It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Why don't you start your own thread and elaborate on why you believe the whore is Rome and not 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.
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.
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.
While your interpretation isn't your opinion?
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
the issue is whether John is discussing his future, which would support either eschatological or, as your OP remarked, ecclesiological intent
When it comes to eschatology, opinions mean nothing without scriptural backing.
Similarly, both Jerusalem and the city symbolized as a whore... are accused of having the blood of prophets...so both are the same.
There will be no naming of Rome because Rome was never accused of killing the prophets like Jerusalem was.
And John was writing about the distant future... the end of days, so to speak.
There is no scriptural backing for any hypothesis about John's intention.
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.
Rome has indeed been accused of killing people whom Christians believe to be prophets,
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.
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.
Well, Jesus himself said the blood of holy men fell on Jerusalem Are you telling me that Jesus was wrong?
In what verses exactly?
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.
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?
contemporary concern: ancient Imperial Rome and its Empire
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.
I think Pliny's letter to Trajan, especially its reference to anti-Christian legal action
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.
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.
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.
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.
My understanding of "the" anti-Christ is anybody who denies the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth.
John's Rome is long gone.
That political entity is as a dead as a doornail
I meant verses from the Bible. Let us not forget that this is a discussion on Christian eschatology.
The anti-Christ in Revelations ...
... This is what Christians believe and these events have not taken place either.
Pretty much every political entity that existed 2000 years ago are all dead as doornails, so that really proves nothing.
Actually, I should have asked you this much earlier... do you even believe in prophecy?
You have not yet established that the intended meaning of that reference is eschatological.
I have my reasons for saying RevelationS. Think of it as a mild OCD.
Revelation is singular. You should learn to spell the title of the book you're talking about.
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.
Even believe in what about prophecy? That some people mistake discussions of current events, or warnings about current trends, for forecasts?