E
- Status
Crusader13
New member
The Harlot City being identified with Jerusalem is what I believe makes the most sense. I’ve gotten that interpretation from scholars like Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn and others, even some Protestant scholars as well.
Basically the Harlot is accused of fornicating with other nations and forsaking the true faith, which is exactly what Jerusalem did and that was why she was destroyed. You can read about this imagery in the OT in books like Ezekiel. The people turned to other nations and pagan gods and abandoned their faith and the covenant with God. The Jews in Jesus’s day were guilty of the same adulterous actions when they allied with Rome to kill Jesus.
Basically the Harlot is accused of fornicating with other nations and forsaking the true faith, which is exactly what Jerusalem did and that was why she was destroyed. You can read about this imagery in the OT in books like Ezekiel. The people turned to other nations and pagan gods and abandoned their faith and the covenant with God. The Jews in Jesus’s day were guilty of the same adulterous actions when they allied with Rome to kill Jesus.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The usual interpretation, I believe, is that “the kings of the earth” in v. 2 are subordinate to the Roman Empire, and that the “seven hills” in v. 9 are the seven hills of Rome.
Crusader13
New member
The seven hills imagery is used to identify the beast, which appears to be Rome. In Revelation we see the Harlot riding atop the beast and then we are told the beast turns on the Harlot and devours her. Which is exactly what Rome did to Jerusalem in 70 AD.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
But it’s the woman, not the beast, who is seated on seven hills.
Crusader13
New member
Right. The woman is sitting on Rome, because Rome sits on the seven hills. Which makes sense when we are later told the harlot is seen riding the beast. The beast is Rome, the Harlot is Jerusalem.
I can understand your point of view by believing that the woman is Rome, but if the woman is the Harlot and the harlot is Rome, then it wouldn’t make sense when we are told the beast is Rome too. Because in another verse we are told the harlot is riding the beast and the beast turns and devours the harlot.
The imagery doesn’t work if the harlot and beast are both the same.
I can understand your point of view by believing that the woman is Rome, but if the woman is the Harlot and the harlot is Rome, then it wouldn’t make sense when we are told the beast is Rome too. Because in another verse we are told the harlot is riding the beast and the beast turns and devours the harlot.
The imagery doesn’t work if the harlot and beast are both the same.
J
JSRG
Guest
Except Irenaeus DOES leave ambiguity. The Greek text’s phrasing could refer to either John being seen at the end of Domitian’s reign or that John’s vision was seen then. The Irenaeus argument is a non-starter for this reason. This is all discussed at the link I posted. Taylor Marshall also notes that here (I know Taylor Marshall has done or said a lot of controversial things in recent years but this article of his predates that).
I have also seen it offered that Irenaeus may have been referring to Domitius (a family name for Nero) rather than Domitian… but this claim seems a bit more dubious.
Where does Papias say this?
We’ve already discussed him.
Where did any of these say that John wrote Revelation under Domitian?
Perhaps with Clement of Rome you meant Clement of Alexandria, but he only says (in “Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?”) that John was recalled from Patmos after the death of “the tyrant” which could refer to Domitian or Nero.
These two state this, yes, though they’re from the 4th century, quite a bit afterwards. But also in the 4th century, we have Epiphanius (in the Panarion) saying John’s banishment was under Claudius–though it’s possible he meant Nero, as Claudius as one of Nero’s secondary names.
E
EndTimes
Guest
One fact often kept hidden by and/or unknown by some -
- is that Jerusalem is well-known to have Seven Hills…
Last edited:
D
Dudd
Guest
It’s a fact but in my view a meaningless one. There are several cities in the world called a ‘city of seven hills.’ Rome isn’t a city of seven (hills) ‘mountains.’
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Some translations use the word HILL but the text uses the word ‘oros’ which is better translated ‘mountain’ NOT HILL. Rome does not sit on seven mountains! It doesn’t even sit on seven hills! There are seven hills on the East side of the Tiber River, but ‘Vatican Hill’ sits on the west side of the Tiber and THAT MAKES 8 HILLS TOTAL!
The 7 hills on the east side of the Tiber are more like high ridges and are too small to be designated as ‘mountains.’ Typically lower than 200 feet and appear as ‘little nubs’ when driving and viewed from a distance. The highest of the seven hills is Quirinal hill at 61 meters or 200 feet!
Strong’s specifically states that a hill is lower than a mountain.
Here’s a pic from wiki…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The city of seven mountains is Jerusalem. "Babylon must sit on or occupy seven mountains, and I believe those mountains are the seven mountains that surround Jerusalem.
“As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the Lord surround now and forevermore.” (Psalm 125:2)
These mountains are Mount Zion (southwest, 2558 ft.), Mount Gareb (west, 2518 ft.), Mount Scopus (north, 2724 ft.) Mount of Olives (east, 2641 ft. Mount of Offense (southeast, 2411 ft.) Mount of Evil Counsel (south, 2548 ft.) and at the center, Mount Moriah (the temple mount, 2556 ft.)
Jerusalem is the only place on planet earth that God has personally deemed as His own, and upon it there now stands an abomination called, “The Dome of the Rock.”
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Some translations use the word HILL but the text uses the word ‘oros’ which is better translated ‘mountain’ NOT HILL. Rome does not sit on seven mountains! It doesn’t even sit on seven hills! There are seven hills on the East side of the Tiber River, but ‘Vatican Hill’ sits on the west side of the Tiber and THAT MAKES 8 HILLS TOTAL!
The 7 hills on the east side of the Tiber are more like high ridges and are too small to be designated as ‘mountains.’ Typically lower than 200 feet and appear as ‘little nubs’ when driving and viewed from a distance. The highest of the seven hills is Quirinal hill at 61 meters or 200 feet!
Strong’s specifically states that a hill is lower than a mountain.
Here’s a pic from wiki…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The city of seven mountains is Jerusalem. "Babylon must sit on or occupy seven mountains, and I believe those mountains are the seven mountains that surround Jerusalem.
“As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the Lord surround now and forevermore.” (Psalm 125:2)
These mountains are Mount Zion (southwest, 2558 ft.), Mount Gareb (west, 2518 ft.), Mount Scopus (north, 2724 ft.) Mount of Olives (east, 2641 ft. Mount of Offense (southeast, 2411 ft.) Mount of Evil Counsel (south, 2548 ft.) and at the center, Mount Moriah (the temple mount, 2556 ft.)
Jerusalem is the only place on planet earth that God has personally deemed as His own, and upon it there now stands an abomination called, “The Dome of the Rock.”
E
EndTimes
Guest
Not so fast… There’s a new Jerusalem arriving… For the Old is going to be replaced.
Crusader13
New member
So who, in your view, is the woman, if the city of seven heads is Jerusalem?
E
EndTimes
Guest
IF - THEN
If the city of seven heads is Jerusalem - then the city of Jerusalem is the woman.
Rev: 17:18 – "The woman you saw is the great city that holds sway over the kings of the earth.’ "
Last edited:
D
Dudd
Guest
Are you sure of that? This anti-Christ abomination stands upon Holy ground…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Could it be that the ‘woman’ turns the city of Jerusalem into a
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Could it be that the ‘woman’ turns the city of Jerusalem into a
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
There’s several greatly competing schools of thought re: that area in Jerusalem, yes?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The “abomination” was once the chapel where the Knights Templar celebrated Mass.
E
EndTimes
Guest
And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, fear ye not. For such things must needs be, but the end is not yet.
8 For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.
9 But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
10 And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.
11 And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
12 And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death.
13 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
14 And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not: he that readeth let him understand: then let them that are in Judea, flee unto the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop, not go down into the house, nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house:
16 And let him that shall be in the field, not turn back to take up his garment.
17 And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days.
18 But pray ye, that these things happen not in winter.
19 For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be.
8 For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.
9 But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
10 And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.
11 And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
12 And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death.
13 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
14 And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not: he that readeth let him understand: then let them that are in Judea, flee unto the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop, not go down into the house, nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house:
16 And let him that shall be in the field, not turn back to take up his garment.
17 And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days.
18 But pray ye, that these things happen not in winter.
19 For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be.
Crusader13
New member
So who’s the woman then? I’m not sure I understand what your view is?
What makes that ground Holy now? The Temple is no longer there.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
This is why I don’t believe this passage is speaking about a still future event. Why should only people in Judea flee to the mountains? And what good is fleeing to the mountains going to do during the second coming?
They were told to flee to the mountains because the Roman armies were coming to destroy the temple and the city.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
You’re free to believe whatever you will.
Clearly, That and other passages concerning the oncoming END - bracket wide periods of time.
_
Crusader13
New member
I have no doubt that there are other passages that do refer to the second coming. And I realize that you and I are not going to agree on the meaning of these passages, but the evidence and the context, especially in chapter 24, do not point to a still unknown future generation. For me that interpretation does not seem logical.
Nevertheless, I still enjoy talking eschatology.
- Status