PDA

View Full Version : Is Mecca the Great Harlot of Revelation 17?



Richard Amiel McGough
10-08-2008, 09:05 PM
I received an email suggesting that Mecca was the Great Harlot of Revelation 17:

if anyone would like to take a gander at this research, we might all see that Mecca is the woman that sits on the scarlet beast in Revelation17
Included in the email was a link to this page:

http://meccasevenmountains.blogspot.com/
Here is how I responded:

Hey there J,

We have spent a lot of time discussing the identity of 'Mystery Babylon' from Rev 17-18 on my forum www.biblewheel.com/forum (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum). You are most welcome to share your views with us there. We have come to a rather different conclusion than you. It seems exceedingly clear to many of us that 'Mystery Babylon' was a symbol for apostate first century Jerusalem. Her destruction in 70 AD fulfilled the words of Christ when He condemned them and said that they would be held accountable for all the blood of the saints. This was fulfilled in Rev 18:24 'And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.' Another big 'clue' is the fact that the Bible connects 'purple and scarlet' with two and only two groups in the Bible 1) The Levitical Priesthood, and 2) the Great Harlot.

Richard
Here is the response I received from J:

I see what you are saying sir. What I would like to say is you have to remember that the ten horns on the beast will hate the harlot burn her with fire and eat her flesh right? We know in the passage you are referring to it is talking about 10 horns or kings that have received no kingdom yet correct? but we see when the beast comes out of the sea, the horns on the beast have crowns correct? so whoever those kings are that received no kingdom yet, received them, the crowns being evidence correct? So when these kings receive power for one hour as kings with the beast, then we will see the harlot destroyed correct? one of the angels that had the seven bowls described all of this to John correct? This angel also said that the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; because they will make war with the lamb correct? After the beast rises out of the sea, and the beast out of the earth who puts into effect the mark of the beast, you will see how the Lamb overcomes them with seven bowls of wrath. Then finally, we don't know when; Jesus returns and captures the beast and the false prophet, and casts them alive into the lake of fire, and they are overcome correct? isn't this the same beast that has the ten horns, and these horns will hate the harlot because they want to give their kingdom to the beast? And shortly after this happens, satan is bound for a thousand years correct? So, if Jerusalem was this harlot, then when did the Lord return and capture the beast and false prophet and cast them alive into the lake of fire? and when was satan bound? when did the thousand year reign begin and end? And when were the bowls of wrath poured out on the Earth? we know the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if what was portrayed and recorded in the Old Testament is to be believed and is true; then assuredly what is predicted that will happen when those seven bowls are poured out on the Earth will happen to a definite. I know that has not happened yet. I understand your reasoning about the blood of the saints and the prophets being shed by Jerusalem, but if they believed, Jesus would have not allowed judgment to fall on them. He said they would be held accountable for everything because they did not believe. And to say that they are responsible for all the blood of the saints and prophets these days doesn't seem right. More people have died in the last century for the Name of Jesus, than all of history... and when does God destroy someone for not committing the act, even if they are not alive to hate future generations? And the final thing I will point out is this: the beast that carries the woman, that John saw, "is not", when John saw that beast. The beast was, and is not, and will come. And we can see the beast that comes out of the sea receives a fatal wound; the beast John saw (the scarlet beast) was said to be coming out of the abyss and will go to destruction according to the angel correct? Could that head be... "is not, and will come" due to a fatal wound? I believe so. (and remember this beast is himself the eighth king, and is one of the seven) Was, and is not, and will come. Where do you find an abyss? In the sea? but don't think that only by this simple definition it is explained, but is rather part of it, because of the angel saying the horns are ten kings that have received no kingdom yet, and that makes sense because the scarlet beast with ten horns did not have crowns, but when this beast ascends the abyss, and comes out of the sea, the ten horns have crowns, and the crowns being evidence that whoever those ten kings are that have received no kingdom yet have received them; the crowns being evidence.

So, just shooting the breeze :O)

if you would still like to see the research, go ahead and click below, I think it is still there. There is even a second and third section to it, the second being conclusive about the rapture, or being gathered together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and the third section is a detailed Gospel message, you can use to examine yourself, or download and print to share, or whatever you want to do. :O)

Have a wonderful day :O)

in Christ Jesus, the Son of our Father, who came in the flesh and bore our iniquities on the Cross, purchasing us with His precious blood, dying and rising again on the third day, so that we might be justified solely in Him and Him alone for our salvation, righteousness, and everlasting life, that we can know the One True God and Jesus the Christ whom He sent forever and ever, Mark 14:1-9, Acts 2:37-38. Amen.
I will now respond to the many points raised:

What I would like to say is you have to remember that the ten horns on the beast will hate the harlot burn her with fire and eat her flesh right? Yes, and that is exactly what happened when the Roman Beast turned and destroyed the Harlot Jerusalem that had been riding it.

We know in the passage you are referring to it is talking about 10 horns or kings that have received no kingdom yet correct? No, I don't see it that way at all. The Beast with 10 horns/kings was a reference to the 10 ceasars of the first century Roman Empire.

So when these kings receive power for one hour as kings with the beast, then we will see the harlot destroyed correct? Yes, that is what we see when we look at the history of the first century destruction of Jerusalem.

This angel also said that the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; because they will make war with the lamb correct? Yes, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, and He overcame and judged His enemies when He destroyed Jerusalem with the Roman legions.

So, if Jerusalem was this harlot, then when did the Lord return and capture the beast and false prophet and cast them alive into the lake of fire? and when was satan bound? when did the thousand year reign begin and end?
The "binding of Satan" happened at the Cross, and then he was released a "little while" to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then he was destroyed in the Lake of Fire.

And when were the bowls of wrath poured out on the Earth? The Bible doesn't say anything about the "bowls of wrath" being poured out on Planet Earth. The word "gey" means "land" in that context, specifically, the land of Israel and the surrounding nations in the middle east.

we know the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if what was portrayed and recorded in the Old Testament is to be believed and is true; then assuredly what is predicted that will happen when those seven bowls are poured out on the Earth will happen to a definite. Absolutely correct. It happened in the first century precisely as predicted.

And to say that they are responsible for all the blood of the saints and prophets these days doesn't seem right. Are you saying that you disagree with the judgment proclaimed by the Lord Jesus Christ against apostate first century Jerusalem? Here is the exact quote:

Matthew 23:33-36 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
What more need be said. The fulfillment of this prophecy is given in Revelation 18:24:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
And there is much other evidence that apostate Jerusalem was the "Great Harlot" of Revelation 17-18.

Well, that's a good start for this conversation. There are more than a few folks who are identifying modern Islam as the "beast" and or "harlot" - and that raises a very significant question. What does Mecca have to do with the Biblical image of a "harlot" which is a symbol of God's covenant people gone astray after "strange gods." Islam was never "God's covenant people." And besides that, if Mecca is the "Harlot" then who is the "Beast?"

I have invited "J" to come and discuss these issues with us. I hope he will.

Richard

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 12:25 AM
RE: Is Mecca the Great Harlot of Revelation 17?

[/INDENT]I will now respond to the many points raised:

What I would like to say is you have to remember that the ten horns on the beast will hate the harlot burn her with fire and eat her flesh right? Yes, and that is exactly what happened when the Roman Beast turned and destroyed the Harlot Jerusalem that had been riding it.

We know in the passage you are referring to it is talking about 10 horns or kings that have received no kingdom yet correct? No, I don't see it that way at all. The Beast with 10 horns/kings was a reference to the 10 ceasars of the first century Roman Empire.

First century Roman Empire?

Revelation 17:12

The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.

O.k. so here we see that the ten horns which John saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for on hour with the beast.

What you are saying is that the 10 caesars of the first century Roman Empire are these ten horns.

What i see are ten kings who give their kingdom to the beast, who is also a king, an eighth king to be precise.

Revelation 17:9-11

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So we see this beast that is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

i see the beast as an eighth king; and i notice you see the beast as a kingdom. i see the beast as a king with a kingdom, but is still a king not a kingdom.

so if the beast is of the seven, and is himself the eighth king, then it makes sense that when the beast comes out of the sea for him to have seven heads.

Why? because he is of the seven, and an eighth king, this is the only way he has seven heads, because there are seven total, though he is the eighth; he has seven heads including his head. Now if there were eight individual kings, then there would be 8 heads but there isn't, there are seven, and the beast that is not, and is one of the seven, just so happens to be the eighth. Which i believe he is the head that receives the fatal wound that is healed and comes to life.


So when these kings receive power for one hour as kings with the beast, then we will see the harlot destroyed correct? Yes, that is what we see when we look at the history of the first century destruction of Jerusalem.

This angel also said that the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; because they will make war with the lamb correct? Yes, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, and He overcame and judged His enemies when He destroyed Jerusalem with the Roman legions.

So, if Jerusalem was this harlot, then when did the Lord return and capture the beast and false prophet and cast them alive into the lake of fire? and when was satan bound? when did the thousand year reign begin and end?
The "binding of Satan" happened at the Cross, and then he was released a "little while" to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then he was destroyed in the Lake of Fire.

Ok here is an area i want to be very delicate about. i see that you said that "the " "binding of Satan" " happened at the Cross, and then he was released a "little while" to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then he was destroyed in the lake of fire"

Revelation 20:7-9

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

So i see here that the beloved city here was not destroyed, but fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them; those that surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Notice it does not say whore, but "beloved city".

And when did fire come down from God out of heaven? (in regards to this scenerio)



And when were the bowls of wrath poured out on the Earth? The Bible doesn't say anything about the "bowls of wrath" being poured out on Planet Earth. The word "gey" means "land" in that context, specifically, the land of Israel and the surrounding nations in the middle east.

but these bowls of wrath, and the return of the Lord is how the Lamb overcomes the beast.


we know the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if what was portrayed and recorded in the Old Testament is to be believed and is true; then assuredly what is predicted that will happen when those seven bowls are poured out on the Earth will happen to a definite. Absolutely correct. It happened in the first century precisely as predicted.


O.k. So what you are saying is this:

Revelation 16:2

2 So the first went and poured out his bowl upon the earth, and a foul and loathsome sore came upon the men who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.


When did the institution of the mark of the beast become fulfilled? And when was there an image erected for worship; an image that was given breath to speak and cause as many who would not worship the image to be killed? Rev 13:15?

Revelation 16:3

3 Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living creature in the sea died.

When did that happen?

Revelation 16:4

4 Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood.

When did that happen?

Revelation 16:8-9

8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.

When did this happen?

Revelation 16:10-11

10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain. 11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.

When did this happen?

Revelation 16:12

12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared.

When was the great river Euphrates ever dried up? I am pretty sure it still has water running to this day.

Revelation 16:17-21

17 Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, "It is done!" 18 And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth. 19 Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. 20 Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.

And as far as i can see, islands and mountains are still around. And if there was ever such a hail storm, it would have been recorded outside the Bible.

And it also goes into saying that Babylon was remembered before God, to give here the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. And in chapter 17, one of angels with the seven bowls came and spoke to John about the judgment of the great harlot that sits on many waters, after the judgment was seen to have come to pass in Revelation 16. the angel was merely going into greater detail about the woman and the beast that carries her.

And to say that they are responsible for all the blood of the saints and prophets these days doesn't seem right. Are you saying that you disagree with the judgment proclaimed by the Lord Jesus Christ against apostate first century Jerusalem? Here is the exact quote:

Matthew 23:33-36 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
What more need be said. The fulfillment of this prophecy is given in Revelation 18:24:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
And there is much other evidence that apostate Jerusalem was the "Great Harlot" of Revelation 17-18.

i am pretty sure Jesus is talking about all occurances in the Old Testament of prophets etc etc etc, whom she murdered, and even after disciples, and apostles came and some they gave to be crucified.

And if Jerusalem is the harlot, who are the seven kings? i know that Rome had more than seven kings, and all were different.

Well, that's a good start for this conversation. There are more than a few folks who are identifying modern Islam as the "beast" and or "harlot" - and that raises a very significant question. What does Mecca have to do with the Biblical image of a "harlot" which is a symbol of God's covenant people gone astray after "strange gods." Islam was never "God's covenant people." And besides that, if Mecca is the "Harlot" then who is the "Beast?"

Today, if you have researched Mecca, and the Islamic influence, you would know they severely persecute Christians and behead them all over the place.

Today in Saudi Arabia, five kings have fallen and one is. This would be the precise time John saw the woman and the beast that carries her.

The third king, king Faisel was assassinated, shot in head or face three times. ( you asked who the beast was, and is not, didn't you?)

Mecca's port Jidda, is the wealthiest city in the middle east, and western asia.

Mecca sits around and on seven mountains.

The woman is said to rule over the kings of the Earth.. if you have noticed, most nations these days that are ruled by kings, are Islamic nations.

It says rules over the kings of the Earth, not presidents and prime ministers, etc.

Iraq, where Babylon is, is Islamic.

Mecca is the Islamic Capital of the world. No wonder it is written on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great..."

I don't know if you have studied Zechariah Chapter 5, but it talks about a woman in a basket that is flown to the land of Shinar. Shinar is translated as Babylonia. And it goes on to say they will build a temple or house for the basket, and when the temple is ready they will put the basket on it's pedestal or base.

What do you say? Mystery solved?

The Kaaba in Mecca fits this description perfectly. It is a cuboidial building on a marble base, and a woman or city surrounds it, and goes in and out of it. The temple was built around the original Kaaba in Mecca.

If you look in an illustrated Bible dictionary you will see that in ancient Babylon, their borders at one time included this part of Arabia, or Makkah province.

Some people call Islam the beast, but i will stay with the bible and say the beast is a king, an eighth king.

five have fallen, one is....

And the king that is now the sixth, because five have fallen already in Saudi Arabia and one is; the one that is, the sixth, is king Abdullah and he is 84 years old... so buckle your seat belt, when other has come, he will remain a short space, or time. And we know the beast is one of the seven, and is the eighth king. And i already showed you which, and the only which received a fatal wound. (Revelation 17:10-11, Revelation 13:1)

i hope you read the research that you re-posted, there may be a few other things i have not mentioned.

you see i am really not here to prove a point, i am here to warn and alert you.

I have invited "J" to come and discuss these issues with us. I hope he will.

Richard[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the invitation :yo:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2008, 08:05 AM
Hello BlazyJon!

Welcome to our forum.

:welcome:

I am very glad you have come to discuss the Bible with us.




First century Roman Empire?

Revelation 17:12

The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.

O.k. so here we see that the ten horns which John saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for on hour with the beast.

What you are saying is that the 10 caesars of the first century Roman Empire are these ten horns.

What i see are ten kings who give their kingdom to the beast, who is also a king, an eighth king to be precise.

Revelation 17:9-11

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So we see this beast that is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

[B]i see the beast as an eighth king; and i notice you see the beast as a kingdom. i see the beast as a king with a kingdom, but is still a king not a kingdom.

so if the beast is of the seven, and is himself the eighth king, then it makes sense that when the beast comes out of the sea for him to have seven heads.

Why? because he is of the seven, and an eighth king, this is the only way he has seven heads, because there are seven total, though he is the eighth; he has seven heads including his head. Now if there were eight individual kings, then there would be 8 heads but there isn't, there are seven, and the beast that is not, and is one of the seven, just so happens to be the eighth. Which i believe he is the head that receives the fatal wound that is healed and comes to life.

I think most folks would agree that the precise meaning of the "the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven" is too vague to use as a starting point of any interpretation of Revelation. I'm not certain what it means, and I'm not sure what you meant by your explanation either. And as I'm sure you know, there have been wide variety of attempts to explain it, so I think we will need to establish the "Big Picture" of the overall meaning of Revelation before trying to interpret that enigmatic passage.

But I think there is a problem with one specific point in you interpretation (which I highlighted red bold) - the "Beast" is represented as the corporate power with the the seven heads being seven kings. How, therefore, can we identify the eighth king/head with the beast itself? It seems to me that the Beast represents the power given the Roman government by the Dragon and the seven heads are seven ceasars.





The "binding of Satan" happened at the Cross, and then he was released a "little while" to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then he was destroyed in the Lake of Fire.

Ok here is an area i want to be very delicate about. i see that you said that "the " "binding of Satan" " happened at the Cross, and then he was released a "little while" to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and then he was destroyed in the lake of fire"

Revelation 20:7-9

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

So i see here that the beloved city here was not destroyed, but fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them; those that surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Notice it does not say whore, but "beloved city".

Again, the meaning of Rev 20 is highly disputed and will remain so until we get a solid understanding of the main and plain things of Revelation. Its obscurity precludes it as a proper "starting point" of any interpretation.

In my efforts to understand Revelation, I look to see how it is integrated with the rest of Scripture. The results are extremly satisfying in that the pieces really seem to fit together well. I begin with the first verses which tell us that the symbols of Revelation represent events that would happen "soon" in the first century because "the time was at hand." This is confirmed by all the writers of the NT who all said that the "end times" was happening in the first century. It is confirmed again by Christ in the Olivet Discourse which is commonly known as the "little apocalypse" because of it's tight integration with Revelation. So to understand all these things, we must begin with the foundation of Scripture, and accept (in our first attempt to interpret at least) only those things we can know with certainty and without any speculation. I'm talking about the things that we can confirm by the plain and clear meaning of other passages.



The Bible doesn't say anything about the "bowls of wrath" being poured out on Planet Earth. The word "gey" means "land" in that context, specifically, the land of Israel and the surrounding nations in the middle east.

but these bowls of wrath, and the return of the Lord is how the Lamb overcomes the beast.

The bowls of wrath represent the wrath of God poured out on apostated Jerusalem in the first century. But we need to be careful about the words we use. That event was the COMING of the Lord (parousia) - the word "return" is not used in the Bible. It carries connotations that confuse a lot of people.



O.k. So what you are saying is this:

Revelation 16:2

2 So the first went and poured out his bowl upon the earth, and a foul and loathsome sore came upon the men who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.

When did the institution of the mark of the beast become fulfilled? And when was there an image erected for worship; an image that was given breath to speak and cause as many who would not worship the image to be killed? Rev 13:15?

Many folks think the image represents the cult of ceasar worship. The "mark" is a symbol that is equal and opposite to the "Father's Name" that marked the believers in the forehead.



Revelation 16:3

3 Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living creature in the sea died.

When did that happen?



That was a symbol of God pouring out His wrath just like all the similar symbols we see in the Old Testament. For example, consider these words of King David:
2 Samuel 22:9-11 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. 11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. When did those things "really" happen? Never! They are symbols of God acting on behalf of David and Israel. Without this knowledge of the Biblical language, Revelation will remain a "sealed book."



And as far as i can see, islands and mountains are still around. And if there was ever such a hail storm, it would have been recorded outside the Bible.

John saw the "heaven and earth" flee in a VISION. The purpose of visions from God is to communicate truth in symbolic form. For example, when He called Jeremiah, He gave him a vision of an "almond branch" and then told him it was a symbol of His Word. Nobody thinks that we should see literal almond branches. The symbols in the visions are symbols. They represent real events, but the actual events that happen do not actually "look like" the symbols used to represent them.



Today, if you have researched Mecca, and the Islamic influence, you would know they severely persecute Christians and behead them all over the place.


I agree completely. But the same is true of the way the first century unbelieving Jews treated the first century Christian Jews. And we know that this is the meaning of the persecution in Revelation becauase Christ Himself warned His first century followers that they would be persecuted by their unbelieving country men in the first century:
Luke 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. I don't think any Christians have been brought up to any "Saudi synagogues" to be persecuted for their testimony of Christ. Jesus was warning about what was going to happen to His followers during the 40 years before He brought His judgment down upon apostate Jerusalem.



Today in Saudi Arabia, five kings have fallen and one is. This would be the precise time John saw the woman and the beast that carries her.

But why should we think John was given a vision about the 21st century? He said at the very beginning that the events in the vision were going to happen then, in the first century, for the "time is at hand." And what possible meaning could there be if Revelation is really about Islam? Islam has never been in a covenant relationship with God, so what does it have to do with the "Big Picture" of Biblical prophecy which is all about the establishment of the New Covenant and the victory of Christ over the world which He accomplished on the Cross and ratified in the destruction of the Old Covenant carnal Temple and carnal Jerusalem (then replaced by the New Jerusalem)?



The third king, king Faisel was assassinated, shot in head or face three times. ( you asked who the beast was, and is not, didn't you?)

Mecca's port Jidda, is the wealthiest city in the middle east, and western asia.

Mecca sits around and on seven mountains.

But Rome was known as the city on seven hills in the first century, so it makes perfect sense to understand Rome as the Beast that was "riden" by the Harlot Jerusalem when she was in cahoots with that political power, and used it to first murder Christ and then torment His followers.



Thank you for the invitation :yo:
I am very glad you have come to discuss this important and very interesting study. I look forward to further conversations.

Many blessings, my new friend,

Richard

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Tell me friend, what does this mean to you?

Isaiah 46:8-10

8 "Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

Does God change?

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2008, 09:47 AM
Tell me friend, what does this mean to you?

Isaiah 46:8-10

8 "Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

Does God change?
Hey there BlazyJon.

I am sure we agree that God does not change. It is good to start with small, individual points like that (rather than very long posts with lots of points) so that we can find the foundation upon which we agree. This then will make it much easier to clarify the things that are less certain.

So let me ask you a question - do you have a "Big Picture" view of what Revelation is really all about? Is it integrated with the rest of the Bible? How do you think it would have been understood by the first century Christians to whom it was addressed?

I know that's more than one question - but there really is "one point" that I am trying to focus upon. It is the point from which our interpretation begins. What does the text really say, and how would it have been understood by those who received it?

Many blessings,

Richard

TheForgiven
10-09-2008, 10:56 AM
Hey there BlazyJon.

I am sure we agree that God does not change. It is good to start with small, individual points like that (rather than very long posts with lots of points) so that we can find the foundation upon which we agree. This then will make it much easier to clarify the things that are less certain.

So let me ask you a question - do you have a "Big Picture" view of what Revelation is really all about? Is it integrated with the rest of the Bible? How do you think it would have been understood by the first century Christians to whom it was addressed?

I know that's more than one question - but there really is "one point" that I am trying to focus upon. It is the point from which our interpretation begins. What does the text really say, and how would it have been understood by those who received it?
Many blessings,

Richard

My first century glasses might be old, but it's more effective in blocking those very bright sun rays; these are also great night vision goggles? :D


Friends, my post above may be somewhat humorous, but it was with a good reason. Revelation was a letter delivered to seven churches more than 2000 years ago, to prepare them for very difficult times. It's important that we lay aside our modern day theories, and try every way possible, to discern what the early Church thought of Revelation.

You'll find in your studies that the Early Church didn't have all the answers. At the same time, we have very little of what the early Church thought, as it seems most of the writings of the first century (other than the NT Epistles) are nearly non-existant until the early 2nd century. I find this quite curious, to say the least. Why was there such an absense of writings after 70AD?

My other point was to show how figures of speech can offer truth when you understand the metaphors. But obviously, taking my statement literally would not seem correct, for there's no such thing as a literal pair of first century glasses. What did I mean when I spoke of bright sun rays, and night vision? Quite simply this. The sun rays are a representation of John's letter. The words are so symbolic that it is impossible to understand them, without divine permission from the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit will shine within you, and give you the answers, but only in time, as God permits. Lastly, the night vision is the same; the glasses permit you to see through darkness, figuratively speaking.

This may have been a poor illustration of my point, but I tried to speak down-to-earth, again, figuratively speaking. :lol: I know, I know....we can talk metaphor's all day.

So when ever you're ready folks, let's dig into the awesome mysteries of God's word, and enjoy a great discussion on the most mysterious letter ever written....The Revelation of Jesus Christ

Joe

TheForgiven
10-09-2008, 11:14 AM
I received an email suggesting that Mecca was the Great Harlot of Revelation 17:
if anyone would like to take a gander at this research, we might all see that Mecca is the woman that sits on the scarlet beast in Revelation17

I myself would have a difficult time accepting that. For the "woman" was considered a Harlot. A Harlot is someone who sells herself in fornication, in for profit. Mecca does not do this, nor is anyone outside of Mecca attracted to its religion. The Islamic religion offers no love, no joy, and no peace of mind. It is symbolic of slavery, just as the Jews (of the flesh) lived, each day of their lives. Yet what man is without sin? Who could live under the strict and harsh conditions of the Law, and it's works, which taught them (Jews) to refrain from certain meats, and other sacraments that were a picture of what was to come, and not the reality in itself. Those were things pointing them (and us) to Christ. For Christ is our pass-over lamb, He is our Sabbath day, our mourning and fasting when we sin, when we suffer, and our feast when we share all things in common; additionally, we are His temple, wherein all sacrifices (gifts of love) are provided to those in need, so that the scripture is fulfilled when it says:

He who gathered too much, did not have too much...
He who gathered too little, had no lack...

Christ is the fulfillment of all the works and requirements of the Law, just as I've shown you. Nearly every single picture in the Old Testament points to one Man, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Lord All Mighty, and the Ever Lasting Wonderful, and Counselor; additionally, we abide within His government. For, "The Government shall be placed upon His Shoulders", and we do not regret it by any means.

It is the government, and/or religion of Christ Jesus we embrace, and that offers much more than Mecca. I see no point in history that the Muslim religion offers itself for sell to its lovers...figuratively speaking...nor is she even close to being attractive for purchase....again, figuratively speaking.

In fact, people are often threatened to become Muslim. Was it not the Terrorist's who said, "America must submit to Islam, or die..."?

Therefore, I do not see Mecca fitting the figure of the woman; Mecca, if it is to be a female in figure, has a TERRIBLE figure. She's ugly, to say the least. :eek: But we have no reason to fear....

Probably the most important fact is that the Beast is often depicted to be Rome, whether first century, or future. Yet I'm pretty sure that the RCC will never submit to Islam....not even the slightest chance of that happening. The RCC will not even agree to join with other Churches outside of theirs? So why would they join with Islam, considering they faught very hard against each other during the crusades.....unless you're referring to that point of time. But not even during those days, were they ever considered friends (Islam riding the Roman Catholic Church). I, therefore, do not agree, although it is interesting.

I'd like to hear more on this.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2008, 11:21 AM
My first century glasses might be old, but it's more effective in blocking those very bright sun rays; these are also great night vision goggles? :D

Friends, my post above may be somewhat humorous, but it was with a good reason. Revelation was a letter delivered to seven churches more than 2000 years ago, to prepare them for very difficult times. It's important that we lay aside our modern day theories, and try every way possible, to discern what the early Church thought of Revelation.

Hey there brother Joe!

Good to see you dropped in with your wise words. I agree completely. We must begin with what we know for sure - the written Word. The accumulation of two millennia of speculations has confused almost everybody.




You'll find in your studies that the Early Church didn't have all the answers. At the same time, we have very little of what the early Church thought, as it seems most of the writings of the first century (other than the NT Epistles) are nearly non-existant until the early 2nd century. I find this quite curious, to say the least. Why was there such an absense of writings after 70AD?

I have wondered about the same thing. We have all the Scriptures written before 70 AD, and then BOOM - almost complete silence for decades. Very strange indeed.



My other point was to show how figures of speech can offer truth when you understand the metaphors. But obviously, taking my statement literally would not seem correct, for there's no such thing as a literal pair of first century glasses. What did I mean when I spoke of bright sun rays, and night vision? Quite simply this. The sun rays are a representation of John's letter. The words are so symbolic that it is impossible to understand them, without divine permission from the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit will shine within you, and give you the answers, but only in time, as God permits. Lastly, the night vision is the same; the glasses permit you to see through darkness, figuratively speaking.

This may have been a poor illustration of my point, but I tried to speak down-to-earth, again, figuratively speaking. :lol: I know, I know....we can talk metaphor's all day.

Your explanation of metaphors by using metaphors is brilliant. It's the way I try to do things to. Exemplify what you are trying to communicate in the very method you use to communicate it!

But I take exception to the sentence I highlighted red. Though I agree that a full understanding of Scripture can only come through the light of God's Spirit, I wouldn't say that the symbols of Revelation are otherwise impossible to discern. Much of it really is pretty plain and simple. I think the real key is to abandon any and all speculations that can not be confirmed by at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages found elsewhere in Scripture. If we stick to that standard, we will be able to establish the "main and plain" things that Almighty God chosed to confirm with "two or three witnesses" within His own Word. Then, after having the solid foundation established, we can perhaps discern the correct interpretation of the more obscure passages. Of course, the guidence of God's Spirit is essential to this endeavor. My point was only that the symbols are not all "so symbolic" as to be "impossible to understand without divine permission."



So when ever you're ready folks, let's dig into the awesome mysteries of God's word, and enjoy a great discussion on the most mysterious letter ever written....The Revelation of Jesus Christ

Joe
I'm ready!

Richard

PS: Your descrition of Revelation as the "most mysterious letter ever written" reminds me of Jerome's comment that "Revelation has as many mysteries as words." Ha! That pretty much sums it up!

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 01:02 PM
My first century glasses might be old, but it's more effective in blocking those very bright sun rays; these are also great night vision goggles? :D


Friends, my post above may be somewhat humorous, but it was with a good reason. Revelation was a letter delivered to seven churches more than 2000 years ago, to prepare them for very difficult times. It's important that we lay aside our modern day theories, and try every way possible, to discern what the early Church thought of Revelation.

You'll find in your studies that the Early Church didn't have all the answers. At the same time, we have very little of what the early Church thought, as it seems most of the writings of the first century (other than the NT Epistles) are nearly non-existant until the early 2nd century. I find this quite curious, to say the least. Why was there such an absense of writings after 70AD?

My other point was to show how figures of speech can offer truth when you understand the metaphors. But obviously, taking my statement literally would not seem correct, for there's no such thing as a literal pair of first century glasses. What did I mean when I spoke of bright sun rays, and night vision? Quite simply this. The sun rays are a representation of John's letter. The words are so symbolic that it is impossible to understand them, without divine permission from the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit will shine within you, and give you the answers, but only in time, as God permits. Lastly, the night vision is the same; the glasses permit you to see through darkness, figuratively speaking.

This may have been a poor illustration of my point, but I tried to speak down-to-earth, again, figuratively speaking. :lol: I know, I know....we can talk metaphor's all day.

So when ever you're ready folks, let's dig into the awesome mysteries of God's word, and enjoy a great discussion on the most mysterious letter ever written....The Revelation of Jesus Christ

Joe

This is what i have been taught and understand.. is though Revelation seems to have a intimidating atmosphere of symbolism; it was NEVER meant to be that way.

If you haven't noticed already, the most symbolic symbols are interpreted by an angel. The symbols are there so you don't forget the interpretation. And if those things are already interpreted IN REVELATION, not Daniel, or some other book in the Bible, then let's hold fast to those interpretations in Revelation... Because you know it is quite apparent that there are key figures that have the most interpretation, or explaination, and those are really the ones that matter. Everything else will come easy, when things happen.

The seven churches that were spoken to were rebuked, exhorted, and praised, and at the end of every sequence, it was spoken to anyone that has an ear to HEAR what the Spirit says to the churches...So the application goes further than those Churches.

Jesus said that heaven and earth may pass away, but His words will never pass away.

Even the apostles rebuked and exhorted from the Old Testament, and Solomon in particular; and it is all there so we might take heed. This is the same with what the Spirit said to the seven Churches, for our admonition. And if it wasn't, the Lord would have not said to hear what He says. If the same judgments were true in regards to keeping certain people from various trials which were to try the inhabitants of the Earth then, and we hear it now; what the Spirit says. Then we know we can endure the same way, and if found worthy the Lord will spare us from various things. But He did not say He would "take thee out of", otherwise we would have evidence outside the Bible that He did that to that particular church in that day. But He didn't. And if He did, then we could count on that fact that He never changes, and we might expect it too; but that never happened.

I don't know about you, but i would rather go through the tribulation and be spared wherever i can be, to serve the Lord and arise in various places making great exploits by the Lord while awaiting His glorious return, than to be taken before it all starts, which i know won't happen anyways.

So do we have any ground here regarding the first beloved section of Revelation that our Lord graciously allowed for us to hear?

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 01:25 PM
I myself would have a difficult time accepting that. For the "woman" was considered a Harlot. A Harlot is someone who sells herself in fornication, in for profit. Mecca does not do this, nor is anyone outside of Mecca attracted to its religion. The Islamic religion offers no love, no joy, and no peace of mind. It is symbolic of slavery, just as the Jews (of the flesh) lived, each day of their lives. Yet what man is without sin? Who could live under the strict and harsh conditions of the Law, and it's works, which taught them (Jews) to refrain from certain meats, and other sacraments that were a picture of what was to come, and not the reality in itself. Those were things pointing them (and us) to Christ. For Christ is our pass-over lamb, He is our Sabbath day, our mourning and fasting when we sin, when we suffer, and our feast when we share all things in common; additionally, we are His temple, wherein all sacrifices (gifts of love) are provided to those in need, so that the scripture is fulfilled when it says:

Well, i guess this is only a matter of time then. i don't want to coerce this into the forum about Mecca; but they do have around 1.5 Billion followers, and every one of them that is able bodied must pilgrim there once in their life time. (this probably includes all the terrorists too, and extremists; the Bible does say "all the blood of saints and prophets were found in her")

Today in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is, five kings have fallen and one is...
She sits on and around seven mountains.
Her port is the wealthiest in the middle east and western asia.
Out of all five kings that have fallen, one was assassinated; shot in the face three times (fatal wound Revelation 13:1)
In Zechariah chapter 5 it talks about a woman in a basket, her name is 'Wickedness' and is flown to the land of Shinar, also translated as Babylonia; where they will build a temple for the basket and set it on its base, or pedestal.

All these things are true about the Kaaba in Mecca.

The woman is described to rule over the kings of the Earth... these days most nations with kings are Islamic; Mecca is the Islamic Capital of the world.

Mecca's name was formerly, 'Becca'.

At the time John sees the woman and the beast that carries her, five kings have fallen and one is.... this is true about Mecca, which is carried by the beast.

The beast was, and is not, and yet will come; the beast that John saw. This statement seems right if one of them received a fatal wound (Rev 13), being shot in the face three times....now he "is not". So if the head that receives the fatal wound "is not" at the time John sees the beast that is not, yet five have fallen and one is; this means that when "one is", the beast is not; kind of makes you wonder how long he is not, doesn't it? I have explained all of this better in the research above...

Now what i also want you to know, is if none of this measured scruplously with scripture i would have never taken on this task, that just seemed to fall of the bone of a well cooked rib.



He who gathered too much, did not have too much...
He who gathered too little, had no lack...

Christ is the fulfillment of all the works and requirements of the Law, just as I've shown you. Nearly every single picture in the Old Testament points to one Man, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Lord All Mighty, and the Ever Lasting Wonderful, and Counselor; additionally, we abide within His government. For, "The Government shall be placed upon His Shoulders", and we do not regret it by any means.

AMEN!!!

It is the government, and/or religion of Christ Jesus we embrace, and that offers much more than Mecca. I see no point in history that the Muslim religion offers itself for sell to its lovers...figuratively speaking...nor is she even close to being attractive for purchase....again, figuratively speaking.

Have you seen Islams five pillars of faith?

In fact, people are often threatened to become Muslim. Was it not the Terrorist's who said, "America must submit to Islam, or die..."?

Therefore, I do not see Mecca fitting the figure of the woman; Mecca, if it is to be a female in figure, has a TERRIBLE figure. She's ugly, to say the least. :eek: But we have no reason to fear....

Probably the most important fact is that the Beast is often depicted to be Rome, whether first century, or future. Yet I'm pretty sure that the RCC will never submit to Islam....not even the slightest chance of that happening. The RCC will not even agree to join with other Churches outside of theirs? So why would they join with Islam, considering they faught very hard against each other during the crusades.....unless you're referring to that point of time. But not even during those days, were they ever considered friends (Islam riding the Roman Catholic Church). I, therefore, do not agree, although it is interesting.

No Mecca sits on and around seven mountains, and they are seven kings... the Kings of Saudi Arabia. Five have fallen and one is, the other has not yet come, but when he comes, he will remain a short time. The beast that was seen, was, and is not, and will ascend the abyss and go to destruction... Like i said before the third king, king Faisel, was assassinated point blank, shot in the face three times (which would be his head), this is the head that received the fatal wound by the sword, not "a" sword.

I'd like to hear more on this.

Joe

....................

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 01:41 PM
When and where did Rome fit into the land of Babylonia?


Yet, Mecca fits more than Rome, in Italy...

I have also heard numerous times that the correct rendering of seven hills, are really mountains... though even the "hills" interpretation is not correct, Mecca also qualifies with seven hills too.

BlazyJon
10-09-2008, 02:06 PM
One more thing i forgot to mention in regards to me saying "it is only a matter of time".... and i say this because the king that is (the sixth; five have fallen and one is); right now in Saudi Arabia, is 84 years old, so he is pretty old; so we see that it is only a matter of time.

And furthermore i am aware of the many theories here and there, and in the past....

But let's also remember that everyone seems to pin "anti-Christ" on just about every president or prime-minister or dictator, and comes up with "theories" to back it all up, and this or that... but for the most part those theories never hold any weight, because we know by the Bible none of it adds up..so.. i just thought i would throw that in there too.

in other words, like i have said before, i would not even attempt to bring forth this research that i have been graciously given, if none of it added up scrupulously to scripture....

and with the evidence i have found, i cannot by any means let all of this go under my nose... and if it so happens to be that i am not seeing or hearing correctly, i know i can rest upon the Lord Jesus, while everyone understands that i am not going to stand by, while this evidence is present.

people must be warned, and encouraged...

Also know that if the mystery of the woman and the beast that carries her was not revealed, then we would not ever be able to identify the beast in the first place... it is all meant to be out in the open and in the light before the beast comes... otherwise, he would just come, and we wouldn't be able to prepare for such a thing.

The ONLY thing we do not know, are times, seasons, appointed by the Father. And especially NO ONE knows the day or hour the Son of Man is to return, only the Father knows.

i do believe we can interpret the signs of His return, but the time of His return is not knowable.

it is when Jesus returns and captures the beast and the false prophet that every eye sees Jesus, as the lightning shines from the east to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Where the carcass is there the eagles will gather, even in Revelation we see this; when He is revealed; that the angel that stands in the sun calls out to the birds that fly in the midst of heaven (eagles and vultures fly in the midst of heaven); and how they gorge themselves on the flesh of the dead carcasses, etc.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2008, 03:27 PM
This is what i have been taught and understand.. is though Revelation seems to have a intimidating atmosphere of symbolism; it was NEVER meant to be that way.

If you haven't noticed already, the most symbolic symbols are interpreted by an angel. The symbols are there so you don't forget the interpretation. And if those things are already interpreted IN REVELATION, not Daniel, or some other book in the Bible, then let's hold fast to those interpretations in Revelation... Because you know it is quite apparent that there are key figures that have the most interpretation, or explaination, and those are really the ones that matter. Everything else will come easy, when things happen.

The seven churches that were spoken to were rebuked, exhorted, and praised, and at the end of every sequence, it was spoken to anyone that has an ear to HEAR what the Spirit says to the churches...So the application goes further than those Churches.

Jesus said that heaven and earth may pass away, but His words will never pass away.

Even the apostles rebuked and exhorted from the Old Testament, and Solomon in particular; and it is all there so we might take heed. This is the same with what the Spirit said to the seven Churches, for our admonition. And if it wasn't, the Lord would have not said to hear what He says. If the same judgments were true in regards to keeping certain people from various trials which were to try the inhabitants of the Earth then, and we hear it now; what the Spirit says. Then we know we can endure the same way, and if found worthy the Lord will spare us from various things. But He did not say He would "take thee out of", otherwise we would have evidence outside the Bible that He did that to that particular church in that day. But He didn't. And if He did, then we could count on that fact that He never changes, and we might expect it too; but that never happened.

I don't know about you, but i would rather go through the tribulation and be spared wherever i can be, to serve the Lord and arise in various places making great exploits by the Lord while awaiting His glorious return, than to be taken before it all starts, which i know won't happen anyways.

So do we have any ground here regarding the first beloved section of Revelation that our Lord graciously allowed for us to hear?
Hey there Jonathan,

I very much agree that the letters to the seven churches were written for our admonition. I think that is true of the entire Bible. But I also know that to really understand it properly, I must keep an eye on who it was originally written to and about. So I am profoundly "admonished" by the Spirit of the Lord when I see sins in my life like those of the seven churches. But at the same time I see that the seven churches were real churches in the first century, and that the words Christ spoke to them had special significance and relevance to them.

So the essential point to me is to understand what Revelation would have meant to those to whom it was written, and then I will be able to understand clearly how it applies to us now. But as for the events that it describes, those seem to me to be all about the consummation of God's relationship with carnal Israel and the bringing in of the New Covenant age in which we now live. Of course, there is much to discuss before we understand each other on these "Big Questions."

Good chatting! :thumb:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2008, 03:36 PM
When and where did Rome fit into the land of Babylonia?

Yet, Mecca fits more than Rome, in Italy...

I have also heard numerous times that the correct rendering of seven hills, are really mountains... though even the "hills" interpretation is not correct, Mecca also qualifies with seven hills too.
I've never thought that Rome had to literally "fit into the land of Babylonia." I understand "Mystery Babylon" as a symbol of apostate first century Jerusalem, which also is called "Sodom and Egypt" in Rev 11:8. It was the Harlot Jerusalem that rode (was in cahoots with) the Roman Beast.


There are two big reasons Mecca does not seem to fit. First, there was no Islamic "Mecca" until seven full centuries after Revelation was written, so I don't see how it could fit in with the idea of "things which must shortly come to pass ... for the time is at hand." And second, Mecca has nothing to do with God's Covenant, and the whole book of Revelation seems to be about the consummation of God's Covenantal dealings with carnal Jerusalem and its replacement with the New Jerusalem. We get a lot of insight into this in Galatians 4:
Galatians 4:21-31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

I believe this duality between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem is the key to understanding the two cities of Revelation.

Richard

BlazyJon
11-01-2008, 09:08 PM
Revelation 18:24

And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."


this verse says "the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth"

so it is not just Christians and Jews blood she sheds. and it also does not say "all" the blood of prophets and saints, just "blood of prophets and saints.

it also says "she has made the nations drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication"

islam extremists think they will get 40 virgins in heaven, when they strap on the explosive vest, and literally, make people drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

i know these are zealots that do such things, and i don't think they are too lazy as to not go to Mecca first before they do this. seeing how, that, in their five pillars of faith all able bodied Muslims are required to go to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-01-2008, 09:30 PM
Revelation 18:24

And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."

this verse says "the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth"

so it is not just Christians and Jews blood she sheds. and it also does not say "all" the blood of prophets and saints, just "blood of prophets and saints.

The correct interpretation is clear for the corresponding prophecy against first century apostate Jerusalem spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ immediately prior to the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
See that? Revelation 18:24 is the fulfillment of the prophecy against first century apostate Jerusalem. Note in particular that both the prophecy (Matt 23:35) and and the fuflillment (Rev 18:24) speak of "all" that were slain upon the earth.

Richard

TheForgiven
11-05-2008, 03:17 PM
Hey there Jonathan,

I very much agree that the letters to the seven churches were written for our admonition. I think that is true of the entire Bible. But I also know that to really understand it properly, I must keep an eye on who it was originally written to and about. So I am profoundly "admonished" by the Spirit of the Lord when I see sins in my life like those of the seven churches. But at the same time I see that the seven churches were real churches in the first century, and that the words Christ spoke to them had special significance and relevance to them.

So the essential point to me is to understand what Revelation would have meant to those to whom it was written, and then I will be able to understand clearly how it applies to us now. But as for the events that it describes, those seem to me to be all about the consummation of God's relationship with carnal Israel and the bringing in of the New Covenant age in which we now live. Of course, there is much to discuss before we understand each other on these "Big Questions."

Good chatting!

Richard

Greetings brother Richard. I'm trying to catch up with the different posts. I just wanted to say that I liked what you posted above.

Those of us who stand by the "fulfilled-eschatology" don't often explain how Revelation relates to us in our day. It goes in every way, just as the Israelites who crossed the red sea related to the first century Church, and to all generations. Paul used the experiences of the Israelites after crossing the red sea in comparison to the fleshly Jews towards the Jews (and all Christians) who, figuratively speaking, crossed the sea. Paul shows that the Israelites of Moses were "Baptized" through the sea, and were all given a testament. In the same way, we (and the first century Christians) passed through the sea, and were baptized into the "cloud". This cloud represents the kingdom of Christ, which consists of those who were/are filled with the Holy Spirit. Paul used the reality of what happened to the Israelites as a figure applied to those born again (from above).

Israelites - slavery
Set free - pass through the sea
Baptized into the cloud - protected by the Spirit of God
Disobedience - destroyed in the wilderness and kept from entering the promised land
Obedient - Enters into the promised land (Land of Israel)

All of this applies to the Church. Isn't it amazing how God's word aligns perfectly, without flaw?

Thanks for the awesome post.

Joe