Replies

For the sake of completeness, I'm going to go back over this point again:

Two serves you won't answer: "And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18) Jerusalem never ruled the earth, Rome did. You can't address or refute this point. - ACE! "And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters: ... And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17.1, 15) Jerusalem did not sit upon many peoples, Rome did, not only being the confluence of all peoples, but also their dominator and even betimes their opressor (as the worthy Hermann the Cherusker would know). - ACE! Game, set, match OP.

You wanna talk about "False Equivalences"? How about the way that, despite the fact that Revelations 17:2 (and many other citations) makes clear that Babylon's crimes against God are foremost SPIRITUAL in nature, you keep presuming that she "hath kingdom" of a POLITICAL in nature?

The Great City's kingdom was a SPIRITUAL kingdom.

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, which is in Judah.

Josephus points out repeatedly that the nations had historically recognized the sanctity and centrality of the Temple: “This celebrated place . . . was esteemed holy by all mankind” (The Jewish War, v.i.3; cf. v.ix.4; v.xiii.6). In fact, the action of Jewish rebels, in the summer of A.D. 66, of halting the daily sacrifices for the Emperor (in violation, Josephus points out, of long-standing practice) was the single event which finally precipitated the Roman war against the Jews (ii.xvii.2-4). Even at the very end, as Titus prepared to raze the city to the ground, he was still pleading with the Jewish priests to offer up the sacrifices, which by now had been entirely discontinued (vi.ii.1). (Chilton, "The Days of Vengeance")

But the Great City used her religious power to raise up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ.

But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. (Acts 14:2; also 13:50 and 14:5 and 17:5 and 17:13 and 18:12 and 21:27, etc.)

Thus, the Old Covenant bride of God, Jerusalem, whose Temple was esteemed holy by all mankind -- had made of herself a filthy, blood-drunken Whore of Babylon.

So there's your two serves... and now you answer one of mine:

Where in Revelation does it say that Babylon's dominion is of a POLITICAL nature? and...
"For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy." (Revelation 16:6) Where anywhere in Scripture does it ever speak of the Prophets of God being killed... in ROME?

"Two serves you won't answer", Hermann.

two of mine, not one of mine, obviously. (D'oh)

I do see that as of Post 262 you were arguing allowing for Babylon and the beast to be treated seperately, but you'll admit that was kinda late in the conversation.

1. The whore is a queen, not a priestess.
2. The world's traders mourn her, not the world's priests. (although scandalizing in the evil done to the poor, the money-changers wouldn't have an impact on the world trade that they'd notice it, while Rome was just burnt.)
3. The event you say precipitated the war was one of purifying Jerusalem from its "adultery", zealots refusing to permit Yahweh being lumped in with pagan gods!
4. The metaphor still does not fit. In what way is Jerusalem like Babylon? In what way does Jerusalem ride on the back of Rome once the zealots have won politically?
5. Rome (the Beast), in your supposition, would have turned on Jerusalem (the whore). But nowhere in Revelations does this come through.

Lastly, the whole argument doesn't get very far. Succession is the sort of thing that cannot be recorded in the bible. For 1400 years before Luther and his sola scriptura argument, the Church fathers had no motivation to lie that Peter was in Rome. It's simply the case of Protestants trying to prove the church wrong about something. If it weren't true, and the RCC was simply lying, it would've been much easier to say that Peter annointed his successor in Jerusalem who then relocated to Rome after the destruction of the Temple.

One only has to look at the other patriarchates around the world to see how the congregants recall their founders. It takes quite a grand conspiracy to assert that Peter was the founder of the CHurch at Rome, if the people at the time the assertion was first made knew it to be false.

So who did found the Church at Rome, which Paul knew of and longed to visit and wrote to long before he went there?