The whore of Babylon and the anti-christ.

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

If you keep ignoring the fact that none of the cities you mention existed during the prophets than I cannot see that you can dictate the reality check. You in this post deny an assertion backed up by scripture and ask me to change my mind based upon nothing. How may I ask can I do that? One post, not yours, said "No.. that is all I am going to say". Start posting something with substance and I will surely consider it.

But Im not going to go deeply into this theory, because I also think other theories have merit, the usa as being babylon and Jerusalem also, there are good arguments for these and more, a arab coalition could become the beast, and there are more than one babylon. the babylon in iraq is not a player in this the end time unless something unforseen happens. I don't know which scenario will come to fruition, but I have heard so many that I bet I will recognise things as they happen, if Im still here.

Did the scribes and Pharisees Jesus was speaking to kill Abel? Did they kill the prophets of old? Did they shed the blood of all the righteous on the earth? How is this judgment fitting then that they should be held to account for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth? The answer to these questions should help shed light on Revelation 18:24.

You do what many posters do, you pigeon hole an aspect and insist that unless it is filled just that way, no other possibility exists.

You miss the point of Scripture and especially the Rev. chaps. 17 and 18. Those chapters are the key to unlocking what city it is. God could not give exact locations to the Apostle John and hence debate. Why? The country, let alone the city, did not exist at the time of the Apostle John therefore it is not an ancient city like Jerusalem but some modern and sophisticated metropolis.

8: The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is to ascend from the bottomless pit and go to perdition; and the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will marvel to behold the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.

So God had to describe characteristics to provide clues to the saints for them to watch for as the time approaches.

Here's what Coop and now apparently you miss and it starts with a critical clue in Rev. 18:17 and why it is a seaport city of some kind.

Here is the relevant quote, every "seacaptain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who make their living from the sea" take up the dirge started by the kings and merchants of the earth.

Mystery Babylon will be a vibrant commerical and MARITIME center that indicates it will likely be a port city The seamen stand "far off" indicating that they will watch the smoke arise to heaven and lament greatly over their loss. Compare Rev. 18:18 with Ezek. 27:32

11: And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more,

This is one of many reasons why Jerusalem will never be Mystery Bablyon because Jerusalem is situated on Mt. Zion a MOUNTAIN, NOT by the sea. Not only that but Mystery Bablyon destruction is permanent and "never to be found again" according to Rev. 18:21b. This is not true of Jerusalem for the holy city will be rebuilt and the LORD will reign from that city in his Millenial kingdom.

1: Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;

So you see, the majority of posters know better that it is indeed not Jerusalem even though they did not articulate the reasons as I have.

I hope you now will reconsider that Jerusalem is NOT Mystery Bablyon.

Hello to all who have posted to, or read thead.

This thread has not unexpectedly incuded many terms that would be correctly associated with the questions raised in the opening post of who or what is the antichrist, and what or who is Babalyon?

To give a proper foundation for finding the correct answers to these and other related topics we should start with some basic gramatical understanding of the original text.

Who is the Antichrist? The identification of the Antichrist starts with analyzing the original Greek text.

Thoughts on the Biblical Term Antichrist

In I John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, and II John 7 we find the term antichrist used, which has generally been understood to mean opposed to Christ, or against Christ, with the assumption that the Greek prefix anti means essentially what the English anti means. In English anti-war would rightfully be understood to mean against war, or
opposed to war. However, the question must be asked, What is the primary meaning of the GREEK word anti, and how does this amplify our understanding of the biblical term antichrist?

Fortunately, there are numerous examples of the Greek term anti found in the Scripture, and an examination of them will prove helpful. There at least 16 occurences of the term anti found in the New Testament, with 15 of them being translated for in the King James Bible, while one time it is translated by the phrase in the room of. Let us look at the usage first of all, which is found in Matt.2:22. "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room ofhis father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into parts of Galilee". One of the many times anti is translated for is Matt.20:28, a passage which reads "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." Another is the familiar Luke 2:2: "If a son shall ask bread of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he asks for a fish will he give him a serpent?" One more example is Heb.12:16, speaking of Esau who traded his birthright: "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright."*

It is clear from these usages of anti the primary meaning of the term is instead of, or in place of, consistent with the word for. If one attempts to read any of the foregoing text and in the place of for substitute against, or opposed,the logic is lost. The Son of man did give His life against many, but as a substitute for many, or in the place of many.

Without argument, many times one who takes the place of another does so as an antagonist, or in opposition to him, and so these words which employ the prefix anti which have the meaning of opponent as their primary meaning. An example of this would be the word antidikos[adversary] in texts such as I Peter 5:8: "Be sober, vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."**

But, because the bare term anti clearly utilizes the concept of substitution, it would be a mistake to examine the word antichrist without this in mind. Taking this approach, the antichrist is first of all one who seeks to take the place of Christ, to exercise authority instead of Christ. This is a concept with which the rest of the New Testament is entirely familiar, demonstrated by texts such as II Thess. 2:3,4: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." The man of sin is described as usurping authority not rightfully belonging to him, attempting to masquerade as God, sitting in the seat of God. It is interesting to note that the word translated oppose in verse 4 is again a compound word, antikeima, meaning one who lies in the place of, or one who lies against. In Rev. 13, the beast power seeks to take the place of God by exhorting worship, something which rightfully belongs only to God, fulfilling the age-old designs of the arch-enemy, whose ambitious aspirations are recorded by the prophet Isaiah "Thou {Lucifer) hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High."(Isaiah 14:13,14)

Since Seventh-day Adventists have generally found the fulfillment of these prophetic symbols in the historical papacy, it is interesting to see how this understanding impacts our interpretation. Without question, the papal power has attempted to take the place of Christ by title, by pronouncement, and by practice. The term vicar of Christ is instructive to compare the context. Vicar is of Latin origin, and meansone who takes the place of, or one who acts instead of. We use the adjective vicarious to describe Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. Thus, when the pope identifies himself as the vicar of Christ, to operate in His stead, as His substitute, take note of this strange irony, then. Since both anti and vicar mean the same thing, namely substitute or one who takes the place of, the one from Greek and the other from the Latin, when the pope accepts the title vicar of Christ, he is thereby also accepting the title of anti Christ. Unfortunatly, since most assume that the anti of antichrist means only against, or in opposition to, they are looking for a fulfillment of this prophetic symbol outside the church, while the Bible clearly identifies this power as coming from within. He sits "in the temple of God (II Thess.2:4)." Paul warned the Ephesian elders "of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them
(Acts 20:30)." John saw in vision Babylon typified as a woman
(a church) which sat on a beast.

There is no question that the antichrist of the New Testament is an opponent of the true Christ, whose work is against that of Christ. But it would be a mistake of large proportions, when discussing the term antichrist to not include the concept of substitution, which the prefix anti clearly employs, which clarifies and amplifies the mission and identity of this important prophetic symbol.

*The other usages of anti in the New Testament are as follows:
Matt. 5:38 "an eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth
Matt. 17:27 "take, and give unto them for me and thee
Mark 10:45 "and to give His life a ransom for many
John 1:16 "have all received, and grace for grace
Rom. 12:17 "recompense to man evil for evil
I Cor. 11:15 "for (her) hair is given her for a covering
I Thess. 5:15 "See that none render evil for evil
Heb. 12:2 "Who for the joy that was set before Him
James 4:15" for that ye ought to say, If the Lord
I Peter 3:9 "Not rendering evil for evil

** Other compound words which employ anti as a prefix include [i]antilambano(see Luke 1:54 and Acts 20:35) translated helped and antilempsis in I Cor. 12:28 translatedhelpful deeds, and antileptor in Psalm 18:2 translated deliver. While there are other compound words using anti as a prefix in which the notion of against predominates, it is difficult to discern that flavor in the foregoing compound words.

I will attempt to come back with further comments. If there are additional questions please feel free to ask. You may also PM me at any time.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

If you keep up with these personel attacks instead of focusing on the arguments you will go on ignore. I would rather not do so but you constantly refer to the people posting. What possible gain is there to opening up a post like this? What is also odd is I clearly explained that I see 2 possiblities. So the insult is also wrong. Please I ask again, leave the personal comments out of it.

Based upon what? Where does it say it did not exist? It says the opposite for the Whore of Babylon. The Whore and the Beast? They are completly different images. The Beast cleary was not at the time.

Revelation 17
I do not mix alagorical images with geography causually. The reference to the prophets was outside the scope of the allegory. Please explain how, for example, Los Angeles killed the prophets. That is clearly what I consider the biggest obstacle. I made that clear and it means you would need to address that issue in response. I promise that I will directly respond to every challange to my statements. However if t was not clear that is my problem with the argument.

This is also in the text. Soloman had no trouble making silver as common as rocks in Jerusalem. This was especially true then as the land bridge was more important than the sea as there was no Suez canal at the time.

http://www.jhom.com/topics/spices/trade.html



Your dependence on that absolute that falls apart here. Isaiah 66 also speaks of a new earth. The Jerusalem here on earth does not seem made to last.

Revelation 21
Appealing to the majority is logically false. It will save time not to use known logical fallacies in argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Please especially refrain from Ad Hominan as they have absolutely no place in a Christian forum. Please do NOT hesitate to attack any, especially mine, arguments but leave the personality out of it. Thanks in advance.

We really do not have to guess at who John and the Holy Spirit had in mind when he wrote about the great whore Babylon. Notice this last verse:

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

What city can possibly be guilty of the slain of all the earth? There can only be one answer.

Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

According to God's word, there is only one city that is guilty of all the slain shed upon the earth. What city is Jesus speaking of? Let's read it in context:

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 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! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

We see then, that beyond all doubt, Jerusalem is the great whore, babylon!

Questions?

Coop