Thanks again for your thought. Here's what I understand to be a possible path to resolution on this.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
It was the contents of the little book which John had "prophecy" to the people and was to prophecy again which begs the question...what is the little book?
Here, the days of the seventh angel are said to have been declared to his servants the prophets.
Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
In Rev 11 and Rev 16 are those same days spoken of which per Rev 10:7 have been declared to his servants the prophets. I'm not aware of a better biblical warrant to seek the prophets than that Bro. so I will leave it there with you and thanks for the exchange.
James Thomas wrote: No one said they were not real churches. No one is opposing anythin US, I'm simply pointing out some cross references from different Scripture which all speak of the same event of which I referenced rev 3:12. Here's another Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people And another Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. If you don't think the Rev 3:12 is the same event in all of the other references I've given, why is that? Thanks Thanks for the good thought Mike. I'm still pondering it so I haven't been able to reply as of yet. Not looking for 12 rounds either but healthy sparring is a good thing.
Just because some of the words are similar does not mean it refers to the same thing. Revelation 3:12 is a future promise to those who overcome not a past reference to the new covenant.
You asked my thinking, that would be it, if you don't see it that way, then you don't.
No one said they were not real churches. No one is opposing anythin US, I'm simply pointing out some cross references from different Scripture which all speak of the same event of which I referenced rev 3:12.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people
Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
If you don't think the Rev 3:12 is the same event in all of the other references I've given, why is that? Thanks
Thanks for the good thought Mike. I'm still pondering it so I haven't been able to reply as of yet. Not looking for 12 rounds either but healthy sparring is a good thing.
Here's a problem with the chronology of that view. In ch 2 there are prophecies mentiined from Isaiah that were yet to be fulfilled.
Isaiah 65: 15 ...And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:.
The Jews name was to be left for a curse and His servants were to receive a new name.
Rev 2:9 ...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Their name was already established. Now, what about the new name for His servants?
Rev 2:17 ...I will give him a white stone, and in the stone* a new name written*, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God.... I will write upon him *my new name*.
Now, isnât it interesting that the promise of a new name in Isaiah 65, which would be given upon the putting away of the Jews in judgment, was still described a promise at this time in the Revelation which was authored in 96AD?
James Thomas wrote: --- Rev 10:11 Thou must prophesy again before many peoples... How is the apostle John going to "prophesy again" if he died shortly after he penned the Revelation? And when did he prophesy prior to the Revelation?
Might there be another possible consideration, James? At the time he was told he was going to prophesy again, he had not yet written the rest of it. As for his death, his prophecies didn't cease to be prophetic at his death, so in that sense he continues to prophecy those things which shall be hereafter. How long had Isaiah been dead when Jesus said "this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears"? Just a thought, not wishing to go round and round.
Good morning Bro US. 1. Yes, who needed to be raised and restored along with the rest of the tribes. Isaiah 49:6 Raised and restored from what? Amos 9:10. You will see that same restoring was spoken of in Amos 9:11 which is cited in Acts 15:11.
2. and 3. The Revelation frequently draws on visual images found in the OT prophets. Rev 1:13-14 is drawn from Daniel 10:5-6 and Ezek 43:2. And Rev 1:15 draws from Ezek 1:7 and Ezek 43:2. The two witnesses are spoken of in Zech 4. The white horseman of Rev 19 is also mentioned in Rev 6:2 (though many wrongly say this is a false prophet) and Zech 1:8, 6:1-8.
There are too many references to the prophets to attempt to interpret the Revelation stand alone (post 96AD) without the context of the prophets. God inspired John to write what he did and had a purpose in drawing on the prophets. It is for us to learn that purpose if we hope to properly interpret the Revelation. And also begs the question which Bro Lurker offered a few days ago.
Rev 10:11 Thou must prophesy again before many peoples...
How is the apostle John going to "prophesy again" if he died shortly after he penned the Revelation? And when did he prophesy prior to the Revelation?
1. The tribe of Judah is represented in Revelation 7 as one of the tribes who has faithful witnesses
2. The whore in Revelation is said to be drunken with the blood of the martyrs of JesusâJudah went out with the rest of Israel as a corporate entity in 70 A.D. and the nation (donât know if Jews currently identify by tribes) didnât make a come back until nearly 1900 years later. Lot of martyrs during that time period. Also no nations or kings could have committed fornication with her, she wasnât around as a group of people identifying as Israel or Judah .
3. I am not disagreeing with you, the verses you quote refer to Israel/Judah except I donât see that being transferred to the book of Revelation
Mystery Babylon, the mother of all harlots, by the prophets are shown to be the Jews collectively. The Jews, comprised of the tribe of Judah and the absorbed tribe of Benjamin, were married to God.....they were His wife until He gave them a bill of divorcement. They, or rather their souls, were once faithful to God fulfilling the Zion covenant to âLove the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.â (Deut 6:5). Ezekiel 16 is an informative thought from the mind of God regarding the Jews.
Ezek 16:30-32 How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman; In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!
Ezek 16:38 And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree bro. I'm always interested in how one arrives at what they believe.
So let me offer this.
Mystery Babylon is the mother of abominations of the earth. For the RC to be Mother, they would need to have been the ones responsible for birthing the abomination. I submit that they are simply progeny.
Jer 32:34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Bro US, reading between the lines, I speculate that James is referring Judah, not Israel, to the NT references of the great whore in the book of Revelation. I don't know if that is right or not, but if I am wrong it is his own fault for not being clear. He answered my question about who the great whore is, with a scripture text, which is:
"So many references to Judah becoming a harlot and yet mystery Babylon is Rome. Pity."
If James had said that Judah was the great whore in Revelation, I might have asked him, "And how do you define Judah in the present world?"
Thereâs an entire book about the children of Israel playing the harlot. The thread runs all the way to Malachi. So while I agree there is much Scripture to support that Israel was not a faithful group of people, I donât see the jump to applying it to the great whore of Revelation.
We obviously wonât agree here but I donât want to come across as saying you are not a student of the Word.
James Thomas wrote: Out of the prophets bro, not out of the blue. What the prophets spoke are the witness, not my thoughts. Rev 17:1 I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: Jer 51:13 O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness. Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Jer 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
I stand corrected. The tie between the two Scriptures is what is out of the blue. Thanks for your time brother James
No I am saying to say that out of the blue that the it refers to Israel because of the word whore or harlot is a stretch. Your entitled to your thinking I simply donât see as anything but your thoughts being impressed into the text.
US, While I understand your example you provided, let me ask a question for some clarity. Are you saying that no other NT or OT passages which make reference to clearly identifying figures which remain consistent through the other 65 books, aside from Isa 47, are reliable sources to identify the same mentions of those same figures spoken of in the Revelation? Thanks