• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 13,000 members today

    Register Log In

Is Islam the false religion of Revelation?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Member
Mark 13:8 (KJV) For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

The Strong's definition of the greek word "ethnos" translated as "nation" is as follows:
nation(s) G1484 ethnos
  1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
    1. a company, troop, swarm
  2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
    1. the human family
  3. a tribe, nation, people group
  4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
  5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians
Things we know:
Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.
Isaac is the lineage the Jewish nation came from.
Ishmael is the lineage the Muslims came from.
God promised Hagar (Ishmael's mother) that her son would be a great nation.
There was enmity between the nations created by Isaac and Ishmael and there still is.

Fast forward to today:
Using the scripture in Mark above (also found in Matt 24:7 and Luke 21:10) it is shown that "nation," defined as a tribe, people group, and/or a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus, shall rise against "nation." Now insert the names of the tribes, Isaac and Ishmael or their descendants, the Jews and Muslims, and you see exactly what Jesus was talking about. There can be other nations and tribes substituted, but the emphasis of the scripture is on the history of the people of Isaac therefore the natural choice of Ishmael would be the most likely.
Putting it in a "religious" sense, I believe you can make these associations:

  • The Jews are the chosen people through Isaac
  • Jesus is the Christ, born into the tribe of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac
  • The "Gentiles" (also G1484, ethnos, in Strong's) are the "offspring" of Jesus in a figurative sense
  • Christianity is the true "religion"
  • Jesus is the Christ



  • Islam is the anti-chosen people through Ishmael
  • Muhammed is the false-Christ born into the nation of Ishmael
  • The "Muslims" are the "offspring" of Muhammed in a figurative sense
  • Islam is the "false religion" spoken of in Revelation
  • Muhammed is the "false prophet" also spoken of in Revelation
These associations are only a small sample of the many examples in the scripture. Once you begin to see and recognize that Islam is the false religion of Revelation, the scripture you quoted in your OP begins to make perfect sense:
Gen 16:12 (NIV) He (Ishmael and his descendents) will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” (emphasis added)

By extension, the references to the false Christ, anti-christ, man of lawlessness, false prophet, etc., begin to come alive. There need be little speculation as to who these personages are - in a general sense. Obviously, the exact identity of the living breathing person who will be the anti-christ is unknowable at this time, but you certainly know where to look for the answer.
It has been my experience that God uses what he has available to accomplish his needs - whether it is a reluctant person (i.e. Jonah), an animal (donkey), a nation (Egypt, Assyria), or a religious caliphate (ISIS). There is no need for him to create a false religion or false prophet (as in Revelation) when one already exists. Simply because they have existed since the 7th century is no reason to exclude them in the overall prophecy of the end time. In fact the fight has been going on for millennia and what better way to accomplish his plan.

Compare the methods used by the adherents of Islam to convert Christians - submit or be beheaded. Sounds just like the methods used by the false prophet and anti-christ in Revelation - I don't believe this description is a coincidence.

Note: I posted the above response in another thread but think it should be placed for revue and response in its own thread. The subject may have been covered in other conversations, but in light of circumstances in the world at this time, a new look at it may be in order. I'd like for the discussion to be thought provoking.
 
Active
Once you begin to see and recognize that Islam is the false religion of Revelation, the scripture you quoted in your OP begins to make perfect sense:
Gen 16:12 (NIV) He (Ishmael and his descendents) will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” (emphasis added)
Hey there brother,

Could you possibly expand more on what you are talking about regarding the false religion of the book of Revelation? I just don't want to assume you are talking about one thing if in fact you are talking about another. What specifically are you referring to?

Blessings,

Travis
 
Loyal
Isaac is the Patriarch of the Jews. (Whether they are followers, of Judaism, Christianity, or otherwise).
Ishmael is the Patriarch of the Palestinians, whether they are Muslim or otherwise. It's true many Palestinians are Muslims, but this has very little to do with Ishmael,
and quite a bit to do with Muhammed. The prophecy that Ishmaels descendants and Isaacs descendent will always war with each other has much more to with
the fact that they are Jews and Palestinians than the fact that they follow Judaism or Islam.

Most Protestant scholars believe the false religion of the Harlot is taken to be Roman Catholicism.
This is most often taken as she is a city with seven hills (Rome has been called the city of 7 hills for over 2 millenia)
and that she sits on many waters. Old Babylon was in the desert.
 
Member
I have no comment on this other than religion is a belief system where a divine presence of some type is acknowledged. As for anything false, that would be up to the eye and the heart of the beholder. What is truth is that in all religions there are false people within that faith who would use it to their advantage and it is these people which we should be directing our attention to.

Other religions are just that, other religions and those without faith are looking at all of us with the same skepticism. If we do not address the beam in our eye, how can we comfort those with a needle in their eye?

We must police up ourselves and show the world how we conduct our own selves before they will see a difference between us and other faiths. In that way and only that way will we ever reveal to those outside the faith that we stand for what we stand for, instead of just another group of hypocrites pointing our fingers at another group of hypocrites and thinking ourselves better.
 
Member
Could you possibly expand more on what you are talking about regarding the false religion of the book of Revelation? I just don't want to assume you are talking about one thing if in fact you are talking about another. What specifically are you referring to?
Travis,
The false religion to which I refer is in several passages in Revelation Chapters 13 and 14 wherein there are worshipers of the beast, his prophet, and his image. While it is not directly called a "religion" per se, the fact there is a leader, a prophet and worship can only mean there is a religious component to the activities. Don't get hung up on the word "religion" as in Catholic, Baptist, Jew, or Islam as I'm not sure it can be categorized in that fashion. A definition of religion from the Concise Dictionary is:
Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural. Archaeological evidence suggests that religious beliefs have existed since the first human communities. They are generally shared by a community, and they express the communal culture and values through myth, doctrine, and ritual. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions also constitute elements of the religious life. (emphasis added)

B-A-C in his post indicated the "false religion" is considered by scholars to be Roman Catholicism. I disagree with that conclusion but the fact they say there is one only helps with my hypothesis. I will follow up with his post next.

 
Administrator
Staff Member
Most Protestant scholars believe the false religion of the Harlot is taken to be Roman Catholicism.
This is most often taken as she is a city with seven hills (Rome has been called the city of 7 hills for over 2 millenia)
and that she sits on many waters. Old Babylon was in the desert.
That's what I was thinking as well. In agreement on this theology.
 
Member
Isaac is the Patriarch of the Jews. (Whether they are followers, of Judaism, Christianity, or otherwise).
Who would they be otherwise?

Ishmael is the Patriarch of the Palestinians, whether they are Muslim or otherwise.
I respectfully disagree with your definition of who the Palestinians are and request you take a look at their history. Google their origins and you will find they never existed as a recognized people before 1967. That's not to say there aren't references to Palestine as a region by the Romans in the 2nd Century, but those references are limited to the geographic location not of the people living there. The people living there never recognized themselves as "Palestinians." The word Palestine was first coined by the Romans, there are no references to a culture, a people, a government, coinage, etc., and no archaeological evidence to support a civilization called Palestine. Simply the Palestinians did not exist. The United Nations definition of a Palestinian is: any arab, or descendant of an arab, who lived in the land divided off by the British in 1920 for at least two years before the creation of Israel in 1948.
Your view that "Ishmael is the Patriarch of the Palestinians" is false for the above reasons and misconception of who they are.

It's true many Palestinians are Muslims, but this has very little to do with Ishmael, and quite a bit to do with Muhammed. The prophecy that Ishmaels descendants and Isaacs descendent will always war with each other has much more to with the fact that they are Jews and Palestinians than the fact that they follow Judaism or Islam.
They are arabs therefore they are descendants of Ishmael. Because they are descendants, the enmity that exists between Isaac and Ishmael applies. Since Mohammed (the father of Islam and the Muslims) came from these people of Ishmael, and Judaism came from Isaac's lineage, these groups would necessarily be at odds with each other throughout time.

Most Protestant scholars believe the false religion of the Harlot is taken to be Roman Catholicism.
That is why I started this thread, I believe the conclusion is in error. Take a look at Elijah: Elijah told Elisha he would receive a double portion of his mantle if he were to see him go to heaven. When that day arrived, everyone was looking at the chariot of fire when Elijah was wisked away to heaven in a whirlwind. Everybody except Elisha. Elisha received his double portion because he wasn't looking at what everyone else was - what all the scholars were looking at - he was looking at his mentor and his God. God has a way of getting everyone looking one way while he is acting in another. I believe the conclusion that Rome is the bad guy is the same as the chariot of fire for Elisha. We are looking in the wrong direction while the enemy becomes strong and begins his ascent to power. Most will be asleep and unaware of what is coming until it's too late to stop it.

Because Islam is a recognized religion and it is against Judaism and Christianity so strongly, it only follows that here is where the enmity begins. It also follows that if Jesus is the Christ, then Mohammed would be the false christ. Jesus is called a prophet in Islam, wouldn't Mohammed then be the false prophet to Christianity? Islam copies Christianity in every form, only in a negative sense. Pro vs. Con if you will. Simply good vs. bad. When you see the logic of what I'm writing, you will be prepared for the result. I'm not saying my conclusions are perfect, but I've found no evidence that counters them yet. I hope this thread will work to either confirm or deny them.


This is most often taken as she is a city with seven hills (Rome has been called the city of 7 hills for over 2 millenia)
Read Rev 17:9-11 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction."
In this passage, v.9 says: "the seven heads are seven hills." v.10 says "They are also seven Kings." Heads are a word picture of kings, kingdoms, and power. Hills are a word picture of kingdoms. Kings are a picture of rulers and power. These two verses are not talking about a physical location as the scholars have indicated. I believe the interpretation that the "seven hills" point to Rome (city) is another one of those feints by God to get you looking somewhere else or a perversion of the scripture by Satan to deflect you off on a rabbit trail. Either way, the result is a false or blinding interpretation. Further evidence for my conclusion are the statements made in the remainder of v.10 and v.11. John, from his viewpoint and from his time frame, says "Five have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is (Rome), the other has not yet come (not Rome because of the next verse); . . .v.11 "The beast who once was, (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, OR Greece), and now is not (NOT Rome because Rome WAS at the time John wrote this), is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, plus another unnamed kingdom) . . . Since Rome has been ruled out and he is an independent king descended from the others, he has to come from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, or Greece.
Side Note: My money is on Medo-Persia for these reasons: The Medo-Persia kingdom is now northern Syria and Iraq (Kurdistan), Turkey, and Iran. These are the same Muslim regions at odds with the entire world and whom are threatening world peace. These countries, and others are mentioned in the alliance who will invade Israel in Eze. 38. Other evidence is available but would require another thread.


and that she sits on many waters. Old Babylon was in the desert.
She sits on many waters. How many waters does Rome sit on?
Babylon was destroyed, it will take many years to rebuild her (she was destroyed to never be rebuilt) and she is in the desert. Old Babylon (geographically) cannot be the seat of the false religion. If that is what you meant.

IMHO
just-a-servant
 
Active
Isaac is the Patriarch of the Jews. (Whether they are followers, of Judaism, Christianity, or otherwise).
Ishmael is the Patriarch of the Palestinians, whether they are Muslim or otherwise. It's true many Palestinians are Muslims, but this has very little to do with Ishmael,
and quite a bit to do with Muhammed. The prophecy that Ishmaels descendants and Isaacs descendent will always war with each other has much more to with
the fact that they are Jews and Palestinians than the fact that they follow Judaism or Islam.

Most Protestant scholars believe the false religion of the Harlot is taken to be Roman Catholicism.
This is most often taken as she is a city with seven hills (Rome has been called the city of 7 hills for over 2 millenia)
and that she sits on many waters. Old Babylon was in the desert.
That's what I was thinking as well. In agreement on this theology.
I'm not 100% sure that the Harlot of Babylon is completely limited to the RCC…. but man, she sure fits the ticket well.

Travis
 
Active
Because Islam is a recognized religion and it is against Judaism and Christianity so strongly, it only follows that here is where the enmity begins. It also follows that if Jesus is the Christ, then Mohammed would be the false christ. Jesus is called a prophet in Islam, wouldn't Mohammed then be the false prophet to Christianity? Islam copies Christianity in every form, only in a negative sense. Pro vs. Con if you will. Simply good vs. bad. When you see the logic of what I'm writing, you will be prepared for the result. I'm not saying my conclusions are perfect, but I've found no evidence that counters them yet. I hope this thread will work to either confirm or deny them.
Ok, this is kind of what I thought you were getting at.

Just this paragraph alone is enough for me to be confident you are really far off on this whole thing. The word anti-Christ doesn't mean "against" Christ is means, "In place of," Christ. Your own words declare that Islam is totally against Christianity, and openly so. The spirit of anti-Christ, and the Anti-Chirst (as a single person, if we are going to refer to him as that) is going to seek to replace the real Christ, not fight directly against him. Islam is all about fighting against Christianity, no one in their right mind would confuse Christianity with Islam, they are like night and day.

With the slight exception of Rick Warren's Chrislam, Islam is not really a threat to Christianity. But, even a slight degree of discernment can see past this Chrislam nonsense. I'm just not buying this whole Islam being the Harlot, let alone anything else really.

Travis
 
Loyal
With the slight exception of Rick Warren's Chrislam, Islam is not really a threat to Christianity. But, even a slight degree of discernment can see past this Chrislam nonsense. I'm just not buying this whole Islam being the Harlot, let alone anything else really.

Travis
Keep in mind Rick Warren doesn't preach it or support it, rather he is "exposing" it to other Christians.
 
Active
Keep in mind Rick Warren doesn't preach it or support it, rather he is "exposing" it to other Christians.
America's Pastor generally speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He allowed King's Way to be shown in his church, and he also put his John Hancock on a document entitled: Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You, that appeared in the New York Times. Part of the document says:

“It is hoped that this document will provide a common constitution for the many worthy organizations and individuals who are carrying out interfaith dialogue all over the world. Often these groups are unaware of each other, and duplicate each other’s efforts. Not only can A Common Word Between Us give them a starting point for cooperation and worldwide co-ordination, but it does so on the most solid theological ground possible: the teachings of the Qu’ran and the Prophet, and the commandments described by Jesus Christ in the Bible. Thus despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments” (Emphasis Added)​

and

“The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God”​

Not that this is all the most important thing at the end of the day, but I just wanted to clarify my previous statement.

Travis
 
Active
Muhammad is definitely a false prophet. But the Roman Catholic church also seems to be a priime candidate for mystery babylon as well, though. It would be particulary treacherous if it ended up being the catholic church, with it being the predominant was that Christianity has been disseminated throughout history. At least islam is obviously 'ant-christ' like and therefore would be easier for the laymen to identify as ungodly.
 
Member
Just this paragraph alone is enough for me to be confident you are really far off on this whole thing.
I tried to make it simple without using lofty terms because I wanted to make it understandable to the casual reader. Let me explain in other terms you might recognize.

The word anti-Christ doesn't mean "against" Christ is means, "In place of," Christ.
While your statement is partially true, it is mostly wrong. In every definition of the word "anti" it means "opposed to." For example, from the generic definition provided if you google definition of "anti" (all the others are similar):
an·ti
ˈanˌtī,ˈan(t)ē/

preposition
  1. 1.
    opposed to; against.
    "I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes"
adjective
informal
  1. 1.
    opposed.
    "neither side in the debate, whether anti or pro, has offered a particularly convincing case"
noun
informal
  1. 1.
    a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
    "a shadow army of antis who endanger your sport"
From Strong's:
G500 antichristos

  1. the adversary of the Messiah
The only place I found where the definition includes "instead of" is Vine's. Their definition says in part: Antichrist - can mean either "against Christ" or "instead of Christ," or perhaps, combining the two, "one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ" (Westcott). The word is found only in John's epistles,
Thayer's Greek Lexicon is very clear, it is "opposed to." So while your definition is partly true, it isn't all true. You must use all of it if it applies, not just pick and choose the portions you want to fit. Your definition, "in place of" technically doesn't exist, but I'll let the "instead of" mean the same thing.


Your own words declare that Islam is totally against Christianity, and openly so.
The definition of the word, previously explained, supports what I said. They are against (opposed to) each other. I don't declare one is "in place of" the other. What I am saying is one is the antithesis of the other. Just for fun, the definition of antithesis is: a figure of speech in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of, or strongly contrasted with, each other.

The spirit of anti-Christ (is alive and well today just as when John wrote about it in 1 John 4:3), and the Anti-Chirst (as a single person, if we are going to refer to him as that) is going to seek to replace the real Christ, not fight directly against him.
If the antichrist is not going to fight against Christianity, what is the meaning of the scripture at Rev 12:17? Furthermore, what is the reason for Armegeddon?

Islam is all about fighting against Christianity, no one in their right mind would confuse Christianity with Islam, they are like night and day.
Well, on this we agree although I don't see why you made the previous statements then said this; It's been what I've been saying all along.

With the slight exception of Rick Warren's Chrislam, Islam is not really a threat to Christianity. But, even a slight degree of discernment can see past this Chrislam nonsense. I'm just not buying this whole Islam being the Harlot, let alone anything else really.
I know who Rick Warren is, but beyond that I don't know what he teaches. I'm not a follower of his.
Islam IS the threat to Christianity. That's what I'm trying to point out.
I never said Islam was the Harlot, that is a another personage. The Harlot is not the false religion nor the antichrist. I try to be very specific when I write. The Harlot is something you read into it - something that was not there. I believe it was B-A-C who mentioned the Harlot.


IMHO
just-a-servant
 
Active
For example, from the generic definition provided if you google definition of "anti" (all the others are similar):
an·ti
ˈanˌtī,ˈan(t)ē/

preposition
  1. 1.
    opposed to; against.
    "I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes"
Good night man… you quoted the definition of the english word "anti"…. The bible was not written in English. I would encourage you to study the Greek a little bit….

Judas is referred to as the son of perdition. If any one person in scripture, that has their name given, deserves to be called anti-christ, it is Judas. Judas was not outside of Jesus's disciples, violently opposing Jesus and publicly trying to bring him down, Judas was right in the midst of them, he was one of the apostles chosen directly by the Lord. None of the other apostles had any clue Judas was the one who was to betray Jesus (for 3 1/2 years actually) until the very end, the night of the betrayal. Likewise, the son of perdition seeks to sit in the temple of God be worshipped as God himself. He wishes to replace love of the true Christ in peoples hearts and replace that with love for a false Christ, that appears to be Christ, but is no Christ at all.

Islam is not a threat to Christianity because it is easy for followers of Christ to recognize it and teach against it. Islam isn't even rational at all, the Koran contradicts itself all over the place. Martydom has never been a threat to the Church, in fact it thrives on it. If Islam comes to some serious type of power, and starts persecuting Christians all over the world, Christianity will begin to thrive like it always does.

What is a threat to Christianity though, is apostasy from within. False prophets coming into the fold and bringing in destructive heresies that appear to be Christian, but are in fact anti-Christ.

Mohammad's followers are not a serious threat to biblical Christianity, even though they may chop a few of a our heads off.

Travis
 
Member
Good night man… you quoted the definition of the english word "anti"…. The bible was not written in English. I would encourage you to study the Greek a little bit….
Actually, regardless of the translation, it is a translation and the words have the same meaning. English anti = Greek anti
And, if you look at the bottom of the definition I posted, you will see the Strong's definition of the Greek word G500 AND, I quoted Thayer's Greek Lexicon in the next paragraph.
Good night man . . . don't you think it would be to your benefit to actually read what I posted?
Add to that you made no comment about the remainder of my post. May I assume you agree with it or are you pondering your response?


Judas is referred to as the son of perdition. If any one person in scripture, that has their name given, deserves to be called anti-christ, it is Judas.
Yes, Judas was called the son of perdition, but using your definition of antichrist, then Judas would be "in place of Christ." This simply cannot be true as Judas made no attempt to be Christ or to replace him. Now I'm not saying you claim Judas was the antichrist, but the words you've used are meaningless. They have no basis and the illustration is awry.

Judas was not outside of Jesus's disciples, violently opposing Jesus and publicly trying to bring him down, Judas was right in the midst of them, he was one of the apostles chosen directly by the Lord. None of the other apostles had any clue Judas was the one who was to betray Jesus (for 3 1/2 years actually) until the very end, the night of the betrayal.
Correct, he was not antichrist, he was a betrayer. He was called the son of perdition, not antichrist.

Likewise, the son of perdition seeks to sit in the temple of God be worshipped as God himself.
Yep, no argument.

He wishes to replace love of the true Christ in peoples hearts and replace that with love for a false Christ, that appears to be Christ, but is no Christ at all.
We will disagree here because I don't think he will want to replace the love of Christ for another love. It's like oil and water: love and the antichrist? I just don't see it and I'm not sure where you get it.

Islam is not a threat to Christianity because it is easy for followers of Christ to recognize it and teach against it. (Oh really? What about the great delusion spoken of in 2 Th 2:10, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.") Islam isn't even rational at all, the Koran contradicts itself all over the place. Martydom has never been a threat to the Church, in fact it thrives on it. (Huh? Scratching my head) If Islam comes to some serious type of power (What would you call 1.57 Billion adherents [23% of the worlds population]), and starts persecuting Christians all over the world (tell me you don't really mean that), Christianity will begin to thrive like it always does. (Again what is the meaning of Rev 12:17 if that's not what John meant)[/quote]

What is a threat to Christianity though, is apostasy from within. (Yes, apostasy is part of the love growing cold, but I would submit it is no threat to Christianity, as that is unshakable. Apostasy is a threat to individual believers, not the Church.) False prophets coming into the fold and bringing in destructive heresies that appear to be Christian, but are in fact anti-Christ. (I agree false prophets and false Christ's will be spreading their message. False prophets will claim their words are from the Lord, or "This is the word of the Lord." False Christ's will claim to be so. We as Christians have been forewarned of this and should prepare for them.)

Mohammad's followers are not a serious threat to biblical Christianity (true, but they are a threat to individual Christians), even though they may chop a few of a our heads off.
I remember what they said about autocars in the early 1900's "Anyone going faster than 30 mph will surely suffocate." It was out of ignorance and a refusal to re-evaluate what they thought they knew that caused them to say such nonsense. In their day it was perfectly logical, with today's hindsight, it's well, you know.
 
Member
Babylon the great= worldwide false religions=99% of them.
The evidence---- riding on the back of the beast= untaxed religions
fornicating with the kings( govts) of the earth-- (2Peter 2:19)--voting for corrupt( depravity) politicians, supporting corrupt politicians, running as a corrupt politician) killing in their wars of hatred, participating in their nationalistic holidays where bloodshed occurred)
Rev teaches--- the merchants stand at a distance and mourn the fall of Babylon the great--Why?--because their shelves remain full( no more religious holidays)--this starts the tribulation--this is a worldwide event--if store shelves remain full, so do factory shelves--job layoffs all over the world at once. the tribulation is like the locking of the ark door--no one else gets in,
like a swift pitch into the sea with a millstone around her neck( very quickly these events happen)never to be again

At the tower of Babel, ( first false religion) God confused their language and sent them to all parts of the earth, all the false teachings, false god worship and pagan practices spread like a plague upon mankind, some still practiced down to this day--that is why she is called--Babylon the great.
 
Member
Babylon the great= worldwide false religions=99% of them.
(Sorry to have taken so long for an answer, I have been away for several weeks.)
A broad sweeping statement such as this cannot possibly be true. If worldwide false religions were equal to "Babylon the Great" and worldwide false religions were equal to 99% of them, then "Babylon the Great" would equal 99% of them. If you were to choose which religion were to equal the 1% which is not a worldwide false religion, which one would it be? Islam? Christianity? Buddism? Judiaism? I suspect ALL worldwide religions consider themselves the only true religion.


The evidence---- riding on the back of the beast= untaxed religions
This statement is more a reflection of the political realities rather than a religious one and with the remainder of your "evidence" probably a reflection of US tax policies. Political functions should not be substituted for religious ones and keep in mind there is more to the world than conditions in the US.

fornicating with the kings( govts) of the earth-- (2Peter 2:19)--voting for corrupt( depravity) politicians, supporting corrupt politicians, running as a corrupt politician) killing in their wars of hatred, participating in their nationalistic holidays where bloodshed occurred)
Again, I suspect there are religious holidays in every religion and are a function of their worship process. Christianity has many religious holidays, most descending from God's proclamations, i.e. Passover and Yom Kippur (Christmas and Easter, too, although not instituted by God). Governments also have holidays, ours has Thanksgiving and the 4th of July. While it is true some holidays are to remember where bloodshed occurred, some are to remember when the bloodshed ceased (Veterans Day).

Rev teaches--- the merchants stand at a distance and mourn the fall of Babylon the great--Why?--because their shelves remain full( no more religious holidays)
The scripture you mentioned is Rev 18:11 Continue reading to Rev 18:18 where "Babylon the Great" which the merchants are lamenting for is a city, not a religion. Your assertion "Babylon the Great" is anything other than that is not supported by the word.

--this starts the tribulation--this is a worldwide event--if store shelves remain full, so do factory shelves--job layoffs all over the world at once. the tribulation is like the locking of the ark door--no one else gets in, like a swift pitch into the sea with a millstone around her neck( very quickly these events happen)never to be again
I believe the beginning of the tribulation period begins with the confirmation of the covenant as written in Dan 9:27. I don't think the destruction of Babylon the Great has anything to do with the onset of the seventieth week of Daniel.

At the tower of Babel, ( first false religion) God confused their language and sent them to all parts of the earth, all the false teachings, false god worship and pagan practices spread like a plague upon mankind, some still practiced down to this day--that is why she is called--Babylon the great.
The first part of your statement is true in a simple understanding, however your "that is why she is called--Babylon the great" conclusion is in extreme error. At the point in history where the tower of Babel was made, Babylon didn't exist and the fornications of Babylon had yet to begin. The Babylon the Great you reference could only come subsequent to the first Babylon which persecuted Israel and that Babylon was still in the future to Babel. Babylon the Great is a city in our time and it's location and identity isn't necessarily near Baghdad.

IMHO
just-a-servant
 

Similar threads

Top