Who is Mystery Babylon ?

[jasoncran]

smaller have you actually read the quran and what it said on christ(it denies his death) he didnt die. lol. you misunderstand what jews of today say compared to then, but i wouldnt know and care to ask and try to understand. so its all about satan, sorry. one can find God if he wants to.must persons dont .. and christ had this to say on that matter

matthew 13.

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

before you blame satan on this alone, God allows men to choose blindness, does he make you or anyone of us read his bible? nope. we choose to read and see what we want to. sadly God has to nudge us to his words often.

and uh how can islam be in the fold?

considering this verse from paul.
galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

and from the quran itsself that you cant deny.

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the plan of Jesus’ enemies to crucify him, but God saved him and raised him up to Him. And the likeness of Jesus was put over another man. Jesus’ enemies took this man and crucified him, thinking that he was Jesus. God has said:

They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)...

(Quran, 4:157)

from here. so that you cant say i made that up. their words not mine. that my friend is another gospel thus they that teach this are as paul said accursed. i pray for them to repent. its most forgivable.
Islam Guide: What Do Muslims Believe about Jesus?

 

[Elijah674]

I agree with this 100%. Cain in Gen. 4:7 was satan's first full/fledged convert. His DESIRE was now satan's ownership. And the last satanic ownership was already at work in Pauls day as you post, that of rome, the again anti/christ as seen in Dan. 2 + 7 & Rev. 13 as John was looking back in time in verses 1-3 +!

--Elijah
_________________________

Re: Who is Mystery Babylon ?

Originally Posted by savedbygrace57
Mystery Babylon is also the Mystery of Iniquity that Paul mentions here.

2 Thess 2:7

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

It began with cain and his self righteous works religion opposed to God revealed Religion in and through Jesus Christ the Lamb slain from the foundation Rev 13:8.



​

 

[reba]

Odd to me i cant find antichrist any where in Danial.

 

[jasoncran]

Odd to me i cant find antichrist any where in Danial.

the concept is. nor does one find the name jesus in the book of daniel either.

 

[reba]

the concept is. nor does one find the name jesus in the book of daniel either.

Agreed but you wont find me saying Jesus is.

 

[jasoncran]

Agreed but you wont find me saying Jesus is.

lol. the bible does mention that if you are preterist that the seventieth week being fulfilled and the oblations done and overwith. commonly amongst the preterist camp that is saying what JESUS did.

 

[reba]

lol. the bible does mention that if you are preterist

You have chapter and verse for that?



that the seventieth week being fulfilled and the oblations done and overwith. commonly amongst the preterist camp that is saying what JESUS did.

I know just being silly

 

[jasoncran]

i didnt realise i worded it that way with an unintentional pun.lol

 

[Hitch]

lol. the bible does mention that if you are preterist that the seventieth week being fulfilled and the oblations done and overwith. commonly amongst the preterist camp that is saying what JESUS did.

The concept office and person of Messiah is woven amongst the ancient scriptures from the beginning to the end, and always personalized. Antichrist is rendered 4 times in one apostolic letter and never personalized.

But you can find it, if you can locate the passage that says 'the great tribulation' ;its the one immediately following.

 

[jasoncran]

The concept office and person of Messiah is woven amongst the ancient scriptures from the beginning to the end, and always personalized. Antichrist is rendered 4 times in one apostolic letter and never personalized.

But you can find it, if you can locate the passage that says 'the great tribulation' ;its the one immediately following.

even as their is one antichrist there are many anti-christ.so satan being a spirit has no name or goal but is group of demons? really. so he isnt a being but a concept. interesting.


well being into the occult i disagree , funny i never go into any psychic camps or that stuff just did the mediation and read and did martial arts and yet i found myself in step with the concepts of most eastern thought or also those heavy into psychic stuff that fully understand and reasearched what i was "feeling and doing" tell me that isnt being directed by mastermind.

satan has is version of leading humans to hell as he copies Gods way of doing things. look at all the occult and new age and witchcrift religions and you will see that clearly. i can point to the idea "chi' in the roman myths and hindu ideas and also in daoism and other things yet these things didnt influence each other to my knowledge save the india to japan connection.

 

[Hitch]

even as their is one antichrist there are many anti-christ.so satan being a spirit has no name or goal but is group of demons? really. so he isnt a being but a concept. interesting.

LOL There arent any scriptures that say or indicate in any fashion that satan is antichrist as defined in John's letter,

well being into the occult i disagree ,

Who cares? This has nothing at all to do with antichrist as defined in John's letter

funny i never go into any psychic camps or that stuff just did the mediation and read and did martial arts and yet i found myself in step with the concepts of most eastern thought or also those heavy into psychic stuff that fully understand and reasearched what i was "feeling and doing" tell me that isnt being directed by mastermind.

satan has is version of leading humans to hell as he copies Gods way of doing things. look at all the occult and new age and witchcrift religions and you will see that clearly.

see above

i can point to the idea "chi' in the roman myths and hindu ideas and also in daoism and other things yet these things didnt influence each other to my knowledge save the india to japan connection.

 

[jasoncran]

LOL There arent any scriptures that say or indicate in any fashion that satan is antichrist as defined in John's letter, Who cares? This has nothing at all to do with antichrist as defined in John's letter see above

so a person cant be an antichrist.really, i can choose to hate God with all my might? hmm that by defition is what satan does. and people knowingly follow him.

lets see here. who says that person doesnt rise up and knowingly hates god and satan does use him. i do think that is possible.judas isachariot comes to mind. God said he hath a devil.

and alistair crowley.

King James Version (KJV)

one john

18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

now then if its satan , he is on the earth already and when John ere the fall of jerusalem let alone revalation wrote this surely they knew satan was on the earth doing this and also
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son

it depends how our bias is, if jason do that in verse 22 that makes me an anti-christ therefore its possible that a human can be an anti-christ.

but i have one more thing to post that hitch and reba will agree.

 

[jasoncran]

Better Pebbles
By: Roberto Rivera|Published: June 1, 2011 1:41 PM

Topics: History, Politics & Government, Religion & Society, Theology, Trends, Worldview


A teacher of mine once compared apocalyptic literature like the book of Revelation to a “pebble in a sneaker.†I don’t recall much more about the simile but I do recall that it struck me as apt at the time.

In any case, they don’t make pebbles like they used to.


Two recent stories brought the simile to mind. The first one was the whole media circus surrounding Harold Camping and May 21. By now you undoubtedly know the story, and if by some chance you don’t, I envy you.
Two things stood out amidst the coverage and the coverage of the coverage. The first is kind of personal: Camping and his network, Family Radio, were repeatedly referred as to “obscure†by both those covering the story and those critical of the coverage. Obviously, the people using that word didn’t grow up in the New York area, at least not when I did.
When I was growing up in the 1970s, “Family Radio†and “Christian radio†were synonymous. A staple of the network’s programming was a call-in show, one of the few on the air at the time, where the Truly Reformed Camping would argue with his non-Reformed, often Pentecostal, and equally often African-American and Latino listeners.
My late mother was taken aback by Camping’s dour persona: She would say things like “Roberto, a Camping le falta gozo.†(“Camping lacks joy.â€) That didn’t keep her from listening: Decades later, when she visited me here in Virginia, she would invariably ask “¿Roberto, me puedes poner Family Radio?†(“Can you turn on Family Radio?â€)
There’s plenty to criticize about the coverage, especially what the New Republic called its smugness and cruelty. And, yes, Camping’s following is small. But calling Camping “obscure†is not only factually questionable, it doesn’t help us to understand what is going on.
What’s going on is this: while Camping’s prediction for the 21st didn’t come to pass, the events of that day did fulfill an ancient prophecy, the one from the Book of Pythia. That one says, “All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.â€
The “this,†in this case, is millennialism. In 1844, the followers of William Miller anxiously awaited the Second Coming. Miller himself had predicted that it would occur “sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 22, 1844.†When the latter day came and went, one of Miller’s followers, Samuel Snow, armed with calculations based on Miller’s methodology, fixed the exact date for October 22, 1844.
Unlike recent events, this really was a big deal: Miller had as many as a million followers and, as Daniel Walker Howe documents in What Hath God Wrought, antebellum America was a place that took the Millennium seriously. In anticipation of October 22,

many Millerites declined to plant their fields in 1844, believing that the world would end before winter arrived. Of those who had planted in the spring, many left their crops to rot at harvest time, acknowledging before God that soon neither the righteous nor the damned would require earthly sustenance. Cattle and other farm animals were slaughtered to feed the hungry. Believers settled their worldly debts and gave the remainder of their money and property away, often to help their poorer brethren pay their bills. . . . In the final days before the expected end-time, families abandoned their homes and moved into churches, fields, and other communal places of worship to await judgment among the devout.
​

When October 22 also came and went, the response to the “Great Disappointment†was varied. Some people lost their faith altogether; others kept their Christian faith but lost faith in Miller and his followers; and still others came up with explanations for why Christ hadn’t visibly returned on October 22, the most popular being that his return had been a “spiritual one†and that “October 22 marked the day that Christ had assumed his place in the holiest compartment of the heavens, from whence he would begin judging conditions on earth in preparation for his return.†This explanation gave rise, among other things, to Seventh Day Adventism.
If some of the explanations sound familiar, that’s because we are already hearing similar explanations from Camping’s followers. But the similarity ends there: Nineteenth-century millennialism was a very different kind of beast than its contemporary counterpart.
The clearest difference can be seen in the response to the expectation of Christ’s imminent return: Taking the Millennium seriously meant making the world a place fit for Christ’s return. Much of the meliorist impulse in American Christianity, and by extension in American culture, originated in these expectations and the sense of urgency they created.
For these folks, abolishing slavery, founding schools, feeding the poor, reforming prisons, and a host of other causes that later came to be associated with progressivism was a way of, in Howe’s words, “remaking the world†and “bringing it into conformity with God’s will.†Charles Finney “told his congregation that if evangelicals applied themselves fully to the works of mission and reform they could bring about the millennium within three years.â€
However odd this may sound, it’s a kind of “win-win.†Even if the millennium didn’t come about, you were still living in a better world.
They don’t make pebbles like they used to.
The other big story with what you might call a “chiliasm ghost†was the reaction to president Obama’s speech in which he declared that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps.†As Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out in the Atlantic, there was nothing in Obama’s speech that couldn’t have been said by George W. Bush or any of his predecessors.
Still, it’s easy to understand why Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the idea: He has never really bought into the “two state†solution and, as opposition leader Tzipi Livni rightly pointed out, his response was also dictated by the demands of his governing coalition partners.
What’s, sadly, equally easy to understand is why so many American Christians joined Netanyahu -- actually, one-upped him -- in his criticism of the president’s statement and, in effect, staked out a more maximalist position than the majority of Israelis, not to mention American Jews.
It’s not the whole Genesis 12 -- “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse†-- thing: Presumably the aforementioned Israelis and American Jews bless Israel and, besides, you can bless people without agreeing to every territorial demand they make.
No, the reasons lie in dispensational premillennialism and the importance it attaches to the state of Israel. Just as Finney thought that the wholehearted commitment to reform and mission could bring about the millennium, people today believe that by creating the biggest Israel, both size and population-wise, we can somehow hasten the Second Coming.
It’s a remarkably ahistorical and idiosyncratic position. In more than nineteen centuries of Christian reflection on eschatology, the idea of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, much less one encompassing what Likud and other Israeli maximalists called the “Whole Land of Israel,†was never considered to be the sine qua non for the fulfillment of God’s ultimate purposes.
The Six Day War changed this for a significant number of American Christians. Prior to the war, American policy towards the Middle East was one of neutrality towards the principals in the Arab-Israeli conflict. France, not America, was Israel’s most reliable ally: The IDF flew Mirages, not Phantoms, when it achieved air superiority on June 6, and Israel’s nuclear program was made possible by a nuclear plant built by the French.

 

[jasoncran]

After the Six Day War, American policy tilted more towards Israel, mostly out of Cold War considerations. And the aforementioned Christians saw Israel’s victory, especially its capture of the Temple Mount, as portentous.
Not coincidentally, the years immediately following the Six Day War were the golden age of what I’ll politely call “speculative eschatology.†New William Millers appeared among us, differing from the original in one important respect: Miller admitted that he had been wrong while they proceeded (and continue to proceed) as if they hadn’t been consistently wrong in all their predictions. (“Russia is a Gog,†anyone?).
If all that had come out of this was bad theology and even worse fiction, that would have been plenty. Unfortunately, the impact went beyond the publishing realm into the political one. As Gershom Gorenberg put it, Israel “through no choice of its own†was cast “in a starring role in a Christian Endtime drama.â€
To make sure the show goes off as planned, the new Millerites are trying to shape to shape American foreign policy and when that doesn’t work, bypass it altogether and take sides in Israel’s famously contentious politics.
More than twenty years ago, a septuagenarian gentleman of my acquaintance wrote a book called Kingdoms in Conflict. In it, he tells the story about zealots plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock, an act that would set the region on fire and have catastrophic repercussions around the world. The American president knows this but is torn because his beliefs see this as hastening the second coming of Christ.
The gentleman and his co-author used the story as a springboard to discuss the relationship between “power, politics and the pulpit.†For me, it’s a fanciful -- albeit not nearly as fanciful as the theology being described -- reminder of where millenarianism can lead: If you’re really fortunate, you wind up with a better world; if you’re merely fortunate, you wind up with disappointed people with egg on their faces; and if you’re not fortunate at all, then let’s just say Amazon might need to re-classify Kingdoms in Conflict.*
We really need better pebbles.


THIS MAKES A GOOD CASE. I CAN SEE THIS CLEARLY.:bigfrowni have heard that from the old pre-tribbers , it never made sense but i do recall.

 

[jasoncran]

hal lindsey et all gotta love em:bigfrown

 

[smaller]

Do you even understand the significance of the forehead to the Jews???

I'd appreciate you addressing me in posts.

Yes, I do. What they took literally was meant for inner application. Tying the Word at the wrist or forehead didn't seem to work well on the outside of the cup.

It's significance is found in the OT in several passages!!!

I know my way around the text, thank you.

The sign "on the forehead" was to remind the people that they were consecrated to God because of what He did for them by brining them out of Egypt!

Part of that, yeah. But the ultimate 'bringing out' is the release from sins. What they did on the outside was a foretaste of what was to come. Some of that working still remains to come. The biggest portion. I don't suppose you may be familiar with that working as presented in both O.T. and N.T?

Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

That working did NOT transpire in 70 A.D. It is yet to come. Reiterated again here:

Ezekiel 34:
29 And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.
30 Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD.
31 And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.

and here:

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

God Himself WILL do as He has said.

It's the identical promise to the N.T. Christian:

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

No man, no Jew, no Gentile 'makes God' do that. The fullness of this event has yet to transpire.

What God told the priests to wear on the forehead was a sign that they were consecrated to God and that whatever they consecrated would likewise be consecrated to Him!!!

There is also very sound reasonings on 'why' that didn't happen in full as shown above.

Romans 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.

and here:

Hosea 5:4
They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not known the LORD.

They did not know the full plan of God nor could they. God Himself saw to that, that the Gentiles would be therein grafted. The same falling away of the Jews has also gradually enveloped the N.T. churches as well. The workings of God are no different now with Gentiles than they were then with Jews.

ALL will fall in judgment, exactly as Paul wrote:

Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Every Word of God is for all men, and that is on both sides of the ledgers, good and bad.

When the priests refused to recognize Jesus as Messiah - when they refused to consecrate Him as Lord, that is to recognize Him as sent by God - they set themselves against God and the covenant! The mark on their forehead - which had signified their consecration now signified the profane!!! That is what John is telling us in Revelation!!!

You might consider sometime a fact that Paul taught about all unbelievers:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I do not blame any man for the spirit of slumber that God has intentionally placed upon them. Do you even know 'how' that happens? I doubt it.

Again, all these signs - on the hand and forehead - were to remind the people of whom they served and who set them free from the bondage of Egypt! When they rejected Christ - the one and self-same God who did that for them - the mark they bore on the forehead - much like Cain's - indicated to God that they no longer loved, served, or chose to be consecrated to Him!!!

Cain was no different than any blinded sinner:

1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Sinners who blame only man are blind to the obvious in themselves. There is another party in play in all these matters, and that would be the devil and his messengers. In fact where IS your accounting of all those facts. I could list several pages of scriptures citing on these exact matters and showing that operation to be within 'all' mankind inclusive of believers and Jews.

Those who think they have any kind of grips on these matters and are factually missing the largest component in all of the matters of judgment are in fact blind.

In other words, refusing to bow to Christ and choosing to bow to Caesar ("We have no king but Caesar") meant they accepted the mark of a false god on their foreheads.

The wicked one(s) will never bow, and that operation is within all mankind.

They turned from their true savior and accepted a false one instead! That's why those who "took the mark of the beast" on the hand or forehead were doomed! This meant they embraced the idols of pagan Rome over the deity of Christ!!!

This is the significance of the mark on the forehead!!!

Try? I know my Word quite well. Well enough to reject most of your theories.

enjoy!

s

 

[reba]

hal lindsey et all gotta love em:bigfrown

No i dont

 

[Hitch]

so a person cant be an antichrist

I wonder how you got that idiotic notion from what I posted care to explain that or just admit you made it up as a another of your deceptive diversions ? No quit saying you gave up the dark arts if you're going to continue making trash up

.really, i can choose to hate God with all my might? hmm that by defition is what satan does. and people knowingly follow him.

And another defintion that has no connection to John's letter, ho hum .

lets see here. who says that person doesnt rise up and knowingly hates god and satan does use him. i do think that is possible.judas isachariot comes to mind. God said he hath a devil.

and alistair crowley.

King James Version (KJV)

one john

18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

now then if its satan , he is on the earth already and when John ere the fall of jerusalem let alone revalation wrote this surely they knew satan was on the earth doing this and also
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son

it depends how our bias is, if jason do that in verse 22 that makes me an anti-christ therefore its possible that a human can be an anti-christ.

You are pathetic.

but i have one more thing to post that hitch and reba will agree.

 

[jasoncran]

you win your debate, funny i am engaging two other pre-tribbers and throwing problems at them yet niether of them are doing what you do. odd.

and i use your arguments and also stormcrows.

may i ask why do you have a bone to pick on pre-tribbers? it appears personal. not something of just trying to correct brethren or maybe i am confused with your style. do clarify.

 

[Stormcrow]

by smaller:

But that sentiment runs pretty hot, specially in the anti-semetic crowds.

And that would be just another anti-Jew opinion.

I deeply resent the implication in these two statements that those who disagree with "smaller" are nothing more than anti-Semites. This is not just deplorable but defamatory!!!

Please, mods...stop this!