Jerusalem or Rome: Who is Babylon the Great?

[Emun]

Not sure what question you are speaking of. The post i have made have been about the city that Revelation 17 speaks of, which is Rome.

It can never be Rome. Remember that the woman is sitting on the beast with the seven heads, which means that the woman must have been present from the first head to the last. It is an indisputable fact that the first 6 heads represent the empires from Babylon to the Roman Empire. Where was the presence of Rome in the first 5 heads? Where was Rome present during the Neo-Babylonian Empire? Rome wasn't, Jerusalem was. It is Jerusalem that consistently killed prophets since the first head. Jerusalem is Babylon, the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[d taylor]

It can never be Rome. Remember that the woman is sitting on the beast with the seven heads, which means that the woman must have been present from the first head to the last. It is an indisputable fact that the first 6 heads represent the empires from Babylon to the Roman Empire. Where was the presence of Rome in the first 5 heads? Where was Rome present during the Neo-Babylonian Empire? Rome wasn't, Jerusalem was. It is Jerusalem that consistently killed prophets since the first head. Jerusalem is Babylon, the evidence is overwhelming.

Oh but it can and is Rome

 

[Lost Witness]

Nope, It's The united States. the WORLD Power and in this country GOOD IS EVIL AND EVIL IS GOOD, Through this country all sins are Politically Endorsed. Head of the UN we push our perversions and ABOMINATIONS around the world. ALL NATIONS HAVE DRANK OF THE WINE and have been made DRUNK by Our country.

 

[Emun]

Nope, It's The united States. the WORLD Power and in this country GOOD IS EVIL AND EVIL IS GOOD, Through this country all sins are Politically Endorsed. Head of the UN we push our perversions and ABOMINATIONS around the world. ALL NATIONS HAVE DRANK OF THE WINE and have been made DRUNK by Our country.

There are even more arguments against the USA than against Rome. And it seems that the USA is a puppet of Israel. This is especially evident in the American support for Israel.

 

[Lost Witness]

Israel is the Holy Land. can't claim to love GOD if you don't love HIS people called by HIS NAME.

 

[Emun]

Israel is the Holy Land. can't claim to love GOD if you don't love HIS people called by HIS NAME.

I see it rather spiritually, as did the early church. The true Israel is the church.

If you consider people who reject the cross as holy, then you should read the letter to the Hebrews. It says that someone who rejects the cross is a worse person than someone who breaks the law of Moses. Such a person is hated by God.

And if you consider the land of Israel here on earth as holy, then you belong to this world. Christians, however, are not of this world. The land that is holy is paradise.

 

[Andrewn]

At the writing of Revelation, there is only one city with the Biblical authority to reign over the Kings of the Earth.
Jerusalem.

In what sense could it be said that Jerusalem reigned over the kings of the earth? It seems that that description in Rev 17:18 more readily applies to Rome. But two verses earlier, in Rev 17:16, we read that kings of the earth hate the harlot, make her desolate, and burn her with fire. This is more consistent with Jerusalem in 70 AD or with the future fall of Rome in 476 AD.

 

[parousia70]

Israel is the Holy Land. can't claim to love GOD if you don't love HIS people called by HIS NAME.

Modern Israel has Free, Legal Abortion on Demand for any Female age 15 and up, at any time, for any reason.

Do you Love Israel For that?

A you are saying if I don't Love Israel for that, I can't claim to love God?

 

[parousia70]

In what sense could it be said that Jerusalem reigned over the kings of the earth?

Again, Scripture spells out that "sense" perfectly.

She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23) Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

In what sense do the above scripures NOT mean what they say?

But two verses earlier, in Rev 17:16, we read that kings of the earth hate the harlot, make her desolate, and burn her with fire. This is more consistent with Jerusalem in 70 AD

Indeed,, Jerusalem was also famous for becoming The Harlot City -- an unfaithful spouse to her King (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-10; Ez 16:37-39). She had become "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev 17:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16) as Christ had prophesied she would (Mt 23:33-37; Lk 11:50-51).

Sadly, the "great city," Jerusalem (Rev 11:8), had fallen, and had become the habitation of demons and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (Rev 18:2). The Queen City Jerusalem (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1), which had been great among the nations (Lam 1:1), had become a widow (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1). And She, having become an unfaithful Harlot to God, was thus "burned with fire" (Rev 18:8/17:16) as her covenant law demanded for her (Lev 21:9). The blood of all the apostles and prophets who she famously killed (Matt 23:33-36; Matt 21:34-39; Lk 13:33; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15-16; Lk 11:47; Neh 9:26; 1 Ki 19:14) was avenged upon her (Matt 23:33-37; Rev 16:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16).

 

[Andrewn]

It is an indisputable fact that the first 6 heads represent the empires from Babylon to the Roman Empire.

This is not an indisputable fact at all. The seven heads are seven kings. "Nero is the sixth king "who is", who was possibly alive and the emperor reigning at the time John was writing the book. The five kings who have fallen are seen as Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius; Galba is the one who "has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a little while". (Revelation 17:10)."

The Beast (Revelation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I quoted this from Wikipedia but it is a very common interpretation in both Christian and scholarly circles and I read it many times over the years in several books. According to this, Rome is not automatically excluded.

Where was the presence of Rome in the first 5 heads?

Perhaps the strongest support for Babylon being Rome comes from the first Epistle of Peter.

It is Jerusalem that consistently killed prophets since the first head.

Rome killed Christians all over the Empire during the reigns of Nero, Dometian, and others.

Jerusalem is Babylon, the evidence is overwhelming.

Indeed, the preponderance of evidence supports Jerusalem in 70 AD. Rome was not destroyed for several centuries afterward and the city that was destroyed was a Christian rather than a Pagan city. IOW, at the time when Rome was changed from a Pagan to a Christian city, it was not destroyed at all, as far as I know.

 

[Emun]

"Nero is the sixth king "who is", who was possibly alive and the emperor reigning at the time John was writing the book. The five kings who have fallen are seen as Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius; Galba is the one who "has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a little while". (Revelation 17:10)."

Nero was the fifth roman Emperor. The sixth Emperor was Galba. Preterists tend to twist facts to uphold their doctrine.

This is not an indisputable fact at all. The seven heads are seven kings.

The reason it is called "kings" in Revelation is because each kingdom/head is represented by a specific king. Daniel 2:38 provides clear evidence that the first head is the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

I quoted this from Wikipedia but it is a very common interpretation in both Christian and scholarly circles and I read it many times over the years in several books. According to this, Rome is not automatically excluded.

The well-known theory is that the heads represent the empires between Egypt and Rome. To think that the heads represent the Roman emperors is preterist thinking.

Perhaps the strongest support for Babylon being Rome comes from the first Epistle of Peter.

Peter does not identify Babylon with Rome. According to Acts, he was mainly in Jerusalem. So he may have been referring to Jerusalem.

Rome killed Christians all over the Empire during the reigns of Nero, Dometian, and others.

There were persecutions of Christians by Romans until the Roman Empire was finally Christianized. However, in Revelation it says that Babylon is guilty of the death of all the prophets who were killed on earth. The same is said about only one city and that is Jerusalem.

Indeed, the preponderance of evidence supports Jerusalem in 70 AD

I have read Revelation 2 times. And Daniel I have read. It's contradictory that the destruction of Babylon refers to Jerusalem in the first century. Rather, it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem that is still in the future.

If Babylon was destroyed in the first century. Then it means that the Antichrist appeared almost 2000 years ago. And that in turn also means that Jesus' second coming must have taken place at that time, because the Bible says that Jesus is the one who will destroy the Antichrist. It is chronologically a muddle.

Jerusalem is Babylon the Great and her final destruction will still happen.

 

[Emun]

An interesting point is also the fact that Babylon the Great will be hated by the Antichrist and his kingdom, and it will be the Antichrist who will destroy Babylon once and for all (Revelation 17:16-17).

Now consider this: Is there any country in the world that hates Italy/Rome and seeks to destroy it once and for all? No there is not. And according to those who believe that Rome is Babylon, they also believe that the Antichrist and his kingdom are from Europe. So Europe should one day attack and destroy Italy? Does that make sense?

But let's take a look at Israel/Jerusalem. There are nations in the world that hate Israel so much and want to destroy it once and for all.

Revelation 16:12-16 says that the kings east of the Euphrates will come and gather at Armageddon, Armageddon is a place north of Israel. Immediately after these verses, the destruction of Babylon is described. It could be that the kings mentioned here are the 10 horns, the 10 nations that follow the Antichrist. East of the Euphrates are mainly Turkish nations. Even in Iran, there are an estimated 30 million Turks, which is about 40% of Iran's population.

 

[Andrewn]

Rather, it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem that is still in the future. If Babylon was destroyed in the first century. Then it means that the Antichrist appeared almost 2000 years ago. And that in turn also means that Jesus' second coming must have taken place at that time, because the Bible says that Jesus is the one who will destroy the Antichrist. It is chronologically a muddle. Jerusalem is Babylon the Great and her final destruction will still happen.

I believe that there have been and will be many beasts. So, there may be a beast in 70 AD, a beast in the future, and many beasts in between. The future beast is specifically described as Gog king of Magog, which I take as a description of Turkey and perhaps Iran:

Erdogan envisions alliance of Turkic-speaking states

The recent summit of Turkic-speaking states has fueled Ankara’s ambitions to lead a Turkic regional economic and security complex, but major geopolitical, economic and institutional hurdles remain.

www.al-monitor.com

 

[shepherdsword]

A weak argument. Tell me where Rome is called Babylon in the Bible? You don't find that either. The descriptions of Babylon the Great make it clear that Jerusalem must be meant. Furthermore, the name "the great city" is always applied to Babylon everywhere else in the book of Revelation. Explain to me why this is suddenly not the case in Revelation 11:8?

There is nothing weak about unless you look through the blinders of your preconceived ideas. I don't see Rome as being Babylon either. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that make it clear that Jerusalem is Babylon. In fact, just the opposite. Jerusalem is prophesied in Rev 11 that she should be occupied, up to half the city for FORTY TWO MONTHS There is not one single mention of her perpetual destruction. The great city that rules over the kings of the earth IS Babylon. Jerusalem has never ruled over the world.

The final destruction of Jerusalem will happen soon. God will destroy this city through the Antichrist.

Do you have any scriptures for this? The gentiles will trod it underfoot for 42 months but she will not be perpetually destroyed.

Explain to me why? Because it is supposedly the City of God? This city has not been the city of God for a long time. It is not holy. God left this city on the day of the crucifixion. God tore the temple curtain on that day (Matthew 27:51), do you know what that means? It was a symbolic message to the Jews and to the world that the time of the old covenant is over. God has left this temple and this city, and chose a new temple and a new city. The church is his new home.

You are just regurgitating the Amil lie that blinds so many. You ignore the numerous prophesies that declare that the nature jews will one day return to their own land and NEVER be removed again. Do you know what this means?

Am 9:14-15 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God

You have unfortunately fallen into dispensationalism. I advise you to leave this invented modern teaching and return to the consensus teaching of the church fathers.

You have unfortunately fallen in a false judgment. I am not a dispensationist. I am a HISTORIC premillennialist. Do you know why it is called "historic"? It's because it's a view once held by many ECFs. I advise you to abandon the obsolete amillennialistic eschatological model. It was fabricated out of desperation when Jerusalem fell in 70ad. They had to make up some way the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT would be fulfilled. We no longer need that invention of man. You see....the Jews are back in their own land.

 

[Emun]

There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that make it clear that Jerusalem is Babylon.

Nothing? I have shown several passages that clearly identify Jerusalem as Babylon. You have not responded to any of them.

In fact, just the opposite. Jerusalem is prophesied in Rev 11 that she should be occupied, up to half the city for FORTY TWO MONTHS There is not one single mention of her perpetual destruction.

Revelation 11:1-2 is not about Jerusalem. It is symbolic. Do you know why? Because it is talking about the Holy Temple. There is no longer a temple in Jerusalem. And even if a third temple were built, it would not be God's temple but man's temple, and Scripture would not call that temple holy. According to Peter, the Church is the Holy Temple (1 Peter 2:5). That means the church, that is the Christians will be trampled 42 months. This would harmonize with the passage in Revelation 20:4 that speaks of Christians being executed during the 42 months.

The great city that rules over the kings of the earth IS Babylon. Jerusalem has never ruled over the world.

Jerusalem had and still has influence.

ou are just regurgitating the Amil lie that blinds so many. You ignore the numerous prophesies that declare that the nature jews will one day return to their own land and NEVER be removed again. Do you know what this means?

Am 9:14-15 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God

You know what's funny. This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile. And we see that the Jews later went into exile again after the Romans defeated the city. Why? Because they broke the covenant. The old covenant is over.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Israel is the Holy Land. can't claim to love GOD if you don't love HIS people called by HIS NAME.

Who does scripture say are the children of God? Is it based on nationality? Let's see what Paul had to say about this.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Can you see here that Paul said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring? He explicitly stated that being a child of God has nothing to do with nationality (what nation someone physically descends from). Paul said it is the children of the promise who are God's children and "are regarded as Abraham's offspring". Who are they?

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It's very clear. God's people are those who belong to Christ regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. Do you accept what scripture teaches about this?

 

[Lost Witness]

Who does scripture say are the children of God? Is it based on nationality? Let's see what Paul had to say about this.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Can you see here that Paul said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring? He explicitly stated that being a child of God has nothing to do with nationality (what nation someone physically descends from). Paul said it is the children of the promise who are God's children and "are regarded as Abraham's offspring". Who are they?

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It's very clear. God's people are those who belong to Christ regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. Do you accept what scripture teaches about this?

ISRAEL is still GODS people, Just because Christianity came along doesn't change that. we were just grafted unto the vine

 

[Spiritual Jew]

ISRAEL is still GODS people, Just because Christianity came along doesn't change that. we were just grafted unto the vine

Did you read the scriptures I gave you which explicitly state that Christians are God's people? Are you a Christian? If so, do you believe you are one of God's people?

 

[Lost Witness]

Did you read the scriptures I gave you which explicitly state that Christians are God's people? Are you a Christian? If so, do you believe you are one of God's people?

What is your problem with GODS Holy Land? They are STILL HIS PEOPLE.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What is your problem with GODS Holy Land? They are STILL HIS PEOPLE.

Are you saying that even people who reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah and their Lord and Savior are God's people? Where does scripture indicate that one's nationality has anything to do with being a child of God? I showed you scripture which says the complete opposite of that.

You clearly are not paying attention to what I'm saying and not addressing anything that I'm saying, so let me know if you want to actually have a discussion where each person addresses what the other is saying.