The Great Whore of Revelation

[Walter]

John uses the future tense throughout the entire description of the woman and the beast. So the city is in the future. John could know lots of cities, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, etc.....

Please you hate Catholicism so much any criticism will do for you. I mean pleeeeeeeeeeese we can see through your blind bigotry.

Yes, you have clearly shown that John is using future tense throughout this passage and, yes, Biblicist need for it to be something other than that fact in order to support his anti-Catholicism is clearly blinding him.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, you have clearly shown that John is using future tense throughout this passage and, yes, Biblicist need for it to be something other than that fact in order to support his anti-Catholicism is clearly blinding him.

John is speaking of the FUTURE destruction of the Great Whore at the time when the ten kings come to power with the beast to fight Christ.

However, it is absurdly rediculous to say that Revelation 17:18 is future when he changed from the future tense back to the present tense.

Furthermore, She is charged with killing the apostles and therefore cannot be something yet still in the future unless you take the absurd position that the apostles have not yet died??????

You fella's are grasping at straws in order to escape the clear scathing condemnation of Roman Catholicism - pure and simple


HERE IS PROOF SHE IS EXISTED ALREADY WHEN JOHN WROTE AS WELL AS IN THE FUTURE:

Rev. 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.


Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Try to fit these two texts into a yet future city!!!!

 

[Walter]

A question comes up in my mind. The scriptures say that the Whore of Babylon is an entity which killed the "Apostles," -Rev. 18:20. Apostles were certain First Century Christians who witnesses the Resurrected Christ -1 Cor 15:7, Paul was the last one-1 Cor 15:8. Were not the Apostles martyred by the pagan Roman Empire?

Don't many people on this board say that the Catholic Church didn't exist in the First Century? Doesn't this position become a problem? How is it then that the Catholic Church could possibly be the Whore of Babylon?

 

[The Biblicist]

A question comes up in my mind. The scriptures say that the Whore of Babylon is an entity which killed the "Apostles," -Rev. 18:20. Apostles were certain First Century Christians who witnesses the Resurrected Christ -1 Cor 15:7, Paul was the last one-1 Cor 15:8. Were not the Apostles martyred by the pagan Roman Empire?

Don't many people on this board say that the Catholic Church didn't exist in the First Century? Doesn't this position become a problem? How is it then that the Catholic Church could possibly be the Whore of Babylon?

Apparently you have not been reading my posts. The "Mystery" Babylon religion has been present on earth since "the way of Cain" as the opposition religion to God's way! It was institutionalized with Babylon and thus called the "MYSTERY" religion of Babylon. It became the religion of SECULAR ROME but it is not secular Rome but controls Secular Rome or rides upon the back of the SECULAR ROMAN GOVERNMENT and killed the apostles and saints prior to John writing this book.

However, in John's time it became headquartered in the "city" of Rome (present tense). It will continue from that city right up to the time of the ten king kingdom and final "hour" when the ten kings turn and destroy her first and then the battle with Christ in Revelation 19:12-20 occurs - the final hour.

What continues from that city right up to the final hour? The MYSTERY BABYLONIAN RELIGION. It continued up to the time of Constantine and then became Christianized in terms with the same pagan practices. The pagan Madonna and child. The pagan "college of pontiffs" and the pagan high preist "Pontifex Maximus" and the pagan rituals or sacraments. This MYSTERY BABYLON RELIGION contined after Secular Rome fell and it continues to day as a CITY RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT and will till it is destroyed by God through the coming ten kings in the final hour upon this earth.

 

[Walter]

Biblicist: I really am trying to follow your reasoning as best I can. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions as they come to mind.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist: I really am trying to follow your reasoning as best I can. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions as they come to mind.

I certainly do not mind an honest and sincere discussion. I would be more than happy to answer any question I am able to answer.

 

[JarJo]

Revelation 11:8 clearly identifies the great city as the city where Jesus was crucified. Jerusalem.

 

[The Biblicist]

Revelation 11:8 clearly identifies the great city as the city where Jesus was crucified. Jerusalem.

Revelation 17-18 says NOTHING about Christ being crucified in the "city" defined in Revelation 17:18.

 

[JarJo]

Revelation 17-18 says NOTHING about Christ being crucified in the "city" defined in Revelation 17:18.

Revelation 11:8 shows us what 'the great city' is. Unless you think the same book uses the phrase 'the great city' to refer to two different cities a few pages apart.

I can't stand all this absolutist thinking. I'm going to set an example and admit that it could be either Jerusalem or Rome. When imtelligent people are found on both sides of a debate its usually because the issue isn't 100% certain.

Of course, the extreme rigid thinker will immediately jump on that statement as proof that the person making it is confused. But most people's minds aren't so completely disabled by fixed thought patterns, and I suspect they would find a bit of intellectual humility refreshing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Revelation 11:8 shows us what 'the great city' is. Unless you think the same book uses the phrase 'the great city' to refer to two different cities a few pages apart.

I can't stand all this absolutist thinking. I'm going to set an example and admit that it could be either Jerusalem or Rome. When imtelligent people are found on both sides of a debate its usually because the issue isn't 100% certain.

Of course, the extreme rigid thinker will immediately jump on that statement as proof that the person making it is confused. But most people's minds aren't so completely disabled by fixed thought patterns, and I suspect they would find a bit of intellectual humility refreshing.

Have you ever heard of "context"? In the context of Judaism "the great city" is Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-14). However, in the context of world kingdoms in the day of John "the great city" can only be Rome. Furthermore, the apostles were not killed in Jerualem or by Jerusalem but Paul and Peter were killed in Rome and there rest by Rome. (Rev. 17-19:4).

 

[Matt Black]

Here is the fact that proves all your arguments are simply empty arguments. John uses the PRESENT TENSE that demands that a CITY PRESENTLY known to John was ruling over the kings of the earth! What city known to John could that be other than Rome?

You have divorced yourself of common sense to say anthing other than Rome!

Pleeeeeeeeease use common sense in your arguments! You don't know what John knew or did not know about any other nations! Alexander did not rule over the whole world or even over the known world but he was the greatest world power at the time and ruled over the kings of the earth, many literally and those he did not could not overthrow his empire.


The Medes and Persians were part of the known world when Babylon came to power but it still ruled over the kings of the earth as the Medes and Persians could not overthrow it.

When the Medes and Persians were the dominant world empire the Greeks did not challenge it but the Medes and Persians ruled over the kings of the earth as the dominate power. It cannot be denied that Rome ruled over the kings of the earth and the Parthians and Germanic Tribes could not overthrow it.

The fact still remains that John used the PRESENT TENSE which demands that a CITY known to John was PRESENTLY reigning over the kings of the earth and there was no other city that can fit that description WHEN John wrote other than Rome - period - end of story -

Except that Rome didn't rule over the known world. That's the elephant in your argument's drawing room. The Parthians have already been mentioned. There were also the Kushan Empire and Kuninda Kingdom of what is now India, both of which traded with Rome but in no way were subject to her. Further east of course, you have the Chinese Empire...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

John does not use the future tense to identify the city! You are simply wrong and wrong on all accounts.

You know he changes from the future tense to the present tense when describing this city and no amount of empty rhetoric or mental gynastics will change that.

This chapter so clearly and conclusively defines the Roman Catholic Church as the Great Whore that you and every devout Catholic will do ANYTHING and/or say ANYTHING to avoid its scathing condemnation.

I know you don't like this but facts are simply facts.

This is the problem when you don't properly exegete a scripture what does chp 17 say?

Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides

So the angel will explain and what does he say?

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out

Future tense

he once was, now is not, and yet will come

Future tense

Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet comeFuture tense

what else?

who have not yet received a kingdom

future tense

15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

in context with the rest of the chapter we must understand that this is a city of the future that will control all the worlds kings. Not one of the past which can make it just as easily Jerusalem. You have yet to understand that Jerusalem may one day rule the world which would then make sense for it to be the harlot because it has a covenant relationship with God which it could break. Rome as a city never had a covenant relationship with God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Except that Rome didn't rule over the known world. That's the elephant in your argument's drawing room. The Parthians have already been mentioned. There were also the Kushan Empire and Kuninda Kingdom of what is now India, both of which traded with Rome but in no way were subject to her. Further east of course, you have the Chinese Empire...

Several things are wrong with your rationale.

1. The present tense in Reve. 17:18 demands a current city exercising power over the "kings of the earth" - Only Rome could meet that criteria.

2. The context is from the perspective of John on the isle of Patmos and the seven congregations of Asia minor - The Roman Empire was their "known world"

3. The next world kingdom in Daniel after the Grecian Empire was the Roman Empire.

4. Absolute subjection of every king never occurred with the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire or the Grecian Empire and therefore to demand that precise criteria of Revelation 17:18 is irrational and at odds with the general meaning of a one world empire as previously perceived by Biblical writers

5. Jerualem did not kill the apostles nor continue in existence right up to the final "hour" when the ten kings and the beast fight Christ as recorded in Rev. 19:12-20 but was destroyed long before and continued to be destroyed until 1948. However, the Roman empire did kill at least 11 out of 13 apostles.

6. The econcomic prosperity described in Revelation 18 does not fit Jerusalem but Rome.

7. This Great Harlot located in this "city" is the "MYSTERY" Babylonian religion which not only ruled over the "beast" (secular government) but continued even after the fall of the Roman government in this city through Roman Catholicism which dominated the pagan secular governments that took the place of the Roman secular government right up to this very day.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is the problem when you don't properly exegete a scripture what does chp 17 say?
So the angel will explain and what does he say? Future tense
Future tensewhat else? future tense in context with the rest of the chapter we must understand that this is a city of the future that will control all the worlds kings. Not one of the past which can make it just as easily Jerusalem. You have yet to understand that Jerusalem may one day rule the world which would then make sense for it to be the harlot because it has a covenant relationship with God which it could break. Rome as a city never had a covenant relationship with God.

What you are failing to recognize is that John is being given a complete history of the past, the present ("one NOW IS.....which REIGNETH") and the future. The future has to do with how it is destroyed and when it is destroyed. The saints and the apostles had already been killed in the past from the aspect of its future description when it is destroyed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you are failing to recognize is that John is being given a complete history of the past, the present ("one NOW IS.....which REIGNETH") and the future. The future has to do with how it is destroyed and when it is destroyed.

John does but over several chapters. Specifically chp 17 if you read it is explaining the future as the angel has said. Note Jerusalem is inextricably fixed witht he past and the prensent and the future because of its covenant. So you are straining at a gnat trying to prove Rome. Which is of no longer significance (which also goes against your hypothesis) And the Catholic Church isn't even in Charge of that city!!!!! So on all counts you are wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

John does but over several chapters. Specifically chp 17 if you read it is explaining the future as the angel has said. Note Jerusalem is inextricably fixed witht he past and the prensent and the future because of its covenant. So you are straining at a gnat trying to prove Rome. Which is of no longer significance (which also goes against your hypothesis) And the Catholic Church isn't even in Charge of that city!!!!! So on all counts you are wrong.

No, he deals with all three tenses in chapter 17. Chapter 17 summarizes the whole history while chapters 18-19:4 and 19:12-20 give a broader explanation.

It is simply rediculous to claim Chapter 17-19 deals with Jerusalem. There are even archealogical evidence where Roman coins show a woman holding a cupt sitting upon the seven hills of Rome. Jerusalem was in SUBJECTION to Rome and has been in subjection to the kings of the earth from AD 70 even until now. No Jew living at the time of John, an exile on patmos, not by Jerusalem but by Rome would even rationalize Jerusalem in such language as it was under the thumb of Rome long before Jesus came on the scene and long after John left the scene. You talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, that is the very essence of your argument.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, he deals with all three tenses in chapter 17. Chapter 17 summarizes the whole history while chapters 18-19:4 and 19:12-20 give a broader explanation.

It is simply rediculous to claim Chapter 17-19 deals with Jerusalem. There are even archealogical evidence where Roman coins show a woman holding a cupt sitting upon the seven hills of Rome. Jerusalem was in SUBJECTION to Rome and has been in subjection to the kings of the earth from AD 70 even until now. No Jew living at the time of John, an exile on patmos, not by Jerusalem but by Rome would even rationalize Jerusalem in such language as it was under the thumb of Rome long before Jesus came on the scene and long after John left the scene. You talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, that is the very essence of your argument.

Rome could never be a harlot because it never had a covenant relationship with God. Did you know Baccheus was the God of Drink and the greeks have a similar image that isn't Roman? Jews were anti Christian by the time of John on Patmos so what would they care? John's book was for Christians and Christians have always understood this city to be in the future tense.

The bottom line is you hate Catholics. You hate Catholicism. You hate anything dealing with this faith and so you speculate because thats all this is is speculation about what John could have meant. Academics are speculating as well. But the bottom line is your speculation is always in an attempt to find Catholics guilty of something. You don't care for facts as has been shown. You just want to accuse. It shows your nature really. And you want to know the sad truth?

You will have focused so much on Catholics who feed the poor, take care of the sick, fight for freedom of religion, give humanity dignity fighting against abortion, and many other things beside you don't even see the Islamist coming up behind who will take over your govenment, force you into slavery, and make you give up everything about Jesus in this country and the world. You want an anti-christ? Look there for the next world imam.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rome could never be a harlot because it never had a covenant relationship with God.

Now, you are simply desperate. The connection here is not with God but fornication with the kings of the earth. The connection is here not with God but with "MYSTERY BABYLON." Literal Babylon is described exactly this way in the Old Testament and "MYSTERY" babylon refers its false religion that departed from God at its very root with Babel. Just go back into Jeremiah and you can read the same language about LITERAL babylon who NEVER had a relationship with God but was pagan from its earliest conception. Did literal Babylon have a covenant relationship with God??? No! Do I need to quote Jeremiah and this very same sexual language about literal Babylon to prove that "MYSTERY" Bablyon and its relationship with the kings of the earth does not demand a previous covenant with God??????? I can! Your argument is baseless.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Now, you are simply desperate.

Not at all. But I do grow tired of the nonsense.

The connection here is not with God but fornication with the kings of the earth.

can't even exeget that right. The whore who has a connection with God and is a city causes the fornication. And note later these kings will destroy her.

The connection is here not with God but with "MYSTERY BABYLON."

You can't be a whore unless you break a covenant with God. Mystery Babylon could be many things a religion possibly. But note Babylone wasn't only known for its religion. I suppose you believe Nimrod created religion. PUT DOWN THAT CHICK TRACT!

Literal Babylon is described exactly this way in the Old Testament

Scripture apart from Revelation please!

and "MYSTERY" babylon refers its false religion that departed from God at its very root with Babel.

Speculation. You may or may not be right. But then wouldn't bablyon be the suspect city as Rome never rulled it? Note anti-christian talmud was created in Babylon.

Just go back into Jeremiah and you can read the same language about LITERAL babylon who NEVER had a relationship with God but was pagan from its earliest conception.

Where? I've read Jeremiah and never once does it call babylone a whore or adultress. In Isaiah it call it a great jewel but that does not denote covenant language. In fact lets look at what Ezekiel says

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. 5 “Oholah engaged in prostitution while she was still mine; and she lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians—warriors 6 clothed in blue, governors and commanders, all of them handsome young men, and mounted horsemen. 7 She gave herself as a prostitute to all the elite of the Assyrians and defiled herself with all the idols of everyone she lusted after. 8 She did not give up the prostitution she began in Egypt, when during her youth men slept with her, caressed her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her. 9 “Therefore I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians, for whom she lusted... 11 “Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister ...14 “But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans[a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea....I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. ...22 “Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side— 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons,[d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment

Sounds like this is closer to Rev. 17 than your fictitious account. Lets look farther

32 “This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“You will drink your sister’s cup,
a cup large and deep; it will bring scorn and derision,
for it holds so much.
33 You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow,
the cup of ruin and desolation,
the cup of your sister Samaria.
34 You will drink it and drain it dry;
you will dash it to pieces
and tear your breasts.

Even further note

35 “Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Since you have forgotten me and thrust me behind your back, you must bear the consequences of your lewdness and prostitution.”

and finally

48 “So I will put an end to lewdness in the land, that all women may take warning and not imitate you. 49 You will suffer the penalty for your lewdness and bear the consequences of your sins of idolatry. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD

See all you need to do is read scriptures and compare the language which you haven't

 

[The Biblicist]

Not at all. But I do grow tired of the nonsense.

Like I said "desperate."

can't even exeget that right. The whore who has a connection with God and is a city causes the fornication. And note later these kings will destroy her.

You make a charge but can't back it up with evidence. I can back up my statement with evidence and here it is:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication,

Not future tense but past tense "have" (Aorist Acive Indicative). The fornication is with the kings of the earth.

Jer 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

John says the fornications are in the cup:

Rev. 17:4having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Hence, what the kings do is drink of this cup or partake of her false religous doctrines. Literal Babylon is charged with false religion:

Isa 21:9 And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

What a SYMBOLIC description of the Roman Catholic religion with its "graven images." Jerusalem then (time of John) and now does not contain "graven images"

REMEMBER THE BABYLON IN REVELATION 17 IS "MYSTERY" NOT LITERAL BABYLON. LITERAL BABYLON HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND IS STILL DESTROYED.

BTW when did Chick write Isaiah and Jeremiah?????