Babylon the great, only intelligent discussion please


#1

A protestant anti-catholic topic is babylon the great ( Rev 18 ). Personally, I see this text as speaking of only the city of babylon and frankly I do not see how my fellow protestants get the catholic church out of the bible. I am looking for intelligent articles and discussion of this topic.

administrators please delete any degrogortary posts by demi-gods if they occur. thanks

Over on budge’s board, I am trying to have discussions with a Jehovah’s Witness named Kim, please pray for her to see the light of the real Jesus that we all know and love.

Thanks all for your intelligent input. :thumbsup:


#2

Hey Daniel,
First off, thank you for your rational and fair-minded approach to this accusation. I just ended a fellowship relationship with an otherwise pleasant individual who refused to even entertain any perspective other than his own on this topic. Off the top of my head, the reason that some Protestants see this as indicating the Catholic Church are seductive ones, for sure. For one, there are some indications that “Babylon” has been used as a code name for “Rome”, such as we believe to be the case in Peter’s epistles. In addition, as you would agree, the book of Revelation is full of imagery and symbolism, and many Protestants feel the reference to Babylon is simply an allusion to indicate the sinful and pagan nature of some other location or group. References to “seven hills”, “purple and red”, “golden chalices” and such as refering to the Catholic Church.

That said, it is important to remember that most scholars take a preterist view of Revelation, taking it, not primarly as predicting the future state of the church, but rather as refering to the current persecution of the church under the Roman leadership, who would also be known by the purple and red “royal colors” and golden impliments. The Vatican is actually separate from the city of Rome in all ways but location, but to that point, it actually rests on the other side of the Tiber River (the West side) of the seven hills (the East side). Actually, though, many modern scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, seem to think that the reference is to Jerusalem, which also rests on seven hills and would have been the object of John’s scorn as the center of the Jewish community that had rejected Christ. For more on this, please read the tract at our home page catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp . Hope I was able to help. God bless.


#3

Hi there,
You may have already read it, but there is a pretty good article about babylon on this site. if you go back to the come page, on the left side there are links. choose “anti catholic groups” and there should be an article there called “hunting the whore of babylon”. It’s a pretty good one.

babylon means confusion (hense when someone so talking nonesnes, we usually accuse them of “babbling”)

I"m no great tinerprater of scripture, but I think babylon is all around us. it’s getting bigger and bigger too. This is a small example and only my opinion;
when you go to the store to get tooth paste, what do you see? a MILLION different brands and types. it’s like, you can become overwhelmed with all the choices! Same thing with cable TV, who in the WORLD needs 571 cannels??? Everything we buy is like this, there are WAY too many choices and it give me a headach.
babylon is of the evil one and he’s been at work for a long time. the closer we get to the “end times” the worse babylon gets. Now, I think maybe in the end times it/she will manafest it’s self in a more evidant way, maybe someone else on this board could elaborate on that. I think maybe it’ll be the ruling power under the antichrist or something like that. and yes, then it will probably be a city.

Anyway, I’m no thealogen, so I hope my discussion wasn’t too bad for you :slight_smile: I"m interested in this topic too and look forward to seeing some more posts.
Sue


#4

thanks Sue, I will go look for that article later.

As I remember there is a book called the Babylon Connection? by woodrow I think that refutes the Hislop book that some protestants love.

From Rev 18, I am thinking of pointing out, that we are speaking of a city-state.

do you all know of historical sources that describe babylon religion that would constrast it agaisnt christian theology?

I am thinking of the line of mommy gods and daddy gods.


#5

Presbyterian-turned-Catholic theologian Scott Hahn, speaking from a semi-preterist view posits that “Babylon,” as used in the Book of Revelation may refer to first century Jerusalem. He offers several convincing proofs from the text and from patristic sources.

If this is the case, the minority opinion of the composition date of the Book of Revelation being prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 AD) puts the book into a whole different (and interesting) light.

He has a mega-tape series on this called “The End” available from St. Joseph’s Communications, but I think his book “The Lamb’s Supper” goes over this as well.


#6

The reasons why some Protestants (of the rabidly anti-Catholic sort which are not, thanks be, the majority) believe the WoB refers to the Catholic Church is because they want it to. Some of the Reformers used the imagery from the Book of Revelation to compare the Church of their day to the WoB, which is what probably led to some modern Protestants to think that Revelation actually does mean that, instead of its being a metaphor for corruption, as the Reformers intended.

People who want to think themselves superior to others do not look for fine definitions, do they? They just use whatever comes to hand to attack that which they fear and hate. Honesty comes into it not at all, I’m afraid. I say all this not to condemn anyone, but simply as the voice of experience, for I once was one of those anti-Catholic bigots who wanted to believe the worst of the Church without ever really looking into it for myself. Sadly, I wasn’t alone, nor has the tendency to carry on these sorts of misconceptions died out.


#7

I’ve heard and read my share of hypotheses that claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon that was described in Revelation.

Is it true?

I’m honestly not sure.

I think one quote that sticks out is the one from Revelation 17:6 that says:

“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”

The Roman Catholic Church is, I noticed, often referred to in the feminine tense, even though most Catholics seem to agree that the “Church” is comprised of the true Body of Jesus’ believers. And where does the Catholic Church claim it gets its authority for pretty much everything they do? Matthew 16:18, right? Relying on Saint Peter’s “primacy.” Could the Catholic church be accused of being “drunk” with power? Is Peter often cited as the reason why we should believe in the Catholic Church as being the one true church? I think so. So, yeah… I can see why so many people believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

I guess I always figured that the Whore of Babylon would be so blatantly evil and obvious of its evil intentions, but then it dawned on me that, for true evil to ensnare millions (even billions), it must be the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. For evil to prevail over millions of people, it must be presented as something good and something necessary.

Though I can definitely see how people can draw the “Roman Catholicism = Babylon” conclusion, I can’t with any confidence say that this is the truth. Revelation is written in such a way that it’s really difficult to decipher the meaning with any kind of assured accuracy. Surely, the Catholic Church would never fess up to misleading billions into hell, but then again, if Satan really IS behind Catholicism, I’m pretty sure he’d lie about it anyway.

There was quite a big debacle in Massachusetts not all that long ago involving several priests molesting children over the years and, trust me when I say, the “Babylon” antagonists had a field day with that!

A big issue that millions of Christians take up with Catholicism is that it is said to deviate from and/or perverts the true gospel of Christ… and here again, Satan knows that Jesus won the victory on the cross, so to get people to believe in a false gospel would be Satan’s only chance of winning souls at this point.

With so many Catholic doctrines under such scrutiny when compared to the Bible, many anti-Catholics would come to this same “Babylon” conclusion. I’m pretty sure this will be a label affixed to Catholicism from now until the truth is revealed and Jesus returns in His glory.


#8

Since the martyrs were Catholic, it would not be logical for the whore to also be the Catholic Church.


#9

To be drunk with the blood of the mayrders, means that the WoB killed them. The Cathlic Chruch did not kill the mayrders. Various and sundry governments killed them.


#10

Babylon is indeed Christian code for Rome.

But at the time Revelation was written, “Rome” was not personified by the Church or the Pope. Rome was personified by the Roman Emperor – who at that time was Domitian. Domitian launched the second imperial persecution (the first was that of Nero.)

Note that John writes from Patmos – a prison island where some Christian leaders were held. Much of the symbolism relates to Domitian and Nero. For example, Nero committed suicide by stabbing himself in the throat. There was a legend that Nero would come back to life. Domitian in some ways resembled Nero (and to Christians, especially so.)

Note how John refers to the first beast with a mortal wound that is healed, and how he says the second beast weilded all the authority of the first beast.

Babylon is Rome and the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Emperof.


#11

[quote=anawim]Since the martyrs were Catholic, it would not be logical for the whore to also be the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

I think they meant the martyrs that preceded the Catholic Church* (i.e.: Peter, Paul prior to the edicts of Theodosius in 380 & 381 AD),* but then again, since I don’t know when the Book of Revelation was written, I could be way off on that one. :confused:


#12

[quote=ChristianWAB]I think they meant the martyrs that preceded the Catholic Church* (i.e.: Peter, Paul prior to the edicts of Theodosius in 380 & 381 AD),* but then again, since I don’t know when the Book of Revelation was written, I could be way off on that one. :confused:
[/quote]

If “they meant the martyers that preceded the Catholic Church”, as you “think”, then that would mean that the Catholic Church came later. It would be really hard for the CC to be “drunk on the blood” of those martyrs if they were martyred before (as you stated) the CC even existed. Your logic is self-defeating.

Another example of your self-defeating logic. You claim that, if Satan is really using the CC as his “whore of Babylon” tool, he would “lie about it” so that people might be convinced to join his false church. If Satan were to do so, he would design a church that appeared to be stainless. Yet, in the same post, you claim, as evidence for the anti-Catholic crowd, the fact that in Mass., sex-offender priests were prime evidence that the Church really is the Whore of Babylon. So … the devil is misleading people by convincing them that his false church is the true church and he is doing this by making his “true” church appear to be sinful??? Hmmm. The Devil isn’t a very good lier in your opinion, is he? I’d rather believe that a church with sinners in it is the church that Christ said he was establishing when he predicted that in HIS church, there were be wolves among the flock and weeds among the grain and leadership in the model of Judas.


#13

Daniel Marsh - You said in the first post that you were in discussion with a JW. Ultimately, the question of who’s-who in Revelation involves the issue of the time-frame of Revelation’s fulfillment, this is true regardless of who you’re talking to, but the JWs have a unique interpretation regarding the time of the Revelation’s fulfillment; it may or may not be that your discussions with Kim ever get to this point, but eventually they will if you’re trying to show her that Babylon the Great was a 1st or 2nd Century entity.

JWs interpret everything in Rev to have fulfillment after 1914. They say that John’s statement at Rev 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” refers to the eschatological “day of the Lord”, or in other words (according to JW time prophecies) the period after 1914. (of course, this allows them to see their own organization, with it’s short-lived history, as playing a major part in Revelation’s fulfillment). This interpretation of Rev 1:10 is also related to one of the unique renderings of the NWT, which reads Rev 1:10 as “By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day,” - the idea being that John was somehow transported “by inspiration” into the time period after 1914. Not only does this allow them to see themselves as involved in the fulfillment of Revelation, but it requires that the entities of Revelation (i.e., Babylon the Great) be in existence after 1914. The individual JW may be prevented from seeing that Babylon the Great refers to a 1st or 2nd Century entity by this interpretation.

Their viewpoint, though, ignores the evidence that “the Lord’s day” was in use by the early Christians as a reference to Sunday concurrently with the writing of Revelation:

“But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure” (The Didache)

Other ways to help show that the enitites of Revelation were in existence early on:

At the very beginning it gives indications as to when the writer expected it to be fulfilled:

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Also at the end:

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near

Compare what was said at the end of Revelation to what was said at the end of Daniel:

Daniel 12:9 …Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

It can be assumed that the contrast with the ending of Daniel would not have been lost on the early Christians; whereas Daniel’s book was to be left “sealed until the time of the end”, John was instructed to “not seal up” Revelation, “for the time is near”. All of this helps to fit in with an early fulfillment of much of Revelation; something that will eventually have to be dealt with in discussions with JWs.


#14

I have moved this thread to Apologetics, since that is the more appropriate place for this discussion.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,

Ferdinand Mary


#15

It also stands to reason that throughout the New Testament, the Apostles and teachers, Bishops and priests all preached about the “coming of the Lord” as a “soon to be” event. They thought Jesus was coming back in their lifetime. It would not make sense for John to write about an event to happen some 2000 or more years later.

The gospel writers wrote for the people of their day, for specific reasons and needs. John would be relating a vision that would have meaning to the people of the day - not for us. Although, some of its messages can and do apply. There are lessons for all people of every age but to attribute the Whore of Babylon to the Catholic Church of today makes no sense.

The Church, as we know it today, didn’t exist then. Her beliefs and teachings were common to all Christians of the time but Rome was still filled with the pagan emperors and were responsible for the killings of the martyrs. The martyrs of the time were “Catholic” as their were no other denoms around at the time so it would make no sense to say that the Catholic Church killed her own! It’s double-talk!

Please, learn about the writers, how they wrote, and why they wrote and learn some history. The Whore of Babylon just doesn’t makes sense for the CC. Either Rome or Jerusalem do.


#16

Hello,

I remember reading a study when the priest molestation case came out that claimed that Protestant ministers had the same problems but the news picked up more on the Catholic abusers. There are people in all religions that will abuse their authority, Protestant and Catholic alike.

I remember when I was young that there was a lot of discussion about Jerry Swaggert and Jim Baker. They were, of course, Protestant ministers.

My point is not that all Protestants ministers are evil, far from it. I just find it troubling that there are some among the Protestant community who will use the priest molestation cases as a means to justify calling Catholics the Whore of Babylon.


#17

[quote=ChristianWAB]A big issue that millions of Christians take up with Catholicism is that it is said to deviate from and/or perverts the true gospel of Christ… and here again, Satan knows that Jesus won the victory on the cross, so to get people to believe in a false gospel would be Satan’s only chance of winning souls at this point. With so many Catholic doctrines under such scrutiny when compared to the Bible, many anti-Catholics would come to this same “Babylon” conclusion. I’m pretty sure this will be a label affixed to Catholicism from now until the truth is revealed and Jesus returns in His glory.
[/quote]

Hello Christian WAB…My goodness you are a hard person to quote…what with all those colors and font sizes and such.

You play the Devil’s advocate well also!

I just wanted to make one comment about the above statement you made…I believe it to be true. Anti-Catholics do not understand the doctrines of the Catholic Church…a lot of cradle Catholics don’t understand…That is why we as Catholics must educate ourselves and others! It is our duty!

Every Sacrament in the CC has a basis in scripture…every one. On the other hand, there is no Biblical basis for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fida, wed. night church services, alter calls without baptism, the sinner’s prayer, Nonessential vs. essential doctrine, multiple baptisms when the first “doesn’t stick”…these are the things I witness in my Protestant Neighbors churches. These are the true questionable beliefs that need to be addressed.


#18

[quote=Daniel Marsh]thanks Sue, I will go look for that article later.

As I remember there is a book called the Babylon Connection? by woodrow I think that refutes the Hislop book that some protestants love.

From Rev 18, I am thinking of pointing out, that we are speaking of a city-state.

do you all know of historical sources that describe babylon religion that would constrast it agaisnt christian theology?

I am thinking of the line of mommy gods and daddy gods.
[/quote]

There are too many to count.

For a list of gods, “A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists - Richard L. Litke” (1958) contains about 2000 names.

Many of them are parents - they are arranged in households.

It’s fun, if you like that kind of thing: it will set you back about $ 55 - and is definitely worth it. Problem is, it’s in Sumerian :slight_smile: - but it’s obvious the gods are gods, because names of gods are what is listed - each one has a superscript d before the name, which is how one tells.

Otherwise, there is:
[list]
*]Thorkild Jacobsen’s “Treasures of Darkness” (1976)
*]Jean Bottero’s “Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia” (2004) - both are about religion from the Sumerians to the first millennium BC.
[/list]Jacobsen’s book is older, but still very valuable.
[list]
*]W. von Soden’s The Ancient Orient (1994), pages 173-201 in particular
*]S.N. Kramer’s “The Sumerians” (1963) - pages 112-165 in particular
*]Jeremy Black & Anthony Green’s “Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary” (1992)
[/list]All the above are available at Amazon.com/books. If one is new to the subject, Black and Green’s book is a pretty good place to start.

An excellent resource for books is eisenbrauns.com - going here and seeing the titles of these books in the category “Mesopotamian Religion” should give some impression of what Mesopotamian religion involved - it certainly didn’t begin in Babylon.

For translations of Sumerian texts, go to: ETCSL: full catalogue of Sumerian literary compositions - many gods are mentioned by name, as addressees of prayers or subjects of other texts.

From the site:

www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue4.htm

Hymns addressed to deities:

Asarluhi
Bau
Damgalnuna
Enlil
Hendursanga
Inana
Inana and Dumuzid
Ishkur
Lisin
Lulal
Martu
Nanna
Nanshe
Nergal
Ninazu
Ningirsu
Ningishzida
Ningublaga
Ninimma
Nininsina
Ninkasi
Ninlil
Ninshubur
Nintud-Aruru
Ninurta
Nisaba
Nungal
Nuska
Shara
Shul-pa-ed
Utu
Other deities:
Sadarnuna
Kusu

For a somewhat out-dated, but still useful, list of gods, Anton Deimel’s Pantheon Babylonicum is still worthwhile: as long as one controls it by more recent work - go here to download it ##


#19

Disclaimer: I am not a “rabid anti-Catholic,” nor do I believe that
Catholics today are responsible for the sins of the past. In fact, my girlfriend is Catholic, and I hope to make her my wife some day.

I have studied with Protestants, JW’s, and Seventh Day Adventists (who many of you might know believe that the Catholic Church is the little horn in Daniel, or anti-Christ). I also admit that I have not studied the Catholic religion first hand, which is part of the reason why I’m here. Anyway, the disclaimer is done.

The JW’s think that Babylon the Great is simply all the false religions of the world (which is every religion except their own, of course). What I’m most familiar with, however, are the SDA arguments:

Daniel 7:25:
“And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

I believe the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday during one of the Councils of Nicea. Also, the SDAs claim that at one point, the Catholic Church eliminated the second commandment and split the 10th into two. (thus all the golden crosses, etc). I have seen an older text from the Catholic Church, and it did have this alteration; however, I’m not sure if you still have it changed today or not.

Also in Daniel 7:24:
“And the ten horns out of this kingdom [are] ten kings [that] shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.”

The SDAs point out that the papacy subdued three of the 10 kingdoms that arose out of the Roman Empire when they were coming to power.

2 Thess 2:4
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

Both JWs and SDAs believe that anti-Christ means “instead of Christ,” not against him. Thus, someone claiming to be God would be an anti-Christ. In many past papal writings, the Pope is portrayed as God. I know that today, he is not seen as God by most Catholics. However, when the SDAs see Vicar of Christ on the robe of the pope, they looked up the definition of Vicar. To put it bluntly, Vicar of Christ means “on behalf/instead of Christ.” Also, I’m not sure, but I believe the original Greek phrase (meaning both letters and numbers) for “Vicar of Christ” adds up to “six-hundred, threescore, and six.”

JW’s both believe that the Catholic Church is wrong in it’s declaration that Peter was the foundation of the Church. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the head.

I’d like to take a second to say that the Seventh Day Adventist were quick to point out all the good the Catholic Church is and was responsible for. However, they said that the Bible meant to show us the signs to figure out when we were being “duped” by an organization claiming to be benevolent.

Also, both religions are quick to pull out the history books. The Catholic Church was created in a time of war between pagans and Christians. Much of the original Catholic dogma was seen as a compromise. For example, Sunday was when the pagans worshipped Apollo, and Saturday was considered the Sabbath by Christians. The Catholic Church “compromised” by having everyone follow the Sabbath on Sunday. Also, JW’s believe this is when the idea of God in three persons started. The pagans had God’s that were the same way, and this idea was brought in. Christmas is another example of a pagan tradition that was adopted into the Catholic Church.

The list goes on, for example paying for the forgiveness of your sins and others, but I haven’t studied it recently, and I have grown rusty. I have also studied many other interpretations for all the above scriptures. Anyway, I hope I could be of help.


#20

I thought the Whore of Babylon was Wal-Mart.:rolleyes:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.