Posted on 04/09/2014 9:44:02 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
Was "Babylon The Great" a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem? Part II: Mother of Harlots and Sins of Sodom.
Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 AD, and over 1.1 million people were slaughtered or starved to death; both as a result of an internal civil war, and a later siege and assault by the Roman armies. Yet there is barely a direct mention of the magnitude of destruction and death in the New Testament, with the exception of these passages in Luke:
"And when [Jesus] was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:41-44 KJV)
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Luke 21:20 KJV)
Jesus said the destruction would occur in the generation of his disciples, which is exactly when it occurred:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)
The purpose of this series of posts is to show how there was a substantial and fairly detailed reference in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem under the pseudo-name of Babylon the Great. In Part I we discussed how Babylon the Great and old Jerusalem were both responsible for the same blood: in particular the blood of the prophets. We now look at the similarities of whoredom by both cities.
Whatever the sins of Sodom, the sins of Jerusalem were worse, according to Ezekiel. He begins with a general statement of why God adopted the Israelites as his children:
"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare." (Eze 16:2-7 KJV)
And the Lord turned Jerusalem into a prosperous and beautiful kingdom:
"I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom." (Eze 16:10-13 KJV)
Babylon the Great was similarly adorned:
"And the woman [Babylon the Great] was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . . And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! (Rev 17:3-4, 18:16 KJV)
Both Babylon the Great and Jerusalem were called the great city in the Revelation. This is Jerusalem:
"And their dead bodies [of 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)
Note that Jerusalem is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. The Jerusalem-Sodom comparison is referenced in the prophets, and will be discussed below. But the Egypt comparison is not so clear. We know that the children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt; but how does that relate to Jerusalem? Paul explains it here:
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:24-26 KJV)
We never think much about the children of Israel being in bondage in the days of Christ; but Christ indicated they were in bondage in part of his mission statement:
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" (Isa 61:1 KJV)
Now on to the Sodom comparison: first, we should note that Jerusalem rebelled against God and played the harlot:
"And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them," (Eze 16:14-17 KJV)
In comparison, Babylon the Great was called the Mother of Harlots:
"And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. " (Rev 17:5 KJV)
But Ezekiel implied that Jerusalem was also a mother of harlots, and her sins were worse than Sodom's!
"And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways. As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. " (Eze 16:46-48 KJV)
This was Isaiah regarding Judah and Jerusalem:
"How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers." (Isa 1:21 KJV)
Here Isaiah claims Jerusalem is like Sodom and Gomorrah; and only by the grace of God were any saved. Isaiah then instructs the rulers of Jerusalem as if the city really is Sodom or Gomorrah:
"Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah." (Isa 1:9-10 KJV)
Paul quotes verse 9 in this passage where he explains the destiny of the children of Israel:
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For [Jesus] will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. " (Rom 9:27-29 KJV)
In the judgement against Jerusalem and her daughters, Ezekiel prophecies that Jerusalem will not return to its former estate, until Sodom is restored. That is unlikely. Does anyone even know where Sodom was located?
"When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate." (Eze 16:55 KJV)
In the matter of judgement, both Jerusalem and Babylon the Great were made desolate. This is Babylon:
“… for in one hour is she made desolate.” (Rev 18:19)
This is Jerusalem:
“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)
Compare the last verse with this one in the Revelation referencing Babylon the Great:
“And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, 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 18:23-24)
In summary, we have already seen in Part I the similarities in blood vengeance on Jerusalem and Babylon the Great: and now we see that both are called the great city; both are mothers of harlots; both are made desolate; and neither shall ever hear the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, again.
I must conclude that the destruction of Babylon the Great in the Revelation is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Philip
In all the commentaries I have read, I never read that one. So, you are saying the beast is subordinate to the woman. Is that the same beast that rules over all the nations? (Rev 13:7-8) The same beast that all but the Christians worship? If so, I guess the woman rules the entire universe. LOL! If the beast is subordinate, how does he manage to turn ten somebodies into "kings" who in-turn destroy the woman? (Rev 17:16-17 KJV)
Inquiring minds want to know.
>>>Except for the minor detail that Nero had been dead for some thirty years by the time Revelation was penned.<<<
Now it is getting interesting. Can you prove that the Revelation was penned by John in the AD 90's. I am absolutely certain you cannot prove it. But I do encourage at least an attempt on your part. This will be very interesting.
>>>Also, Nero's persecution of the Christians began after the Great Fire in 64 CE and ended with his death almost four years later, so that would be 47 months, not 42.<<<
You are way off. The persecution by Nero began in the middle of November 64 AD and ended with his death on June 8, 68 AD. That is, at most, 43 months. The fire occurred in June. Only later did Nero blame the Christians, and originally they were charged with arson. It was only much later, in November, that the persecutions began.
>>>Also, Nero didn't make a return from the dead.<<<
No one, that I am aware of, has claimed he did.
>>>Nor was he cast alive into Gehenna; he committed (assisted) suicide.<<<
I agree. He committed suicide on June 8, 68 AD.
>>>Nor did his death bring the Church into a new golden age in which it ruled with the Lamb--things actually went downhill over the next two centuries.<<<
That is your opinion. The Church did well.
>>>Nor did the dead rise. Nor . . . look, anyone reasonable gets the point.<<<
What is your point?
>>>Didn't you just say it was, under Nero? Does Paul count as a prophet in your view?<<<
Nero was not Rome. He was the Beast. Besides, the "Rome" that futurists have accused of being Babylon since before the Reformation, was the Vatican. That was, at a minimum, hundreds of years in the future from Nero.
There is no record of Paul's death in the Bible. If Paul was killed anywhere outside Jerusalem, he was not a prophet. But we can only speculate. Jesus said a prophet had to die in Jerusalem:
"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)
>>>No. Jerusalem received the full measure of God's wrath against her, as spoken of by the prophets. But just as her previous destruction was at the hands of the capital of the known world six hundred years previously, so was her destruction in 70 and 135 CE. But remember that even though they were the instruments of His judgment against Israel, God in turn judged Ninevah and Babylon with invasion, siege, slavery, and desolation just as He had Jerusalem. Since God does not change, why should we be surprised that He would do the same against Rome?<<<
But He did not do the same to Rome. Why do you claim He did?
Philip
That is typical futurist/dispensational redirection. They are the ones who have given us all the modern-day false prophesies, and we are supposed to believe them?
I wrote: Rome was not responsible for the death of a single prophet: not one. And we have been fresh out of prophets for about 2000 years. This is the response:
>>>I disagree, as would anyone who actually read up on Church history before the Council of Nicea--and given the compromise with the state that happened there, even after.<<<
Where in the Bible does it say any prophet was killed in Rome. Where does Jesus say a prophet will or can be killed outside Jerusalem? No where. You are spiritualizing the scripture.
>>>I'm still waiting for you to tell me why everyone who makes their living at sea was mourning the loss of a landlocked city of zero economic importance.<<<
You are spiritualizing the scriptures again, for the umpteenth time. Show us where it states Babylon was a seaport? You cannot.
I wrote: "No it is not. You are the one insisting on a literal interpretation of the text (e.g., "reigneth over the kings of the earth;") except with it is inconvenient. You cannot have it both ways.?
>>>It really is. I'm not interested in roaming all over the eschatological map with you right now and think we can keep this conversation focused on a single issue.<<<
The theme of this thread was the harlotry of Jerusalem in comparison with Babylon the Great. That would be a nice start.
I wrote: You mean like ignoring the blood of the prophets and saints; or like ignoring the harlotry of Jerusalem that is splattered all over the old testament prophecies?
>>>I'm not ignoring that at all, though I will ignore your attempt at guilt by association for now. <<<
Guilt by association? How can Babylon not be Jerusalem? Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of ALL the prophets!
>>>I've simply pointed out why when you take the whole passage in context, there are too many places where it makes no sense to take Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon. If you have two links, but as many or more conflicts, then all must be taken into account.<<<
Exactly, on your last sentence.
Philip
Irrevelant, since no seaport was mentioned. Besides, Jerusalem was a beautiful city: the showcase of the Mediterranean. It was a major stop for people from all nations in the empire, and beyond.
>>>Is a burdensome stone for all the peoples (Zec. 12:3) who claim their moral innocence when they willingly destroy her (Jer. 50:7).<<<
You are misinterpreting the scripture. The burdensome stone is New Jerusalem. You can read about the stone "cut out of the mountain without hands" in Daniel 2:44-45. It is an everlasting kingdom.
The verse in Jeremiah is referring to ancient Babylon when the Lord sent Persia and Media to destroy it. The verse has nothing to do with Babylon the Great of the Revelation.
>>>Was ruined for her sins against God (Isa. 3, Mic. 3:12), but will be washed clean of her blood-guilt and made holy unto Yhvh (Isa. 4:3-4, Joel 3:17, Zec. 14:21).<<<
Earthly Jerusalem will never be restored or washed clean in the eyes of God (Eze 16:55.) It will always be another Sodom. Those mentioned in Isa 4:3-4 are the holy ones who became pillars of the Church, which is located on mount Sion.
BTW, who is Yhvh? Is that Swahili?
>>>Is pardoned for her sins after she receives double back for them (Isa. 40:2).<<<
That Jerusalem in Isaiah 40:2 is also the holy city New Jerusalem. The next verse refers to John the Baptist:
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Isa 40:3 KJV)
Does it sound like the iniquity of old Jerusalem was pardoned, when about 40 years later it was completely destroyed?
>>>God takes vengeance against Babylon and the nations for the destruction of Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was destroyed for her own sin (Psa. 137:8, Jer. 51:35-36, Zec. 1:18-21).<<<
That is true.
>>>In the Day of the Lord, there will be deliverance in Mt. Zion and Jerusalem (Joel 2:31-32), for God will roar forth from Jerusalem against the nations that come against her (Joel 3:16; Zec. 9:13-15, 12:8-9; 14:2).<<<
The last Day of the Lord was 70 AD, when the Church (heavenly Jerusalem on mount Sion) was delivered from the bloodthirsty rulers of Jerusalem.
>>>Is the place where the Lord will set His throne (Isa. 24:23, Jer. 3:17, Luke 1:32-33), and the Gentiles will gather to her to learn the Torah (Mic. 4:2, Zec. 8:22-23) and to keep the Feast of Sukkot (Zec. 14:16)<<<
The Lord's throne is heaven, and always will be
"And [Micaiah] said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left." (1 Kin 22:19 KJV)
"The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven…" (Ps 11:4 KJV)
"His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah." (Ps 89:36-37 KJV)
"The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." (Ps 103:19 KJV)
"The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever." (Pro 29:14 KJV)
"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" (Isa 66:1 KJV)
>>>Will no more be called forsaken or desolate, but will be called a Delight and Married (Isa. 62:4, Zec. 14:11).<<<
New Jerusalem, which rests on heavenly mount Sion, is the Lamb's bride. Old Jerusalem has been cast away.
>>>The sound of weeping will no longer be heard in her (Isa. 65:19).<<<
That was referring to the destruction of old Jerusalem (v. 11, 12, 14,) and the redemption of the Church, New Jerusalem.
Philip
>>> Is a city accessible from the sea (Rev. 18:17) and her destruction disrupts the whole world’s economy (v. 11).<<<
There you go, spiritualizing the scriptures again. Those verses do not support either of those claims. If you take them literally, then you are also obliged to explain how the destruction of 1/3 of the ships in the sea and the death of a 1/3 of the sea creatures had no obvious effect on the world economy (Rev 8:8-9.)
>>>Is beloved by the kings of the earth, who mourn for her passing (Rev. 18:9-10)<<<
Actually it says they committed fornication with her. It sounds like a terribly corrupt city: maybe one whose sins were worse than Sodom's, as were Jerusalem's sins before it was destroyed (Eze 16:47-48)
>>>Will be destroyed by God like Sodom and Gomorrah, never to be rebuilt (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 50:40, Rev. 18:21)<<<
Isa 13:19 is referring to ancient Jerusalem. Jer 50:40 likewise. Rev 18:21 must be read in context to be understood. God did not say that the land would never be inhabited. He said the following:
"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. 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: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:21-25 KJV)
There have only been two cities, that I am aware of, who were married to the Lord: old and new Jerusalem. In only one of those cities was found the blood of the prophets: old Jerusalem. And Recall this verse from Jeremiah:
“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)
That is exactly what happened. Jerusalem will never be God's holy city, again. You can call a dog a horse; but it will always be a dog.
>>>Receives back double for her sins, but is not pardoned (Rev. 18:6).<<<
Nor was Jerusalem, the last time. God divorced it.
>>> God takes vengeance against Babylon and the nations for the destruction of Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was destroyed for her own sin (Psa. 137:8, Jer. 51:35-36, Zec. 1:18-21).<<<
That is ancient history, and completely unrelated and irrevelant. Ancient Jerusalem never killed God's Beloved Son, like the Jerusalem of the early first century.
>>>Is utterly destroyed during the Day of the Lord (Isa. 13:9, Rev. 16:19).<<<
Like Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
>>>Will be inhabited by demons and wild beasts (Rev. 18:2).<<<
You took the verse out of context. This is the verse:
"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." (Rev 18:2 KJV)
All one has to do is read the Gospels to know that Jerusalem was the habitation of devils. After all, it was the devil that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, which Christ rejected. You can read about the habitation of devils here in Jesus's conversation with the Jews in the Temple:
"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)
And there were other signs:
"Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7 KJV)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Mat 23:15 KJV)
>>> God calls His people out of her (Rev. 18:4), for she will never be inhabited by man again (Isa. 13:20, Jer. 50:40).<<<
Jesus warned the Christians to flee Judaea. Is that a coincidence, or what? The other two verses you quoted are unrelated verses that refer to ancient Babylon.
>>>The sound of music, craftsmen, millstones, etc. will never be heard in her again (Rev. 18:22).<<<
This was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
“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)
The Lord used similar imagery when Jerusalem was initially destroyed by ancient Babylon:
"Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle. And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jer 25:10-11 KJV)
>>>Rome matches the allusion to Babylon (the instrument of God's judgment against Israel), the importance to the world's economy described in the prophecy, accessibilty by ships of the sea, ruling over the Beast that represents the Roman Empire, ruling over the kings of the earth, etc. By the time Revelation was penned in 90-96 CE (when John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian), Rome was also guilty of the blood of the prophets and the saints--and would continue to be drunk on the blood of the true saints for centuries to come.<<<
Not even close. First, the Revelation was penned prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, most likely around 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia. Why is that important? Four times the seven churches in Asia were mentioned, and four times they were called "THE SEVEN churches in Asia." Not "seven churches", not "seven of the churches," but "the seven churches in Asia."
You, and everyone else it seems, are relying on an unproven statement by Irenaeus: an unclear statement which he contradicted two paragraphs earlier. You can do better than that.
But the most important point is this: Rome has never been guilty of the blood of a single prophet. You are making this up, and it is very unbecoming. Christians will believe Jesus on that issue, not you:
"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)
"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, 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 11:49-51 KJV)
If someone tries to trick you with deceptive interpretations of those passages, simply fall back on this one:
"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)
Therefore, anyone who claims Rome is responsible for the blood of any prophet is a false teacher.
>>>So what about calling MB a harlot? The funny thing is, the Bible only ascribes the title of Harlot to a city that has known the truth but then apostasized from it for the sake of worldly power: Jerusalem, of course. But also Tyre, who after helping to build Solomon's Temple, turned on Israel to secure her own importance (Eze. 27-28). Likewise Ninevah is called a harlot, but only by Nahum, after she had repented at the preaching of Jonah but then went back to her old ways. So what about Rome? A city which would become the capital of Western Christianity for a thousand years, and yet would spill the blood of countless saints in the name of purging heresy. A city in which Church became intermingled with the state, leading to horrendous abuses, including literal harlotry with the priests.<<<
But God was never married to Rome, nor was Rome ever responsible for the blood of a single prophet. Nor is there any evidence that Rome was responsible for the blood of a single Saint. Admittedly there were some who held the title of "saint;" but that was in title only. All the Saints of the early Church that received the power of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost were resurrected in 70AD.
>>>Yes, from a futurist--or historicist, for that matter--perspective, calling Rome both a harlot and a mother of harlots (her "daughters" being what we call Western Civilization) makes perfect sense, as does the charge of spilling the blood of both prophets and saints. Rome and all her daughters knew the truth--and sacrificed Truth on the altar of worldly wealth and power.<<<
What choice do futurists have? They have boxed themselves into a corner with this ridiculous "thousand year earthly reign" and insane "dual covenant" theology. Think of all the lost book sales when the truth gets out? That is why some of the most vicious Christians you will ever meet will be futurists/dispensationalists.
I wrote: What does it say about the land distributions in Ezekiel 48? How do you explain a future land distribution to the tribe of Dan?
>>>I fail to see why the latter is even a problem: There are Danites in Ethiopia today. On the former, either you have to abandon preterism, or you're the one with a problem.<<<
If Dan is still a tribe, why is there no mention of it in Revelation 7? Are there thirteen tribes now, but one is kept in secret? How does that work? What about this verse:
"And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:4 KJV)
When Jesus said "all the tribes," he didn't really mean it?
>>>So now you explain it. How did Jerusalem kill Abel?<<<
I did explain it; but you refuse to hear the Words of Jesus. I realize His Words do not fit your agenda, but I don't know how to spiritualize his Words. Maybe someone else can help you.
>>>In regards to the prophecies you cite, I'll again point out that you're going way off topic and into a general attack on futurism rather than proving your own point. But just to give quick answers:<<<
>>>Mat 16:27-28 - And six days later, Peter, Jacob (James), and John saw Yeshua glorfied as He would be after the Resurrection. (The location of the Transfiguration is important to understanding this, but I don't have time to go into all that right now.) Less than a year later, they saw the coming of the Spirit to bind the 120 to the Kingdom. And sixty years later, John saw a vision of the Second Coming in the Revelation.<<<
If anyone reading this can make any sense out of why that is relevant, please response to this post.
BTW, I forgot you were one of those Yeshua fellows. LOL!
>>>>Mat 10:23 - Being that this discourse was apparently repeated at the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), I would argue that it is a classic example of a near/far prophecy: Near term, the disciples would not run out of places to announce the Gospel before Yeshua (Jesus, if you prefer) came to Jerusalem in His 1st Coming. Far term, they would not run out of places to flee before He returned to resurrect them in His Second Coming.<<<
Same here. Please respond if you can make any sense out of his rambling. For the record, Jesus was most clear in Matt 10:23 that his coming would occur before his disciples had visited all the lost sheep in all the cities of Israel:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Mat 10:5-8 KJV)
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 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 10:22-23 KJV)
This is where Jesus said that he was sent only to gather the lost sheep:
"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24 KJV)
>>>Luke 21:32 - "This Generation" can also mean "this people," and I would argue that the latter is its primary meaning. If not, you have a problem, since the final destruction of the city was not accomplished until 135 CE, over a hundred years later.<<<
Yea, like Matthew 10:23 didn't really mean what it said, either. How about giving us a well-deserved break from all your spiritualization of the scriptures.
>>>Luke 21:22 - "That all things which are written may be fulfilled," not "Fulfilling all the things which are written." Yeshua used similar phrases to speak of His crucifixion, yet even the most rigid preterist correctly understands that there were prophecies yet to be fulfilled after that point.<<<
None of the New Testament was written when Jesus said that. What is your point?
>>>Now, how about staying focused?<<<
How about swallowing your pride.
Philip
I explained all this from Amos in my post #135 to you. The problem with your (and their) interpretation was that the "planting forever" in Amos occurred after Israel's return from captivity, long before the days of Christ. Like every other promise made by God, it was contingent on their good behavior. We all know the rest. They turned back to their evil ways, and God divorced them in 70 AD.
Philip
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
>>>That theory just doesn’t make any sense, as he is using Josephus as a primary source, but then ignoring Josephus’ description of the relative areas of the Temple and Fort Antonia.<<<
Three different websites disagree with you, and all seem pretty credible. Are you sure you are interpreting correctly?
No matter. I see you are not going to let go of this, and I am really not interested. Jesus said no stone would be left on another in the temple complex, and that is exactly what happened in 70 AD.
Now if you can prove what you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, then I might be interested. But there is no way you can prove it.
Philip
(>>>Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say , Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord , to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways , and we will walk in his paths : for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.<<<
That passage is referring to heavenly New Jerusalem located on heavenly mount Sion. New Jerusalem is also known as the Church. The New Testament mentions them in several places:)
THERE ARE NATIONS IN HEAVEN? NATIONS WILL BE TAUGHT TO TURN THEIR WEAPONS INTO AGRICULTURAL TOOLS? IS GOD A LIAR?
“But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant … “ (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
WRITER OF THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS IS CONTRASTING MOSES WITH CHRIST HERE AND “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” NOT IN HEAVEN.
“To distinguish heavenly Jerusalem from earthly Jerusalem, Paul wrote:
“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Gal 4:24-26 KJV)”
PAUL WAS CONTRASTING AGAIN LIKE THE WRITER TO THE HEBREWS SEE “Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.”
On Rev 17:18 you said “But no one really knows what that verse means, that I am aware of.” but the angle interpreted it and it means the city is not Jerusalem.
You said “My belief is derived from the theme of all the new testament writers who were focused primarily on the upcoming judgement of Israel; God’s divorcement of the nation;”
That sounds like what Paul was warning the Romans about “Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: “
Is is really necessary to post in all caps?
I believe I explained that very well. The Church is a spiritual place. Much of the old testament prophecy is also spiritual. If you attempt to take it literally at all times you will be making the same mistake the Jews did in the days of Christ. I don't recommend that.
>>>>WRITER OF THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS IS CONTRASTING MOSES WITH CHRIST HERE AND “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” NOT IN HEAVEN.<<<
I don't believe I understand your question, or your point, whichever it is.
>>>PAUL WAS CONTRASTING AGAIN LIKE THE WRITER TO THE HEBREWS SEE “Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.”<<<
Again, I don't understand your point. And I almost missed your next comment since it blended so well with everything else. I had written:
>>>“My belief is derived from the theme of all the new testament writers who were focused primarily on the upcoming judgement of Israel; God’s divorcement of the nation;”<<<
>>>That sounds like what Paul was warning the Romans about “Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.<<
>>>Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: “<<<
Could you explain your comment differently. I am unsure how you are relating the two.
However, I will make a general comment on the Romans 11 verses you posted: in Romans 9 Paul explains that "all Israel" does not mean "all Israel." In fact, if you read the implication of his explanation, "all Israel" is in fact a very small number (9:27-29).
Why? Because of all the bad seed mixed in with a small amount good seed. In fact, the only seed that eventually received the promises was Jesus Christ (Rom 9:29 and Gal 3:16.)
Jesus was kind enough to share it with those who believe in him (Gal 3:29;) and through Jesus are all nations blessed, to fulfill the original promise to righteous Abraham. But it is important to understand that Israel no longer exists, except through Jesus.
To elaborate, let's look at the original Joel prophecy that Paul was referencing in Romans 11:26:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:31 KJV)
As you can see, the only ones from Israel who are delivered--who are saved-- are the small remnant whom the Lord calls, and those humble enough to call on his name. As I explained above, Israel only exists through Jesus Christ.
Therefore when Paul wrote, "All Israel shall be saved," he was referring to a very small number of them, and only those who are Christ's.
Philip
Dude, I've got three kids--one twelve, one two, and the other a newborn--a full-time job, and a ministry to occupy my time. If you want to sum all this up--or at least your best arguments--in one post that doesn't reach TL;DR territory, I'll be happy to respond, but my days of this:
are long over.
Shalom
“Three different websites disagree with you, and all seem pretty credible. Are you sure you are interpreting correctly?”
Those three websites are all based on the theory of one man, Ernest Martin, who is in the minority among scholars with his theory.
“Now if you can prove what you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, then I might be interested. But there is no way you can prove it.”
Well, there’s no point in discussing anything with you, if that is your attitude. You’ll just go on believing what you want and dismissing any evidence that contradicts it, just as you dismissed the high school-level math that debunks Martin’s Temple Mount theory.
Attitude is a two-sided street, Boogieman. Do you consider your own attitude squeaky clean? You obviously have no recollection of our past conversations.
>>>You’ll just go on believing what you want and dismissing any evidence that contradicts it, just as you dismissed the high school-level math that debunks Martin’s Temple Mount theory.<<<
I always begin with the understanding that Christ is always right. That way it is easier to identify the charlatans who try to twist his words to fit their agendas.
For example, one of the first things I noticed in the Scofield Bible I acquired in the past year was that Brother Cyrus had to create two Eliajah's to maintain the Dual Covenant myth. He also had to pretend that the piercing of Christ on the Cross was not a fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10; and that the conversion of Cornelius was not the fulfillment of Amos 9:11. Talk about a Charlatan with a capital "C." What is even more bizarre is that people actually believe that clown over the plain words of the scripture.
This is all I am asking: if you can prove that the so-called wailing wall, or any other wall or structure that is still partially standing, was part of the temple complex, then prove it. But there is absolutely, positively, NO WAY you can prove it without aerial photography taken immediately prior to the destruction by the Roman Armies in 70 AD. When you can provide that kind of proof, I will admit I misunderstood the plain words of Christ.
Philip
You couldn't be more wrong. Amos chp. 9 describes the "complete" destruction and dispersal of the entire population ("I will shake the people of Israel among all the nations"), which by the way, only the northern tribes were taken into the first captivity by Babylon. Judah was left behind.
And what of the other 9 prophecies in the list I linked to you. Where is your rebuke of those???
“You obviously have no recollection of our past conversations.”
Oh, I remember them, but carrying on disputes from past threads is against the forum rules.
“This is all I am asking: if you can prove that the so-called wailing wall, or any other wall or structure that is still partially standing, was part of the temple complex, then prove it. But there is absolutely, positively, NO WAY you can prove it without aerial photography taken immediately prior to the destruction by the Roman Armies in 70 AD. When you can provide that kind of proof, I will admit I misunderstood the plain words of Christ.”
Well, I’ll provide that just as soon as you provide a photograph from 70 AD showing that the Temple was completely destroyed. I mean, as long as we are making impossible demands, why not?
>>>Ah, spam-posting.<<<
I replied to everything you wrote in that massive post of yours. I even tried to break it down into smaller posts to make it more presentable.
Are you implying your initial response to me was all Spam?
Now that I think about it, when I consider everything you wrote, you may be right. My only regret is that I may have been wasting my valuable time.
Philip
>>>Oh, I remember them, but carrying on disputes from past threads is against the forum rules.<<<
Then why do you continually do it? Are you not in the same “gotcha” mode as you have been in the past?
>>>Well, I’ll provide that just as soon as you provide a photograph from 70 AD showing that the Temple was completely destroyed. I mean, as long as we are making impossible demands, why not?<<<
I never make impossible demands. There are always alternatives. In this case, either believe what Jesus said, or provide indisputable proof He was wrong.
Philip
>>>You couldn’t be more wrong.<<<
Show me your proof in the scripture. Your opinion not proof.
>>>And what of the other 9 prophecies in the list I linked to you. Where is your rebuke of those???<<<
What about them? Prove to me they are correct!
Philip
“Then why do you continually do it? Are you not in the same “gotcha” mode as you have been in the past?”
This is a new thread, new topic, and I’ve only been commenting on the issues brought up in this thread. So, no, I’m not “continually” bringing up disputes from past threads.
“I never make impossible demands. There are always alternatives. In this case, either believe what Jesus said, or provide indisputable proof He was wrong.”
Well, you’re ignoring the obvious other alternative, and presenting a false choice. The other alternative is that we believe what Jesus said, but without subscribing to your interpretation of what he said.
>>>The other alternative is that we believe what Jesus said, but without subscribing to your interpretation of what he said.<<<
That is always an alternative.
Philip
BTW, my wife and I liked your cartoon.
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.