Islam the Whore of Babylon

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mohammed is an anti-Christ and a false prophet.
Islam is the whore of Babylon.
Mecca is known as the city of seven hills by the Arabs.
Islam is bastardized just like a whore is bastardized.

The strick Muslim's would just as soon cut your head off as look at you.

There’s a pall of fear over the civilized world. Cause? Islam. Islam has pronounced itse ed
swords representing Islam and the other part was arabic meaning "in the name of Allah".

Mohammed is an anti-Christ and a false prophet.

I agree that Mohammed was an anti-Christ. John says many of such have gone out into the world. This is not a good enough reason to interpret Revelation 17,18 as Islam. And weaknesss with such a view we can examine.

Islam is the whore of Babylon.

You have to consider what the REAL Babylon was in the Old Testament in order to better understand the SYMBOL Babylon of the New Testament.

Babylon in the Old Testament captivity was a place that God's people, the nation of Israel, was captured to. The Jews were taken FROM the good land and sent TO Babylon. There was the need for them to return from that place to their righteful place.

We have in Revelation 18 the words of God out of heaven "Come out of her, My people, that you do not participate in her sins and that you do not receive her plagues." (Rev. 18:4)

In the New Testalemt symbology then Babylon should be someplace or situation where the CHRISTIANS are captured away from the proper standing. God's people, the new covenant believers in Christ, must be represented by "my people". And the call of God that His people would "come out of her" must mean that the Christians are caught there in a kind of captivity from which they must be recovered and freed.

This is why Islam is not a good candidate. Rather Babylon the Mother of Harlots should be something in which the Christians, the New Testament people of God have been carried away into, sidetracked, distracted, taken captive.

We do not have millions of Christians caught in Islam. So I suggest that we look elsewhere to interpret the symbol. Notwithstanding, it is certainly true that Mohammed is an antichrist.

Mecca is known as the city of seven hills by the Arabs.

I don't think I will comment on this because Islam is already disqualified from being the place where God's people, by great multitudes, are captured Babylonian style, and need to COME OUT OF HER.

Could such a thing happen in the future ? Possibly. But I don't think Islam is the interpretation of Rev. 17,18.

The city of Rome though, I have heard is upon seven hills. That may be a clue to interpreting Revelation 17,18.

Islam is bastardized just like a whore is bastardized.

It says that Babylon there is the Mother of Prostitutes. A whore may have a married mother and father. So I don't know why you equate Babylon with being a "bastard". That is unless you are just using the term in some general conteptuous way.

Revelation stresses not only the Holy Spirit but the regenerated spirit of man. The words "I was in spirit" indicate that John and we believers need to be exercised in our Holy Spirit indwelt human spirit in order to see the Revelation.

Revelation is composed of four major visions. With each of these it stresses that John was in spirit:

1.) He was in spirit to see the vision of the seven lampstands as seven churches chapters 1 - 3.

2.) He was in spirit to see the vision of the destiny of the world (chapters 4 - 16)

3.) He was in spirit to see the vision of Babylon the Great (chapters 17-20)

4.) He was in spirit to see the vision of the New Jerusalem (chapters 21-22).

John was in spirit to see these four visions (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10) . That is John was with his mind set on his regenerated and Christ indwelt spirit - joined to the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17) to receive the revelation of the mystery of Christ. This is according to what is mentioned in Ephesians 3:5.

We need to be regenerated and in spirit to see the revelation this book too. We cannot simply take something that we hate and make that the object of the negative symbols of the book. We should not simply rationalize what we dispise into the vision of Babylon. There must be spiritual realization in our spirit and not merely a natural mental understanding in our imaginative mind.

This is a general comment. It is too easy for the western mind to see Islam as Babylon. And the eastern mind might see the Western World as "the Great Satan". Making our enemies the negative symbols of the Bible is not reliable, if we are not receiving revelation in spirit from the Holy Spirit.

The strick Muslim's would just as soon cut your head off as look at you.

This is not sufficient reason to see Islam as Babylon, even if it is true.

I bring you back to the point that the words of God "Come out of her My people ..." (18:4) should not be taken for granted. The people of God in the OT were CARRIED away into Babylon the antitype. Now in New Testament times the people of God, at least a large number of them, have been carried away from their proper standing into a symbolic Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots.

Islam is not the best interpretation of this symbolism. It should point to some form of degraded and deformed Christianity.

It should point to something which has spawned off offshoots of herself - "the mother of harlots". She has many "daughters". That means that what she is has produced many other minatures which are LIKE her in one way or another.

We may say Islam is "like" Christianity. True. But we cannot really say that the new covnenant people of God have been carried away by the millions into Islam. Islam denies the Christian Gospel. This Babylon should not be something which totally denies the Christian Gospel. But she contains enough of it to deceive, capture, mislead the Christians INTO her massive fold.

We should not look to Islam or Mecca for the interpretation. But we should look to some form of degraded Christianity.

One other thing. What the Mother of Harlots is has to be the antithesis of what the Bride and Wife of Christ is. She is set up in Revelation as the Woman who claims a spousal relationship with Christ which Christ does not acknowledge. That is the major point here - Facade - Pretense - a SHOW which is not legitimate in the eyes of God.

I stop this post here for length's sake. The Harlot is VERSES the Bride.
The Mother of Harlots is VERSES the Wife of the Lamb. Babylon is verses the New Jerusalem.

What the WIFE of Christ is in legitimacy the Babylon the Great is in FACADE and in PRETENSE. She boasts of a relationship with God which God does not acknowledge. Yet at the same time God's people by greast numbers are CAUGHT up in her.

You have to see this.

1.) She CLAIMS a spousal relationship with Christ.
2.) God does not affirm the legitimacy of that relationship.
3.) Many of God's PEOPLE are caught there and need to come out.

That's enough for this post.

Originally posted by jaywill

Mohammed is an anti-Christ and a false prophet.

I agree that Mohammed was [b]an anti-Christ. John says many of such have gone out into the world. This is not a good enough reason to interpret Revelation 17,18 as Islam. And weaknesss with such a view we can examine.

what makes you say mohammed is an anti-christ?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what makes you say mohammed is an anti-christ?

what makes you say mohammed is an anti-christ?

Because I'm MEAN. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

Originally posted by RJHinds
All Muslims are following a strong delusion created by Satan.

So you are the president of the United States of America, you have these views, what do you do? You going to launch yet another war on Islam? You could see how well that turned out in the Crusades.

Originally posted by jaywill

what makes you say mohammed is an anti-christ?

Because I'm [b] MEAN. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk![/b]

A more helpful answer would be to define what you think constitutes an 'anti-Christ'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
A more helpful answer would be to define what you think constitutes an 'anti-Christ'.

The will be one final Antichrist at the end of the age. From the first century there have been many antichrists gone out into the world.

In the second case I follow the RcV and other English translations by not capitalizing as you did ['anti-Christ']. It may be a small point, but the many antichrists that have gone out into the world I do not capitalize as I would for the final one.

Now the backround:

The Apostle John says many antichrists have gone out into the world -

Young children, it is the last hour and even as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come; whereby we know that is is the last hour.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remianed with us; but they went out that they might be manifested that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:18,19)

In this case I take "they went out from us" to indicate these teachers have aborbed a substantial amount of teaching FROM the apostles of Christ. It need not mean that they physically were among the apostles. I think it means they went out from under the enfluence of a certain amount of New Testament teaching in order to draw men away after their own ideas.

[/b] These ideas are "antichrist" literally meaning INSTEAD OF Christ. They are under some New Testament teaching but in their twistings and apostasy they present something or someone else INSTEAD OF Christ - "antichrist".

I think Mohammed qualifies as one of these who doctrinally "went out from us".

Mohammed certainly offered the world thing else INSTEAD OF the Gospel of the New Testament. His version of Jesus Christ is not God inarnate. His version of Christ is not the Son of God for it is blasphemous to his Quran that God could have a "Son".

Therefore, Muhammed, posing to be a prophet with the "inside story" so to speak, teaches of a Christ who is not the Son of God.

Also the Christ Muhammed taught did not die a redemptive death at Calvary. In fact Muhammed's Jesus did not die at all. He taught what we could call "another Jesus" (Second Corinthians 11:4) .

More seriously, Muhammed taught that he supasses any ministry of the New Testament's Christ. His word as a prophet of Islam, superceeds and trancends the revelation of the New Testament. So I regard not only his teaching an antchrist teaching but his pointing to his own ministry as transcending that life, death, and resurrrection of Christ.

In additiion to 1 John 2:18,19 "antichrist" is also mentioned in chapter 4 "the [spirit] of antichrist" .

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

In this we know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God; and this is the [spirit] of antichrist, of which you have heard it is coming and now is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

Some brief comments about 1 John 4:1-4 .

1.) I don't think the passage is RESTRICTED to only denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I think there is a principle involved here of denying ANYTHING of the total teaching about Jesus Christ qualifies to be of the spirit of antichrist.

To deny that Jesus was a genuine man - could be of the spirit of antichrist.

To deny that Jesus was born of a virgin - could be of the spirit of antichrist.

To deny that Jesus was tired, slept, had a virgin mother, died a redemptive death, rose from the dead, is the Lord Spirit to enter into man, is coming again, etc.

To teach INSTEAD of any of the total teaching of Christ in the Bible qualifies to be classed in the spirit of, or in the principle of antichrist - Instead of Christ.

I do not think the passage is restricted ONLY to denying that Jesus came in the flesh as some forms of Gnostic teaching taught.

2.) It should go without saying that for "Jesus Christ" to "come in the flesh" is not merely that Jesus was BORN. Anyone may "confess" that they believe a certain man Jesus was born, and that in the flesh.

I believe that for John to tie false prophets with the teaching that Jesus Christ has NOT come in the flesh must be to deny the incarnation of Deity in the flesh.

" ... and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh" (John 1:1,14) must be the import of John's complaint.

"That which was from the beginning [the eternal Word of life] which we heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we HANDLED ..., concerning the Word of life ... (And the life was manifested to us) ... ... the eternal life which was with the Father .

Jesus Christ having come in the flesh involves the incarnation of the eternal Divine Logos of God, the Word, become flesh.


Muhammed's teaching is INSTEAD of Christ having come in the flesh in the way of incarnation. It doesn't matter that he thought Jesus was born like any other prophet was born naturally.

The clencher though is in verses 22 which prove Muhammed a liar -

"Who is a liar if not he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, to one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22,23)

1.) An antichrist is a teacher denying that Jesus is the Christ. The teacher is in the principle or the spirit of antichrist.

2.) The context is that to deny Jesus is the Christ is to deny "the Father and the Son".

So denying that Jesus is the Son of God is denying "the Father and the Son" and it is also denying that Jesus is the Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill
The will be one final Antichrist at the end of the age. From the first century there have been many antichrists gone out into the world.

In the second case I follow the RcV and other English translations by not capitalizing as you did ['anti-Christ']. It may be a small point, but the [b]many antichrists that have gone out into the world I do not ca /b] and it is also denying that Jesus is the Christ.[/b]

I think your analysis of the background is interesting and generally accurate (from a Christian viewpoint); however how would you recommend Christians interact with committed Muslims today, especially in the frame of the extremist fundamentalist violence demonstrated by the few?

Originally posted by divegeester
I think your analysis of the background is interesting and generally accurate (from a Christian viewpoint); however how would you recommend Christians interact with committed Muslims today, especially in the frame of the extremist fundamentalist violence demonstrated by the few?

I think your analysis of the background is interesting and generally accurate (from a Christian viewpoint); however how would you recommend Christians interact with committed Muslims today, especially in the frame of the extremist fundamentalist violence demonstrated by the few?

When the Lord Jesus told His disciples to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents, that certainly indicates not doing anything STUPID.

"Wise as serpents" + "innocent as doves." This should be a balance of love, prayer, and commending ourselves to the consciences of men. But it also should mean with a cultural wisdom that is familiar with the ways of the world - "wise as serpents".

Don't you think this generally indicates not doing anything dumb? You know we could be in a Moslem country and do something rather stupid given the circumstances. The disciples should be faithful to Christ and moral in the sight of men. Yet they should act with a wisdom that keeps them from making a naive and downright stupid move.

Now I have never lived in a Moslem country. I have never met violent Moslems except with the possible exception of some "Black Moslems" in the early 1970s.

I think Ravi Zacharias is a Christian worker who has gone into Moslem countries with the Gospel. And we could learn something from him in this regard.

Originally posted by jaywill
[
Don't you think this generally indicates not doing anything dumb? You know we could be in a Moslem country and do something rather stupid given the circumstances. The disciples should be faithful to Christ and moral in the sight of men. Yet they should act with a wisdom that keeps them from making a naive and downright stupid move.

Now I have never ...[text shortened]... Moslems except with the possible exception of some "Black Moslems" in the early 1970s.

I despair that a thread of this title is considered acceptable in a forum for decent people. Even Jaywill, dancing carefully around the terms and seeking something bordering on a decent attitude, is unwilling to challenge the persistent identification of a religion shared by not millions, but billions, of our brothers and sisters on this tiny, violent planet with terms of abuse and the never ending assertion that it is inherently violent and, indeed, in a state of virtual war with Christianity. By all means dispute their theology and defend your own, but can we please dispense with the acceptance of "violent muslims" as a normal description?

It is impossible to separate Islam from its violent origins. It is possible, on closer scrutiny, to see that these were the existing conditions into which Islam sought to insert codes of decent behaviour, taking a marginalised people and supplying something far more creative and indeed civilised as a model for them to live. It's social impact is reflected in their subsequent military and economic success. It's humane and inspiring messages accounts for its continiuing ability to acquire converts. Not least, and something to which Christian Evangelists appear blind, is the affection held for Mohammed precisely on account of his all too human foibles. There are many ways to be a Muslim and this seems lost on you in your intolerance and bigotry.

But can you separate the Jewish religion from its violent origins? At the same time as Jesus was preaching his message of neighbourly love, the Maccabbees were preaching a nationalist revolution against the Romans. It was only after the destruction of the Temple that Jews fully committed to their religion as something primarily spiritual rather than material. And would you say that all Jews are non violent today? Is not the Jewish faith used by some zealots to justify violence and intolerance in the modern state of Israel (something utterly incredible given their history) ?

And where do we start to separate Christianity from its violent history? When Constantine legalised and protected the religion in the Fourth Century, he instantly unearthed a warren of many different and disputing sects under the generic title of Christians and it was as part of the process of incorporating Christians into the Roman order (including military and civil government) that the religion was first codified, by all means with regard to a selection of earlier writings - but other writings were rejected. When I am told that the bible is the litral word of God, I am reminded that it is also a compilation of writing assembled by (in effect) politicians. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity was again marginalised and re-emerged in strength when it became the ideological foundation for the Franks to extend control over teritory starting with the forcible and extremely violent conversion of Saxony, and ultimately reaching a boundary with the Slavs and the (by then separate) Eastern Orthodox Church.

Was Christianity brought the to New World peacably by conversion? I think not. Where the Inca and Aztec civilisations provided political unity to parts of the Americas, it was destroyed by the Conquistadores and forcibly, violently, viciously, Christianity was imposed. Elsewhere, the native Americans were helpless ultimately and their way of life utterly destroyed for the most part. At least those in the North were spared the Inquisition.

Was Spain transferred from a multi faith - Islam, Christian and Jew - country to one stifled under the conformity of the Catholic Inquisition by a process of peacable conversion? I think not.

Were the Crusades peacable works of conversion to the one true faith? Maybe not.

The claim that Christianity is today a peace loving and generous religion is belied by its role on politics and, in particular, its role in the Middle East. The current American Evangelist demonisation of Islam is part of the ideological current to defend the (American protected) State of Israel in its modern, violent manifestation and the continuing American war mongering abroad, as well as the ongoing assault on civil liberties at home that is the so called "War on Terror." How long before Iran feels the force of this? Even if that never happens, it seems rational for Muslims to feel under threat.

People in the Middle East, and many oppressed people such as some Black people in the US, regard Islam as a faith that offers them not only dignity but also a separate identity to be proud of, in opposition to the divisive and oppressive doctrines of the west, which has meddled in and impoverished the Middle East since the Nineteenth Century.

There is violence in every religion and not least in Christianity. The terminology used in this and similar posts promotes and aggravates antagonism, ignorance and aggression in a way that offers no hope.

Read again about the religious wars that accompanied the schisms within Western Christianity from the time of Luther onwards, to get some appreciation of how hopeless and destructive such intolerance will always be. Maybe Jesus would not have approved - but would he have started a thread with a title like this one? Hopefully not.

Originally posted by finnegan
I despair that a thread of this title is considered acceptable in a forum for decent people. Even Jaywill, dancing carefully around the terms and seeking something bordering on a decent attitude, is unwilling to challenge the persistent identification of a religion shared by not millions, but billions, of our brothers and sisters on this tiny, violent plan e approved - but would he have started a thread with a title like this one? Hopefully not.

I despair that a thread of this title is considered acceptable in a forum for decent people. Even Jaywill, dancing carefully around the terms and seeking something bordering on a decent attitude, is unwilling to challenge the persistent identification of a religion shared by not millions, but billions, of our brothers and sisters on this tiny, violent planet with terms of abuse and the never ending assertion that it is inherently violent

I don't know what "dancing" around you are refering to. I was ASKED why I refered to Muhammed as an antichrist. Did you find my lengthy reply political ? Did you find it flattering to Islam ? I didn't.

Do I really need to talk about jihad in every reference concerning Islam ? My burden here is to explain why Islam is not a good candidate for interpreting Babylon the Great in Revelation.

I'm focused on this issue.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think Ravi Zacharias is a Christian worker who has gone into Moslem countries with the Gospel. And we could learn something from him in this regard.

Goodness me. Was he OK?

Wouldn't places where different faiths have lived side by side for centuries allow you to "learn something" about Moslems (violent or otherwise) rather better than what an evangelical from North America, who writes books for Christian fundamentalists, has to say?

Originally posted by jaywill

Mohammed is an anti-Christ and a false prophet.

I agree that Mohammed was [b]an anti-Christ. John says many of such have gone out into the world. This is not a good enough reason to interpret Revelation 17,18 as Islam. And weaknesss with such a view we can examine.

Islam is the whore of Babylon.

You have ht there and need to come out.

That's enough for this post.[/b]

Although old Rome was built on seven hills, today it also includes a couple more
hills and it incompasses Vatican city which is on Vatican Hill. So if it refers to
Rome it is not a very accurate prophocy and also Rome is not known for its oil.
Some translations say "mountains" instead of "hills" which fits Mecca since the 7
hills of Mecca are each called "Jabal" which I am told means "mountain". John
was looking into the future so He saw a city with much riches and with oil. This
could very well be Mecca, Saudia Arabia today.

http://meccasevenmountains.blogspot.com/

P.S.
And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of
the earth.” (Revelation 17:18) What city other than Mecca do the kings of the
earth face and then bow down before each day?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Although old Rome was built on seven hills, today it also includes a couple more
hills and it incompasses Vatican city which is on Vatican Hill. So if it refers to
Rome it is not a very accurate prophocy and also Rome is not known for its oil.
Some translations say "mountains" instead of "hills" which fits Mecca since the 7
hills of Mecca are each calle ...[text shortened]... uld very well be Mecca, Saudia Arabia today.

http://meccasevenmountains.blogspot.com/

Scotland has mountains and oil, so does Norway.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Scotland has mountains and oil, so does Norway.

1.the Seven hills of Istanbul
2.the Seven hills of Rome
3.the Seven hills of Moscow
4.the Seven hills of San Francisco
5.the Seven hills of Seattle
6.the Seven hills of Iaşi
7.the seven hills of Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
8.the seven hills of Tirumala - Tirupati, India
9.the seven hills of Western Sydney, Australia
10.the seven hills of Abergavenny, South Wales, United Kingdom
11.the seven hills of Ibadan, Nigeria
12.the seven hills of Lisbon, Portugal
13.the seven hills of Providence, Rhode Island, United States
14.the seven hills of Sheffield, England
15.the seven hills of Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
16.the seven hills of Amman, Jordan
17.the seven hills of Bergen, Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills

Originally posted by FMF
1.the Seven hills of Istanbul
2.the Seven hills of Rome
3.the Seven hills of Moscow
4.the Seven hills of San Francisco
5.the Seven hills of Seattle
6.the Seven hills of Iaşi
7.the seven hills of Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
8.the seven hills of Tirumala - Tirupati, India
9.the seven hills of Western Sydney, Australia
10.the seven ...[text shortened]... mman, Jordan
17.the seven hills of Bergen, Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of
the earth.” (Revelation 17:18) What city other than Mecca do the kings of the
earth face and then bow down before each day?