What do you think?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
Slight issue with this, 17:5 states that the woman is "the MOTHER of harlots and abominations of the earth", so this would be the "source-harlot", the one who harlot Jerusalem was BORN through. (aka the one through which the harlotry originated). We can agree that the usage of the word harlet is to refer to a people following other peoples' ways instead of their God's ways, yes? That is the essence of Babylon. They are just one giant slop-trough of customs, yes? So was Rome. There's another common denominator here and that is the compulsory worship of a political / religious leader. This can be seen in Caesar as well as the Popes, and no doubt was the case with Nimrod. In the OT Babylon was the first organized, political and religious power. (tower of Babel) so it makes sense to me that this was the originating source from which Jerusalem got it's "harlot ways" from, as well as all the other nations. Of course Jerusalem would have picked up these ways from many places other than Babylon, but Babylon was where those nations got them from aswell, going back to the tower before God split them all up when confusing the tonges. It all begun in Babylon and will end in Babylon with her destruction. I conclude that Rome was and is the culmunation of Babylon, thus "Babylon the Great", bringing in all aspects of every "Babylonian Mystery Religion" including sun worship, mother worship, idol worship, talking to the dead, bowing to a man (aka submitting to his authority in religion above the Spirit of God), taking your doctrines from man instead of God, human sacrifice, polytheism* (now replaced with "saint worship") etc. (I am not excluding the Jews and other tribes of Israel from their abominations, only saying that these practices did not originate with them, they were adopted by them, from other nations, from Babel).
Furthermore the city of Jerusalem, when compared to Rome, was not "great", while Rome was most certainly great, as was Babylon. Further still the Papacy and Rome have "ruled over the kings of the earth" for the longest successive period in history, and Israel / Jerusalem most certainly have not. If anything they have been one of the most ruled OVER nations in history.
Indeed God likened Jerusalem to a harlot who betrayed her covenant with Him by engaging in spiritual adultery with other nations. The metaphor of a harlot symbolizes Jerusalem's unfaithfulness and her pursuit of idolatry and immorality. However if these gentile nations had been acting in accord with God's will, being "laws unto themselves" as Paul wrote, then Jerusalem would not have been chastened for adopting their ways as they would be acceptable ways to God. The only reason it was an issue is because the ways they adopted were against God, and I claim these ways originated in Babel, continued through Babylon & Chaldea and culminated in Rome, aka Babylon the Great, who committed the worst offenses against the Saints of God in all of human history, up until the 1800s when they were inflicted with the deadly would, healed, and, I will admit, I haven't gotten much farther than this. It's a lot to digest especially when I also have to vomit years of preterism, futurism, and other oddities.
It's a bit tricky to follow due to a couple of page-scan errors but I found a PDF from 1899 which clearly lays out the prophecy's fulfillment. I would attempt to write this in summation but feel that the author did it so well that I'd probably make a mess of it. I have not read anything else in this PDF nor any other work by the author, but will probably do so.
Link: https://files.catbox.moe/yaicm2.pdf
p. 49 - p. 64 are the relevent bits if you would like to take a look but needless to say I am not convinced by your arguement. I agree that Jerusalem was likened to an harlot but it is more accurately said that they "played" the harlot, meaning that this was not their original essence, rather something they adopted later. The OG harlet is Babylon, the "mother". And that mother is now called "Rome".
Re:
Every passage except the one about her obstinance alludes to a period of: once clean, then made unclean. The tower of babel, I contend, was unclean from the beginning and is the source of the uncleanliness which Israel / Jerusalem soiled herself with. This is the key and the reason for the name "Mother of harlots". The mother is the place from which the children are brought forth from. Israel and Jerusalem are not said to be the source of these abominable practices. Other nations are. Where did they get them? Babel. And so Babel/Babelon/Babylon the Great, Rome, Papacy, Vatican, all the same. Now she has many children and gets others drunk with her doctrines, creeping in unawares. And this explains all the confusion surrounding the Apocalypse. Babylon defined. "Gate of the gods (many)", "confusion"
Babel, Babylon
From balal; confusion; Babel (i.e. Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire -- Babel, Babylon.
see HEBREW balal
*initially mistakenly wrote 'polygamy' instead of polytheism
Sorry for taking so long with my response! I’m going to briefly address your main points, then bring up something I think we should have discussed before this engaging exchange:
Mother of Harlots:
Essence of Babylon:
Compulsory Worship of Political/Religious Leaders:
Origin of Political and Religious Power:
Jerusalem's Relative Greatness:
Papacy and Rome's Historical Influence:
Scriptural Support:
Given the significance of Jerusalem's role in biblical prophecy and its depiction in Revelation, it's important to consider when Revelation was written. The dating of Revelation is crucial because it affects the interpretation of its prophecies.
Early Date (Pre-70 A.D.):
Late Date (Post-70 A.D.):
Best Arguments for an Early Date:
Best Arguments for a Later Date:
Before we delve further into specific passages in Revelation, I believe it's crucial to discuss the dating of the book first. The timing of its writing is fundamental because it shapes how we interpret its purpose and fulfillment.
Would you agree?
Indeed John refers to her as the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth. You argue that Jerusalem was likened to an harlot, yes, but this isn't to call Jerusalem the mother, or source harlot. How could Jerusalem fit this ultimate label? Can you find me a better candidate for the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth than Nimrod's Tower of Babel and then Babylon? Why would God have such a problem with that system that He would take the extreme measure as to confuse the languages and scatter the people? God isn't the source of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) so this step could almost be viewed as contrary to His nature! This was a dire situation indeed. Was Jerusalem the place from which all nations of the earth got their wicked ways from? Or did Jerusalem simply become polluted with them from somewhere like the other nations did? I wonder where that somewhere could be...
The Tower of Babel, I contend was the mother of harlots and abominations and if allowed to be completed there would be no hope for humanity. Look how dire things got during the middle ages, if not for the Protestant Reformation we very well may still face torture and death for this discussion! Rome had essentially built a tower (heirarchy) which had very real physical consequences for mankind. It was foretold in the Book of Revelation and the original Protestants all knew this and wrote about it extensively. Futurism and Preterism only came about recently (around 1500s) and were seeded by Jesuits to confuse us on the subject, and to marginalize us and render our debates impotent as we get lost in senseless weeds while missing main points due to dogmatic clingings. I don't subscribe to Preterism regardless of which ever views I hold that have been lumped in under that label,
If the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation was so crucial to understanding it would not God have compelled John to include it? I maintain that it's referring to a continuing religiopolitical system and so does not need to be viewed through these constraints. Saying that, I don't know when it was written.
Thanks for your thoughtful response!
Indeed, John refers to the harlot as the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). While Jerusalem is likened to a harlot, this does not necessarily mean she is the ultimate “mother” or source of all harlotry. Your argument about Babylon, starting with Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, being the original source of such corruption is compelling, given its foundational role in introducing idolatrous practices that spread to other nations, including Jerusalem.
However, the imagery and context within Revelation still support the interpretation of Jerusalem as a key player in the narrative. Jerusalem’s history of spiritual unfaithfulness and its central role in the biblical narrative make it a significant symbol of apostasy.
Your point about the Protestant Reformation and the historical consequences of Rome’s religious and political power is valid. The middle ages indeed saw severe consequences for dissenters, highlighting the far-reaching impact of religious systems.
One thing I haven’t pointed out yet is the woman mentioned earlier in Revelation 12, often interpreted as representing Jerusalem, seems to be associated with events of the first century, particularly leading up to the birth of Jesus and the persecution of the early Christian church. This chapter appears to be covering the time period you are focusing on.
The transition from this vision of the woman to the vision of the harlot and the beast implies a shift in time or focus within the narrative. If the woman representing Jerusalem is primarily associated with first-century events, then the introduction of the harlot and the beast most likely signifies a later period or a broader scope of events beyond the first century. This transition aligns with a later date of composition, as proponents of a later date argue that Revelation reflects developments and challenges facing the Christian community in the late first century, such as the persecution under Emperor Domitian.
So, the first woman mentioned in Revelation clearly represents Jerusalem/Israel, given the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars (Revelation 12:1), which aligns with Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-11. This strongly suggests that the second woman, the harlot, is also likely Jerusalem, especially considering the textual evidence. John explicitly identifies the harlot as “the great city” (Revelation 17:18), which he earlier defined as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). This identification is further supported by the Old Testament references to Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:1-11; Ezekiel 16:1-43)..
Regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation, I believe it is crucial because it frames our understanding of the text’s purpose and fulfillment. Knowing whether it was written before or after 70 A.D. helps determine if the prophecies were meant for the first-century events or for future occurrences.
While it’s true that John did not include a specific date, the context and historical references within the book offer clues. Scholars use these to argue for either an early or late date. This discussion on the dating is foundational, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the arguments for both early and late dating to see how it shapes our interpretations of Revelation.
Rev 12 pregnant woman = The New Covenant being birthed into the world - Real Christianity spirit-filled believers
Immediately Rome was there to "devour" this "child", IE to capture and reframe it under their rule - think Constantine and those blasphemous Council of Nicea and the rest..7 heads 10 horned dragon = Roman empire
12:15 serpent cast water out of his mouth to carry her away = something to do with flooding the zone with tons of bad doctrine? idk
12:17 alludes more to who the woman is - spirit-filled Christians not the CINO's of Rome's church-state system
13:1 more Roman empire allusion - of course there is distinction between the "pagan Rome" and the "Catholic Rome" 13:11 sheds more light on this second beast as looking like a lamb (oh holy Catholic fathers blah blah) yet speaking as a dragon (submit or die!) and causes the world to worship the first beast (pagan Rome) whos deadly wound was healed ? idk about that, if the wound was healed in recent centuries, have not pondered this aspect yet.
I think too a good thing to keep in mind is the division between the faithful of Israel and the unfaithful. "not all Israel are of Israel". If John was including unfaithful harlot Israel Jerusalem within the category Babylon / Rome was put into, I could see both of us being on the right track...
There's so much in Revelation I don't know about. Perhaps you could give your take on what the symbolisms mean in 12-13 and that would give me something to smash against what I believe and see where it lands me 😅