Re a reader's request for an opinion about
Peter Goodgame’s works and his site www.redmoonrising.com/Giza.htm
AMAIC Response:
....
Apocalypse's "Babylon" has nothing whatsoever to do with Mesopotamia.
"Babylon" is Jerusalem gone bad - and soon (70 AD) to be destroyed by the Romans, with its Temple. (Saint John keeps using the word, "soon").
See [our] "The Bride and the Reject", at http://apocalypsenoworthen.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/bride-and-reject.html
Section, "Unmasking the Whore, 'Babylon the Great'."
Most of the Book of Revelation has literally been fulfilled already, as this article tells.
But, and it is a big BUT, we in our era are undergoing a parallel to those times when Christ the Lamb was slain, as now the Church, His Bride, is following Him through its own Passion to a Resurrection (presumably the Triumph of the Immaculate heart and the Divine Mercy).
"Babylon" is Jerusalem gone bad - and soon (70 AD) to be destroyed by the Romans, with its Temple. (Saint John keeps using the word, "soon").
See [our] "The Bride and the Reject", at http://apocalypsenoworthen.blogspot.com.au/2008/05/bride-and-reject.html
Section, "Unmasking the Whore, 'Babylon the Great'."
Most of the Book of Revelation has literally been fulfilled already, as this article tells.
But, and it is a big BUT, we in our era are undergoing a parallel to those times when Christ the Lamb was slain, as now the Church, His Bride, is following Him through its own Passion to a Resurrection (presumably the Triumph of the Immaculate heart and the Divine Mercy).
....
A perfect combination. At Mass this morning the first freading was the destruction of "Babylon" in Apocalypse, followed by Jesus in the Gospel foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and its being trampled down by the pagan nations. They pertain to the very same thing!
If there was not a Coming of Jesus Christ in that generation (and there was), then He, and Saint John with his "soon", and Saint Paul with his view of an imminent liberation for the faithful, were all quite deluded. And the Modernists are happy to say that the three were completely wrong about "the end".
The ... priest this morning, following these two readings, spoke of the "Second Coming". We would prefer to call it the Final Coming. And no doubt our times parallel the Apocalypse, hence the relevance of it for us today. But it is useless trying to fit the literal details of the book to the 21st century. That particular "Babylon", with its Temple, was annihilated in 70 AD.
The Romans were God's instruments (albeit unwitting) during that Coming, just as Assyria had been in the time of Isaiah: "Ah Assyria, rod of my anger". God uses nations to punish and then (if they haven't converted) He casts them off.
As for Goodgame's Nimrod as Ashur, we would seriously entertain that if the 'toledoth' at the end had been signed off by Shem, Ham and Japheth, who might have chosen different names for the one person. But, because the "toledoth" in this case was Shem's only, then I cannot imagine that he would be using two different names for the one same potentate.
If there was not a Coming of Jesus Christ in that generation (and there was), then He, and Saint John with his "soon", and Saint Paul with his view of an imminent liberation for the faithful, were all quite deluded. And the Modernists are happy to say that the three were completely wrong about "the end".
The ... priest this morning, following these two readings, spoke of the "Second Coming". We would prefer to call it the Final Coming. And no doubt our times parallel the Apocalypse, hence the relevance of it for us today. But it is useless trying to fit the literal details of the book to the 21st century. That particular "Babylon", with its Temple, was annihilated in 70 AD.
The Romans were God's instruments (albeit unwitting) during that Coming, just as Assyria had been in the time of Isaiah: "Ah Assyria, rod of my anger". God uses nations to punish and then (if they haven't converted) He casts them off.
As for Goodgame's Nimrod as Ashur, we would seriously entertain that if the 'toledoth' at the end had been signed off by Shem, Ham and Japheth, who might have chosen different names for the one person. But, because the "toledoth" in this case was Shem's only, then I cannot imagine that he would be using two different names for the one same potentate.
....
