BABYLON...Mother of Harlots

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Did the daughters of Babylon actually say that they would rely solely on their
OWN doctrine and righteousness? And do they really want to be considered
to be children of God?


Brother Villa

[Amanah]

Brother villa, your post is a little vague, can you be more specific?

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Originally Posted by Amanah

Brother villa, your post is a little vague, can you be more specific?

Yes, I could.


Brother Villa

[Monterrey]

Huh?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Huh?

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No trick.

Brother Villa

[Amanah]

can we get a hint?

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Originally Posted by Amanah

can we get a hint?

We live in two realms: the spiritual realm and the natural realm.
The spiritual realm is manifest in the natural realm; while the natural
realm attests to the spiritual realm.

Beloved, I simply wrote the post in a literal sense, in today's vernacular: the way
many here seem to interpret the scriptures!

Brother Villa

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

His NAME is Jesus!



We live in two realms: the spiritual realm and the natural realm.
The spiritual realm is manifest in the natural realm; while the natural
realm attests to the spiritual realm.

Beloved, I simply wrote the post in a literal sense, in today's vernacular: the way
many here seem to interpret the scriptures!

Brother Villa

In a LITERAL sense, there are no daughters of Babylon. A city cannot have literal daughters.

I was unable to quickly find a verse reference for daughters of Babylon saying they would rely on their own doctrine and righteousness and be considered they were the children of God.

I did find this:

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
(Isaiah 4:1)

This seems to be a reference to the law, which says:

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
(Exodus 21:10)

So, seven women will take hold of one man, and will not demand that he be required to fulfill the duty of the Law in regard to providing food and clothing to them. They were willing to married to him, to "be called by his name", but because there were SEVEN of them they would be quite a burden to the man. so they are willing to forego being burdensome to him. They are so desperate to be married to the man that they are willing to make it as easy as possible for him to marry them. They are literally saying "we will do ANYTHING that will satisfy you, we will submit to ANY requirement you place on us, just put your covering upon us, let us be covered by the skirt of your garment."

And this in turn reminds me of the seven candlesticks in Revelation, which are the seven churches. Since the church is the Bride of the Lamb, it follows that Messiah has "seven brides", that is, there are "seven women" who have taken hold of the skirt of the Man, saying "we will do whatever you wish, we only want to be called by your Name. We do not demand anything more of you, we do not negotiate for the priviledge of being married to you, we do not say you must do such and such and give us things we want before we will engage to be betrothed to you, we ONLY WANT YOU."

Looks like a beautiful picture of the true apostolic church.

[Esaias]

Now, if you are trying to say there are false churches, that are trying to take hold of Jesus' skirt, yet refuse His raiment (righteousness) and bread (manna from heaven, the bread of his offered flesh, the work of the cross, and indeed the Word from God by which man is to live), yet want to be called by his name (claim to be His), then I suppose you could make the point from the verse.

I'm not sure that would be actually teaching what the verse is teaching, however. Although, one can draw analogies from scripture. We just have to make certain we don't obscure the actual intended meaning.