The Bible identifies the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
well if in the event of a muslim army of 1400-1600 laying siege to a fortress with more than army of 10,000 the muslims still seem the agressors to you then so be it.

You said it ... the 'muslim army layed siege'. And they won. So yes, they are the aggressors. The number of people on either side doesn't matter. The fact is that the muslims layed siege when they could have just 'lived and let live'.

Muhammad was the guy at the top directing all this.
He made himself a legitimate military target.

why dint america 'lived and let live' in case of taliban/afghanistan?
American existence wasnt even threaten like the existence of about 1600 muslim men and their wives,kids and old folks in Medina from a constant hanging threat from khaibar's superior army and allied tribes rallying to attack any time. Its just about putting things in perspective before judging an event. Maybe you'l say that it all happened because Muhammad pbuh started a faith that nobody liked so its his fault, would you agree to this?

reply to post by FlyersFan


Proceeding with the debunking of the Catholic argument:

Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome, and was a crucifixion site (where Peter was crucified upside down). It was not made part of the city of Rome until the 9thCentury, well after John wrote the book of Revelation. And since we know that 5 of the 7 kings have already fallen in John’s time, and the other 2 must remain “a little while”, the city had to exist in John’s time, 1rst Century AD. This is all confirmed by Revelation 1:1, which says:
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, "
“Soon” would NOT be 8 centuries later, for sure.
So this means that the Whore of Babylon is a great city that had to have existed in the first century. Which city might that be?

The 6th head which "is" much be understood from John's perspective at the time of writing.

5 of the kings have already fallen:
[1st]- Egypt was the world power and oppressed Israel
[2nd]- Assyria was responsible for destroying the northern kingdom of Israel and scattering the 10 tribes throughout the Middle-East
[3rd]- Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took the people of Judah into the exile
[4th]- Medo-Persia in the days of Queen Esther almost annihilated the Jews
[5th]- Greece through Antiochus Epipanes oppressed the Jewish people and tried to destroy their religion

The kingdom that ruled the world and oppressed the church during the time of John was Imperial Rome. The seventh kingdom to come from John's perspective referred to medieval ecclesiastical Christianity represented in the sea beast that was mortally wounded in Revelation 13:1-10.
Revelation of Jesus Christ: commentary on the Book of Revelation 2nd edition, Ranko Stefanovic, p.521

Revelation 17:11, "And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

The revived sea beast, Mussolini returning back the papal states in 1929 is the 8th which is of the seventh (the papacy ruling for 1260 years from 538-1798ad)

It is a little confusing what argument they, your catholic source, is trying to make. The argument seems to rely on the idea of only showing people one side (and the weaker side) of the meaning of a 'woman' (religious believers sometimes affiliated with a city) and how long exactly 'soon' is from Revelation 1:1. Did aspects of what is in Revelation begin soon as of its writing. YES!

The first few chapters dealing with the 7 churches was the active part of Revelation being fulfilled 'soon' after John's writing. The 7 churches are a representation of the character changes in the overall faithful Christian since from the first centuries to the end of time.

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

So this means that the Whore of Babylon is a great city that had to have existed in the first century. Which city might that be? Revelation 11:8 gives us the answer:
“and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

I have already talked about this before, I don't wished to do a 2 page write up on this tiring argument.

Watch the video if you are really keen to understand Revelation chapter 11



next argument

Revelation 17:16 says that the ten horns (symbolizing the rulers of pagan Rome) will destroy the whore by fire, which is exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

My response:

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

That verse completely stuffs up the Catholic church's deception that the 'ten horns(symbolizing the rulers of pagan Rome)' and supports my interpretation completely. The 10 horns are the kingdom (feet of iron and clay) after the kingdom of Pagan Rome, the legs of iron. Too easy!

The correct understanding of Rev. 17:16 would be that the nations of the world during the final kingdom (this present kingdom) will at some point destroy the Vatican...this is a prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled as we haven't even had the beast's mark implemented yet or the 7 plagues come yet.


next argument:

And then Revelation 17:14 says that the Lamb will conquer them both. This happened in the 4th Century, when Constantine became the first Christian emperor of Rome, who stopped all of the religious persecutions of Christians

Alrighty, now we are really seeing the Catholic propaganda job get to the ridiculous stage. Do I even need to honour this argument with an answer...

Was Constantine, the first 'Christian' emperor the returned Jesus Christ, the Lamb, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords...? NO

next argument:

And so what or who is 666? In numerology, each letter is assigned a value. In Greek, the name Caesar Nero

This is an example of an incoherent overall prophetic view. The shift is trying to be made with whatever loose string they can so that it is Jerusalem, now they get to this number 666 and they have changed to it being a ceasar, they add the word 'caesar', they don't show us the calculation, or what language the calculation was done in.

Here is an example of the answer with a consistent prophetic view:

The November 15, 1914 edition of OUR SUNDAY VISITOR (a Catholic publication) openly using the term Vicarius Filli Dei. It also states that the name Vicarius Filli Dei IS INSCRIBED ON THE POPES MITRE!


and

"The letters inscribed in the Pope's miter are these 'VICARIUS FILII DEI'. which is the Latin for 'VICAR OF THE SON OF GOD.' Catholics hold that the church, which is a visible society, must have a visible head...., as head of the church, was given the title, 'VICAR OF CHRIST'." Our Sunday Visitor, (Catholic Weekly) "Bureau of information," Huntington, Ind., April 18, 1915. evidenced again

Vatican document (in Latin) "Deusdedit cardinalis ... collectio canonum, ed. a P. Martinucci" where they use the term VICARIUS FILII DEI

In the 1940's Robert Correia and others sought out to prove Vicarius Filii Dei was an official title of the pope. Here is their story and a link to a document signed by Dr. J. Quasten, S.T.D., professor of Ancient History and Christian Archeology, School of Sacred Theology, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 1943. Stating that Vicarius Filii Dei and Vicarius Christi are very common for the title of the pope.

The Search to Document and Authenticate Vicarius Filii Dei as told by Robert Franklin Correia
The Signed document:

"Vicar of Christ . . . Title used almost exclusively of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter and, therefore, the one in the Church who particularly takes the place of Christ; but used also of bishops in general and even of priests. First used by the Roman Synod of A.D. 495 to refer to Pope Gelasius; more commonly in Roman curial usage to refer to the Bishop of Rome during the pontificate of Pope Eugene III (1145-1153). Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) asserted explicitly that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; further defined at the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Greeks (1439) and Vatican Council I in Pastor Aerternus (1870). The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium , n.27, calls bishops in general "vicars and legates of Christ." All bishops are vicars of Christ for their local churches in their ministerial functions as priest, prophet, and king, as the Pope is for the universal church; the title further denotes they exercise their authority in the Church not by delegation from any other person, but from Christ Himself."
Source: Catholic Dictionary, Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Editor, published by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, 1993, pp. 484-485.

So every Pope is the 666 man because the title is passed on continually. Evidenced and consistent with entire prophetic view

reply to post by FlyersFan


The proposition made in your piece was

Now we all have to ask ourselves if the Vatican has any dominion over any Kings of the earth today.

You frame the argument that it is not about proving 'any' dominion that I have to prove that they have totally taken over the world. You are re-framing the argument deceptively to a hurdle I didn't need to reach.

Dude .. nothing you posted came from that source.

This was in the link I sourced,

The Catholic order's place in Australian politics should not be overlooked. During the three-way Liberal leadership contest between Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott, all three men consulted with Jesuit priests, said the report.

Every other quote was sourced but I did not link there source to an internet link, sorry if this was too difficult for you to work out. Or did you just make up the excuse so you didn't have to answer against those claims.

I don't know if I will answer more on this, we'll see...I am out for the day. Later

Originally posted by logical7
why dint america 'lived and let live' in case of taliban/afghanistan?

Um .. you do know that there were active terrorist training camps in Afghanistan .. camps training for 'hits' in America .. camps that have sent terrorists to America and actually blown up planes and buildings, right? Self defense on America's part. If the Taliban/Afghanistan had 'lived and let live' and left America alone, they wouldn't have American troops there today.

1600 muslim men and their wives,kids and old folks in Medina from a constant hanging threat from khaibar's superior army

Did the 'superior army' of Khaibar ever actually attack anyone?
Did it go on the warpath? Or did it just fight off the invading Muslims?

Do we know? Or do all we have is propaganda to work with?

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

And my point was easily and emphatically proven and I laid out from Biblical analysis of the text that it was referring to literal colours of garmets which has forced you to change the meaning of what you put in your initial post about that descriptor

I said 'The colour blue stuffs up the clear link '

Want to nit pick on the colors?
Well, then what about white and black?
I see a lot of white and blacks in the Vatican pics that you posted.
So since "black" and "white" are not mentioned as the whores colors, the Vatican cannot be the whore either.

You speculate that it is Jerusalem

I am saying its Jerusalem because it is described in the same way as the whore is described.
i.e - a) Having the blood of holy men and saints. b) being adorned in scarlet, purple and gold.

but don't wish to address the 6 clear descriptors that show it isn't (that I gave I believe on p.1) by saying it must be some time in the future....that is speculation and interpretation.

The only thing that is "speculation and interpretation" is that according to you, the whore refers to an entity in the future.

It doesn't say prophets, it is referring to people who expressly follow the Christian faith and are killed for not renouncing their belief in Jesus. Your link is not even a link, it is just plainly wrong.

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth

Righteous blood = prophets, holy men, saints etc.

You have 1 factor out of 25 odd correct. I have 25 out of 25,

I got the 3 most crucial factors right.

Jerusalem AND the whore are on 7 hills.
Jerusalem AND the whore are associated with scarlet, purple and gold.
Jerusalem AND the whore have the blood of holy men.

Also, I must have missed the post where you got 25 out of 25. Can you please repost it here?
So far, all I have seen are vague interpretations of Daniel and copy-pastes of some anti-Catholic website that you get your Bible interpretations from.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
So every Pope is the 666 man because the title is passed on continually.

Dude ... '666' is Nero.
You can post all the paranoid rhetoric you want.
But you are just putting a square peg into a round hole.
'666' is Nero.

The Whore of Bablylon was probably either Jerusalem or Rome.
That's just the way it is.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
You frame the argument that it is not about proving 'any' dominion that I have to prove that they have totally taken over the world. You are re-framing the argument deceptively to a hurdle I didn't need to reach.

Here is the exact bible quote -
And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth

The woman is a city .. the city has 'dominion over the kings of the earth'.

The Vatican doesn't have 'dominion over the kings of the earth'.
It couldn't even stop Bush43 from going into Iraq. It tried really hard. But couldn't.

Rome doesn't have 'dominion over the kings of the earth'.
It DID at the time John wrote Revelations. But not now.

Jerusalem doesn't have 'dominion over the kings of the earth'.
However, it does have a very high importance level for Muslims, Christians and Jews.
So much so, that the leaders of countries that have high populations of
Muslims, Christians and Jews are VERY CAREFUL when dealing with Jerusalem.

If John was speaking of the 'now' then Scorpion would be correct when he says
Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon.

If John was speaking of the time he was in, then I'd be correct saying it was Rome.

ETA - IMHO

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
sorry if this was too difficult for you to work out. Or did you just make up the excuse so you didn't have to answer against those claims.

Everything you posted was a sick joke. Hitler a good catholic? :shk: Bush somehow bowing to the Vatican? :shk: ALLEGED statements from 150-175 years ago that are out of character for the people supposedly quoted AND filled with paranoid predictions that the Jesuits were taking over the world. (and obviously they did not). Everything you posted was easily knocked down. Get real. Seems the truth is too difficult for YOU to work out.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Did the 'superior army' of Khaibar ever actually attack anyone?

yes the allies of khaibar attacked medina's pasture and killed a man and stole the camels and man's mother, if you read the excerpt i posted before. Interestingly they took the 'live and let live' peace treaty by muslims as a sign of weakness and began making tiny aggressions and uniting other tribes to mount an attack on Medina.

Lot of cities sitting on 7 hills. Over 80 in fact. Rome isn't the Whore of Babylon, but it is part of the Beast. One way to find out who she is, is right in the NT sitting in Revelation 21.

All throughout the bible we see comparisons between Adam and Eve, and how his wife was taken from his own body. The temple represents the husband/groom, the city represents his bride/wife. A city with no temple is a widow. In Revelation 21 we see Jesus and God are both the Temple, and his wife that came from Christ's body, becomes New Jerusalem which is the Bride. Right now Jerusalem is widowed. See Revelation 18:7.

However, interpreting prophecy is tricky business as the book of Revelation is tied to prophecies from Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel and even Micah. Some of them have already come to pass, like the breaking of the 7 seals. We're living in the time of the 7th seal right now and the 144k were taken 2000 years ago.

See Revelation 18:21-24 and then Matthew 23:37-39. The reason a New Jerusalem comes is because old Jerusalem gets destroyed. However this is not to say Israel will be spared, it is written 2/3 will be cut off, but the remaining 1/3 shall be saved.

It is easy to confuse Rome and Jerusalem and it takes alot of intense study and knowledge of Israel's history, but Rome never had the Temple of Yahveh so she could not be his bride. It then Leaves Jerusalem as the only real candidate and Jesus pretty much points her out in Matthew 23.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

And my point was easily and emphatically proven and I laid out from Biblical analysis of the text that it was referring to literal colours of garmets which has forced you to change the meaning of what you put in your initial post about that descriptor

Well, you did prompt me to do an in-depth exploration of the colors of the Jewish priesthood.
I knew they used gold.... but I also had a hunch that scarlet and purple would also be associated with them.
Then I ran a search on those lines.., and the results confirmed my suspicions.

So Jerusalem is indeed the whore. Their priesthood literally were adorned in gold, scarlet and purple

logical7

... wasnt it a standard way of execution?

So was beheading. It was Pilate's choice which to use on Jesus.


Scorpie

Their priesthood literally were adorned in gold, scarlet and purple

As were victorious Roman generals in a triumph.

On it stood the general; in earlier times his body was dyed with vermilion [Pliny, N. H. xxxiii 111]. His head was wreathed with bay, and he wore the garb of the Capitoline Jupiter, furnished him from the treasury of the Capitoline temple; viz. a purple tunic embroidered with golden palm-shoots

www.classics.upenn.edu...

The color scheme (gold and purple clothing, scarlet body) is Jupiter's, the patron god of the Roman state.

As with all the features you pick out, this feature, too is Jerusalem and Rome, not Jerusalem instead of Rome.

You simply cannot avoid that the disambiguation turns on what timeframe John is discussing. If he writes as a natural man, discussing the past, then "Babylon" is Jerusalem. As a natural man discussing his current situation, it is Rome. As a Christian prophet, discussing the future revealed to him in a true vision of Jesus, it might be Rome or Jerusalem.

In any case, the title you wrote for the thread is false. The Bible doesn't identify the Whore of Babylon as Jerusalem, you do. The Bible doesn't identify her, period. That is the point of apocalyptic writing, which is the kind of writing that The Revelation of John is.

reply to post by eight bits


The problem with the Rome argument is that Rome has not been accused of being the killers of prophets and saints and holy men. Some anti-Catholics make that claim because of the RCCs atrocities in the past. But its a speculation.... without biblical backing.

Jerusalem is mentioned as being prophet killers BY NAME. Rome isn't. That is enough to settle the case.

In any case, the title you wrote for the thread is false. The Bible doesn't identify the Whore of Babylon as Jerusalem, you do. The Bible doesn't identify her, period.

There are parallels between the description of the whore, Jerusalem and Babylon of Revelations 18. You denying it doesn't make it false.


I'm also typing out a reply to some points in your previous reply.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Proceeding with the debunking of the Catholic argument:

Copy pasting from sites that you get your information from does not mean you are debunking anything.

Mentioning your personal interpretation about who certain Biblical characters are, also does not mean you are debunking anything.

I mean, you actually believe Mussolini was the sea beast...

Scorpie

The problem with the Rome argument is that Rome has not been accused of being the killers of prophets and saints and holy men. Some anti-Catholics make that claim because of the RCCs atrocities in the past. But its a speculation.... without biblical backing.

I'm not an anti-Catholic, and if I undersatnd what you've posted, neither are you. You and I can therefore pretty much skip over all that BS and get down to something real.

We would not expect "Biblical backing" for John. John is the Bible, although he presumably doesn't know that. And, at the time John is writing, there is neither a Christian nor a Jewish official canon, except for the Pentateuch. The Jews will not end a parallel oral tradition, the "oral Torah" which becomes the Talmud, until centuries after John. So, the scriptures that will become canonical, "the Bible," are available to him, along with other sources, written and oral, equally vessels of the truth in his estimation and that of his first readers.

At the time John is writing, Rome had very much become a killer of prophets, saints, holy men and holy women. John combines this knowledge with writing that will soon be included in the Jewish canon, and composes a message of hope about his current situation, which is that what had once been true of Jerusalem before it was crushed by Rome, is now true of Rome.

By which, of course, I mean Imperial Rome, the Rome John knew, and not the home of what would become, centuries later, the headquarters of the western branch of the Christian church.

You denying it doesn't make it false.

Quite so, the title is misleading and false regardless of whether or not someone points that out. What's your point?

Seven Seals...Seven Chakras..Whore of Babylon riding the seven headed beast............sounds to me like that would be YOU!

reply to post by eight bits

At the time John is writing, Rome had very much become a killer of prophets, saints, holy men and holy women.

The author was clearly using language which has previously been associated with Jerusalem (whore, blood of holy men, scarlet gold etc). Just because it was written during Roman persecution, does not mean all the references to Jerusalem automatically becomes references to Rome. These ideas are your own speculations and it lacks any kind of biblical backing.

Quite so, the title is misleading and false regardless of whether or not someone points that out. What's your point?

The title will appear "misleading" to you when you toss out all the scriptural references I provided. All my main points are straight from the Bible. Its spot-on as far as the scripture is concerned.

Jerusalem, just like the whore is mentioned in the bible, as being prophet killers BY NAME. Rome isn't....
Jerusalem, just like the whore is mentioned in the bible, as being adorned in red and scarlet. Rome isn't.


I'm going by the Bible here. So if you know of any verses in the Bible that describe Rome in the same way, I'd like to see it. I've backed up my case that the "whore = Jerusalem" with plenty of scripture. I'm here to discuss and debate scriptures that I can see in print. I guess using scripture in your posts is not your style of posting, but if we are going to be discussing eschatology then we better go by whats in the bible and leave our speculations and "opinions" out of this.

You are just arbitrarily saying its Rome, just because you think it is. Like as if you just know exactly what John was thinking and what his intentions are. You, are just expressing your own opinion and guesswork.

Scorpie

The author was clearly using language which has previously been associated with Jerusalem (whore, blood of holy men, scarlet gold etc)

Absolutely. That's one of the points he was making, that what Jerusalem was to Paul's generation, Rome had become for John and his first readers. Jerusalem wasn't a factor anymore, though. Not too long after Revelation was written, Jews weren't even permitted to live in Jerusalem. It was a completely Roman city, Aelia Capitolina. In John's time, it was an unreconstructed wide place in the road.

Just because it was written during Roman persecution, does not mean all the references to Jerusalem automatically becomes references to Rome. These ideas are your own speculations and it lacks any kind of biblical backing.

I didn't say anything about "automatically" or that a reference to one thing "becomes" a reference to something else. John wrote veiled references to Rome, and veiled references to Rome they are. There is no reason to expect "biblical backing" for anything written when "the Bible" didn't exist yet. This has already been discussed.

The title will appear "misleading" to you when you toss out all the scriptural references I provided.

No, the title is false because the Bible does not identify the Whore of Babylon as Jerusalem. You do, based on "all the scriptural reference [you] provided." That's nice, but it is you doing the talking, reporting an opinion you have formed about a question where the Bible is silent, and passing off your own personal opinion, quite literally, as the word of God.

You are just arbitrarily saying its Rome, just because you think it is. Like as if you just know exactly what John was thinking and what his intentions are. You, are just expressing your own opinion and guesswork.

Yes, it is my opinion. John intentionally obscured the reference, and now it can only be deciphered, without any opportunity for the living to check with John.

Fortunately, the question posed by the thread isn't "What city was John referring to?" but rather "Did John, or any other canonical writer, identify which city?" The answer is no, John didn't. That is a fact, not my opinion. You need only read the text, and as you point out, and so we agree about this, there is no other place in the Bible that discusses John's intention, either.

As I have said repeatedly, all the features you pick out are equally features of Rome and Jerusalem. If you only look at the text, then those are two viable hypotheses, not one. I believe that by looking at the historical context, it is Rome. But whether it is Rome or Jerusalem, the Bible doesn't say, contrary to what your title asserts.

reply to post by eight bits

John wrote veiled references to Rome, and veiled references to Rome they are. There is no reason to expect "biblical backing" for anything written when "the Bible" didn't exist yet.

I am expecting backing by other authors in the Bible... like the Jeremiah, Matthew and Exodus quotes I provided to substantiate my case that the whore is Jerusalem.

Your assertion is that "John write veiled references to Rome" is born of your own opinion as you say later in your reply.

No, the title is false because the Bible does not identify the Whore of Babylon as Jerusalem.

The bible does identify the whore of Babylon as Jerusalem when you start observing the parallels between the descriptions of the whore and Jerusalem. You are intentionally ignoring all those parallels and asserting your opinions that it is Rome.

Fortunately, the question posed by the thread isn't "What city was John referring to?" but rather "Did John, or any other canonical writer, identify which city?" The answer is no, John didn't. That is a fact, not my opinion. You need only read the text, and as you point out, and so we agree about this, there is no other place in the Bible that discusses John's intention, either.

We don't agree on this.
And all I see when I read the text are the parallels to Jerusalem and the whore and the city of Babylon.
All of them have the same references to the red/scarlet and the blood of holy men.

As I have said repeatedly, all the features you pick out are equally features of Rome and Jerusalem.

Difference being, Jerusalem is mentioned by NAME in the Bibe...
People who say "Rome" are using their imagination to fill in the blanks either because they refuse to see the parallels in scripture between the whore and Jerusalem... or because they don't want it to be Jerusalem.

Yes, it is my opinion.

Good to hear that.
I guess I can dismiss take it as one of the many unsubstantiated opinions I've heard so far. Like Jesuit garlics opinion that the sea beast was Mussolini.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
People who say "Rome" are using their imagination to fill in the blanks either because they refuse to see the parallels in scripture between the whore and Jerusalem... or because they don't want it to be Jerusalem.

Um .. no.

I say probably Rome. I can see both parallels. I see both Rome and Jerusalem fitting but it would depend on if John was writing for a future event or if he was writing for that time period etc etc. It's got nothing to do with me 'wanting Jerusalem not to be it' . I don't really care because I think it's unimportant.

Rome or Jerusalem ... either one fits. Some think Rome fits better. Some think Jerusalem fits better. But in the end .. does it really matter which? Is Revelation important? I don't think so. It's a fun topic to discuss ... but it's really not important to salvation.