norwegen
Diamond Member
Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaicWhereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
And oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaicWhereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
scroptures
you got your scoptures all wrongAnd oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaicWhereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
scroptures
Well, that's a well-thought out counterpoint; I'll keep it under consideration.you got your scoptures all wrongAnd oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaicWhereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.how do you come to that conclusion?Jerusalemfascinating------who is the whore of babylon?
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
scroptures
"Love ya JAG"__The Irish RamLove ya JAG, but you misunderstand prophecy. It can be what will take place 2 days from now or 2,000 years from now. It is relevant to the time, not the people. That we humans just now have the ability to wipe out life on earth is totally irrelevant to the dead of the first century.In light of Revelation's significance to its first-century
audience, the Beast must be someone relevant to
that first-century audience.
There have been a bunch of bad humans, but none so far fit the description of the beast laid out in end time prophecy. For one, he will be loved the world over. Nero wasn't even loved at home. Nero produced no peace treaty with Israel. Nor did he suffer a mortal head wound to the head or neck and survive. He had no weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he responsible for Christ returning to stop the destruction.
Wiping life off the earth is a prophesy that could only be fulfilled and relevant to us.
Okay... what's your plan "B"?Conclusion: The Beast of Revelation was the beastly
Nero Caesar of the 1st Century.
The non-preterist view of the beast is summed up fairly accurately in the following link:
The Beast
I tend to agree with the idea of the Roman Catholic Church as being the first beast of Revelation 13 and that they will be a major part of the 2nd Beast of Revelation 13. The beast is to be a one time political power that was, but lost its political power at some point, but later regained its political power. Thus the saying, "the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". The Catholic church held political power up until the late 18th century. For awhile it was without political power, but later was able to claim Vatican City as a nation state. We are yet to see if it will regain the powers it once held at first.
I do however enjoy the view of the last beast being a combination of Islam and the Catholic Church.
Rev is talking about Nero or probably Domitian. Nero died of assisted suicide and the fear was that he would return.. He did sort of in the person of Emperor Domitian.
Remember ..the Mark of the Beast?
The Catholic Church didn't exist yet..
Love ya JAG, but you misunderstand prophecy. It can be what will take place 2 days from now or 2,000 years from now. It is relevant to the time, not the people. That we humans just now have the ability to wipe out life on earth is totally irrelevant to the dead of the first century.
There have been a bunch of bad humans, but none so far fit the description of the beast laid out in end time prophecy. For one, he will be loved the world over. Nero wasn't even loved at home. Nero produced no peace treaty with Israel. Nor did he suffer a mortal head wound to the head or neck and survive. He had no weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he responsible for Christ returning to stop the destruction.
Wiping life off the earth is a prophesy that could only be fulfilled and relevant to us.
No, that's Revelation...
the problem is the WORD "prophecy" The hebrew word (approx.) NAVI does notMost prophecy was written after the fact... and most of Revelation took place in the first century. Israel was surrounded by foreign armies in 70 AD.
- you are thinking of the age of the crusades........even the crusader sluts liked toWhereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.
Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.
The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.
Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.
- you are thinking of the age of the crusades........even the crusader sluts liked to
ride their horses naked thru the holy city. It is true that the city of Jerusalem,
in its history was BESIEGED by filth. The priests and levites wore purple and
scarlet? I like both colors----BUT my relatives long ago used the colors you
describe VERY SPARINGLY (ie purple and scarlet) ----only as reinforcing
threads in a decorative manner. Blue and white was the favored fashion
the problem is the WORD "prophecy" The hebrew word (approx.) NAVI does not
allude to a magician who sees into the future-----it is a person who is considered to
have some level of communication with g-d and SAYS or WRITES stuff consistent with
that communication