Well, Jerusalem also seemed to have been codenamed Babylon. It doesn't have to have the same meaning always, right? Or has it changed? Or has some of the prophesies in the book of Revelation been fulfilled? If one interprets it to mean Jerusalem, then certainly much of it could have been fulfilled in 70 AD when the romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, which Jesus also prophesied.
I'm sorry, so where exactly do you get that Jerusalem was also code named Babylon?
Also, if Rome is the Babylon referred to in Book of Revelation, how does this affect the catholic church which is seated in Rome?
Although the Catholic Church is often referred to in that way, the seat of the Catholic Church is actually the Vatican, not Rome. Because the Catholic Church is truly a universal church, the Bishops are appointed all over the world. Therefore, there is a Bishop of Rome. Whoever is appointed the Bishop of Rome is also considered the leader of the Catholic Church's Bishops (the successors of the apostles). This is because the Bishop of Rome is the successor of the apostle Peter, the first bishop of Rome.
The Vatican is actually the world's smallest country. Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican Is NOT seating on one of the seven hills of Rome! It is not even within the old walls of the city of Rome, but is actually located across the Tiber River from Rome! Therefore, it is no more possible to associate the seat of the Catholic Church with the "harlot of Babylon" (as so many like to do), then to place that distinction on Houston, TX. The Bible simply does not support that accusation.
Another thing which seems to further indicate that Babylon in the Book of Revelation is Jerusalem and not Rome is that Revelation 11:8 (NKJV) says
"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."
Jesus wasn't crucified in Rome.
Jesus also wasn't crucified in Jerusalem, but was taken outside the walls of the city to the "place of the skull" Golgotha. Basically it was the city's dump. Since Jesus was crucified in the Roman Empire, than I suppose it could either refer to just outside Jerusalem, or to the actual city of Rome. Neither seems to fit exactly. Since Revelation is extremely difficult to understand, some taken very literally, some figuratively, some prophetically, it's still open to understanding. There are even some very good Bible scholars that feel that the entire book of Revelation was written in code (with the exception of the first few chapters) in order for John to communicate teaching and instruction to the Church.
Someone called Loraine Boettner said: "But there is no good reason for saying that "Babylon" means "Rome." The reason alleged by the Church of Rome for understanding Babylon to mean Rome is that in the book of Revelation Rome is called by that name (Rev. 17:5; 18:2). But there is a great difference between an apocalyptic book such as the book of Revelation, which for the most part is written in figurative and symbolic language, and an epistle such as this which is written in a straightforward, matter of fact style.
I find it surprising what lengths those who hate, what they mistakenly think is the Catholic Church, will go to in order to deny her truths! Loraine Boettner is known as one of those people. On one hand she and others like her will go to great lengths to say that they believe in the Bible alone! Then when the "Bible alone" just won't fit into their agenda, they switch to say, "well it wasn't meant to be taken at it's word!
I'm sure the "epistle" she's referring to are those of St. Peter. He writes his introduction saying that he is writing from Babylon. Since Peter was actually in Rome at that time, and since he had a huge price on his head, and was sending out letters to the various churches, he didn't exactly want to telegraph that he had arrived in Rome now would he? By saying that he was in "Babylon", a very well known code name for Rome, all of the Christians would know that he was in Rome! As the book of Revelation puts it, Rome was known as "Babylon" because of it's persecution of Christians, by Romans and Jews alike.
In regard to Peter's assignment to work among the Jews, it is known that there were many Jews in Babylon in New Testament times. Many had not returned to Palestine after the Exile. Many others, such as those in Asia Minor and Egypt, had been driven out or had left Palestine for various reasons. Josephus says that some "gave Hyrcanus, the high priest, a habitation at Babylon, where there were Jews in great numbers" (Antiquities, Book XV, Ch. II, 2). Peter's assigned ministry to the Jews took him to those places where the Jews were in the greatest numbers, even to Babylon."
There is no historical records to indicate that, once Peter arrived in Rome he ever left for the Diaspora, to preach to the Jews outside of Rome. He was not assigned to preach to them. He didn't have the skills to speak Greek, which is why Paul was originally assigned to take the gospel to the Jews in the Diaspora, and in addition the Gentiles there too. Other men went with Paul to these areas, such as Barnabas, Apollo, etc. Much more qualified men than Peter for this task.
Josephus was a very good historian, but there are far better historical writings to study for Christian History. Since Josephus wasn't a Christian, his views of Christianity were limited. A few far better writings are, The History of the Christian Church, by Eusubias c.290 ad, and the writings of the Early Christian Fathers, c. 80 ad (before John the beloved had died), until the later 300's. There are 40 books of these writings that have been translated into English! The earliest ones from 80 ad to c. 110 AD, have the records of where Peter was, and it does specifically state that he WAS indeed in Rome, and was writing his letters under the code name, "Babylon"!
So who she we believe?? Someone who learned the Christian faith sitting at the feet of the Apostle John, called 'The Beloved', by Jesus; and a 2nd century Christian historian, who choose to record the history of the early Christian Church, while it was still fresh in people's minds? Or should we believe someone who lives over 2,000 yrs later, who never men any of the apostles, let alone Jesus Christ; and who's giving her own version of how she interprets the scriptures?
Which of these people have the greatest likelihood of having their stories correct? Bear in mind also, that while John was alive, he could easily have corrected any misunderstandings of the accounts written down by the early Christians, and yet, where are those writings? Even one of them? They don't exist!
I would highly suggest that if people want to follow Christ, and understand the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, that they pick up a copy of Eusubias' History of the Church, and at least purchase a few of the 3 vol. set of The Early Church Fathers, edited by Jurgens. If you'll read recent copies of what the Bible means written by people like Billy Graham, or Joel Olsteen, than you should have no problem with reading books written by the first followers of Jesus Christ on what the apostles were teaching them, and how they were practicing their faith! Remember this was LONG before any splits in the Christian Church had taken place.
Ok sorry. I also said "the area around Iran" in the beginning of my first post.[/quote