"harlot Of Babylon" By John Martignoni

[KnightofChrist]

[quote][b]Introduction[/b]

I've had several folks write me and ask how I handle the argument that a whole bunch of our non-Catholic friends make in regards to the Catholic Church being the "harlot of Babylon" that is spoken of in chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. So I'm going to show you how I do that in this issue.

Pretty much all of chapter 17 is devoted to describing the harlot of Babylon, so instead of typing out all the pertinent verses, I'm just going to let you get out your Bible and turn to Revelation 17 as you go through this newsletter.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
There are a lot of folks who have been taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon that is spoken of in chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. These folks point to two main verses to "prove" that the woman (the harlot) is indeed the Roman Catholic Church. Those verses are: 1) Rev 17:9..."This calls for a mind with wisdom; the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated," and 2) Rev 17:18..."And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth."

"See," they say, "the seven hills means Rome, which is a city that sits on seven hills. The Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. And, Rome was the great city that had dominion over the kings of the earth. Therefore, the harlot of Babylon is a world-wide religion that is based in Rome."

How to answer that? Well, the main strategy that I employ in this instance is the "But That's My Interpretation" strategy. That strategy is this: Protestants believe that we should go by the Bible alone in determining what is and is not authentic Christian teaching. Furthermore, they believe that each person has the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves to determine what is and is not authentic Christian teaching.

What I do is give them my interpretation of these passages, and, if they try to tell me that my interpretation is wrong, I simply ask them if, according to their theology, I have the right to read and interpret Scripture for myself so as to determine what God is saying to me through Scripture. And they say, "Of course you do." Then I tell them, "That is MY interpretation!" They can disagree with my interpretation if they want to, but, by their own theology, I have a RIGHT to my interpretation. Therefore, they cannot say my interpretation is wrong...the best they can do is disagree with it.

This is a very important point to remember...they, by their own theology, cannot tell me my interpretation is wrong, unless they wish to be hypocrites. They can disagree with my interpretation, but they cannot say it is wrong...not if they believe in the right of each individual to read and interpret Scripture on their own so as to determine true and false teaching. And, remember, you can use this strategy every time you discuss the Bible with a non-Catholic, regardless of the particular doctrine or dogma you are talking about.

However, I'm not going to simply leave it at that. I am going to give you scriptural support for my interpretation which will hopefully make them re-think what they have been taught about the harlot of Babylon. Remember, though, that I am not saying my interpretation is THE correct interpretation...the Church has not, to my knowledge, defined exactly what these passages refer to, so I am free to interpret these passages within the overall parameters of Catholic teaching. So, again, I'm not saying that I am 100% right, all I'm saying is that what follows is my interpretation, to which I am entitled to by Protestant theology - in an absolute sense, and by Catholic theology - as long as it does not contradict Church teaching.

What I'm going to do is just go through chapter 17 and comment on a few of the verses here and there to show why the harlot of Babylon is not the Catholic Church, and why I believe it is the city of Jerusalem. That's right, my interpretation is that the harlot of Babylon is a symbol of the city of Jerusalem.

Verse 1: "...'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters.'" How is the nation of Israel often referred to in the Old Testament? As a harlot. Why? Because Israel quite often would forsake worship of the one true God, and would turn instead to the worship of false gods. Quite often the relationship between God and Israel is described in marital terms. Therefore, when Israel would forsake her true Spouse, she was described as a harlot...a whore. Hosea 9:1, "Rejoice not, O Israel! Exult not like the peoples; for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot's hire upon all threshing floors." So, we see from the Old Testament that Israel is often referred to as a harlot.

Verse 3: "...and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns." And, verse 9-10: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come...." What do we see here? We see that the seven hills pertain to the beast on which the woman is seated, not the woman herself. I believe, as do most folks I've read...Catholic and Protestant...that the beast is symbolic of Rome and the Roman Empire. So, again, the seven hills are referring to the beast the woman is seated upon, not the woman herself. And, if Rome is the beast, then that "proves" the woman sitting on the beast is the Catholic Church, right? Not so fast.

Let's look at the last verse of the chapter again...verse 18: "And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth." Wait a minute here. Let's think about this. We are told that the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth is Rome. And, since it is Rome, that "proves" that the harlot of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church. But, big problem: I've already shown that the beast the woman is seated upon is Rome. If verse 9, which refers to the beast the woman is seated upon, is referring to the city of Rome; and verse 18, which refers to the harlot, is also referring to the city of Rome, then the beast and the harlot are one and the same. Both are the city of Rome. But, these are clearly two separate entities, so if one is Rome, then the other has to be something else. This is a bit of a problem for the harlot of Babylon folks.

Now, someone may say, "Well, of course the beast is Rome...the city on seven hills...but, the harlot is the city within the city - Vatican City, where the Catholic Church is headquartered." But, there are a whole bunch of problems with that. First and foremost, that's not what the Bible says. I don't see anything that mentions Vatican City or a city within a city. So, let's not add words to the Bible, right? Second, is that there was no such thing as Vatican City until the early 20th century. In other words, it didn't exist until almost 1900 years after the Book of Revelation. Therefore, it could not, and did not, have dominion over the kings of the earth when John wrote the book. And, remember, the Bible was speaking about the harlot in the present tense: "...IS the great city which HAS dominion over the kings of the earth." Third, while you can argue that the Catholic Church did, in a sense, have dominion over the Catholic kings of Europe, the Middle East, and Nort h Africa at different points in time; it has never had dominion over all the kings of the earth. It never even had dominion over a majority of the kings of the earth. And, today, it has dominion over pretty much none of the kings of the earth. Heck, there are hardly any kings left on the earth over which to have dominion!

Furthermore, the harlot is clearly identified as a city, not a Church. Catholics are often accused of "adding" to the Bible...well, here is a perfect example of adding to the Bible. The harlot of Babylon is a city. Nowhere does the Bible say it is a church. Do these folks take the Bible literally, or not?

What else can we glean from chapter 17? Let's look at verse 16: "And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh, and burn her up with fire." Does that mean that Rome will burn Vatican City? (There goes a bunch of tourist revenue!) Ask these harlot of Babylon folks exactly what that means? Make them give you an interpretation, and listen and see if that interpretation doesn't stretch the bounds of credulity. If, however, the beast is Rome (or the Roman Empire), and the harlot is Jerusalem, then we can see here a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, by Rome, which sacked and burned Jerusalem in 70 A.D. - leaving her naked and burned up with fire, just like the Bible says.

Verse 6: "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Let's turn to Matthew 23:33-38. Here Jesus is speaking to the scribes and Pharisees. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah...O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you...Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate."

Notice Jesus says that He sends these folks where? To Jerusalem. And what's going to happen to them? They will be killed and crucified and scourged and persecuted. Sounds like Jerusalem will be drunk with the blood of the martyrs and saints of Jesus, just like the harlot of Babylon, doesn't it? And compare verse 38, about Jerusalem being forsaken and desolate with Rev 18:21-24...these verses describe a city that is pretty much forsaken and desolate, don't they? And, look closely at verse 24: "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth." Well, if the blood of all who have been slain on earth are found in the harlot of Babylon; and the blood of all the O.T. prophets and wise men and scribes, and the blood of those sent by Jesus who are yet to be crucified, killed, scourged, and persecuted are upon Jerusalem (Matthew 23), then it looks, again, like Jerusalem is the harlot of Babylon.

One more major point to make. The harlot of Babylon is referred to as the "great city," in 17:18 and in a few verses in chapter 18. Knowing that, let's turn to Rev 11:9, "...and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the GREAT CITY which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified." Hmmm. The "great city" is where their Lord was crucified. Now, I could be wrong, but wasn't the Lord crucified in Jerusalem? So, is the "great city" Jerusalem in Rev 11, but then all of a sudden it becomes Rome in Rev 17? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but then, I am just an ignorant Catholic.

[b]In Conclusion[/b]

I can't answer every single nuance of this argument here, but I hope I've given you enough ammunition - using Scripture, logic, and common sense - to go out and challenge the garbage that some folks have been taught about the Catholic Church being the harlot of Babylon, and to maybe plant some seeds. A couple more points that I'll throw in to further my argument that the harlot of Babylon is referring to Jerusalem, are:

1) That the Jews and the Romans were both on the same side in terms of persecuting Christians for a time. Jerusalem was riding on the back of Rome in that regard. But, again, they had a falling out and the Jews rebelled against Rome...who then hated the harlot and made her desolate and naked and devoured her flesh and burned her with fire...literally.

2) Jerusalem can be said to have dominion over all the kings of the earth. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as the "first born" of the Lord. The first born has dominion over all the other sons and daughters...all the other nations of the earth. So, in that sense, Jerusalem (as the capital of Israel) has dominion over the kings of the earth.

Again, all of this is simply my opinion...my interpretation.

As always, comments are welcomed and all will be read.

[b]How to be added to, or removed from, the list[/b]

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the "Newsletter" page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.[/quote]

[Eutychus]

Idiot apologetics. One of Dave Armstrongs verbal diarreah rants. That boy can churn out more words saying nothing, than anyone outside a Jesuit seminary.

Jerusalem is GODS PERSONAL POSSESSION, it is HIS CITY, not the world's, or the Jews.

That moron just said that GODS PERSONAL POSSESION, YHWH is the HARLOT the Whore of Babylon....sigh.

I hope he owns asbesto's underwear come judgement day.

[quote]Ga 4:26

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.[/quote]

Edited September 9, 2006 by Eutychus

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1059784' date='Sep 9 2006, 04:43 PM']
Idiot apologetics. One of Dave Armstrongs verbal diarreah rants. That boy can churn out more words saying nothing, than anyone outside a Jesuit seminary.

Jerusalem is GODS PERSONAL POSSESSION, it is HIS CITY, not the world's, or the Jews.

That moron just said that GODS PERSONAL POSSESION, YHWH is the HARLOT the Whore of Babylon....sigh.

I hope he owns asbesto's underwear come judgement day.
[/quote]

Who John Martignoni, or John the Apostle, becaue they both say the same thing.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]Ga 4:26

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.[/quote]

Yes, but this is Paul's writings not John's, and Paul is talking about the heavely Jerusalem, and John both Johns the Apostle, and the apologetic, are talking about the earthly city Jerusalem, where The Lord was crucified. Which was earthly Jersusalem.

[Eutychus]

Oh dear biblical illiterate....

Where did Abraham almost sacrifice Isaac { a type in advance } .... the mount top above Jerusalem, { reasearch what Abraham named that place then }

Where did the Father see His Son sacrificed for me?

Were they in heaven? Hardly. Jerusalem was special from Melchelzedik { the only priest/king, another forshadowing } to Abraham, to David, to Jesus, and to us.

And you are calling Jerusalem the WHORE?

The WHORE is from the city of seven hills, dressed in purple and scarlet, resplendent in jewels holding a golden chalice in her hand.

I was taught, that if the OBVIOUS candidate fits, put the shoe on the dainty foot of the lady of the night.

[KnightofChrist]

The Bible is calling Jersalem the whore not me... take it up with God.

The Bible refers to Jersalem as a "whore" when Jersalem rejects God, for other gods.

[XIX]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1059833' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:00 PM']
Oh dear biblical illiterate....

Where did Abraham almost sacrifice Isaac { a type in advance } .... the mount top above Jerusalem, { reasearch what Abraham named that place then }

Where did the Father see His Son sacrificed for me?

Were they in heaven? Hardly. Jerusalem was special from Melchelzedik { the only priest/king, another forshadowing } to Abraham, to David, to Jesus, and to us.

And you are calling Jerusalem the WHORE?

The WHORE is from the city of seven hills, dressed in purple and scarlet, resplendent in jewels holding a golden chalice in her hand.

I was taught, that if the OBVIOUS candidate fits, put the shoe on the dainty foot of the lady of the night.
[/quote]
Notice how you are asserting claims he has already refuted?
[quote]See," they say, "the seven hills means Rome, which is a city that sits on seven hills. The Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. And, Rome was the great city that had dominion over the kings of the earth. Therefore, the harlot of Babylon is a world-wide religion that is based in Rome."

How to answer that? Well, the main strategy that I employ in this instance is the "But That's My Interpretation" strategy. That strategy is this: Protestants believe that we should go by the Bible alone in determining what is and is not authentic Christian teaching. Furthermore, they believe that each person has the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves to determine what is and is not authentic Christian teaching.

What I do is give them my interpretation of these passages, and, if they try to tell me that my interpretation is wrong, I simply ask them if, according to their theology, I have the right to read and interpret Scripture for myself so as to determine what God is saying to me through Scripture. And they say, "Of course you do." Then I tell them, "That is MY interpretation!" They can disagree with my interpretation if they want to, but, by their own theology, I have a RIGHT to my interpretation. Therefore, they cannot say my interpretation is wrong...the best they can do is disagree with it.[/quote]

If you want to have any credibility in a debate, you have to answer what other people say is response to your arguments, not simply repeat points. Otherwise, the counterpoint stands.

[KnightofChrist]

Hosea 9:1, "Rejoice not, O Israel! Exult not like the peoples; for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot's hire upon all threshing floors."

[KnightofChrist]

Is it not the opinion of some that The United Nations is the NWO, tell me who created the state of Israel?

[Budge]

How can Jerusalem be the whore?
[size=5]
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.[/size]

Rome has no choice but to deceive its followers about Revelation 17 even though it is OBVIOUS.
[size=4]
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in [u]purple and scarlet colour[/u], and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, [u]having a golden cup in her hand[/u] full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:[/size]


[img]http://home.fuse.net/gospel/cardinals%20and%20purple%20and%20scarlet.jpg[/img]

When did the Jews focus on wearing scarlet and purple?

[img]http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/share/editor-files/Image/Pope%20Photoa/Pope%20Benedict%20XVI%20bari%20chalice(1).jpg[/img]

When did the Jews use[u] golden cups [/u]in their worship that had anything to do with evil?

[size=4]Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
[/size]

Mystery Babylon consists of All the worlds false religions from Buddhism, Hindusim, Islam, and Talmudic Judaism--Judaism that denies Jesus Christ. Rome has united with all of them.

[size=4]Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman [u]drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: [/u]and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.[/size]

When did the Jews kill anybody? Jews historically have been victims more of pogroms and genocide.

What other church but Rome had people put to death?

[img]http://www.rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/inquisition2.gif[/img]


Rev 17:7 ¶ And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

[size=4]Rev 17:9 And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. [u]The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.[/u][/size]

Rome is known for having seven hills

secular site: the SEVEN HILLS OF ROME is what that says in Italian.

[img]http://www.erasmusbuildingeurope.org/Nuova%20cartella/images/7%20Hills%20of%20Rome.jpg[/img]

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and

Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

[size=4]Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are [u]ten kings,[/u] which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.[/size]

{Right now the United Nations has the world divided into ten regions} When did the Jews ever have 10 kings?
[size=4]
Rev 17:13 [u]These have one mind[/u], and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.[/size]

One world religion....joining with antichrists...and men that declare themselves to be gods.

[img]http://www.jimmyakin.org/images/dalai_lama_jp2_1.jpg[/img]

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

[size=4]Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, [u]are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.[/u]
[/size]
{Who else but the Catholic Church and its harlot Prot daughters?}

When were the Jews all over the entire world over nations and waters? {the majority of their population has been parts of Europe, America, and Israel}

[img]http://cara.georgetown.edu/pubs/GlobalCath%20.jpg[/img]
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
[size=4]
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, [u]which reigneth over the kings of the earth[/u].[/size]

When did the Jews-Jerusalem reign over the kings of the earth?


[img]http://religion-cults.com/pope/pope-funeral6.jpg[/img]

The catholic explanation {excuse} for Revelation 17 makes no sense!

Edited September 9, 2006 by Budge

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1059867' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:31 PM']

When did the Jews-Jerusalem reign over the kings of the earth?

[/quote]

Jerusalem can be said to have dominion over all the kings of the earth. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as the "first born" of the Lord. The first born has dominion over all the other sons and daughters...all the other nations of the earth. So, in that sense, Jerusalem (as the capital of Israel) has dominion over the kings of the earth.


[quote name='Budge' post='1059867' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:31 PM']
How can Jerusalem be the whore?[/quote]

Hosea 9:1, "Rejoice not, O Israel! Exult not like the peoples; for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot's hire upon all threshing floors."

[quote name='Budge' post='1059867' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:31 PM']
When did the Jews kill anybody? Jews historically have been victims more of pogroms and genocide.[/quote]

Jesus Christ, The profits before him, and Saul a jew killed many early christians.

[quote name='Budge' post='1059867' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:31 PM']
What other church but Rome had people put to death?[/quote]

The Protestant Church?


[quote name='Budge' post='1059867' date='Sep 9 2006, 06:31 PM']
{Right now the United Nations has the world divided into ten regions} When did the Jews ever have 10 kings?[/quote]

That same United Nations, created the current state of Israel.

Edited September 9, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1059833' date='Sep 9 2006, 07:00 PM']
Oh dear biblical illiterate....

Where did Abraham almost sacrifice Isaac { a type in advance } .... the mount top above Jerusalem, { reasearch what Abraham named that place then }

Where did the Father see His Son sacrificed for me?

Were they in heaven? Hardly. Jerusalem was special from Melchelzedik { the only priest/king, another forshadowing } to Abraham, to David, to Jesus, and to us.

And you are calling Jerusalem the WHORE?

The WHORE is from the city of seven hills, dressed in purple and scarlet, resplendent in jewels holding a golden chalice in her hand.

I was taught, that if the OBVIOUS candidate fits, put the shoe on the dainty foot of the lady of the night.
[/quote]


[quote] Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots

Now, what does Revelation say about the Great Whore? Look at the following verses:

"How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers."

"For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot."

"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed."

"But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them."

OK, so I tricked you. Those verses aren't from Revelation; they are Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 2:20, Jeremiah 3:1-3, and Ezekiel 16:15-18 respectively. And the identity of the harlot? It is Jerusalem.

And this is really what Revelation says about the Whore:

Revelation 17:15-18
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. and the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

"Great city"? Which city is "the great city"?

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified..

Now, was Jesus Christ crucified in Rome -- or in Jerusalem?

But -- but -- it says stuff like "jewels" and "golden cup" and "scarlet" and "purple" -- that's just gotta be the "Romish Church"! Well, considering that Catholicism is the Old Covenant fulfilled, it shouldn't be too surprising to find in it liturgical colors, vestments, and implements that are partly rooted in the Old Testament (see Exodus 28). But the Jerusalem Temple is undoubtedly what Revelation is referring to, and Flavius Josephus left us writings that tell us what the Jerusalem Temple looked like at the time of its destruction by pagan Rome in A.D. 70. Here are a few tidbits:

The holiest part of the Temple:
"Its front was covered with gold all over... But that gate which was at this end of the first part of the house was, as we have already observed, all over covered with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines above it, from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man's height. But then this house... had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful."

The exterior of the Temple:
"...the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men's minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays."

The priests' vestments:
"But that girdle that tied the garment to the breast was embroidered with five rows of various colors, of gold, and purple, and scarlet, as also of fine linen and blue, with which colors we told you before the veils of the temple were embroidered also. The like embroidery was upon the ephod; but the quantity of gold therein was greater. Its figure was that of a stomacher for the breast. There were upon it two golden buttons like small shields, which buttoned the ephod to the garment; in these buttons were enclosed two very large and very excellent sardonyxes, having the names of the tribes of that nation engraved upon them: on the other part there hung twelve stones, three in a row one way, and four in the other; a sardius, a topaz, and an emerald; a carbuncle, a jasper, and a sapphire; an agate, an amethyst, and a ligure; an onyx, a beryl, and a chrysolite; upon every one of which was again engraved one of the forementioned names of the tribes."

You can read the entire 5th Chapter of the 5th Book of Josephus' War here.

Exodus 28:36-38 tells us that the Temple High Priest was to have worn on his forehead an insignia:

"And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD."

But Jerusalem apostasized and failed to recognize and then killed (with Roman power) the Messiah of prophecy. St. John the Divine tells us what "the woman," Jerusalem, came to have upon her forehead:

"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (Revelation 17:5)

But -- but -- it says something about seven mountains! Glad you noticed. Because:

*

even if "the Seven Mountains" are a reference to Rome (see "The Beasts" below) -- which some of the Church Fathers, thinking of godless Rome, thought -- that city, with its Caesar-gods, was thoroughly pagan at the time and certainly part of a cruel, evil empire. The Jews of Jerusalem (the Mother of Harlots) used Rome ("rides the beast") all throughout the New Testament, using Roman power to kill the Messiah and try to destroy the People of God, the Church (see the entire Book of Acts).

*

even though they're usually lumped together and "Rome" is used as shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church, even by Catholics, Vatican City is its own city state and isn't "Rome";

*

Rome isn't built on seven mountains, anyway; it's built on seven hills, as are Constaninople, Edinburgh, San Francisco, and Cincinnati, for that matter. Mountains are big, hills are small. There are two separate words for them and Scripture is familiar with both (see Luke 3:5 and Luke 23:30). Rome's seven hills are Palatine, Aventine, Capitoline, Quarinal, Viminal, Esquiline and Caelian (hey, how come Vatican Hill is never listed?).

Jerusalem, however, is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah. There are even Psalms about them, "As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever." {Psalms 125:2)[/quote]

[Norseman82]

People need to realize that Rome in not the only city built on seven hills. Jerusalem also has seven hills: Gareb, Bezetha, Zion, Ophel, Moriah, Scandal, and Olives.

(from [url="http://www.kingdomlife.com/dayspring/TransFig.pdf"]http://www.kingdomlife.com/dayspring/TransFig.pdf[/url] page 132)

Edited September 10, 2006 by Norseman82

[Budge]

Oh yeah the harlot is Cincinnati, you got me...

Come on...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1059784' date='Sep 9 2006, 04:43 PM']
Idiot apologetics. One of Dave Armstrongs verbal diarreah rants. That boy can churn out more words saying nothing, than anyone outside a Jesuit seminary.

Jerusalem is GODS PERSONAL POSSESSION, it is HIS CITY, not the world's, or the Jews.

That moron just said that GODS PERSONAL POSSESION, YHWH is the HARLOT the Whore of Babylon....sigh.

I hope he owns asbesto's underwear come judgement day.
[/quote]
"Idiot," "diarreah rants," "moron" - sounds like the beginnings of a convincing argument there, Euty. But you forgot to also call Mr. Armstrong a stinking, shinobi-for-brains, bed-wetting poopoo-head, and pathetic wiper-of-other-people's-bottoms. Your half-arsed and meek insults are the reason you fail to convince people of the truth of your positions. If you had then proceeded to call into question Mr. Armstrong's parentage and sexual habits in strongly graphic terms, you would no doubt have this debate clinched.