Replies

* 203, 252... whatever... still quite late.
* That Jerusalem had foreign trade is not in dispute. That it would cause global horror that its trade ended is what is in dispute. Compared to Rome burning, no one would notice the loss of Jerusalem. Get real!
* Yes, God sees her as a whore, but there still is considerable royal imagery with her.
* The actions of the zealots did not purify Jerusalem, no, nothing could remove the stain of the killing of Christ (to which the killing of the saints in nothing!), but it did mean she was no longer committing adultery, which is the point of the metaphor.
* Babylon was known neither for hatred of God, nor committing adultery, that's not how Jerusalem relates to Babylon. Babylon was transformed when it learned of God through Daniel; it had never been wed to God, so how did it commit adultery in any way than the hundreds of other cursed cities in the OT did? Nor did it hate the God it knew not, in any way that any other pagan country did. AT least Babylon was changed.
* Glad you can pinpoint the time of the writing by John. No-one else is so certain. Since the fall was imminent, none of his other readers would have recognized the exact time of the writing, either.

Listen, we can go on and on and on endelessly. You can offer your reasons for thinking Jerusalem=Babylon while Rome=the beast. Point is, Peter's writing wasn't meant by Peter to establish proof of where he lived; it just simply fits into a large historical record which establishes Peter was in Rome; it's significant because it fits a pattern. You've got nothing but an whack-job priest insanely ranting about secrets the Pope whispered to him, and who obviously thinks he needs to tell such fantastic stories because no-one took his "discovery" seriously. And who was too much of a nut job to simply find Peter's bones, but also had to find the entire cast of Godspell.

* 203, 252... whatever... still quite late.

Why don't you re-read the thread and see just how many Responses I had to answer? #203 was my response against the first argument that "Rome = Babylon". I respnded that "Rome = Beast; Jerusalem = Babylon" and have maintained that position throughout.

* That Jerusalem had foreign trade is not in dispute. That it would cause global horror that its trade ended is what is in dispute. Compared to Rome burning, no one would notice the loss of Jerusalem. Get real!

But John is not comparing Jerusalem's burning to that of Rome. He is simply stating that the merchants of the (New Testament) World would lament the loss of the Jerusalem markets.

Are you saying that death of 1.1 million Jewish customers and the loss of a market (Jerusalem) which swelled to over 1 million people at Passover would go un-noticed in an Empire of perhaps 50 million? That would be like the loss of a city of a market of 6 million here in the USA -- say, the complete and utter annihilation of the greater Chicago metropolitan area, Chicago and all its suburbs. No one would notice? The merchants would not mourn?

"Get Real!"

* Yes, God sees her as a whore, but there still is considerable royal imagery with her.

The Old Covenant bride of God -- what would you call the bride of the Greatest of all Kings?

But this Bride of the Great King has made of herself a Whore, by her murder of the Messiah (Revelation 11:8) and the Saints and Prophets (Revelation 16:6). What Great City does God judge guilty of the blood of the Prophets, dangus? ROME?? Name one citation in Scripture.

Fact is, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33)

* The actions of the zealots did not purify Jerusalem, no, nothing could remove the stain of the killing of Christ (to which the killing of the saints in nothing!), but it did mean she was no longer committing adultery, which is the point of the metaphor.

She is raising up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ. That doesn't strike you as Spiritual Faithlessness?

* Babylon was known neither for hatred of God, nor committing adultery, that's not how Jerusalem relates to Babylon. Babylon was transformed when it learned of God through Daniel; it had never been wed to God, so how did it commit adultery in any way than the hundreds of other cursed cities in the OT did? Nor did it hate the God it knew not, in any way that any other pagan country did. AT least Babylon was changed.

"Babylon" was nonetheless a metaphor for hatred of God and spiritual fornication -- of which Jerusalem was wholly guilty when John was writing.

* Glad you can pinpoint the time of the writing by John. No-one else is so certain.

Well, you're welcome. Glad I could help.

John's writing of Revelation preceded the Jewish Wars of AD66 by a short span ("things which must shortly come to pass"); writing from Patmos, where he was exiled (for the first time) during the Neronic persecution of AD64.

Since the fall was imminent, none of his other readers would have recognized the exact time of the writing, either.

I don't know what you are talking about here. There's historical evidence that many Christians of Jerusalem did indeed "come out of her, My people... that you may not receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4-5) and fled to Petra to escape the coming "double repayment of her deeds" (Revelation 18:6)

Listen, we can go on and on and on endelessly. You can offer your reasons for thinking Jerusalem=Babylon while Rome=the beast. Point is, Peter's writing wasn't meant by Peter to establish proof of where he lived; it just simply fits into a large historical record which establishes Peter was in Rome; it's significant because it fits a pattern. You've got nothing but an whack-job priest insanely ranting about secrets the Pope whispered to him, and who obviously thinks he needs to tell such fantastic stories because no-one took his "discovery" seriously. And who was too much of a nut job to simply find Peter's bones, but also had to find the entire cast of Godspell.

Actually, priests Bagatti and Milik did as they was told -- and chose not to published their discoveries very widely at all until given the go-ahead (which never came).

These articles are by those who have followed up on their work; Bagatti and Milik themselves didn't "rant" at all, and in fact gave relatively few interviews on the subject.

This is your cue to say, "Well, if they were so convinced of the authenticity, why didn't they make a big deal of it?!" The answer being, the Pope told them not to -- so they didn't. But significantly, no Roman Scholar has ever questioned the authenticity of the cave and the ossuaries, either. They have been measured, but have not been found wanting.