> General Discussions

What religios in Babylon?

<< < (3/8) > >>

mcmiller:
Hello everyone, it's been a long time since I posted here.
Interesting question posed.  Some have implied that the only Babylon we can come out of is the "Christian" church.  In thinking about this and our understanding that what applies to us applied in the first century and will also apply in the future, I asked myself the question "What Babylonic christian church did Paul come out of ?" Paul was a Jew and came directly from Judaism into the truth. Does this mean that Judaism is also Babylon?  Peter came directly as did many in the first century.  Others came directly from paganism from Asia Minor. 
I think that the confusion concerning Babylon comes from how we choose to define it.  We can choose a restricted definition or one that is more global.  Is it possible that Babylon is the whole world system of religion and economics, and christianity is just a part of this global system?

I'll do more Bible research and maybe post again.

Mark

Kat:


This is excerpts from ray's Lake of Fire no. 8 article.

http://bible-truths.com/lake8.html -------------------------------------------

But of the "many called," we are told, "few are chosen" (Matt. 20:16). Why is that? God has intended it to be such. We are given the parable of the "sower of seed" where much of the seed fell by the side of the tilled soil, and the birds ate it; some had no depth and withered in the sun; still more fell among thorns and were chocked, but some fell upon good soil and produced much fruit. Many seed are sown, but few seed produce good fruit. "Seed" we see everywhere in the Church; "fruit" of God’s spirit is more rare. These few have the added designation of:

"These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful" (Rev. 17:14).

These are the "very elect" who cannot be deceived any longer by the Great Whore, "Mystery Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots, and the Abominations of the earth."

Paul knew that much of his labor in the gospel would fail to bring most of the saints to spiritual maturity. Paul came out of the Great Whore Church, the Mother Church of Judaism. Paul knew that the Church of Jesus Christ would likewise become corrupted and commit spiritual fornication with the world. And so, just as Paul came out of religious Babylon, everyone reared in the daughter harlot churches, must likewise, "Come out of her My people."

Paul knew that just as he had to come out of religious Babylon, those under his evangelism would also have to one day come out of the New Testament Church of God’s Babylonian practices. In our next installment we will see just what these practices and doctrines of the Seven Churches are, that we must "Come out of…"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that Babylon is referring to anyone that worships God. 
That would include God the Father, that the Jews claim to worship, though it is Jesus Christ.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat

Deborah-Leigh:
12 July last year e-mail to Ray under the title John 17 : 9  perhaps helps.

Dearest Ray
 
You are a "ray" of light! Please would you tell me what Jesus could have meant in John 17:9 where He excluded the world in His prayer. Who did he mean to be excluded?
 
Thank you & bless you
Deborah


Dear Deborah:
Good question.
The "world" represents two entities in Scripture:  [1] The Church, Judaism, the Whore, Mystery Babylon the Great, and [2] The social system of the nations in general.
 
Jesus referred to both in John's Gospel account:
 
"...but be of good cheer; I have overcome the WORLD"  (John 16:33).  What "world?"  Did He overcome China?  Japan?  Indonesia?  No, Jesus overcame the world of Judaism--"He came unto His own [the Jews] but they received Him NOT," and hence He had to overcome them all the days of his earthly ministry.
 
But in John 17:24 read, "...for You loved Me before the foundation of the WORLD" is speaking of the whole "cosmos"--the whole system of world governments.
 
Jesus prayed for NEITHER of these two "worlds," as their destiny is solidly fixed by God's divine providence, and therefore prayer would be of no value. Jesus does not pray that His Father's Prophecies should NOT come to pass, and neither do God's Elect pray such nonsense as is parroted daily over the air waves "pray for world peace."  Nonsense. There will be no world peace--God has already decreed it.
God be with you,
Ray

I see the Pagan systems of Egypt to be part of the social systems of the world in general to include Muslim nations and Hindu Nations and Buddhist Nations etc.

What is interesting is the call from God to us is to come out of Her the Church, and we are also warned not to love the world!

TimothyVI:

--- Quote from: carol v on March 01, 2007, 12:24:00 PM ---My ex-presbyterian minister doesn't understand God's sovereignty and plan so he teaches that the Word is full of the superstitions and interpretations of ancient men. He also teaches it's the Word of God. If you try to pin him down on which is the Word of God and which is the superstitions of man, he shrugs and rolls his eyes.

carol v

--- End quote ---

Hi Carol,

Perhaps your ex-presbyterian minister was not too far from being correct.
The problem comes when we believe that every word in the bible is inspired by God.
I am not sure that everything that was said by anyone in the scriptures are to be considered the word of God.
The scriptures were a whole bunch of stories, within which were some spoken words of God.

The scriptures themselves tell us to not believe everything that is written because the scribes lied.

Jer 8:8     "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie.

Moses came down from the mountain with a whole bunch of laws supposedly given by God. These laws included all of the sacrificial laws. And yet God told us through the great prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah that all of that burning of things for him was an abomination to him. He never commanded it.

Jer 7:22   "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 
Jer 7:23   "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.' 

Isa 1:11     "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
Isa 1:12     "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
Isa 1:13     "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
Isa 1:14     "I hate your new moon {festivals} and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing {them.}

The scriptures just tell us what Moses said. They do not tell us that what he said was true.
Maybe Moses just made some things up on the way down the mountain. Moses gave us the laws concerning tithing.
The people must tithe to only the levite priests forever. Did it just happen to be a coincidence that Moses was from the tribe of Levy?

Just because it is said to have happened in scriptures does not necessarily mean that it is true.

I am not trying to teach outside of what Ray teaches. These verses are in accordance with Ray's
teaching concerning things like tithing and observing the sabbath.

Tim

Deborah-Leigh:
Tim

Thank you for those revealing scriptures.

I do not believe they are outside of what Ray teaches either because I have heard Ray say somewhere in relation to what King David wrote that David wrote and said that NOT GOD!

Perhaps someone will know exactly where this reference is? I know I have heard or read it and Ray said it and I believe it! ;D

It directs my attention again to the teaching Ray gives us on Relative v's Absolute from Exposing those who contradict.  3.
 Dr. James Kennedy A Sermon Denying God’s Responsibility to Save Africans quote :

RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE

If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone.

A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was."

And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20)

Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance:

"Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28)

"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48)

"How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34)

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13)

Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers:

" ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27).

Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3)

This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true.

So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:

 

THE RELATIVE:
 THE ABSOLUTE:
 
" ... seek, and ye shall find ... " (Mat. 7:7) "Not one is seeking out God" (Rom. 3:11)
"God changed His mind" (Ex. 32:14) "God is not a man Who changes His mind" (I Sam. 15:29)
" ... choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Josh. 24:15) "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you ... " (Jn. 15:16)
" ... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ... " (I Jn. 3:10) "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18)
"Zechariah was just before God" (Lk. 1:5) (Comparing him to the corrupt priests) "Not one is just" (Rom. 3:10)
(Comparing man with God)

 

One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature.

Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute."

Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute."

Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk?

Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction.

Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God.

Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God.

Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't.

Thank you for posting your observation.

Peace to you

Arcturus :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page