• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured WHO IS BABYLON/HARLOT IN REVELATION?

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by Briefcase, Dec 18, 2019.

  1. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +1,846
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
  2. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +948
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Since some are still adamant that the woman(city) in Revelation 17 is not the woman(city) in Revelation 18, let's do some more comparing then.

    Revelation 17:4 And the woman 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:
    5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
    6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

    Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.


    Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

    Revelation 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.


    Revelation 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

    Revelation 18:16 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!

    Revelation 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

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

    And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth---What city is like unto this great city!


    and burn her with fire----and she shall be utterly burned with fire

    And the woman(is that great city Revelation 17:18 ) was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls-----that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

    And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus----And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints

    I don't know how anyone can conclude, regardless of what one might think Babylon the great is referring to, that the city in Revelation 17, and the city in Revelation 18, that these are not the same city. Of course they are the same city. There are not 2 different great cities in view between Revelation 17 and 18. There is only one great city in view between those 2 chapters.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  3. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    930
    +361
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ad hominem. Noted as such and ignored accordingly. You too let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation.
    That is sort of the point of the entire discussion. You don't know of any such Christians because Dispenationalism as a significant departure from two millennia of Christian thought, doctrine and practice in which Christ's return will bring us to perfect, not the other way around. Dispensational Premillennialism is very, very popular but it is not the majority view. Because of its popularity few learn any of the most historic positions of the church and as a consequence lack that knowledge. They are unaware of the uniform resistance and criticism DPism gets from the competing eschatologies. They are not familiar with what is now nearly a century and a half of false date-setters, time-frame setters and false prognosticators and how the DP denoms and sects within Christianity tolerate them and do nothing to correct them and eradicate both the falsehoods and the practices that beget them. They are not aware of how much John Darby departed from long-and well-established views of scripture, the church, Christ, etc. and how those changes logically lead to scripturally untenable positions. At least one poster here resisted the idea there were two paths to the blood of Christ only - after several exchanges - to acknowledge my point is in fact true. He has shown greater integrity than anyone else because he at least acknowledged the truth, even if it di take several posts to see it.

    That's what this discussion is about.

    You don't know any such Christins. That's a problem, Woke. That's a problem on your end of this non-conversation, not mine. Read some of the comapartive studies I've recommended. Read some of the position tomes on the other eschatologies.

    "Four Views on the Meaning of the Millennium" edited by Robert Clouse
    "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" edited by C. Marvin Pate and Stanley Gundry
    "Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond" edited by Stanley Gundry
    "Three Views on the Rapture" edited by Stanley Gundry
    "The Blessed Hope" by George Eldon Ladd
    "The Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger
    "The Bible and the Future" by Anthony Hoekema
    "He Shall Have dominion" by Kenneth Gentry

    The list is long and goes far back but these should inform anyone and everyone of 1) the diversity of positions the church has held, 2) how far afield Darby took his followers, and 3) how uniform the resistance against Darbyism is among the rest of the church.

    What you don't know can have serious adverse affect on the walk of your faith. Sound doctrine begets sound practice. As I posted in two other ops recently,


    Dispensational Premillennialism is a wretched set of doctrines that bear little support in scripture and since its inception in the mid-1800s it has divided the body greatly. Think not? Watch the responses this post gets.

    It compromises long-held and well-established core doctrines of the church.
    It causes its adherents to live divided and hypocritical lives.
    It asserts a hermeneutic none actually practice.
    It has repeatedly fostered false prognosticators and continues to do so.
    It does not hold those proven to teach falsely accountable.
    No other mainstream theology generates such misconduct in frequency or severity.

    And the responses have been textbook examples of denial, repeatedly digressive, and rife with eisegesis and fallacy (such as the ad hominem with which this post to which I now reply began), and refusal to address the specific Bible content posted in these discussions.
    That's a problem on your end. Become better informed. When I have time I'll post quotes from Riddlebarger and Gentry summarizing the amil and postmil povs so you and the other readers can know what others believe - what has been believed in Christianity long, long before Darby showed up.[/INDENT]




    Look at the last few pages f this discussion and see for yourself how no one is discussing the topic of this op any more. You guys did that. Not any one else. You all do that in every op. Think I'm wrong? Go through the forum and examine all the ops on eschatology, reading the opening post and the posts on the last few pages.


    The harlot is Jerusalem. The harlot wears purple and scarlet and the first century readers would have understood that as a reference to the Levitical priesthood, not some institution of future centuries about which the first century had no knowledge. Read through the posts and see how many attended to the specifics of what I just said.

    No one.




    NO

    ONE
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  4. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,610
    Christian
    Married
    I'm trying to follow your logic here "Woke", because it seems contradictory. You state they are not responsible for the blood shed of the prophets and saints because they didn't exist when their ancestors killed the prophets and saints. But then you go ahead and agree that 1st century peoples of Jerusalem would pay the penalty, as Jesus charges them with it in Matthew 23 and Luke 11.

    I believe the killing of all righteous blood is charged against the 1st century peoples that rejected Christ because they crucified Christ. I believe no one, not even the OT saints, are righteous outside of the atoning work of the Cross. Thus by killing the Christ, they are responsible for all righteous blood shed.

    Do you believe righteousness can be found outside of Christ?

    I disagree. I believe it to be written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.


    There is no scripture in here to support your argument, so this all just appears to be speculation and theories.
     
  5. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,610
    Christian
    Married
    Can you use scripture to interpret scripture? We already disagree on the interpretation of a highly symbolic book, so using revelation to interpret revelation is going to get us nowhere. Can you provide scriptures outside of revelation to substantiate that your interpretation of the Babylon is the right one?

    I'll start:

    In Babylon is found blood of the prophets and saints.

    Revelation 18:24 And there was found in her the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who had been slain on the earth.

    Using scripture to interpret scripture, we can see that the generation of 1st century Jerusalem was charged with the blood shed of the righteous, of the prophets. Thus the identity of Babylon is revealed.

    Luke 11:50 As a result, this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world,

    Matthew 23:35-36 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    However, if it is not in fact Jerusalem as you claim, can you provide any scripture elsewhere in the Bible where another city, peoples, or nation is charged with all the righteous blood shed?
     
  6. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +948
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If the harlot is Jerusalem, and I'm not saying it is or isn't, it wouldn't be meaning the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME, it would be meaning Jerusalem in another sense instead. Not every time Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible, is it always meaning in the literal sense.

    If we decide the harlot is Jerusalem, and that it's meaning the literal city in the ME, to remain consistent, that would mean we have to treat everything in Revelation 18, in the literal sense. Such as.

    Revelation 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

    Is there any historic evidence that shows that this literally happened in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed?

    Revelation 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

    The text indicates---for in one hour is she made desolate. Was that literally the case in 70 AD? The text also says---wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea---what does any of that have to do with Jerusalem in the first century?

    Revelation 18:21 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.

    If this is meaning the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME in the first century, why then can this same city still be found yet today, even though the text indicates it will never be found again for forever, once this is fulfilled?
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  7. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +948
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    I tend to somewhat agree with your point. Not only does your point show that it's unreasonable to think the governments of the world were behind the slaying of Abel via Cain, it also shows, that if Babylon the Great is meaning the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME, in what way then would the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME have been behind the slaying of Abel via Cain at the time?
     
  8. pasifika

    pasifika Well-Known Member

    531
    +124
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    The woman is symbolic the city is what the woman symbolise don't drift away from Scripture.
    The passage also never mentioned is was the city that wears purple human clothes but the woman.....so purple colour is symbolic, maybe the city is built with materials reassemble those colours....
    Woman sitting on many waters the bible interpreted many waters to different people, multitudes, nations etc...so this city must be sitting on an area belongs to many nations, people etc this could be a United nation protected land where this city is built on....then this is how the city been able to trade throughout the world etc...
     
  9. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +948
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And if one reads Revelation 17 and 18 carefully, one should not be concluding that there are 2 great cities in view, but should be concluding that there is just 1 great city that is in view. In Revelation 17, according to that chapter, the whore in question is a great city. In Revelation 18, according to that chapter, the Babylon the great in question is also a great city. So either we have 2 great cities between the 2 chapters, or we only have 1 great city between the 2 chapters. The latter is the logical conclusion to arrive at.
     
  10. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I just repeated what Christ said. He didn't say first century Jews were responsible for all righteous blood shed. Christ claimed they would be charged with the spilling of all righteous blood on earth. If you look up his parable about the vineyard, the vineyard owner, his field hands, the messengers sent to them, and the vineyards son, you will understand why Christ made that claim. In the parable the vineyard's attendants beat the vineyard owner's messengers sent to collect the produce. Finally the owner sends his Son for the same purpose, but they kill him so they can keep the produce for themselves. Christ says the vineyard owner only punishes them after they kill his Son. Yet the problem he had with his attendants of the vineyard stemmed from way before the Son was sent.

    So it was with the religious leaders of Israel and God. First they mistreated the prophets God sent to help his people. Then finally they kill his son sent to help his people.

    First century Jews were not present when the prophets arrived in Israel. Although those particular religious leaders in the first century were not there, the ones that existed in the first century were just like the earlier leaders who mistreated God's prophets and common people. Notice that Christ goes all the way back to Abel in his condemnation of first century Israel. Why back to Abel? ABEL was killed by his brother over jealousy because of a religious act that found favor with God when Abel's brother's religious act did not.

    I don't personally believe the Bible claims anyone is saved by Christ's blood, except meaning his blood was a foreseen sacrifice and resulted from what he did while he was alive and teaching on earth.

    Scriptures claim what he did while he was alive saves us, if we take advantage of what he did. He taught people to follow him and put faith that if they follow him he will give them life. Read the gospel of John. Christ continually makes that claim in it. He never said he saves his sheep by his death just that he lays down his life for his sheep and does not abandon them like the hired man does when trouble comes. Instead he stayed teaching them until people killed him. Trouble came but he stayed to his death.

    I believe God had Israel act out the barbaric spilling of blood only to illustrate what the Father and Son foresaw as Christ's treatment. Similar to the way God pictured he would allow the killing of his son that was dramatized when Abram acted out offering up his son, to God. I don't believe it was the death of Christ that opened up our salvation. I believe it was his life on earth that did. Again, my belief is that death is biblically stated as a ransom not because God needed a blood sacrifice, but because a blood sacrifice was the result of Christ's teaching on earth. If he never came here to teach he would not have sacrificed his life here.

    There are many teachings about various scriptures. The Bible doesn't say we have to get them all correct to please God. I believe you are a brother if you follow Christ and view other people as Christ does, whether you share all my beliefs or don't . The primary reason I teach scripture is because not all Christians view other Christians as Christ does. Some judge people with contrary views as even following Satan. I also teach for the people that are just totally ignorant to Christian thought.

    A standing before God as righteous is imputed to members of Christ's church because they follow Christ. But in the scripture that speaks of the righteous blood spilled going back to Abel I don't believe Christ means the people are righteous because he came here taught and they became members of his church. Sinful people can do righteous acts. All acts done for God at his personal direction would be considered righteous acts. So Christ in that scripture zeroed in on the prophets of God, personally contacted by him, doing righteous acts for him. See Job 1:1 the scripture claims he was blameless and upright staying away from evil. Accordingly he was spoken of as righteous in scripture. Also read Romans 4:22. Because of Abraham's faith God called him righteous. Both lived way before Christ arrived.

    Merry Christmas to you!
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  11. pasifika

    pasifika Well-Known Member

    531
    +124
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, I agree the same woman as described in revelation 17&18...
     
  12. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I didn't drift away. The city is no more a city than it is a woman wearing purple clothes.
    And the woman and the city represent the same thing. That's why I didn't drift away.

    Babylon the Great, the harlot, the city are all the same thing. Or you might say she has a city or controlling position over many waters. And no that is not because she is just over one small geographic area consisting of multinational people. Babylon the Great covers the entire earth. She doesn't mislead kings of the entire earth nor is she over them in a small city like area.
     
  13. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    And in Revelation chapter 14.
     
  14. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    930
    +361
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This terrain has already been covered . The "soon" is better translated "quickly" not "soon."

    I HAVE ALREADY POSTED THIS INFORMATION. OTHERS HERE HAVE ALREADY AGREED. WE HAVE COMPLETE AGREEMENT ON THIS WORD. YOU ARE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WITH MATTERS ALREADY ADDRESSED AND AGREED UPON.


    Stop wasting everyone's time.



    The word you need to concern yourself with is "near." Revelation 1:3 and 22:10, not Rev. 1:1 and 22:6. Quickly does not mean near AND NO ONE HAS CLAIMED QUICKLY DOES MEAN NEAR.

    A red herring is being argued.

    The word "near" means near. Period. The word "near" is used throughout the Old and the New and in every single occasion the word "near" means near; it is always used in the ordinary meaning of the word. Look it up. Jesus was coming quickly because the time was near. The word "near" means near.

    Now deal with those facts.

    Or don't.

    But please don't waste any more of any anyone's time as if you're saying something that hasn't already been addressed. You're not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  15. pasifika

    pasifika Well-Known Member

    531
    +124
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Married
    A woman and a city are not the same thing literally...so what John saw in the vision is a "woman " not a city....
    But what the angel told John that the woman in the vision is the "great city"...is a singular city...

    this cannot be the entire earth because the 10 kings and the beast are responsible for burning her up unless the entire earth is govern by only the 10 kings and the beast which is not what Revelation point out...
     
  16. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    930
    +361
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I haveanswered your question and already addressed this matter. I have already answered the questions you're asking. This is a text-based medium. Those answers are not going anywhere; the are sitting silently in the discussion completely ignored by you when you ask questions already answered. Think about what I posted. I should not have to repost content already posted.
     
  17. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    930
    +361
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Douggg, your handle says you're anytime rapturist, non-dispie futurist. Would you mind clarifying that for me? Thx
     
  18. fwGod

    fwGod Psalm 119:63

    876
    +300
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The woman of 12:6 and 14 is representing the Jewish people. They are protected for 42 months or 3.5 years.
    That is the full amount of the mid to end of the 7 year Tribulation. At no time does it say or imply that any there became apostate.

    The text of 17:3 is speaking of gentiles because the imagery uses the European woman on the beast. The leader-antichrist is described as having no prior affiliation or connection with any religion. But making his own. In that way he is comparative to Nimrod.

    The idea that it is speaking of the Jews comes from a surface reading of the three texts.

    The context indicates how to interpret the given text. And it helps to look up Hebrew idioms.

    The wilderness in Rev.17:3 is a Jewish idiom that speaks of being taken to a place where there's only God's creation for miles around, a place where there is nothing man made.

    Yet, John was shown by vision the empire of man, the leader antichrist who is the puppet of the devil. He's described in gentile terms. The ungodly woman (Europa) that rides the beast (Zeus). The one with seven heads and ten horns.

    But, if John was only shown the natural hide-out of the Jews in the wilderness. Because he said earlier that they stay there for 42 months, away from the face of the serpent.. that indicates that they were not in any way influenced to apostate. ... so in that case John would've just repeated what he said in 12:6, 14.
     
  19. Douggg

    Douggg anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

    +1,846
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I am anytime rapture view meaning that the rapture could happen any time between now and when it actually takes place.

    The only limitation is that it must take place before the day of the Lord begins, which will be triggered when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to be God. Which generally speaking is in the first half of the 7 years, near the middle. There is not enough information to determine an exact day on the timeline like we can for some of the other events.

    The other rapture views mandate that the rapture begins before the 70th week begins (pretrib), or at Jesus's return day (post-trib), or after the 70th begins but before the wrath of God begins (pre-wrath).

    The anytime term is something I came up with based on Luke 21:34-36, "any time" used in verse 34. The basic idea is to be aware that the rapture could happen anytime. Could be before the 70th week begins, or maybe after the 70th weeks begins. But it has to be before the 2Thessalonians2:4 event, based on the beginning of the Day of the Lord, which in turn is noted in the rapture verses in 1Thessalonians5:9-11.

    The anytime rapture view is not overly restrictive to the possible time, but still has a limitation of being before the beginning of the Day of the Lord. The idea is to be keenly aware that the rapture could happen anytime. The closer we get, the smaller the window. So we watch the end times events as they develop for key signals as the end getting nearer.
    ________________________________________________________________

    The futurist view is that the prophecies of Matthew 24:15-31 are still yet unfulfilled, yet acknowledges certain verses in Luke 21 were fulfilled in 70 AD in the destruction of the temple and city, and the Jews being sent into the nations, as the times of the gentiles take place.

    A subdivision of the futurist view, is dispensationalism, which asserts that over the course of man's history, God has dwelt with man in different ways, in successive so-called dispensations. Such as dispensation of innocence, dispensation of conscience, dispensation of promise, dispensation of government, dispensation of law, dispensation of grace, then the millennial Kingdom.

    I don't subscribe to that rigid approach of breaking down how God has dwelt with man over history as appropriate. So I am not dispensationalist. Unfortunately, a lot of people tend to package their various opinions on a wide range of bible topics equate dispensationalism with futurism, not realizing the difference, and attack any futurist as being a dispensationalist.

    So that is the reason I put "futurist, non dispensationalist" in my personal info screen-name display.

    There are some dispensationalists at this site. For anyone who want to address them specifically on the merits or flaws of the dispensationalist view.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    At this site, mostly people are either partial preterist, or historists, or futurists.

    historists tend to view the pope/papacy as the Antichrist and/or beast, and voice the thoughts of the reformers era. I would put Seven Day Adventists in that view category.
    Which there are some who hold the SDA view here.

    Futurists are divided.

    Some think the Antichrist and/or beast will be the Mahdi, and put an Islamic Caliphate overlay to the end times.
    Some think the Antichrist and or beast will be leader of the U.N. and be a gentile.
    Some, like me, think the Antichrist and or beast will be a Jew and come out of Europe.

    The futurist view in general tracks and anticipates the arch villain of the end times and the path he follows to his ultimate destruction at Jesus's return - as a way to formulate a timeline of events. For that reason, there is so much discussion about that forthcoming wicked person at this site.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  20. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +948
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Unless Christ physically leaves heaven first, thus the 2nd coming, there cannot be a rapture prior to that.

    How many times did Christ come the first time, thus the first coming? He only came one time, and that started with Him being born into this world. When He returns, He will only be returning one time and not multiple times, and that His return involves a rapture preceded by a rising of the righteous dead. But you seem to think a rapture can happen without Him even physically returning first, as in the 2nd coming, the only coming left for Him to fulfill.
     
Loading...