It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revelation Tricks You into Not Thinking it is Itself Babylon by Pointing to an Imaginary Babylon

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Michael in Revelation is actually the Babylonian deity, Marduk.
His mother is a Babylonian goddess.
When Marduk came of age, he was given a white horse, a crown of diadems, and a secret name written on his thigh.
He fights the great chaos dragon, Tiamat.
The entire book of Revelation is Babylonian in origin, but the deception is made by telling you this fictional thing over there is Babylon, so it diverts your attention to not suspect the very book warning against Babylon is itself Mystery Babylon, which sneaks in false religion to subvert the true Christianity of peace and love taught by Jesus.




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Is this just your opinion, or do you have anything to back this up?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VeniVidi
 

Is this just your opinion, or do you have anything to back this up?

I'm not sitting here deciphering cuneiform tablets, if that's what you mean.
I am basing my opinion on a doctoral dissertation I am studying, that was written by someone who became later a professor at a major seminarial university.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
What teachings of Jesus were subverted?

I love asking for any extra non-biblical knowledge that I can get from Jesus because the Bible actually gives so few teachings directly from his mouth. I went into the non-canonical scriptures for the direct purpose, and instead it just blew open the opposite end of the spectrum of 'doubt'.

I do not doubt Jesus' teachings or lessons, but whole whack of the rest makes less sense to me. The Old Testament, Paul, etc. doesn't always sit right with me; the gospels + the noncanonicals make more sense to me as spiritual texts. The rest just reeks of dogma to me (there are pearls of wisdom tho).



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tagasbob
 

What teachings of Jesus were subverted?

I mean just the ordinary, canonical Gospels.
Jesus teaches a pacifist message which is against offensive violence and he even dropped defensive violence as an option, for example at his arrest by the temple authorities.
There is a highly contrasting portrayal in Revelation of a messianic type character who leads an army into war which floods the earth with blood up to horse's bridle. One or the other is wrong, and if I was forced to make a choice, I would go with the good Jesus, and reject the evil "Jesus".



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Ohh i gotcha. I agree; Jesus would never lead an army to kill but maybe one to help and love.

I have been able to find a great deal of 'extra' teachings from Jesus in the non-canonical gospels but I can also understand why the Councils wanted them out so badly. Jesus wasn't always preaching in nice allegories like the Parables; his focus was often on death and our spiritual existence afterward and was very anti-materialistic and serving towards others. Basically, it was a terrible business model and therefore it was squeezed out. People generally don't want to be reminded about and learn about their death, nor do churches love to spend tonnes of money without taking it in first so they can 'dispense of it properly'.

Jesus was a badass. He made people uncomfortable with what he taught, yet those who were able to dig into it seemed to be changed people. I think the key is in the red text from Jesus himself. The rest of the words are peripheral.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tagasbob
 

I think the key is in the red text from Jesus himself.

I agree with that, as long as it is not in Revelation.
I don't think there is a direct quotation of Jesus in Revelation.
There are a couple lines that echo Jesus' words in John but it puts them in a context of the aftermath of a destruction of the wold as we know it.
Jesus came to save the world, not to destroy it. In John, he claims to have already defeated Satan, so there is no need for a future war to defeat him, as described in Revelation. The Earth can become Paradise by realizing the futility of war, not by holding it up as an object of worship.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



The entire book of Revelation is Babylonian in origin, but the deception is made by telling you this fictional thing over there is Babylon, so it diverts your attention to not suspect the very book warning against Babylon is itself Mystery Babylon, which sneaks in false religion to subvert the true Christianity of peace and love taught by Jesus.


While I wouldnt call it "Babylonian" in origin, I feel revelations draws on many elements which appear in the Old Testament.... the 4 horsemen, the anti-christ, the whore etc.

Most christians interpreting Revelations do not realize that some of the "evil" entities of revelations are right in front of their eyes....except they perceived it as "good".
For example- Christians do not suspect that Jerusalem itself is the whore/Babylon, despite the bible clearly connecting to Babylon.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I am basing my opinion on a doctoral dissertation I am studying, that was written by someone who became later a professor at a major seminarial university.


Why would you believe him over John? Polycarp's already attested to The Apocalypse being written by John.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



I feel revelations draws on many elements which appear in the Old Testament.... the 4 horsemen, the anti-christ, the whore etc.


good call dude, in fact of the 400 some verses in Revelation allude to 800+ places in the OT. What's cool to realize is Revelation is mostly in code, however, those codes are explained somewhere else in the book. It's quite remarkable really, the Holy Spirit is amazing.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Why would you believe him over John? Polycarp's already attested to The Apocalypse being written by John.
Feel free to quote Polycarp saying that.
Oops, there are no surviving writings by him, except as quoted by Irenaeus, which is Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, which gives no mention of John or Revelation.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

. . . While I wouldnt call it "Babylonian" in origin . . .

No particular reason why, eh? Just would't?
Feel free to elaborate on those OT allusions.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
I'm guessing that you're using Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 by Hermann Gunkel and Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity by Birger A. Pearson for these conclusions, based on your mention of them on your show.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


Feel free to elaborate on those OT allusions.

I thought sk0rpi0n did a pretty good job on his thread Jerusalem- the whore of Babylon?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Why would you believe him over John? Polycarp's already attested to The Apocalypse being written by John.
Feel free to quote Polycarp saying that.


Irenaeus did. He was Polycarp's disciple, and in turn Polycarp studied right from john. Was one of John's bishops eventually.


Oops, there are no surviving writings by him, except as quoted by Irenaeus, which is Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, which gives no mention of John or Revelation.


Not true:

Ireneaus talking about what Polycarp told him:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."


"it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision." ~ John who have the vision of The Revelation, or in Greek, The Apocalypse.



edit on 14-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
What you've done, in your over-ingenious way, is that you have created another version of the "Cretan who says all Cretans are liars" logical problem.
If Revelation is dishonest and not to be trusted on the question of Babylon, then you've got no reason to trust its own statements that "mystery Babylon" exists or is a bad thing. This completely undermines your title.



edit on 14-3-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Mystery Babylon was Jerusalem and may possibly be Jerusalem in the future again. Revelation says it is the city where the Lord was crucified. The Old Testament calls Jerusalem a whore, and we know the Jews started practicing idolatry many times. The Talmud is the tradition of men.

And Jesus was no pacifist. He not only did not tell soldiers to repent and He was violent against money changers.

edit on 14-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Mystery Babylon was Jerusalem and may possibly be Jerusalem in the future again. Revelation says it is the city where the Lord was crucified. The Old Testament calls Jerusalem a whore, and we know the Jews started practicing idolatry many times. The Talmud is the tradition of men.


Yup.

There are also several similarities between Babylon/ the whore and Jerusalem, which are being ignored by christians who believe that Babylon is the Catholic church.


Matthew 23:35 = Jerusalem being charged with the blood of the saints.
Revelations 18:24 = Babylon being charged with the blood of the saints.

Isaiah 47:7 = Jerusalem boasts and is warned of sudden destruction.
Revelation 18:7 = Babylon boasts and is warned of sudden destruction.

Jeremiah 4:30-31= Jerusalem described as being dressed in scarlet and her "lovers" seek to destroy her.
Revelations 17:16 = Babylon described as being dressed in scarlet and the horns destroy her.


I started a thread about it sometime ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 14-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



There are also several similarities between Babylon/ the whore and Jerusalem, which are being ignored by christians who believe that Babylon is the Catholic church.


What about us Christians who believe Babylon is Babylon?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


well you cant blame them they have been brain washed to think israel is unable of commiting any wrong doing. But when it comes to muslims and islam most will jump up and scream. They seem to forget who it was that killed jesus,john and who knows who else.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join