Replies

>>>Mystery Babylon:<<<

>>> 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.

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