A Woman Rides the Beast - Mystery Babylon - Revelation 17 & 18

[Buzzardhut]

.
.
.
.

[YOU TUBE VIDEO]w5Ke7Tn3uOU[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]

[YOU TUBE VIDEO]iIM6F2LC-xg[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]

[YOU TUBE VIDEO]keiU9WiyPJE[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]

[YOU TUBE VIDEO]NqfgEvwIq6Y[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]

[true2yeshua]

The first two were snippets of what was broadcast Sunday afternoon on SkyAngel2. Excellent, as usual.

Shalom in Christ
_____________________________
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem :pray :israel

[eve_anne_gelical]

Excellent book also

[Sing4Him]

:thumb I've got to reread the book.. I read it yearsss ago!

[Jesse]

I just read the book (http://www.thebereancall.org/node/4879) last year. It is an eye-opener.

[Tenbear2808]

In Rev 14:8

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

I noticed that it says SHE MADE. Does this mean then that all nations were forced? And what is the wine of the wrath of her fornication mean?

When I looked up Babylon is fallen I also got these references:

Isaiah 21:9, Jer 51:8, Rev 18:2

Thanks everyone!

[Hootmon]

Be careful of pulling one verse out of context, especially in Revelation. :heh


And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, "Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters."

And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality."

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
(Rev 14:6-12)

The 'wine of the wrath' is tied to the taking of the Mark. Presumably, whatever the form that the 'whore' takes, it will have something to do with forcing the Mark on people.

Fornication is Idolatry, and Wrath is Judgment. Two sides of the same 'cup', if you like. Cause and effect.

[KitsapGirl]

In Rev 14:8

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

I noticed that it says SHE MADE. Does this mean then that all nations were forced? And what is the wine of the wrath of her fornication mean?

When I looked up Babylon is fallen I also got these references:

Isaiah 21:9, Jer 51:8, Rev 18:2

Thanks everyone!


In addition to Revelation, Jeremiah & Isaiah, read "The Two Babylons". It gives historical & archeological evidence of what Babylon was, and a possability of what "she" will be.

[Beth O]

In Rev 14:8

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

I noticed that it says SHE MADE. Does this mean then that all nations were forced? And what is the wine of the wrath of her fornication mean?

When I looked up Babylon is fallen I also got these references:

Isaiah 21:9, Jer 51:8, Rev 18:2

Thanks everyone!

I hope you find this helpful



BABYLON
(confusion). Capitol of Babylonia located by the Euphrates river, also called Shinar and Chaldea. Babylon was first built by Nimrod after the great flood of Noah's day (Gen 10:10). The Tower of Babel was built there (compare Gen 11:2,Gen 11:9). Thus, the city of Babylon has always been associated with evil and rebellion against God. God used the nation of Babylon to judge Israel in the days of the kings. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, carried the Jews away captive and destroyed the walls and temple of Jerusalem (2Ki 24:1-20; 2Ch 36:1-23; Jer 52:1-34). After the seventy-year captivity of the Jews, God destroyed Babylon (Jer 50:1-46; Isa 13:17-22; Da 5:1-31).

In the book of Revelation, God foretells the rise of another Babylon in the last days before Christ returns. This last-days Babylon will be the embodiment of all the evil and rebellion of men throughout history (Rev 14:8; Rev 17:5; Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21). Thus, the O.T. Babylon was both a historical city and kingdom, and was also a prophetic symbol for the future Babylon. The final Babylon will be destroyed by Christ.

"Babylon is repeatedly used by the prophets in a symbolic sense. Two Babylons are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast's confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is "the great whore" (Rev 17:1), and is destroyed by political Babylon (Rev 17:15-18), that the beast may alone be the object of worship (2Th 2:3-4; Rev 13:15). The power of political Babylon is destroyed by the return of the Lord in glory" (Scofield).

BABYLON IN 1 PETER 5:13:- The Roman Catholic Church claims that Babylon in 1Pe 5:13 is symbolic for Rome. The following summary for rejecting this view is from Barnes Notes on the New Testament:

"Others have supposed that Rome is intended by the name Babylon. This was the opinion of many of the Fathers, and also of Bede, Valesius, Grotius, Cave, Whitby, and Lardner. The principal reasons for this are, that such is the testimony of Papias, Eusebius, and Jerome; and that at that time Babylon on the Euphrates was destroyed. But the objections to this opinion seem to me to be insuperable. (a) There is no evidence that at that early period the name Babylon was given to Rome, nor were there any existing reasons why it should be. The name is generally supposed to have been applied to it by John, in the book of Revelation, (chap. xvi. 19; xvii. 5; xviii. 10,21;) but this was probably long after this epistle was written, and for reasons which did not exist in the time of Peter. There is no evidence that it was given familiarly to it in the time of Peter, or even at all until after his death. Certain it is, that it was not given so familiarly to it that when the name Babylon was mentioned it would be generally understood that Rome was intended. But the only reason which Peter could have had for mentioning the name Babylon at all, was to convey some definite and certain information to those to whom he wrote. (b) As has been already observed, the apostles, when they sent an epistle to the churches, and mentioned a place as the one where the epistle was written, were accustomed to mention the real place. (c) It would be hardly consistent with the dignity of an apostle, or any grave writer, to make use of what would be regarded as a nickname, when suggesting the name of a place where he then was. (d) if Rome had been meant, it would have been hardly respectful to the church there which sent the salutation, to have given it this name. Peter mentioned the church with respect and kindness; and yet it would have been scarcely regarded as kind to mention it as a 'Church in Babylon,' if he used the term Babylon, as he must have done on such a supposition to denote a place of eminent depravity. (e) The testimony of the Fathers on this subject does not demonstrate that Rome was the place intended. So far as appears from the extracts relied on by Lardner, they do not give this as historical testimony, but as their own interpretation; and, from anything that appears, we are as well qualified to interpret the word as they were. (f) In regard to the objection that Babylon was at that time destroyed, it may be remarked that this is true so far as the original splendour of the city was concerned, but still there may have been a sufficient population there to have constituted a church. The destruction of Babylon was gradual. It had not become an utter desert in the time of the apostles. In the first century of the Christian era a part of it was inhabited, though the greater portion of its former site was a waste. All that time, there is no improbability in supposing that a Christian supposition that the word Babylon refers to Rome, rests nearly all the evidence which the Roman Catholics can adduce that the apostle Peter was ever at Rome at all. There is nothing else in the New Testament that furnishes the slightest proof that he ever was there. The only passage on which Bellarmine relies to show that Peter was at Rome, is the very passage now under consideration. He does not pretend to cite any other evidence from Scripture than this; nor does any other writer."

That Peter was not the pastor or "bishop" at Rome is evident from a study of Paul's epistles (the following is by Henry Hudson from Papal Power: Its Origins and Development):

"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Ro 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Rom 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter. In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter. At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims]. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2Tim 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle. And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2Tim 4:11). This is conclusive. So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.

BABYLON IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION:. God foretells the rise of another Babylon in the last days before Christ returns. This last-days Babylon will be the embodiment of all the evil and rebellion of men throughout history (Rev 14:8; Rev 17:5; Rev 18:2,Rev 18:10,Rev 18:21). Thus, the O.T. Babylon was both a historical city and kingdom, and was also a prophetic symbol for the future Babylon. The final Babylon will be destroyed by Christ. "Babylon is repeatedly used by the prophets in a symbolic sense. Two Babylons are to be distinguished in the Revelation: Ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and Political Babylon, which is the Beast's confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is "the great whore" (Re 17:1), and is destroyed by political Babylon (Rev 17:15-18), that the beast may alone be the object of worship (2Th 2:3-4; Rev 13:15). The power of political Babylon is destroyed by the return of the Lord in glory"

[Beth O]

I hope you find this helpful



MOTHER OF HARLOTS

The apostate religion of the last days (Rev 17:5). We believe the Roman Catholic Church is the partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Revelation 17 of a one-world religious Harlot. This is not to say that Revelation 17 is entirely fulfilled by Roman Catholicism. This prophecy will not be completed until the reign of the Antichrist just prior to the coming of the Lord, and Rome will be joined by a conglomeration of other apostate churches and organizations, the end result, no doubt, of the present Ecumenical Movement. Even so, every feature of this religious Harlot is found in the Roman Catholic Church: yoked together with secular government, having great wealth, clothed in purple and scarlet, having a golden cup in her hand, drunk with the blood of the saints. For a thousand years and more, separatist Bible-believing Christians have identified Rome with the Harlot of Revelation 17. At the end of the NINTH CENTURY, "Tergandus, Bishop of Treves, called the pope antichrist, yea, a wolf, and Rome, babylon" (Martyrs Mirror, 5th English edition, p. 240). In the TENTH CENTURY, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, called the pope antichrist, in a full council at Rheims (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, 1821, p. 229). In the ELEVENTH CENTURY, Berenger of Tours denounced Rome's dogmas and maintained that the Roman Church was the See of Satan (George Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 1838, p. 159). THE WALDENSIANS, throughout their long history, identified the pope as the antichrist. The Waldensian treatise titled the Noble Lesson, dated 1100 A.D., stated: "Antichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." In the TWELFTH CENTURY, in roughly 1120 A.D., A Treatise Concerning Antichrist identified the pope of Rome as the antichrist. George Faber identifies this as a production of Peter the Valdo (Faber, pp. 379-384). In 1206, at the conference of Montreal, the ALBIGENSES made the following confession: "That the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ" (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821 edition, first published in 1692, p. 178). The BOHEMIANS, a colony of Waldenses in Bohemia, held the following beliefs, according to the Roman Inquisitor. This description was given in the 14th century but uses material from the 13TH CENTURY: "The first error, saith he, is that the Church of Rome is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but an assembly of wicked men, and the whore that sits upon the beast in the Revelation. ... They declare the pope to be the head and ringleader of all errors" (Allix, Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 242-259). The LOLLARDS of the 14TH AND 15TH CENTURIES maintained "that the Church of Rome was not the Church of Christ, but of infidel heathens; and they despised all ecclesiastical laws, together with all the Bishops and Ministers of the Church" (Allix, Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, p. 230). The Petrobusians judged the pope to be the antichrist (Allix, Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, p. 142).

Throughout THE REFORMATION ERA, Rome was considered the Mother of Harlots. On September 9, 1560, Pastor Jean Louis Paschale of Calabria, just before he was burned alive in the presence of Pope Pius IV in Rome, turned to the pope and "arraigned him as the enemy of Christ, the persecutor of his people, and the Anti-Christ of Scripture, and concluded by summoning him and all his cardinals to answer for their cruelties and murders before the throne of the Lamb" (J.A. Wylie, History of the Waldenses, c1860, p. 120).

All of the Reformation leaders considered the pope the antichrist. Luther said, "I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist" (Table Talks, Vol. 54, No. 4487, p. 346). The Articles of Schmalkald call the pope "the vertiable Antichrist." Calvin calls the pope "antichrist" (Treatise I:276). The Second Scotch Confession of Faith (1580) calls the pope "that Roman Antichrist." The Irish Articles of Religion (1615), No. 80, call the pope "that man of sin." The Savoy Declaration (1658) calls the pope "antichrist." Bible translator William Tyndale identified the pope as the antichrist in his treatise The Practice of Prelates and in the Preface to the 1534 edition of his New Testament. Their successors in the 17TH, 18TH, AND 19TH CENTURIES persisted in this. Many of the early Protestant Bibles contained dramatic wood cuttings portraying the Scarlet Woman of Revelation 17, plainly identifying the Roman Catholic Church with this apostate religious system. Those accompanying the Luther New Testament were made by Cranach. In his 1893 work titled Union with Rome, Bishop Christopher Wordsworth of the Church of England stated the view which prevailed among Protestants at that time: "... we tremble at the sight, while we read the inscription, emblazoned in large letters, 'Mystery, Babylon the Great,' written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome." These examples could be multiplied almost endlessly. Further, old-line Protestants, Baptists, and other fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians continue TODAY to identify Rome with Revelation 17. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of fundamental Baptists scattered throughout the world who so identify Rome.