The Fall of Babylon = America

[Guest Shaggy Flasko]

Whew, happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I've not been around enough to form a cotent response lately, but here goes.

Take it out of the interpretational vaccuum you have placed it in and instead look at the context. Almost every person that attempts to interpret the Bible, including myself, will make this mistake often. We tend to look at one verse to get the meaning whilst ignoring everything else around it. Context is key.

***I agree.

You have still ignored the key point that Jerusalem, the physical city, is and always has been considered the Lord's city, the city of David. Babylon is considered the city of Satan, the antithesis of Jerusalem. God established His "headquarters" in Jerusalem (via the temple) and alternatively Satan established His in Babylon. Satan does everything in the opposite manner, Babylon in the Bible has traditionally been the evil refelction of Jerusalem in the Bible. Why is it, then, that an apostle, specifically a Jew, would draw a correlation between the two and not just name Jerusalem if he meant Babylon? In fact, the two cities are mentioned. Likewise, Jerusalem refers to a specific city everywhere in the Bible. Babylon refers to a city, a nation, an empire, a form of beleif, an economic system, etc. The two simply do not work in the Hebraic paradigm if one was to try and draw a correlation between the two. It is literally impossible to do.

***And you have still completely ignored the most imperative question, upon which my current case rests.

Who killed the apostles and prophets and was responsible for all the righteous blood shed on earth?

If you can disprove me on this point, I will gladly concede. However, I am yet convinced that it can be none other than the apostate Jews of the first century, represented by earthly Jerusalem and symbolized as Babylon.

The physical Jerusalem was simply a shadow of the Holy City. It appears to me that you've placed the New Testament in an "interpretational vaccuum" of a first-century, jewish, nationalistic mindset. God's Holy City, the place of his tabernacle is within his people. The author tells us that the physical establishment was only a symbol of the good things Christ would bring at a "time of reformation" when the outer tabernacle would no longer stand.

Hebrews 9

8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

10since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

It's not only the physical city that I, and I believe the author, is referring to. Jerusalem is often used as a symbol of those under God's covenant. At first, it was the physical economy of national Israel. Now, however, God has established his peculiar nation, called by faith, which is the spiritual Israel represented by the heavenly Jerusalem in Christ.

God has likewise judged many other cities. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD. The prophecy of Babylon, even if you hold to the belief that Christ returned in 70AD (guess it slipped His mind to tell us) does not match what occured in Jerusalem. Jerusalem still stands, no one mourned over its destruction (in fact, many Romans celebrated), it was destroyed by Romans and not by God, and it was a very insignificant city in the Roman economic empire. The two simply do not match.

***You completely missed my point. Christ specifically points to the Jews and Jerusalem as those who killed the apostles, prophets and ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED ON EARTH. Doesn't this sound familiar at all?

Revelation 18

24"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

John quotes Christ concerning Babylon!

This is a mishandling of scripture. Paul is not trying to say that Jerusalem was not a spiritual city or one chosen by God at all. Instead he is making a distinction between Judaism and Christianity.

***Indeed. He was drawing a demarcation between carnal and apostate Judaism, represented by the earthly city of Jerusalem which was a type and shadow of the good things to come, just like the eartly tabernacle, and the faithful and Holy City established in Christ for his body of believers in faith.

Interpreting Babylon as an economic and religious system IS looking at the symbolic representation of Babylon. If I took it literally then I would actually believe Babylon is a real city, the actual city and location would be Babylon. Instead I leave it open to interpertation by looking to the meaning.

***But...the references to economy must be literal, right?

Yet the Bible does not say this was the sign of Babylon.

***Actually, I must say that you are obviously mistaken on this point.

Revelation 17

6And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.

Revelation 18

20"Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her."

24"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

Luke 13

33"Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.

That's in reference to the two witnesses who died in Jerusalem, not Babylon.

***Revelation 17

18"The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Revelation 11

8And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

If Babylon was meant to be Jerusalem, why did John make a point to show these two witnesses died in Jerusalem? Why did he just not say they died in Babylon?

***It's a symbolic book. You above all should understand that, having chided me about reading from a Hebrew mindset. I have a better question. How could it be any more clear that it was Jerusalem, who killed the prophets, saints, the Lord Christ, and was guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth?

Likewise, it was not Jerusalem that killed the prophets or the apostles. It was Israel (Samaria) that killed the prophets...Judah's (Jerusalem) prophets mostly lived. Likewise, it was the Roman Empire under Nero, not Jerusalem, that killed the apostles.

***That's not what the Bible says.

Luke 13

33"Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

I fail to see how this proves Jeruslam is Babylon. If anything, what John is trying to convey to us is that this system that is yet to come will persecute Christians and kill them.

***No, because the first-century Jews were held in judgment for the deaths of all the apostles, prophets and all the righteous blood shed on the earth.

Notice the verse before and after verse 20. Sea captains mourned over its loss in verse 19. How and why would sea captains mourn over a city that has no port nor has ever had a port?

***Symbolism in prophetic literature? It's the Hebrew mindset that John is displaying, I think.

Likewise, if, as in your belief, Jerusalem is Babylon (and you likewise believe this has already come to pass) why does it still exist (verse 21 says it shouldn't)?

***I have no choice but to say that this is fulfilled....

Revelation 18

20"Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her."

21Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.

22"And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer;

23and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery.

24"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

I think maybe you meant chapter 27

***Hehe, thanks.

Again, this was fulfilled in 70AD when they were exiled out of Judea, yet this was not done in the fashion of how Babylon was prophecied to fall.

***So, the Great City where the Lord was crucified has already been judged?

This has nothing to do with Babylon. If anything, this proves that Jerusalem was not the only place that was persecuting Christians. Thessalonica was in Macidonia, not exactly Israel or Jerusalem

***Maybe I should be more specific. Jerusalem, representing the first-century Jewish economy.

1 Thessalonians 2

14...the Jews,

15who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out...

I refuse to say that the Catholic church is Babylon.

***I meant the Body of Christ itself, not any earthly institution. Sorry, I should've been more clear.

That analogy does not work in any way with the fall of Babylon unless you are saying that the religion of Jerusalem and the spiritual blessings you speak of were created and then destroyed by Satan. Babylon is built by Satan and destroyed by God. Revelation 18 draws a distinction between financial gain in Babylon and the religion of Babylon. If you interpret the financial gain part as "spiritual gain" then why is this not included in the religion of Babylon as well? Are you asserting that the Judaism of old was created by Satan?

It is easy to say "I think this represents..." but when pushed for proof it becomes much harder.

***This is one aspect upon which I'm still in transition. So, that's why I chose the phrase "I think".

I'm not saying it isn't. All I am saying is that Babylon in revelation represents a political/economic super power...one that is so mighty and powerful that all the nations rely on it completely for everything. Likewise, it produces a religious system once the anti-christ takes power there. I have no idea what city this will actually be. I have no idea if it will be the literal Babylon (though I doubt it seeing as how Babylon has no ports and borders no seas...) or if it could be Babylon, New York (which yes, actually does exist). All I know is what the city will look like politically and economically. As for guess which city it will be, your guess is as good as mine.

***Is this part of the Hebrew mindset? By the literalism, it sounds more like modern evangelical to me.

Consider this about the waters upon which the harlot sits.

Revelation 17

15And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.

Literal?

Before you reply to any of this, answer this question. Who killed the apostles and prophets and was responsible for all the blood shed on the earth?

God bless.

-Bill

[apothanein kerdos]

***And you have still completely ignored the most imperative question, upon which my current case rests.

Who killed the apostles and prophets and was responsible for all the righteous blood shed on earth?

Who hasn't? If we want to be direct, the ones that killed the prophets would be Israel, Assyria, and Babylon. The ones that killed the Apostles would be the Romans (under Nero and local govenors), the Sassadins, and the Nubian Empire. There were others, but that is primarily what occured. With the Romans it was often the Greeks, Romans, or Jews that tried to get the apostles tried. According to most tradition, almost all of the apostles died at the hands of the Romans accused by Greeks.

If you can disprove me on this point, I will gladly concede. However, I am yet convinced that it can be none other than the apostate Jews of the first century, represented by earthly Jerusalem and symbolized as Babylon.

Okay. We only have one example of a Christian being killed by Jewish leaders (Stephen). The persecution the Jews laid on the early Christians (who were Jews) ammounted to imprisonment yet most of the time they were released by the Pharisees. I fail to see how this constituted having the blood of the apostles upon Jerusalem when Jerusalem didn't kill any apostles.

Yet when we compare this to Paul's dealings with the Romans, we see he was stoned and left for dead, then taken to Rome and, as tradition dictates, beheaded (and Peter killed).

The only Apostle killed that could be blamed on the Jews is James, who was killed by Herod (yet who would have had to gain permission from the Romans to do this). Yet he is the only Apostle supposedly killed in Judea by a Jew.

Peter was hung upside down in Rome by the Romans, Matthew was killed in Ethiopia, John was boiled alive (but escaped) under Roman hands, Bartholomew was killed in Armenia, Andrew was crucified in the Greek style in Greece (on an X cross), Thomas was killed with a spear in India, and Paul was beheaded. All of these occured at the hands of Gentiles in lands far away from Jerusalem.

The physical Jerusalem was simply a shadow of the Holy City. It appears to me that you've placed the New Testament in an "interpretational vaccuum" of a first-century, jewish, nationalistic mindset. God's Holy City, the place of his tabernacle is within his people. The author tells us that the physical establishment was only a symbol of the good things Christ would bring at a "time of reformation" when the outer tabernacle would no longer stand.

There is nothing in the scripture to even come close to saying this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that scripture states this.

Hebrews 9

8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

10since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

He is speaking about how Christ entered through a holy tabernacle, how he made the old sacrificial system go away. This has nothing to do with Jerusalem but instead with the temple. Jerusalem was God's city before there was even a temple.

***You completely missed my point. Christ specifically points to the Jews and Jerusalem as those who killed the apostles, prophets and ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED ON EARTH. Doesn't this sound familiar at all?

Revelation 18

24"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

John quotes Christ concerning Babylon!

You ignored the fact that the destruction of Babylong does not match the destruction of Jersualem in 70AD. How do you bring the two together? You continue to ignore this fact Also, Jesus does NOT point to the Jews as the ones who killed the apostles or the prophets. Instead He points to the PHARISEES, the leaders of Judaism, as the ones that did this.

***Indeed. He was drawing a demarcation between carnal and apostate Judaism, represented by the earthly city of Jerusalem which was a type and shadow of the good things to come, just like the eartly tabernacle, and the faithful and Holy City established in Christ for his body of believers in faith.

Prove it. I used interpretational skills and showed why Paul wasn't. You simply say, "No, this is what it means' but provide absolutely no substance to validate the claim.

***But...the references to economy must be literal, right?

What else woudl it be? It specifically speaks of the economy, what else would that stand for? BEfore you answer that, provide warrants for such interpretation.

***Revelation 17

18"The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Revelation 11

8And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

That is your interpretative warrant? Great city? That's it?!

Great city, in the Hebrew paradigm, refers to any city of significance, importance, or any other reason. It doesn't mean they are the same. In Revelation 21:10 the new Jerusalem is called a "great city" as well, why does it not qualify as Babylon?

***It's a symbolic book. You above all should understand that, having chided me about reading from a Hebrew mindset. I have a better question. How could it be any more clear that it was Jerusalem, who killed the prophets, saints, the Lord Christ, and was guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth?

You avert the point and offer absolutely no analysis, warrants, or reason why it being "symbolic" nullifies the fact there is a distinction between Jerusalem and Babylon. From a Hebraic mindset, showing Jerusalem and Babylon shows the battle between good (Jerusalem) and evil (Babylon). Using Jerusalem to refer to Babylon would not work in a Hebraic mindset (as I proved) simply because the two are mutually exclusive, in physicality and symbolism.

As for killing saints, Jerusalem didn't, as I proved.

Luke 13

33"Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

Jerusalem here is in reference to the nation of Israel (Israel and Judah), not to the actual city. I press for scripture showing a prophet died in Jerusalem...from the Old Testament by name.

Fact is, you won't find it. Instead Jesus is lamenting over the entirety of Israel and how they have continually rejected God.

***No, because the first-century Jews were held in judgment for the deaths of all the apostles, prophets and all the righteous blood shed on the earth.

But the destruction of Babylon comes by the hand of God. The persecution of the Jews came at the hands of nations. This was foretold in Hosea when they are raped by the nations and regathered at a later date.

***Symbolism in prophetic literature? It's the Hebrew mindset that John is displaying, I think.

WHAT?! Again, no warrants or interpratative analysis. YOu can't just say "Hebraic mindset" and leave it at that. WHy is it symbolic? Why does the mindset matter?

***I have no choice but to say that this is fulfilled....

Revelation 18

20"Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her."

21Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.

22"And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer;

23and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery.

24"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

Why does Jerusalem still exist?

***So, the Great City where the Lord was crucified has already been judged?

I am saying the Jews have already fulfilled part of the prophecy in Hosea, Isaiah, and Zecheriah about being exiled due to their sin. Part of that was losing Jerusalem, yet they recovered it (the other part of the prophecy).

***Maybe I should be more specific. Jerusalem, representing the first-century Jewish economy.

You're kidding, right? Jewish economy? There was none, it was Roman. Jerusalem was "back water" for a reason, it had nothing to offer. Again, the passage specifiically states persecution and death at the hands of Greeks....it nullifies your position.

1 Thessalonians 2

14...the Jews,

15who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out...

Chopping scripture doesn't help the interpretation. Fact remains, Gentiles caused persecution too.

***Is this part of the Hebrew mindset? By the literalism, it sounds more like modern evangelical to me.

The evangelical mindset more often than not tries to place a city to Babylon (or a nation). I'm not completely convinced that it will even be an actual city but instead an economic system. This would fall more in line with the Hebraic mindset and symbolism presented.

Revelation 17

15And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.

Literal?

No, but that's because it's explained. What's your point?

Before you reply to any of this, answer this question. Who killed the apostles and prophets and was responsible for all the blood shed on the earth?

Who hasn't killed them? The Romans, Armenians, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Sudanese, etc have all killed Christians. What is your point?

Fact is, you believe Christ returned in 70AD, thus you HAVE to believe Jerusalem is Babylon. Yet again, I must ask, why are the destruction of Babylon and Jerusalem different?

[Guest Shaggy Flasko]

Who hasn't? If we want to be direct, the ones that killed the prophets would be Israel, Assyria, and Babylon.

***Do the scriptures ever refer to OT Assyria or Babylon as the ones who killed the prophets and the saints, guilty of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth?

The ones that killed the Apostles would be the Romans (under Nero and local govenors), the Sassadins, and the Nubian Empire. There were others, but that is primarily what occured. With the Romans it was often the Greeks, Romans, or Jews that tried to get the apostles tried. According to most tradition, almost all of the apostles died at the hands of the Romans accused by Greeks.

***Can you give me some evidence from the scriptures that the Romans were held guilty of the blood of the apostles, prophets, or the Lord Christ?

[apothanein kerdos]

Ah, a fanatic, okay

When I point out historical proof and then someone says it has to be backed with scripture, I'm out of that discussion because it's silly. "Do you have proof from scripture that the Romans killed Christians".......um......yeah......see ya later, that's just silly.

"Roman empire fell"

"Prove it in scripture, where does it say that?"

Yeah....

Edited November 26, 2005 by Super Jew

[BlindSeeker]

Who killed the apostles, prophets, and saints, and was guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth?

Those that depart from God's truths and hate those that that believe and live it.

1. Cain and Able

2. Korah and Moses

3.

[Guest Shaggy Flasko]

Ah, a fanatic, okay

***Do you believe that I'm marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion? Thanks.

When I point out historical proof and then someone says it has to be backed with scripture, I'm out of that discussion because it's silly.

***Our discussion has become futile if you don't hold the scripture as an authority.

"Do you have proof from scripture that the Romans killed Christians".......um......yeah......see ya later, that's just silly.

***Who incited the persecution? Who held the responsibility for their deaths? Christ says that their blood was upon the hands of the first-century Jews. But, hey, why listen to Jesus Christ?

"Roman empire fell"

"Prove it in scripture, where does it say that?"

Yeah....

***Hmm, I don't remember that particular part of our discussion. In the future, perhaps your arguments would do well to use the scriptures as more than a last resort.

God bless.

-Bill

[BlindSeeker]

Regarding the scriptural fall of the old Roman Empire . . .

Da 2:42 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.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Of course in Daniel's day it was a prophecy . . . to us it is history.

[apothanein kerdos]

Your interpretation of scripture contradicts solid historical fact. Thus I am more apt to trust history than your interpretation. If you are suggesting that scripture trumps history, then you're wrong In my view the two go hand in hand, and if something we read in scripture does not match up historically then we are most likely interpreting it incorrectly. As it stands, there is solid historical proof that the Armenians, Parthians, Sassadins, And Romans all persecuted and killed Christians. That is the history of it. Furthermore, even if the Jews were responsible for a handful of first century deaths, you still fail to prove why this makes them Babylon AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY why the historical fall of Jerusalem is completely different than the fall of Babylon in Revelation. Furthermore you have yet to explain why, if Jerusalem and Babylon are the same thing, they are refered to as two different things in Revelation.

However, I am done with this discussion at the point that you completely deny history just to fit into your interpretation...when a person does that any interpretaiton he or she makes need not be taken seriously because it is painfully obvious that proper interpretation is not occuring. In order to interpret properly history MUST be looked to.

[penfold]

I am not surprised you are finished with this discussion.

You are so mean to one another I am really shocked.

I am deeply respectful of the hebrew mindset and it's opinion on the word as I think it lends something truly unique as after all Jesus was a JEW!

I am not Jewish by birth but we have a shared heritage and we should be respecting one another in love and sharing our thoughts considerately.

I have had the pleasure of knowing some messianic jews and once they understand that everyone's sin that killed Jesus not the Jews or Romans then they really can come into a full relationship with Christ. It is a beautiful thing to see because the scriptures they know so well come alive in a new way.

Having said that I believe the Bible might have been written Thousands of years ago it is "living and active" and God knew that we would be reading it in England in 2005 and therefore a modern evangelical perspective is as valid.

Come on guys- love one another.

[apothanein kerdos]

I do love Bill. It was a friendly parlay.