Al Baghdadi.

[Steve_S]

2 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Yes, it is called the lake of fire, which also is consistent with the Jewish Gehenna, where rubbish is disposed of outside the city.  The next question would be, how do we know that?

You say it's the lake of fire, but that's not written specifically anywhere in the scripture. If the old testament prophecies about Babylon indeed ultimately mean only that this spiritual Babylon, i.e. Jerusalem end up in the lake of fire (with ostriches and such), then we are swiftly reaching an expositional point where words are definitionless and literally almost mean nothing.

[Steve_S]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

Isaiah begins this in verse 1 though as referencing His people, so in this instance based on context it does not appear to apply to the city itself, but moreso the kingdom.

It has to if it is being spiritualizied and use to prove something else in another chapter written 700 years later. However, in the specific context, it doesn't say the kingdom, it says the city and there is not one single thing throughout the entire chapter itself, absent trying to wedge it into a different meaning elsewhere in the scriptures, that says otherwise.

[Steve_S]

3 hours ago, wingnut- said:

The argument for a physical Jerusalem comes mostly from one specific chapter in Zechariah.  So the question is, what exactly is Zechariah speaking of?

An interesting question. I believe Jesus answers it:

Mat 23:37  "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 
Mat 23:38  See! Your house is left to you desolate; 
Mat 23:39  for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'BLESSED is HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' "

I suppose one could spiritualize this and say it's speaking of the "kingdom of Judah" or some such (as has been done previously), however, I would put out that this is after the triumphal entry and Jesus is literally standing in Jerusalem while saying this. There is no kingdom. It's a simple roman province.

My main question here, is how on earth is it possible that this Jersualem, this specific Jerusalem that Jesus is physically standing in and lamenting, will one day, see Him again... if it is destroyed?

[wingnut-]

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

What specific part of Revelation 17 or 18 leads you to believe that a kingdom is in view here? Again, is this being read into the text? Revelation specifies a city, nothing else.

 

Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. 9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10 they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.

 

Mountains are symbolically used to represent kingdoms in scripture, for example, God refers to His kingdom Zion as His holy mountain.

 

Psalms 48  Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised
    in the city of our God!
His holy mountain, 2 beautiful in elevation,
    is the joy of all the earth,
Mount Zion, in the far north,
    the city of the great King.
3 Within her citadels God
    has made himself known as a fortress.

 

Babylon itself is described as a mountain.

 

Jeremiah 51:24 “I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes for all the evil that they have done in Zion, declares the Lord.

25 “Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain,
declares the Lord,
    which destroys the whole earth;
I will stretch out my hand against you,
    and roll you down from the crags,
    and make you a burnt mountain.
26 No stone shall be taken from you for a corner
    and no stone for a foundation,
but you shall be a perpetual waste,
    declares the Lord.

 

There were 7 heads, so 7 kingdoms, and 5 of them were fallen kingdoms, one existed at the time John wrote Revelation, and one more would rise after it but would be brief.  Then the angel tells us that the beast is an eighth but it belongs to the seven.  So, kingdoms have everything to do with it because that eighth kingdom of the beasts will be Babylon of Revelation.  This is displayed in the passage from Jeremiah, God will repay Babylon for all the evil they have done in Zion, and also speaks to this destructive kingdom as destroying the whole earth.

All the evil that is done in Zion is referring to the desolation of the temple, the erection of the image of the beast, the worship of the beast, and the war on the saints which are all carried out from this city.

 

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

I see no evidence that there is a reestablished kingdom of Babylon in the classical sense. But, even if it were, that's not a problem.

Dan 5:25  "And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 
Dan 5:26  This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 

Dan 5:27  TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 
Dan 5:28  PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." 

Whose kingdom? Belshazzar's. Who was Belshazzar?

 

Belshazzar was a Chaldean, like his father before him and those before him, the Chaldean kingdom came to an end, Babylon.  As of that night it became the kingdom of Darius the Mede, later shared with the Persians, an entirely separate kingdom.  Their kingdom would later fall to the Greek kingdom, which would later fall to the Roman kingdom.  When Babylon conquered Assyria the Assyrian kingdom was done as well, this is how we have 5 fallen kingdoms.

 

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

The kingdom of babylon had not went anywhere as an entity, it had simply switched hands. It was the royal line which Belshazzar ended that was finished and he was only the fourth generation in this line (most likely, anyway).

 

It was no longer Babylon, it was now part of the Mede/Persia kingdom.  Ancient Babylon is one of the 5 fallen kingdoms represented by the 7 heads in Revelation, just like Assyria which it conquered.

[wingnut-]

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

You say it's the lake of fire, but that's not written specifically anywhere in the scripture. If the old testament prophecies about Babylon indeed ultimately mean only that this spiritual Babylon, i.e. Jerusalem end up in the lake of fire (with ostriches and such), then we are swiftly reaching an expositional point where words are definitionless and literally almost mean nothing.

 

Not really, it is simply following what is written, the verse you posted tells us that this is the case.

 

Revelation 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice,

“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
    She has become a dwelling place for demons,
a haunt for every unclean spirit,
    a haunt for every unclean bird,
    a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

 

The scripture I posted tell us that the beast, the false prophet, satan, wicked people, and fallen angels all are put into the lake of fire, this becomes their permanent habitation, their dwelling place for eternity.  Everything unclean will be thrown into the lake of fire.

We also know that right now, at this moment, there is no lake of fire here on earth.  The verse tells us that fallen Babylon becomes this habitation that presently does not appear on the planet, but is certainly here at the conclusion of Armageddon.

[Steve_S]

14 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Belshazzar was a Chaldean, like his father before him and those before him, the Chaldean kingdom came to an end, Babylon.  As of that night it became the kingdom of Darius the Mede, later shared with the Persians, an entirely separate kingdom.  Their kingdom would later fall to the Greek kingdom, which would later fall to the Roman kingdom.  When Babylon conquered Assyria the Assyrian kingdom was done as well, this is how we have 5 fallen kingdoms.

Where does it specify "Chaldean kingdom" with regards to this in Daniel 5? What it specifically says, as I point outed, is "your" kingdom" and Daniel is directly speaking to Belshazzar himself. It requires making assumptions that are simply not present in the text to take it even back to Nabopolassar. It requires assumptions that are found nowhere in the scriptures to take it back before that to some "chaldean kingdom." Babylon was part of assyria before this point in time!

[Steve_S]

7 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The scripture I posted tell us that the beast, the false prophet, satan, wicked people, and fallen angels all are put into the lake of fire, this becomes their permanent habitation, their dwelling place for eternity.  Everything unclean will be thrown into the lake of fire.

We also know that right now, at this moment, there is no lake of fire here on earth.  The verse tells us that fallen Babylon becomes this habitation that presently does not appear on the planet, but is certainly here at the conclusion of Armageddon.

I'm still confused a bit by your interpretation then. Are you claiming that the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah (that have not come to pass yet with regards to Babylon) are specifically in reference to this future "destruction of Jerusalem." This should be answered in simple terms. If that is the case there are massive problems with this, because the descriptions of the desolation are obviously of a physical place that temporally exists. You also have the problem that the destruction is directly compared to sodom, which was destroyed and left desolate here on earth, not cast immediately into the lake of fire.

[wingnut-]

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

It has to if it is being spiritualizied and use to prove something else in another chapter written 700 years later. However, in the specific context, it doesn't say the kingdom, it says the city and there is not one single thing throughout the entire chapter itself, absent trying to wedge it into a different meaning elsewhere in the scriptures, that says otherwise.

 

The very first verse says "comfort, comfort my people", I am not sure how you can remove them from the equation.

[Steve_S]

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

The very first verse says "comfort, comfort my people", I am not sure how you can remove them from the equation.

It doesn't remove them from from the equation. The context specifies Jerusalem. He is speaking to His people in Jerusalem. If you are going to extend the context to *everywhere* his people are, then that goes out past Jerusalem and Judah even, anywhere Jews are living would have to be in view. If I say "come, meet my family," then I could be talking about my family in total. If i say "come, meet my family, we will go to Toledo," then obviously I would be speaking only of my family in toledo. This is how the actual chapter reads if you just read it without attempting to wedge it into a broad eschatological narrative. That is the main problem with spiritualizing vast swaths of scripture to fit a presupposition. Eventually you have to start making the text say things it just doesn't say and this is one of those cases.

[wingnut-]

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

My main question here, is how on earth is it possible that this Jersualem, this specific Jerusalem that Jesus is physically standing in and lamenting, will one day, see Him again... if it is destroyed?

 

The city is still there when Jesus returns to the earth.  The beast and the kings do not destroy it, they attack it and set it on fire and assault the people, Jesus is the one who purifies the land with His wrath.

Revelation 11 tells us that the city is split in two, and Zechariah tells us this.

 

Zechariah 14  Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

 

So the question is, half the city goes out into exile, is that half of the city or half of the people?  Because it says the rest (which would have to be the other half of the people)  shall not be cut off from the city.  At the very least, half of the city is still standing.