AMERICA IS MYSTERY BABYLON

[Kindle]

18 hours ago, other one said:

I know that was the original source for most, however I don't think the teaching of eternal truths came from Enoch.

What do you mean by eternal truths?

[other one]

55 minutes ago, worthy said:

What do you mean by eternal truths?

It has to do with Genetic manipulation and blending different species into different animals.....   also animal/human hybrids.    Much as we are just starting to do today..   There truly is nothing new under the sun.

 

"As it was in the days of Noah"

[BlindSeeker]

On 13/3/2016 at 4:38 PM, WilliamL said:

I asked three straightforward questions, and I got a book, and never really got straightforward answers.

Regarding one of the dozen or more questions shotgunned back at me was the above "... how do you know the beast that ascends out of the abyss is the beast in Revelation 13...?" Now, did I say anything about Rev. 13? No.

I am responding only because I believe the Lord would have me too. For in my time of prayer over other of life’s issues, you were brought to mine after I had already purposed in my heart to let our conversation go as a vain thing, that pursuing it was only going to gender contention. I have no desire to be contentious, and neither should you, as we both know and understand from God’s own word it is only a by-product of men’s pride. I have no desire to be proud, nor am I the least bit proud of this message when I share or reason it with others; it is but a grievance to my heart which only causes me sadness when I try and labour to persuade others of these things when it is obvious they have their own conclusions on the matter.

But like I stated, I believe the Lord would have me to respond to you at least once more.

So to start, I openly admit that there are times when I often respond to other’s questions with questions. But in truth we all have done it, even you. Often, when we as Christians do such, it is not to be evasive, but rather to provoke thought and hopefully stir up a prayerful consideration on the other’s part of things they may have not considered. The prophets, apostles, and even our Lord Jesus Christ did it.

Such was the purpose of my questions put forth to you. They were not asked for any other reason than to hopefully open you up to the conversation in hopes that you might consider the possibility that some things might not be exactly as you perceive them to be. That after you had “prayerfully considered” my response, which had indeed taken my time, that you would have in a charitable manner pursued the conversation into greater depth with me in a respectful point-counter point fashion. Such would be appropriate for those professing to be new creatures in Christ; who should show respect towards others’ positions as being the result of their own prayers and studies. That said, I will obediently to the Lord endeavour once more to respond to your posts and address your questions in such a fashion as seems befitting to me.

On 13/3/2016 at 4:38 PM, WilliamL said:

 

I asked three straightforward questions, and I got a book, and never really got straightforward answers.

Regarding one of the dozen or more questions shotgunned back at me was the above "... how do you know the beast that ascends out of the abyss is the beast in Revelation 13...?" Now, did I say anything about Rev. 13? No.

However, to answer your question anyway, Revelation only speaks about one many-headed Beast, and only speaks about one Beast that ascends out the the Abyss (11:7, 17:8), so I think it is safe to presume that these are the same Beast. (The Dragon is never called a beast  or the beast BTW.)

Which still leaves me waiting for straightforward answers to my questions, without a lot of issue-deflecting chaff.

First, WilliamL, how would you feel or even respond if someone referenced a reply to them where you asked them questions as having “shotgunned” back at them? Or that your post was nothing more than “deflecting chaff?” BTW, of course these questions are mostly just rhetorical… intended only to provoke thought and prayerful consideration…

Such a response as yours leaves no leeway for me to even slightly consider that you had “believed all things, all hoped all things” on my part to be sincere, but rather made it openly clear you thought my intention in my response was less than righteous and deceptive at best.

Now, I know very well you didn’t say “anything about Rev. 13.” I did, and I think anyone with an open heart reading my post would understand it in the context of which I asked the question, rhetorically, for the purpose of generating thought and opening up another’s thought processes.

But I will respond below to this reaction of yours, “Revelation only speaks about one many-headed Beast, and only speaks about one Beast that ascends out the the Abyss (11:7, 17:8), so I think it is safe to presume that these are the same Beast. (The Dragon is never called a beast or the beast BTW.)”

Yes, it is scripturally clear that there is only one seven-headed beast that ascends out of the abyss. Plus, I am fully aware that the dragon is never called a beast, but that is also part of the reason why I stated the following and asked you, “There are two similar seven headed beasts, the red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads in Revelation 12; of which we are clearly told represents Satan. But are we to believe Satan is literally a seven headed red dragon?” Do you think Satan is a seven headed red dragon? If so that might explain a lot of your position.

However, as I stated in my post to you, “…the beast in Revelation 13 that has seven heads and ten horns, but upon his horns there are ten crowns and not seven. Also, upon his heads the name of blasphemy appears to be written somehow. This beast, unlike the red dragon, is said to be like unto a leopard, the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion which clearly connects it to those beasts mentioned in the Book of Daniel. However, while there are two prophetic imageries with seven heads, it is obvious they both definitely represent more than just two things; hence all the heads, horns and crowns.”

Now while (as you did so emphasized), “Revelation only speaks about one many-headed Beast, and only speaks about one Beast that ascends out the Abyss,” my comment was pointing out that “while there are two prophetic imageries with seven heads, it is obvious they both definitely represent more than just two things; hence all the heads, horns and crowns.”

So, pardon the question, are we to assume that all those things represented by the beast, the empires and kings throughout the ages were all thrown into the abyss, or are ascending up out of it?

Of course not. The very verbiage of the passage you quoted simply confirms what the angel was telling John about those things in their reality in linear time and physical space, i.e., kingdoms and kings. That some of them were in John’s past, one was present, and the other was yet off in the future.

Revelation 17:7 - And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.  8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 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.

Now, again I will quote my original response to you, “Now, the red dragon can unquestionably be separated from the beast in Revelation 13, but the beast in Revelation 13 cannot be separated from the red dragon; for it is the dragon that gives this seven headed beast (which is actually symbolic of the eighth and final empire), his power, and his seat, and great authority.”

To me, my point was obvious and easily seen within the prophetic passage; there is a spiritual force that works throughout the ages to manipulate those kingdoms through their kings. One is both in, and of, the spiritual realm, the rest in and of the natural.

But the fact that they are distinct and separate is undeniably seen in the continuing two verses–

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Clearly the prophecy is making a distinction between the “ten horns” and the “the beast.” However, the ten horns are on the beast, as well as the seven heads and the ten crowns. So we cannot take all that which the prophetic imagery symbolizes (kingdoms and kings in linear time and physical space), and make it into the one thing only. We must distinguish between that which in spiritual and that which is natural. You make this distinction yourself in your post below -

On 13/3/2016 at 4:38 PM, WilliamL said:

I believe what the book says: the Beast has 7 heads, which are 7 mountains, which scripture elsewhere denotes as empires. They are also 7 kings, the spiritual rulers of those empires.“The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth [king]..." 17:11 -- that is, the Beast is also a spiritual king. He comes out of the Abyss: 17:8.

Nowhere does it say, nor can it be, that the others were in the Abyss. For if they were, they would have been unable to rule over earthly empires.

Now, it is evident that you are seeing it all as spiritual, for you are calling the seven kings “the spiritual rulers of those empires.” While I would agree that there were forces working behind them in the spiritual realm, so to say, I would assert that these prophetic kings in reference are not “spiritual rulers,” but literal flesh and blood kings. For consider Daniel’s word to King Nebuchadnezzar below.

Daniel 2:37 - Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

Therefore, to answer your first question, “How does a country ascend out of the abyss?” A country doesn’t of course. For again, the beast represents many things, a succession of seven empires that lead up to the eighth and final empire that goes into perdition. It represents the ten (horns) kings and their kingdoms into whom God puts it to fulfil His will and to destroy both the eighth empire and the Mystery religion that has deceived the nations through time and is revealed in the last days as the “Mother of Harlots.”

However, this seven headed beast with all its prophetic symbolism mainly represents the eighth empire destined for destruction. But that empire isn’t a beast, it exists in the natural just as surely did Nebuchadnezzar and the Capital Babylon did in the Chaldean Empire.

So to answer your second question of “How did it get there in the first place?” It didn’t. One must distinguish between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “natural.” That is why I included the link to Bod Dylan’s song “You gotta serve someone.”

Your last question, “Are not only fallen angels ever spoken of as being there?” The answer is yes, because they are spiritual. Again, not to waste your time, but like I stated “the red dragon (spiritual) can unquestionably be separated from the beast (natural) in Revelation 13, but the beast in Revelation 13 cannot be separated from the red dragon; for it is the dragon that gives this seven headed beast (which is actually symbolic of the eighth and final empire), his power, and his seat, and great authority.”

Now, is Satan himself ultimately the spiritual force in reference as that entity that ascends out of the abyss, or is it perhaps another fallen angel under his charge? I do not know; scripture doesn’t tell us that. It only tells us here that the same one who was not corrected by our Lord and Saviour when he claimed that all the kingdoms of the world were his to give to whoever he wanted, that he is the one who gives the eighth and final empire its power, seat, and great authority.

Now whether you agree with that or not is your liberty to do so, but only to the extent that we all are accountable for what we believe and why. But I do fearfully acknowledge that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life are the ones who will be wondering when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is…

So, William, can they which have not been spiritually enlighten see the spiritual? I don’t believe so, and don’t worry my question as it was again but rhetorical. Nonetheless, I believe a lot of those wondering will be numbered among the “many” that will one day say to the King of kings, “But Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” Yet while they were alive (it seems obvious doesn’t it) that they had to of been leavened with the leaven of the Pharisees and proud about what they believed…

One thing I’ve learned so far in this life is that I know nothing as I ought; but nonetheless, I still tirelessly seek to know all He has for me.

 

On 14/3/2016 at 6:45 PM, WilliamL said:

Yes, I read short books, like Jude, for example.

As far as rude, long posts that avoid answers is rude in my book, because I wasted my time reading the whole thing thinking that somewhere in there I'd find your answers. But there was only evasiveness and changing the subject, such as a lot of talking about Rev. 13 as if I had mentioned it. I find that disrespectful.

BTW, Jude is referred to as a "book" only in counting those various compilations that make up the canon of scripture. In truth, it is an epistle, a general letter to the church. No disrespect intended.

 

[BlindSeeker]

13 hours ago, Spock said:

Seeker,

thanks for sharing your thoughts and your heart with me.  As you know, I too began seeing NYC as mystery Babylon, but not the 8th beast. 

In fact, as I am reading your book, you seem to cross the lines, at least from my perspective, whereas I'm not sure if you are discussing the beast or the harlot- two different entities. 

So, this leads me to ask you- who is the harlot of rev 17 that rides the beast? I know you said it is not the Roman Catholic Church.  Do you say all false religions melted into one? (Maybe it is covered in your book but because I'm skipping I may have missed it for now.)

thanks,

spock

Hey Spock, Yes, it would be all false religions that are represented by Mystery, Babylon the Great. But I do think we can see the end time apostasy of Catholicism in the Mother of Harlots fairly clearly.

Years ago I wrote a piece called “Restoration versus Reformation.” My contention was that the church didn’t need to be reformed, for it was being persecuted under the inquisitions for rejecting the authority of the papacy and the Catholic Church as being the true church.

These were mainly called “Anabaptists” by the Catholic Church because they were re-baptizing people who were coming to a knowledge of the Truth and coming out of the errors of Catholicism.

However, I have come to the conclusion the unmistakable black and white distinction between the persecutors and the persecuted was becoming too obvious. For how could true followers of Jesus Christ, who were supposed to be known by their love for each other and their enemies, be committing the atrocities that both the followers and leaders of Roman Catholicism were committing against those professing Jesus as their lord?

Plus, doubtless there had to be people on both sides that were beginning to reconsider their positions. Surely there were those who were being so harshly persecuted, that knowing their weakening state were being constantly lied to by the adversary and told the cost was too much to endure; as well as those in Catholicism beginning to see the sins that were being committed in the Lord’s name. Doubtless some of them were falling under holy conviction of their need to pick up their crosses and follow Christ regardless the cost.

The adversary answer was to have this apostate church give birth to harlot churches to create a religious alternative form of exercising one’s faith for those on both sides to flee to. For it is evident that neither Martin Luther of John Calvin exited Catholicism clean; both remaining tainted by many of the heretical beliefs held therein. Such can be said to be true of many of the protestants churches that have sprung up since then and exist today. So it shouldn’t be surprising to see them all returning to their mother since they are all influence by the spirit behind the mystery religions birth in Babel and practiced in Babylon.

As far as skipping around in my book, that's ok. Just know however that there is an order to the way it is written. You know, kind of line uponline, precept upon precept... So in doing so some areas may not be clear if you haven't read the prior chapters.

 

 

 

[WilliamL]

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

First, WilliamL, how would you feel or even respond if someone referenced a reply to them where you asked them questions as having “shotgunned” back at them? [Second]  Or that your post was nothing more than “deflecting chaff?”

First question: I would never be in that position, because I strive to write short answers, which this site requests. Second question: If I did so, I would confess it.

To quote your own words to another: " But you have hardly attempted to answer my questions, and so you have left me, and doubtless others as well, not the least bit persuaded of your premise; primarily because of your failure to provide significant evidence." Likewise, your original post to me "hardly attempted to answer my questions."

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

Therefore, to answer your first question, “How does a country ascend out of the abyss?” A country doesn’t of course. For again, the beast represents many things, a succession of seven empires that lead up to the eighth and final empire that goes into perdition.

So then the Beast that becomes the 8th King is not America. Theoretically it could spiritually rule over an America empire when it does ascend. (Not that I believe there is any chance that it will.)

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

However, this seven headed beast with all its prophetic symbolism mainly represents the eighth empire destined for destruction. But that empire isn’t a beast, it exists in the natural just as surely did Nebuchadnezzar and the Capital Babylon did in the Chaldean Empire.

So to answer your second question of “How did it get there in the first place?” It didn’t. One must distinguish between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “natural.”

Sounds like doubletalk to me. The angel told John that the Beast "will ascend out of the Abyss." The Beast is angel in the Abyss: it is not "mainly a representation of the eighth empire." You essentially avoided the question -- for the third time now -- about how the Beast got in the Abyss, let alone about how it will get out.

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

Your last question, “Are not only fallen angels ever spoken of as being there?” The answer is yes, because they are spiritual. Again, not to waste your time, but like I stated “the red dragon (spiritual) can unquestionably be separated from the beast (natural) in Revelation 13, but the beast in Revelation 13 cannot be separated from the red dragon; for it is the dragon that gives this seven headed beast (which is actually symbolic of the eighth and final empire), his power, and his seat, and great authority.”

Now, is Satan himself ultimately the spiritual force in reference as that entity that ascends out of the abyss, or is it perhaps another fallen angel under his charge? I do not know; scripture doesn’t tell us that.

Scripture never tells us that Satan was ever cast into the Abyss. It does tell us that he will be cast into the Abyss in the future: Rev. 20:1-3.

Other scriptures do tell us who is in the Abyss, and why: Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. Enoch tells us who their leader was:

Enoch 53:5-6 …the host of Azazel…became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwelt upon earth.

Enoch 87:5; 10:15, 9 [God's archangels] cast them into the cavities of the earth. …“ind them for 70 generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment…and in the great day of judgment let [them] be cast into the fire.”

Enoch 9:5-6 “You have seen what Azazel has done, how he has taught every species of iniquity upon Earth… 10:12 “All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime.”

Rev. 13:2 The Dragon [will give] him [the Beast] his power, his throne, and great authority.

Let those who have wisdom understand.

[BlindSeeker]

35 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Let those who have wisdom understand.

So, at least we found a point of agreement.

[ARGOSY]

10 hours ago, worthy said:

 

Babylon: The head of gold

Persia: The silver chest & arms

Greece: The bronze torso and thighs

Rome: The iron legs

Rome reborn: The feet made of iron and clay -

Rome reborn-the EU (European Union )

 

I don't see a broken timeline. 

Babylon: The head of gold

Persia: The silver chest & arms

Greece: The bronze torso and thighs

Rome: The iron legs

Rome split: The feet made of iron and clay 

Rome reunited-the EU and the Turkish Ten Horn Union support a new leader of both territories

(the antichrist is the Great Monarch of the Catholics and the ISA of the Moslems)

[Serving]

America can not be mystery Babylon, she just can not meet the requirements of being the "Mother", America is just another of "her" daughters is all.

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of ALL that were slain UPON the EARTH.

This "woman" was around for the very first murder even, Cain's slaying of Abel .. "and of ALL that were slain upon the earth" is the CHARGE .. This "Woman" is not physical, though her works manifest in the physical, "she" herself has another source .. look to the WINE as a clue and then expand upon it, if you understand what WINE stands for that is.

 

[Spock]

The thing about Mystery Babylon that may be confusing is that Rev 17 also says she is a CITY!  So, it seems to me you have to deal with this part of the Mystery as well. If you just say she is "all false religion" then what CITY are you talking about? 

[Last Daze]

1 minute ago, Spock said:

The thing about Mystery Babylon that may be confusing is that Rev 17 also says she is a CITY!  So, it seems to me you have to deal with this part of the Mystery as well. If you just say she is "all false religion" then what CITY are you talking about? 

Personally, I think its a reference to the geographical seats of power of each of the seven heads, e.g. Nineveh, Susa, Rome, NYC, etc. that exercise power because of the efforts of six specific fallen angels.