Babylon the Great

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Babylon the Great

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Babylon the Great, commonly known as the Whore of Babylon.

For discussion
What is it? What does it mean? Is it a place, person, action? How does it pertain to modern christianity? Or does it?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #2

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I guess this is going be a thread for a Lot of Opinions, but this is how i see it. Babylon of course was the great symbol of oppression of God's people. Probably life wasn't that Bad in 5th c Babylon with their Hebrew corner shops, take - away kosher restaurants and getting into Babylonian politics, but it wasn't their land with their own laws and rule of their tribal God. So the Exile became a symbol of foreign oppression.

Oddly, the Macedonian rulers didn't seem to be identified with Babylon. After all they let Judea alone - until Antiochus started trying to eliminate Judaism and impose Hellenism. But of course the Jews won that revolt and established the Hasmonean dynasty, so Foreign oppression of Judea wasn't Really applicable to the Greeks.

But it certainly was when Rome occupied and ruled Judea as well as Galilee which had been Herodian (at least) longer than Judea. Rome was Babylon and no mistake. I certainly would suggest that Revelation has its' roots in anti - Roman prophetic literature, rather as resembling some of the more militant of the Qumran scrolls. given that in AD 60 was it? The Jewish revolt actually happened, Nero has to be seen as the symbolic hate -figure of Roman oppression (Babylon). So whether Revelation is actually anti -Roman polemic from before the Jewish war or anti -Roman polemic afterwards, but passed onto early Christianity (no wonder they weren't popular in Rome) I would only be speculating, if indeed I haven't been up to now.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #3

Post by tam »

Peace to you all,


Babylon the Great(er) is a "city" in which people dwell, in a similar way that the New Jerusalem is "city" of people.

New Jerusalem is the Holy "city" of people who are the Bride (of Christ), who are called and chosen and promised/faithful to Him.

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.


On the other hand, Babylon the Great(er) is also a "city", claiming to be the Bride, but she is unfaithful (promised to one husband but having unions instead with 'kings of the earth', such as religious leaders... who are indeed kings in that they have people under their authority/domain). From those unions have come many "daughters" (sects and denominations mainly in "Christendom").


Listen to what she says in her heart (from Rev 18, which is all describing her):

In her heart she boasts,
‘I sit enthroned as queen.
I am not a widow;[c]
I will never mourn.’


She boasts that she sits enthroned as a queen because she believes herself to be married/promised to the King (Christ).

She boasts that she is not a widow and will never mourn because Christ is a husband who will never die.


The good thing is that we do not have to remain in 'her'. Christ calls His people to come OUT of her (and so also out of all her daughters).

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.


**

He calls us to come to HIM:


Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”



**


If anyone is having a hard time translating a "city" to something more than just a physical city with streets and bricks and houses, etc, please consider that even the Temple was a physical representation of the spiritual reality, designed to help us to be able to get a sense of the spiritual reality. For example, consider how the Temple consists of both a HOLY place and a MOST Holy place. One must pass through the HOLY in order to enter into the MOST Holy. Well... Christ is the HOLY One, His Father is the MOST Holy One, and as the Holy One said: no one come to the Father (the MOST HOLY ONE) except through Him (the Son, the HOLY One).



Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1840 times
Been thanked: 1362 times

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #4

Post by Difflugia »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:28 pmBut it certainly was when Rome occupied and ruled Judea as well as Galilee which had been Herodian (at least) longer than Judea. Rome was Babylon and no mistake. I certainly would suggest that Revelation has its' roots in anti - Roman prophetic literature, rather as resembling some of the more militant of the Qumran scrolls. given that in AD 60 was it? The Jewish revolt actually happened, Nero has to be seen as the symbolic hate -figure of Roman oppression (Babylon). So whether Revelation is actually anti -Roman polemic from before the Jewish war or anti -Roman polemic afterwards, but passed onto early Christianity (no wonder they weren't popular in Rome) I would only be speculating, if indeed I haven't been up to now.
A common scholarly opinion is that Revelation was originally a Jewish apocalypse, but later modified by a Christian redactor into the form we now have it. In this view, the original source used "saints" in 17:6 to mean those slaughtered during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66-70, repurposed by a Christian redactor to mean those killed during the persecutions under Nero.

The author of the 1975 Anchor Bible volume on Revelation, Josephine Massyngberde Ford, thought that the author might actually have been the historical John the Baptist.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #5

Post by Veridican »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:03 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:28 pmBut it certainly was when Rome occupied and ruled Judea as well as Galilee which had been Herodian (at least) longer than Judea. Rome was Babylon and no mistake. I certainly would suggest that Revelation has its' roots in anti - Roman prophetic literature, rather as resembling some of the more militant of the Qumran scrolls. given that in AD 60 was it? The Jewish revolt actually happened, Nero has to be seen as the symbolic hate -figure of Roman oppression (Babylon). So whether Revelation is actually anti -Roman polemic from before the Jewish war or anti -Roman polemic afterwards, but passed onto early Christianity (no wonder they weren't popular in Rome) I would only be speculating, if indeed I haven't been up to now.
A common scholarly opinion is that Revelation was originally a Jewish apocalypse, but later modified by a Christian redactor into the form we now have it. In this view, the original source used "saints" in 17:6 to mean those slaughtered during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66-70, repurposed by a Christian redactor to mean those killed during the persecutions under Nero.

The author of the 1975 Anchor Bible volume on Revelation, Josephine Massyngberde Ford, thought that the author might actually have been the historical John the Baptist.
Sorry to disagree, but it's not a common scholarly opinion. It may be a theory, but in truth, I think if you polled most "scholars." They'd tell you it was the Apostle John. Because scholars include all those ministers and priests out there who preach on it and write books about it. Not all would say that, and I don't, but "most" in terms of sheer numbers of scholars would. That doesn't make them right. But it's a hard sell to say it's a Jewish religious work. But whatever. It doesn't matter really. It's the Revelation God has given us about the history of the Church, the glorified Jesus Christ, the end times, and the completion of creation.

Babylon, by the way, is money. It is capitalism, specifically.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #6

Post by Diagoras »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:28 pmBabylon of course was the great symbol of oppression of God's people.
I'd agree with that. Here's one (religiously-inclined) summary, which says much the same thing:

The New Testament employs Babylon as a symbol of man's sinfulness and God's judgment.

In Revelation, Babylon is used as a symbol for Rome quite clearly. I've posted a link to a good article on how to read Revelation before, which is here:

Understanding the Book of Revelation

- which might be of interest to Veridican when he said:
It's the Revelation God has given us about the history of the Church, the glorified Jesus Christ, the end times, and the completion of creation.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1840 times
Been thanked: 1362 times

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #7

Post by Difflugia »

Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmSorry to disagree, but it's not a common scholarly opinion.
If you just want to quibble over what I mean by "common," I suppose that's fair. It's a minority opinion that is certainly not the consensus, but neither is it fringe. The consensus is that Revelation was written within the context of a group of Jewish Christians aligned in some way with the Gospel of John and Johannine epistles, but not by the same author. The main difference between this view and a Christian redaction of a Jewish source lay in whether or not the text is a cohesive original or a later redaction of one or more original sources. That's a debate it shares with the Gospel of John, incidentally.

James Tabor discussed this last year in a guest post at Bart Ehrman's blog. He proposes that Revelation as we have it is the result of a very light redaction by a Christian editor. He has also published his reconstruction as a PDF online.
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmIt may be a theory, but in truth, I think if you polled most "scholars." They'd tell you it was the Apostle John. Because scholars include all those ministers and priests out there who preach on it and write books about it.
By "scholars," I meant mainstream academic authors, the way it's normally used. If you just think I should refer to "academics" instead of "scholars," then "academics" it is. If you instead think that the opinions of these "ministers and priests" are important to this discussion, then we're just not having the same discussion. Since you apparently (and tellingly) recognized the need to point out your redefinition, I'm assuming the latter.

That said, very few academics would argue that the Revelation was written by the author of the Gospel of John and virtually none would claim it was John of Zebedee. Even if we were to assume that John of Zebedee had something to do with the Gospel of John, the style of Greek between the two is radically different. The main difference is that even though both documents are considered to be Greek Koine, the Gospel is grammatically competent by the standards of classical Attic for the most part, but the Greek of Revelation is much more heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, as though its author was much less proficient in Greek.

A practical demonstration of this is in the word "Jerusalem" between the two documents. First, the two spell the name of the city quite differently. The Gospel of John renders the root as Ἱεροσολύμ (Ierosolym), but Revelation spells it Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Ierousalem). Second, the author of the Gospel transforms the name into a proper Greek noun, modifying the ending according to grammatical use, while the author of Revelation simply transliterates the Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek letters without adding Greek case endings.

"Jerusalem" appears a number of times in the Gospel of John, is grammatically neuter plural, and gets the correct case endings. Here are the first three:
  • 1:19: ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων (ex Ierosolymon), "of Jerusalem," genitive case
  • 2:13: εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (eis Ierosolyma), "into Jerusalem," accusative case
  • 2:23: ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις (en tois Ierosolymois), "in Jerusalem," dative case
"Jerusalem" appears three times in Revelation, where it takes feminine singular articles, adjectives, and verbs, but neither genitive (3:12) nor accusative (21:2, 21:10) noun case endings. Each time, it appears simply as Ἰερουσαλὴμ.

If one author wrote both documents, it's an understatement to say that he or she wrote them quite differently.
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmNot all would say that, and I don't, but "most" in terms of sheer numbers of scholars would. That doesn't make them right. But it's a hard sell to say it's a Jewish religious work.
So you assert, but since even those that consider it Christian also consider it to be an example of Jewish Apocalypticism in form, I'm not sure what you mean that it would be a "hard sell" to say that it's Jewish. Can you clarify what you mean and offer some support for your assertion?
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmBut whatever. It doesn't matter really. It's the Revelation God has given us about the history of the Church, the glorified Jesus Christ, the end times, and the completion of creation.

Babylon, by the way, is money. It is capitalism, specifically.
I'm sure you're sincere when you claim to believe this, but is the claim itself the only evidence you can offer?
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #8

Post by Veridican »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:55 am
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmSorry to disagree, but it's not a common scholarly opinion.
If you just want to quibble over what I mean by "common," I suppose that's fair. It's a minority opinion that is certainly not the consensus, but neither is it fringe. The consensus is that Revelation was written within the context of a group of Jewish Christians aligned in some way with the Gospel of John and Johannine epistles, but not by the same author. The main difference between this view and a Christian redaction of a Jewish source lay in whether or not the text is a cohesive original or a later redaction of one or more original sources. That's a debate it shares with the Gospel of John, incidentally.

James Tabor discussed this last year in a guest post at Bart Ehrman's blog. He proposes that Revelation as we have it is the result of a very light redaction by a Christian editor. He has also published his reconstruction as a PDF online.
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmIt may be a theory, but in truth, I think if you polled most "scholars." They'd tell you it was the Apostle John. Because scholars include all those ministers and priests out there who preach on it and write books about it.
By "scholars," I meant mainstream academic authors, the way it's normally used. If you just think I should refer to "academics" instead of "scholars," then "academics" it is. If you instead think that the opinions of these "ministers and priests" are important to this discussion, then we're just not having the same discussion. Since you apparently (and tellingly) recognized the need to point out your redefinition, I'm assuming the latter.

That said, very few academics would argue that the Revelation was written by the author of the Gospel of John and virtually none would claim it was John of Zebedee. Even if we were to assume that John of Zebedee had something to do with the Gospel of John, the style of Greek between the two is radically different. The main difference is that even though both documents are considered to be Greek Koine, the Gospel is grammatically competent by the standards of classical Attic for the most part, but the Greek of Revelation is much more heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, as though its author was much less proficient in Greek.

A practical demonstration of this is in the word "Jerusalem" between the two documents. First, the two spell the name of the city quite differently. The Gospel of John renders the root as Ἱεροσολύμ (Ierosolym), but Revelation spells it Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Ierousalem). Second, the author of the Gospel transforms the name into a proper Greek noun, modifying the ending according to grammatical use, while the author of Revelation simply transliterates the Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek letters without adding Greek case endings.

"Jerusalem" appears a number of times in the Gospel of John, is grammatically neuter plural, and gets the correct case endings. Here are the first three:
  • 1:19: ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων (ex Ierosolymon), "of Jerusalem," genitive case
  • 2:13: εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (eis Ierosolyma), "into Jerusalem," accusative case
  • 2:23: ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις (en tois Ierosolymois), "in Jerusalem," dative case
"Jerusalem" appears three times in Revelation, where it takes feminine singular articles, adjectives, and verbs, but neither genitive (3:12) nor accusative (21:2, 21:10) noun case endings. Each time, it appears simply as Ἰερουσαλὴμ.

If one author wrote both documents, it's an understatement to say that he or she wrote them quite differently.
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmNot all would say that, and I don't, but "most" in terms of sheer numbers of scholars would. That doesn't make them right. But it's a hard sell to say it's a Jewish religious work.
So you assert, but since even those that consider it Christian also consider it to be an example of Jewish Apocalypticism in form, I'm not sure what you mean that it would be a "hard sell" to say that it's Jewish. Can you clarify what you mean and offer some support for your assertion?
Veridican wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pmBut whatever. It doesn't matter really. It's the Revelation God has given us about the history of the Church, the glorified Jesus Christ, the end times, and the completion of creation.

Babylon, by the way, is money. It is capitalism, specifically.
I'm sure you're sincere when you claim to believe this, but is the claim itself the only evidence you can offer?
I appreciate the interesting lesson in Ancient Greek. That's very interesting. I think, actually, we pretty much agree here on just about everything. I don't think Revelation was a Jewish work that was then taken and turned into a Christian work. I think it's an original composition. That said, I completely agree it was not written by the writer of the Gospel of John. In fact, both documents are anonymous. And even if it were written by the author of John, the outcome would be the same, it would still be anonymous. God chose to make some documents anonymous for very good reason. The Gospels and Revelation are not just anonymous, they need to be anonymous. But that's another discussion.

As for proof on the last statements. I'll have to defer for now as I am working on a paper about the seven churches and the advent of Veridicanism as it relates to those dispensations.

Thanks for your interesting and obviously learned reply. :thanks:
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

2timothy316
Prodigy
Posts: 3395
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #9

Post by 2timothy316 »

Let's start with the scriptures that describe BTG.

"Another, a second angel, followed, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, she who made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion (ftn. anger) of her sexual immorality!” - Rev 14:8
"great prostitute who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality," - Rev 17:1,2
"The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls," Rev 17:4
"shameless luxury" - Rev 18:3
"The merchants who sold these things, who became rich from her." Rev 18:15

Here is what we can glean from the scriptures above.
  • 1st: BTG has a close relationship with the many nations.
  • 2nd: How many nations? Rev 17:1,2 says BTG sits on many waters. Rev 17:15 tells us many waters means, "He said to me: “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues." This means that only a large group can be deeply involved with so many nations.
  • 3rd: BTG is described as being adorned with riches and that she is lives in shameless luxury. She surrounds herself with gold and gems. She flaunts her riches.
  • 4th: BTG makes others companies rich as they make a profit off of her.
So what or who sounds like this? We know it can't be one person as there is no one person that has so much influence as to affect many nations. It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations. It can't be a company either because it's companies that are getting rich off of her.

There is only one that fits that bill. It's the only one that we do not classify as a nation, not a company, not a single city, or a single person. It's the only one that can influence many people of all nations and of different languages.

Religions
And not just one particular religion either.

They have been notorious for being involved with politics. Many times in history, this was done forcefully. Here in the USA, voting polls are many times are found at church buildings. Preachers, rabbis, etc are seen in all countries praying for their leaders. Just think of the Middle East and how many of the conflicts there are based on religious reasons. Many companies make a lot of money off of religions and their religious conflicts. Anyone can go to Amazon right now and buy religious based trinkets, books, etc. Construction companies make money off of building huge new churches. TV stations make many off of religious programs.
Last edited by 2timothy316 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:08 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 9059
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 157 times
Contact:

Re: Babylon the Great

Post #10

Post by 1213 »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:38 pm Babylon the Great, commonly known as the Whore of Babylon.

For discussion
What is it? What does it mean? Is it a place, person, action? How does it pertain to modern christianity? Or does it?
Maybe I should give here first trigger warning. This may be offending to some people. This is only how I understand it. If you don't like, you are free to reject it. :)

I think it can mean Rome and New York. I believe most likely it means Rome, or more precisely Vatican, because I think it has "slept" with nations, has been unfaithful to God, acted like harlot for money and power. Replaced God's teachings with own doctrines,

“Babylon the great has fallen, which has made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality.”
Rev. 14:8

And on her forehead a name was written, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered with great amazement.

Rev. 17:5-6

If this is about Vatican, I think it means Vatican will in future murder people who are faithful to Bible Jesus and God, who don't bow to pope and his doctrines. And by what I know, it has done much of that in the past already.

Post Reply