The Great Whore of Revelation

[Thinkingstuff]

Like I said "desperate."

I gave you evidence to which you did not respond look how Ezekiel describes Jerusalem and compare it to Rev. 17 you will find all the similarities you need. You haven't answered Where God calls Babylone an adulterer or even whore. You know why? because Babylon was never in covenant with God. I'm not desperite at all just tired of the rationalization you go to attempt to accuse my Church. Even you would grow tired If I kept calling your church the Whore of Babylon. and never give you anything apart from speculation. At least I have given you supportive scripture. You can't find one scripture verse tying roman catholicism to God's Judgement. Nor will you find any verse that says the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Like I said before. You hate has blinded you and before you know it a Muslim will make it an illegal offense to believe in Jesus or the Bible in your own country.

 

[JarJo]

Biblicist,
Can you explain to us who the 7 heads, refer to, especially the one that is now, and the 8th, etc? How does that all tie into the interpretation of the woman as Rome

10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

 

[JarJo]

2. She cannot be secular Rome or the secular Roman Empire which was destroyed and overthrown in 452 A.D

....

2. She is that city that was reigning over the kings of the earth when John wrote this book which was the seat of the Mystery Babylon Religion adopted by the Roman government.

...

7. She is the Roman Catholic Church today which continues in Rome as the institutionalized STATE CHURCH and incorporates all false religion within its embrace.

Your interpretation somehow includes both the pagan religion that existed in John's time as well as the Roman Catholic religion. It's as if you see no distinction at all between roman paganism and roman catholicism. As if the switch from worship of pagan gods to worship of Jesus Christ is completely meaningless. You emphasize a few forms that remained the same between roman paganism and roman catholicism, and ignore the most important thing, the object of worship, which is Jesus Christ and his Father, Yahweh. How can you ignore the most important thing and focus only on a couple of forms of worship that bear some resemblance between pagan rome and christian rome?

 

[The Biblicist]

I gave you evidence to which you did not respond look how Ezekiel describes Jerusalem and compare it to Rev. 17 you will find all the similarities you need.

The prophets never call Jerusalem "Babylon" and never attribute any of the descriptive terms in Revelation 17 to Jerusalem (the cup, "graven images" etc.).

The fornications identified with "graven images" cannot possibly be applied to Jerualem since the restoration from the Babylonian captivity until this present day but Rome was full of them in that day and today.

The apostles were not killed by Jerusalem but by Rome.

MORE THAN JERUSALEM IS IDENTIFIED AS THAT KIND OF WOMAN BY THE PROPEHTS AND SO YOU CANNOT DEMAND THAT ONE SIMILARITY SHARED BY A NUMBER OF CITIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PROVES ANYTHING.

You haven't answered Where God calls Babylone an adulterer or even whore. You know why? because Babylon was never in covenant with God.

You ignore that John explicitly states that her fornications are identified with the cup she holds and it is out of that cup the kings have drunken of her fornications and Babylon holds the same cup signifying its false religion "graven images" and "gods"

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.

Rev. 17:2..have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication....4....having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication

No such language is ever used to describe Jerusalem.

I'm not desperite at all just tired of the rationalization you go to attempt to accuse my Church. Even you would grow tired If I kept calling your church the Whore of Babylon.

Look, I can empathize with you on this point. It is just our nature to defend what we cherish and so I do not hold that against you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your interpretation somehow includes both the pagan religion that existed in John's time as well as the Roman Catholic religion. It's as if you see no distinction at all between roman paganism and roman catholicism. As if the switch from worship of pagan gods to worship of Jesus Christ is completely meaningless. You emphasize a few forms that remained the same between roman paganism and roman catholicism, and ignore the most important thing, the object of worship, which is Jesus Christ and his Father, Yahweh. How can you ignore the most important thing and focus only on a couple of forms of worship that bear some resemblance between pagan rome and christian rome?

I fully responded to this objection in a previous post. Perhaps you did not read it. However, I will summarize that post in the following words.

"Mystery" Babylon refers to institutionalized false religion in union with secular government - She rides the beast.

During the time of John it (Babylonian religion) was headquartered in Rome with the secular government that ruled over the known world to John and the Seven congregations was Rome.

Roman Catholicism is an amalgamation of that "Mystery" Babylonian religion and Roman Catholicsm through Constantine was brought into union with the secular government of Rome.

After the secular government of Rome fell, Roman Catholicism conquerored the secular governments that dominated Rome and has unto this day.

Secular governments will eventually turn on Roman Catholicism at Rome and destroy her.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The prophets never call Jerusalem "Babylon" and never attribute any of the descriptive terms in Revelation 17 to Jerusalem (the cup, "graven images" etc.).

You forget John is describing a future event. The Prophets do describe Jerusalem as a whore.

The apostles were not killed by Jerusalem but by Rome.

the prophets and Jesus were.

MORE THAN JERUSALEM IS IDENTIFIED AS THAT KIND OF WOMAN BY THE PROPEHTS AND SO YOU CANNOT DEMAND THAT ONE SIMILARITY SHARED BY A NUMBER OF CITIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PROVES ANYTHING.
You ignore that John explicitly states that her fornications are identified with the cup she holds and it is out of that cup the kings have drunken of her fornications and Babylon holds the same cup signifying its false religion "graven images" and "gods"

Look closely at Ezekiel

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.

Both Cup and fornication are shown in regarding Jerusalem.

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.

Think of it. If Jerusalem (Covenant City of God) were to rule Babylon then the whore would be holding the golden Cup.

Rev. 17:2..have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication....4....having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication

certainly this matches Ezekiel's discription of Jerusalem in the passages I quoted.

No such language is ever used to describe Jerusalem.

Certainly there is as I've just shown you Ezekiel do you want to look at Hosea?

 

[The Biblicist]

You forget John is describing a future event.

I just pointed out to you the Aorist Tense Indicated "have committed"! Revelation 17 describes her in all three tenses not merely the present tense.

The Prophets do describe Jerusalem as a whore.

Here is your problem. Both LITERAL Jerusalem and LITERAL Babylon are both described as whores but LITERAL Jerusalem is not LITERAL Babylon is it? Moreover, the descriptions of the whore in Revelation is not taken from the prophets LITERAL description of Jerusalem but from the prophets LITERAL description of Babylon. John does not say "Mystery JERUSALEM" but "Mystery BABYLON."

If you dont' have a axe to grind it is clear that it is the religion of Babylon not the religion of Jerusalem that is in view in regard to the term "Mystery."

the prophets and Jesus were.

That is precisely my point! Revelation 17 does not include "Jesus". Revelation 11 is a Jewish context and it is self-evident but Revelatio 17 is not and that is self-evidence (Rev. 17:1-5; 18). In Revelation 11 John explicitly defines that "city" spiritually as "EGYPT" not Babylon!!!!!!

Look closely at Ezekiel Both Cup and fornication are shown in regarding Jerusalem.

There is no question that the precise language is drawn from LITERAL Babylon and not from LITERAL Jerusalem in the Old Testament.

Think of it. If Jerusalem (Covenant City of God) were to rule Babylon then the whore would be holding the golden Cup.

Jerusalem has never ruled over any city since the Babylonian Captivity until this present hour. Literal Babylon was destroyed and never rebuilt until the present day. However, this city was reigning over "kings" when John wrote and continued on earth right up to the final "hour" when Christ comes. This is simply not true of literal jerusalem but it is true of literal Rome. Babylonian religion ruled over Rome when John wrote, it ruled over Rome prior to the fall of secular Roman government and continued to rule over every secular government that controlled Rome and still does today.

certainly this matches Ezekiel's discription of Jerusalem in the passages I quoted.
Certainly there is as I've just shown you Ezekiel do you want to look at Hosea?

You can find comparable features concerning more than Jerusalem (Ninevah, babel, Samaria, etc.) but what John uses are out right word for word quotes taken from LITERAL Babylon and that is not the case with literal Jerusalem, Samaria, Nineveh, etc.).

Would you care to challenge me on this point? Outright word for word quotations taken from LITERAL Babylon??????

 

[Matt Black]

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.

Except that it clearly didn't - see above

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"

John would have known about the Parthian Empire, and his apostolic colleague went to India.

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

Yes. And?

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

Not when you consider that the bounds of the 'known world' were considerably larger to John than they had been to Daniel.

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.

I never said anything about Jerusalem so you're tilting at windmills here.

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

Ditto.

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.

Er...no; this is where you trek off into the nether regions with your obsessive anti-Catholic bigotry blinding you to aught else.

 

[The Biblicist]

Except that it clearly didn't - see above

Wrong! The present tense demands it is a city then existing and ruling over kings of the earth. John was exiled to patmos by a city government that ruled over the rulers of Jerusalem, spain, Greece, Asia, Northner Africa. There is no other possible city that John would refer to other than Rome. No other city than Rome was identified symbolically with "Babylon" but Rome (1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.]. The literal Babylon had been destroyed. All the apostles but two were killed by Rome (Rev. 18:20). Rome had coins made that picture her as a Woman with a golden cup in her hand sitting on seven hills.

John would have known about the Parthian Empire, and his apostolic colleague went to India.

Where does it say in Revelation 17 that this city reigned over "ALL" the kings of the earth????? ooops! It doesn't so your argument is moot.

Remember, John gives the past, present and future history of her and in her history yet to come her rule would expand and taken in ten new kings.

The evidence that this city is Rome is irrefutable.

 

[The Biblicist]

Below is a picture of a Roman coin dating back to AD 71 during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 A.D.) depicting Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills — something the early Christians would have been very familiar with. Surely they would have recognized the prostitute seated on seven hills as representing Rome.

//http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.icollector.com/images/1191/17214/17214_0361_3_lg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.icollector.com/Roman-Empire-Vespasian-69-79-Sestertius-71-28-39g_i9258028&h=566&w=572&sz=103&tbnid=xC1M9eMqQb8rTM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=86&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2BVespasian%2BRoman%2BCoin%2Bwith%2Bwoman%2Bon%2Bseven%2Bhills%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+Vespasian+Roman+Coin+with+woman+on+seven+hills&docid=BhjIjnmcAt201M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zhYoT76FI4qKiALlrPCdAQ&ved=0CF0Q9QEwDw&dur=1514

Even more interesting is the fact that under one of the Ancient Pope's of Rome there is also coinage made with the pope on one side and a woman with a cup on the other side - Again Rome under the Roman Catholic Church symbolized by a woman holding a cup.