for Christians & Messianic Jews

Forum index page

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Pro Rege (For the King)


Log in | Register
Forgot your password?


Who is Babylon (One world religion?) (Islam Danger)

posted by fezik82(R), Ohio, 09.15.2014

Pope Benedict did not call for a one world religion as in 'the Roman Catholic Church'. I assume that what you're referring to was when he made it be known that *hoped* for a one world order, but after reading what he had actually said, he was hoping that nobody would ever be left stricken to poverty or go hungry. I was upset when I heard the rumors, too... but they took him completely out of context. He hoped for what every person who claims to be a follower of Christ hopes for.

I know we've butted heads before, but I really like you and care about you. That being said, it makes me so nervous for what you may unwittingly be doing when you search for Babylon. It seems impossible that much of Revelation was meant to describe futuristic events. Just one example would be the plague of locusts in the fifth trumpet in Revelation chapter 9. Could it really be possible that God would infest the entire world with these mutant locusts when He said Himself after the first plague in Exodus 10:14 that there would never be as many locusts again as there were in Egypt? Josephus described some of the events which John did refer to as "what must soon take place" as having been fulfilled to the tee during the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. People only recently seemed to have changed the whole meaning of "Revelation", or "apocalypse". Today the word itself seems to have an end time feel only because of what people have made of it. In Greek it was used to describe a bride lifting her veil, I don't believe that the meaning has changed... the groom is being revealed to us. According to the very first verse, the book is meant to reveal Christ to His Bride.

The reason that this is so incredibly important to me is that I strongly feel that you (rhetorically) unwittingly deny Christ as King when viewing the entire book as futuristic. It is not until the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11:17 that Christ begins ruling as King. It was likely this same moment, during the seventh bowl of God's wrath, that the voice cried out from the throne saying, "it is done" (not to mention that it was accompanied with the same events that took place when Christ spoke these words from the cross). If Christ is not yet ruling as King, then of course He is not "Lord", and we are not His subjects, or "servants"... despite the apostles claims to be "servant[s] of Jesus Christ" (eg. Jude 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 1:1, James 1:1, Romans 1:1, etc., etc.!). If He is King, then the Millennial rule began at that moment that He became King. This is where I feel the Protestant world has felt the need to take the liberty of changing 1700 years of interpretation of Revelation, and likely why Martin Luther removed the book in the first place... because you cannot deny that Christ rules through His Church, whether the members be saints in heaven or "kings and priests" on earth. If it were future... then who would these kings and priests be ruling over if everyone could see Christ as He truly is? So I guess that my deepest concern is that placing all of Revelation as a future event is inevitably denying Christ's Kingship... His authority over your life... but it also allows many people to make attacks against the temporal portion of Christ's Kingdom... His Church.

On the same note, in considering the Church to be "Babylon", you would be forced to acknowledge that the Church was at one point God's faithful bride (seeing as His issue with Babylon is that she cheated on Him, committed adultery by engaging in fornication and becoming drunk with the blood of the saints). But Babylon can't be the Church because Christ emphatically stated that the gates of Hades would never prevail against her (His Church/Bride)... which certainly cannot be said for the Babylon of Revelation. I don't believe that Islam could be Babylon, either... she was never God's Bride to be. Ancient Israel is the only Biblical fitting for Babylon the Great... until she divorced God (Jer 3:8)(which Joseph reveals was the Jewish custom during the betrothal period in Mt 1:19), she was His future bride. It seems only logical that the New Jerusalem, God's bride, would correspond as the polar opposite to the old Jerusalem, God's ex-bride.

I asked The Lord how much He loved me

He stretched out His arms and said, "this much"

Then He died for me


Complete thread:

for Christians & Messianic Jews | Admin contact                   
14145 Postings in 4314 Threads, 163 registered users
[ Home ] [ Rules ] [ Gospel ] [ World News ] [ Israel News ] [ Online Bible ] [ Gays ] [ Abortion ] [ Masons ]

[ Jesus ][ Islam ][ Miracles ][ Near Death ][ Creationism ][ Bible Codes ] New Age ][ Israel ]

Christian Music ] [ Israel Video News ] [ [ Funny clips ] [ Games ]

other interesting sites:

(Apocalypse Board) (Answers in Genesis) (Spirit Daily) (Mallett Blog) (Parable of Lazarus) (23 min video in Hell) (Amil Imani) (1 hr Video on Hell) (Israel Travel Guide)  ( ( (Israelitybites) [Jesus paid for our debt] [26 End times signs]

Above hits since 19 April 2011
(red dots show where visitors are from)