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
So then did God die? And if God died who raised Him from the dead?
That should be did he Father die? And if He did who raised Him from the dead?
Then why did Paul introduce them to the dispensation of grace? And why did he think they may not have heard of it?
It actually was Rome as in the “Roman Empire” based in Rome. That is often lost in these discussions. Keep in mind that the “Roman Church” was essentially started by the Roman emperor who incorporated many of the pagan customs we see in the RCC today. If you follow that through, it was the Roman authority who killed the apostles and prophets with cooperation from some of the Jewish elite. It was then the Roman emperor who started the Roman church so it’s just a continuation of Roman influence. It will also be the revived Roman Empire area who will come against Israel in the end. That should scare any who follow the Roman Church.
>>>Besides Balaam, which prophets exactly do the Scriptures list that Jerusalem killed, and how many prophets are there ?
I don't recall any except in the apocrypha. But Jesus said this:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Mat 23:37-38 KJV)
"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Luke 13:33 KJV)
"… 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 11:50-51 KJV)
Jesus said Jerusalem killed (some) prophets, and he said Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of all of them. You believe Jesus, don't you?
>>>Does your church hold to the Doctrine of Balaam also?<<<
Also? Also what? I am not catholic? I don't recall my Church teaching that we should eat anything sacrificed to idols or commit fornication: to the contrary. Also, to my knowledge, I don't recall my Church teaching anything to the children of Israel, at any time. Only Christians attend my Church, as well as I can determine.
Does your church hold to the Doctrine of Balaam? Does your church teach you to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication?
Philip
>>>Um, dude. Herod was a commissioned by the Roman ruler Claudias and was part of the Roman Empire. James was killed by the Romans in what was part of the Roman Empire.<<<
Um, dude. Herod was merely a tool: the executioner. The Romans carried out the execution of Jesus; but they were not responsible for his blood. Are you saying the Romans killed Jesus?
You are playing word games. Don’t you have anything better to do?
Philip
The Romans carried out the execution of Jesus, James and the other disciples but were not responsible. Hmmm. I’m sure that makes sense in Philip theology.
You certainly don't appear to give God a lot of credit for being all-powerful. Have you ever read this?
"And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible." (Mat 19:26 KJV)
What does this mean?
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:17-18 KJV)
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
Stephen was the only one they didn’t directly kill, and the authority to kill him still came from the Roman governor’s acquiescence.
You never answered mine. Answer mine, and I will answer yours.
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
What does this mean?
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:17-18 KJV)
When are you going to answer my original question: the one you have been avoiding?
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
>> “For starters, Herod killed James, brother of John. Herod was a descendent of the evil Herod that wanted to kill the baby Jesus.” <<
.
Gee Phil, who do you think Herod was?
He was not a Hebrew, and thus was not a legitimate King. He was a Roman puppet. Herod’s authority came not from Yehova, but from Rome.
Yes, all that Herod did was an action of Rome.
>> “Did knowledge increase during the 500-600 years from the time Daniel wrote the book until the time of Christ? I imagine so.” <<
.
Well, your imagination is way off.
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.
.
>>>Then why did Paul introduce them to the dispensation of grace? And why did he think they may not have heard of it?<<<
He didn’t. Are you implying Abraham was not saved by grace? How about Moses? How were they saved?
Philip
>>>Stephen was the only one they didn’t directly kill, and the authority to kill him still came from the Roman governor’s acquiescence.<<<
So, you don’t believe the words of Jesus? That is very strange.
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.
>> “Start reading at post #154 to see what is being avoided.” <<
.
Post 154 is deranged raving composed of 100% pony bleep.
.
They were all under the law. Are you also?
>>>He was not a Hebrew, and thus was not a legitimate King. He was a Roman puppet. Herod’s authority came not from Yehova, but from Rome. Yes, all that Herod did was an action of Rome.<<<
So, Jesus said Herod was responsible for the blood of the apostles? Where can I find that?
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?
Philip
You know nothing of “the words of Jesus.”
.
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.