Why those seven churches? The Book of Revelation

[EndTimes]

In addition, I would like to add that scholars believe that John of Patmos was an itinerant preacher who travelled throughout the region of Asia Minor, preaching to the churches there. Several of the cities he is addressing were centers of paganism, specifically the cult of the Roman emperor. Thus, he is calling on Christians in those regions not to give in to the temptations of the Roman culture, economy, religion

Which scholars might that be?

Catholic Scholars? <— Nope!

… And… To Christians in those regions?

It is John who introduced Christ Jesus TO the pagans of those regions,
and it is never ‘the Romans’ who are ever viewed as being Jesus’ Enemy.

_

 

[Richard_White]

On the contrary, the Roman machine was the chief enemy of Christ and Christianity throughout the first 300 years of its existence. It was the Romans who crucified Jesus. It was the Romans who persecuted and killed Christians. It was the Romans whose idolatry, greed, and corruption John of Patmos was calling out in the Book of Revelation!

May God bless you all!

 

[EndTimes]

It was the Romans who crucified Jesus

You’ve neglected to mention that it was not the Romans who sentenced and demanded Jesus be put death at the hands of a chosen executioner - Pilate…

Why?

 

[JohnR77]

It was the Romans whose idolatry, greed, and corruption John of Patmos was calling out in the Book of Revelation!

That is one view.

However,
Dr. Scott Hahn defends another interpretation. He makes, IMO, an overwhelmingly convincing case that the Whore of Babylon in Revelation refers specifically to the corrupt Jewish leaders of that day. (Not all Jews for all time.) On my page below I present some of his arguments.

Whore of Babylon

In Revelation 17 there is a reference to the “many waters.” Scott Hahn points out that Rome is not on the coast. So, Jerusalem, also not being on the coast, cannot be ruled out on that account.

On that section I substituted my own reflections from study.

I briefly ran it past Dr. Scott Hahn, and he agreed that it was plausible as Revelation is polyvalent. It has many layers of meaning.

In full disclosure I should point out that at the time I was in his line to get his book autographed, so he probably was inclined to agree that my ideas were acceptable.

You be the judge.

Read Babylon Many Waters

John

 

[EndTimes]

That is one view.

Yes… That’s a dominant view of some modern (Non-Christian) Jewish historians…

It completely ignores those areas in the Gospels/NT which rebut that POV.

 

[JohnR77]

That is one view. [ a reference to R. White’s view]

Since there are now 2 positions presented,
I have to assume you quote in context, and mean that the position i presented is the correct one as it solidly reflects Acts and Revelation.

See my links above for overwhelming evidence.

John

 

[EndTimes]

Since there are now 2 positions presented,

Brief Excerpt From the GOSPEL of the Christ - Is this your position?

Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”

But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”