She who sits as queen, not widow, never mourns

[tulc]

WHat do you mean? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

I'm agreeing that it (Kings and Queens of England) has changed, and then pointing out, but everything else has changed also. Sorry I'll try and be more clear in the future. :o
tulc(it was much clearer in my head)

 

[Oblio]

Well, the Bereans were honored for doing so:
Act 17:11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

That's funny, my Bible is underlined quite differently

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree...we should keep seeking the truth.

If Mystery Babylon is the RCC, then the drunk with the blood of the saints part would go back to Rome/Roman Empire and then Holy Roman Empire (Crusades/Inquisitions).

Well, we know the "denarious" is no longer used.

Reve 6:6 And I hear as a sound in midst of the four living ones, saying: "choinex of grain for a denarius and three choinex of barleys for a denarius, and the olive oil and the wine no you should be injuring".

1220 denarion {day-nar'-ee-on}
of Latin origin;; n n
AV - penny 9, pence 5, pennyworth 2; 16
denarius = "containing ten"
1) A Roman silver coin in NT time. It took its name from it being
equal to ten "asses", a number after 217 B.C. increased to
sixteen (about 3.898 grams or .1375 oz.). It was the principal
silver coin of the Roman empire. From the parable of the
labourers in the vineyard, it would seem that a denarius was then
the ordinary pay for a day's wages. (Mt. 20:2-13)

 

[HisdaughterJen]

For concise history of Holy Roman Empire, I found this:
www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel

It tells how the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire with Charlemagne's claim. The Holy Roman empire had territory, coronated and picked kings under the authority of the Pope/Papacy, etc.
From the link:
"The German king, elected by the German princes, automatically sought imperial coronation by the pope. After 1045 a king who was not yet crowned emperor was known as king of the Romans, a title that asserted his right to the imperial throne and implied that he was emperor-designate. Not every German king became emperor, however, because the popes, especially when elections to the kingships were disputed, often claimed that the selection of the emperor was their prerogative."

More:
"The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom."

So, Rome/Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire/Roman Catholic Church all go hand in hand historically.

 

[Thekla]

Ok, but does communism and Nero fulfill all of the descriptors that God gave us?




Yes, Christians are persecuted. Do these instances fulfull all of the descriptors? Was 20th Century Central America or Communism around when John was given this Revelation and still around when the Beast comes to rule?

If the prophecy concerns the 1st century, Nero was Emperor of Rome in the 1st century. He was reported to even use Christians as living "torches" (to light his gardens in the evening). Later Roman emperors
also martyred untold numbers of Christians.

 

[notmyown123]

What of the passages that talk of how all of the merchants of the earth will cry out for her when God destroys her?? I dont believe it is talking about a religious orginization rather than a nation who pretends to be of-God... or a church who rules as a nation... to me if the end were to come anytime soon, there would only be 2 possible candidates... it is not for me to tell who or what I think it is, that is why it is called MYSTERY Babylon

 

[HisdaughterJen]

What of the passages that talk of how all of the merchants of the earth will cry out for her when God destroys her?? I dont believe it is talking about a religious orginization rather than a nation who pretends to be of-God... or a church who rules as a nation... to me if the end were to come anytime soon, there would only be 2 possible candidates... it is not for me to tell who or what I think it is, that is why it is called MYSTERY Babylon

Interesting point!!!!

 

[HisdaughterJen]

If the prophecy concerns the 1st century, Nero was Emperor of Rome in the 1st century. He was reported to even use Christians as living "torches" (to light his gardens in the evening). Later Roman emperors
also martyred untold numbers of Christians.

You're exactly right!
It is Rome/Roman empire and has continued or morphed over the years. All of the descriptors that the Bible speaks of have happened over the course of the last 2000 years inside the Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire and what remains of it today.

Mystery Babylon also did this:
Rev 18:3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
From www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel
"The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom."

So there was a mixing of claim of spiritual/temporal power of the earth for centuries by the Holy Roman Empire. They would do this under the name of Christ/Christendom!!!


Another descriptor: we know Mystery Babylon was responsible for the deaths of the apostles showing that Mystery Babylon goes back that far and continues to today because the beast is the one who destroys her and he's not on the scene yet:
Rev 18:20Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

 

[Thekla]

You're exactly right!
It is Rome/Roman empire and has continued or morphed over the years. All of the descriptors that the Bible speaks of have happened over the course of the last 2000 years inside the Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire and what remains of it today.

Mystery Babylon also did this:
Rev 18:3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
From www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel
"The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom."

So there was a mixing of claim of spiritual/temporal power of the earth for centuries by the Holy Roman Empire. They would do this under the name of Christ/Christendom!!!


Another descriptor: we know Mystery Babylon was responsible for the deaths of the apostles showing that Mystery Babylon goes back that far and continues to today because the beast is the one who destroys her and he's not on the scene yet:
Rev 18:20Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

need to be careful with this, I still don't think that the RCC is implicated. Rome was a political/economic entity. There's plenty of that to go around, and as my list shows - there are plenty of cities built on 7 hills. And remember - the 7 hills have more than (if any) geographic significance.

Also, secularism IS a religion. It has a (debased) spirituality. ANY spirituality (including non-christian) is dangerous to the religion of secularism -- for most eschew satisfaction in "material things".

 

[Trento]

The point was that the Bible is not referring to the Jews or Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon in Rev. 17/18 because it referred to saints/prophets who died for Jesus...not saints/prophets of old (before Jesus came). OF course there have been martyrs and saints killed for Jesus for 2000 years...and you're right, they did not have to die in the first century.



I don't know for certain that Mystery Babylon is the RCC...it may be bigger than that. The RCC does claim to have started with Peter and does claim to sit as "queen" (bride of Christ the King on earth) even going so far as to claim that her traditions are equivalent to scripture in authority and power. But the RCC denies roots in Rome and the Roman Empire, does it not?

History tells us that the Papacy, however, somehow got mixed up in the Roman Empire because it became the Holy Roman Empire and the Popes exercised authority over the territory of the Roman Empire, controlled land (feudal land owner) and crowned/controlled kings. All of this is mentioned in the scripture about Mystery Babylon.

If the RCC is not or never was a part of the Roman empire/Holy Roman Empire, then I am wrong. (Funny that the RCC and Holy Roman Empire both had popes) If it was, then my theory could be correct.

!

The idea that the harlot represents Roman Catholicism, a belief that became popular in the days following the Reformation, for obvious reasons is tied closely to the historicist view in general, which sees the Book of Revelation as describing the whole of church history. With the continuing demise of historicism, however, proponents of this interpretation have become few and far between. This position is probably best understood as a natural Protestant outgrowth of the Reformation controversies.
The Apocalypse would be portraying Catholicism as an institution that at one time in history constituted the very people of God, but at some point forsook her God, presumably by corruption and abandonment of the gospel the primary contentions of the Protestant Reformers.

One of the simplest, yet strongest clues that Jerusalem is to be understood as the harlot of Babylon is that John seems to give the answer away directly to the observant reader in a couple of key places in Revelation. At the end of chapter 17, the interpreting angel tells John the identity of the adulterous woman explicitly: “The woman whom you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth” (hJ gunh h}n eide" e[stin hJ povli" hJ megavlh hJ e[cousa basileivan ejpi tw'n basilevwn th'" gh'"). This phrase “the great city” seems to be set forth with the assumption that the reader knows what city that would be, and the phrase is tossed around several more times in this passage Moreover, the phrase appears to be used quite exclusively in the book of Revelation. Outside of this passage, in which it occurs many times, all of which clearly refer to Babylon, the phrase only appears twice in the rest of this twenty-two-chapter book. The first, and most important occurrence of the designation “the great city” is in 11:8, which reads, “And [the two witnesses’] bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified” (to ptw'ma aujtw'n ejpi th'" plateiva" th'" povlew" th'" megavlh" h{ti" kalei'tai pneumatikw'" Sovdoma kai Ai[gupto" o{pou kai oJ kuvrio" aujtw'n ejstaurwvqh). This verse is extremely significant. In it, we have two major pieces of information relevant to our study.
First, it is all but indisputable that “the great city” as identified here is Jerusalem, “where also their Lord was crucified.” This alone sets a powerful precedent for the term before we come to chapters 17 and 18. This term is not used carelessly for many cities in the book, but rather only twice without explicit reference to Babylon. It is hard to imagine this reference not ringing in the ears of the original audience when they would arrive at 17:18. It would easily be the most natural step, if a somewhat shocking one.
Secondly, the writer also sets a precedent for using metaphorical names for Jerusalem, specifically names of Israel’s ancient enemies. This tells us two things: we should not be surprised if he does it again, and Jerusalem is being painted in a very negative light in Revelation.
A similar occurrence of the phrase “the great city” is found in 16:19, where again we have a vital clue to the identity of the harlot who appears later. The verse reads, “And the great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell” (kai ejgevneto hJ povli" hJ megavlh eij" triva mevrh kai aiJ povlei" tw'n ejqnw'n e[pesan). The key point to be made here is that “the great city” is apparently contrasted with “the cities of the nations.” It could be that the great city is merely one of the cities of the nations, but it seems more likely that the two are to be distinguished; we are not told that the other cities of the nations fell, just that the cities of the nations fell, as distinct from the great city. The juxtaposition of this phrase with the ‘cities of the nations’ suggests that it is not a Gentile location, such as Rome. This also becomes more probable in light of the lexical ambiguity of the Greek. For neutrality’s sake, the translation given above has simply rendered tw'n ejqnw'n “of the nations.” In Greek, of course, the term may be translated either in this manner or more specifically as “of the Gentiles.” The NET Bible notes this as an alternative translation, and if we take this option, the text is even more telling. In this case “the great city” would be juxtaposed against “the cities of the Gentiles.” In light of the last use of “the great city,” in which it was identified as the place “where also their Lord was crucified,” this does not seem unlikely. What makes this especially significant for study is that this verse may bridge the gap between 11:8 and 17:18 in that the remaining portion of 16:19 fills out the image of this “great city” by identifying it explicitly as Babylon.
In addition, this interpretation can be further validated by the Old Testament background of the city’s fate in this passage. As several commentators have recognized, the splitting of the city into three parts seems to echo Ezek 5:1–5 in which God has the prophet divide his hair into three parts as a depiction of coming judgment upon a city, specifically, the desolation of Jerusalem, which will occur in thirds. Taking together the precedent of Rev 11:8, the contrast with the cities of the nations/Gentiles, and the background of Ezek 5, we have very compelling reasons to think 16:9, like 11:8, may be referring to Jerusalem as “the great city.” Not only that, “the great city” is here also clearly connected to the name “Babylon.” Again, these are the only two references to “the great city” in the book before we get to chapter 17. There is no other “great city” to be found in the Apocalypse, no other precedent to follow. If Jerusalem is not the harlot, it is worth asking at this point why John, who uses the phrase “the great city” so colorfully in chapters 17 and 18 has been so uncareful as to let it slip at two other places in the book, both of which would likely lead one to see Jerusalem as God’s enemy, if not Babylon itself.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

need to be careful with this, I still don't think that the RCC is implicated. Rome was a political/economic entity. There's plenty of that to go around, and as my list shows - there are plenty of cities built on 7 hills. And remember - the 7 hills have more than (if any) geographic significance.

Also, secularism IS a religion. It has a (debased) spirituality. ANY spirituality (including non-christian) is dangerous to the religion of secularism -- for most eschew satisfaction in "material things".

Yes, but the problem is that the Roman Empire and Christendom (for lack of a better word) mixed. This is an historical fact. There were popes and emperors who claimed ultimate, God-given authority on earth.

The Roman empire killed the saints and martyrs of Jesus, reigned over kings of the known earth, ( Rev 17:18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.)

 

[Thekla]

Yes, but the problem is that the Roman Empire and Christendom (for lack of a better word) mixed. This is an historical fact. There were popes and emperors who claimed ultimate, God-given authority on earth.

The Roman empire killed the saints and martyrs of Jesus, reigned over kings of the known earth, ( Rev 17:18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.)

How ? As you pointed out, NO-ONE reigned over Charlemagne !

The secular Roman Empire reigned over the kings of the earth.
Who reigns over the earth now ?

 

[HisdaughterJen]

The idea that the harlot represents Roman Catholicism, a belief that became popular in the days following the Reformation, for obvious reasons is tied closely to the historicist view in general, which sees the Book of Revelation as describing the whole of church history. With the continuing demise of historicism, however, proponents of this interpretation have become few and far between. This position is probably best understood as a natural Protestant outgrowth of the Reformation controversies.
The Apocalypse would be portraying Catholicism as an institution that at one time in history constituted the very people of God, but at some point forsook her God, presumably by corruption and abandonment of the gospel the primary contentions of the Protestant Reformers.

One of the simplest, yet strongest clues that Jerusalem is to be understood as the harlot of Babylon is that John seems to give the answer away directly to the observant reader in a couple of key places in Revelation. At the end of chapter 17, the interpreting angel tells John the identity of the adulterous woman explicitly: “The woman whom you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth” (hJ gunh h}n eide" e[stin hJ povli" hJ megavlh hJ e[cousa basileivan ejpi tw'n basilevwn th'" gh'"). This phrase “the great city” seems to be set forth with the assumption that the reader knows what city that would be, and the phrase is tossed around several more times in this passage Moreover, the phrase appears to be used quite exclusively in the book of Revelation. Outside of this passage, in which it occurs many times, all of which clearly refer to Babylon, the phrase only appears twice in the rest of this twenty-two-chapter book. The first, and most important occurrence of the designation “the great city” is in 11:8, which reads, “And [the two witnesses’] bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified” (to ptw'ma aujtw'n ejpi th'" plateiva" th'" povlew" th'" megavlh" h{ti" kalei'tai pneumatikw'" Sovdoma kai Ai[gupto" o{pou kai oJ kuvrio" aujtw'n ejstaurwvqh). This verse is extremely significant. In it, we have two major pieces of information relevant to our study.
First, it is all but indisputable that “the great city” as identified here is Jerusalem, “where also their Lord was crucified.” This alone sets a powerful precedent for the term before we come to chapters 17 and 18. This term is not used carelessly for many cities in the book, but rather only twice without explicit reference to Babylon. It is hard to imagine this reference not ringing in the ears of the original audience when they would arrive at 17:18. It would easily be the most natural step, if a somewhat shocking one.
Secondly, the writer also sets a precedent for using metaphorical names for Jerusalem, specifically names of Israel’s ancient enemies. This tells us two things: we should not be surprised if he does it again, and Jerusalem is being painted in a very negative light in Revelation.
A similar occurrence of the phrase “the great city” is found in 16:19, where again we have a vital clue to the identity of the harlot who appears later. The verse reads, “And the great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell” (kai ejgevneto hJ povli" hJ megavlh eij" triva mevrh kai aiJ povlei" tw'n ejqnw'n e[pesan). The key point to be made here is that “the great city” is apparently contrasted with “the cities of the nations.” It could be that the great city is merely one of the cities of the nations, but it seems more likely that the two are to be distinguished; we are not told that the other cities of the nations fell, just that the cities of the nations fell, as distinct from the great city. The juxtaposition of this phrase with the ‘cities of the nations’ suggests that it is not a Gentile location, such as Rome. This also becomes more probable in light of the lexical ambiguity of the Greek. For neutrality’s sake, the translation given above has simply rendered tw'n ejqnw'n “of the nations.” In Greek, of course, the term may be translated either in this manner or more specifically as “of the Gentiles.” The NET Bible notes this as an alternative translation, and if we take this option, the text is even more telling. In this case “the great city” would be juxtaposed against “the cities of the Gentiles.” In light of the last use of “the great city,” in which it was identified as the place “where also their Lord was crucified,” this does not seem unlikely. What makes this especially significant for study is that this verse may bridge the gap between 11:8 and 17:18 in that the remaining portion of 16:19 fills out the image of this “great city” by identifying it explicitly as Babylon.
In addition, this interpretation can be further validated by the Old Testament background of the city’s fate in this passage. As several commentators have recognized, the splitting of the city into three parts seems to echo Ezek 5:1–5 in which God has the prophet divide his hair into three parts as a depiction of coming judgment upon a city, specifically, the desolation of Jerusalem, which will occur in thirds. Taking together the precedent of Rev 11:8, the contrast with the cities of the nations/Gentiles, and the background of Ezek 5, we have very compelling reasons to think 16:9, like 11:8, may be referring to Jerusalem as “the great city.” Not only that, “the great city” is here also clearly connected to the name “Babylon.” Again, these are the only two references to “the great city” in the book before we get to chapter 17. There is no other “great city” to be found in the Apocalypse, no other precedent to follow. If Jerusalem is not the harlot, it is worth asking at this point why John, who uses the phrase “the great city” so colorfully in chapters 17 and 18 has been so uncareful as to let it slip at two other places in the book, both of which would likely lead one to see Jerusalem as God’s enemy, if not Babylon itself.

Jerusalem already got it's come-up-ance in 70AD. It was not a powerful entity after that to this very day. The city was ransacked and the people dispersed until 1967.

It does not have the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus on its hands.
It does not sit as queen and boast.
It does not rule over the kings of the earth.
It is not wealthy (it has been conquered and reconquered for centuries).

Furthermore, Peter refers to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. They referred to Rome as Babylon in that time period because if you said anything against Rome, you'd be put in jail or executed.

Jerusalem is not Mystery Babylon.

 

[Thekla]

Jerusalem already got it's come-up-ance in 70AD. It was not a powerful entity after that to this very day. The city was ransacked and the people dispersed until 1967.

It does not have the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus on its hands.
It does not sit as queen and boast.
It does not rule over the kings of the earth.
It is not wealthy (it has been conquered and reconquered for centuries).

Furthermore, Peter refers to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. They referred to Rome as Babylon in that time period because if you said anything against Rome, you'd be put in jail or executed.

Jerusalem is not Mystery Babylon.

"everyone" is still fighting over Jerusalem -- its involved in every bit of mid-east policy making

 

[HisdaughterJen]

How ? As you pointed out, NO-ONE reigned over Charlemagne !

The secular Roman Empire reigned over the kings of the earth.
Who reigns over the earth now ?

No, you misunderstood me. Charlemagne claimed to be the revival of the Roman Empire according to this:
www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel
"Holy Roman Empire

Realm of varying extent in medieval and modern western and central Europe. Traditionally believed to have been established by Charlemagne, who was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III in 800, the empire lasted until the renunciation of the imperial title by Francis II in 1806. The reign of the German Otto I (the Great; r. 962 – 973), who revived the imperial title after Carolingian decline, is also sometimes regarded as the beginning of the empire. The name Holy Roman Empire (not adopted until the reign of Frederick I Barbarossa) reflected Charlemagne's claim that his empire was the successor to the Roman Empire and that this temporal power was augmented by his status as God's principal vicar in the temporal realm (parallel to the pope's in the spiritual realm). "


So you see it did not end with Charlemagne, he continued it!!!

Well, since the Holy Roman Empire claimed a spiritual and temporal leadership in the form of pope and emperor, then you tell me which remains!

 

[Thekla]

No, you misunderstood me. Charlemagne claimed to be the revival of the Roman Empire according to this:
www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel
"Holy Roman Empire

Realm of varying extent in medieval and modern western and central Europe. Traditionally believed to have been established by Charlemagne, who was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III in 800, the empire lasted until the renunciation of the imperial title by Francis II in 1806. The reign of the German Otto I (the Great; r. 962 – 973), who revived the imperial title after Carolingian decline, is also sometimes regarded as the beginning of the empire. The name Holy Roman Empire (not adopted until the reign of Frederick I Barbarossa) reflected Charlemagne's claim that his empire was the successor to the Roman Empire and that this temporal power was augmented by his status as God's principal vicar in the temporal realm (parallel to the pope's in the spiritual realm). "


So you see it did not end with Charlemagne, he continued it!!!

Well, since the Holy Roman Empire claimed a spiritual and temporal leadership in the form of pope and emperor, then you tell me which remains!

Charlemagne was NOT a pope. The lineage you describe is political.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

"everyone" is still fighting over Jerusalem -- its involved in every bit of mid-east policy making

Ok, but what does that have to do with what we're talking about?
Mystery Babylon has a Biblical description. Jerusalem was destroyed and it's people dispersed in 70AD. It has not been a power or ruling city "sitting as queen" since then despite the disputes, conquerings and reconquerings.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Trento
The idea that the harlot represents Roman Catholicism, a belief that became popular in the days following the Reformation, for obvious reasons is tied closely to the historicist view in general, which sees the Book of Revelation as describing the whole of church history. With the continuing demise of historicism, however, proponents of this interpretation have become few and far between.

Glad to hear that, as I am also glad to hear of the "rapture" doctrine going the way of the Doe-Doe bird.

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YHWH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in Swiftness.

 

[Trento]

Jerusalem already got it's come-up-ance in 70AD. It was not a powerful entity after that to this very day. The city was ransacked and the people dispersed until 1967.

It does not have the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus on its hands.
It does not sit as queen and boast.
It does not rule over the kings of the earth.
It is not wealthy (it has been conquered and reconquered for centuries).

Furthermore, Peter refers to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. They referred to Rome as Babylon in that time period because if you said anything against Rome, you'd be put in jail or executed.

Jerusalem is not Mystery Babylon.

Here are verses from Holy scripture which describe a great city.
Notice that not one verse describes Rome as being a great city.

Great city, Babylon: Rev 14:8,16:19,17:5,18:2,10,21
Great city, Jerusalem: Neh 7:4, Jer 22:8, Lam 1:1, Rev 11:8,16:19,17:18,18:16, Rev 18:18-19,21:10
Great city, Nineveh: Jonah 1:2,3:2-3,4:11

Here is a Biblical comparison between Jerusalem and Rome. See what the Bible says about each:

There are many verses describing Jerusalem. See how many are degradations which dovetail perfectly with the "harlot of Babylon".

Jerusalem in Holy Scripture:

Abomination: Ez 16:2, Mal 2:11
Associate of the Scarlet Beast: Rev 17:1-3
Babylon: Rev 17:5,18:2,18:10,21
Babylon the Great: Rev 17:5
Bad City: Ezra 4:8,12
Bloody City: Ez 22:2,24:6,9, Nah 3:1
Burdensome Stone: Zech 12:3
Captivity of Jerusalem: Joel 3:1
City of Precious Stones and Fine Clothing: Ex 35:30-36,39:1-2, Ex 39:8-14, Isa 52:1, Rev 18:16-17
Cup of Trembling: Zech 12:2
Cursed in the City: Deut 28:15-19
Daughter: Lev 21:9, Lam 2:15-18.
Death of the Prophets: Mt 23:29-36, Lk 11:47-51,13:31-34, Rev 17:5-6,18:24
Den of Dragons: Jer 9:11
Desolation: Isa 64:10, Dan 9:2
Destroyed by Fire: Deut 29:22-24, Lev 21:9,26:15-16,27-28, Ez 16:2-3,35,38,41, Ez 19:12,21:2-3, Ez 22:19-21, Ez 23:2-4,17-19,22-25,44-47, Lam 2:all, Neh 1:3, Mt 24:15-22, Mk 13:14-20, Lk 21:20-24, Rev 18:8,17. Note: Jerusalem was completely destroyed by fire in 70 A.D., whereas Rome was only partially burned by Nero in 64 A.D.. This is yet another reason why the harlot of Babylon could not possibly be associated with Rome, for the harlot is destroyed by fire in Rev 17:16.
Egypt: Rev 11:8
Evil brought upon Jerusalem: Ez 14:22
Evil Done to the Saints in Jerusalem: Acts 9:13,21
Faithful City: Isa 1:21
Fire Devouring Palaces of Jerusalem: Amos 2:5
Fornicator: Jer 13:27, Rev 18:3,9
Four Grievous Judgments upon Jerusalem, sword, famine, beasts, and pestilence: Ez 14:21
Fury upon Jerusalem: Ez 9:8
Gomorrah: Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Rom 9:27-29
Great City: Jer 22:4-8, Rev 11:8,17:18,18:10,16,18-19,21
Great Evil upon Jerusalem: Dan 9:12
Great Harlot (RSV): Rev 17:1,19:2
Great Mourning in Jerusalem: Zech 12:11
Great harlot, (KJ): Rev 17:1,19:2
Habitation of Demons: Rev 18:2
Harlot (RSV): Isa 1:21, Jer 2:20,3:3,6,5:7, Ez 16:1-3,15-16,28,31,35, Ez 16:41, Ez 23:2-49, Hos 3:3,4:15, Joel 3:3, Amos 7:17, Mic 1:7, Nah 3:4, Rev 17:1,5,15-16
Her: Rev 17:4,18:4-10,20,24
Immoral: Rev 18:3
Iniquity Built Jerusalem: Mic 3:10
Jerusalem Encompassed with Armies: Lk 21:20
Jerusalem Killed the Prophets: Matt 23:37, Lk 13:33-34
Jerusalem Shall be Trodden Down: Lk 21:24
Jerusalem to Become Heaps: Mic 3:12
Jesus Killed in Jerusalem: Matt 16:21, Mk 10:33
Laid Waste: Ez 26:2
Menstruous Woman: Lam 1:17
Mother of Harlotries: Rev 17:5
Mother of the Abominations of the Earth: Rev 17:5
Prostitute: Jer 2:20, Ez 16:15
Queen: Rev 18:7
Rebellious City: Ezra 4:8,12
Reduced to Ruins: Psa 79:1, Isa 3:8
Removed: Lam 1:8
She: Rev 18:2
Sin and Uncleanness: Zech 13:1
Sinned Grievously: Lam 1:8
Smitten City: Ez 33:21
Sodom: Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Rom 9:27-29, Rev 11:8
Sorcerer: Rev 18:23
Unfaithful Wife: Ex 16:1-3,44-63
harlot (KJ): Ez 16:28, Rev 17:1,15-16
Wickedness of Heart: Jer 4:14
Woman: Rev 17:3-9,18
Worship of GOD shall not be in Jerusalem: Jn 4:21

</DIV>

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Charlemagne was NOT a pope. The lineage you describe is political.

EXACTLY!
They had a "temporal" ruler and a "spiritual" ruler which both claimed ultimate, God-given earthly power as the article describes:
From www.answers.com/topic/holy-roman-empire?cat=travel
"The empire was justified by the claim that, just as the pope was the vicar of God on earth in spiritual matters, so the emperor was God's temporal vicar; hence he claimed to be the supreme temporal ruler of Christendom."

So there was a mixing of claim of spiritual/temporal power of the earth for centuries by the Holy Roman Empire. They would do this under the name of Christ/Christendom!!!

Doesn't the pope today still claim ultimate, God-given spiritual authority on earth today?