Rome is Babylon

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bowas

You are partially right.

The book of Revelation is about two cities, and even calls them by name.
(old) Jerusalem and New Jerusalem.

Anything else is speculation and actually unscriptural.

As Boaz ignores the verses that teach two different cities on Earth and sticks his head back in the sand.

[Sean]

One city is called Sodom and Egypt, and the other city is called Babylon. But somehow these folks try to make them the same city.... Preterists will not allow themselves to see these two cities. Redefinitions allow the two cities to meld into one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Two cities and one is given two names of extremely two different places. One Egypt and the other the ancient city of Sodom. But the burden isn't on us to prove anything. The burden is on Sean to prove that Mystery Babylon is ROME by using the Bible. Elder Blume and myself have shown it to be Jerusalem/Judea. Sean can now attempt to show where it is the Roman Catholic Church.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

One city is called Sodom and Egypt, and the other city is called Babylon. But somehow these folks try to make them the same city.... Preterists will not allow themselves to see these two cities. Redefinitions allow the two cities to meld into one.

Matthew 23:33-36


YE serpents, YE generation of vipers, how can YE escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto YOU prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them YE shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall YE scourge in YOUR SYNAGOGUES, and PERSECUTE them from city to city:
That upon YOU may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom YE slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto YOU, All these things shall come upon THIS GENERATION.




Revelation 18:24

And in HER was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

In her was all the blood of the prophets, and of the saints. Jesus explains exactly who she was, and John repeats Jesus' words in the Revelation.

The city which is called a country, and a destroyed ancient city is where Jesus was crucified. It is the same city as Mystery Babylon. But we will allow the individual to prove that these cities aren't one in the same. The only opponent to the Church was the Judean leadership. They stirred up the Gentiles against the King of Kings, and against His children.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Two cities and one is given two names of extremely two different places. One Egypt and the other the ancient city of Sodom. But the burden isn't on us to prove anything. The burden is on Sean to prove that Mystery Babylon is ROME by using the Bible. Elder Blume and myself have shown it to be Jerusalem/Judea. Sean can now attempt to show where it is the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm predicting Sean will do this soon.


"Soon," as in a Dispensational 2000-plus-years-and-still-waiting "soon."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I'm predicting Sean will do this soon.


"Soon," as in a Dispensational 2000-plus-years-and-still-waiting "soon."

Good luck with that.

Sean is planning to blow out this thread like he has done to the eschatology section. He has been warned by Amanah. James Glen had the ability to send Sean packing. I believe if he performs his monkey shines here he will be escorted by Amanah to the door.

[Esaias]

I don't have time to post a long drawn out exposition of the subject of "Identity of Apocalyptic Babylon" but I did want to point a few things out. Far too many are labouring under hand-me-down eschatologies and prophetic interpretive schemes inherited from non-apostolic traditions. We need to get to a genuinely apostolic understanding of prophecy. In any event, here are a few points to stimulate thought:

1. It is said that Apocalyptic Babylon is called "the great whore", and that in the OT Jerusalem (and Samaria) were called "whores", that the prophetic designation "whore" can only be speaking of Jerusalem because in the OT the term is only applied to Jerusalem or Samaria, which were capitols of Israelite nations then-currently in covenant with God, ie married to God. Thus, it is said, Apocalyptic Babylon cannot be anything but Jerusalem.

But this is incorrect.

Isaiah 23 is a prophecy about Tyre, a Phoenician city. Tyre is specifically identified as a "whore" or "harlot" engaged in fornication "with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth", language that is nearly identical to the Apocalyptic descriptions of Babylon:

Isaiah 23:15-17 KJV And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot. (16) Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. (17) And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Revelation 17:1-2 KJV And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: (2) With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Furthermore, Ninevah is also identified as a whore or harlot, engaged in fornication with the nations, and which also is identified with witchcraft:

Nahum 3:4-7 KJV Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts. (5) Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. (6) And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock. (7) And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee?

So, besides Jerusalem and Samaria, the Bible identifies two non-Israelite cities as whores or harlots involved in fornication with the kings and nations of the earth - Tyre, and Ninevah. Neither Tyre nor Ninevah were "married to God" yet the language used of them in prophecy is identical to the language used of Jerusalem, Samaria, and Apocalyptic Babylon. Such language identifying a city as a whore or harlot, committing fornication with the kings of the earth, and so forth, is not specific prophetic language restricted only to Jerusalem. Rather, it is the language of the prophets in describing an evil nation's capitol engaged in international alliances, commerce, trade, political intrigues, etc. Such a city's international affairs (!) are described as the business of a whore. And more importantly, such language is not restricted to Jerusalem. Therefore, it is erroneous to conclude that Apocalyptic Babylon is Jerusalem simply on the basis of it being called a "whore". Other cities and powers were called whores by God in the prophecies of the Bible.

2. It is said that Jesus declared that upon Jerusalem would come the blood (guilt) of all the righteous who were slain, and that the same language is used in regard to Apocalyptic Babylon, therefore they must be the same city. If all the blood comes upon Jerusalem it cannot come upon any other city, therefore Apocalyptic Babylon must be that same city.

But this is incorrect.

Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 23:29-36 KJV Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, (30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Luke 11:46-51 KJV And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. (47) Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. (48) Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. (49) Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: (50) That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; (51) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Jesus was not saying all the righteous blood would come upon Jerusalem. He said all the righteous blood would come upon that "generation", and that generation is specifically identified as the scribes and Pharisees and lawyers. Jerusalem is specifically identified in the next verses in Matthew, where
He said her house is left unto her desolate. But the righteous blood is not said to come upon "Jerusalem" but rather upon the Christ-rejecting Jews, the "generation of vipers".

Furthermore, what is said of Apocalyptic Babylon is not the same as what Jesus said concerning the scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers:

Revelation 18:24 KJV And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

The Jews would be guilty of the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zecharias. (What about John the Baptist, Christ Himself, and the early Christian martyrs like Stephen?) But Apocalyptic Babylon would be guilty of the blood of "prophets, and of saints" - not ALL prophets and saints from Abel to Zecharias, but just guilty of the blood of prophets and saints - and also of "all that were slain upon the earth." All that were slain upon the earth encompasses far more than "all the righteous from Abel to Zecharias". The two entities are guilty of two different categories. While there is overlap, in that both are guilty of the blood of saints, prophets, etc, ALL the righteous blood from Abel to Zecharias was to be required of the scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers of Christ-rejecting Jews (not merely Jerusalem). Whereas Apocalyptic Babylon would be guilty of the blood of various prophets and saints, and furthermore of ALL that were slain upon the earth (no distinction as to their relative merits is given, it's just ALL THAT WERE SLAIN).

The language of the Apocalypse regarding Babylon does NOT correspond with the language Christ used against the Jews, but rather it corresponds with the language of the Old Testament as used in reference to historical Babylon:

Jeremiah 51:49 KJV As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the earth.

So the language in Revelation concerning Babylon is more of an echo of prophetic language used against historical Babylon, rather than being a direct mirror of the language used by Christ against the unbelieving Jews. And, Christ's words were not limited to the physical city of Jerusalem to begin with.

3. It is also said that Apocalyptic Babylon cannot be Rome, because the Beast is Rome, and Babylon is seen as a woman riding the Beast. Rome is not "riding" Rome, therefore Babylon and the Beast must be two different things. And since the Beast is Rome, Babylon must be something else.

Regardless of who or what Babylon represents in the Revelation, I just wanted to point out that the Beast being Rome rules out preterism as a viable system of interpretation. According to Revelation, the Beast destroys Babylon, and then is itself destroyed (along with the second Beast aka the False Prophet) in the lake of fire prior to the start of the thousand years of Revelation 20. Now, it is a fact that Rome was not destroyed anytime soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. If preterists wish to point to the fact that Rome did, eventually, fall into ruin, then they have de facto surrendered the preterist paradigm and have embraced historicism! Rome itself (the Western Empire) is generally regarded on all hands to have fallen around the fifth century AD. The Empire, however, continued well into the medieval period, up to around the 14th or 15th century AD, as the Eastern Roman or "Byzantine" Empire. This would mean that the Beast being thrown into the lake of fire did not come to pass until at least some 400-500 years after AD 70, and the destruction was not complete until some ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED YEARS or so after Jerusalem was destroyed! Whatever that may be, whether it be true interpretation of the prophecies, or error, whatever it is - it is not preterism. Not at all. It would be a form of historicism, the idea that the prophecies of Revelation have their fulfillment over the course of a long period of time.

To escape this, some may assert that the Beast is Nero. Aside from the idea that the Beast in the Apocalypse is assuredly not merely one man (an error futurists like to make), the fact is that Nero died in AD 68 - two years before Jerusalem was destroyed. This would require the Beast going to the lake of fire PRIOR to the destruction of Babylon - an impossibility denied by the plain text of the Revelation, which clearly posits the Beast's destruction AFTER Babylon's fall.

Furthermore, Revelation 19 depicts a "coming of the Lord" in judgment. Yet this occurs AFTER the destruction of Babylon. This coming in judgment results in the destruction of the Beast, not Babylon. Thus, it can clearly be seen that the preterist interpretation of Babylon as Jerusalem and the Beast as Rome simply does not fit the actual facts, and is internally inconsistent in regards to the flow of events presented in the Apocalypse itself. The only way the Beast can be Rome is if preterism itself, as an interpretative scheme, is rejected.

(to be continued in next post)

[Esaias]

(part 2)


4. What is the apostolic interpretation of Apocalyptic Babylon? "Apostolic" means "of or relating to or descending from the apostles". Apostolic doctrine is the teaching given by the apostles. Apostolic practice is the practice of Christianity as exampled by and taught by the apostles. Apostolic faith is the faith delivered to the saints by the apostles. Can we hope to find a genuinely apostolic interpretation of prophecy and apocalyptic imagery? I believe the answer is YES.

The Revelation of course was delivered by an apostle. It contains various signs, and occassional interpretations of those signs. Those interpretations are therefore "apostolic". But the point in controversy is what does John mean? It is clear that John identifies Babylon with Jerusalem in some places, most explicitly in Revelation 11:8. (The claim that the "great city" is NOT Babylon is without merit, as "the great city" is specifically identified as Babylon in Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:18, Revelation 18:10, and others. Only in one other place is there mention of another "great city", and that is the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation 21:10.) Revelation speaks therefore of two cities, one on earth, one in heaven. The earthly city is worldly and carnal, and persecutes the saints. The heavenly city is spiritual, is identified as the Bride of Christ, and is therefore the saints who are persecuted by the earthly city. Since that earthly city is identified with Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified, it is clear the Revelation speaks of two Jerusalems, two cities.

But John isn't the only apostle to speak of these things. The apostle Paul likewise taught about two cities, two Jerusalems:

Galatians 4:22-29 KJV For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Paul relates the story of Ishmael and Isaac, and their two mothers, Hagar and Sarah, the bondmaid and the freewoman. He then states these things are an allegory representing the two covenants. This is the point that needs to be attended two, the two things represent the two covenants. Hagar "is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and "answers to" or "corresponds to" Jerusalem "which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Sarah obviously "answers to" or "corresponds to" the Jerusalem which is above, or heavenly. Notice, Paul is not talking about two literal cities, one on earth, and one in heaven. Paul is talking about TWO COVENANTS: the old covenant, which corresponds to the earthly Jerusalem, and the new covenant, which corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem. The two Jerusalems REPRESENT the two COVENANTS, not two physical cities.

Notice the parallels between Paul's plain teaching and the symbolism of the Apocalypse:

Earthly Jerusalem --- Great City on the earth where Jesus was crucified
Heavenly Jerusalem --- Great City in heaven which is the Bride of Christ
Earthly Jerusalem persecutes saints --- Babylon guilty of blood of prophets and saints

There is a clear correspondence between Paul's two Jerusalems, and John's two Jerusalems. But Paul is speaking plainly, and identifies both as THE TWO COVENANTS. Therefore, according to apostolic teaching, Revelation's Babylon is the old covenant, ie JUDAISM. It is not merely the physical city of Jerusalem, but is the entire OLD COVENANT SYSTEM that had rejected Christ and was persecuting the saints of God, the children of the heavenly Jerusalem. And how does a "covenant" reject Christ and persecute His saints? A covenant in and of itself can do nothing. Rather, it is the PEOPLE who adhere to that system - the scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all the Christ-rejecting Jews - who compose that system, who were persecuting the saints of God.

And therefore, Apocalyptic Babylon is JUDAISM.

Whether that Apocalyptic Babylon is limited to pre-AD 70 only, or extends beyond AD 70, is a question that depends on whether or not the preterist scheme of interpretation is correct. As I already showed, preterism faces the insurmountable difficulty of having things backwards in regards to the fate of Babylon and the fate of the Beast. If the Apocalypse was finished in AD 70, then there is the very real historical problem of Rome surviving long past AD 70. If however, the Beast continued long past AD 70 (which it must have if it represents Rome), then it necessarily follows that Apocalyptic Babylon likewise continued past AD 70. And, considering it has just been proven that Babylon represents JUDAISM, and considering that it is a fact that JUDAISM continued long past AD 70, it necessarily follows that Babylon continued long past AD 70.

At this point, one may be asking "What became of it? Where is it today?" Despite the fact one doesn't have to look far at all to see where Judaism is today, one may have to dig a bit deeper to see how all that fits into the outline of events described in Revelation. That of course will take quite a bit of study, far more than I can give in a few short posts on an internet forum. However, in the next post, I will point out a few "clues" that may help us get to a fuller understanding.

[Esaias]

(part 3)

Daniel 2:41-43 depicts Rome being mingled with "clay". According to verse 43 the mingling represents a genetic mixing. There was to be some kind of genetic amalgamation, or mixing, between Roman "iron" and some "clay". Clay of course is often used prophetically as a symbol of Israel:

Isaiah 64:8 KJV But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Jeremiah 18:1-6 KJV The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, (2) Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. (3) Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. (4) And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. (5) Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, (6) O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

In Romans 9, Paul uses the same analogy of a potter and clay to refer to Israel, both unbelieving Israel, and believing new covenant Israel. So then the idea of "clay" is identified Biblically with Israel. This gives us a better understanding of the vision of Daniel 2. (Many thanks to the Lord for giving brother Benincasa insight into this truth which he shared awhile back!)

It depicts a mingling of Roman Iron and JUDEAN CLAY. At the time of the Roman Empire, the only Israelite nation left still in covenant with God was Judea. Therefore, the clay represents a mingling between the Romans and the Judeans. Yet, according to the vision, this mingling or mixing would be fraught with difficulties and failures:

Daniel 2:41-43 KJV And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. (42) And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. (43) And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Rome was to become the dominant world power, and then it was to be divided. It was also to be "partly strong, and partly broken". And finally, it was to be part "iron", and part "clay". The division of the Roman Empire into two is a matter of historical record. It is also a matter of historical record that Rome was strong in many ways, yet very weak and "broken" or fragmented in many other ways. What is missing from the generally accepted, "official" historical record is that the Fourth Kingdom would also be partly Roman, and PARTLY JUDEAN.

Yet, if one digs a bit, one finds fascinating pieces of the puzzle which begin to fall into place. For example, the Judean aristocracy (the Herodians, Herod and his rather large and influential family) were closely associated with and even intermarried with the Flavians (the Roman Imperial family in the first century). In fact, much of the nobility of Europe trace their ancestry to not only include various strands of the Flavian line, but also various strands of the Herodian line. These Old Roman noble families ascended to positions of nobility in feudal Europe, vying for control of the remnants of the Western Roman Empire, often laying claim to the title of Roman Emperor. The Roman power had largely devolved upon the Roman Bishoprick, what we nowadays call the Vatican or the Papacy, who by controlling the religion of the people of Europe was able to exert powerful influence upon the various monarchies, duchies, and principalities that had arisen as Imperial Rome had collapsed in the West. Papal blessing, or Papal censure, often meant success or defeat for any of the aristocratic fiefdoms and the families who controlled them. It becomes obvious then that whoever controlled Papal Rome could control much if not most or even all of Europe. And sure enough, a careful look into the history of "Who controls the Vatican" reveals these Flavian-Herodian "Old Roman Nobility" aristocratic family dynasties did in fact wind up becoming the power-brokers of the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican is controlled by cardinals and powerful, wealthy bishops, and has been since the days of Charlemagne if not earlier. The cardinals and powerful ruling bishops in the Vatican just so happen to be dominated by the "Old Roman nobility". That is to say, it is an historical fact that the Vatican is and has been controlled for OVER 1000 YEARS by a large but generally unknown group of distantly related families, who all trace their descent from both the Flavian Roman Imperial dynasty AND the Herodian Judean regnal dynasty.

MOREOVER, when tracing the rise of catholicism, one discovers incredible affinities and correlations and links to JUDAISM. For example, the doctrine of the trinity, while being well-known as having numerous counterparts throughout the pagan world, is actually an integral part of Jewish gnostic mysticism (later collected during the medieval period into a collection of teachings known as the Zohar, aka kaballah). Jews picked up trinitarian concepts during their captivity in Babylon, and brought it back with them. This is one of the reasons Jesus was so set against the "traditions of the elders" of Pharisaic Judaism, because it was rife with pagan Babylonian mystical and occultic garbage.

I don't have time to go into it right now, but on the basis of years of research I have conducted (almost fifteen years) into the subject of trinitarianism and the origin and rise of catholicism, I can say without any doubt in my mind whatsoever that Catholicism originated as a gnostic Jewish syncretistic mystery religion operating within both Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, that it is part of the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul warned about, and that it was the apostasy Paul and the other apostles - and even Christ Himself - warned was to arise.

There's nothing new under the sun.

[Amanah]

thank you Esaias, beautifully written!