Israel was portrayed in the old testament as a woman. When she was unfaithful to God she was portrayed as a prostitute. At the time of John's vision, the Jews who rejected Christianity were playing politics with Rome to have the Christians persecuted. God says "come out of her my people." So Judaism fits the bill pretty well, since Christians were being called to start leaving the synagogues and separate themselves from the Jews.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Great Whore of Revelation
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
More mental gynastics! No one said Rome had anytihng to do with God of the Bible. The text defines it as "MYSTERY BABYLON" which is the counter religion to God's way and Rome was dominated by false religion.
Roman CAtholicism is nothing more than Babylonian religion Christianized - same false religion.
More mental gymnastics. The only city on planet earth that presently reigned during the time that John wrote that could be said to rule over the kings of the earth was Rome.
Even a novice in history realizes this and every history book in existence acknowleges this. There was no greater or more dominate empire on earth than the Roman Empire that John could refer the reader to (Rev. 17:18).
Moreover, it would to be a PRESENT city then reigning that John was not only familiar with but all the seven churches of Asia would recognize without explicitly naming it. Go figure.......
More mental gymnastics! John is speaking of a present city ruling over the kings of the earth that was well known to himself and to the readers in Eastern Turkey.
To say this was Judaism is laughable!
Next, I suppose you will attempt to argue that John was exiled on Patmos by Israel????????????
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You are trying hard to connect dots that just aren't there.
The dots are EASY to connect but what you are suggesting is pure myth. Rome not Israel exiled John on Patmos. Rome not Israel reigned over Eastern Turkey where the readers of this letter lived. Rome not Israel was presently reigning over the area where all congregations of Christ presently existed when this letter was written.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I haven't suggested anything other than your suposed "proofs" dont work which I've shown you by pure history is incorrect. John wrote an apocalyptic book which is symbolic. It was for the Churches. It makes more sense to put it on Jerusalem because they had a covenant relationship with God which they broke and Killed their Messiah. They chose to whore themselves out to other Gods. If you study Judea of Jesus day it is repleate with false gods especially around Galilee. They were captive for 40 years in Babylon and brought back some of that garbage. Later the Talmud that most Jews use will come from Babylon. Israel had been in charge of Countries in the area during David and Solomon but sinned against God. The people were to be a priesthood to the nations but they failed in their duties. Jerusalem also has seven hills. Jerusalem therefore should have been the spiritual center and was for all jews. But they killed the one God sent. God did away with Jerusalem using the empire because they had sinned against God.
Jerusalem makes more sense. Especially coming from John who wanted to distinguish chritian believers from the Judiazers.
The only thing you have proven is that your good at empty rhetoric and mental gymnastics!
Here are the facts.
1. John identifies the Great Harlot with a city
2. The city presently reigns over the kings of the earth
Jerualem has not reigned over the kings of the earth since Solomon. Jerusalem was not reigning over any kings when Jesus lived. Jerusalem was not reigning over any kings when John lived. Jerusalem has not reigned over any kings from the Babylonian Captivity until the present. Instead Jerusalem has been under the reign of foreign kings since the Babylonian captivity until 1948. This is the time of GENTILE dominion.
The seven churches did not live under the rule of Jerusalem.
Your position is historical wrong and theologically laughable.
The seven churches did not live under the rule of Jerusalem.
Your position is historical wrong and theologically laughable.
Here are the facts.
1. John identifies the Great Harlot with a city
2. The city presently reigns over the kings of the earth
Jerualem has not reigned over the kings of the earth since Solomon. Jerusalem was not reigning over any kings when Jesus lived. Jerusalem was not reigning over any kings when John lived. Jerusalem has not reigned over any kings from the Babylonian Captivity until the present. Instead Jerusalem has been under the reign of foreign kings since the Babylonian captivity until 1948. This is the time of GENTILE dominion.
I know it greives the Catholic apologists on this forum that it is utterly impossible to avoid the cold historical fact that Revelation 17:18 and the present tense "reigneth" in relationship to "the kings of the earth" cannot historically fit any other city known to John and his readers other than Rome. To infer it is Jerusalem is historically a joke that not one shred of history will validate.
It also greives them that John is not speaking of SECULAR Rome but rather SPIRITUAL ROME in union with but dominating the secular state or "MYSTERY BABYLON."
The historical fact is that the mystery religions of Babylon dominated secular Rome and Ceasar was the man god of Rome and worship was offered to him. The historical fact is that every single Gentile Secular one world Government was dominated by Babylonian religion.
The very title "Pontifex Maximus" was the title of the High Preist of the ancient pagan Roman religion and the title taken by the ceasars and comes from the Babylonian religion. The very colors and the concept of the college of cardinals were taken from the Babylonian Religion and the ancient pagan "college of pontiffs." Some of the earliest coins of Rome presented her as a lady sitting on seven hills. The "sacramental" idea is purely pagan and condemned by Paul in Romans 4:5-12.
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of catholics have interpreted the harlot to be Rome. In that case we see it as pagan rome, not Christian rome.
I've never heard of babylonian religion in Rome other than on websites that are trying to prove that mainstream Christianity is a FALSE religion. Could you provide an unbiased source of information about this babylonian religion so we can compare it to catholicism?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yes we agree
Rev. Spiritual or Temporal?
But you agree it had and also it is the center of Judaism which was to be a priesthood to the nations.
You are correct. However the spiritual temporal question still exist
You are correct.
Jerusalem nor Rome ruled over any kings from Babylon at all.
since it's destruction? Yes.
There is nothing in revelation that says gentile dominion. In fact Jesus establishes his kingdom both temporally and spiritually which you convientiently ignore.
This is the problem. The first part of revelation is specific to the seven churches. After that it is apocalyptic liturature. Thus there isn't a connection other than the churches need to change their behavior. Note none of those churches have a significant christian community today they are all under Muslim rule. And also your historical knowledge is shown to be lacking especially with the donatist.
.
Hmm...let's see: Washington is built on seven hills. It's a city. It is the centre of the world's only remaining superpower which arguably rules over the kings of the earth....
Right, so America is the Great Harlot and I'm now going to run round gerbilling to myself that you're the Antichrist and the Great Satan. Remind you of someone?
Right, so America is the Great Harlot and I'm now going to run round gerbilling to myself that you're the Antichrist and the Great Satan. Remind you of someone?
The point is that Rome didn't rule over all the kings of the earth. Neither does then Catholic Church today, for that matter.
Where in the world do you get this idea? The text does not say or state or infer that Rome ruled over Babylon! Indeed, it is the very reverse. Rome is called "MYSTERY Babylon" and it is this "MYSTERY" religion that rules over Rome. The term "MYSTERY" attached to "Babylon" is a clear clue that it is SPIRITUAL babylon not literal babylon he has in view and Rome is being identified according to this SPIRITUAL characterization of Babylon - the MYSTERY religion.
It is the pagan Babylonian Religoin that is ruling over Rome and through Rome over the rest of the Roman World. It is pagan Babylon adopted by the apostate Church in Rome that continues after the destruction of secular Rome. It is this apostate spiritual Babylonian Rome that continues to ride the secular Beast right up to the final "hour" when the ten kings turn on her and destroy her and then turn and fight Christ at His second coming as described in the very next chapter (Rev. 19:12-20) along with the Antichrist and false prophet.
That is not the point at all. From the perspective of John and the Seven Churches Rome ruled over their known world and was as much as a dominant one world kingdom just as Babylon had been under Nebuchadnezzar. Most likely ancient Babylon had not ruled over every king in the world or over every nation in the world but it ruled over the kings of the world as the dominant one world government.
Spiritual Babylone "MYSTERY" Babylon or the RELIGIOUS Babylon ruled over secular Rome and secular Rome ruled the world as the one dominant one world government. So "MYSTERY" Babylon still rules over the world through Roman Catholicism as she is the dominant one world religion that rules over the kings of this earth. There is no secular government on earth that is more wide spread or dominant upon the face of the earth than Roman Catholicism and she rules from Rome.
convicted1
Guest
Brother Biblicist,
You may very well be onto something here. I need to do more intensive study, but you could be right. At the time John wrote Revelation, Rome was a major force.
You may very well be onto something here. I need to do more intensive study, but you could be right. At the time John wrote Revelation, Rome was a major force.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Rome Never ruled over Babylon that right there throws out your whole view. Certainly John would have known this. Babylon at that time was also a major force.
You have no evidence for this claim that babylonian religions were practiced in Rome. It was based on a book that was later retracted by the author
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Mystery_Religion
The religion of Rome at the time John wrote that was paganism. The paganist religions of the roman empire were later abandoned in favor of Christianity. That conversion of the roman empire to Christianity may be what the destruction of the harlot represents.
"16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. "
A number of Roman Emporers, the kings or horns of 'the beast', eventually turned against against paganism and introduced Christianity to the empire. This was the end of paganism in most of the world which was then replaced by Christianity.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to Ralph Woodrow himself:
"In 1997 our ministry quit publishing Babylon Mystery Religion. I presented the details about the reasons for the change in another book, The Babylon Connection? I received some fine letters from both Catholics and Protestants expressing appreciation for the clarification and correction.
I also got mean-spirited letters from radical anti-Catholic folks who felt I had given in to the enemy. Some used terms like stupid and scum. They said I was "scared of the truth," a "low-down coward," "traitor to Christ," and following "a false god." One letter accused me of being an "undercover Jesuit."
Revelation 17:18 is found in the PRESENT TENSE thus demanding that such a city was PRESENTLY reigning over the kings of the earth.
Was Washington D.C. existent then?
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that John is talking about the only city that he could possibly know of right then reigning over the kings of the earth - the one and only one world government - Rome.
There had been many previous one world governments and all cities and yet none of them had reigned over all the earth and all the kings but they were nevertheless the dominant one world governments who reigned over the kings of the earth and what kings they did not rule over did not attempt to challenge their world dominance.