Wheras I believe that John is very specific in stating that the heads symbolize two things, not just one. Otherwise, the reference to "mountains" is superfluous, and I don't believe that there is anything superfluous in the Bible.
They were Jews scattered in "all" nations of the time, and they had influence.
"Having influence" and "ruling" are in two completely different categories, so you're either really overreaching to substantiate your thesis, or you have a "Protocols" view of the ancient world.
It is all subjective!
So why are you bothering writing this, since it involves an objective truth claim?
Why should they? Rome was a pagan nation with no ties to the God's covenant.
Exactly like Babylon. Oh, wait . . .
There are these undeniable similarities:
1. Applies equally to Rome, e.g., Paul, possibly Peter, countless others.
2. Could as easily apply to Rome, depending on your perspective of the scope of the prophecy.
3. While there is a refernce to "the great city," it does not specify that the city in question is Jerusalem. It could easily refer to Mystery Babylon, aka Rome. You're just assuming.
4. As was Rome for a time in the early middle ages (at least to the extent that old Babylon was in John's day). And for those of us who subscribe to a futurist interpretation, as it will be again in an ultimate sense.
Where does the city dominate the Beast?
The woman "rides" the Beast, putting her in the dominant position just like a man who rides a horse.
That describes Nero, who ruled over "all the world" at the time, and who murdered and persecuted the early Christians for forty-two months.
Except for the minor detail that Nero had been dead for some thirty years by the time Revelation was penned. 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.
Also, Nero didn't make a return from the dead. Nor was he cast alive into Gehenna; he committed (assisted) suicide. 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. Nor did the dead rise. Nor . . . look, anyone reasonable gets the point.
Was Rome responsible for the blood of the prophets?
Didn't you just say it was, under Nero? Does Paul count as a prophet in your view?
So, Jerusalem was collateral damage?
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?
And that's my real problem with preterism: It gives us an inconsistant God who cannot be counted on to keep His promises as given or to continue to act the same today as He did yesterday.
Rome was not responsible for the death of a single prophet: not one.
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.
Read the text.
I did. 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.
No it is not.
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.
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. 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.
Jerusalem:
- Is landlocked and not on any major trading route.
- Is a burdensome stone for all the peoples (Zec. 12:3) who claim their moral innocence when they willingly destroy her (Jer. 50:7).
- 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).
- Is pardoned for her sins after she receives double back for them (Isa. 40:2).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- Will no more be called forsaken or desolate, but will be called a Delight and Married (Isa. 62:4, Zec. 14:11).
- The sound of weeping will no longer be heard in her (Isa. 65:19).
Mystery Babylon:
- Is a city accessible from the sea (Rev. 18:17) and her destruction disrupts the whole world’s economy (v. 11).
- Is beloved by the kings of the earth, who mourn for her passing (Rev. 18:9-10).
- Will be destroyed by God like Sodom and Gomorrah, never to be rebuilt (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 50:40, Rev. 18:21).
Receives back double for her sins, but is not pardoned (Rev. 18:6).
- 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).
- Is utterly destroyed during the Day of the Lord (Isa. 13:9, Rev. 16:19).
Will be inhabited by demons and wild beasts (Rev. 18:2).
- 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).
- The sound of music, craftsmen, millstones, etc. will never be heard in her again (Rev. 18:22).
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.
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.
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 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.
(On Abel) Jesus explained it.
So now you explain it. How did Jerusalem kill Abel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, how about staying focused?
Who said anything about being "superfluous." I am certain the target audience: the early Christians of the seven churches in Asia, did not believe they were superfluous. But, in our case, many centuries distant from the scene of the crime, we can only speculate and theorize due to the lack of explanatory scriptural references.
>>>"Having influence" and "ruling" are in two completely different categories, so you're either really overreaching to substantiate your thesis, or you have a "Protocols" view of the ancient world.<<
I have no idea what "protocols" view means? Care to explain?
>>>So why are you bothering writing this, since it involves an objective truth claim?<<<
Some parts are not subjective: those parts where you seem to avoid any serious debate. The two main "themes" of my threads feel "slighted" and "rejected."
>>>Exactly like Babylon. Oh, wait . . .<<<
Nice try at redirection; but there has been no "Babylon" since it turned to dust in ancient times. There was, however, a massive Roman Empire which got virtually no ink in the entire New Testament, even though it ruled the world. Even in the Revelation, only the vicious, lunatic tyrant, Nero, got any serious ink.
>>>1. Applies equally to Rome, e.g., Paul, possibly Peter, countless others.<<<
How is the murder of Paul considered the blood of the prophets? Where is it even mentioned that Paul was murdered in Rome? Who were the countless other prophets? I am very curious to see that list, even a small one.
Admit it. You are spiritualizing the scriptures.
>>>2. Could as easily apply to Rome, depending on your perspective of the scope of the prophecy.<<<
How could Rome be considered the mother of Harlots by the Lord? Would there not be some sort of definitive prophecy explaining it, like there is with Jerusalem?
>>>3. While there is a refernce to "the great city," it does not specify that the city in question is Jerusalem. It could easily refer to Mystery Babylon, aka Rome. You're just assuming.<<<
I think I understand you: you believe our Lord was killed in Rome. That is a new one, even for a "futurist."
>>>4. As was Rome for a time in the early middle ages (at least to the extent that old Babylon was in John's day). And for those of us who subscribe to a futurist interpretation, as it will be again in an ultimate sense.<<<
Now you really have my interest. When was Rome made desolate in a very short time? It mentions an "hour" in the Revelation.
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