7 Reasons Why “Babylon the Great” was Jerusalem

by Tiresias 74 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Apognophos

  Yes, the WT really pulled that one out of.... I always wondered why 666/616 was stated to be "a man's number", and why the number meant "imperfection", when it was supposed to refer to Satan. But I was still shocked to discover that the writer may have meant this phrase literally -- that it was a number that referred to one specific man.

  Another interesting point is that the count of caesars at the rough time period of Revelation's writing corresponds closely to the number of past kings mentioned in the book. Here's a handy list. Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero were definitely the first five caesars, spanning from 27 BC to 68 AD. Right after the noteworthy verse mentioning the seven mountains (which are theorized to be the 7 hills of Rome) in Rev. 17:9, it says in vs. 10 that "five [kings] have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while". There is also a wild beast who "was but is not" and who returns to bring destruction with him, in vs. 11. This is thought to refer to the feared return of Nero, as you have probably read about.

  It's difficult to say who Revelation's sixth and seventh kings after Nero (and before Nero's return) would be, owing to the confusion of the Year of Four Emperors, 69 AD. Was the book written during the short reign of Galba, Otho or Vitellius? Because they did remain only a short while, as the king after the present one was supposed to. Or did Revelation's writer ignore those short-lived rulers, instead counting Vespasian as the next caesar after Nero, since he had a solid reign from 69-79 AD? If he was the present caesar at the time of Revelation's writing, the one "who is", then it would be the one after him who was supposed to last a short while. Titus did in fact last a short while, only 2 years, dying of natural causes in 81 AD. But Domitian then had a good long reign from 81-96 AD.

  This is where the period where I think Revelation's prophecy failed to pass. What's interesting about this interpretation is that, if the prophecy was that Nero redivivus would succeed Titus, then that means Revelation had to have been written before 81 AD when Domitian succeeded Titus. And it had to, of course, be written after 68 AD when Nero died. That time range would tend to indicate that Revelation was likely written after Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.

  However, I agree that it's odd that, if this Rome-centric interpretation is correct, then the destruction of the Jewish center of worship is not addressed. I still have a lot of reading to do on this subject so I am not making any claims of knowledge here. Perhaps a simple explanation would be that Revelation was written in 69 AD, amidst the fear and confusion of rulers being overthrown, and before Jerusalem was sieged.
• 

  Fisherman

  "Shortly" also includes all future events stated in the book of Revelation. See Rev 20:7
• 

  kaik

  Stirred, thank you for your input. I tend to agree with designs that threads like these turns into anti-semitic bashing which is than justified by analysis of nonsense from Book of Revelation. This is not the first post that is turning into it nor it is last. Various scholars like Pagels, Mary P. Fisher and others going back to the 18th century are clearly stating that Jewish nation and faith does not bear a responsibility fo the death of Jesus. Majority of Jews in that time never heard of Jesus and his followers. Romans executed Jesus for sedetion. Jews also blamed christains for striring up troubles and bringing Roman punishment to the rebellious provice. Many individuals for hundreds of years interpreting Jewish misfortunate as a divine punishment for not accepting Jesus as Messiah and derives its reasoning from NT written by Jews for the Jews. The split between Christianity and Judaism happened decades after death of Jesus. People who lived in 70AD were most likely not even alive at the times of Jesus as average life expectancy in Roman Empire was around 33 years.

  Jesus's audience was Jewish population and he was a critic of customs of the rulling elite and religious hiearchy. As Jew he was not anti-semitic. Jews did not see him as Messiah, only a few of his followers, many who were tied by family and tribe. After studying Judaism, I can understand why Jews do not see him as the Messiah, because he did not fullfill what would be expected from him. There were many other Messiah in the Jewish faith over the centuries, and only one was turned into world religion. The definitive split between Judaism and Christianity can be traced to Paul who invalidated Jews laws by making Torah obsolote, where its upkeep was not necessary for achieving God's approval. However, putting salvation through Jesus death made Christianity viable. No person of Jewish faith could reconcile these two as they do not believe in original sin, adamic sin, nor anyone can be a redeemer between you and G-D, and paid out for your sin.

  Revelation have many different interpretations, but I tend to agree with Pagels that it was dealing with Rome. Centuries later when Rome became a Christian city, Revelation did not make anymore any sense. With the raise of extreme evangelical movement in the 19th century. many find the identification with Jewish Jerusalem. This much modern concept, and does not make much a sense in the context of the era in which it was written.
• 

  Fisherman

  Iraneous lived circa 120?-202. That is very close to Domitian's rule. He would have likely known who imprisoned John. (120-96=24 years.)

  Apog: "What's interesting about this interpretation is that, if the prophecy was that Nero redivivus would succeed Titus......" Irefutable conclusion. Excellent.

  I do not believe however, that the inspired book would waste so much time and give so much importance to those insignificant Roman rulers.
• 

  Fisherman

  Since, Jerusalem was already destroyed when John wrote Rev, he would likely have been referering to another religious entity. -Rev 18:23 (focus on the word spiritistic.) Also, look at "light of lamp" (spiritual guidance), "bridegroom and bride" (another allusion to spiritual relationship).

  In Rev18:24, "blood of the prophets" -Prophets are not sent to a political structure. Although Rome killed JC, it was the contemorary religious entity that God held accountable for his blood. Also, consider "all those that have been slaughtered on the earth" -Neither Rome nor Jerusalem could be held accountable for all that.
• 

  Tiresias

  Hello All,

  In my opening post I focused on ancient Jerusalem as a corrupt theocracy (a government in which priests rule in the name of God; a government by men claiming to know the will of God). The back and forth debate between Preterists and Futurists will proceed ad infinitum and ad nauseam. In the final analysis an optic will work for you or it will not. When I open "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" which God gave him to show his slaves the things which would shortly take place" I am immediately presented with the figure of a high priest, in priestly attire. Jewish symbols, Jewish worship, and Jewish history abound in the book. I return to what I said at the outset, the Revelation, I believe, is a covenant lawsuit against ancient Israel.

  To quote JS Russell: "the Apocalypse is nothing else than a transfigured form of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives. The Apocalypse contains our Lord’s great prophecy expanded, allegorised, and, if we may so say, dramatised. The same facts and events which are predicted in the Gospels are shown in the Revelation, only clothed in a more figurative and symbolical dress."

  My purpose is to share a lens, an optic, which is radically (and for me, refreshingly!) different than anything contained in Narcissistic Futurism.

  T
• 

  Fisherman

  Theocracy does not mean rule by Cohen. According to scripture, the priests did not appoint themselves but it was God who appointed Aaaron and gave authority to the priests to mediate between God and man. God also appointed judges and prophets and and also sent angels to the Israelites. But they did not rule. It was God who ruled as their invisible king and although later in history God appointed human kings in Israel, it was God who ruled through that system that HE established (according to scripture). God's presence was represented inside the Most Holy located in Jerusalem.

  Again according to scripture, sad to say, because of human sinfulness and imperfection and down-right wickedness, there was a demise from God's favor and God executed his judgements upon Jerusalem 2X by abandoning them to their enemies (according to scripture). According to scripture, Jerusalem did not claim to know the will of God, they knew the will of God because God communicated it to them. It does not require any interpretation, just read the Bible. It says it outright.
• 

  stirred but not shaken

  Fisherman..For the most part, most of us with a history in the WT org would never have known much of the history of Israel particulary the time period after the writings of Malachi. As I mentioned in an earlier post that time period is in part that of the Maccabean time period, circa 200-300 BCE. A lot happened during that time period that changed the face of Israel or Judah. Not the least of which were those appointed to the priesthood including the high priest. The Jewish nation became vassels to several dominating powers who had considerable influence on their religious processes. The Qumran population argued that the priesthood in Jerusalem was not legitimate. It went through the motions, but was apostate. The Herods eventually appointed the high priest. It would be difficult to accept that God's H.S. was the force behind those rulers.

  For some background on this I found and would recommend 2 books by F. F. Bruce: "Israel and the Nations" & "New Testiment History". Also "The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Behind the Mystique" by Lawrence H. Schiffmann (I listened to the audio discs in a series of 14 lectures while driving). Obviously there are many more resources, some already mentioned on this thread. If you were educated (indoctrinated) as I was by WT theology, one can understand why they would discourage outside reading and research. This stuff was fascinating. Whether it is completely correct, I wouldn't know, but there is enough documentation to make it very compelling, and certainly broadens out what was previously a very controlled interpretation of events given by the Org.

  Hopefully all of us here will gain confidence in our decisions to leave behind ignorance and mind control, and expand in knowledge. We may end up in different dens, but we're better equipped to help those still under the spell. It's just so difficult to convey it to them...darn!
• 

  Tiresias

  Hello Fisherman,

  In response to your statement, 'read the Bible!' Information changes what we know. Transformation changes how we know. 'How' we read is, in my opinion, more important that 'what' we read. By that I mean the set of assumptions we apply to a text. I assume, for example, that the entire Bible (Genesis to Revelation) is an anthology of ancient Israelite literature with no application whatsoever to “Gentiles.” My assumptions about the book function like a prism through which I filter the information. My Nebuchadnezzar post illustrates my bias.

  Now I would like to add to Stirredbutnotshaken's excellent observation regarding the degenerate Judean Theocracy of the First Century C.E. The following quotation, from page 169 of The Parousia, furnishes the judicial context for the Revelation. It reinforces my conclusion that the Revelation is a covenant lawsuit against ancient Israel.

  Commenting on the phrase “Christ must rule as King until he has put all enemies under his feet,” the author states,

  “The language implies a violent and victorious conquest affected over hostile powers.” “Who those enemies are may be inferred from the closing history of the Theocracy. Unquestionably the most formidable opposition to the King and the kingdom was found in the heart of the Theocratic nation itself, the chief priests and rulers of the people. The highest authorities and powers of the nation were the bitterest enemies of the Messiah. It was a domestic, and not a foreign, antagonism---a Jewish, and not a Gentile, enmity---that rejected and crucified the King of Israel.

  The Roman procurator was only the reluctant instrument in the hands of the Sanhedrin. It was the Jewish rule, the Jewish authority, the Jewish power that incessantly and systematically pursued the sect of the Nazarenes with the persistent malignity, and this was ‘the rule and authority and power’ which, by the destruction of Jerusalem and the extinction of the Jewish State, was ‘put down’ and annihilated. The terrible scenes of the final war, and especially of the siege and capture of Jerusalem, show us what this subjugation of the enemies of Christ implies. ‘But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me’ (Luke19:27).”

  So, whatever the Hebrew Theocracy was in its inception, it certainly was otherwise when the Messiah arrived.

  T
• 

  kaik

  The authorship of Revelation is questioned by so many sources, which some of them go back to the medieval times, Enlightenment, and modern Era. Some research say that it was written before 70AD, and others as late as 90-110AD. Other sources I have read said that Revelation was written on two parts, the earlier before 70A.D. and rest in 80-90AD. With so many often contradicting information, it is hard to make good decision. What makes me agree with Pagels and others with the association of Jerusalem with Rome are numerous references regardless in what decade this crazy scroll was written: Beast, 666, Sodom, ruling over many nations, wealthy, powerfull, oppressor of the Christians. Jerusalem before 70AD was a provincial city under the control of Roman administration. Its rulling elite did not extend their power beyond its provice. When Jesus had problem, he moved outside Judea to Tyre and Sidon to escape their censorship. Rome was enforcing its policy and did not mind to use a tools of oppression if necessary to anyone, including to Judea. After 70AD, it was ruined city with even less internal freedom and nominal independence. Jewish administration that survived 70AD could not engage in widespread oppression of Christians. It did not had sufficient resources to do so, but Roman Empire certainly did. Prophecy toward ruined, unfree city like Jerusalem does not make any sense from the context of the Revelation.