Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem.

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



The Biblical author's situation was that Rome had become for his generation what Jerusalem had been for an earlier generation but was no more, which is what Babylon had been before that for a still earlier generation but hadn't been for a while.



The object of alluding to past persecutors of Godly people is to discuss Rome,


My approach to this is that since the author of Revelations used biblical symbols previously associated with Jerusalem to describe the whore, then it was a reference to Jerusalem. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss all these parallels between Jerusalem, Babylon and the whore.... and take your word for it that it was Rome.

I'd be a whole lot more inclined to believe Rome is the whore... IF the Bible accused Rome by name of killing the prophets. But that is not the case.

Jerusalem, however, is mentioned by name.... not only as prophet killers.... but also as a prostitute. You are simply dismissing all these biblical facts and pushing your own opinion that it is Rome. So I am not quite sure where this discussion is headed.

Why don't you start your own thread and elaborate on why you believe the whore is Rome and not Jerusalem?
edit on 16-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Scorpie


My approach to this is that since the author of Revelations used biblical symbols previously associated with Jerusalem to describe the whore, then it was a reference to Jerusalem.


In which case, they would not be symbols, which are things with both a meaning in themselves, like a city in ruins, and also another meaning, for example, an empire which inflicts ruin. If they are descriptions of Jerusalem, and are being used again to refer to Jerusalem, then they'd just be verbose ways of saying "Jerusalem," not symbols. Maybe that's so, but obviously I think not.


There is absolutely no reason to dismiss all these parallels between Jerusalem, Babylon and the whore.... and take your word for it that it was Rome.


You took a break from the thread, so I'll assume that you have forgotten and that you aren't intentionally lying about me. I have acknowledged, not dismissed, the parallels. I haven't asked anybody to "take my word" for anything. I stated my view, and explained why it is my view.


Why don't you start your own thread and elaborate on why you believe the whore is Rome and not Jerusalem?


There're already two recent topics on the question. There's no need for a third, IMO. You have stated a hypothesis. I have made rebuttal. ATS is not your private pulpit. There's no reason for me to go someplace else to discuss a topic which you proposed.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



In which case, they would not be symbols, which are things with both a meaning in themselves, like a city in ruins, and also another meaning, for example, an empire which inflicts ruin. If they are descriptions of Jerusalem, and are being used again to refer to Jerusalem, then they'd just be verbose ways of saying "Jerusalem," not symbols. Maybe that's so, but obviously I think not.


Let me rephrase that as...
My approach to this is that since the author of Revelations used biblical symbols and language previously associated with Jerusalem to describe the whore, then it was a reference to Jerusalem.

The whore is a symbol who is described in the same language as Jerusalem.... The blood of the saints / prophets... scarlet and gold.... etc.




You have stated a hypothesis. I have made rebuttal. ATS is not your private pulpit. There's no reason for me to go someplace else to discuss a topic which you proposed.


Except your rebuttal is your own opinion.... like you yourself said earlier.

Also, this "hypothesis" is not something that I discovered in the Bible by myself. The proposition of Jerusalem being the whore is a school of thought by itself... and it is drawn out from the words of the bible.
The strongest argument for Jerusalem being the whore is because it has been accused of killing prophets by name.

As for ATS not being a private pulpit, well I'd rather be discussing eschatology using Bible verses with users who can do the same.... not wear myself out entertaining unsubstantiated opinions.

edit on 16-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The whore is also called the great city where our Lord was crucified. That city is Jerusalem, as you say, not Rome.

Revelation 11:8-9 (KJV)
8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Scorpie


Except your rebuttal is your own opinion.... like you yourself said earlier.


While your interpretation isn't your opinion? According to your thread title, it's the word of God, but apparently you don't like that characterization. Feel free to propose another, then. Meanwhile, this is a discussion forum. Personal opinions are what you find here. Get over it.


The strongest argument for Jerusalem being the whore is because it has been accused of killing prophets by name.


I know that's your best argument; I use it myself. My view is that John alludes to Rome by way of Jerusalem, just as he alludes to some other city by way of Babylon. What Jerusalem was, by name, in John's past, Rome is, in fact, in John's present. But there will be no naming of Rome, because if John mentions Rome by name, and they catch him, then they will slice off his hand and pull out his tongue, and any person they catch with a copy of the then seditious letter, they will put out his eyes.

This isn't the Koran. God didn't write Revelation. John did, or else God lied. So, we need to be thinking what John is tryng to say to the specific, then living, people to whom the letter is addressed.


As for ATS not being a private pulpit, well I'd rather be discussing eschatology using Bible verses with users who can do the same.... not wear myself out entertaining unsubstantiated opinions.


As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by a variety of posters, the issue is whether John is discussing his future, which would support either eschatological or, as your OP remarked, ecclesiological intent, or whether he is discussing his present. Thus, the three leading hypotheses:

eschatological: some future Jeursalem

ecclesiological: modern Vatican City

contemporary concern: ancient Imperial Rome and its Empire

That is the issue you have raised. If that isn't the issue that you wish to discuss, then maybe you ought to start a third thread, instead of complaining about posts which reply to the topic you have posted here.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Jerusalem has been called a whore even in Ezekiel, under the moniker "Oholibah"...who is directly called a prostitute.

Notice the parallels between Ezekiel 23 and that of Revelations 17.

Ezekiel 23: I will stir up your lovers against you...
They will come against you with weapons,chariots...
I will turn you over to them for punishment...
I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury...

Revelations 17 : For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose...
The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute...



Ezekiel 23 :They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry.

Revelations 17 :They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked;


Ezekiel 23 :They will cut off your noses and your ears...
those of you who are left will fall by the sword....
and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire.

Revelations 17 : they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

Its the same thing that has been written in Revelations 17.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



While your interpretation isn't your opinion?

When it comes to eschatology, opinions mean nothing without scriptural backing.
For example : I can say "the beast of revelations 17... is the same as the sea beast of Revelations 13"... because both are described as having 10 horns / 7 heads / blasphemous names. Its not just an opinion because they ARE the same thing.

Similarly, both Jerusalem and the city symbolized as a whore... are accused of having the blood of prophets...so both are the same. Also, just to hammer the point home some more, Jesus said that all the righteous blood on earth would fall on Jerusalem...

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth,

So it cant be anybody else. The whore is Johns description of Jerusalem.


there will be no naming of Rome, because if John mentions Rome by name, and they catch him, then they will slice off his hand and pull out his tongue

There will be no naming of Rome because Rome was never accused of killing the prophets like Jerusalem was. John used symbols and language already associated with Jerusalem because he knew his audience would get the references. There is no real reason to think he used Jerusalem references to point at a different city.


the issue is whether John is discussing his future, which would support either eschatological or, as your OP remarked, ecclesiological intent

The issue is the identity of the "whore".
And John was writing about the distant future... the end of days, so to speak. John is speaking of a distant future Jerusalem. But you insist it refers to the Rome of Johns time. So, we aren't even on the same page as far as the thread premise is concerned.

edit on 17-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Scorpie


When it comes to eschatology, opinions mean nothing without scriptural backing.


There is no scriptural backing for any hypothesis about John's intention. He does not write an explanation for why he composed his letter in the style that he has chosen.


Similarly, both Jerusalem and the city symbolized as a whore... are accused of having the blood of prophets...so both are the same.


There is no scriptural backing for restricting the places and regimes which did, in fact, kill "prophets," to those places mentioned in the Jewish scriptures.

Matthew 23: 35 is directly addressed to Scribes and Pharisees, persons who are literally capable of killing, fleeing, receiving messages, and similar human activities mentioned in the speech up to that point. Only some verses later in the speech does Jesus use the famous figurative allusion to Jerusalem. We know that his allusion is figurative, because cities don't literally kill anyone, stone people, beget children, have any volition, nor maintain a house.

It's a good speech, but it isn't a geography lesson. Fatal for your case, it is an example of a Christian writer, earlier than John (whoever "Matthew" is), canonizing a reference to a place which stands for something else, a people. Unless God assigns prophets by postal code, the narrowest reference of "Jerusalem" in the lament would be to the leadership of the Second Temple Jews as a nation.


There will be no naming of Rome because Rome was never accused of killing the prophets like Jerusalem was.


Rome has indeed been accused of killing people whom Christians believe to be prophets, for example, Peter and Paul. There is no scriptural foundation for restricting the population John would call prophets to people who lived when his sources wrote.


And John was writing about the distant future... the end of days, so to speak.


So you say. There most certainly is no scriptural foundation that any proto-orthodox turn of the Second Century Christian author believed that the end of days was in his or her distant future.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



There is no scriptural backing for any hypothesis about John's intention.

But you seem to just know Johns intention was to referr to Rome. Why is that?
Also there is no reason to believe John used language associated with Jerusalem to refer to Rome. Can you please elaborate on as to why John would do such a thing?


There is no scriptural backing for restricting the places and regimes which did, in fact, kill "prophets," to those places mentioned in the Jewish scriptures.

Well, Jesus himself said the blood of holy men fell on Jerusalem Are you telling me that Jesus was wrong?


Rome has indeed been accused of killing people whom Christians believe to be prophets,

In what verses exactly?
How many prophets/holy men did Rome kill? Name them.
In response I can cite the words of Jesus... who named the prophets/holy men (Abel to Zechariah) and also said "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth,


So you say. There most certainly is no scriptural foundation that any proto-orthodox turn of the Second Century Christian author believed that the end of days was in his or her distant future.

Revelations mentions the return of Jesus... and since Jesus hasn't returned yet, we can safely conclude that the events of Revelations have not yet come to pass. So it is referring to the future.

If you still believe it was written about Rome during Johns time... then we are well past the events described in Revelations. So tell me your "opinions".
Who was the anti-christ?
What was the mark of the beast that he implemented?
If Rome was the whore, as you say...and if Revelations tells us that the whore (a city) was utterly destroyed.....why is it that Rome, the whore.... still exists to this day?


edit on 17-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

But you seem to just know Johns intention was to referr to Rome. Why is that?


What are you talking about? I have plainly identified my opinion as opinion, and you have agreed that I have done so. Which is it, then?


Also there is no reason to believe John used language associated with Jerusalem to refer to Rome.


In earlier posts, I have stated some of the reasons why I believe that to be the case. Your follow-on question has already been asked and already been answered in this thread.


Well, Jesus himself said the blood of holy men fell on Jerusalem Are you telling me that Jesus was wrong?


If we're still talking about Matthew 23: 35, then I don't see where I have any disagreement at all with Jesus about that speech. I disagree with you about what his term "Jerusalem" referred to, just as I disagree with you about what "Babylon" meant to another writer addressing a different audience, of a different common religion, in another place, two or three generations after Jesus spoke.


In what verses exactly?


I think Pliny's letter to Trajan, especially its reference to anti-Christian legal action earlier in Pliny's career, all by itself suffices to substantiate Roman persecution of Christians in John's time. For discussion of specific victims, the patristic literature is easily found on the web.

If by "verses," you mean Jewish Bible material, then there is no reason why Jewish authors would have commented on a for-them future quarrel among Gentiles. If you had read my previous post, you would have seen "There is no scriptural backing for restricting the places and regimes which did, in fact, kill "prophets," to those places mentioned in the Jewish scriptures."

Of course you did see it, because you copied that statement to quote here. So, now please read it. You and I disagree about the breadth of sources that would profitably inform an understanding of Revelation. Pretending that we do not disagree about that impedes our communication without benefitting your case.


Revelations mentions the return of Jesus... and since Jesus hasn't returned yet, we can safely conclude that the events of Revelations have not yet come to pass. So it is referring to the future.


It is not news that proto-orthodox Christians believed that Jesus was soon to come back. One evidence for them was that Jerusalem had already been rendered unable to bother anybody.


If you still believe it was written about Rome during Johns time... then we are well past the events described in Revelations.


Yes, we are. My understanding of "the" anti-Christ is anybody who denies the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth. That would be a lot of people. Pliny uses the term Christ, and would know what it meant, and plainly thinks the Christians are mistaken. So, he would be an example of an anti-Christ, in my opinion.

The "mark of the beast" has several possible references, and isn't disambiguated by any simple relationship to one or another belief about John's intended time-frame. The source of the image seems to me to be Exodus 13: 9-10, with the intention to contrast with that passage in meaning and imagery, while recalling God's reputation for delivering his people.


If Rome was the whore, as you say...and if Revelations tells us that the whore (a city) was utterly destroyed.....why is it that Rome, the whore.... still exists to this day?


As I say? Here's how I have described the hypothesis I favor:


contemporary concern: ancient Imperial Rome and its Empire


That political entity is as a dead as a doornail, Scorpie. I don't think John would be the hook for any literal realization of the common image of "utter destruction" as an expression of "enantiodromia" or political reversal. However, hooked or no, John's Rome is long gone.
-
edit on 17-2-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



I think Pliny's letter to Trajan, especially its reference to anti-Christian legal action
I meant verses from the Bible. Let us not forget that this is a discussion on Christian eschatology. So we will have to stick to the source of Christian eschatology, i.e - the bible... which has made a solid case for Jerusalem being the whore.

God Himself calls Jerusalem, not Rome... a whore. Jesus himself accuses Jerusalem, NOT Rome... of the same thing that the whore is accused of. So that seals the matter right there.



If by "verses," you mean Jewish Bible material, then there is no reason why Jewish authors would have commented on a for-them future quarrel among Gentiles.

You and I disagree about the breadth of sources that would profitably inform an understanding of Revelation. Pretending that we do not disagree about that impedes our communication without benefitting your case.
Extra-biblical sources are fine, as long as the premise is first backed up by the Bible. After all, this is an eschatological / biblical subject. For example, had Jesus accused Rome of having spilled holy blood, then Pliny's documents would have reinforced your position that Rome was the whore. However, there is nothing in the Bible which accuses Rome of spilling the blood of saints and prophets. So it does not invalidate the accusations made against Jerusalem... proving Jerusalem is the whore of Revelations.



My understanding of "the" anti-Christ is anybody who denies the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth.
The anti-Christ in Revelations is the beast mentioned in Revelations 13. He was to enforce the "mark of the beast" system... and creates a talking image. He is the prime villain of Revelations, who is finally defeated by Jesus. This is what Christians believe and these events have not taken place either.



John's Rome is long gone.

That political entity is as a dead as a doornail

Pretty much every political entity that existed 2000 years ago are all dead as doornails, so that really proves nothing. However, when you read revelations, you will see that there are a series of other things that were supposed to take place. For example, Jesus' return....global peace etc. None of those things have taken place yet, so Revelations is still to be fulfilled. Either we take Revelations as a prophetic book or

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I should have asked you this much earlier... do you even believe in prophecy?

Because we read in Revelations that the whore was utterly destroyed with fire. But Rome, despite its initial persecution of Christians, went on to become Christian itself! And under Constantine established the Nicene Creed which is followed by Christians today. Rome also happens to house the Vatican city... the base of the spiritual leader of 1.5 billion Catholic Christians.

All this further disqualifies Rome as a candidate for the whore... and these historical development are out of line with the prophecies of Revelations. I don't know what your Bible says about the whores fate... but mine tells me it is utterly annihilated, NOT that it would go on to become the worlds biggest church.


edit on 18-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Scorpie


I meant verses from the Bible. Let us not forget that this is a discussion on Christian eschatology.


The announced topic of the thread is the meaning of a figurative reference in Revelation. You have not yet established that the intended meaning of that reference is eschatological.

The majority of Christians, about two thirds, are Catholic or Orthodox. Neither of those churches base their doctrines, eschatalogical or otherwise, exclusively on the canonical Bible.

You must have meant something other than Christian eschatology, if you were hoping thereby to restrict the admissible information sources to the Bible. I'm not a mind reader, though, so I won't try to guess what you did mean by that comment.

In any case, there is no scriptural foundation that any portion of the Bible should be read without taking into account the current situation of an author and his first readers.


The anti-Christ in Revelations ...


Revelation is singular. You should learn to spell the title of the book you're talking about.


... This is what Christians believe and these events have not taken place either.


Christians, like everybody else, disagree whether these figurative expressions refer to John's current situation and its resolution, the end of the world, the rise and fall of the Catholic Church, ... to name three interpretations that have been discussed just in this thread alone.


Pretty much every political entity that existed 2000 years ago are all dead as doornails, so that really proves nothing.


You brought it up. I don't think John was forecasting anything in particular, and he certainly wasn't expressing himself in literal language. It's uninteresting that some forecast which he didn't make, and which you agree he didn't make, wasn't fulfilled to your satisfaction. So what?


Actually, I should have asked you this much earlier... do you even believe in prophecy?


Even believe in what about prophecy? That some people mistake discussions of current events, or warnings about current trends, for forecasts? Of course, that's the nub of this discussion we're having right now. It's also why Jonah complained to God. So what?

Revelation isn't a forecast in the first place, so it doesn't matter whether or not there are other books which are forecasts, much less what I think about the other books.

On your last, diffuse salvo:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it isn't news that proto-orthodox Christians believed that Jesus was returning soon. I would be surprised, then, if John hadn't alluded to that belief during his discussion of current events with other proto-orthodox Christians. Rome did suffer a bad fire, and its ruler used that disaster as a pretext to kill Christians. I would also be surprised if John hadn't alluded to that historical fact during his discussion of current events.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



You have not yet established that the intended meaning of that reference is eschatological.

Actually, the author of that reference himself establishes that the entire book is eschatological. In fact, the book BEGINS with the message that it is prophetic in nature.
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place..... Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy...

It also ENDS with the message that it is all a prophecy

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll

Either you were completely unaware of this or you are willfully denying what the author has to say about the prophetic nature of his book. Either way, your argument is with John, not me.



Revelation is singular. You should learn to spell the title of the book you're talking about.
I have my reasons for saying RevelationS. Think of it as a mild OCD.

Either way, it doesn't change its meaning, but you seem more interested in making an issue out of my spelling than in addressing what I said about certain events concerning the anti-christ not having come to pass.




Even believe in what about prophecy? That some people mistake discussions of current events, or warnings about current trends, for forecasts?
It is YOUR opinion that Johns book was a discussion of "current events". John himself makes it clear that he is writing prophecies of future events, all culminating with the return of Jesus and final victory of good over evil.

Its one thing to hold a different opinion with regard to the whore, but to outright deny the eschatological / prophetic nature of the book, shows you are trying to assert your opinion over what John had to say regarding his book.

That Revelations is eschatological in nature is elementary to the subject matter of this thread. Discussing eschatological themes with someone who doesn't acknowledge the eschatological nature of the book in question... is akin to discussing "heaven and hell" with an atheist who outright dismisses religious scripture as a fairy tale. In both cases, no real progress is made... it wont go beyond yes it is, no it isn't , as has been the case with us.


edit on 22-2-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join