Babylon the Great

[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?

[1213]

This doesn't explain how someone who wrote centuries before the establishment of NY or was it NYC? you didn't specify, would have any knowledge of NY or NYC.

Obviously, God's prophet speaks what God has given to him. I believe God knows the future and that is the idea of prophesy, to know the future. But, I agree, without God, I don't think people would know the future.

[historia]

It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.

The word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.

In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.

Babylon the Great, commonly known as the Whore of Babylon. For discussion: What is it?

The Roman Empire.

[2timothy316]

It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.

The word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.

In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.

Gentiles means one thing. Someone who is not Jewish.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gentile

Ethnos can represent a nation too not just ethnic groups.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm

Nations or gentile is an acceptable translation or are you a Greek to English translation expert and wish to challenge what MANY Bibles translate as 'nations' or 'gentile'. I can't find a single Bible translates it as 'ethic groups'.
https://biblehub.com/greek/ethne__1484.htm

Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG. Nations have kings, not ethnic groups.

[historia]

It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.

The word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.

In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.

. . .

Nations or gentile is an acceptable translation

Yes, that's what I said.

We just need to keep in mind that 'nation' here does not refer to a modern nation-state, as if it were just a synonym for 'government'.

Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG.

Sure -- in the ancient world, an ethnic group was usually organized into a kingdom, which had as its leader a king. In that way, the word 'nation' can refer to both an ethnic group and its kingdom.

The Roman Empire, for example, had many kings and nations that were subservient to it.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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.

I agree. 'Saints' in the Gospels are seen through a Christian optic -glass as Believers in Jesus and the early Church and proto Christians. But 'I soon came to understand that the 'Saints' that Paul collected for (during the famine of 45) were the Jesus -followers in Jerusalem and Paul was trying to buy his way in. The various terms I've seen used - the 'Saints', the 'Elect' the 'poor' and indeed the Meek' were all epithets used to denote the Jesus party in Jerusalem. Now I don't know whether, by the time the Gospels as we have them were written, the authors (or editors, more like) knew this or saw them as we now do - a group of disciples and apostles, suffused with the Holy Spirit, preaching the words of Jesus and starting to spread the church, and that 'the poor' meant them rather than pavement people asking for spare change at the pool of Siloam. But giving all you had to the poor meant pooling your dosh into the common purse and joining their community, and turning your back on your family if they didn't join, too, and that ain't so unlike the early church.

But the nub of the matter is, were these Jesus -followers, these 'Saints' the community of Christian evangelists as depicted in Acts, or were they observant Jews, within the Pharisee ambit and with inclinations towards zealotry, just as Jesus had been?

It's just my view, but it makes sense of a lot of things. Jesus' dual character as Christian Jesus on one hand and zealot Barrabbas on the other, not to mention Simon the basis of the Church or Simon the zealot. In fact I think Judas was his son and Judas 'Not Iscariot' also the son of Simon (not the zealot) which splits the character of the disciples; zealot followers of Jesus Barrabbas or Christian followers of Jesus the proto -Christian?
;
If the Jesus -party in Jerusalem were a bunch of zealots waiting for Jesus the Messiah to return and make the revolt succeed that had failed with Jesus being nabbed and banged up in a very literal way, and the Sadduccee -run High Priestship, who were effectively part of the Roman administration were their opponents, that would make sense of Paul working for the Sanhedrin in rooting out these enemies of the Rome to which he belonged as a Roman Citizen.

I only say, it would fit better as these 'saints', these 'Elect', being more in the line of Daniel's martyrs being promised places as stars in the sky if they died fighting for Maccabbes than as a bunch of Christian evangelists being hounded by wicked non -Christians.

Well, in the end, Babylon won. The Temple was burned, Jerusalem sacked and Judea continued to be run run by Rome which the zealots regarded as Babylon even when it converted to Christianity.

[2timothy316]

Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG.

Sure -- in the ancient world, an ethnic group was usually organized into a kingdom, which had as its leader a king. In that way, the word 'nation' can refer to both an ethnic group and its kingdom.

The Roman Empire, for example, had many kings and nations that were subservient to it.

Yet in 313 AD what religion did Rome tie itself to?

[historia]

Yet in 313 AD what religion did Rome tie itself to?

None. The Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion:

When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, met so happily at Milan, and considered together all that concerned the interest and security of the State, we decided . . . to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice, in order that all that is divine in the heavens may be favorable and propitious towards all who are placed under our authority.

John also wrote Revelation in the 1st Century, not the 4th, so obviously has in mind the Roman Empire of his day.

[2timothy316]

Yet in 313 AD what religion did Rome tie itself to?

None. The Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion:

When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, met so happily at Milan, and considered together all that concerned the interest and security of the State, we decided . . . to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice, in order that all that is divine in the heavens may be favorable and propitious towards all who are placed under our authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... ristianity
Never did I say there wasn't freedom to choose a religion but it is clear that "During the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (AD 306–337), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire'"
Harlot meet your Wild Beast to ride.

John also wrote Revelation in the 1st Century, not the 4th, so obviously has in mind the Roman Empire of his day.

Time doesn't matter. Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation. 1 year or 4 hundred years, it doesn't matter. John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.

Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"
Also, the judgement of BTG is this, "Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again." Rev 18:21

Rome as a nation doesn't fit the description. Nations didn't have a passion for and were drawn in by the spiritistic practices of Rome, they were squashed by Rome and I can point on a map were Rome still exists today. Also, ALL of the nations didn't fall victim to Rome.

[historia]

Yet in 313 AD what religion did Rome tie itself to?

None. The Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... ristianity

Never did I say there wasn't freedom to choose a religion but it is clear that "During the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (AD 306–337), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire'"

In that case, for the future, I would recommend citing the year 380 (see Edict of Thessalonica) rather than 313.

Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation.

Except John begins by saying this revelation concerns "the things that must soon take place" (Rev. 1:1-3), which clearly indicates it is about events in his own time.

John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.

Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"

Right, this is an unmistakable reference to the cult of emperor worship.

Nations didn't have a passion for and were drawn in by the spiritistic practices of Rome

Sure they did. The cult of emperor worship was becoming quite popular at the time John wrote his text.

Rome as a nation doesn't fit the description.

I'm afraid you just committed the mistake I advised you to avoid above.

The Roman Empire was not an ethnos, a 'nation', but rather an empire, which contained many 'nations'.

ALL of the nations didn't fall victim to Rome.

Biblical authors (and other near eastern writers) often just have the Mediterranean region in mind when they write.

I can point on a map were Rome still exists today.

The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.

[2timothy316]

John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.

Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"

Right, this is an unmistakable reference to the cult of emperor worship.

Reference please. The Jews certainly were not cult members. There were many nations that were not cult members. Lands were conquered into submission, not enticed join by worshiping Rome using 'spiritstic practices'.

The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.

That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.
When the Bible said Edom and Babylon would be destroyed and never come back that is exactly what happened. I have no reason to think that if the Bible says BTG will be destroyed and never return it doesn't mean exactly that. Rome was not wiped off the map in the first century. The fall of Rome wasn't until 476 and even then it wasn't a complete burning of fire like Revelation says, literally or symbolically. So your argument holds no water.