Whore of Babylon

[Shiranui117]

Thats the interesting thing about prophets....they dont necessarily know or understand what they are writing about. They are given visions and told to write what they 'see'.... they do not necessarily know the interpretation of what they see.

John saw a 'babylon the great' the 'mother of harlots' riding a wild beast.
He didn't see a particular religious organisation or a particular politician....he saw a well dressed drunk prostitute riding a wild beast.

They didn't "see" anything. Spiritual visions don't translate well to the physical senses. No, the Prophets didn't always understand their own visions, but they did experience them, and there are strong elements in Revelation that suggest multiple layers of meaning--encouraging suffering Christians of the day to stand strong against the persecution of the Roman Empire is surely one layer.

Christians were needlessly killed and persecuted...and that was happening long before the book of revelation was written.

But that's no excuse to add fuel to the fire. Were it merely their own lives at stake, I have no doubt that they would have shouted about the evils of the Roman Empire and how she is a harlot to their deaths. But I'm not sure you understand the concept of pastoral care, of caring for the well-being of the flock entrusted to your care.

NO. The apostles had nothing to do with getting into bed with the roman political empire.

I'm not sure you understood my point. I'm not saying in any way that the Apostles got into bed with the Roman Empire. I'm saying that it was their mission to convert the Roman Empire to Christ, in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Babylon is used because in the history of Judaism one of the greatest destructions to Judah was done by the Babylonians. They wiped out the temple and left it in ruins. It took the Persians to return them home...I don't see why it would be unlikely for babylon to be used for another great empire. Also remember that babylon had a reputation of being the most powerful empire to have existed, comparing it to Rome another great empire makes sense. They couldn't compare the Persians because the Persians had been rather laid back with the Jews comparatively.

 

[metis]

Why would Paul, who was a roman, call the city of Rome 'Babylon' rather then 'Rome'?

It was Peter, not Paul, and the terms were symbolic and commonly used. The key that Peter was referring to Rome is that he used the feminine form of "Babylon", which indicates smallness as compared to the entire Roman Empire. This practice was not at all unusual.

 

[metis]

Why should 'Babylon the Great' mean Rome???

thats the question.

Then why use any symbolism period when they could have just come out directly?

In our Jewish writing style, often comparisons were made between past and current events as there's a belief that "the past is the present is the future"; iow that some things just seem to run in cycles. "Revelations" is an example of this writing style and is chock full of symbolic terms and concepts, thus using associations.

In order to try and make sense of these symbols, one generally is mistaken trying to associate these directly with more current events, therefore the best approach is to try and connect them to events that were occurring at the time of the writings. Probably just about any Jew living back then would know what "Babylon the Great" and the feminine form of "Babylon" would stand for, and also that "666" must stand for a contemporary figure, almost without a doubt Nero.

Now, since association with past and present is a common practice, one even today could use these terms to apply to contemporary events, which is what we do on Passover, for example.

 

[Drolefille]

unfortunately for that interpretation, Nero was dead long before the book of Revelation and the reference to 'Babylon the Great' was mentioned. Nero died around 64ce... revelation was written around 96ce.

Yes well I didn't say I paid attention in school. I'll look up specifics of asked later but the book is not read as literal in the slightest.

 

[Prophet]

the point was that Paul was a roman, he wrote the name 'ROME' many times in his letters as a reference to the city of Rome.

The jews did not rename Rome, Babylon. Paul called it Rome,
Romans 1:7 to all those who are in Rome as God’s beloved ones, called to be holy ones:

2Timothy 1:17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he diligently looked for me and found me

Luke called it Rome:
Acts 2:10  Phryg′i·a and Pam·phyl′i·a, Egypt and the regions of Lib′y·a near Cy·re′ne; sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes


Why should 'Babylon the Great' mean Rome???

thats the question.

Paul did NOT write Revelation. Luke did NOT write Revelation. I and many others have already made the case for Babylon being code for Rome. You are bringing up scenarios where Rome is being merely being discussed as a place with no negative connotation. In Revelation, Rome is being discussed as an evil empire and is being DENOUNCED. If you want to be purposefully dense, refuse to see the difference, and ignore what we have to say, that's your own loss.

 

[2ndpillar]

neither Jesus nor his apostles were afraid to speak out against the authorities.

Jesus outrightly and publicly condemned the ruling religious order of his day... do you think his disciples were cowards?

They were the ones who made a written record of such public condemnation so I dont think your theory on the identity of Babylon the Great is correct.

Dear Peg,
To understand who Babylon was, it is nice to know who she sat upon in Rev 17:3. The beast with the 7 heads upon which the "mother of harlots" sat, was simply the same beast of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, with the Roman part of the beast expanded upon. The head of the statue of Daniel 2, was the king of Babylon, whose religion was that of Nimrod of Babylon. The same gods which they worshipped, by different names, were Ishtar (Queen of heaven), now worshipped by the Catholics as "Mother of God", Sol Invictus, whose day is the "Day of the Sun", and whose day is now the "day of rest" per the establisher of the Roman Church, Constantine, and is worshipped by homage to the cross of Constantine, which was in homage of Sol Invictus. All the heads of the beast worshipped the same gods under different names. The term babel means confusion, such as you find among the 41,000 denominations of the daughters of the Roman church, who was herself simply a daughter of a daughter of the original church of Babylon, which is the worship of the sons of the fallen angels, the mighty men of renown (Gen 6:4) Basically it is the worship of Lucifer and his descendants. The Babylon religion is simply the worship of the sons of the fallen angels, which is part of the traditions of all the "Christian" churches. Because of idolatry, the Jews were also one of the harlot daughters.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Dear Peg,
To understand who Babylon was, it is nice to know who she sat upon in Rev 17:3. The beast with the 7 heads upon which the "mother of harlots" sat, was simply the same beast of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, with the Roman part of the beast expanded upon. The head of the statue of Daniel 2, was the king of Babylon, whose religion was that of Nimrod of Babylon. The same gods which they worshipped, by different names, were Ishtar (Queen of heaven), now worshipped by the Catholics as "Mother of God", Sol Invictus, whose day is the "Day of the Sun", and whose day is now the "day of rest" per the establisher of the Roman Church, Constantine, and is worshipped by homage to the cross of Constantine, which was in homage of Sol Invictus. All the heads of the beast worshipped the same gods under different names. The term babel means confusion, such as you find among the 41,000 denominations of the daughters of the Roman church, who was herself simply a daughter of a daughter of the original church of Babylon, which is the worship of the sons of the fallen angels, the mighty men of renown (Gen 6:4) Basically it is the worship of Lucifer and his descendants. The Babylon religion is simply the worship of the sons of the fallen angels, which is part of the traditions of all the "Christian" churches. Because of idolatry, the Jews were also one of the harlot daughters.

Goodness there is so much incorrect in here I don't even know where to begin....

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then why use any symbolism period when they could have just come out directly?

In our Jewish writing style, often comparisons were made between past and current events as there's a belief that "the past is the present is the future"; iow that some things just seem to run in cycles. "Revelations" is an example of this writing style and is chock full of symbolic terms and concepts, thus using associations.

In order to try and make sense of these symbols, one generally is mistaken trying to associate these directly with more current events, therefore the best approach is to try and connect them to events that were occurring at the time of the writings. Probably just about any Jew living back then would know what "Babylon the Great" and the feminine form of "Babylon" would stand for, and also that "666" must stand for a contemporary figure, almost without a doubt Nero.

Now, since association with past and present is a common practice, one even today could use these terms to apply to contemporary events, which is what we do on Passover, for example.

It makes even more sense since the book (Revelation) draws a lot from Daniel which is a story of a Jew in...*shock* Babylon. Any Jewish-Christian reader who read it would get the reference and probably chuckle.

 

[Pegg]

They didn't "see" anything. Spiritual visions don't translate well to the physical senses.

God gives visions....they 'do' see those visions being played out and that is exactly what John was describing...the visions he saw.

Rev 1:1 "...And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw

But that's no excuse to add fuel to the fire. Were it merely their own lives at stake, I have no doubt that they would have shouted about the evils of the Roman Empire and how she is a harlot to their deaths. But I'm not sure you understand the concept of pastoral care, of caring for the well-being of the flock entrusted to your care.

christianity was very different when Christ established it compared to what you have today. Each christian was a 'pastor'...all had the responsibility to be teachers and preachers. There was no clergy/laity distinction back then so pastoral care did not exist. Even Jesus said "you will be persecuted on the basis of my name" and "pick up your torture stake" and "if they have hated me they will hate you also"

Christians did not shy away from their duty to bear witness to all that Jesus taught even though the consequences of doing so might mean death. Jesus was willing to die and so were his followers...they weren't trying to save themselves from persecution. It was more important to them to stand up for Gods sovereignty and his righteousness.

I'm not sure you understood my point. I'm not saying in any way that the Apostles got into bed with the Roman Empire. I'm saying that it was their mission to convert the Roman Empire to Christ, in fulfillment of Christ's Great Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.

no, they weren't trying to convert the Roman Empire (which was the political structure of roman people)
They were converting 'people' to Christ. Individuals who became christians no longer considered themselves to be subjects of the Roman Empire...they became subjects of God through Christ.

Thats why Christians refused military service...and soldiers relinquished their positions in Romes armies when they converted to Christianity.

Sadly, the strategic position taken by Rome was to make Christianity their state religion and by doing so, they would get the support of the then apostate christians and in turn, the christians would be absorbed back into the Roman empire.

So Christianity didn't convert Rome, Rome converted Christianity. That this all happened thanks to the apostate christians who had taken over Christs congregations after the death of the apostles.

 

[Pegg]

Then why use any symbolism period when they could have just come out directly?

In our Jewish writing style, often comparisons were made between past and current events as there's a belief that "the past is the present is the future"; iow that some things just seem to run in cycles. "Revelations" is an example of this writing style and is chock full of symbolic terms and concepts, thus using associations.

In order to try and make sense of these symbols, one generally is mistaken trying to associate these directly with more current events, therefore the best approach is to try and connect them to events that were occurring at the time of the writings. Probably just about any Jew living back then would know what "Babylon the Great" and the feminine form of "Babylon" would stand for, and also that "666" must stand for a contemporary figure, almost without a doubt Nero.

Now, since association with past and present is a common practice, one even today could use these terms to apply to contemporary events, which is what we do on Passover, for example.

Nero was already dead by the time John wrote Revelation.

So he wouldnt be referring to a dead person. What harm can a dead person do?

\

 

[Pegg]

Paul did NOT write Revelation. Luke did NOT write Revelation. I and many others have already made the case for Babylon being code for Rome.

Yes you've made that case, but the scriptures do not support it.

As i showed, the Christians use the correct title for Rome. They dont all mask it by calling Rome Babylon.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes you've made that case, but the scriptures do not support it.

As i showed, the Christians use the correct title for Rome. They dont all mask it by calling Rome Babylon.

Jewish Christians would. Which John of Patmos most likely was. This was not written for a gentile audience.

 

[Prophet]

Yes you've made that case, but the scriptures do not support it.

As i showed, the Christians use the correct title for Rome. They dont all mask it by calling Rome Babylon.

The scriptures can be interpreted many ways. You've seen Rome called Rome by Luke and Paul when referring to Rome merely as a location and you've interpreted that as meaning that John of Patmos could not possibly call Rome something else, as if all the writers of the New Testament met together to agree upon how everything should be worded. I think your interpretation is a stretch.

I don't think any of us seriously believe such a meeting or agreement ever occurred between the NT collaborators, but EVEN IF we suppose it did, I'd charge you to present more than just a NT writing which refers to Rome as a location--I'd charge you to present an open denouncement of Rome, uncoded, in the Bible.

Best of luck in your searches. They don't exist. Rome burned them all. Just like what would've happened to Revelation if it dared denounce Rome directly.

 

[AmbassadorForChrist]

The Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18 is the Ancient Babylonian religious system started from Nimrod's wife. It includes any religious practices based upon that Ancient Babylonian religious system.

 

[Shiranui117]

God gives visions....they 'do' see those visions being played out and that is exactly what John was describing...the visions he saw.

Rev 1:1 "...And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw

Except, this is vision of a spiritual kind, not of a physical kind. There is a reason that visions are often bewildering and related in a very mixed up manner, because the one who experienced that vision has to translate something perceived with the spiritual senses to the physical senses.

christianity was very different when Christ established it compared to what you have today. Each christian was a 'pastor'...all had the responsibility to be teachers and preachers. There was no clergy/laity distinction back then so pastoral care did not exist.

Actually, there clearly was. There were deacons and priests/bishops back in the early days of Christianity, and these positions are named and described in the New Testament. They are almost exactly the same as what we have today in terms of function. If there was no laity/clergy distinction, then the Church would have been anarchy, and there would have been no way to settle disputes. The fact that there were teachers implies that there were students. The fact that there were preachers implies that there were those who listened. The fact that there were deacons implies that there were community needs to be served. The fact that there were bishops (Greek episkopoi) implies that there were people to be overseen and shepherded. The fact that there were priests (Greek presbyteroi) implies that there were certain people at the altar consecrating and offering the Eucharist, and people in the nave singing and worshipping while that was going on.

Even Jesus said "you will be persecuted on the basis of my name" and "pick up your torture stake" and "if they have hated me they will hate you also"

Yes, we were told to pick up our cross, and I remember well the last line of the Beatitudes.

Christians did not shy away from their duty to bear witness to all that Jesus taught even though the consequences of doing so might mean death. Jesus was willing to die and so were his followers...they weren't trying to save themselves from persecution. It was more important to them to stand up for Gods sovereignty and his righteousness.

Yes, they were willing to die. I don't think my point has sunk in about how they didn't necessarily want to see others die because of what they themselves did. And we know that 11 Apostles were martyred. But if you think it's perfectly okay to go and get 100 people killed because of something you said or did, I think there's something wrong with that picture.

no, they weren't trying to convert the Roman Empire (which was the political structure of roman people)
They were converting 'people' to Christ. Individuals who became christians no longer considered themselves to be subjects of the Roman Empire...they became subjects of God through Christ.

And what do you think would happen when everyone in the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, including the Emperor himself? Are they just going to dissolve the Empire and live like communists? No. The Roman Empire would have continued to exist, and that's exactly what happened once everyone converted to Orthodox (that means right-believing) Christianity.

Thats why Christians refused military service...and soldiers relinquished their positions in Romes armies when they converted to Christianity.

Either that, or they remained soldiers and were martyred for their faith. Like the 40 Martyrs of Sebastia.

Sadly, the strategic position taken by Rome was to make Christianity their state religion and by doing so, they would get the support of the then apostate christians and in turn, the christians would be absorbed back into the Roman empire.

So Christianity didn't convert Rome, Rome converted Christianity. That this all happened thanks to the apostate christians who had taken over Christs congregations after the death of the apostles.

That's a lot of assumptions with not a lot of evidence to back it up.

 

[Pegg]

The Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18 is the Ancient Babylonian religious system started from Nimrod's wife. It includes any religious practices based upon that Ancient Babylonian religious system.

religious systems are built on beliefs....so i'd just add to this that it would include any religions that carry the same beliefs as those in ancient babylon.

 

[Pegg]

And what do you think would happen when everyone in the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, including the Emperor himself? Are they just going to dissolve the Empire and live like communists? No. The Roman Empire would have continued to exist, and that's exactly what happened once everyone converted to Orthodox (that means right-believing) Christianity.

why did the orthodox go to war for rome? Did God ask them to go to war, to fight in crusades and kill their neighbours?

What happened to christianity? they adopted pagan practices prevalent in roman culture and society, they adopted pagan beliefs and teachings and taught it as 'christian'....they added a little leaven in and it fermented the whole lump.

 

[Shiranui117]

why did the orthodox go to war for rome? Did God ask them to go to war, to fight in crusades and kill their neighbours?

The Crusades were done by the Catholics, and we Orthodox were also savaged by the Crusaders--for example, in 1204 when the Catholic Venetians sacked Constantinople. Our altars were desecrated as Crusaders had sex with prostitutes atop them, the chalices from whence we served the Eucharist were used by Venetian drunkards as vessels for wine and beer, our nuns and women were raped, our clergy, monks and men were slaughtered, our relics and icons were stolen or destroyed.

Orthodox soldiers fought for the Empire as long as it was giving Caesar Caesar's due, and not overstepping the bounds set by Christ.

What happened to christianity? they adopted pagan practices prevalent in roman culture and society, they adopted pagan beliefs and teachings and taught it as 'christian'....they added a little leaven in and it fermented the whole lump.

You have no proof that Christianity adopted any pagan beliefs whatsoever. I've seen all the evidence you've posted for a so-called paganization of Christianity, and it revolves around ignorance of Christian history and misinterpreting documents of the period. Anyone with sufficient knowledge of Christian history and not trying to make money off of sensationalist garbage rejects the notion of a paganized Christianity as ludicrous.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

You have no proof that Christianity adopted any pagan beliefs whatsoever. I've seen all the evidence you've posted for a so-called paganization of Christianity, and it revolves around ignorance of Christian history and misinterpreting documents of the period. Anyone with sufficient knowledge of Christian history and not trying to make money off of sensationalist garbage rejects the notion of a paganized Christianity as ludicrous.

Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
~ Jeremiah 10:1-4