Mystery, Babylon the Great - earthly Jerusalem?
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
point by point refutation of the proof texting...posted earlier today by me in another thread...to be spread out over several posts...
regarding revelation 17:5-6...'drunken with the blood of saints and with the blood of the martyrs of jesus'...by the time revelation was written the romans had martyred far more christians than jerusalem...paul and peter among them... any reader would have thought about rome when they read about the blood of the martyrs...not jerusalem... this isn't to say that the harlot is rome...only to show that the biblical description of the harlot is not specific to jerusalem...since jerusalem isn't even the best fit...
regarding isaiah 1:21...the prophet called jerusalem a harlot around 800 BC...this does not prove that every reference to harlotry in scripture refers to jerusalem... harlotry in scripture stands for pagan idolatry as can be seen from numerous other passages...pagan idolatry was not even one of jerusalem's primary sins in AD 70...and many other cities were far more guilty of pagan idolatry...in fact most of the world was more idolatrous than jerusalem at that point...
regarding matthew 12:39...jesus says that an evil and adulterous -generation- asks for a sign...nothing is said about a -city- being adulterous... the generation being adulterous would again make it clear that this description is not specific to jerusalem...
regarding revelation 17:5-6...'drunken with the blood of saints and with the blood of the martyrs of jesus'...by the time revelation was written the romans had martyred far more christians than jerusalem...paul and peter among them... any reader would have thought about rome when they read about the blood of the martyrs...not jerusalem... this isn't to say that the harlot is rome...only to show that the biblical description of the harlot is not specific to jerusalem...since jerusalem isn't even the best fit...
regarding isaiah 1:21...the prophet called jerusalem a harlot around 800 BC...this does not prove that every reference to harlotry in scripture refers to jerusalem... harlotry in scripture stands for pagan idolatry as can be seen from numerous other passages...pagan idolatry was not even one of jerusalem's primary sins in AD 70...and many other cities were far more guilty of pagan idolatry...in fact most of the world was more idolatrous than jerusalem at that point...
regarding matthew 12:39...jesus says that an evil and adulterous -generation- asks for a sign...nothing is said about a -city- being adulterous... the generation being adulterous would again make it clear that this description is not specific to jerusalem...
R
deuteronomy 29:14-28...is about God's covenant with israel as a nation...the individual city of jerusalem is not even mentioned... and the sin moses refers to here is the sin of worshipping the gods of other nations...which is never mentioned among the sins of jerusalem in the new testament era... finally the curses moses mentions are said to have fallen on the entire land...not just the city of jerusalem...
isaiah 1:1-10...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...and the text refers to the entire nation and people and country and multiple cities...not just the single city of jerusalem... finally 'sodom and gomorrah' in isaiah is an allusional mismatch with 'sodom and egypt' in revelation...they do not correspond...
isaiah 1:1-10...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...and the text refers to the entire nation and people and country and multiple cities...not just the single city of jerusalem... finally 'sodom and gomorrah' in isaiah is an allusional mismatch with 'sodom and egypt' in revelation...they do not correspond...
R
jeremiah 23:13-14...already fulfilled for samaria and jerusalem in 722 BC and 586 BC respectively... and as i already pointed out 'sodom and gomorrah' and 'sodom and egypt' are a mismatch...
romans 9:27-29 and paul's quotation of isaiah 1:9...it says the lord will carry out his sentence -upon the earth-...not on jerusalem only... and as i already pointed out the context of isaiah 1 talks about the nation and people and country and multiple cities...not the single city of jerusalem...
revelation 11:1-8...once again 'sodom and gomorrah' and 'sodom and egypt' are an allusional mismatch...if john had meant for us to refer back to isaiah or jeremiah he would have said 'sodom and gomorrah'...not 'sodom and egypt'
romans 9:27-29 and paul's quotation of isaiah 1:9...it says the lord will carry out his sentence -upon the earth-...not on jerusalem only... and as i already pointed out the context of isaiah 1 talks about the nation and people and country and multiple cities...not the single city of jerusalem...
revelation 11:1-8...once again 'sodom and gomorrah' and 'sodom and egypt' are an allusional mismatch...if john had meant for us to refer back to isaiah or jeremiah he would have said 'sodom and gomorrah'...not 'sodom and egypt'
R
jeremiah 4:30-31...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
revelation 17:4-6 and revelation 18:16-17...another allusional mismatch...babylon wears purple and scarlet and is adorned with gold and jewels and pearls...jeremiah's 'desolate one' is dressed only in scarlet and adorned only with gold ornaments...additionally the 'desolate one' of jeremiah paints her eyes while babylon does not... if john had meant for us to refer back to jeremiah he would have made the details match up...especially given the symbolic significance of the purple and scarlet worn by babylon...
revelation 17:4-6 and revelation 18:16-17...another allusional mismatch...babylon wears purple and scarlet and is adorned with gold and jewels and pearls...jeremiah's 'desolate one' is dressed only in scarlet and adorned only with gold ornaments...additionally the 'desolate one' of jeremiah paints her eyes while babylon does not... if john had meant for us to refer back to jeremiah he would have made the details match up...especially given the symbolic significance of the purple and scarlet worn by babylon...
R
lamentations 1:1...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
revelation 18:7-8...'queen' in revelation and 'princess' in lamentations are another allusional mismatch...if john had intended for us to refer to lamentations then he would have made them match... moreover...jerusalem was not destroyed in a single day...it was destroyed in a multiple day battle after a long siege...so jerusalem does not fit john's description...
revelation 11:8...as i already showed...hebrews 13:12 indicates that jesus was crucified -outside- the city...not inside jerusalem...
revelation 18:7-8...'queen' in revelation and 'princess' in lamentations are another allusional mismatch...if john had intended for us to refer to lamentations then he would have made them match... moreover...jerusalem was not destroyed in a single day...it was destroyed in a multiple day battle after a long siege...so jerusalem does not fit john's description...
revelation 11:8...as i already showed...hebrews 13:12 indicates that jesus was crucified -outside- the city...not inside jerusalem...
R
jeremiah 22:5-9...already fulfilled in 586 BC... also jeremiah mentions jerusalem becoming an uninhabited city...jerusalem did not become an uninhabited city after AD 70...people continued to live there...
revelation 18:9-10...a major allusional mismatch...the nations of the earth passing by the city in jeremiah and the kings of the earth standing far off is not a match...the inquiry of 'every man' and the response in jeremiah is also mismatched to the mourning of the kings with no response in revelation... as i keep saying...if john wanted us to refer back to jeremiah he would have made the words line up...
revelation 18:9-10...a major allusional mismatch...the nations of the earth passing by the city in jeremiah and the kings of the earth standing far off is not a match...the inquiry of 'every man' and the response in jeremiah is also mismatched to the mourning of the kings with no response in revelation... as i keep saying...if john wanted us to refer back to jeremiah he would have made the words line up...
R
revelation 17:1-6 and revelation 18:21-24...as i said already jerusalem did not become uninhabited in AD 70...jerusalem still had 'craftsmen of any craft' and 'the sound of the mill' and 'the light of a lamp' and even 'the voice of bridegroom and bride' after AD 70...so this prophecy was decidedly -not- fulfilled by the destruction of jerusalem... and like i keep pointing out...the blood of 'all who have been slain on earth' is not in jerusalem...millions of people have been slain outside of jerusalem...so mystery babylon is something much bigger than the single city of jerusalem...
luke 11:45-52...'the blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the world' is mismatched with the line from revelation...in luke jesus does not mention the blood of 'all who have been slain on earth'...only 'the blood of all the prophets'...'all who have been slain on earth' obviously includes many more people than just the prophets... if john wanted us to refer to matthew he would have made these important details line up...
luke 13:31-35 and matthew 23:29-39...as i already said...in revelation john holds babylon guilty for all bloodshed in the world...not only the killing of prophets...so this is another allusional mismatch...
matthew 24:1-2 and 34-35...'this generation' can also be translated as 'this race' or 'this age'...jesus is assuring the disciples that the world will not end until everything he spoke of is fulfilled...an assurance meant to counter claims that the end had already come or was coming so soon that there was no point in continuing the work of the church...such as the teaching troubling the thessalonians as indicated in paul's second letter to that church... the rest of the chapter...which you didn't quote...makes it clear that this is what jesus meant...because verse thirty-one mentions the last trumpet and the gathering of the elect which happen at christ's second coming according to 1 thessalonians 4:16-17...that part certainly was not fulfilled in AD 70 unless you are a heretical full preterist...
luke 11:45-52...'the blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the world' is mismatched with the line from revelation...in luke jesus does not mention the blood of 'all who have been slain on earth'...only 'the blood of all the prophets'...'all who have been slain on earth' obviously includes many more people than just the prophets... if john wanted us to refer to matthew he would have made these important details line up...
luke 13:31-35 and matthew 23:29-39...as i already said...in revelation john holds babylon guilty for all bloodshed in the world...not only the killing of prophets...so this is another allusional mismatch...
matthew 24:1-2 and 34-35...'this generation' can also be translated as 'this race' or 'this age'...jesus is assuring the disciples that the world will not end until everything he spoke of is fulfilled...an assurance meant to counter claims that the end had already come or was coming so soon that there was no point in continuing the work of the church...such as the teaching troubling the thessalonians as indicated in paul's second letter to that church... the rest of the chapter...which you didn't quote...makes it clear that this is what jesus meant...because verse thirty-one mentions the last trumpet and the gathering of the elect which happen at christ's second coming according to 1 thessalonians 4:16-17...that part certainly was not fulfilled in AD 70 unless you are a heretical full preterist...
R
leviticus 26:14-25...the rest of the chapter shows that the covenant and punishments described in this passage are for the entire nation of israel...not just the city of jerusalem...
ezekiel 16:1-2 and 35-41...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...
ezekiel 23:1-4 and 11-25 and 43-47...also already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...
revelation 18:8 and 16-18...many many conquests of ancient cities included the burning of the city...this could be literally anything...
ezekiel 16:1-2 and 35-41...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...
ezekiel 23:1-4 and 11-25 and 43-47...also already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...
revelation 18:8 and 16-18...many many conquests of ancient cities included the burning of the city...this could be literally anything...
R
lamentations 2:15-18...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...
leviticus 21:7-9...this passage describes a law for dealing with literal prostitution on the part of the literal daughter of a literal priest...there is no evidence that moses intended to prophesy anything with this...and therefore no basis for applying it to jerusalem...
leviticus 21:7-9...this passage describes a law for dealing with literal prostitution on the part of the literal daughter of a literal priest...there is no evidence that moses intended to prophesy anything with this...and therefore no basis for applying it to jerusalem...
R
this is becoming repetitive...
revelation 17:1...jerusalem was an inland city that had to rely on wells...'seated on many waters' makes very little sense as a description of jerusalem...
ezekiel 16:1-3 and 26-29...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...also in this verse jerusalem plays the harlot with egypt...while revelation actually refers to the great city as 'egypt'...you can't play the harlot with yourself...
jeremiah 2:1-2 and 17-20...already fulfilled in 586 BC...and the distinction between jerusalem and egypt appears in this passage as well...which again does not match up with revelation which identifies the great city and figurative egypt as the same...
revelation 17:1...jerusalem was an inland city that had to rely on wells...'seated on many waters' makes very little sense as a description of jerusalem...
ezekiel 16:1-3 and 26-29...already fulfilled for jerusalem in 586 BC...also in this verse jerusalem plays the harlot with egypt...while revelation actually refers to the great city as 'egypt'...you can't play the harlot with yourself...
jeremiah 2:1-2 and 17-20...already fulfilled in 586 BC...and the distinction between jerusalem and egypt appears in this passage as well...which again does not match up with revelation which identifies the great city and figurative egypt as the same...
R
getting very repetitive now...
isaiah 1:1 and 21...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
jeremiah 3:1-2 and 6-8...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
jeremiah 5:1 and 5-8...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
ezekiel 23:1-4 and 11 and 17-19...already fulfilled in 586 BC...and the distinction between jerusalem and egypt is made again here...jerusalem played the harlot in the land of egypt... whereas in revelation the great city is itself called egypt...and you can't play the harlot with yourself...
isaiah 1:1 and 21...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
jeremiah 3:1-2 and 6-8...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
jeremiah 5:1 and 5-8...already fulfilled in 586 BC...
ezekiel 23:1-4 and 11 and 17-19...already fulfilled in 586 BC...and the distinction between jerusalem and egypt is made again here...jerusalem played the harlot in the land of egypt... whereas in revelation the great city is itself called egypt...and you can't play the harlot with yourself...
R
romans 9:27-29...already addressed...
romans 11:2-5...non sequitur...'mystery babylon is jerusalem' does not follow from the fact that there is a jewish remnant...
revelation 18...'come out of her' could apply to any place where some of God's people reside...much too vague to be applied specifically to jerusalem...
jeremiah 31:31-33 and ezekiel 37:26-27...already fulfilled by christ for the church...has nothing to do with AD 70...
hebrews 13:10-14...describes the city of God's people as a figurative or spiritual city...by analogy the city of babylon should also be a figurative or spiritual city...
revelation 11:8...already pointed out that hebrews 13:12 indicates that jesus was crucified outside of jerusalem...john was certainly aware of the actual location of jesus' crucifixion...since he was there...and therefore he was not referring to jerusalem when he refers to the place where jesus was crucified...
galatians 4:24-26 and 30...earthly jerusalem is compared with hagar...not babylon... additionally hagar was never considered a harlot... and moreover the jews continued to inhabit jerusalem for over half a century after AD 70...they were not 'cast out' at that time...
and so after wading through all of your eisegetical slop...your argument comes down to dispensationalist style reinterpretations of -already fulfilled- prophecy...and often badly mismatched phrases that you mistakenly believe to be allusions to the old testament or to the words of jesus...
your doctrine that mystery babylon the harlot is jerusalem has been systematically dismantled and disproved proof text by proof text...jerusalem does not fit the description john gives of mystery babylon the harlot...neither literally nor in the old testament figurative passages...
you are really without excuse now if you continue to push this false doctrine...
if you want to arrive at a correct interpretation...revelation 17 must be thoughtfully compared with revelation 12... rule of proximity...revelation is usually its own dictionary...revelation 12 tells us what the symbol of a woman means in the rest of the book...we don't need to go to hezekiah 162:45 to find out what john is talking about...
romans 11:2-5...non sequitur...'mystery babylon is jerusalem' does not follow from the fact that there is a jewish remnant...
revelation 18...'come out of her' could apply to any place where some of God's people reside...much too vague to be applied specifically to jerusalem...
jeremiah 31:31-33 and ezekiel 37:26-27...already fulfilled by christ for the church...has nothing to do with AD 70...
hebrews 13:10-14...describes the city of God's people as a figurative or spiritual city...by analogy the city of babylon should also be a figurative or spiritual city...
revelation 11:8...already pointed out that hebrews 13:12 indicates that jesus was crucified outside of jerusalem...john was certainly aware of the actual location of jesus' crucifixion...since he was there...and therefore he was not referring to jerusalem when he refers to the place where jesus was crucified...
galatians 4:24-26 and 30...earthly jerusalem is compared with hagar...not babylon... additionally hagar was never considered a harlot... and moreover the jews continued to inhabit jerusalem for over half a century after AD 70...they were not 'cast out' at that time...
and so after wading through all of your eisegetical slop...your argument comes down to dispensationalist style reinterpretations of -already fulfilled- prophecy...and often badly mismatched phrases that you mistakenly believe to be allusions to the old testament or to the words of jesus...
your doctrine that mystery babylon the harlot is jerusalem has been systematically dismantled and disproved proof text by proof text...jerusalem does not fit the description john gives of mystery babylon the harlot...neither literally nor in the old testament figurative passages...
you are really without excuse now if you continue to push this false doctrine...
if you want to arrive at a correct interpretation...revelation 17 must be thoughtfully compared with revelation 12... rule of proximity...revelation is usually its own dictionary...revelation 12 tells us what the symbol of a woman means in the rest of the book...we don't need to go to hezekiah 162:45 to find out what john is talking about...
R
this so called 'match' is very poor...
if john had intended us to recall what jesus had taught about the destruction of jerusalem...he would have made the details match up more precisely to make the allusion clearer...
and jesus wasn't talking about the text on 'mystery babylon'...or -anything- in the book of revelation for that matter...when he spoke of 'all things which are written' being fulfilled...the book of revelation -wasn't written yet- when jesus spoke those words!
sloppy eisegesis is all this 'matching' is...
if john had intended us to recall what jesus had taught about the destruction of jerusalem...he would have made the details match up more precisely to make the allusion clearer...
and jesus wasn't talking about the text on 'mystery babylon'...or -anything- in the book of revelation for that matter...when he spoke of 'all things which are written' being fulfilled...the book of revelation -wasn't written yet- when jesus spoke those words!
sloppy eisegesis is all this 'matching' is...
D
Merchants of the earth growing rich by reason of her luxuries
Merchants weeping and mourning over her destruction
By her sorceries ALL nations were deceived.....
People are also going to exclaim "Was there ever a city like this great city?"
Jerusalem doesn't fit that profile. Very few people would weep about Jerusalem world wide. I'd even wager that half the world would rejoice in song and dance if it were destroyed tomorrow.
Merchants weeping and mourning over her destruction
By her sorceries ALL nations were deceived.....
People are also going to exclaim "Was there ever a city like this great city?"
Jerusalem doesn't fit that profile. Very few people would weep about Jerusalem world wide. I'd even wager that half the world would rejoice in song and dance if it were destroyed tomorrow.
R
on 'that whole great city thing'...the description of the 'great city' in revelation doesn't match up with jerusalem...specifically jesus was not crucified in jerusalem according to hebrews 13:12...he was crucified outside the city gate...which means he was no longer in jerusalem...
john of course knew exactly where jesus was crucified because he was there...if he wanted us to think of jerusalem he could have very easily made the details actually match up...but he didn't...
john of course knew exactly where jesus was crucified because he was there...if he wanted us to think of jerusalem he could have very easily made the details actually match up...but he didn't...
Who or what is the great prostitute of Revelation 17?
What has puzzled me over the years is not the identity of “the great prostitute,” but how so many could mistake her historical identity. On the one hand, hundreds of prophecy experts misidentify the great prostitute as the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. On the other, hundreds of commentators identify the great harlot as ancient (or revived) imperial Rome. The application of the historical principle of biblical interpretation, however, demonstrates that, either way, this is a clear case of mistaken identity.
First, in biblical history only one nation is inextricably linked to the moniker “harlot.” And that nation is Israel! Anyone who has read the Bible even once has flashbacks to the graphic images of apostate Israel when they first encounter the great prostitute of Revelation. From the Pentateuch to the Prophets, the image is repeated endlessly. Verse by verse, the painful picture of a people who prostitute themselves with pagan deities emerges (see, e.g., Jeremiah 2:20–24; 3:2–3; Ezekiel 23:9–20). The prostituted bride had little interest in seeking intimacy with God in his temple. Instead, she craved intimacy with foreign gods on the threshing floors of perverse temples (Hosea 9:1).
Furthermore, the fact that Revelation is a virtual recapitulation of Ezekiel adds credibility to the notion that apostate Israel is the great prostitute depicted in Revelation 17. Nowhere are the parallels more poignant than in Ezekiel 16 and Revelation 17—sequentially linked and memorable. In both Ezekiel and Revelation, the prostitute commits adultery with the kings of the earth; is dressed in splendor; glitters with gold and precious jewels; and is intoxicated with the blood of the righteous. And that is but a glimpse of her unveiling. In Ezekiel, the prostitution of Jerusalem made that of her sisters— Samaria and Sodom—look insignificant by comparison. And in Revelation she is in bed with imperial Rome.
In the end, the great prostitute aligns herself with Caesar in piercing Christ and persecuting Christians. The golden cup in her hand is filled with “the blood of prophets and of the saints and of all who have been killed on the earth” (Revelation 18:24). Shrouded in mystery, she was glorious—like “the most beautiful of jewels” (Ezekiel 16:7). Unveiled as apostate Israel, she is grotesque.
Finally, when we consider the fact that the essence of Revelation involves a contrast between the purified bride and a prostituted bride, the identity of apostate Israel as the great prostitute becomes unmistakable. While the prostituted bride bears the mark, “Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth” (17:5), the purified bride bears the moniker of the Lord and the Lamb on her forehead.
- Hank Hanegraaff
What has puzzled me over the years is not the identity of “the great prostitute,” but how so many could mistake her historical identity. On the one hand, hundreds of prophecy experts misidentify the great prostitute as the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. On the other, hundreds of commentators identify the great harlot as ancient (or revived) imperial Rome. The application of the historical principle of biblical interpretation, however, demonstrates that, either way, this is a clear case of mistaken identity.
First, in biblical history only one nation is inextricably linked to the moniker “harlot.” And that nation is Israel! Anyone who has read the Bible even once has flashbacks to the graphic images of apostate Israel when they first encounter the great prostitute of Revelation. From the Pentateuch to the Prophets, the image is repeated endlessly. Verse by verse, the painful picture of a people who prostitute themselves with pagan deities emerges (see, e.g., Jeremiah 2:20–24; 3:2–3; Ezekiel 23:9–20). The prostituted bride had little interest in seeking intimacy with God in his temple. Instead, she craved intimacy with foreign gods on the threshing floors of perverse temples (Hosea 9:1).
Furthermore, the fact that Revelation is a virtual recapitulation of Ezekiel adds credibility to the notion that apostate Israel is the great prostitute depicted in Revelation 17. Nowhere are the parallels more poignant than in Ezekiel 16 and Revelation 17—sequentially linked and memorable. In both Ezekiel and Revelation, the prostitute commits adultery with the kings of the earth; is dressed in splendor; glitters with gold and precious jewels; and is intoxicated with the blood of the righteous. And that is but a glimpse of her unveiling. In Ezekiel, the prostitution of Jerusalem made that of her sisters— Samaria and Sodom—look insignificant by comparison. And in Revelation she is in bed with imperial Rome.
In the end, the great prostitute aligns herself with Caesar in piercing Christ and persecuting Christians. The golden cup in her hand is filled with “the blood of prophets and of the saints and of all who have been killed on the earth” (Revelation 18:24). Shrouded in mystery, she was glorious—like “the most beautiful of jewels” (Ezekiel 16:7). Unveiled as apostate Israel, she is grotesque.
Finally, when we consider the fact that the essence of Revelation involves a contrast between the purified bride and a prostituted bride, the identity of apostate Israel as the great prostitute becomes unmistakable. While the prostituted bride bears the mark, “Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth” (17:5), the purified bride bears the moniker of the Lord and the Lamb on her forehead.
- Hank Hanegraaff
Problems with Adventist Truth about Babylon the Harlot
1. Is Catholicism the Harlot?
Revelation 17:8 unlocks the identity of the woman:
And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Most people take a quick look at the last part of the verse, "reigneth over the kings of the earth", and immediately conclude the "great city" must be Rome, the city that ruled the world. Adventists take a twist on that, and interpret the city as papal Rome. However, Strong's notes that the Greek word for "reigneth" is basileia, which can be used to refer to a "dominion" that is "not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom."
Under the Old Covenant, Jerusalem was the seat of God's government and His power upon this earth:
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem... (Joel 3:16)
Blessed be the LORD out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. (Ps. 135.21)
...they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem... (Jer. 3:17)
...thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain... (Dan. 9:16)
...The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem... (Amos 1:2)
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD...for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Mic. 4:2)
Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain. (Zec. 8:3)
Jesus warned people not to swear "by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King." (Matt. 5:35)
Cyrus was ruler of the largest empire on the earth, and could have built a temple in any city, but notice what he says:
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem.
Thus, even pagan kings recognized Jerusalem as the center of God's spiritual kingdom upon this earth.
In the Old Testament, Jerusalem was recognized as a "great" city:
Now the city [was] large and great... (Neh. 7:4)
Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city? (Jer. 22:8)
How doth the city sit solitary, [that was] full of people! [how] is she become as a widow! she [that was] great among the nations... (Lam. 1:1)
In Revelation, John specifically says the "great city" was the location where Jesus was crucified:
And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8)
Here John gives us a not-so-subtle hint about the identity of the "great city". Was Jesus cruficied in Rome? No. In Babylon?
No. In Jerusalem? YES!
John even refers to the New Jerusalem as the "great city":
...and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God... (Rev. 21:10)
The Bible evidence is simply overwhelming that the "great city" is a reference to Jerusalem, the seat of God's power, authority and dominion upon this earth.
cont......
1. Is Catholicism the Harlot?
Revelation 17:8 unlocks the identity of the woman:
And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Most people take a quick look at the last part of the verse, "reigneth over the kings of the earth", and immediately conclude the "great city" must be Rome, the city that ruled the world. Adventists take a twist on that, and interpret the city as papal Rome. However, Strong's notes that the Greek word for "reigneth" is basileia, which can be used to refer to a "dominion" that is "not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom."
Under the Old Covenant, Jerusalem was the seat of God's government and His power upon this earth:
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem... (Joel 3:16)
Blessed be the LORD out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. (Ps. 135.21)
...they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem... (Jer. 3:17)
...thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain... (Dan. 9:16)
...The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem... (Amos 1:2)
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD...for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Mic. 4:2)
Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain. (Zec. 8:3)
Jesus warned people not to swear "by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King." (Matt. 5:35)
Cyrus was ruler of the largest empire on the earth, and could have built a temple in any city, but notice what he says:
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem.
Thus, even pagan kings recognized Jerusalem as the center of God's spiritual kingdom upon this earth.
In the Old Testament, Jerusalem was recognized as a "great" city:
Now the city [was] large and great... (Neh. 7:4)
Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city? (Jer. 22:8)
How doth the city sit solitary, [that was] full of people! [how] is she become as a widow! she [that was] great among the nations... (Lam. 1:1)
In Revelation, John specifically says the "great city" was the location where Jesus was crucified:
And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8)
Here John gives us a not-so-subtle hint about the identity of the "great city". Was Jesus cruficied in Rome? No. In Babylon?
No. In Jerusalem? YES!
John even refers to the New Jerusalem as the "great city":
...and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God... (Rev. 21:10)
The Bible evidence is simply overwhelming that the "great city" is a reference to Jerusalem, the seat of God's power, authority and dominion upon this earth.
cont......
Last edited:
Problems with Adventist Truth about Babylon the Harlot
2. Are Protestant churches also harlots?
If Catholicism is the "mother" harlot, and Protestant churches--being the children of the Catholic Church--are also harlots, then what does that make Seventh-day Adventits? The grand-children of the harlots?
As we have seen above, Jerusalem is the "harlot" of Revelation 17. The term "mother of harlots" does not mean that Jerusalem spawned a bunch of religions. Hosea referred to Israel as a "harlot" and a "mother" (Hos. 2:4,5) Similar language is found in Ezek. 16:44-48. To be a "mother" and a "harlot" is a double shame. It is bad enough to be single and a harlot, but to have a husband and children and still be a harlot is most reprehensible indeed! Not only is this harlotry perverse, but it goes beyond mere harlotry, showing utter contempt for the sacred institution of the family. The fact that this "harlot" is also a "mother" is a statement about the utterly repulsive nature of this woman.
cont.....
2. Are Protestant churches also harlots?
If Catholicism is the "mother" harlot, and Protestant churches--being the children of the Catholic Church--are also harlots, then what does that make Seventh-day Adventits? The grand-children of the harlots?
As we have seen above, Jerusalem is the "harlot" of Revelation 17. The term "mother of harlots" does not mean that Jerusalem spawned a bunch of religions. Hosea referred to Israel as a "harlot" and a "mother" (Hos. 2:4,5) Similar language is found in Ezek. 16:44-48. To be a "mother" and a "harlot" is a double shame. It is bad enough to be single and a harlot, but to have a husband and children and still be a harlot is most reprehensible indeed! Not only is this harlotry perverse, but it goes beyond mere harlotry, showing utter contempt for the sacred institution of the family. The fact that this "harlot" is also a "mother" is a statement about the utterly repulsive nature of this woman.
cont.....