt 24 was fulfilled, and most of the Revelation up till Chapter 20. We differ on the number and timing of resurrections, and a few other odds and ends.
BTW, I see you are still pushing the Irenaeus-Dolmitian Date Myth.
Did you note that your "expert" witnesses, the American "Presbyterian Church," has also bought into the myth that Peter was killed in Rome. There is no record of any kind that Peter was ever in Rome. Of course, since you believe in the rapture myth and the dual-covenant myth, I am not surprised.
>>>Looks like you’re a Preterist but not a Presbyterian according to the official Presbyterian Church site.<<<
They are about as "official" for Presbyterians as the Federal Express is part of the Federal Government. You do understand that analogy, don't you. "Saint" Cynical?
Philip
Didn’t read the whole article ey? LOL Thought that would be the case when you got that far. Sorry dude. The article goes on to call what you believe Preterism and you a Preterist.
>>>One day the Lord Jesus will return to this earth!<<<
"Saint" Cynical, why do you keep posting stuff from that group? Why try to deceive everyone into thinking I belong to that group? Isn't deceit a characteristic of Satan?
This is copied from the American Presbyterian Church website page titled "Eschatology," at the link you provided:
"Unlike the bulk of their Presbyterian brethren, the American Presbyterian Church confesses historic premillennialism as its creed."
They are not even Presbyterian. I am unsure what they are; but the also reject dispensationalism:
It is important to point out that the American Presbyterian Church rejects dispensationalism and dispensationalist premillennialism. We are covenant theologians. We take our eschatology from the scriptures and especially from the divine covenants wherein God’s promises for the future are revealed.
It seems they don't like either one of us, "Saint" Cynical. LOL!
Philip
Interesting. Can you dig up all the posts where you use a broad brush against dispensationalism establishing the Scofield/Darby straw man?
>>>Didn’t read the whole article ey? LOL Thought that would be the case when you got that far. Sorry dude. The article goes on to call what you believe Preterism and you a Preterist.<<<
Are you talking about the section that contains these words, “Saint” Cynical?
“Many preterists such as Gentry, DeMar, and Sproul, are not yet full preterists. Not yet.”
Sounds like they have an axe to grind, both against postmillennialists and dispensationalists. LOL!
Philip
Still didn’t read the whole thing ey? ROFLOL!
>>>Another indication you’re not a Presbyterian.<<<
No, it is simply another indication that you don’t have a clue what a real presbyterian believes.
Philip
>>>Still didn’t read the whole thing ey? ROFLOL!<<<
Why would I waste my time on them, “Saint” Cynical? I read enough about them to know they are not Presbyterian? And I already have enough dirt on the dispensational cult; so I really don’t need theirs.
Philip
An interesting point. As it will not only have dispensationals crash like a house of cards, but all historic futurists (pre-millennials), Amillennials, Post-Millennials, the writings and understanding of the ECFs and every creed defining the second coming as future will come crashing down.
But those competing, in some areas, but agreeing on the most basic truths of a physical second coming future and resurrection and judgment, eschatologies of thousands of years must bend the knee to Phil's doctrine.
So Phil is right and all those other theologians looking at the same texts and human history were wrong! The second coming is past you say, but they say not so, but Phil is right because he says so.
>>>Interesting. Can you dig up all the posts where you use a broad brush against dispensationalism establishing the Scofield/Darby straw man?<<<
Straw men? Darby and Scofield? The founder and chief (visible) promoter of the cult? Now that is a bizarre mischaracterization, even from one who has a history of mischaracterization.
You are welcome to wade through all my posts for the information you are seeking. Read them all, because I try to mention dispensationalism at least as many times as I am characterized as a preterist, which is a lot. Or course, who’s counting.
Philip
What is your definition of cult? Isn’t where someone becomes the focus of a theology or belief system and then declares infallibility and opposing views are then “heretical” and “cultic”?
How did those men ever form a cult?
>>>An interesting point. As it will not only have dispensationals crash like a house of cards, but all historic futurists (pre-millennials), Amillennials, Post-Millennials, the writings and understanding of the ECFs and every creed defining the second coming as future will come crashing down.<<<
What is your point? Are saying we should cling to erroneous interpretations for old time sake; like the Jews did before Christ? Sounds like a death wish.
Besides, in recent history (the past 200-300 years) there has a been major change in the way scholars perceive the dating of the Revelation. Many modern scholars, who espouse the early-date interpretation were former dispensationalists, like Philip Mauro and Ken Gentry.
>>>But those competing, in some areas, but agreeing on the most basic truths of a physical second coming future and resurrection and judgment, eschatologies of thousands of years must bend the knee to Phil’s doctrine.<<<
There is no need to give me undeserved credit. All I do, like many now do and have done in the past, is interpret “this generation” as “this generation:” not as “that generation.” I cannot take credit for that. The disciples were the first to interpret that way, and there have been many afterward, including an explosion of them in the past few centuries.
>>>So Phil is right and all those other theologians looking at the same texts and human history were wrong! The second coming is past you say, but they say not so, but Phil is right because he says so. <<<
Why do you always seem to be mischaracterizing what I say and believe?
Philip
>>>What is your definition of cult? Isn’t where someone becomes the focus of a theology or belief system and then declares infallibility and opposing views are then “heretical” and “cultic”?<<<
Not necessarily. But I believe that is the case with Darby and Scofield.
ROFLOL!!! They were just fine when you thought they agreed with you but now not so much ey? Well, let me help ya out there.
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?p=3079
Under “Here we will deal with the partial preterism, from this point on designated just preterism.”
So when he says Preterist from this point he’s talking about those who use the 70ad meme.
We have seen how far the preterist gangrene has spread. Very little teaching on the second coming remains after preterism has consumed most of the New Testament prophecies. Many preterists such as Gentry, DeMar, and Sproul, are not yet full preterists. Not yet. One full-blown preterist was J. Stuart Russell, who taught that the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ have all been fulfilled in the past. All was fulfilled in A.D. 70, J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, with an introduction by R. C. Sproul. Russell’s heretical hyperpreterist gangrene is deadly. Like Hymenaeus and Philetus, Russell, who lived in the 19th century, was guilty of profane and vain babblings and has increased unto more ungodliness, (II Tim. 2:16-18). Like Hymenaeus and Philetus, Russell’s word eats like gangrene. In spite of Russell’s heresy even partial preterists praise his writings. Although Gentry refers to Russell as an advocate of “radical preterism,” he still praises The Parousia as “masterfully written,” even though Paul calls his doctrine heresy! Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, a Post-millennial Eschatology, pg 270-271.
As a minister of Christ, I must write what I believe to be true with regard to this subject. I do so, but with no joy in my heart, because I know that I am criticizing many that I love in the Lord. I feel it is my duty to call attention to what I believe to be error in the teaching of the partial preterism
Kenneth Gentry admits that “it is true that [Christ] will come at the end of history, bringing about the resurrection and the judgment (Acts 1:11, I Thess. 4:13ff., I Cor. 15:20-26),” Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, pg 25. Chilton condemns a denial of any future bodily resurrection or judgment as “a heretical form of preterism,” Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, pg 531. The question is, will the preterist gangrene end here or will it develop into full preterism? Let us beware that the preterist gangrene does not overthrow the faith and the hope of the Church.
That hope is the Second Coming of the Jesus Christ. Why is eschatology important? It is important because it influences the interpretation of so many passages of Scripture. About 30 per cent of Scripture is prophecy. It is also important because the church is in danger of neglecting the doctrine of Christ’s coming again. The Lord exhorts us to watch. In the parable of the ten virgins all ten, representing the visible church, slumbered and slept. During the interval between the first and second coming of Christ the whole church will be in danger of ignoring to a great extent Christ’s personal return to earth. His Apostles likewise exhorts awake thou that sleepest, Eph 5:14. The preterists do not look for Christ’s second advent any time soon. Chilton thinks it may be 1000’s of years away. Are not he and his fellow preterist’s slumbering and sleeping? Do they have their lamps trimmed?
Define for us what your definition of a cult is.
>>>They were just fine when you thought they agreed with you but now not so much ey? Well, let me help ya out there<<<
Where did I say that I was fine with them, “Saint” Cynical? In my very first response to you on that “church,” I concluded:
“They are about as “official” for Presbyterians as the Federal Express is part of the Federal Government. You do understand that analogy, don’t you. “Saint” Cynical?”
It seems you didn’t read my entire response, or you just didn’t understand.
Philip
Here’s the title of the site.
American Presbyterian Church
The official website of the APC
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.