The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Scorpie


Hi.
I'll believe its Rome when you show me the verse where Jesus accused Rome of spilling the blood of prophets.


Actually, I think the problem is that you are inclined to see Revelation as a prophetic work, rather than as a discussion of events current with the writing of the work. The author of Revelation has no problem with Jerusalem. Jesus did, and Jesus is well thought of by both the author and first readers of Revelation, but Jesus isn't the author of the letter.

It is a common rhetorical device to apply what has been said of one place in the past to a new place in the present. In the case of Revelation, the surface structure was to use Old Testamant language and images, to hide the critique of Roman policies. The original verses were often about Jerusalem. Their reuse was in reference to Rome. They have since been re-reused to describe Boston.


Those cities weren't accused of spilling the blood of holy men and saints.


Really? Massachusetts hanged Quakers on Boston Common 1659-1661. You can easily find other parallels to Old Testament language about Jerusalem applied to Boston as well, since it was founded by Bible-reading Christians with a religious motivation for founding it.


My audience happens to be Bible reading Christians who believe the whore is Rome.


So, what does that mean? Other members of ATS aren't allowed to comment?

The people you're talking about think that Revelation is a prophecy, and that the "whore" is not the City of Rome, but rather the Roman Catholic Church. That wouldn't exist for another few centuries after Revelation was written, so if John is writing about it, then it's prophecy or nothing at all.

As a Muslim, are you prepared to accept the canonical epistle writers (and that's what Revelation is, an epistle) as Prophets?

How very interesting a discussion that would be. No wonder you want to restrict who can post.




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



Please explain how Jerusalem fulfills this criteria description given in the Bible?


The entire OP demonstrates how Jerusalem fits the description of the whore.

I wouldn't have much of an argument here if Jerusalem wasn't accused of having the blood of saints.... and described as being adorned in scarlet and gold. For some reason, the same language is used to describe the whore(which is a city) and Jerusalem.

Find me another city in the Bible which is also described (symbolically) as being adorned in red and scarlet AND having the blood of saints, and I will seriously revise my views on this matter. Till then, please understand that I am basing my OP around verses from the Bible, and not just blind speculation.

As for your other questions, those are all either future events or unresolved prophecies. They do not change or undo the fact that Jerusalem is the whore. If the book of revelation is true, then Jerusalem will fall into place with all those other prophecies.


P.S the Beast with 7 heads and 10 crowns comes out of the sea (Rev. 13:1) not out of the land like you said in the original post

Ah yes. My mistake. I have mixed up the land beast and the sea beast in the past.
Should be more careful.


edit on 4-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Actually, I think the problem is that you are inclined to see Revelation as a prophetic work, rather than as a discussion of events current with the writing of the work.

Revelations is "prophetic" work in the sense it contains prophecies set to occur sometime during the last days.

The author of Revelations simply wrote down whatever he saw in his visions. Those visions included the bizarre symbols we read of... such as the whore, the beasts, the image of the beast, the chimeras from the abyss etc.
Most of those things are open to guesswork and speculation.



It is a common rhetorical device to apply what has been said of one place in the past to a new place in the present. In the case of Revelation, the surface structure was to use Old Testamant language and images, to hide the critique of Roman policies. The original verses were often about Jerusalem. Their reuse was in reference to Rome.

Yes, names of certain places get re-applied elsewhere. I gave you the example of how Jerusalem is called "Sodom and Egypt". So its no surprise that Jerusalem is coded as "Babylon".

As for it being Rome. There are two ways of looking at it.
Either the person who wrote Revelations simply found a clever way to use symbolic Biblical language to carry out an agenda against the Romans without being noticed. So, the book of revelations is one big joke and none of it is "prophecy". Is that what you are implying.

OR

The person was genuinely inspired by visions of future events (which is what most Christians believe).
He would indeed have had visions of the whore dressed in scarlet and drunk with the blood of the saints. In which case, it points directly to Jerusalem which is also described in similar terms. Perhaps he may not have even realized that his visions were actually pointing to Jerusalem.



Really? Massachusetts hanged Quakers on Boston Common 1659-1661. You can easily find other parallels to Old Testament language about Jerusalem applied to Boston as well, since it was founded by Bible-reading Christians with a religious motivation for founding it.


Was Massachusetts ever described as a whore being adorned in scarlet and gold? You will notice that both the whore and Jerusalem are described in the same terms. Also, were the Quakers considered by Jesus as "holy men and saints"? So the Massachusetts / Quaker claim can be safely dismissed.


The people you're talking about think that Revelation is a prophecy, and that the "whore" is not the City of Rome, but rather the Roman Catholic Church.


It simply cannot refer to the Roman Catholic Church, because John was using language used specifically to describe Jerusalem. The bible does not describe the RCC as a whore in red and scarlet....with the blood of saints and holy men.


As a Muslim, are you prepared to accept the canonical epistle writers (and that's what Revelation is, an epistle) as Prophets? How very interesting a discussion that would be. No wonder you want to restrict who can post.

I'm not restricting who can post here.
I am addressing a very specific issue here.... that the Bible describes Jerusalem as the whore and not the RCC.
Obviously I have zero control over who posts, but I would rather avoid an argument for the sake of an argument.
I'd rather stay focused on Revelations, as far as this thread is concerned. The other epistle writers can always be referred to if it is relevant to this thread.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I am going to systemically address all the points you raised in your OP, plus some other descriptions in Revelation 17 left out, plus all the description criteria I asked you to address (these have already been fulfilled and I will show you so).

Are you prepared to do some reading (as the posts will be reasonably lengthy), let the Bible interpret the Bible, and let documented history guide you to what is so.

It may take me several days to complete the process but I will address the points in dribs and drabs until it is finished.
edit on 4-2-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



Are you prepared to do some reading (as the posts will be reasonably lengthy), let the Bible interpret the Bible, and let documented history guide you to what is so.


Historical documents are fine, as long as they are more than just references to the dark ages, under Catholic rule.. which is the most common argument to portray the Catholic church as the whore drunk with the blood of saints. I am not denying the RCCs atrocities in the past.... but there are other factors to consider within the bible.
Such as the accusations of spilling the blood of the prophets and saints.... and the descriptions of being a whore in scarlet and gold. In that regard, there are solid support in the bible to prove that Jerusalem, and not Rome is the whore on the beast.

Most of revelations is written using vague symbols... and people can only guess and speculate on as to what those symbols are. However, the whore in Revelations 17 has parallels in other parts of the Bible... so we can backtrack and pinpoint Jerusalem as the whore. Also, some of those prophetic verses are set in the distant future and may play out many, many years from now. But we do know that it revolves around Jerusalem.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Scorpie


Revelations is "prophetic" work in the sense it contains prophecies set to occur sometime during the last days.


So, in your view, Revelation (it's singular) is not about events current at the time it was written.... and instead,


The author of Revelations simply wrote down whatever he saw in his visions. Those visions included the bizarre symbols we read of... such as the whore, the beasts, the image of the beast, the chimeras from the abyss etc.


John is a Prophet, also in your view. And he wrote an epistle, reporting what he described as his visions of Jesus.

Paul, too, wrote epistles based on what he described as his visions of Jesus. Why is he not a Prophet? Or is he? The focus of Christian persecution in Paul's day actually was Jerusalem, and he wrote about Jerusalem by name. Surely this is relevant to how the New Testament discusses Jerusalem, when it actually does so

Obviously, it is unavailing for you to cherrypick the epistles and their reports about visions of Jesus, and for you to pontificate, "This was a true vision of Jesus given to a Prophet, and I interpret it thus," while taking other epsitles with other visions of Jesus, and for you to pontificate "This is a false vision of Jesus, and it does not deserve my interpretation."


So, the book of revelations is one big joke and none of it is "prophecy".


Wholesale politically motivated murder is hardly a joke, Scorpie. That's the subject of the letter. As you say, none of it is prophecy, except in the narrow sense that it expresses the hope and confidence that the martyrs will be vindicated and their persecutors will be held accountable.


(which is what most Christians believe).


No. Some do, some don't. If you have an actual measurement, then feel free to share it.

As to the rest, you either don't know what figurative language is, or are unwilling to accept that that is what you are reading. The writer wrote Babylon and meant something else. At one time or another, Babylon, Rome and Jerusalem were all imperial capitals, and all the bane of their neighbors, persecuting religions different from the local variety. Any one of them can stand figuratively for either of the others.

Of the three, only one was a problem for the author for Revelation. That one was Rome. And it was the Empire, not the future church headquartered there, which concerned the author.

Jesus never referred to Jerusalem as Babylon, unless he did so in a vision recorded in this epistle, and the vision is correctly interpreted by you. If that's your theory, then it's on-topic why and how you distinguish these visions in one epistle from Paul's visions reported in his epistles.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Paul, too, wrote epistles based on what he described as his visions of Jesus. Why is he not a Prophet? Or is he? The focus of Christian persecution in Paul's day actually was Jerusalem, and he wrote about Jerusalem by name. Surely this is relevant to how the New Testament discusses Jerusalem, when it actually does so Obviously, it is unavailing for you to cherrypick the epistles and their reports about visions of Jesus, and for you to pontificate, "This was a true vision of Jesus given to a Prophet, and I interpret it thus," while taking other epsitles with other visions of Jesus, and for you to pontificate "This is a false vision of Jesus, and it does not deserve my interpretation."


Interesting that you bring up Paul in this thread.
You might be interested in my thread on the same subject.

The Bible exposes Paul as a false apostle

Either way, I'm not going to derail my thread discussing Pauls authenticity. He is irrelevant to this discussion about the identity of the whore.


Wholesale politically motivated murder is hardly a joke


My full quote was...


As for it being Rome. There are two ways of looking at it. Either the person who wrote Revelations simply found a clever way to use symbolic Biblical language to carry out an agenda against the Romans without being noticed. So, the book of revelations is one big joke and none of it is "prophecy". Is that what you are implying.

OR...


I was asking you if you were implying that the book of revelations is a joke.



No. Some do, some don't. If you have an actual measurement, then feel free to share it.


Well, then the idea that "the person was genuinely inspired by visions of future events" forms the premise of my thread.

Just expressing an alternate take on the motivations of the author... neither proves anything nor disproves what I am pointing out. Which is exactly why my thread is addressed to people who take revelations as something that was genuinely inspired by visions of future events.... but interpret it as meaning the RCC / Vatican etc.... which is the view I am trying to change here.



The writer wrote Babylon and meant something else. At one time or another, Babylon, Rome and Jerusalem were all imperial capitals, and all the bane of their neighbors, persecuting religions different from the local variety. Any one of them can stand figuratively for either of the others.

Only from an non-biblical perspective.
Going by the bible, we see that Jerusalem, of all places... is described in the same terms as the whore.
Care to explain that? What other cities in the bible are repeatedly accused of having the "blood of saints"?




edit on 4-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





I can easily dismiss the Vatican as being the 'whore of Babylon'. It's very simple ... it is NOT on 7 hills. Rome is. Jerusalem is. Tehran is. Yonkers in NYC is. But the Vatican is not.


It MUST be San Francisco! I knew all those homosexuals...blah blah blah!


This is a list of the hills of San Francisco, California. Several cities claim to have been built on seven hills, "the Seven Hills of San Francisco" typically refers to: Telegraph Hill, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Rincon Hill, Mount Sutro, Twin Peaks and Mount Davidson



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Either way, I'm not going to derail my thread discussing Pauls authenticity. He is irrelevant to this discussion about the identity of the whore.


No, Scorpie, the subject of the discussion is that you read Revelation differently from specified other people, and wish to correct them. As it happens, you also read Paul's epistles differently from those same people. The difficulty is that your readings of the two authors cannot be reconciled. Whatever else I might think about your opponents' reading, there is no contradiction or paradox between their reading of John and their reading of Paul. That's a big problem for you.

Now, if your reading were that Revelation was apocalyptic literature (a figurative composition about present problems set in different time), then there would be no reason to compare your readings of the two authors. But, you agree with those other readers whom you brought up in your original post that Revelation is an epistle by John in which he reports on visions of Jesus he had. That is what Paul's epistles are about, Paul's visions of Jesus.

Why do you think that John is correct about his visions, as he described them in this epsitle, but Paul is mistaken about his visions, as Paul described them in his epistles? Given that you believe that John is correct about his visions, then why do you think Jesus, in John's vision, referred to anyplace except Babylon as Babylon? Can you point to anyplace else in the New Testament where Jesus called one place by the name of a different place?


I was asking you if you were implying that the book of revelations is a joke.


No, Scorpie, you posed a false dichotomy, and I declined to acquiesce in your ham-fisted attempt to put your words in my mouth. I have stated repeatedly what I believe the author's intention to be, and that description wasn't offered in your phoney-baloney either-or posturing.


Just expressing an alternate take on the motivations of the author... neither proves anything nor disproves what I am pointing out. Which is exactly why my thread is addressed to people who take revelations as something that was genuinely inspired by visions of future events.... but interpret it as meaning the RCC / Vatican etc.... which is the view I am trying to change here.


Yes, but the view you wish them to adopt instead is that it is about Jerusalem. The title of this thread is a simple declarative sentence, The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem, full stop.

The problem is that the text is about Rome. Not a future Rome, but John's Rome, which had no Roman Catholic Church in it. However, since the text is unmistakably about Rome, then if it is about John's future, as shown to him by Jesus, which is both your own and your opponents' reading, then your reader is entirely justified in proposing that it is set far enough in the future to discuss Roman Catholicism.

Your desire to persuade them that they are mistaken about the place conflicts with your desire to persuade me that they are correct about the time, all of which conflicts with your desire to persuade everyone that Jesus did not grant true visions of himself to the all of authors of the canonical epistles who said Jesus did.
edit on 4-2-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Why do you think that John is correct about his visions, as he described them in this epsitle, but Paul is mistaken about his visions, as Paul described them in his epistles?

Because the final chapter in the bible...Revelations reveals Paul as a false apostle who was rejected by all of Asia.
I don't care about Paul.... and he has nothing to do with the subject of the OP.



Given that you believe that John is correct about his visions, then why do you think Jesus, in John's vision, referred to anyplace except Babylon as Babylon? Can you point to anyplace else in the New Testament where Jesus called one place by the name of a different place?

Jesus did accuse Jerusalem, of all places.... of being guilty of spilling the blood of holy men and prophets.
Can you show me another city in the Bible which was accused of the same crime?

Jesus even said....
It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem

Please address the part about Jerusalem being guilty of killing holy men.



No, Scorpie, you posed a false dichotomy, and I declined to acquiesce in your ham-fisted attempt to put your words in my mouth. I have stated repeatedly what I believe the author's intention to be, and that description wasn't offered in your phoney-baloney either-or posturing.


So let me be really direct and ask you....

Do YOU believe Revelations was a genuine prophecy?



Yes, but the view you wish them to adopt instead is that it is about Jerusalem. The title of this thread is a simple declarative sentence, The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem, full stop.


Backed up by the fact that both the whore and Jerusalem are accused of spilling the blood of saints and are described as whores adorned in scarlet and gold.
I will seriously reconsider my stance the moment you present, with biblical evidence another city that is described in the same manner.


edit on 4-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Because the final chapter in the bible...Revelations reveals Paul as a false apostle who was rejected by all of Asia.
I don't care about Paul.... and he has nothing to do with the subject of the OP.


You can't have it boith ways, Scorpie. According to you, Revelation (it's singular) reveals something about Paul. This thread is about what you think Revelation reveals. I am sure if you explained how Paul is revealed as a false apostle who was rejected by all of Asia, you'll demonstrate how skilled you are at reading this challenging work.


It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem


You are agruing that Jesus spoke literally. Where did Mohammed die? Oh, wait, you can't be criticized for promoting arguments that contradict what you say here. OK, where did Moses die?

BTW, Jesus knew where Moses died. And he said this anyway. Not only are you incapable of reading an epistle filled with figurative language, you can't even make sense of Luke 13: 33, a single verse. Try the few verses before. I know that's asking a lot of a quote-miner like yourself, and you don't really care what Jesus actually meant. But the effort pays off in not offering "proof texts" that sink your case.


Please address the part about Jerusalem being guilty of killing holy men.


Holy men and women have died in many places. By the time Revelation was written, Nero had recently killed several holy men and women in Rome.

How does that help your case?


Do YOU believe Revelations was a genuine prophecy?


As I have already said repeatedly, no, I believe that Revelation is a complaint about current events and an indictment of the Roman perpetrators of injustice to Christians, written in the apocalyptic style. So do many Christians, although you prefer to overlook that.


I will seriously reconsider my stance the moment you present, with biblical evidence another city that is described in the same manner.


I am not interested in persuading you individually of anything. This is a public discussion board. All postings here are presented to the community as a whole as well as to anybody directly addressed. If I have something that is directed solely to you, then I'll send you a U2U.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Jesus even said.... It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem


So you are saying that Jesus said He wasn't a prophet? Jesus Himself didn't die in Jerusalem. He died outside the city walls, and so, outside of Jerusalem. I guess if you take this statement literally it means that Muhammad wasn't a prophet either. Didn't he die near Medina? Certainly not Jerusalem.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



reply to post by FlyersFan
 


i think you both took the meaning the wrong way.

33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following:
for it cannot be that a prophet perish
out of Jerusalem.
34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them
that are sent unto thee; how often
would I have gathered thy children
together, as a hen doth gather her
brood under her wings, and ye would
not!

dying in Jerusalem is not a requirement of proving prophethood.
Jerusalem here is taken as a community(children of Israel/Jews) who stones & kills prophets, Jesus pbuh himself also came to protect/guide them but they just persisted in what they were doing for generations and rejected him too.
And this clears it beyond doubt

31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get
thee out, and depart hence: for Herod
will kill thee.
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils,
and I do cures to day and to morrow,
and the third day I shall be perfected.
33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following:
for it cannot be that a prophet perish
out of Jerusalem.

it simply means when Jesus pbuh was warned by pharisees that he will be killed by 'Rome' he denied and gave a short history lesson and told he is not in danger from them(Herod) rather from Jerusalem.
.
This actually kind of help's sc0rpie's OP,
here Jesus pbuh is also attesting of Jerusalem(jews) having blood of prophets/Holy men on its hands.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
You are correct, Sk0rpi0n.

Jerusalem, who was a whore with other gods and was eventually divorced by God, is the great whore of Babylon.

Christians who believe that Jews by physical birth are still God's chosen people are being deceived. God will not divorce His new wife to return to the old. Neither will He have two wives.

Jerusalem will be destroyed. Jesus said, "not one stone will remain upon another".

Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims are her daughters.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Sumerian mythology states that Anu had 2 women. 1 was a queen and 1 was a concubine. I think the harlot of the bible is going to be both. God's harlot queen. And most likely she is not a harlot like we think, but a harlot of social networking.

Means where the gothick god is anti-social the queen is going to be overly social.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I have to say Skorpion, reading your initial post I was impressed with the details you have outlined, it certainly shows much effort and scholarship.

Out of your 4 descriptions detailed though, only the one about being a city on seven hills has been made.

For you to make a good case for a killer of saints and holy men you would need to identifying the timing of the reign of when that particular beast arose for when the 'whore' could actually kill them. I will detail for you the timing of when the beast rose up by taking you through a couple of prophecies in Daniel which is major key in unlocking prophecy understanding in Revelation. The 'saints and holy men' being referred to here are Christians and prominent Christian leaders (as the timing is referring to a period in the future of John's time). So unfortunately, using just a Bible verse alluding to a past event is not sufficient to establish that case.

Also with the case for purple, scarlet, gold and golden cup you forget the issue of timing and the verses you cited in Jeremiah didn't address purple and the golden cup either.

Sodom and Egypt unfortunately is not a characteristic that identifies the whore that rides the beast from the sea (the one with 7 heads and 10 horns). If you read chapter 11 carefully you will see the timing of events and the actual 'beast' involved. Chapter 11 verses 2 and 3 talks about this 42 month or 1260 day period that the two witnesses (which I can show later is referring to the Old and New Testament) are prophesying for under duress/ needing to remain hidden (in sackcloth). In verse 7 of chapter 11 it talks about when these 2 witnesses are killed, after they have finished their testimony (i.e after the 1260 prophetic days, during a period of time when the beast from the sea has received a mortal wound and is yet to be healed) we see that the beast carrying out the killing of the two witnesses in the cities spiritually called Sodom and Egypt by 'the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit.'

In Revelation 9:1 we read what this power (beast) in the bottomless pit is.

Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen to earth from the sky, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.


In Luke 8:31 we see reference to the bottomless pit again

The demons kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit.


In Revelation 20:3:

The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.


Clearly the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit is referring to Satan and not the whore that rides the beast from the sea.

The place spiritually called Sodom and Egypt that kills the two witness for 3.5 prophetic days is actually France during a certain specific time in the French Revolution. If you would like to know why this is so I can explain it along with the 2 witnesses but the explanations are lengthy. Do you want me to do this?

But in the end though, this Sodom and Egypt description is not a description of the whore of Babylon so should not be used in making a case for it being Jerusalem or anyone else.

To proceed forward I am going to next outline the timing of the events by running you through some parts of Daniel and some other key verses which will help unlock important parts of Revelation to progress the discussion.
edit on 4-2-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



This thread is about what you think Revelation reveals. I am sure if you explained how Paul is revealed as a false apostle who was rejected by all of Asia, you'll demonstrate how skilled you are at reading this challenging work.

Paul laments that he was rejected by all of (biblical) Asia. Later in revelations, we read that Ephesus, located in Asia... is being commended for testing and rejecting false prophets. Anyway, I'm not getting into Paul in this thread. Use the one I linked you to if you want to continue discussing Paul.



You are agruing that Jesus spoke literally.

No. you are taking that literally.
Jesus' statement of "It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem" stresses on the Jews reputation for being prophet killers.... not necessarily that every single prophet were literally killed inside Jerusalem.

Either way, Jesus did accuse them of being killers of prophets and saints....

Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets
-Matthew 23:29-31

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
-Matthew 23:35

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
-Matthew 23:37


So your questions about where Moses died should be directed towards Jesus.



Where did Mohammed die? Oh, wait, you can't be criticized for promoting arguments that contradict what you say here. OK, where did Moses die?

You are forgetting that it was a Jewish woman who poisoned Mohammad... the effects of which took a toll on his health, leading to his death. So once again, like Jesus said, the Jews are proven to be killers of prophets.




As I have already said repeatedly, no, I believe that Revelation is a complaint about current events and an indictment of the Roman perpetrators of injustice to Christians, written in the apocalyptic style. So do many Christians, although you prefer to overlook that.

Then those Christians seem to disagree with the premise that the author was not divinely inspired with visions of the distant future. That is what Revelations is about.... it spoke of global events.... wars between nations... and the ultimate establishment of Gods kingdom on earth. But you don't seem to be considering that in your assessment of Revelations.

See, this is exactly why I need to restrict the threads audience to people who believe that Revelations are visions of the future. How am I supposed to discuss the core subject of the OP , i.e - Jerusalem being the whore, with someone who is not even on the same page as me regarding Revelations?

You are entitled to your views about Revelations, but it still remains that Rome was not accused of killing prophets and saints. Perhaps it would be better if you start a separate thread on as to whether or not Revelations was written about the future.

edit on 5-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



For you to make a good case for a killer of saints and holy men you would need to identifying the timing of the reign of when that particular beast arose for when the 'whore' could actually kill them. I will detail for you the timing of when the beast rose up by taking you through a couple of prophecies in Daniel which is major key in unlocking prophecy understanding in Revelation.


The whore is "drunk" with the blood of saints and holy men... and the Bible tells us that Jerusalem also has the reputation of being killers of saints and holy men. That alone is enough to make the case the Jerusalem is the whore. The "beast" the whore rides would be a future regime that would have something to do with Jerusalem. Perhaps Jerusalem would be its capital.

The "timing" angle that you are bringing up does not negate the fact that Jesus declared Jerusalem as a prophet-killer. And even to this day, Jerusalem exists... as do the Jewish people.

Also, Daniel is a separate prophetic document that speaks of the future using different symbols, so I'm skeptical of using Daniel to identify the "whore". Unless the whore is described in Daniel the way it is in revelations.



The 'saints and holy men' being referred to here are Christians and prominent Christian leaders (as the timing is referring to a period in the future of John's time). So unfortunately, using just a Bible verse alluding to a past event is not sufficient to establish that case.

The funny thing is the verse alluding to the past is strung to a verse alluding to the future. Hence the comparisons between verses in Jeremiah and Matthew to the sequence of events in revelations.



Also with the case for purple, scarlet, gold and golden cup you forget the issue of timing and the verses you cited in Jeremiah didn't address purple and the golden cup either.

Scarlet and gold simply represents the opulence of the whore. Jeremiah not mentioning purple doesn't change anything. The cup that the whore held was simply symbolic of her immorality....which is referred to in Jeremiah 4, which I quoted.

Either way the sequence between Jeremiah 4:30-31 and Revelation 17:4-6 are identical.
In both cases, we have references to the whore being decked up in gold and scarlet...then despised and hated... and then ultimately killed.



Sodom and Egypt unfortunately is not a characteristic that identifies the whore that rides the beast from the sea

My point is that if Jerusalem can be called Sodom and Egypt.... then it should be no surprise that it is also called "Babylon", which it IS called. I will prove that by the end of this thread.


The place spiritually called Sodom and Egypt that kills the two witness for 3.5 prophetic days is actually France during a certain specific time in the French Revolution.


But in the end though, this Sodom and Egypt description is not a description of the whore of Babylon so should not be used in making a case for it being Jerusalem or anyone else.


The place spiritually called Sodom and Egypt is the place where the 2 witnesses lie dead... once again proving that Jerusalem is a killer of holy men.

Read Revelations 18... which talks about Babylons destruction. We read the same description

Adorned in scarlet and gold...
“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!
-Revelations 18:16


Blood of the prophets...
In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people, of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”
- Revelations 18:24


So Jerusalem = the whore = the city of Babylon.

edit on 5-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
dying in Jerusalem is not a requirement of proving prophethood.

I didn't think it was. That's why I put the question out.
LOTS of prophets were not killed in Jerusalem.

This actually kind of help's sc0rpie's OP,.

Yep ... He makes a much better case for Jerusalem than others do for The Vatican.
But so far, I'm still holding to 'ROME'.
Since Revelation was a whirlwind of images from Johns time period, it makes the
most sense.

edit on 2/5/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




So you are saying that Jesus said He wasn't a prophet? Jesus Himself didn't die in Jerusalem. He died outside the city walls, and so, outside of Jerusalem. I guess if you take this statement literally it means that Muhammad wasn't a prophet either. Didn't he die near Medina? Certainly not Jerusalem.


Jesus said that to stress on the fact that the Jews were prophet killers. It was a figure of speech to express that prophets are not safe in Jerusalem, because of its peoples reputation of being prophet killers.

He may have "died" on the outskirts of Jerusalem...but it was still at the hands of those who he accused of being prophet killers.

And of course, not every single prophet was killed inside Jerusalem but for some reason Jesus was generally accusing the Jews of being prophet killers.


Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets
-Matthew 23:29-31

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
-Matthew 23:35

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
-Matthew 23:37


Similarly, Mohammad also was poisoned by a Jewish woman... the effects of which took a toll on his health, leading to his death. So once again, like Jesus said, the Jews are proven to be killers of prophets.


edit on 5-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join