Posted on 05/13/2014 3:04:52 PM PDT by HarleyD
Where, pray tell, do you come up with that?
Therefore, it is most unlikely that Babylon the Great was any other city than the Jerusalem that was destroyed in AD 70.
The temple was destroyed but Jerusalem has remained for 2000 years and remains today, so you're premise is false leading to an erroneous conclusion.
>>>Where, pray tell, do you come up with that?<<<
The Bible? Maybe you can clue us in. Who were the prophets after John?
>>>The temple was destroyed but Jerusalem has remained for 2000 years and remains today, so you’re premise is false leading to an erroneous conclusion.<<<
Jerusalem is just a mass of land within a secular nation. It has no relationship to the center of old covenant worship that the Lord destroyed in AD 70.
Philip
I never said I was a "literalist." That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.
>>>They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be.<<<
Actually, it does:
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . ." (1 Th 4:17 KJV)
I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.
>>>Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.<<<
You must be talking to yourself.
>>>I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.<<<
Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?
Don't you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies. What about John? It is claimed he lived to the end of the century. Why did he not write even a whisper about it?
I'll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.) St. John was resurrected along with his fellow Saints.
>>>You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened.<<<
I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.
>>>You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian.<<<
That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.
>>>"If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.<<<
Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint?
>>>Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true.<<
That is true. Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.
>>>Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?<<<
True Christians? No. Of course, Jesus gave us examples of those who would be rejected, including some who claimed righteousness (e.g., the self-righteous.) Perhaps you recall some of those examples by the Lord.
Philip
Sorry for the incorrectly routed post, sasportas. It was for someone else.
Philip
Is that how you derive Biblical truth, by Biblical silence? You err when you interpret the silence of the Bible about something as Biblical denial of the thing's existence. That's like saying there are no longer any cats because cats are not in the Bible after John. It is a logical and interpretive fallacy to assume that no mention of prophets after John proves there have been no prophets after John. Therefore, Scriptural silence about prophets after John does not prove there were no prophets after John.
Where does the Bible expressly say there have been no prophets after John? If not, your statement is based on your understanding and interpretation of circumstances, not based on definite Scripture. You may call it YOUR interpretation, that's fine. Just don't pretend you are expressing God's Word or YOU are "adding to God's Word."
So although it is up to you, not me, to prove scriptural foundation for your assertion, I'll respond anyway.
Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets
Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
Beyond this, if the Bible implies anything, it implies an ongoing prophetic ministry as evidenced by Paul's instruction to the Corinthians about setting prophets in the church (1 Cor 12:28) and instructions to the prophets (1 Cor 14: 29,32).
You're really way off on this one my FRiend.
Jerusalem is just a mass of land within a secular nation.
So what? You claim Jerusalem was destroyed and it was not, so you have a false premise that has lead to erroneous conclusion. In fact, your description starts to sound like the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.
Sometimes.
>>>You err when you interpret the silence of the Bible about something as Biblical denial of the thing's existence.<<<
I would agree that in certain circumstances Biblical silence is revealing. For example, there is not a whisper about a dual fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy on Elijah. Nor is there a hint of a reign of Christ on earth.
>>>That's like saying there are no longer any cats because cats are not in the Bible after John. It is a logical and interpretive fallacy to assume that no mention of prophets after John proves there have been no prophets after John.<<<
Maybe you could steer us toward some of those prophecies? I don't recall reading a single line of prophecy after John.
>>>Where does the Bible expressly say there have been no prophets after John?<<<
I look at the Bible, and it ends with John's book. Should I be reading somewhere else?
>>>So although it is up to you, not me, to prove scriptural foundation for your assertion, I'll respond anyway.
Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets
Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.<<<
So? Jesus said he would send some prophets. Where are their letters; their books? Isn't the work of the prophets--the parts we need--typically written in a book somewhere?
>>>Beyond this, if the Bible implies anything, it implies an ongoing prophetic ministry as evidenced by Paul's instruction to the Corinthians about setting prophets in the church (1 Cor 12:28) and instructions to the prophets (1 Cor 14: 29,32).<<<
When was the last time anyone received the power of the holy spirit to prophesy?
>>>You're really way off on this one my FRiend.<<<
No, you are if you think there have been any prophesies after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If there were, the early Church Fathers would have found them.
>>>You claim Jerusalem was destroyed and it was not, so you have a false premise that has lead to erroneous conclusion. In fact, your description starts to sound like the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.<<<
Did you ever bother reading the history of those days? Everyone knows that Jerusalem was leveled: completely destroyed.
I believe the reason God gave us the Bible is so we would not have to make stuff up. Men's imaginations are dangerous, to be kind.
BTW, you really should consider dropping the condescending attitude.
Philip
Jerusalem has had its problems but it has existed for the last 2000 years and thrives today. So our premise is faulty. So there’s no reason why it couldn’t be the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.
So are you disputing the words of Jesus and Paul about an ongoing prophetic ministry? Where does the Bible require the writings you demand to be a prophet and/or that to be a valid writing YOU have to know about it?
When was the last time anyone received the power of the holy spirit to prophesy?
Where does the Bible require that YOU have to know about the call and anointing of the Holy Spirit on a prophet's life?
>>>Jerusalem has had its problems but it has existed for the last 2000 years and thrives today.<<<
Jersalem is no longer the Lord’s bride. The Church, New Jerusalem, is now the bride. So, as far as the Lord is concerned, “Jerusalem” exists no more.
I recommend a more spiritual than carnal reading of the scriptures.
Philip
No. I believe every word they say. It is, after all, the Holy Ghost speaking, and God is always right. I simply don't believe your understanding of what they wrote is correct.
All who received the power of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, or received the power from one of them shortly thereafter, had the power to prophesy. But the power to prophecy is conditional upon a need for the prophecy.
Those who received the power of the Holy Ghost had other powers, as well: all conditional upon need:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18 KJV)
There has not been anyone with that kind of faith since around AD 70.
Philip
>>>Where does the Bible require that YOU have to know about the call and anointing of the Holy Spirit on a prophet’s life?<<<
You are insinuating that you know something we don’t. Enlighten us.
Philip
Around and around we go. Where does the Bible clearly and unequivocally declare that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned so that in no way can Jerusalem be the Great Whore, Babylon the Great? Again, your description of Jerusalem supports the idea of Jerusalem being the Great Whore.
I recommend a more spiritual than carnal reading of the scriptures.
Maybe you should follow your own advice once in a while about condescension.
You got that right.
>>>Where does the Bible clearly and unequivocally declare that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned so that in no way can Jerusalem be the Great Whore, Babylon the Great?<<<
Would you rephrase that question? Never mind.
>>>Again, your description of Jerusalem supports the idea of Jerusalem being the Great Whore.<<<
That is correct. Jerusalem was the Great Whore of the Revelation.
>>>Maybe you should follow your own advice once in a while about condescension.<<<
I'll keep that in mind. In the meantime, if you feel an urge to make the following statement again, like you did in #48, please follow through:
>>>"I'll quit wasting my time with someone who won't participate in a reasonable discussion."<<<
Philip
No Phillip, I’m not going support your assertions for you. That’s your job. You’re the one asserting no ongoing prophetic ministry after John even though Jesus said he would send prophets, they were in Acts, and Paul gave instruction about the office of the prophet in the church and instruction on using the words of prophecy. If you can’t show scripture supporting your view that on the face is contrary to scripture, then you are the one adding to God’s Word.
I am perfectly comfortable with my interpretations. I don't consider it a job; but rather a privilege and a blessing.
>>>You’re the one asserting no ongoing prophetic ministry after John even though Jesus said he would send prophets, they were in Acts, and Paul gave instruction about the office of the prophet in the church and instruction on using the words of prophecy.<<<
Paul was speaking to the early Church. Some of them had powers beyond our comprehension.
>>>If you can’t show scripture supporting your view that on the face is contrary to scripture, then you are the one adding to God’s Word.<<<
Show me the prophecy. Never mind. You can't.
I hope you are not claiming that some in your denomination are prophets? The modern-day claim of "speaking in tongues" is bad enough.
Philip
Sure.
Let's see if I've got this straight.
Your premise is that the prophesies in the Book of Revelation ended in AD 70 because today's Jerusalem cannot be the Great Whore, Babylon the Great. You support that assertion with another assertion that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned. So Jerusalem existing no more as far as the Lord is concerned is a cornerstone of your argument.
Where does the Bible clearly and unequivocally declare that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned?
"And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (Rev 18:21 KJV)
"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: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." (Rev 18:23 KJV)
"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)
"And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Rev 19:1-2 KJV)
Did you really think they could get away with killing the prophets, apostles and the Son of God?
Philip
Why is your application (without explanation BTW) that all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70 any more or less "adding words to the Book of Revelation" than the application I suggest (with supporting scripture and evidence BTW) of 2000-year fulfillment of Chapters 2-3?
If an when you get around to explaining this I may be interested. So far, you have not supported your assertion with definitive Scripture. Rather you have supported it with the lack of Scripture and your interpretation of things that are not explicit in the Bible.
We're probably done. I can't say I haven't enjoyed it aside for some personal side-swipes. I enjoy an good, intelligent discussion. Although I believe you could benefit from being a little more open, I wish you the best and God speed.
If you have read my thread on the 144,000, and you are not satisfied with what I wrote, or do not understand it, then I don't know what else to tell you.
>>>We're probably done. I can't say I haven't enjoyed it aside for some personal side-swipes. I enjoy an good, intelligent discussion. Although I believe you could benefit from being a little more open, I wish you the best and God speed.<<<
Back at ya.
Philip
No, this was a discussion here and now, not deflecting or referencing some other discussion. Your assertion was about "adding words to the Book of Revelation." Your assertion and issue was about WORDS in the Bible, either added or taken away. So far, you have failed to show Biblical WORDS that prove your assertion. If anything, your reasoning itself adds and subtracts from the words of the Bible and the Book of Revelation.
Hasta La Vista Baby.
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.