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)