Posted on 12/31/2014 8:27:36 AM PST by Salvation
The destruction of Babylon is not only prophesied in Revelation, see for example Isaiah 13. The prophecies about Babylon seem to include a number of Babylon types, although the final calamitous destruction will take place once, to the “real” Babylon. I think he is saying that Jerusalem was a type of Babylon and therefore suffered a type of destruction that it was in no way the destruction that will be suffered by the real Babylon. But his point, how Jerusalem can be considered a type of Babylon, is very interesting and scripturally sound.
“John was saying that the “Great City” (Jerusalem – the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified – Rev 11:8) had become Babylon. And he develops this theme in Revelation 18.”
Jerusalem was not a power of any kind for almost two thousand years
Rev 17 describes the great whore as one which sits upon many waters
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rome is the only power over all that could fit the description because it has and have had power over the entire world, over many waters which are nations.
Sorry that you did not see the warning in the video.
I think some posters are getting confused between types of Babylon and the actual Babylon. Big difference! For example, we know that Isaac was a type of Christ (like carrying the wood for his sacrifice up the mountain) but we would never consider trying to apply Isa. 53 to him! Same thing here. The old Babylon, Jerusalem, probably Rome... those are types of Babylon. Why try to make all the prophecies of Babylon fit those types? They won’t, just like Isa 53 does not fit Isaac. The point of the article was that, just like ancient Babylon and Jerusalem, the US (represented by NYC) is a type of Babylon. It asks us to pray for the US, that repentance will prevent God’s judgment just like repentance prevented Nineveh’s judgment.
Saying that a prophecy that is tied with the return of Christ, at the end of days, has already been fulfilled is preterism. It may not be “full preterism”, but it is preterism nonetheless.
Yes, I get that he is drawing a comparison to the many different pagan kingdoms/empires in the Bible and the U.S. I don’t have a problem with that.
But, he then takes a specific prophecy, about a specific place (Babylon the Great), which the Bible clearly states is a city, interpreting itself so that we don’t have to. He correctly identifies the city that prophecy refers to, but he incorrectly places the fulfillment in time.
That’s an entirely different paragraph, and not the one I am taking issue with. This is the problematic one:
“Consider a similar passage from the Book of Revelation (Chapter 18) warning the faithful about “Babylon.” (By 90 AD Babylon was actually long gone. Thus “Babylon” here is a symbol for the world and its tendency to fall into corruption.) John was saying that the “Great City” (Jerusalem – the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified – Rev 11:8) had become Babylon. And he develops this theme in Revelation 18. Sadly, by 70 AD, having been given 40 years to repent, Jerusalem was sacked, burned, and utterly destroyed just as this prophecy had warned.”
He says “as this prophecy had warned”. Well, what prophecy? He only refers to two passages from the Bible in this paragraph (Rev. Chapter 18, and Rev. 11:8), so the prophecy he means is one of those, and because he refers to a warning, it surely is Rev 18, as that contains this warning:
“4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”
When this was written, Jerusalem had already been destroyed in 70 AD. So this prophecy is not equivalent to the Olivet discourse, it must refer to future events.
But if you want to reference prophecies made ~40 years before, as Msgr. Pope says, you'd have to look to the Gospels.
That paragraph leaves it unclear which set of prophecies he's talking about. He says "Revelation" but he's --- it seems to me --- referring to the Gospels.
“The destruction of Babylon is not only prophesied in Revelation...”
The destruction of “Babylon the Great” is what Revelation talks about, and it makes it pretty clear that it is not talking about the Babylon in Mesopotamia. There are prophecies of the destruction of actual Babylon in the Old Testament, but those were already fulfilled when Revelation was written. That destruction was permanent. There was no Babylon during John’s day, and there still is no Babylon today. Saddam wanted to rebuild it, but he just threw up a tourist attraction in a different spot. Babylon itself is still an uninhabited pile of ruins.
“But his point, how Jerusalem can be considered a type of Babylon, is very interesting and scripturally sound.”
Well, it’s referring to Jerusalem under the name “Babylon the Great”, but actually making prophetic statements that must apply to a real city, and the real inhabitants thereof, so it seems to be a “code word” for the real city of Jerusalem. This version of Jerusalem, the earthly one, is contrasted in Revelation with the heavenly, or “New Jerusalem”, just as the faithful bride of Christ (the church) is contrasted with the unfaithful, adulterous harlot. Go search around the Old Testament for prophecies about adulterous harlots and you may be surprised who God uses that symbol for.
Yeah, he may have just phrased it badly, but if so, it’s unfortunate, because the preterists do interpret those prophecies the way that he makes it appear he is doing. I hope he didn’t intend to support that kind of interpretation.
“Yes but the merchants of the earth have not gotten rich off of the abundance of Jerusalem`s delicies.”
No, but I think you should say “have not yet”. We don’t know that they will not have by the time the prophecy is fulfilled, especially because the narrative of Revelation seems to suggest that Jerusalem will be a sort of capitol for the Beast’s operation.
“Rome is the only power over all that could fit the description because it has and have had power over the entire world, over many waters which are nations.”
Rome had power in the past, but not today, and there is no real indication that it will have any power in the future. Just as Rome once had power, so once did Athens, or Persepolis, or Cairo, so why is Rome special?
Besides, you can possibly interpret Rome to fulfill a small part of the description, but it cannot possibly fulfill this part:
“24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Rev. 18:24
Rome didn’t kill the prophets. Who did? Well, Jesus answered that for us (speaking to the Pharisees):
“47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 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.”
So, Jesus told us who was responsible for the blood of the prophets, and who it would be required of. Thus, the harlot must refer to the same, lest we call Jesus a liar.
Why try to make all the prophecies of Babylon fit those types?
For instance being drunk on the blood of the saints, and the golden cup.
What is the blood of the saints?
The blood of the saints could be nothing but the blood of Jesus, which is represented by the wine which is drink from the golden cup.
John wondered with great admiration, it must have been something he thought was great until he was told the real meaning.
Why would a Christian, especially John have to be told to come out of her in rev 18:4 if it had nothing except a secular meaning?
Rev 18
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
From famine and war, deliver us.
From nuclear war, from incalculable self-destruction, from every kind of war, deliver us.
From sins against the life of man from its very beginning, deliver us.
From hatred and from the demeaning of the dignity of the children of God, deliver us.
From every kind of injustice in the life of society, both national and international, deliver us.
From readiness to trample on the commandments of God, deliver us.
From attempts to stifle in human hearts the very truth of God, deliver us.
From the loss of awareness of good and evil, deliver us.
From sins against the Holy Spirit, deliver us, deliver us.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
“What is the blood of the saints?
The blood of the saints could be nothing but the blood of Jesus, which is represented by the wine which is drink from the golden cup.”
Jesus is the Son of God, not a saint, and certainly not multiple saints. This idea of “blood of the saints” comes from the Old Testament. Go back to the story of Cain & Abel: Abel’s blood cried out to God from the ground, and then God told us:
“6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Gen 9:6
It is a symbol that is used throughout the Bible to refer to victims of murder that God is going to wreak vengeance for. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being accountable for the blood of the prophets, just as Cain was accountable for the blood of Abel, and just as God tells us the harlot is accountable for the blood of all the prophets and saints.
What about the blood of the Good Thief crucified with Jesus?
Jesus told him “Today you will be with me in paradise.”
That “paradise” was a waiting place for all the people before Jesus’ crucifixion — they were waiting for Jesus to open up heaven by being the First One to Enter Heaven.
Great prayer.
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Rome had power in the past, but not today,>>>>>>
Not Rome itself.
The way i see it up until just the last very few years the Churches combined has had more power than any other power,
If the protestants which came from the Catholic Church gave their power to the mother Church there would be no power their equal
“24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Rev. 18:24 >>>>>
I can not explain that which is the only thing i see that might point to Israel.
The whore being drunken on the blood of the saints could not be fulfilled by Jerusalem.
The golden cup and the blood of the saints could only be referring to the blood of Jesus, the saints drink wine which represented the blood of Jesus.
“What about the blood of the Good Thief crucified with Jesus?”
The thief was justly executed though, for actual crimes he committed (I have to assume of course). We say he is “good”, but only because he was washed cleaned by the blood of Christ, through faith. He certainly was not “good” before that, and so I doubt God considers his execution a murder that must be answered for.
This reminds me of an exchange in “Oh Brother Where Art Thou”, where one of the fugitive prisoners thinks that, since they just got baptized, the authorities shouldn’t be chasing them anymore:
Pete: “The preacher said it absolved us.”
Everett: “For him, not for the law! I’m surprised at you, Pete. Hell, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.”
Delmar: “But there were witnesses, saw us redeemed!”
Everett: “That’s not the issue, Delmar. Even if it did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi is more hardnosed.”
Jesus is the Son of God, not a saint,
He told his Apostles to do this in remembrance of him.
The Catholics say that the wine actually turns into Christ`s blood so could be called the blood of the saints since they say that the apostles also believed that the wine actually turned into blood.
It has nothing to do with actual blood, it has to do with being drunk on false doctrine.
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.