Revelations 18 - Did we 'miss' an end-time sign on 9-11?

So your argument is that Peter went to Babylon and wrote the letter of 1Peter?

Pretty obscure since we have no record of Peter going to Iraq - or Babylon but we DO have evidence that Peter went to Rome.

I think it is clear - historically Peter went to Rome.

Further - John is writing at a time when Jerusalem is not "a great city" - it is a destroyed city. The BIG problem facing Christianity in the future was Rome - not the destroyed city of Jerusalem.

And this is what is identified by Peter in 1Peter 5 and by John in the book of Revelation.

Babylon is the city of 7 hills pictured in Rev 17 - Rome.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My argument is no one knows. Scholars disagree.

1. It is called a "great city" where the Lord was slain.

2. It was not destroyed till AD70.

The big problem facing the church at the time the NT was written was unbelieving Jews. Paul would strongly disagree with you.

I Thess 2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us ,and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;

No, the woman(Babylon/Harlot) sits upon the 7 mountains. Verse 7 says the beast carries her. The Beast was Rome/Nero. Her sitting on the Beast shows us an alliance the two have. In verse 16 we see Rome(beast) turn on the Harlot(Jerusalem) and burn her with fire. See Lev 21:9 for the punishment for a daughter of a priest who plays the Harlot. Revelation deals with Jerusalem and her people. Rome is just the instrument God uses to fulfill His purpose.

So how many OT prophets did Rome kill?

 

Grasshopper;

Heres some more "great cities"

Gen 10-12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.

Josh.10-2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city,


Jer 22-8 And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city?(this was Giliad)

Jonah 3-3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

Why would Jerusalem be the great city any more than these.

Your logic is unfounded.

Peace.

Tam

 

1. That is just one of Babylons descriptions. There are dozens more, when put together it points to Jerusalem.

2. Where was the Lord slain?

3. As far as unfounded logic, it is you who identified U.S. cities as "great cities". At least now you are getting more scriptual in your references.

 

Grasshopper: You have two different scriptures, and you are madly trying to tie them together.

You said:

Rev 18:18 and cried out as they looked upon the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great city?

The Lord was crucified in the "great city":(Tams note; but not the city in Rev. 18)

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Where was Christ crucified?
=================================
Just because there are two great cities mentioned, and one of them is Jerusalem, it doesn't mean the other one is Jerusalem.

like I sais before, there are lots of great cities and Jerusalem is not mystery Babylon!

Working for Jesus.

Tam

 

I think John was writing "After Peter". He knew that his readers already accepted the assignment of the term "Babylon" to Rome as Peter had used it. John was doubtless writing in a kind of code that his readers would immediately understand given the context of NT letters already written to that point in time.

Rather than completely changing all the rules for the "insiders" I think John was "relying" on the history that only the insiders had with NT letters. He is using symbols knowing that anyone familiar with Daniel and the OT - and familiar with the NT letters to that point in time - would "get the point".

Certainly having a letter that condemned Rome outright would not "be prudent" given the condition of persecution existing at the end of the first century.

I am inclined to believe that John is using the term just as Peter used it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Context ties them together. There was only one "great city" known to the Jews in the 1st century. If there were several as you suggest then how would those receiving the letter know which one was which? It is you who is "madly" trying to disconnect them. Why? Because it goes against everything you've been taught about the "last days". You refuse to see what is clear in scripture because you want to hold on to your futurist eschatology. If you dare allow Jerusalem of the 1st century to be Babylon then your whole system collapses. I know, I was once in the same position.

Then who would those recieving the letter from John think it was? Was God confusing them? Maybe a little trickery to keep them in line? The burden of proof is on you to show in scripture they are different.

Scripture says otherwise. All of the descriptions of Babylon fit first century Jerusalem. So who killed the Prophets and saints?

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

From the mouth of Jesus:

Matt 23: 34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth , from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem , that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

From the pen of Paul:

I Thess 2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us ,and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;

So who killed the Prophets and Saints? Or are you going to say that like the "great city" are there more than one group of Prophets and saints?
Let scripture interpret scripture. I'll take scripture over Jack Van Impe.

So will you answer the question Rob refuses to? Who killed the prophets and Saints? Where was the Lord slain? Who is a whore an adulterer? Who is adorned like a Priest? What city are the saints warned to flee? Its all in the Book.

 

Better re-think that position. Even late date advocates admit there is little evidence of wide persecution under Domitian. I can give you some quotes from late-date advocates if you are interested.

 

#1. At the time John is writing Revelation - first century Jerusalem is destroyed AND never becomes "a great city" after 70 A.D -- in all of time!!

#2. Peter DID write from Rome and called THAT great city... "Bablylon".

#3. Rome's persecution of the Christians from the time of John and moving on for CENTURIES was outrageous! It is the primary and the dominant force for persecution of the saints for over 1000 years as we see it from John's point looking forward.

NOTHING compares to Rome - in John's future -- certainly not the destroyed city of Jerusalem in his present.

When Paul is killed - it is the Romans.

When Peter is killed - it is the Romans.

When John is exiled -- it is the Romans.

When Christians are slaughtered for centures after the time of John - it is by Rome.

But then there is always that "destroyed pile of ashes" called "Jerusalem" ... surely John wanted Christians to keep watching those ashes - as they contemplated their future - instead of seeing Rome as the city of persecution of the saints... surely!??

Or not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Grasshopper said:

Quote:If there were several as you suggest.
---------------------------------
I did not "suggest" those cities, that is scripture. Go back and look and you will see that they ARE IN THE BIBLE.

And by the way, I do not give a rip about Jack Van Impe Either, so don't bother me with that again!

It doesn.t matter to me what you think either. I am simply trying to show you the truth in the bible, but like so many others, you have stumbled onto what you think is truth, and, like a dog with a new bone, will not let go.

The only thing that really matters in the grand scheme of things is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

I'll just stick with that. So you and Bob can go ahead and work on this together.

Peace,

Tam

P.S. Good luck Bob

 

Revelation was written pre-AD70.

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/st-essay/ragan/chap3.htm

Read "Before Jerusalem Fell" for an indepth discussion on this.

Once again, no scriptual proof.

1.I'm no history expert, but I believe by 300AD the Roman Empire was "christianized."
2.Who killed the Prophets? Still no answer.
3.How does Rome play the Harlot? Is Rome ever mentioned as an adulteror or Harlot? How about Jerusalem? In her history is she ever called a Harlot or alduteror? We both know the answer to that.

Those ashes fulfilled the prophecies of Jesus in Matt 24.


And one thing you seem to forget, John tells us when all these things will happen:

Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;
2 who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

Did any of these cities exist at the time of the writing of Revelation. Would those in the 1st century think of these cities when reading John's letter?

Do you still hold to this theory?

Really? Who has quoted more scripture than me? You have used no significant scripture to prove Jerusalem wasn't Babylon. You like Rob have just thrown out what you have been told all your life but refuse to deal with scripture or my questions.

Gets a little difficult when you actuall have to prove your beliefs in scripture.

 

#1 Revelation was written some 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem - at the end of the first century.

#2. Jersusalem was never a "great" city after being conquered by Babylon... but when conquered by Rome it was "especially minor" until finally we see its utter extinction in 70 AD. This was NOT the "big dreaded foe" of the NT saints looking forward for the next 2000 years starting from John's writing the book of revelation around 90 AD.

The "only" thing it actually had was a temple embelished by Herod. The Jews could not even kill Christ - they needed the Romans to do it for them. They confess in their own legal arguments that they don't have the authority to kill him and they are subjugated by Rome EVEN to that extent.

Again - Rome was the big dog on the block from BEFORE 30 AD and certainly AFTER 70 AD which is when John was writing (in fact he wrote in the 90's).

The efforts to bend this whole thing back on a destroyed city --- are not compelling.

Bible scholars today and pretty much all through history are in agreement - 90's.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong

First you fail to understand why Jerusalem was a "great city" to the Jews. Secondly you ignore scripture:

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city , which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

You just keep ignoring this verse, why?

Again you completely ignore what scripture teaches. Paul, Luke, Jesus, and the Jews themselves tells us the unbelieving Jews were responsible for His death. Why do you ignore scripture? Is your eschatological view that important to you that you deny scripture?
I know you will not answer, but why do the NT writers say the Jews killed Jesus? Are they in error?

So the Olivet Discourse is not about the Destruction of Jerusalem in any way? Jerusalem was just another city to the Jews? Your lack of understanding of what Jerusalem represented concerning the Old Covenant and God's dealing with the Old Covenant Jews is astounding.

You are either embarassingly ignorant on this subject or have a hard time with the truth. Just a little research and study proves that statement absurd.


Jay E. Adams (1966)
"[the temple still standing in Revelation 11:1 is] unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A.D." (The Time is at Hand, p. 68).

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Arethas
(On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

F.W. Farrar (1886)
"there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse." (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 387)

James M. MacDonald(1870)
"So clear is the internal evidence in favor of the early date of the Apocalypse. And no evidence can be drawn from any part of the book favoring the later date so commonly assigned to it." (Life and Writings of John, p. 167)

Ernest Renan
"It may be that, after the crisis of the year 68 (the date of the Apocalypse) and of the year 70 (the destruction of Jerusalem), the old Apostle, with an ardent and plastic spirit, disabused of the belief in a near appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds, may have inclined towards the ideas that he found around him, of which several agreed sufficiently well with certain Christian doctrines. " (Life of Jesus )

R.C. Sproul (1998)
"If the book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening. Not only does Revelation not mention the temple's destruction as a past event, it frequently refers to the temple as still standing. This is seen clearly in Revelation 11 ...Gentry gives impressive evidence to support this conclusion." (Last Days, pp.147-149)

Moses Stuart (1845)
"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D. 68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not yet come." (2:324)

Milton Terry (1898)
"the trend of modem criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early date of the Apocalypse."Biblical Apocalyptics (p. 241n.)

B.F. Westcott (1825-1903)"The Apocalypse is after the close of St. Paul’s work. It shows in its mode of dealing with Old Testament figures a close connexion with the Epistle to the Hebrews (2 Peter, Jude). And on the other hand it is before the destruction of Jerusalem." (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1908] 1980), pp. clxxiv-

J. A. T. Robinson(1976)
"It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh." (Redating the New Testament pp.. 240-242).

C. Vanderwaal (1989)
“We cannot accept all the arguments of J.A.T. Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament (London, 1976), but we agree with his conclusion that all the books of the New Testament were written before the year A.D.70.” (Cited in James E. Priest, “Contemporary Apocalyptic Scholarship and the Revelation,” in Johannie Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack, ed. James E. Priest; Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press; p. 199, n. 75)

Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, the Roman satirist Juvenal, and others, all of whom predate Eusebius call Nero the tyrant.

It is rather clear you have done little or probably no study in this area.

Still no answers:

1.Where was the Lord slain?

2. Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth.
Does Rome fit the verse? Will they kill everyone upon the earth? Explain this phrase to me in your view of Babylon.

3. Who do the inspired writers say killed Jesus?
4. Who killed the OT prophets?
5. So how many OT prophets did Rome kill?
6. Which city was did the prophets identify as a whore and adulterer?
7.Which city was adorned like a priest according to the OT?
8.What city are the saints warned to flee?


It is my belief you know what you believe but not why you believe it. This is the reason you do not deal with my questions using scripture. It is apparent you get your eschatology from modern day writers not from scripture.

 

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation11.htm

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city , which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

[8] The great city: this expression is used constantly in Rev for Babylon, i.e., Rome; cf Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:2, 10, 21. "Sodom" and "Egypt": symbols of immorality (cf Isaiah 1:10) and oppression of God's people (cf Exodus 1:11-14). Where indeed their Lord was crucified: not the geographical but the symbolic Jerusalem that rejects God and his witnesses, i.e., Rome, called Babylon in Rev 16-18; see the note on Rev 17:9 and Introduction.

The fact that the book of Revelation was written after AD 90 is attested to by all scholars today and throughout history (ok - almost all).

Clearly occupied and subjugated city of Jerusalem never held any threat at all to the NT saints at the time of John's writing. This was long after the days of SAUL turned to PAUL. In the NT - persecution from 31AD to around 40 AD is from Jerusalem but by the time we get to 60's - 90's it is ALL ROME.

The efforts to turn this back around to that subjugated then destroyed city of Jerusalem - the ashes existing at the time of John's writing of the book of Revelation -- all fail.

But for century after century ROME continued to be the great persecutor of the NT saints. The Church of God would be contending with that problem for many centuries to come.

John was right to make that his focus.

Scholars today are right to see Babylon as the NT name for ROME given to it by Peter - and then later by John in the 90's.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Circular argument. The author of this commentary is a futurist therefore interprets the verse to prove his pre-supposition. The Lord was slain in Jerusalem, NOT Rome. This intepretation says Babylon is a symbol of Rome which is symbol of Jerusalem. What a stretch.

Nope, not anywhere close to all. Read most commentaries pre-Scofield and see what you find. (Though I know you won't)

It's statements like these that make me wonder if you've ever read the texts.

Once again scripture proves your theories false.

Rev 28 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived again:
9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
10 Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Funny, the very book which contains Babylon, in its early chapters tells us of the persecuting Jews which you say ," never held any threat at all to the NT saints at the time of John's writing".

Again you are in direct opposition to scripture. The NT is full of Jewish persecution.

Acts 5:5 But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble, and gathering a crowd, set the city on an uproar; and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them forth to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 whom Jason hath received: and these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the multitude and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
9 And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

I Thess 2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;
16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always : but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

See Matt 23 to see who was "filling up the measure of their sin". Hint: It wasn't Rome.


The threat from the beginning of the Church came from the Jews. The NT including Revelation is full of it. Read Acts sometime. Once The Jews were dealt with the threat of the Church disappearing were gone. Persecution will always exist after that but will never overcome the Church.

Once again you answer none of the questions you just rattle of Pre-Mill theory using no scripture. You refuse to deal with the questions because you can't.


context context context

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;
2 who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

Those that CLAIM to be Jews "But are NOT" - - are in error.

The fact is - REAL Jews lived in Jerusalem in the days of Christ. He had problems with REAL Jews not those who "CLAIM to be JEWS but are NOT".

However history tells us that the NT church had CENTURIES of torment coming from Rome and ZERO torment coming out of Jerusalem after 50 AD.

John writing in 90 AD -- was pointing the early church to the HUGE problem that lay head - for century after century.

JUST as Peter assigned the term Babylon to Rome SO ALSO did John.

The picture is clear and all scholars today and historically have agreed on this. Though as grasshopper points out - you can find some that have a problem with it if you look long enough.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To answer the question of the thread, no.

Briefly, to explain why. I believe in a consistent application of hermeneutics (interpretation of scripture). The book of Revelation was written to a group of Christians in seven identified churches to warn them of a coming life and death persecution, to provide them with a vision of the risen Christ, and to provide them with encouragement to remain faithful through what they were about to endure. Considering their track record up to that point, at least five of them had a lot of work to do.

In the initial address, the writer of the book (believed by many and held traditionally to be the disciple John) states that the vision he has received pertains to events which will take place "soon" (literally) and also says that "the time is near." The style of writing is apocalyptic, common from about 300 B.C. to about A.D. 125-150, especially in middle eastern traditions. The symbols in the book identify places and people known to the first century Christians in those seven churches, including the use of Babylon as a substitute for Rome. She is even identified as such (Revelation 17:9).

To be consistent with a literal, historical-cultural interpretation of the scripture, one would have to conclude that no current events can be interpreted as "signs" of the "end times."

 

Jesus is contrasting physical Jews from spiritual Jews. Jesus is saying real Jews are spiritual Jews.

Once again you use no scripture nor answer any questions. Just like the other thread on Preterism. I have a feeling you just have some Pre-Mill commentary by your computer that you quote from. Probably LaHaye's.