PDA

View Full Version : The Biblical Argument for the Rebuilding of Babylon *Merged*



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

pinezoo
November 22nd, 2010, 01:44 PM
ekkassa 1, I think you missed the point, (please correct me if i'm wrong) As defined in biblical terms, a "city" is built ON a theology. Without a belief system (read religion there) there is no city. That mystery babylon is both a physical city and a religious system as well is stated in the fact that she trades in physical things, ie. gold,silver jewels, AND the SOULS of men. Not just men, as in slaves or the labor of men, but their very souls. Here's another faucet of this "harlot". In Rev. 17:4 she is described as, "arrayed in ......pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of.......HER fornications", this is a view of the harlot from "heaven". In Rev. 18:16 there's a description of her from MENS point of view. the attire is the same except that it starts off that she is in fine linen, and there is no filth, ie. In Rev. 19:8 linen is described as noting righteousness, so men saw this "city" as righteous, while God seea it as abominable. Same city, different view. Which one do you think is true?

Buzzardhut
November 22nd, 2010, 01:50 PM
Joel Richardson is very bad news.

He is post-trib.
He states the antichrist's empire is only regional, and
he has no control over everyone's ability to buy and sell.
He states that Nebuchadnezzar ruling over the earth in Daniel was just hyperbole.
He states that Ezekiel 38 & 39, Psalm 83, and Isaiah 17 are all the same war as Armageddon.
He states Magog is Turkey even though there are over 130 references in history to Russia being referred to as Magog.
He states that Rome is not on the Statue in Daniel.
Another major problem is that Mecca and Medina were not ruled by any of the empires listed in Daniel. He says that the final world empire will be a reborn Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans never ruled over Israel, so that is impossible. Israel was long gone, and you can't rule over Israel by just ruling over the land, it takes the Jews + the land, and they never ruled over this.

Looks like a lot of good reasons not to use his conjectures.



(does the Rapture start the trib, does it get really bad - seals start to open - as the persons would already be in place to be instruments of the Trib just before the Rapture)

Again these are honest questions, for which the more learned can elaborate.
The AC confirming the peace covenant allowing the third temple raised starts the tribulation clock.

pinezoo
November 22nd, 2010, 01:58 PM
Although not by any stretch of the imagination, "in full", a good case could be made that these things have already begun. I kinda see it in the same line of thought as my earlier post on Cain and Enoch. The first horse is the initiator, and the rest follow suit to accoplish the purpose. The 1st goes out conquering and to conquer. The others (which are the same entity as defined by a "horse") show the "means" by which this man gains the ascendency to the throne. He's not just taking advantage of a crisis, he creats the crisis and then offers the solution "at a price". Speaking from a pre-trib point of discussion, there could be an "overlap" of sorts, as there has been in all the other "dispensations". How long that overlap is, can only be guessed at. Just my thoughts!!

The emphasis of the comment made by Grapple, was that you made Joel Richardson out to be "bad news" because of the post trib position. Holding an escatalogical viewpoint that differs from anothers is VASTLY different than holding a DOCTORINAL viewpoint (which is "very" clearly defined by scripture, with no wiggle room, ie. grace thru faith, diety of Jesus, etc. etc. Also you can't compare a post trib view with something like Mary having a sacred womb, therefore having no other children, blah, blah blah, because we know that scripture says VERY CLEARLY that Jesus had brothers. That is an apple/oranges comparison. We can say certain things about escatology, like there "is" a tribulation period, Jesus "is" coming back at the end of it to set up a 1000yr rule, there "is" a rapture spoken of very clearly in scripture ( and btw, that is EVERY christians blessed hope, not just the pre tribbers! There's not much that upsets me in a disscussion, but that statement did it) and the list can go on. However the order in which they occur can't nessesarily be determined.

Gideon300
November 22nd, 2010, 02:54 PM
The emphasis of the comment made by Grapple, was that you made Joel Richardson out to be "bad news" because of the post trib position. Holding an escatalogical viewpoint that differs from anothers is VASTLY different than holding a DOCTORINAL viewpoint (which is "very" clearly defined by scripture, with no wiggle room, ie. grace thru faith, diety of Jesus, etc. etc. Also you can't compare a post trib view with something like Mary having a sacred womb, therefore having no other children, blah, blah blah, because we know that scripture says VERY CLEARLY that Jesus had brothers. That is an apple/oranges comparison. We can say certain things about escatology, like there "is" a tribulation period, Jesus "is" coming back at the end of it to set up a 1000yr rule, there "is" a rapture spoken of very clearly in scripture ( and btw, that is EVERY christians blessed hope, not just the pre tribbers! There's not much that upsets me in a disscussion, but that statement did it) and the list can go on. However the order in which they occur can't nessesarily be determined.

Yes, Pinezoo, I'm well aware of what Grapple was talking about. My comment about him being bad news was not predicated alone on his view of the rapture..... That is evident in the first post I made. Again, no need to trust what I have to say, research for yourself. I wasn't comparing his view of the rapture with Mary's womb... I was making the justification that he is a poor teacher of the Bible. If you disagree, fine, your opinion really makes no difference in my dealings with Joel Richardson. I'm pretty tired of hearing that there is no such thing as bad teachers of the Bible. Again, political correctness has no place in teaching of scripture. If you would like to discuss rapture timing we can do that because there isn't a case to be made for anything but pre-trib.

Genesis 19:15 - 16 (God refuses to destroy Sodom until one righteous man, Lot, is out, and the Angels have to physically remove him) 15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.

Malachi 3:6 I the LORD do not change.

pinezoo
November 22nd, 2010, 03:38 PM
Weagree that Joel is a bad bible teacher and that political correctness has no place in bible teaching. I don't think I 've heard anyone here express that. I happened to catch a T.V. preacher last sunday (I think his name was Josheph Asmowi or something like that) who said something I agree with. He said the hardest thing in all the years of his being a christian was to learn to speak the truth in love. I agree with that, and it seems to be compounded when we communicate thru a medium such a this. These letters don't speak with lifted eyebrows or compassion in their eyes like when we speak face to face. That being said, I would say this as a caution to you. To make the statement that there isn't a case to be made for anything but pre-trib... is nothing but pure arrogance. I don't desire to sway, convert or discuss pre, mid or post with you or anyone else on this board. It's not only against the rules, it isn't productive.

Gideon300
November 22nd, 2010, 04:01 PM
To make the statement that there isn't a case to be made for anything but pre-trib... is nothing but pure arrogance. I don't desire to sway, convert or discuss pre, mid or post with you or anyone else on this board. It's not only against the rules, it isn't productive.

No, actually it is not, and that is pretty offensive. I have a feeling that statement comes from the fact that you may not support a pre-trib rapture stance, and tells me why you started posting replies to me in the first place. The scriptures are there, and from Genesis through Jesus' and Paul's words paint the picture of what is to come. To say anything else says that God's m.o. does change, but He never does. The righteous are always removed before God himself sends wrath and judgment. All 7 years of tribulation are wrath from God, so again, the righteous must be removed. The Church was not appointed to God's wrath.

pinezoo
November 22nd, 2010, 04:12 PM
My apologies to you Gideon, it is not my intention to offend you or anyone else. I don't like the way this disscussion is turning, so rather than "fight" with a brother I concede. I can assure you that you'll hear nothing else from me. Num. 6:22-27

ekassa1
November 22nd, 2010, 05:07 PM
ekkassa 1, I think you missed the point, (please correct me if i'm wrong) As defined in biblical terms, a "city" is built ON a theology. Without a belief system (read religion there) there is no city. That mystery babylon is both a physical city and a religious system as well is stated in the fact that she trades in physical things, ie. gold,silver jewels, AND the SOULS of men. Not just men, as in slaves or the labor of men, but their very souls. Here's another faucet of this "harlot". In Rev. 17:4 she is described as, "arrayed in ......pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of.......HER fornications", this is a view of the harlot from "heaven". In Rev. 18:16 there's a description of her from MENS point of view. the attire is the same except that it starts off that she is in fine linen, and there is no filth, ie. In Rev. 19:8 linen is described as noting righteousness, so men saw this "city" as righteous, while God seea it as abominable. Same city, different view. Which one do you think is true?

To start, I am supporting exactly what Revelation says. Revelation 17 tells you who the Harlot or Women is. It does not say that she is a religious system, it says she is a city that rules over the earth. I am not buying the notion that Mystery Babylon is a religious system also. That is implying way beyond the ability to back up the claim with scripture that supports it. The city Mystery Babylon or Babylon the Great (same city) is a wicked city that has power over the world, and is not the same the Antichrist's One World Religion. That is not hard to understand. Do you get my point?

Gideon300
November 22nd, 2010, 05:35 PM
To start, I am supporting exactly what Revelation says. Revelation 17 tells you who the Harlot or Women is. It does not say that she is a religious system, it says she is a city that rules over the earth. I am not buying the notion that Mystery Babylon is a religious system also. That is implying way beyond the ability to back up the claim with scripture that supports it. The city Mystery Babylon or Babylon the Great (same city) is a wicked city that has power over the world, and is not the same the Antichrist's One World Religion. That is not hard to understand. Do you get my point?

The harlot is the false religious system. You can choose not to believe it, but the Old Testament is firm evidence that prostitution in this manor is referring to false religion/idol worship. Also, the beast the woman is riding is most likely a bull named Baal, the Old Testament idol:

Ezekiel 16: 20 “‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.

23 “‘Woe! Woe to you, declares the Sovereign LORD. In addition to all your other wickedness, 24 you built a mound for yourself and made a lofty shrine in every public square. 25 At every street corner you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, spreading your legs with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by.

http://www.raptureready.com/abc/harlot.html

ekassa1
November 22nd, 2010, 06:31 PM
The harlot is the false religious system. You can choose not to believe it, but the Old Testament is firm evidence that prostitution in this manor is referring to false religion/idol worship. Also, the beast the woman is riding is most likely a bull named Baal, the Old Testament idol:

Ezekiel 16: 20 “‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.

23 “‘Woe! Woe to you, declares the Sovereign LORD. In addition to all your other wickedness, 24 you built a mound for yourself and made a lofty shrine in every public square. 25 At every street corner you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, spreading your legs with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by.

http://www.raptureready.com/abc/harlot.html

Honestly, Revelation tells you who the harlot is. The beast the harlot is riding also explained. The beast is the 7 heads (Kings with Power) and 10 horns (kings who give power to the beast)....I suggest you read Revelation 17, because you are trying to assume things that the bible has already clarified. The Harlot is a city. This debate should not have lasted long as it has because I provided exactly what the bible says. You are implying things that are not even in Revelation. If you read Revelation 17 for what it says, you will understand.