Babylon the great, only intelligent discussion please

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

I was wondering about this last bit - what had you in mind ?​

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi GoG, I an thinking of Anicent Near Eastern Literature of Babylonian where their gods are described.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi GoG, I an thinking of Anicent Near Eastern Literature of Babylonian where their gods are described.

Ok In that case, I would recommend reading a few texts - a good starting point might be the The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. The link leads to the catalogue page, so that you can choose for yourself what texts to read.​

ETCSL catalogue: hymns and cult songs includes hymns to temples, as well as many specific gods.

[etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue1.htm]](http://www-[/color)1 = narrative and mythological compositions and %between%2 = mainly royal praise poetry, and hymns to deities with prayers for rulers should be helpful.

A translation of the Enuma Elish, the so-called “Babylonian Creation Epic” is here

Hope that helps

 

[Contarini]

Daniel Marsh:

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.

Well, it seems clear to me that “Babylon” is pagan Rome (the cultural/religious/economic aspect of Rome). (I’ve heard the “Jerusalem” argument, and it’s completely unconvincing.) The question is whether this has relevance beyond the first century–I think it does. I don’t think orthodox Christians can relegate Revelation to a purely preterist reading. My conclusion is that wherever we find the spirit of pagan Rome operating, we are dealing with Babylon and with the Beast. The question then is whether we see that spirit in Catholicism–and frankly, for all my ecumenism, I don’t see how even a Catholic can help but see it in certain aspects of Catholic history. Of course, the same is true of Protestantism–or perhaps more precisely, of secular modern culture, to which Protestantism has sold itself body and soul (from the beginning, when Protestants appealed to the ambitions of civil rulers to get them on the side of the “Gospel” over against the Church hierarchy). So I’m not claiming that Protestants are in a better situation here–just different.

In other words, I reject the claim of fundamentalists that the Catholic Church is itself “Babylon.” But Babylon has infected Catholicism, as it has infected all Christianity. I don’t think this is incompatible with Catholic belief–I’m not necessarily talking about official dogma, and I certainly do not believe that Babylon has ever taken over Catholicism entirely. Indeed, I’m strongly inclined to believe that Rome is indefectible, though not infallible–that even if all other expressions of Christianity fall captive to the powers of Antichrist, Rome (or some representative thereof–it might look to the world like a tiny sectarian group with an antipope) will not.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Well, it seems clear to me that “Babylon” is pagan Rome (the cultural/religious/economic aspect of Rome). (I’ve heard the “Jerusalem” argument, and it’s completely unconvincing.) The question is whether this has relevance beyond the first century–I think it does. I don’t think orthodox Christians can relegate Revelation to a purely preterist reading. My conclusion is that wherever we find the spirit of pagan Rome operating, we are dealing with Babylon and with the Beast. The question then is whether we see that spirit in Catholicism–and frankly, for all my ecumenism, I don’t see how even a Catholic can help but see it in certain aspects of Catholic history. Of course, the same is true of Protestantism–or perhaps more precisely, of secular modern culture, to which Protestantism has sold itself body and soul (from the beginning, when Protestants appealed to the ambitions of civil rulers to get them on the side of the “Gospel” over against the Church hierarchy). So I’m not claiming that Protestants are in a better situation here–just different.

In other words, I reject the claim of fundamentalists that the Catholic Church is itself “Babylon.” But Babylon has infected Catholicism, as it has infected all Christianity. I don’t think this is incompatible with Catholic belief–I’m not necessarily talking about official dogma, and I certainly do not believe that Babylon has ever taken over Catholicism entirely. Indeed, I’m strongly inclined to believe that Rome is indefectible, though not infallible–that even if all other expressions of Christianity fall captive to the powers of Antichrist, Rome (or some representative thereof–it might look to the world like a tiny sectarian group with an antipope) will not.

Edwin

Thomas Torrance made a similar point in his book on the Apocalypse, written during WW2 - that BtG represents a spirit as much as a particular place.​

The more I look at the book, the more certain I am that Jerusalem is meant - twinned to some extent with Rome. ##