PDA

View Full Version : How could "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be 1st Century Rome?



the rookie
Feb 25th 2008, 05:14 PM
I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

How could the concept of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be referencing 1st Century Rome; conversely, how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her, represent Nero, Domitian, or any other Roman Caesar up through 500 A.D.?

The bulk of the evidence that Babylon = Rome and the scarlet beast = Nero comes from Rev. 13:18 and the appeal to gematria related to Nero's name as well as Rev. 17:3 & 9, related to appeals to royalty ("purple & scarlet", purple being the color of Caesar's sash denoting his station beginning with Julius Caesar) and location ("seven mountains", on which the woman sits).

The problem is, interpreting Babylon to be Rome or even Jerusalem ignores the details of the narrative that the two chapters establish related to Babylon's fall; I believe it also severely diminishes the scope and impact of the Babylonian world "system" that the peoples of the earth have been knit to since Genesis 11. Even the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, fallen..." is an allusion to Isaiah 21, speaking of the fall of the literal city and not Rome or Jerusalem.

There is a great mystery surrounding Babylon the Great - the "Mother of Harlots and of the abominations of the earth", and to pin such a charge on Rome greatly lessens the impact and scope of the title; to pin such a charge on Jerusalem itself is a monstrous charge against Judaism that, even as the spiritual leadership was corrupt from the time of the Hasmoneans to the destruction of Jerusalem would still seem to overestimate the impact of apostate Israel on the whole earth over its history in those days. It would also be too heinous a charge to level at the Catholic Church, despite the insistence of the Reformers.

Finally, the details (which are too numerous to explore in this opening post) - if Babylon (and the Beast) = Rome and Nero Caesar, then what do we say about the "bowl" judgments and the manner in which they target that very same "scarlet beast" and his kingdom? Who were the ten kings that the emperor aligns with to betray the city - when did this happen? When was her unthinkable fall, one in which the whole earth mourns her passing? How is this fall related to the rejoicing in heaven that precedes the marriage supper of the Lamb?

If Babylon = Jerusalem, how do we explain the interrelationship with Babylon and the beast? How does this "great city" reign over the kings of the earth? How does one explain the level of commerce and the relationship to the merchants and the power brokers of the earth? One would seemingly have to manipulate the narrative of 17:7-18 in ways that do not fit the historical narrative to relegate this passage to 1st century Jerusalem.

OK, I'll stop there for now. I normally dislike long, difficult to follow OP's, but in this case, I couldn't help it.

What do you think?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2008, 05:20 PM
Secondarily, primarily spiritual interpretations that attribute the identity of Babylon to, say, New York City, Las Vegas, etc. have to answer to the narrative, descriptions, and title ascribed to Babylon as well as the heavenly celebration knit to the finality of the fall (and the timing related to the seventh bowl and the wedding supper of the lamb).

Just a side note to, hopefully, discourage that interpretation. :D

markdrums
Feb 25th 2008, 05:34 PM
I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

How could the concept of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be referencing 1st Century Rome; conversely, how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her, represent Nero, Domitian, or any other Roman Caesar up through 500 A.D.?

The bulk of the evidence that Babylon = Rome and the scarlet beast = Nero comes from Rev. 13:18 and the appeal to gematria related to Nero's name as well as Rev. 17:3 & 9, related to appeals to royalty ("purple & scarlet", purple being the color of Caesar's sash denoting his station beginning with Julius Caesar) and location ("seven mountains", on which the woman sits).

The problem is, interpreting Babylon to be Rome or even Jerusalem ignores the details of the narrative that the two chapters establish related to Babylon's fall; I believe it also severely diminishes the scope and impact of the Babylonian world "system" that the peoples of the earth have been knit to since Genesis 11. Even the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, fallen..." is an allusion to Isaiah 21, speaking of the fall of the literal city and not Rome or Jerusalem.

There is a great mystery surrounding Babylon the Great - the "Mother of Harlots and of the abominations of the earth", and to pin such a charge on Rome greatly lessens the impact and scope of the title; to pin such a charge on Jerusalem itself is a monstrous charge against Judaism that, even as the spiritual leadership was corrupt from the time of the Hasmoneans to the destruction of Jerusalem would still seem to overestimate the impact of apostate Israel on the whole earth over its history in those days. It would also be too heinous a charge to level at the Catholic Church, despite the insistence of the Reformers.

Finally, the details (which are too numerous to explore in this opening post) - if Babylon (and the Beast) = Rome and Nero Caesar, then what do we say about the "bowl" judgments and the manner in which they target that very same "scarlet beast" and his kingdom? Who were the ten kings that the emperor aligns with to betray the city - when did this happen? When was her unthinkable fall, one in which the whole earth mourns her passing? How is this fall related to the rejoicing in heaven that precedes the marriage supper of the Lamb?

If Babylon = Jerusalem, how do we explain the interrelationship with Babylon and the beast? How does this "great city" reign over the kings of the earth? How does one explain the level of commerce and the relationship to the merchants and the power brokers of the earth? One would seemingly have to manipulate the narrative of 17:7-18 in ways that do not fit the historical narrative to relegate this passage to 1st century Jerusalem.

OK, I'll stop there for now. I normally dislike long, difficult to follow OP's, but in this case, I couldn't help it.

What do you think?

Great questions!
This also makes a Busy / popular debate!!
LOL!!

There's a lot of evidence to support The Beast of Revelation being Nero & the Roman Empire.
Also, the woman riding the Beast, I interpret as "Apostate Israel" in the 1st century. (This belief coming from the wording of scripture, & the way the Bible has often referred to Israel.0

There has been one point brought up in particular though, that I have to admit has me puzzled, & a bit stumped at the moment.
(Thanks Clifton!! :D LOL!!)

That being, John's reference to Antipas, in his letter to Pergamos.... :confused

I can confidently dispute the dating of Revelation being around or after 92 AD concerning the other arguments frequently used... but this one still leaves me with more research & studying to do.

I've run across some excellent articles that explainin the 10 kings, as well as the rest of the questions you brought up.
(I'll have to find them & post the links in a bit.)

That's all I got for now!!!

;)

the rookie
Feb 25th 2008, 05:43 PM
What would be helpful is for you to study the articles and break down the passage, rather than posting it wholly. That way we can really examine the passages together and not be limited to the viewpoints expressed in a few articles. Also, it saves me from having to discuss this with guys that can't speak for themselves :D

As I said, I am aware of the evidence, I just think that the evidence does not really answer these objections to Rome / Nero, which, to summarize, involve: the narrative, descriptions, and title ascribed to Babylon as well as the heavenly celebration knit to the finality of the fall (and the timing related to the seventh bowl and the wedding supper of the lamb).

The woman being apostate Israel, as I stated, seems to grossly overestimate her world impact religiously, politically, and economically. One would also have to ignore the finality of Babylon's fall, Isaiah 21, and Jeremiah 50-51 as well as many other details of scripture related to Babylon and her relationship with the nations throughout history.

In other words, one would have to seriously overlook the OT scriptural allusions that John is making throughout as well as the interpretations of those passages related to Babylon; the descriptive of Rev. 17-19:10 is of a city and a system or religious network with great influence and wealth that impacts the whole earth and births many offshoots.

So again, my preference would be that you dialogue on the above rather than post an article in response, but I understand the difficulty of the subject matter.

markedward
Feb 26th 2008, 01:02 AM
I see:

Beast = Rome
Harlot = "Apostate" Israel

The Beast is up for debate, I say, but the harlot I can only see as Biblically being an apostate Israel.

In the OT, yes there was a literal Babylon with doom prophesied over it... but by John's time, the literal Babylon was nothing. However, in the OT, apostate Israel is often referred to as a "prostitute" or "harlot;" is the literal Babylon ever really called as such? The faithful followers of God are often identified as the Bride, and even the bride is mentioned late in the Revelation (the "city" of New Jerusalem is the "bride," so the city/bride is symbolic of the faithful in Christ). As I see, "apostate Jerusalem" (as opposed to faithful "new Jerusalem") is being compared to ancient nations who sinned greatly against God.

The greatest support for this within the Revelation is in chapter 16, where we see Babylon called "the great city." Well, the first mentioning of any city is in chapter 11, the city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," where the "Lord was crucified." After that point, anytime a "city" is mentioned, it is simply called "the city," referring back to chapter 11's "great city." The "great city" (Jerusalem) is being compared to Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon. Babylon is relatively prominent in OT prophecy for its wickedness, so it could be that John is using "Babylon" as the moniker for apostate Jerusalem (representing "apostate Israel") because of the city's wickedness. How Jerusalem as Babylon is seen to "reign over the kings of the earth" is up for debate, but the Revelation itself specifically identifies Babylon with "the great city" where Christ was crucified, which we know was Jerusalem.

Bing
Feb 26th 2008, 01:34 AM
Surely, Mark Edwards, if we are to accept the Old Testament precedent for calling apostate Israel a "harlot" we would also be forced to accept the Old Testament precedent for calling Babylon "Babylon"?

In point of fact, I should think that if Babylon represents a more modern and symbolic avatar, then this harlot ought also to represent the unfaithful Church, both Jew and Gentile?

While I personally see neither as attractive interpretations, I believe that this point stands strongly against your intent to turn unbelieving Israel into John's Scarlet Woman.

Partaker of Christ
Feb 26th 2008, 01:58 AM
I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

How could the concept of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be referencing 1st Century Rome; conversely, how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her, represent Nero, Domitian, or any other Roman Caesar up through 500 A.D.?

The bulk of the evidence that Babylon = Rome and the scarlet beast = Nero comes from Rev. 13:18 and the appeal to gematria related to Nero's name as well as Rev. 17:3 & 9, related to appeals to royalty ("purple & scarlet", purple being the color of Caesar's sash denoting his station beginning with Julius Caesar) and location ("seven mountains", on which the woman sits).

The problem is, interpreting Babylon to be Rome or even Jerusalem ignores the details of the narrative that the two chapters establish related to Babylon's fall; I believe it also severely diminishes the scope and impact of the Babylonian world "system" that the peoples of the earth have been knit to since Genesis 11. Even the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, fallen..." is an allusion to Isaiah 21, speaking of the fall of the literal city and not Rome or Jerusalem.

There is a great mystery surrounding Babylon the Great - the "Mother of Harlots and of the abominations of the earth", and to pin such a charge on Rome greatly lessens the impact and scope of the title; to pin such a charge on Jerusalem itself is a monstrous charge against Judaism that, even as the spiritual leadership was corrupt from the time of the Hasmoneans to the destruction of Jerusalem would still seem to overestimate the impact of apostate Israel on the whole earth over its history in those days. It would also be too heinous a charge to level at the Catholic Church, despite the insistence of the Reformers.

Finally, the details (which are too numerous to explore in this opening post) - if Babylon (and the Beast) = Rome and Nero Caesar, then what do we say about the "bowl" judgments and the manner in which they target that very same "scarlet beast" and his kingdom? Who were the ten kings that the emperor aligns with to betray the city - when did this happen? When was her unthinkable fall, one in which the whole earth mourns her passing? How is this fall related to the rejoicing in heaven that precedes the marriage supper of the Lamb?

If Babylon = Jerusalem, how do we explain the interrelationship with Babylon and the beast? How does this "great city" reign over the kings of the earth? How does one explain the level of commerce and the relationship to the merchants and the power brokers of the earth? One would seemingly have to manipulate the narrative of 17:7-18 in ways that do not fit the historical narrative to relegate this passage to 1st century Jerusalem.

OK, I'll stop there for now. I normally dislike long, difficult to follow OP's, but in this case, I couldn't help it.

What do you think?

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

I cannot think this is Apostate Israel, but Rome.
The holy Roman Empire that sits on the Roman Empire.

The saints and martyrs of Jesus have been throughout the ages by Rome and RCC.

We also see that of the Four beasts, Babylon was defeated by the Persians, and the Persians were defeated by the Greeks, and the Greeks were defeated by the Romans.

Question; who defeated the Romans?

No one as yet. Rome has declined after being split into Eastern and Western (two legs of the image), by Diocletian who greatly persecuted Christians.
It has not yet been defeated by another Empire, but;

Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

ortho
Feb 26th 2008, 02:52 AM
Bing,

Are you making your second comeback since a year ago?:D

markedward
Feb 26th 2008, 02:59 AM
Surely, Mark Edwards, if we are to accept the Old Testament precedent for calling apostate Israel a "harlot" we would also be forced to accept the Old Testament precedent for calling Babylon "Babylon"?Right, and don't forget the OT precedent that Egypt is Egypt and Sodom is Sodom, right? Yet John called "the great city" where Jesus was crucified as "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," even though we know Jesus was crucified in neither Sodom nor Egypt. It is then equally likely, I'd say, that "the great city" is spiritually called Babylon as well.

Chapter 11
"The great city." It is called "Sodom and Egypt" spiritually (or "figuratively" or something similar, depending on your translation). It is the city where Christ was crucified. Though the direct name is not used, this can only be Jerusalem. The city is struck with an earthquake, seen to be God's wrath, followed by the victory cry for Christ as the King. We see flashing of lightning, thundering, rumbling, an earthquake, and a hailstorm to accompany this victory cry.

Chapter 14
Refers to "the city." The text assumes the reader know which city is the city. This is also the first chapter that "Babylon" is mentioned.

Chapter 16
"The city" is struck with an earthquake, seen to be God's wrath. The city here is directly identified as "Babylon." We see flashing of lightning, thundering, rumbling, an earthquake, and a hailstorm, to bring us parallel to chapter 11.

Chapter 17
The harlot Babylon is called "the great city."

Chapter 18
This city is the location of the deaths of "the prophets and the saints." Of course, Christians "saints" have died in all sorts of places, but the prophets? Matthew 5:12, 23:29-39, Luke 13:33-35. And following this is the victory cry for Christ as King (paralleling chapter 11).

When John sees a different angel, he explicitly states that he saw another angel. But throughout the whole text, he refers to only one "[great] city," which is directly identified as Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon, and the place of Christ's death.


In point of fact, I should think that if Babylon represents a more modern and symbolic avatar, then this harlot ought also to represent the unfaithful Church, both Jew and Gentile?Well I would suppose that as well, though I should mention that I disagree with the "modern" aspect.

the rookie
Feb 26th 2008, 03:22 AM
Right, and don't forget the OT precedent that Egypt is Egypt and Sodom is Sodom, right? Yet John called "the great city" where Jesus was crucified as "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," even though we know Jesus was crucified in neither Sodom nor Egypt. It is then equally likely, I'd say, that "the great city" is spiritually called Babylon as well.

Chapter 11
"The great city." It is called "Sodom and Egypt" spiritually (or "figuratively" or something similar, depending on your translation). It is the city where Christ was crucified. Though the direct name is not used, this can only be Jerusalem. The city is struck with an earthquake, seen to be God's wrath, followed by the victory cry for Christ as the King. We see flashing of lightning, thundering, rumbling, an earthquake, and a hailstorm to accompany this victory cry.

Chapter 14
Refers to "the city." The text assumes the reader know which city is the city. This is also the first chapter that "Babylon" is mentioned.

Chapter 16
"The city" is struck with an earthquake, seen to be God's wrath. The city here is directly identified as "Babylon." We see flashing of lightning, thundering, rumbling, an earthquake, and a hailstorm, to bring us parallel to chapter 11.

Chapter 17
The harlot Babylon is called "the great city."

Chapter 18
This city is the location of the deaths of "the prophets and the saints." Of course, Christians "saints" have died in all sorts of places, but the prophets? Matthew 5:12, 23:29-39, Luke 13:33-35. And following this is the victory cry for Christ as King (paralleling chapter 11).

When John sees a different angel, he explicitly states that he saw another angel. But throughout the whole text, he refers to only one "[great] city," which is directly identified as Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon, and the place of Christ's death.

Well I would suppose that as well, though I should mention that I disagree with the "modern" aspect.

Again, I should point out that I was aware of these arguments before I posted - what I was hoping was that these arguments, which tend to be circumstantial at best, could be conclusively tied to the details of the passage as they are presented.

Either Rome or Jerusalem, both viewpoints seem to have large holes related to the narrative as it is presented as well as the descriptives given to this city / religious system that holds sway over the earth:

1. Religiously, both as an initiator and an example (the chief harlot and the "mother" of harlotry); thus we must say then that apostate Judaism is both an initiator of other copycats (though one would be hard pressed to point out who, where, and when) as well as an overarching example to many as the "great" example of religious harlotry. Catholic Rome may fit better but again, the scope historically doesn't seem to fit.

2. Economically, as a center of trade and commerce whose fall causes the merchants and tradesmen from nearby ports to mourn over the swiftness / unexpected suddenness of her fall (Jerusalem in 67-70 AD was neither sudden nor swift, particularly when one examines the decade long build-up to the main event; the details of Rome's fall don't fit the descriptive)

3. Militarily, with the power of the "scarlet beast" supporting her - I guess Jerusalem, if you stretch the details a bit, could maybe fit this descriptive but really? The relationship between the two in Rev 17 seems a bit cozier than the historic relationship between Jerusalem & Rome. Rome doesn't work well here either, as the analogy would be clumsy.

4. Politically, connected to all the kings of the earth (and the peoples) - here neither Rome nor Jerusalem fit quite right, as the Parthians didn't like Rome much (one of many examples); and nobody liked Jerusalem much. Still don't.

One still has the exultation of heaven celebrating the final fall of Babylon just prior to the wedding supper of the lamb as well as the "remembrance" of Babylon by God at the end of His judgments; why does heaven celebrate the fall of Babylon so enthusiastically if we are talking about Jerusalem as the "great city" in view? Is the Bible itself not a tale of two great cities not one?

I don't know that anyone has answered my questions definitively by finding cursory connections between passages and saying, "See? It's the same city throughout!" To do so, again, seems to ignore or shift key details in my book in a way that leaves me unsettled relating to the "mystery" that doesn't seem as clear as we would like it to be.

ross3421
Feb 26th 2008, 05:37 AM
Jerusalem will again play the harlot as Babylon
Does it really makes sense for one claiming to be God to set up in any other city?


The Whore

The bible only has spoken of one such city as a whore, Jerusalem.

Chapters which relate Jerusalem to being a WHORE.

Isaiah chapter 1
Jeremiah chapter 3
Ezekiel chapter 16
Hosea chapter 4

Rev. 17:16 - We see lovers will strip her, this is seen happening to Jerusalem in EZ 16:37.

Rev. 18: 4 - In addition, God called for “MY PEOPLE” to come out of this city and not be partakers of her sins. This reference is to those you will keep the commandments his people Israel.

Rev. 18:6 – This woman is rewarded double for her iniquity. This “double” punishment is seen to Jerusalem in Isaiah 4:2 and Jer. 16:18, 17:18.

Rev. 18:7 - She denies that she is a whore and a widow, Jerusalem is described as a widow in Lam 1:1.

Rev. 18:22, 23 – We see that the LIGHT OF A CANDLE and the VOICE OF THE BRIDEGROOM and SOUNS OF MILLSTONES shall be heard no more out from this city. This event is seen occurring to Jerusalem in Jer. 7:34, 16:9, 25:10, 33:11.

Rev. 18:24 - We see found in her the slain of the prophets. Matt 23:37 states JERUSALEM kills the prophets, no other city.


In Christ, Mark.

DurbanDude
Feb 26th 2008, 05:41 AM
No-one has replied to Partaker , I really believe that what he says is true. The Roman Empire and the RCC represent the Harlot , all spoken of the harlot fits in perfectly , and the method of Rome's destruction is still a future prophecy that has not as yet been fulfilled , therefore we don't need to compare the past fall of Rome to prophecy about the fall of Babylon , the RCC is more powerful than we think and in many ways controls earth politically , through various strategies , the world bank included. Whenever the world bank loans to countries , that country is forced to follow certain economic and military strategies to get the loan. In democratic countries the manipulation is the normal method of funding and supporting the party whose agenda is most similar to your own , the RCC's agenda being world unity and co-operation , and regionalisation.

I believe that Israel is the final manifestation of the beast , that final little horn that rises up AFTER the earth has been regionalised into ten political regions at the end. Note that the beast is represented by seven heads (heads represent political empires that dominate the middle east and the Meditteranean) which are consecutive. When Revelation was written only five empires had existed in history tht dominated here , namely Egypt , Assyria , Babylon , Persia , Greece (5 WERE). Rome existed at that time , yet the bible says only one more empire would exist before the rising of the little horn (the small country) that would rule earth. History shows us that this last head of the seven heads is the RCC ,who although it appeared to have a fatal wound during the reformation and conquering of Napolean , has risen up again to take its place of world political prominence. The RCC is setting up the ten regions of earth which in turn will give their power to the little horn , the beast, Israel. The final AC will set up his rule in Israel and reign from there , and will be in Israel defending Israel (not attacking Israel as some mistakenly interpret) at the final battle.

At the moment there are 3 main political factions preventing the unity of earth , Israel is desperately protecting itself by keeping its political hold over the USA , and keeping its fingers in the political affairs of the EU , mainly through the UK. The RCC is competing strongly in the USA but not quite able to wrest control from the Jews. The RCC controls the EU , South America , and many individual countries throughout earth. The Moslems control most of the Middle East and Africa with inroads into the EU , and massive support from Russia and its allies. I would guess China allies with Russia , yet Japan and India with the USA , India needing a non-Moslem support structure against its hostile Moslem neighbours.

How to reconcile these three powerhouses? You get the false prophet (Moslem religion) to support a coming king , who is Jewish , yet conforms to the Christian expectation of a returning Messiah , resulting in earth being run from Israel by an AC , looking very much like the predicted future of a period of peace ruled from Israel that the bible predicts.

Practically this is impossible to organise unless firstly the earth is regionalised into ten easy to control governments , not hundreds as it is today. That is why the RCC is regionalising earth at the moment , encouraging all countries throughout earth to join together into commercial economic and political zones.

In summary , harlot is Rome , the beast will be Israel when Rome sets it all up to gain world peace. At the moment the RCC and Israel are two competing world factions , neither able to dominate the other , but the RCC has a unifying strategy based on religious manipulation.

Merton
Feb 26th 2008, 10:08 AM
I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her,



I pose this question of this part of your OP.

If you are referring to this verse--

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.


How do you identify this whore as being Babylon the mother of harlots, when the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth is a spirit which the beast loves, which love is not diminished until the end of the beast when the great city is burnt by fire and not burnt by the ten kings.

Rev 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to naught. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What cityis like unto this great city!
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Rev 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Rev 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Rev 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, everystone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.


Such a destruction certainly can not be upon the whole world, but is confined to the Kingdom of Babylon and can be quite extensive but not all of the world--


Isa 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
Isa 14:22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
Merton.

Grafted_In
Feb 26th 2008, 07:40 PM
I believe that Israel is the final manifestation of the beast , that final little horn that rises up AFTER the earth has been regionalised into ten political regions at the end. The RCC is setting up the ten regions of earth which in turn will give their power to the little horn , the beast, Israel. The final AC will set up his rule in Israel and reign from there , and will be in Israel defending Israel (not attacking Israel as some mistakenly interpret) at the final battle.
In summary , harlot is Rome , the beast will be Israel when Rome sets it all up to gain world peace. At the moment the RCC and Israel are two competing world factions , neither able to dominate the other , but the RCC has a unifying strategy based on religious manipulation.

In reading Daniel 7, He seems to indicate that the little horn is a person, a 'He' who rises amongst the 10 other horns, (10 kings/rulers) and uproots three of them, leaving seven + Himself.
He rises out of Daniels forth beast kingdom, the Roman empire. How can this be referring to the nation of Israel?

I believe the little horn to be the Antichrist who rules from Jerusalem, where He is defeated upon Christs return.

John146
Feb 26th 2008, 10:30 PM
Right, and don't forget the OT precedent that Egypt is Egypt and Sodom is Sodom, right? Yet John called "the great city" where Jesus was crucified as "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," even though we know Jesus was crucified in neither Sodom nor Egypt. It is then equally likely, I'd say, that "the great city" is spiritually called Babylon as well.

Chapter 11
"The great city." It is called "Sodom and Egypt" spiritually (or "figuratively" or something similar, depending on your translation). It is the city where Christ was crucified. Though the direct name is not used, this can only be Jerusalem.

Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem. He was crucified outside the city gates.

10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. - Hebrews 13:10-14

Babylon encompasses far more than just Jerusalem. The whore "sits upon many waters", which represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.". That does not describe Jerusalem.

Eric

MessiahsFollower
Feb 26th 2008, 11:10 PM
Babylon is what is now Iraq.....No Jerusalem....thats some nerve referring to Israel as the whore........it is offensive to me so I will leave this with y'all........

Jerome1
Feb 26th 2008, 11:40 PM
No-one has replied to Partaker , I really believe that what he says is true. The Roman Empire and the RCC represent the Harlot , all spoken of the harlot fits in perfectly , and the method of Rome's destruction is still a future prophecy that has not as yet been fulfilled , therefore we don't need to compare the past fall of Rome to prophecy about the fall of Babylon , the RCC is more powerful than we think and in many ways controls earth politically , through various strategies , the world bank included.

Oh dear, i don't know where to start, it controls the earth politically?

Can you provide some evidence for this?

Can you also tell me do you believe the RCC started during the time of Constantine? The Roman Empire can be spilt into two separate timelines, pagan Rome and christian Rome.

Many believe John meant Nero Caesar when he described the number of the beast being 666. Nero was the Emperor of Rome who persecuted the church along with other Emperors of pagan Rome until the time of Constantine. Pagan Rome was in direct opposition to the church, just as many EU policies are in direct opposition to what the RCC teaches today.



Practically this is impossible to organise unless firstly the earth is regionalised into ten easy to control governments , not hundreds as it is today. That is why the RCC is regionalising earth at the moment , encouraging all countries throughout earth to join together into commercial economic and political zones.

In summary , harlot is Rome , the beast will be Israel when Rome sets it all up to gain world peace. At the moment the RCC and Israel are two competing world factions , neither able to dominate the other , but the RCC has a unifying strategy based on religious manipulation.

Have you been watching the news lately, the EU is an entirely separate entity from the RCC, and infact is in direct opposition to it on many issues. I believe the EU is also lobbying for a president at the moment which would give the EU greater cooperation.

brakelite
Feb 26th 2008, 11:54 PM
In the OT, yes there was a literal Babylon with doom prophesied over it... but by John's time, the literal Babylon was nothing. However, in the OT, apostate Israel is often referred to as a "prostitute" or "harlot;" is the literal Babylon ever really called as such? The faithful followers of God are often identified as the Bride, and even the bride is mentioned late in the Revelation (the "city" of New Jerusalem is the "bride," so the city/bride is symbolic of the faithful in Christ). As I see, "apostate Jerusalem" (as opposed to faithful "new Jerusalem") is being compared to ancient nations who sinned greatly against God.



I agree with your summation above except for one thing. You are missing the change in Israel. You got the change of Babylon from literal to spiritual, but missed the change re Israel from literal nation to the church. Spiritual babylon which is fallen is an apostate church in the NT.

As you rightly inferred , an adulterer from God. Once a bride but now divorced through her association with the kings of the earth, just as James describes in his epistle Jam 4:4.

Jerome1
Feb 27th 2008, 12:15 AM
I agree with your summation above except for one thing. You are missing the change in Israel. You got the change of Babylon from literal to spiritual, but missed the change re Israel from literal nation to the church. Spiritual babylon which is fallen is an apostate church in the NT.

As you rightly inferred , an adulterer from God. Once a bride but now divorced through her association with the kings of the earth, just as James describes in his epistle Jam 4:4.

If spiritual babylon is a fallen apostate church when did this divorce take place that you are referring too?

ross3421
Feb 27th 2008, 03:50 AM
Babylon is what is now Iraq.....No Jerusalem....thats some nerve referring to Israel as the whore........it is offensive to me so I will leave this with y'all........


2ch 21:13But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself:

Jer 13:27I have seen thine adulteries, and thy neighings, the lewdness of thy whoredom, and thine abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem! wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be?

jeffweeder
Feb 27th 2008, 05:51 AM
I agree with your summation above except for one thing. You are missing the change in Israel. You got the change of Babylon from literal to spiritual, but missed the change re Israel from literal nation to the church. Spiritual babylon which is fallen is an apostate church in the NT.


That seems quite reasonable, as Paul ,2thess 2, when he was trying to clear up some misconceptions about his coming and our gathering for us, told us that apostasy and a falling away from THE FAITH, would happen to the extent that the man of sin would be revealed , and this is what would be destroyed at that coming......and gathering.

brakelite
Feb 27th 2008, 09:22 AM
She divorced herself from Christ when she became a church/state union.
Individual members who are in Christ are not divorced from Him, but Jesus says, "come out of her My people"...

Jerome1
Feb 27th 2008, 12:27 PM
She divorced herself from Christ when she became a church/state union.
Individual members who are in Christ are not divorced from Him, but Jesus says, "come out of her My people"...

Thats a pretty big claim to make with no actual evidence, tell me exactly when you say this divorce took place?

God also brought many enemies against Israel, but he still entrusted them with the oracles of God(Romans3:2) and Christ told the crowds to obey everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught(Matthew23:2) think about that.

brakelite
Feb 27th 2008, 08:36 PM
Yes, Christ did tell the crowds to obey what the leaders taught. But only when they taught the oracles of God. I hope you are not suggesting that what Jesus was recommending was that the disciples should obey the leaders' traditions? Jesus went out of His way to dismantle as much as possible those traditions, particularly when they interfered with God's commandments like the Sabbath. What the leaders of Israel practiced incidentally was seldom, especially in Christ's day, according to the oracles of God.

Not so with Babylon. She is an apostate. The cup in her hand which she makes all nations drink are her false doctrines. Not the oracles of God. Secondly, her practice has always reflected her teachings. An abomination. After all, it is God Who calls her a harlot.

She even has the audacity to teach that her traditions have equal authority to God's law, and that when it suits her, greater authority. That is how she defended herself against the charges of the reformation in the council of Trent. The reformers were rightly claiming 'sola scriptura', but were continuing to observe the RCC invention of sunday sacredness as opposed to the biblical sabbath. Thus the protestants were agreeing with the papacy that tradition was of more authority than the bible. The bishop of Reggio I think (can't remember his name) charged those protestants present with hypocrisy. The RCC on the argument on that day. And this is just one example of a raft of teachings that are inconsistent with biblical teaching. No wonder she outlawed the bible and burnt anyone alive that had one. The bible exposes her heresies.

Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

As to the divorce. Rev 14 is clear. Babylon is fallen. Fallen from what? From grace. From a relationship with the Groom. Fallen from her former position as bride. Apostasy means divorce.

We are living in the end times and the 2nd and 3rd angels messages of Rev 14:8-11 are being proclaimed now worldwide. Just witness how many times they come up in these forums. It is time to come out. God will soon return upon her everything that she has caused the world to suffer as a result of her heresies and cruelty.

As a system of religion, she shall be judged, and not pardoned. Individuals that are in her can be, but they must not remain in her for they will be caught up in her plagues.

Brakelite

Jerome1
Feb 27th 2008, 09:12 PM
As to the divorce. Rev 14 is clear. Babylon is fallen. Fallen from what? From grace. From a relationship with the Groom. Fallen from her former position as bride. Apostasy means divorce.


You still havn't answered exactly when you believe this divorce,(I assume you mean from the RCC) took place?

From a biblical point of view we seen that God brought countless enemies against Israel, but he never deserted them, they were still entrusted with the oracles of God.

Merton
Feb 27th 2008, 09:47 PM
I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

How could the concept of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be referencing 1st Century Rome; conversely, how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her, represent Nero, Domitian, or any other Roman Caesar up through 500 A.D.?

The bulk of the evidence that Babylon = Rome and the scarlet beast = Nero comes from Rev. 13:18 and the appeal to gematria related to Nero's name as well as Rev. 17:3 & 9, related to appeals to royalty ("purple & scarlet", purple being the color of Caesar's sash denoting his station beginning with Julius Caesar) and location ("seven mountains", on which the woman sits).

The problem is, interpreting Babylon to be Rome or even Jerusalem ignores the details of the narrative that the two chapters establish related to Babylon's fall; I believe it also severely diminishes the scope and impact of the Babylonian world "system" that the peoples of the earth have been knit to since Genesis 11. Even the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, fallen..." is an allusion to Isaiah 21, speaking of the fall of the literal city and not Rome or Jerusalem.

There is a great mystery surrounding Babylon the Great - the "Mother of Harlots and of the abominations of the earth", and to pin such a charge on Rome greatly lessens the impact and scope of the title; to pin such a charge on Jerusalem itself is a monstrous charge against Judaism that, even as the spiritual leadership was corrupt from the time of the Hasmoneans to the destruction of Jerusalem would still seem to overestimate the impact of apostate Israel on the whole earth over its history in those days. It would also be too heinous a charge to level at the Catholic Church, despite the insistence of the Reformers.

Finally, the details (which are too numerous to explore in this opening post) - if Babylon (and the Beast) = Rome and Nero Caesar, then what do we say about the "bowl" judgments and the manner in which they target that very same "scarlet beast" and his kingdom? Who were the ten kings that the emperor aligns with to betray the city - when did this happen? When was her unthinkable fall, one in which the whole earth mourns her passing? How is this fall related to the rejoicing in heaven that precedes the marriage supper of the Lamb?

If Babylon = Jerusalem, how do we explain the interrelationship with Babylon and the beast? How does this "great city" reign over the kings of the earth? How does one explain the level of commerce and the relationship to the merchants and the power brokers of the earth? One would seemingly have to manipulate the narrative of 17:7-18 in ways that do not fit the historical narrative to relegate this passage to 1st century Jerusalem.

OK, I'll stop there for now. I normally dislike long, difficult to follow OP's, but in this case, I couldn't help it.

What do you think?


How do you identify this whore as being Babylon the mother of harlots, when the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth is a spirit which the beast loves, which love is not diminished until the end of the beast when the great city is burnt by fire and not burnt by the ten kings

merton.

brakelite
Feb 28th 2008, 12:02 AM
But from a logical point of view why would the RCC decide on the canon of the scripture that most main stream christians agree on if it wasn't consistent from what they taught?


Oh, it was entirely consistent with their teaching, that's the point. They were teaching tradition above scripture. And in the case of the Sabbath, protestants agree with them. They keep a man-made tradition above the Bible, despite claiming 'sola scriptura'. And the RCC boldly claim that their tradition is of equal authority to scripture, and the church has the authority to choose which best suits them. Again, "In vain do they worship Me".

As to God never deserting Israel, it was Jesus Himself who declared "your house is left unto you desolate". And again He said, "The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation (the church) bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Math 21 43).

As to the oracles. To Israel they were first commited, yes. Then the church was given the responsibility. If the church however apostacises from truth and divorces herself from He who first entrusted her with said oracles, then they will be passed to another. As to when this took place? The apostacy began soon after the time of the apostles. Various heresies crept into the church and over the next few centuries many debates and couincils were held to formulate consistent creeds etc.
When in the 6th century the current bishop of Rome took over the political seat of Rome and gave birth to a church/state union, that was also the birth of the antichrist. From then, the falling away spoken of by Paul began in earnest. Numerous pagan doctrines became church dogma. Jesus Himself and His ministry in heaven was replaced by an earthly mediator of man's making and thus the apostacy was in full swing. I suppose if you want a precise dats, ad538 would be as good as any. It was 533 that Justinian officially declared the pope a secular ruler in Rome, but it was 538 when the pope finally had total control, for it was that year that the last of the 3 horns spoken of by Daniel were uprooted. They were the Ostrogoths, and it was 538 they were driven from Rome, their back broken.

So if it was 538 that the adulterous affair started, then that was the date she divorced herself from the Lord. I have seen no evidence that the RCC as a church has sought reconciliation with the Lord by repentance and a change of teachings or practice.

Brakelite

honcho
Feb 28th 2008, 12:31 AM
How could "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be 1st Century Rome?

1 Pet 5 13
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you , sends you her greetings,................

Peter wrote his letters from Rome, and called it Babylon.

the rookie
Feb 28th 2008, 12:45 AM
How do you identify this whore as being Babylon the mother of harlots, when the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth is a spirit which the beast loves, which love is not diminished until the end of the beast when the great city is burnt by fire and not burnt by the ten kings

merton.

I'm not quite sure I follow the question, but I'll give it my best shot.

I think that the end of the age Babylon in view in Revelation 14, 16, 17-19 is both a city (according to the angel himself at the end of Rev. 17) and a system, specifically a humanistic global religion with unity and prosperity as the key features that attracts the people to become drunk in their enjoyment of her and the kings to compromise with her.

The "children" of the Harlot System would include the false, syrupy humanism of, say, Oprah who touts spirituality, unity, and good works but doesn't like Jesus too much when challenged on her views. Apostate or backslidden versions of every major religion that say the same things about unity and acceptance of all without pressing the "radical commitment" point seeking salvation without cost pave the way for this religious secular humanism to emerge into a global expression of compromise in the name of God, utopia, comfort, and success / prosperity without pressing the holiness, righteousness, repentance from sin, exaltation of Jesus point at all. That's what I see emerging.

I think that a rebuilt Babylon as a "gathering place" for the nations (i.e. Gen. 11) is a key desire of the antichrist spirit who has fueled this system throughout history unto that end; the actual Antichrist that is coming (according to John in 1 John) will finish the work that has been going on for thousands of years since the scattering at Babel; the rebuilt city itself will be a culmination of that work. This is why the scarlet beast "carries" the harlot for a time before exposing her, devouring her, then destroying her.

I think that when we relegate Babylon to Jerusalem we make a few errors:

1. Once Babylon is thrown down, it won't be rebuilt again. When I checked my map this morning, Jerusalem still exists, and will in the Millennial Kingdom as well.

2. We overdo or overstate the impact of Apostate Israel on the nations of the earth related to global influence (the Mother of Harlots and of the abominations of the earth) - that's too big a designation for Israel and her influence over the earth.

3. We overdo or overstate Israel's / Jerusalem's control or reign over the kings of the earth, which never happened.

4. We overdo or overstate Israel's / Jerusalem's economic influence over the earth, which never happened.

5. We assign the exultation of the great Hallelujah chorus in 19:1-5, the celebration of God's victory over Babylon and her eternal fall, with smoke that will rise from her "forever" after she is thrown down, that celebration with the fall of Jerusalem? Heaven (and all the saints) was happy about it?

I think that we make many of the same exegetical mistakes when we try to insert Rome or the RCC into the picture. We are forced to find historical facts to back up realities that don't quite fit related to the narrative. The RCC is especially clumsy because, while a relevant comparison for the 16th century Reformers, it doesn't hold water related to the influence of the RCC today nor does it fit the descriptive title of 17:5.

I was hoping that folks with opinions on Rome (or whatever) being Babylon would actually lay out the implications of that assertion from the passage itself with consistency, if possible.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 28th 2008, 01:26 AM
The "children" of the Harlot System would include the false, syrupy humanism of, say, Oprah who touts spirituality, unity, and good works but doesn't like Jesus too much when challenged on her views. Apostate or backslidden versions of every major religion that say the same things about unity and acceptance of all without pressing the "radical commitment" point seeking salvation without cost pave the way for this religious secular humanism to emerge into a global expression of compromise in the name of God, utopia, comfort, and success / prosperity without pressing the holiness, righteousness, repentance from sin, exaltation of Jesus point at all. That's what I see emerging.

So is this a new religion, or all false religions unified?

I've got the picture of the philosopher's elephant, where one blind man has an ear thinking it to be a fan, another man has a leg thinking it to be a tree, another man has the tail thinking it to be a rope, yet another blind man holding the elephant's trunk thinking it to be a snake, a fifth blind man leaning on the side believing it to be a wall, and the last blind man grasping a tusk thinking it to be a sword. The philosopher claims to be the only one not blind, and proclaims that it is all one religion and one god - not a rope or fan or any such thing, but an elephant. But the Lord showed me that even the philosopher is blind and does not see that there is more; that it is no elephant, but a demon, and the Lord would call them out if they would but acknowledge their blindness and call out to Jesus. ... That was free.

Lk.11

Jerome1
Feb 28th 2008, 02:10 AM
Oh, it was entirely consistent with their teaching, that's the point. They were teaching tradition above scripture. And in the case of the Sabbath, protestants agree with them.


Are you a seven day adventist or a Lutheran by chance?



As to God never deserting Israel, it was Jesus Himself who declared "your house is left unto you desolate". And again He said, "The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation (the church) bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Math 21 43).


We can play bible tennis if you like, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

Romans11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob." "And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards to the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.



When in the 6th century the current bishop of Rome took over the political seat of Rome and gave birth to a church/state union, that was also the birth of the antichrist.


There is also a church/state union from the inception of the reformation, with the church of England for example.


It was 533 that Justinian officially declared the pope a secular ruler in Rome, but it was 538 when the pope finally had total control, for it was that year that the last of the 3 horns spoken of by Daniel were uprooted. They were the Ostrogoths, and it was 538 they were driven from Rome, their back broken.


Could you give me a source when Justinian officially declared the pope the secular ruler of Rome?

Also if you think this Babylonian empire started in 538 why does Peter call Rome Babylon when he is writing his final greetings and benediction to his fellow churches in 1Peter5:13?

the rookie
Feb 28th 2008, 03:24 AM
So is this a new religion, or all false religions unified?

Lk.11

I would say all false religions (or the false aspects of true religion) unified, since they're all saying the same things anyways and love peace and safety.

Merton
Feb 28th 2008, 05:11 AM
I'm not quite sure I follow the question, but I'll give it my best shot.

This is why the scarlet beast "carries" the harlot for a time before exposing her, devouring her, then destroying her


I did read your replies very carefully and it was this part which my first question related to.

You see I am questioning what you are saying because the harlot of Rev.17:16 can not be the mother of harlots which rides upon the beast.

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, and will make her desolated and naked. And they will eat her flesh, and will burn her down with fire.

I am not saying this because of one or two scripture but because of much more than that.

Rev.ch 8 and 9 speak of the demise of this harlot of Rev.17:16 but the great city (which is not one city, and I can show that) is destroyed in Rev.18 and not by the beast of Babylon which is "the great city"

Ninevah was the great city of old depicting in prophecy type by the story of Jonah of how the great city repented and their lives were preserved because theyheeded the voice of God in the prophet(s) which has happened since the early church went out among them and it is this Babylon now worldwide that is in the end days fallen fallen which makes her time of destruction arive though she was sentenced to death 2000 years ago.

This is the Babylon of Daniels vision which has kept the saints materially since God first commisioned and reformed her to do that for Him.

(Therfore it is not wrong for the saints to live off Gods provisons through Babylon presently but when it speaks against God as it does in Rev.13 then God will not provide through or to it any longer and the saints will be separated from it.)

So this great spiritual city (many material cities) is shown destroyed in Rev.18 AFTER the return of Christ v1 and resurrection and after Gods mortal people are physically removed from the areas of her destruction.v4.

The harlot destroyed by the ten kings of Rev.17:16 occurs BEFORE Christ returns at the 7th trump but two of the three woes of this harlots destruction by the ten kings with the beast are described in Rev.ch 9.

Clearly the beast itself never destroys the spiritual woman which rides upon it, but only torments and destroys the church harlot of the end times.

Rev.8 describes the fall of the church harlot as God withdraws His anointing from her and her bloodshed and blackness follow.

I only wanted to point that out.

Merton.

Jerome1
Feb 28th 2008, 07:51 PM
I was hoping that folks with opinions on Rome (or whatever) being Babylon would actually lay out the implications of that assertion from the passage itself with consistency, if possible.


After doing some research, because my Roman history is a little rusty.

Revelation17:9 "This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.

This fits the discription of the Roman emperors during this time, the five that have fallen were.

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudias
Nero

Three are omitted because of their short stay in office.

Galba
Otto
Vitellius

It then carries on with the 6th 7th and the 8th(The one that goes to destruction)

Vespasian(military commander who along with his son Titus subdues the Jewish rebellion)
Titus(Helped his father Vespasian subdue the Jewish rebellion)
Domitian(Titus's brother)

The seventh(The one that must remain only a little while) could be Titus who reigned from 79-81 AD and died of an unexpected illness. His brother Domitian then became Emperor, and this would make sense of,(It is an eighth but it belongs to the seven)

Domitian like other Roman Emperors before him persecuted christians, he also signed documents, "Lord and God," and had people address him by the same title. Coins made during his reign depicted him enthroned as, "father of the Gods."

This mirrors Revelation13:17 of those who cannot buy or sell who does not have the mark of the beast or the number of its name.

Interestly, any future EU president may have his image on a single European currency that Europe is now trying to implement.

Also many Roman Emperors including Caligula and Domitian often declared themselves as diety or like the Gods, which also fits in with 2Thessalonians2:4.

2Thessalonians2:4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

the rookie
Feb 28th 2008, 08:05 PM
Three are omitted because of their short stay in office.

Galba
Otto
Vitellius

Why would these three be "omitted"? Wouldn't that be like "omitting" William Henry Harrison from having served as a U.S. President? I would want to know what qualifies us to come to that conclusion - I always struggle when folks go there.


It then carries on with the 6th 7th and the 8th(The one that goes to destruction)Isn't that "perdition"?


Also many Roman Emperors including Caligula and Domitian often declared themselves as diety or like the Gods, which also fits in with 2Thessalonians2:4.

2Thessalonians2:4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.Yes, but when were any of these men actually in the temple itself? Wouldn't that be an important detail?

Jerome1
Feb 28th 2008, 08:50 PM
Why would these three be "omitted"? Wouldn't that be like "omitting" William Henry Harrison from having served as a U.S. President? I would want to know what qualifies us to come to that conclusion - I always struggle when folks go there.

Because to my knowledge none of them ever really have a firm grip on power to be considered universal Emperors of the Roman Empire, they all ruled during 69AD and preceded Vespasian who ruled Rome for ten years.

69AD was known as, "Year of the four emperors."



Isn't that "perdition"?


I think you are thinking of son of perdition in some translations(2Thessalonians2:3) I think it is also used to describe Judas in John17:12 in some translations.


Yes, but when were any of these men actually in the temple itself? Wouldn't that be an important detail?

When Rome was overran i believe they destroyed the Jewish places of worship and erected temples to their pagan gods. The Jewish temple was destroyed by Titus and his armies in 70AD.
Caligulas had people worship him as God.

Jesus warns the church in Pergamum about eating food sacraficed to idols, a custom often forced upon christians by Roman Emperors. It is not hard to imagine someone taking the regular offering in a future Jewish temple in place of a desolation sacrilege, which was a customary practice for the pagan Roman Emperors.

brakelite
Feb 29th 2008, 12:05 AM
Hi. I owe you an apology. It was not Justinian I was thinking of, it of course was Constantine.
I'll answer to the rest of your post later.

Regards
Brakelite.

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 12:19 AM
Late comer to the discussion (haven't read all the posts in this thread).


I wanted to pose a question for thought and discussion, as seen in the title of this thread:

How could the concept of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 be referencing 1st Century Rome; conversely, how could the "scarlet beast" she is riding, who eventually betrays her in an alliance with ten kings who despise her, represent Nero, Domitian, or any other Roman Caesar up through 500 A.D.?

How about a historical explanation. A likely historical explanation is that the beast (17:8) is Nero, who was expected to return to life after he died: the "five" who "have fallen" (v10) are Augustus through Nero, Vespasion is the "one" who "is"; and "the beast" who is "himself also the eighth" (v11) is Domitian, seen as Nero revived. But again, the reality seems to be transcendent, as well. Certainly, at least, the eighth- the number eight signifying complete abundance- is a type of the final Antichrist.


The bulk of the evidence that Babylon = Rome and the scarlet beast = Nero comes from Rev. 13:18 and the appeal to gematria related to Nero's name as well as Rev. 17:3 & 9, related to appeals to royalty ("purple & scarlet", purple being the color of Caesar's sash denoting his station beginning with Julius Caesar) and location ("seven mountains", on which the woman sits).

Rev. 13:18 is a cryptogram. The numerical equivalent of Jesus in Greek is 888. The numerical equivalent of Nero Caesar transliterated from Greek into Hebrew is 666, meaning the epitome of created inadequacy.


The problem is, interpreting Babylon to be Rome or even Jerusalem ignores the details of the narrative that the two chapters establish related to Babylon's fall; I believe it also severely diminishes the scope and impact of the Babylonian world "system" that the peoples of the earth have been knit to since Genesis 11. Even the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, fallen..." is an allusion to Isaiah 21, speaking of the fall of the literal city and not Rome or Jerusalem.


It's a narrative (rhetoric) of it's time.




If Babylon = Jerusalem, how do we explain the interrelationship with Babylon and the beast? How does this "great city" reign over the kings of the earth? How does one explain the level of commerce and the relationship to the merchants and the power brokers of the earth? One would seemingly have to manipulate the narrative of 17:7-18 in ways that do not fit the historical narrative to relegate this passage to 1st century Jerusalem.

OK, I'll stop there for now. I normally dislike long, difficult to follow OP's, but in this case, I couldn't help it.

What do you think?

"Fornication" committed by the "kings of the earth" with this harlot, is a metaphor for infidelity to the Lord (Jer. 3, Ezek. 16, 23, Hos. 2). The vassal kingdoms within the Roman empire have accepted the cults of Rome and her emperors, have solidified their obeisance with political and economic obligations- and have fallen into moral decadence. The "wine" of this fornication has made the "inhabitants of the earth" to become "drunk", seduced and stupefied by a hideous eucharist of death, focused on the persecution and martyrdom of Christians (17:6, Jer. 51:7)

That the ten kings and the beast will rise up against the harlot indicates the self-destructiveness of evil. Rome will be (sense of the narrative) stripped, devoured and burned (see Lev. 21:9, where death by fire is required for a harlot who is the daughter of a priest).

John146
Feb 29th 2008, 03:58 AM
After doing some research, because my Roman history is a little rusty.

Revelation17:9 "This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.

This fits the discription of the Roman emperors during this time, the five that have fallen were.

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudias
Nero

Three are omitted because of their short stay in office.

Galba
Otto
Vitellius

It then carries on with the 6th 7th and the 8th(The one that goes to destruction)

Vespasian(military commander who along with his son Titus subdues the Jewish rebellion)
Titus(Helped his father Vespasian subdue the Jewish rebellion)
Domitian(Titus's brother)

That's rather convenient, isn't it? Just toss 3 of them aside because keeping them in the mix doesn't go along with your theory? ;)

danield
Feb 29th 2008, 04:22 AM
I whole heartily agree John. This alone should give credence that the first century Rome could not be Babylon.

Romulus
Feb 29th 2008, 01:43 PM
After doing some research, because my Roman history is a little rusty.

Revelation17:9 "This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.

This fits the discription of the Roman emperors during this time, the five that have fallen were.

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudias
Nero

Three are omitted because of their short stay in office.

Galba
Otto
Vitellius

It then carries on with the 6th 7th and the 8th(The one that goes to destruction)

Vespasian(military commander who along with his son Titus subdues the Jewish rebellion)
Titus(Helped his father Vespasian subdue the Jewish rebellion)
Domitian(Titus's brother)

The seventh(The one that must remain only a little while) could be Titus who reigned from 79-81 AD and died of an unexpected illness. His brother Domitian then became Emperor, and this would make sense of,(It is an eighth but it belongs to the seven)

Domitian like other Roman Emperors before him persecuted christians, he also signed documents, "Lord and God," and had people address him by the same title. Coins made during his reign depicted him enthroned as, "father of the Gods."

This mirrors Revelation13:17 of those who cannot buy or sell who does not have the mark of the beast or the number of its name.

Interestly, any future EU president may have his image on a single European currency that Europe is now trying to implement.

Also many Roman Emperors including Caligula and Domitian often declared themselves as diety or like the Gods, which also fits in with 2Thessalonians2:4.

2Thessalonians2:4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

I don't believe Rome to be Babylon but rather the beast the harlot rides but nonetheless. You have the Roman emperers as the Kings which I agree with but why omit Julius Caesar? He was the first "King" of Rome. This would put the writing of Revelation in the time of Nero (where 666 matches his name) and making Galba the 7th King, who reigned only a few months.

Why omit Julius?

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 01:45 PM
Yes, but when were any of these men actually in the temple itself? Wouldn't that be an important detail?

Mar 13:14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) .......

The Roman general Titus, before ordering the temple burned, entered the Most Holy Place, thus defiling the temple.
Jews didn't even enter the temple without being purified.

Jerome1
Feb 29th 2008, 03:00 PM
That's rather convenient, isn't it? Just toss 3 of them aside because keeping them in the mix doesn't go along with your theory? ;)

None of the three would have been regarded as the universal emperors of Rome, that is why they are omitted.

Galba's reign lasted from June68 AD to January69AD when he was assassinated by members of his own government, because he refused to reward those who had helped him secure his title. During his reign several legions had declared Vitellius the Roman emperor instead and Vitellius was on his way to Italy to claim the throne by force.

When Otho succeeded Galba he lead forces loyal to him against Vitellius, he was defeated and committed suicide.

Vitellius could also not be considered universal emperor of Rome when a sizable part of the empire declared Vespasian emperor. When Vespasian arrived at Rome, Vitellius was executed and Vespasian was then regarded the universal emperor of Rome. From the civil war Vespasian was the only one that arose who could only be considered the universal emperor of Rome, that is why the other three are omitted.


I whole heartily agree John. This alone should give credence that the first century Rome could not be Babylon.

Why does Peter say that he is writing from Babylon in 1Peter5:13?

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 03:12 PM
Mar 13:14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) .......

The Roman general Titus, before ordering the temple burned, entered the Most Holy Place, thus defiling the temple.
Jews didn't even enter the temple without being purified.

Would that then make Titus the Antichrist? How does that fit with other details about the beast of Rev. 17-18 (and 13)?

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 03:41 PM
Would that then make Titus the Antichrist?

Yes, it would make him one. But keep in mind that John said there are "many".

1Jo 2:18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

2Jo 1:7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.



How does that fit with other details about the beast of Rev. 17-18 (and 13)?

The beast is a false prophet, a deceiver.

Ezekiel tells the same sort of story in 23:11-35. Evil is self destructive.

I believe quite a few people get confused in their thinking because they believe this is a person. But it is a bodiless "power", like the ones Paul speaks of in Col. 1:16. Even the devil is a bodiless "power" or "principality" (ruler of whatever).

Romulus
Feb 29th 2008, 04:04 PM
Mar 13:14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) .......

The Roman general Titus, before ordering the temple burned, entered the Most Holy Place, thus defiling the temple.
Jews didn't even enter the temple without being purified.

The warning given in Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. was so those that witnessed the "abomination" could escape the coming destruction. Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape. This event was already in 70 A.D. and the city and santuary were destroyed along with 2/3 of the population in Jerusalem.

According to Luke 21 the "abomination" was the Roman armies who surrounded Jerusalem. This event occured in 67 A.D. This event was a witness to those who heeded Christ's warning and historically for no reason the Roman armies left Jerusalem for a short time. This was enough time for the believers who heeded the warning to escape "to the mountains". They did escape to the mountains of Pella. This was the last chance for anyone to escape the coming destruction which lasted for 42 months (3 1/2 years).

This event fulfills that event while I believe Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape as Jesus wanted then too.

Blessings!

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 04:43 PM
Yes, it would make him one. But keep in mind that John said there are "many".

1Jo 2:18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

2Jo 1:7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Do the "many" negate then the possibility of the one to come? I never am clear how folks are content to read this passage in a manner that lets them off the hermeneutical "hook", so to speak, related to the details found elsewhere about the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" who sits in the Temple to sit as God in the Temple of God and show himself that he is God; exalting himself above all that is called God or is worshiped.

How was Titus "consumed with the breath of His mouth, destroyed at the brightness of His coming?" How was Titus the "lawless one" according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders...?


The beast is a false prophet, a deceiver.

Yes, the "2nd Beast", who works closely with the 1st beast - they are treated in the book of Revelation as two separate and distinct personalities. Again, the narrative seems to assign details that seem to be overlooked here.


Ezekiel tells the same sort of story in 23:11-35. Evil is self destructive.

I'm missing the connection?


I believe quite a few people get confused in their thinking because they believe this is a person. But it is a bodiless "power", like the ones Paul speaks of in Col. 1:16. Even the devil is a bodiless "power" or "principality" (ruler of whatever).

And, as you can tell from above, I believe that quite a few people get confused in their thinking because the believe that they can overlook details in the passages that speak of the coming Antichrist as, well, a person. While there is confusion about Dan. 11:21-32 and the manner in which Antiochus seemed to fulfill some of those details of the vision of the angel, most are undecided about how Antiochus could have fulfilled 11:33-12:13. And that passage seems to be talking about an actual human being. As does the 2 Thess. passage referenced above. As do the Rev. 13 and Rev. 17 passages, though we see that this person has a bit more going on related to his nature in those passages.

John146
Feb 29th 2008, 05:14 PM
The warning given in Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. was so those that witnessed the "abomination" could escape the coming destruction. Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape. This event was already in 70 A.D. and the city and santuary were destroyed along with 2/3 of the population in Jerusalem.

According to Luke 21 the "abomination" was the Roman armies who surrounded Jerusalem.


This event fulfills that event while I believe Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape as Jesus wanted then too.

Blessings!

Good point. Why would Jesus tell them to wait until the Roman armies actually were already in Jerusalem and in the temple before they should start to flee? Like you said, it would be too late at that point. That's why we need to understand the abomination of desolation by what Luke says it is:

20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. - Luke 21:20-21

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 05:20 PM
Romulus -

While much is made of the possible fulfillment of Matt. 24 and the AoD, what about Rev. 13, 17-18, 19:1-10, etc.? How does Titus as the Antichrist (or Nero, or whomever) fit with the details of the passage?

As such, if Titus (or Nero, or whomever) was the Antichrist, why didn't John inform us of this fulfillment in 1 John 2 or 2 John 1, the two passages referenced earlier?

Again, the central issue with this thread is the manner in which many of the historical fulfillments or future designations of Babylon in Rev. 17 seem to greatly diminish the great and grave threat that is arising on the earth today related to the Harlot and the humanistic system of religious unity / economic might that will cause the world to marvel in the days to come.

That's my concern...

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 05:22 PM
Do the "many" negate then the possibility of the one to come? I never am clear how folks are content to read this passage in a manner that lets them off the hermeneutical "hook", so to speak, related to the details found elsewhere about the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" who sits in the Temple to sit as God in the Temple of God and show himself that he is God; exalting himself above all that is called God or is worshiped.

How was Titus "consumed with the breath of His mouth, destroyed at the brightness of His coming?" How was Titus the "lawless one" according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders...?



Yes, the "2nd Beast", who works closely with the 1st beast - they are treated in the book of Revelation as two separate and distinct personalities. Again, the narrative seems to assign details that seem to be overlooked here.



I'm missing the connection?



And, as you can tell from above, I believe that quite a few people get confused in their thinking because the believe that they can overlook details in the passages that speak of the coming Antichrist as, well, a person. While there is confusion about Dan. 11:21-32 and the manner in which Antiochus seemed to fulfill some of those details of the vision of the angel, most are undecided about how Antiochus could have fulfilled 11:33-12:13. And that passage seems to be talking about an actual human being. As does the 2 Thess. passage referenced above. As do the Rev. 13 and Rev. 17 passages, though we see that this person has a bit more going on related to his nature in those passages.

There is always an actual person involved. The person is the one who these powers works through.

This is why prophecies have an eternal or continual aspect to them. They are underlaid with truth. Truths such, as that there are actual powers working against you. In every age this is going to be shown.

For instance, in Russia during the communist rule, there were/are Christians who thought the government was the antichrist. There is plenty of literature where the clergy refused to do anything with the antichrist (government). They were tortured and put in prison camps to die, among other things. Churches were closed down.

So if you were a Russian living in Russia, you might very well believe the antichrist had taken over Christianity there. Because that is what you would see with your eyes, which can be deceived. What you didn't see outright, was that Christianity still survived.

No matter what Christ comes out victorious both in earth and heaven.

I am not of the group who believes the devil can incarnate himself of flesh to become antichrist. He is an angel, which is a bodiless power. He is not a person.
God is a person (known to us in Jesus Christ), and He created us in His likeness and image, which means that we are also persons. While we are in the flesh we are at a disadvantage, because we can't see bodiless powers except when they are manifested in things like evil.

This all goes along with Jesus prophecy, which is that Christians will suffer persecution in the world and overcome as He did. :)

John146
Feb 29th 2008, 05:26 PM
Do the "many" negate then the possibility of the one to come?

I believe so. I believe John corrected their understanding that only one antichrist was coming and clarified that there were many antichrists coming, and even at that time there were already many antichrists in the world. And there has been ever since because:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - 1 John 2:22-23



I never am clear how folks are content to read this passage in a manner that lets them off the hermeneutical "hook", so to speak, related to the details found elsewhere about the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" who sits in the Temple to sit as God in the Temple of God and show himself that he is God; exalting himself above all that is called God or is worshiped.

If there was one particular antichrist to come then how, in John's day, was "his" spirit "even now already...in the world" (1 John 4:3)?

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 05:30 PM
Again, the central issue with this thread is the manner in which many of the historical fulfillments or future designations of Babylon in Rev. 17 seem to greatly diminish the great and grave threat that is arising on the earth today related to the Harlot and the humanistic system of religious unity / economic might that will cause the world to marvel in the days to come.

That's my concern...

From Genesis to Revelation, Babylon is used as a metaphor for rebellion against God. Harlotry is as well, and is also related to idolatry.

The Church and government will always be at odds in the world. One is of the world, the other is not.
Christians are not nationalists.

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 05:36 PM
The warning given in Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. was so those that witnessed the "abomination" could escape the coming destruction. Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape. This event was already in 70 A.D. and the city and santuary were destroyed along with 2/3 of the population in Jerusalem.

According to Luke 21 the "abomination" was the Roman armies who surrounded Jerusalem. This event occured in 67 A.D. This event was a witness to those who heeded Christ's warning and historically for no reason the Roman armies left Jerusalem for a short time. This was enough time for the believers who heeded the warning to escape "to the mountains". They did escape to the mountains of Pella. This was the last chance for anyone to escape the coming destruction which lasted for 42 months (3 1/2 years).

This event fulfills that event while I believe Titus entering the temple was too late for anyone to escape as Jesus wanted then too.

Blessings!

I agree they were the abomination. My point about Titus was that his entering the Most Holy was the final desecration of the holy place (Jerusalem and the temple).

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 05:38 PM
I believe so. I believe John corrected their understanding that only one antichrist was coming and clarified that there were many antichrists coming, and even at that time there were already many antichrists in the world. And there has been ever since because:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - 1 John 2:22-23



If there was one particular antichrist to come then how, in John's day, was "his" spirit "even now already...in the world" (1 John 4:3)?

That mystery seems to be what Rev. 17 is describing, particularly in v. 8.

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the angel's explanation about the "mystery" of Babylon the Great centers around this spirit, and not the woman herself.

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 05:39 PM
I agree they were the abomination. My point about Titus was that his entering the Most Holy was the final desecration of the holy place (Jerusalem and the temple).

And my point was the rest of the details of 2 Thess. 2 related to the one that entered into the Holy Place?

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 05:47 PM
And my point was the rest of the details of 2 Thess. 2 related to the one that entered into the Holy Place?

:confused
2 Thess. is a)defense of Paul's past work (2:1-12), b)fruit of Paul's work 2:13-16 (they endured persecution), c)Paul's present relationship with Thessalonica (2:17-20)

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 05:54 PM
:confused
2 Thess. is a)defense of Paul's past work (2:1-12), b)fruit of Paul's work 2:13-16 (they endured persecution), c)Paul's present relationship with Thessalonica (2:17-20)

:D

I love the outline - it's very helpful. I was speaking more about the details I asked about earlier related to the fate of the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" (strong words to apply to Titus, one would think) outlined by Paul later in the passage. Paul assigns motivations to him in 2:4 that no one can corroborate related to Titus; then Paul goes on to lay out his relationship to the removal of restraint and the context of lawlessness prior to great judgment at the hands of Jesus related to His return (the context of the passage).

I meant those details. :D

Jerome1
Feb 29th 2008, 06:03 PM
And my point was the rest of the details of 2 Thess. 2 related to the one that entered into the Holy Place?

In 2Thessalonians it seems that Paul is talking about the antichrist, were as in revelation John is giving us details of what the antichrist will be like by comparing him to the pagan emperors of Rome.

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 06:32 PM
In 2Thessalonians it seems that Paul is talking about the antichrist, were as in revelation John is giving us details of what the antichrist will be like by comparing him to the pagan emperors of Rome.

Yep, and I disagree with the "pagan emperors of Rome" part.

In other words, these ten kings in Rev. 17 seemed to be:

1. Middle eastern, related to the kingdoms they rule over in connection to the 10 kingdoms that seem to comprise the Antichrist empire from Ezek. 38.

2. Possibly Muslim, in the manner that they do the unthinkable - of one mind they give their authority, power, and military might to one man (17:17) - this strikes me as a religiously motivated act and the only logical explanation for ten demonized kings to do such a thing (if, say, the Antichrist was their Mahdi). I cannot prove this, however.

3. At the very least, these ten kings seem to be alive at the same time and have an interrelationship with one another and the beast related to the harlot. Thus a succession or sequence seems to be an assumption or an insertion not provable by the text itself.

ross3421
Feb 29th 2008, 06:38 PM
Yep, and I disagree with the "pagan emperors of Rome" part.

In other words, these ten kings in Rev. 17 seemed to be:

1. Middle eastern, related to the kingdoms they rule over in connection to the 10 kingdoms that seem to comprise the Antichrist empire from Ezek. 38.

2. Possibly Muslim, in the manner that they do the unthinkable - of one mind they give their authority, power, and military might to one man (17:17) - this strikes me as a religiously motivated act and the only logical explanation for ten demonized kings to do such a thing (if, say, the Antichrist was their Mahdi). I cannot prove this, however.

3. At the very least, these ten kings seem to be alive at the same time and have an interrelationship with one another and the beast related to the harlot. Thus a succession or sequence seems to be an assumption or an insertion not provable by the text itself.


4. 10 tribes of Israel.

Merton
Feb 29th 2008, 07:00 PM
Mar 13:14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) .......

The Roman general Titus, before ordering the temple burned, entered the Most Holy Place, thus defiling the temple.
Jews didn't even enter the temple without being purified.


Jesus had already stated that their house was defied long before Titus.

Mat 23:38 Behold, "your house is left to you desolate." Jer. 22:5

Yes the houshold of the Jews was desolate but whatever they did corporately was also occuring with the Temple itself.

Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
Mar 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Romans and their values had already invaded the lives of the Jews throughout their kingdom including the Temple Priesthood, and it was the fault of the Jews themselves. They got what they wanted but did not realise what came with it.

The uncircumcised were already defiling Gods house, and the same thing is happening today to Gods house the churches, no different.

God had then as now appointed Rome (the secular powers of government) to protect the Christians from the evil men of the churches.

The changeover comes when God has finished judging His own house (separation not removal) that the secular powers of governments will be confronted by God and they too will then fight against the then purified church while destroying the unrepentant sinners of the churches and killing the witnesses when they are allowed to.

While the governments of the church lands now hold to some form of righteousness, there will come their abandonment of present values as did Rome of old.

So when Jesus warned His disciples about fleeing Judea when you see the abomination of desolation He was not tellling them in Mat.24 to watch for some defilement of some rebuilt temple of stone but to flee when they see the churches defiled as the Jews were in Jesus time, for soon after comes the church's destruction in the same way as was the past type.

We have the blueprint of the endtimes printed in history.

Merton.

Changed a word.

Jerome1
Feb 29th 2008, 07:18 PM
Yep, and I disagree with the "pagan emperors of Rome" part.

In other words, these ten kings in Rev. 17 seemed to be:

1. Middle eastern, related to the kingdoms they rule over in connection to the 10 kingdoms that seem to comprise the Antichrist empire from Ezek. 38.

2. Possibly Muslim, in the manner that they do the unthinkable - of one mind they give their authority, power, and military might to one man (17:17) - this strikes me as a religiously motivated act and the only logical explanation for ten demonized kings to do such a thing (if, say, the Antichrist was their Mahdi). I cannot prove this, however.

3. At the very least, these ten kings seem to be alive at the same time and have an interrelationship with one another and the beast related to the harlot. Thus a succession or sequence seems to be an assumption or an insertion not provable by the text itself.

The definition of a pagan is one who is neither a Christian, Jew or Muslim.
They are also defined as observing a polytheistic religion, and as being hedonistic and irreligious.

Also Revelation17:13 states that these ten kings are united in yielding their power and authority to the beast. Not unlike the vassal rulers that were under the jurisdiction of Rome.

the rookie
Feb 29th 2008, 08:23 PM
4. 10 tribes of Israel.

???

Want to help us out with that one?

ross3421
Feb 29th 2008, 09:17 PM
???

Want to help us out with that one?

Of course. The ten horns are part of Satan's kingdom. His kingdom is a couterfeit kingdom of the real kingdom of God. So, what in God's kingdom represents 10, 10 horns?

First we need to see that Satan's kingdom is comprised of a total of 12 horns. 10 which are seen with the first beast, another 2 with the second. This divison are the two houses of Israel, the second beast which is the man claiming to be from the tribe of Judah.

Hence the kingdom of Satan like God's kingdom will be comprised of a government and it's inhabinants. Israel and the church. Just after chapter 13 and the false lamb we then see these 144,000 (12 tribes) with the true Lamb. These tribes first align with the beast however God pricks thier hearts and they then turn against the beast and help destroy her.


We have to focus on the counterfeit and it makes thing much clearer.



Mark

Jerome1
Feb 29th 2008, 10:33 PM
Of course. The ten horns are part of Satan's kingdom. His kingdom is a couterfeit kingdom of the real kingdom of God. So, what in God's kingdom represents 10, 10 horns?

First we need to see that Satan's kingdom is comprised of a total of 12 horns. 10 which are seen with the first beast, another 2 with the second. This divison are the two houses of Israel, the second beast which is the man claiming to be from the tribe of Judah.

Hence the kingdom of Satan like God's kingdom will be comprised of a government and it's inhabinants. Israel and the church. Just after chapter 13 and the false lamb we then see these 144,000 (12 tribes) with the true Lamb. These tribes first align with the beast however God pricks thier hearts and they then turn against the beast and help destroy her.


We have to focus on the counterfeit and it makes thing much clearer.



Mark

In Revelation7:1-8 it states that twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel will be sealed, what makes you think that they align themselves with the first beast?

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 11:03 PM
:D

I love the outline - it's very helpful. I was speaking more about the details I asked about earlier related to the fate of the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" (strong words to apply to Titus, one would think) outlined by Paul later in the passage. Paul assigns motivations to him in 2:4 that no one can corroborate related to Titus; then Paul goes on to lay out his relationship to the removal of restraint and the context of lawlessness prior to great judgment at the hands of Jesus related to His return (the context of the passage).

I meant those details. :D

Oh.:...I was looking at 1 Thess. 2.....:blush:....my bad.:P

Paul just gives two signs. The falling away and the lawless one. Only related scripture on the "son of perdition" is Jesus reference to Judas in John 17:12 and John 6:70. So he is likely not Titus (who was not a believer), but a traitor of the faith as Judas was.

Before Paul tells us of the two traditional teachings, in the verses before he tells us about false teaching.

The more division the devil can cause in the church, the easier pickins for the deceiver. With as many denoms as there are in Christianity nowadays, it's ripe for the pickin.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 29th 2008, 11:06 PM
Mark, what do their eight heads (7+1=8) represent? I've never heard this train of thought before. Thanks.

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 11:06 PM
Jesus had already stated that their house was defied long before Titus.

Mat 23:38 Behold, "your house is left to you desolate." Jer. 22:5


That scripture is part of Jesus telling them their fate. IOW prophecy.;)

Jerome1
Feb 29th 2008, 11:20 PM
The more division the devil can cause in the church, the easier pickins for the deceiver. With as many denoms as there are in Christianity nowadays, it's ripe for the pickin.


I always think of the devil demanding to sift all of the disciples like wheat, when you see the countless denominations.(Luke22:31)

Teke
Feb 29th 2008, 11:28 PM
I always think of the devil demanding to sift all of the disciples like wheat, when you see the countless denominations.(Luke22:31)

Yes, variety sprung from traditional. Makes it much harder to pick who's right and who's wrong.

brakelite
Mar 1st 2008, 02:10 AM
:D

I love the outline - it's very helpful. I was speaking more about the details I asked about earlier related to the fate of the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition" (strong words to apply to Titus, one would think) outlined by Paul later in the passage. Paul assigns motivations to him in 2:4 that no one can corroborate related to Titus; then Paul goes on to lay out his relationship to the removal of restraint and the context of lawlessness prior to great judgment at the hands of Jesus related to His return (the context of the passage).

I meant those details. :D


Let no man deceive you by any means, for that (the second coming), shall not come, except there come a falling away first

This 'falling away', or apostasy, was fulfilled by the establishment of the papacy. The spirit of apostasy (or the spirit of antichrist as mentioned by John) was beginning to develop in the days of the apostles. A point so often missed by many is the fact that we are constantly reminded by Jesus and the apostles that we are to beware of deceivers. Deception in the form of false Christs and false prophets. We are not talking about an antichrist that appears to be an enemy of the church aka Nero, Titus, Antiochus et al. No, no, no. He appears to be a friend of the church. He is a prophet after all, albeit a false one. We are talking about a counterfeit Christianity, not a secular despot or dictator. Secular rulers of any sort, be they friendly or hostile, deceive no-one!!!! Deception, deception, deception folks!! False prophets, false Christs. Satan is a deceiver! And he is using deception right now to confuse and mislead the church into thinking there is a future world political secular dictator coming who will ravage the church and fulfill all the scriptures, while right in front of you the true antichrist has been around for 1500 years deceiving millions, and murdering those who opposed her when she had the power to do so.

and that man of sin revealed, the son of perdition

It was the falling away that revealed him. (Don't be confused by the seeming reference to an individual. The little horn in Dan 7 refers to the same power. It is described as having eyes and a mouth speaking great things. All the horns represented kingdoms, while at the same time having of course kings. The papacy is no different. It is not only a religious empire but during the dark ages, was secular one also.)

who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Here is a sampling of some audacious claims to prerogatives that belong only to God, thus fulfilling the above verse. (Temple meaning the NT Christian church because it is the NT dispensation we are talking about.)


In an oration offered to the Pope in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council
(1512) Christopher Marcellus stated:
“For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the
husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.” (Labbe and Cossart, History of
the Councils, Vol. XIV, col. 109).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states the following: “Bishops and priests,
being, as they are, God’s interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach
mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on
earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore,
are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in
our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.” (John A. McHugh and
Charles J. Callan, Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, p. 318).

Notice the following words of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine: “All names which in the
Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the
church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” (Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes
de Controversiis, Tom. 2, “Controversia Prima”, Book 2 (“De Conciliorum Auctoritate”
[On the Authority of Councils]), chap. 17 (1628 ed., Vol. 1, p. 266), translated.

The New York Catechism states: “The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. . .
By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and
every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church,
the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas,
the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the
world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one,
God himself on earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 127)

Notice the following words in the journal, La Civilta Cattolica, “The pope is the supreme
judge of the law of the land. . . . . He is the viceregent of Christ, who is not only a Priest
forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords.” (La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871,
quoted in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, An Inside View of the Vatican Council (American
Tract Society ed.), p. 229, n. Bold is mine.

Pope Gregory IX adds his testimony: “For not man, but God separates those whom the
Roman Pontiff (who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God),
having weighed the necessity or benefit of the churches, dissolves, not by human but
rather by divine authority.” (The Decretals of Gregory IX, Book l, title 7, chap. 3, in
Corpus Juris Canonici (1555-56 ed.), Vol 2, col. 203, translated).

John XXIII at his inauguration address said: “Into this fold of Jesus Christ no one can
enter if not under the guidance of the Sovereign Pontiff; and men can securely reach
salvation only when they are united with him, since the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of
Christ and represents His person on this earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman
Catholicism, p. 408).

Pope Leo XIII stated in an Encyclical Letter dated June 20, 1894:
“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (The Great Encyclical Letters of
Leo XIII, p. 304).

Notice the following statement by a Roman Catholic scholar: “The priest is the man of
God, the minister of God, the portion of God, the man called of God, consecrated to God,
wholly occupied with the interests of God; ‘he that despiseth him despiseth God; he that
hears him hears God: he remits sins as God, and that which he calls his body at the altar
is adored as God by himself and by the congregation. . .” (A. Nampon, Catholic Doctrine
as Defined by the Council of Trent, pp. 543, 544).

Another Roman Catholic scholar states: “The Pope is the vicar of Christ, or the visible
head of the church on earth. The claims of the Pope are the same as the claims of Christ.
Christ wanted all souls saved. So does the Pope. Christ can forgive all sin. So can the
Pope. The Pope is the only man who claims the vicarage of Christ. His claim is not
seriously opposed, and this establishes his authority.
The powers given the Pope by Christ were given him not as a mere man, but as the
representative of Christ. The Pope is more than the representative of Christ, for he is
the fruit of his divinity and of the divine institution of the church.” (Extract of a sermon
by Rev. Jeremiah Prendegast, S. J., preached in the Church of St. John the Baptist,
Syracuse, New York, on Wednesday evening, March 13, 1912, as reported in the
Syracuse Post Standard, March 14, 1912).

The following words, in a recognized Roman Catholic encyclopedia, illustrate the
blasphemous claims of the Papacy: “The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he
is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. The Pope is of such lofty
and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of
dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. The
Pope is called most holy because he is rightfully presumed to be such. Nor can emperors
and kings be called most holy; for although in civil laws the term ‘most sacred’ seems
sometimes to have been usurped by emperors, yet never that of ‘most holy.’ The Pope
alone is deservedly called by the name ‘most holy’, because he alone is the vicar of
Christ, who is the fountain and source and fulness of all holiness.
The Pope by reason of the excellence of his supreme dignity is called bishop of bishops.
He is also called ordinary of ordinaries. He is likewise bishop of the universal church. He
is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the Pope
is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.
Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertain only
to the heavenly things, to the earthly things, and to the things under the earth, but are
even over angels, than whom he is greater. So that if it were possible that the angels
might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and
excommunicated by the Pope. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one
and the same tribunal
with Christ. So that whatever the Pope does, seems to proceed
from the mouth of God, as according to most doctors, etc.
The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king
of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God
direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom.
The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret
even divine laws. [In proof of this last proposition various quotations are made, among
them these:] The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God,
and he acts as viceregent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and
loosing his sheep. Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that
his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith.” (Lucius Ferraris,
Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica nec non Ascetica,
Polemica, Rubricistica, Historica, article, “Papa”.) This encyclopedia is not some
offshoot production. The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VI, p. 48 in its article,
“Ferraris” lauds the virtues of this encyclopedia with the following glowing words: It is
“a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge” and “a precious mine of information.”

Once again, Pope Leo XIII stated: “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman
Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one
faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman
Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, ‘On the Chief Duties of
Christians as Citizens”, dated January 10, 1890, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of
Pope Leo XIII, p. 193.

Pope Nicholas I, who ruled from 858 to 867 A. D. pronounced the following awesome
words: “It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly
power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since
Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon
earth, divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible,
and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.”
(Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243, as cited in R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and
the Civil Power, p. 248).

brakelite
Mar 1st 2008, 02:30 AM
Are you a seven day adventist or a Lutheran by chance?


Yes, I am SDA.


We can play bible tennis if you like, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

Romans11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob." "And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards to the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

The nation of Israel are no longer the chosen vessel by which God extends His salvation invitation. That privilege and responsibility belongs now to the church. I will take the truth of your quoted text even further. Not only will all Israel (the church) be saved, but only Israel will be saved.


There is also a church/state union from the inception of the reformation, with the church of England for example.

Quite true, and there are likely other examples also. But the Roman church/state union is the only one that fulfills all the other criteria for the antichrist as well, including her initial duration of 1260 years.




Also if you think this Babylonian empire started in 538 why does Peter call Rome Babylon when he is writing his final greetings and benediction to his fellow churches in 1Peter5:13?

What makes you think he is referring to Rome? He simply says the church in Babylon sends greetings. Where this Babylon is quite frankly I have no idea. But I know it isn't the same as Babylon the Great, mother of harlots etc.

Jerome1
Mar 1st 2008, 03:36 AM
[


Quite true, and there are likely other examples also. But the Roman church/state union is the only one that fulfills all the other criteria for the antichrist as well, including her initial duration of 1260 years.

Again i would need to do further research on Roman history, but the emperors of the Roman Empire did not always support the RCC, Julian the apostate for example tried to rid the Roman Empire of christianity.



Quite true, and there are likely other examples also. But the Roman church/state union is the only one that fulfills all the other criteria for the antichrist as well, including her initial duration of 1260 years.


Don't want to derail the thread, but if i could pick any date in history that suited this prophecy i could pin this accusation on anybody.



What makes you think he is referring to Rome? He simply says the church in Babylon sends greetings. Where this Babylon is quite frankly I have no idea. But I know it isn't the same as Babylon the Great, mother of harlots etc.


Turtullian, Ignatius, and Irenaeus all attest to Peters presence in Rome, as well as historical and archeological evidence.

You say you have no idea were Babylon is, but you assert that it means the papacy when the papacy is based in Rome?

Also Peter states he is writing from Babylon in 1Peter5:13, you say this empire started during the time of Constantine, your argument doesn't make sense.

ross3421
Mar 1st 2008, 06:42 AM
Mark, what do their eight heads (7+1=8) represent? I've never heard this train of thought before. Thanks.

Well, let's stick with the counterfeit. Do we see the same in God's kingdom? Yes. the 7+1. Christ is also of the seven and is the 8th.

Re 1:13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

What do the 7 represent in God's kingdom? 7 angels for 7 churches. I see them as the leaders of God's church with Christ being the head.

Re 1:20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


So then the 7+1 would be associated to Satan's kingdom church or those which receive HIS mark. There will be 7 leaders of his church with the son of perdition as the head.



Mark

ross3421
Mar 1st 2008, 06:59 AM
In Revelation7:1-8 it states that twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel will be sealed, what makes you think that they align themselves with the first beast?

They are sealed as to be protected from God's wrath not that they may align themselves with the beast or sealed at this time with the Spirit. I see them sealed as to preserve them unto the day they repent.

I have debated in my own mind if there are two sets of 144,000 (one being a counterfeit) or that initially they align themselves with the beast then divide.


Mark

Jerome1
Mar 1st 2008, 03:11 PM
They are sealed as to be protected from God's wrath not that they may align themselves with the beast or sealed at this time with the Spirit. I see them sealed as to preserve them unto the day they repent.

I have debated in my own mind if there are two sets of 144,000 (one being a counterfeit) or that initially they align themselves with the beast then divide.


Mark

That doesn't make any sense, if they first align themselves with the beast doesn't that mean they would have had to receive the mark of the beast, and drink the wine of God's wrath?(Revelation14:10-11)

There is no evidence that there are two sets of 144,000 or that the 144,000 first aligns themselves with the beast.

ross3421
Mar 1st 2008, 07:53 PM
That doesn't make any sense, if they first align themselves with the beast doesn't that mean they would have had to receive the mark of the beast, and drink the wine of God's wrath?(Revelation14:10-11)

There is no evidence that there are two sets of 144,000 or that the 144,000 first aligns themselves with the beast.

I have no doubt that the 10+2 horns represent the 12 tribes of Israel. And with the understanding that if they align themselves with the beast that they would have his mark agreed.

As there are two sets of "churches" those who align themselves with God and those who align themselves with Satan and receive their corresponding mark, there are two sets of 144,000.

The mark in the "forehead", I see as those of Israel (144,000) as marked by their corresponding leader. The right hand would represent those of the churches.

Re 13:16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Re 14:1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Also below do we see a reference to a group claiming to be this remnant but are false and aligned with the devil?

Re 2:9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Re 3:9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.


Mark

Jerome1
Mar 2nd 2008, 10:26 PM
I understand what you are saying about the corresponding kingdom of the antichrist and the twelve tribes of Israel.

Do you also believe that the devil, the beast and the false prophet, are a kind of unholy Trinity?

From an historical perspective, this kingdom would seem to represent pagan Rome to me. Particularly in view of the 666 Nero reference by John, and the widely held interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the book of Daniel.

In the bible commentary i have read it also alludes to this revived empire being like pagan Rome. It cites how pagan Rome persecuted the church and how it could be labelled as the empire most guilty of being drunk with the blood of the saints.

As Teke mentioned before revelation 17:9 could be interpreted as meaning the aforementioned emperors of Rome. That is Augustus through Nero, omitting three, and then Vespasian through Domitian.

There are other interpretations of this verse citing different emperors, including Diocletian and his joint emperor Maximianus Herculius. There were other emperors who presecuted the church. Julian the apostate being one of the most notable.