The beast of Rev 17 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Prophecy & End Times



Message

rcjones -> The beast of Rev 17 (7/6/2008 11:07:47 AM)

Here is a completely different approach to solving the riddle of the beast:

http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Chapter_20

The meaning in riddles and double entendre is "Christ takes away the sins of the church."

See the solution at the site above.



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/6/2008 8:40:56 PM)

Considering that there is a great harlot named Babylon riding this beast, I find it laughable to consider that the Beast in Revelation 17 is Christ. In fact, the two are so far removed I would almost be willing to call it heretical... almost. The very fact that this person says the beast is Christ taking away the sins of the church and the beast is being ridden by the mother of all harlotries who has been made drunk on the blood of the saints... means that they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says.

Adam



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/7/2008 8:19:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin

Considering that there is a great harlot named Babylon riding this beast, I find it laughable to consider that the Beast in Revelation 17 is Christ. In fact, the two are so far removed I would almost be willing to call it heretical... almost. The very fact that this person says the beast is Christ taking away the sins of the church and the beast is being ridden by the mother of all harlotries who has been made drunk on the blood of the saints... means that they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says.

Adam


Considering the beast isn't anything that you expected, I would expect that the mother of all harlotries isn't what you expect either. By mixing popular typology with "shadows" you can get nothing but a jumble. Wouldn't it be more prudent to ask for an interpretation of the mother of all harlotries before judging based on the jumble you produced?

Look at some of the other stuff produced on that site by using the hermeneutic. The story of Tamar as a shadow of the birth of Christ. Uzziah, Japhthah,, Eglon as shadows of Christ. None of these are what you expected.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/8/2008 1:08:01 AM)

Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying?



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/8/2008 8:29:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying?


You're better than that Mr. Fribbles. Certainly you are not suggesting that you would expect to be able to mix the results of two methodologies and obtain sensible results.

Since the site has a disclaimer, that everything in it should be taken as observations until verified by others, I was hoping we might discuss the methodology rather than the fact that it doesn't agree with popular typology.

The fact is, that popular typology doesn't agree with popular typology, so your objection is very weak, even if it did address the primary proposition.

The method used correlates scripture with scripture. In principle, there should be no objection to that. Other interpretations attempt to correlate scripture with history, or futurist predictions. Which of these methods, philosophically, is more appealing, human invention or scriptural correlation?

The method uses a hermeneutic available in the first century. The 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. The other hermeneutics were invented much later. Which hermeneutic philosophically, is more appealing? One which existed at the time the document was written, or one invented much later?



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/8/2008 4:39:35 PM)

quote:

Since the site has a disclaimer, that everything in it should be taken as observations until verified by others, I was hoping we might discuss the methodology rather than the fact that it doesn't agree with popular typology.


I'm quite familiar with the method proposed on that site, and I find it ridiculous.

quote:

The method used correlates scripture with scripture. In principle, there should be no objection to that. Other interpretations attempt to correlate scripture with history, or futurist predictions. Which of these methods, philosophically, is more appealing, human invention or scriptural correlation?


The angel tells John that the events recorded in the Apocalypse will come to pass, strongly implying something happening in the future. He does not say that He's going to explain basic Christian doctrine through riddles.

quote:

The method uses a hermeneutic available in the first century. The 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. The other hermeneutics were invented much later. Which hermeneutic philosophically, is more appealing? One which existed at the time the document was written, or one invented much later?


If you can prove that was the only hermeneutic style used in the 1st century, you'll have a point. Otherwise, I don't see where you're going there.



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/8/2008 5:41:49 PM)

quote:

He does not say that He's going to explain basic Christian doctrine through riddles.


God says he speaks in riddles... and see how he links wisdom to solving them:


Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up.
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old:

Ps 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding.
4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp.

Pr 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>.

Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

quote:


Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.


Even a child can recognize a riddle when he sees one. It is a riddle whether you try to solve it with history, as the preterists do, or with speculation, as the futurists do. This is a solution to the riddle with scripture. Do you really expect anyone to believe that a literal beast has seven literal heads that are literal mountains? As I said, you are better than this.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 12:39:05 AM)

quote:

God says he speaks in riddles... and see how he links wisdom to solving them


None of those passages suggest all of Scripture is to be looked at as a riddle.

quote:

Do you really expect anyone to believe that a literal beast has seven literal heads that are literal mountains?


There's a difference between saying something is absolutely literal, and saying that it's all referencing something already stated in Scripture.
Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose?



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 8:42:26 AM)

quote:

There's a difference between saying something is absolutely literal, and saying that it's all referencing something already stated in Scripture.


And since the method on the site uses nothing but things already stated in scripture, you have tacitly endorsed it.

quote:

Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose?


And therein is the catch, you must presume it is and end-times prophecy. Dr. Gage at John Knox Seminary has show that it is tightly coupled to the book of John, as using the same sequential parallels found in Matthew that can be found on that site. The Matthew eschatology suggests something quite different. And since the site is showing that there are shadows of Christ everywhere in scripture, it would be the exception if they were not found in Revelation. But you knew that already since you are already familiar with the site.

What would be the purpose? The book IS called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" after all. I think it would be obvious that it would primarily talk about Christ. The purpose would be the same as all the other shadows of Christ.

You still have not stated a single objection that is directly related to the topic. Perhaps you can tell why you are so opposed to seeing Christ in all the scriptures. Just state plainly that you have already accepted the principles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which says there can only be one meaning in scripture, and that it must be discerned using historical - literal methods. Tell us how that statement has more authority than 2000 years of church history since it is the result of modernist higher criticism. Just state plainly that you believe that human authors wrote the Bible and that it has no direct oversight or intervention by God. Then we will all know your a-priori assumptions and can move on.

Simply repeating your opinion with no basis for discussion is not very helpful.

Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean. Show which correlations are not valid and why. Or show which riddle has another solution, then you have contributed substance to the conversation of the OP. Once the methods used in the observation are validated, then we can intelligently discuss what it means in local context and the bigger themes discovered in the shadows. I hope that scorn is not all that you have to offer.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 1:55:32 PM)

quote:

And therein is the catch, you must presume it is and end-times prophecy.

quote:

What would be the purpose? The book IS called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" after all. I think it would be obvious that it would primarily talk about Christ. The purpose would be the same as all the other shadows of Christ.


You didn't finish the verse.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." (Rev. 1:1, NIV, emphasis added)
You have to figure out what sort of Greek Genitive is being used here. If it is a genitive of content, then you'd be right. It would be the Revelation, whose content is Jesus Christ. However, that doesn't seem to be a natural reading, since Christ is the one who receives the revelation from God, to give to us. It seems more likely, then, that it is a Genitive of Ownership (probably not the correct title, but I don't have my Wallace handy to look it up), which means that it is the Revelation belonging to Christ.
What's more, it clearly states in this verse that the purpose of the Apocalypse of John is to show what must soon take place. How could it not be a prophecy of events that must soon take place, that is, at least somewhat in the future of the author's writing?

quote:

Just state plainly that you have already accepted the principles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which says there can only be one meaning in scripture, and that it must be discerned using historical - literal methods.


I've never read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, so I couldn't say for sure. However, I do tend to be historical/literal in my interpretation.

quote:

Tell us how that statement has more authority than 2000 years of church history since it is the result of modernist higher criticism.


So, scholarship is a bad thing? I suppose we should go back to just reading the Greek and Hebrew texts, then. It'll be tough on those who haven't learned the languages, but they'll just have to manage. After all, the original texts (well, as original as we can get, anyway, since the autographs are lost to us) must hold more authority than any modern translation.

quote:

Just state plainly that you believe that human authors wrote the Bible and that it has no direct oversight or intervention by God.


Well, it depends on what exactly you mean by this statement. If you mean that I do not believe that God took control of the author's hand and guided the pen to write exactly, word for word, exactly what God wanted without taking into consideration the personality and writing style of the author, then you're absolutely right. I don't believe that.
I do, however, believe that God's perfect truth is recorded in Scripture, through the vessel of the human author's. The content of the writing is entirely inspired - the style in which it is presented is entirely human, and God beautifully joined the two together to create Scripture.

quote:

Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean.


Well, right off the bat, since it says Cain represents both Christ and Adam, I would say there's a bit of a problem.
I'd also be interested in hearing how you believe that the Father has many Churches (capitol C, implying the Church, the Body of Christ) and prophets, per Genesis 12:16.
I could go on, but I frankly don't know where to begin.

quote:

Or show which riddle has another solution


OK. Samson's riddle. It's right there in the text - the solution was exactly what Samson said. A literal hive found in a literal lion. When Samson said what he did about plowing with his heifer, he was saying, through a figure of speech, that they got their answer from his woman; something they had no right to do.



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 7:06:20 PM)

quote:

You didn't finish the verse.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." (Rev. 1:1, NIV, emphasis added)


I am glad you mentioned that. You see it is important to discern the difference between what the Bible says, and what you construct around it to make it make sense to you.

You are still presuming that "must soon take place" is somehow literal and yet means thousands of years in the future. So you still presume a futurist position, correlate it with speculative ideas, then impose it upon everything you read.

Since it is premature to discuss any doctrine taught by the shadows, particularly controversial ones, it is premature to impose any such construct upon them as well. So you are mixing popular typology and shadows again and trying to make sense of the jumble.


quote:


quote:

Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean.

Well, right off the bat, since it says Cain represents both Christ and Adam, I would say there's a bit of a problem.


I am glad you pointed that out, so it can be clarified:

It should say that Cain represents Christ in the same way that Adam represents Christ. They are the same class of shadow. The similarity between Adam and Cain is shown to demonstrate the pattern within the shadows. The focus of all the shadows is Christ. Intermediate pictures are used to show the pattern or class of shadow.

You will see in the dictionary of shadows that I am developing http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dictionary_of_shadows that Water is the Word, and the Word is Christ, so it is legitimate to say that the water is Christ as well. Cain is Adam, Adam is Christ, Cain is Christ. Anyone familiar with algebra understands the concept.

Shadows are more "idea objects" than words. Words are just symbols that enable you to correlate the ideas.

I have discussed elsewhere the issue of a person playing different roles, but when I checked the site I didn't see that it made it there yet. I will have to make sure that gets corrected. Thanks.

quote:



I'd also be interested in hearing how you believe that the Father has many Churches (capitol C, implying the Church, the Body of Christ) and prophets, per Genesis 12:16.


16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

Since I do not believe that the Father has many Churches, nor is this forum about what I believe apart from the observation of a solution to a riddle in Rev 17. I cannot image at the moment where you would get such an idea and what it has to do with the OP?

quote:

Me:
Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean. Show which correlations are not valid and why. Or show which riddle has another solution, then you have contributed substance to the conversation of the OP.


The context of the challenge is the OP.
Your dodge to Abraham and Samson is cute and is a distraction from the OP. I will be happy to discuss it elsewhere. What part of the riddle of Rev 17 can you find problems with, or another solution to, within the scriptures?

The main point of the OP, just so we don't go too far astray is that there is a riddle, which is solved in a particular way when using a hermeneutic available in the first century.

It doesn't matter if that was the only hermeneutic available.
It doesn't matter that you only believe literal interpretations.
It doesn't matter that you keep trying to jumble the meaning with other typological systems.
It doesn't matter what your preferred method of interpretation is.

The questions that do matter are:
1. Do the words mean what the site says the words mean?
2. Do the riddles exposed by word replacements represent Christ?
3. Is the correlation accurate between Gen and Rev as spelled out?
4. Are there alternative correlations available (other solutions) for the riddles exposed?

I would be happy to discuss all the peripheral issues concerning shadows and their interpretation in another forum.

This particular riddle was solved in response to a challenge to use the hermeneutic upon a scripture that had not been studied. In fact I have avoided Revelation until the shadows of the Old Testament have been flushed out.

The exercise simply demonstrates the ability of the hermeneutic to find shadows of Christ in difficult passages.

Try it yourself on any passage or send me another challenge scripture.
I am looking for others to validate the methods. If you simply choose not to look at it seriously, that's your choice.

I would think the shear number of shadows produced using the hermeneutic already would demonstrate the impossibility of human invention. I'm not asking for your money. Simply that you might check it out and receive the same blessing I have received from studying them.

There aren't even ads at the web site. There is not even a copyright asserted. Take what you want, use it how you want.

If it were a coloring book that used the size of the words to paint pictures, some would have already said that it was pretty cool. If it was pure invention, I would think that at a minimum you would give me credit for being clever.

But you cannot show that it is invention. I am not clever. You can see them for yourself when you know how. It's up to you whether you want to look or not.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 9:36:22 PM)

quote:

You are still presuming that "must soon take place" is somehow literal and yet means thousands of years in the future.


Well, that all depends on how we choose to translate the "en" in this verse. To me, it seems best to take the "en" as having a Manner aspect - which is to say, it shows the manner in which the verb acts with the dative. Given that "taxos" can often mean "quickly", this makes sense to me. So, looking at it this way, it seems a better translation would be "that which must take place with speed."
Another possibility, which most translations bear out, is taking the "en" to be Temporal, showing a time aspect with the dative. But reading it literally, even with "taxos" being soon, would be "that which must take place while/during soon," which to me does not seem to make sense grammatically.
All that to say, I see no problem with something which must take place quickly, happening thousands of years in the future. This lines up with Jesus saying that He will come like a thief in the night, and that only the Father knows the day, week, hour, etc.

quote:

The questions that do matter are:
1. Do the words mean what the site says the words mean?


Nope, I don't believe they do.

quote:

Do the riddles exposed by word replacements represent Christ?


Nope.

quote:

Is the correlation accurate between Gen and Rev as spelled out?


Nope. The manner in which Genesis and Revelation is linked, through names and numbers, is bordering on mysticism in my opinion. There is nothing in the text to suggest that this chapter is referring back to early genealogies. There is nothing to suggest that Enoch is the head which "is" just because he walked with God, or that Lamech is the one who is to come.
Also, it seems Cain means yet another thing - the sins of the Church. So now, not only are we reading names into the text mentioned nowhere in Revelation, but we are assigning yet another "shadow" meaning to them. It seems to me that the rules are being bent to fit the desired meaning.

quote:

Are there alternative correlations available (other solutions) for the riddles exposed?


Here's a solution - the Beast represents a tool of evil (be it a man, a government, or something else) that will play a large role during the end time events.

quote:

You can see them for yourself when you know how. It's up to you whether you want to look or not.


Careful. You're sounding a bit gnostic to me there. I'm sure that's not what you're intending, but it's coming across that way.



PeterD -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 9:46:24 PM)

John 3

Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Why was a serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness?

Peter



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 9:50:40 PM)

Peter, what does that have to do with the Beast of Revelation 17?



PeterD -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 10:03:30 PM)

Numbers 21:4-9

The Bronze Serpent
4From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." 6 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." 9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

My question is why did the LORD say to Moses,"Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."

My question is, Why a serpent and not something else and then Jesus talking about the serpent in the wilderness in the same sentence as how the Son of Man shall be lifted up. My question is why a serpent?



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 10:19:21 PM)

That has nothing to do with the Beast, Peter, unless there's some connection you're trying to hint at and we're not getting. If you're really curious about the serpent, I suggest making a thread about it in the "Bible" section, or wherever you deem appropriate.



PeterD -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 10:26:47 PM)

I hear, I'll go else where

Peter



SuspenseWriter -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 11:29:19 PM)

Man, I'm glad I'm too dense to be a theologian. All this frou-frou hairsplitting makes my eyes glaze. I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand. This ... not so much.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/9/2008 11:31:31 PM)

quote:

I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand


Me too. : ) If people had to understand half the conversations that go on in these forums to receive salvation, heh, our faith would be a pretty miserable one. Thankfully, most of our discussions on here, while potentially profitable, are ultimately unnecessary in an eternal sense.



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 12:14:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterD

My question is why did the LORD say to Moses,"Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."

My question is, Why a serpent and not something else and then Jesus talking about the serpent in the wilderness in the same sentence as how the Son of Man shall be lifted up. My question is why a serpent?


It is a shadow of Christ. Christ was made to be sin for us. When he was on the cross, he bore the sins of the world. The serpent on the pole is a perfect symbol of that.

When we look to Christ on the cross bearing our sins, we too live. Thanks for asking.



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 12:33:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

Nope, ...

Nope.

Nope.


As I said before. You have no content to your objections. Thanks for playing.

quote:

It seems to me that the rules are being bent to fit the desired meaning.


Since you have yet to demonstrate a working knowledge of the rules and can only muster four-letter opinion responses, this objection is nothing more than more scoffing. I think I have just pushed the ignore button.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 1:00:40 AM)

I'm sorry, I didn't know looking at the Greek wasn't a serious response.
I was also unaware that your dismissal of my method was serious, making actual arguments instead of just saying


quote:

It doesn't matter that you only believe literal interpretations.


Nor was I aware that ignoring the content of my post, beyond those "four letter opinion responses," was seriously considering what I had to say. If you have selective reading like that, then obviously you will come away with the understanding that I'm not taking you seriously. And that's your choice.
I seem to remember you saying that each shadow can only represent one thing - hence my repeated mention of Cain, and the way he seems to represent whatever the shadow-method needs him to.



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 5:37:21 AM)

Since I am a futurist, I guess this is all speculation... let's see if it makes sense.... (end sarcasm)

Revelation 17:1-14...
quote:

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication." So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement. But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful."
I'll tackle the "symbols" one by one.
The woman riding the beast is drunk with the blood of the martyrs... meaning she is running around killing them. This means that if the beast is Jesus taking away the sins of the church, He has either been tamed by the woman (which is heresy) or Jesus is carrying her while she kills His people. Not a delightful picture. This woman also has a plate on her crown that names her as Babylon, mother of all harlotries. Sounds to me like she is Babylon and she is persecuting the church. Difficult to wrap your brain around, I know...[8|]

Now, the beast himself is "full of" blasphemous names. Does that honestly sound like Jesus to you? Is Jesus full of blasphemous names? No. He has been given the name above every other. Now the beast has seven heads... the angelic guide of this vision actually TRANSLATES THE BEAST FOR US. Note, the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits... considering that Rome and Babylon were not even close to contemporaries, something is up here. It would seem that the two are going to be united at the time this happens. Note also that the seven heads are seven kings... at the time of the vision 5 had been, one was, and one had not shown up. However, the beast himself is the eighth of this line and must continue for a short time prior to going to perdition. So Jesus can not be the seventh king or even the eighth in this sequence because the passage itself axes that possibility. The ten horns are ten kings that at the time of this vision have not recieved a kingdom yet, but they will give their power to the beast when they do have it. Which means the beast isn't even important until the ten kings recieve their various kingdoms. That is the Knock out blow in my book. If the beast has no power until the ten kings give it to him, it CANNOT be Jesus taking away the sins of the church.

To put it another way, the context of the beast in Revelation 17 is chapters 16 and 18 which is speaking about judgements against the kingdom of the antichrist and the destruction of the city of Babylon, respectively. So wouldn't it make sense for the context to remain consistant and this is a very negative vision?

Now that we have put this theory to bed, it is time to strangle it in its sleep. Revelation 19:19-21...
quote:

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.
Since there is not another "beast" mentioned between Revelation 17 and 19, we are forced to presume that John is making a shorthand referrence to the same beast of chapter 17. Now tell me... if the beast in Revelation 17 is Jesus taking away the sins of the church, how is He then captured in the last battle and thrown alive into the Lake of Fire? Simply put, the beast CANNOT be Jesus taking away the sins of the congregation.

Adam

PS, the proof on the website listed isn't fit to prop up a table, let alone an eschatological vision



rcjones -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 9:28:17 PM)

First the "proof on the web site" is not a proof and so you tilt at windmills. It is an observation. Not a doctrine, not an eschatology. So apparently you did not become familiar with the web site since it is plainly stated in many places.

In response to your first post I cautioned you against mixing shadows with popular typology. Now you continue to do so and then blame the jumble on the shadows. This is plain dishonesty now.

Now for your symbols:
quote:


The woman riding the beast is drunk with the blood of the martyrs... meaning she is running around killing them.


You did not derive this from the rules of the shadows.

"Life is in the blood" therefore blood = life.
Intoxication is related to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Sychar, And with Hannah in the temple. Both of those could have easily been found at the web site. So obviously you have overstated your familiarity with it.

Now we have the woman, the Spirit and the life of the martyrs. It's not so obvious as you claim that the beast can't possibly be Christ.

quote:


Now, the beast himself is "full of" blasphemous names. Does that honestly sound like Jesus to you?


In the shadows, Jesus fulfills all the law without becoming guilty of it. He fulfills the law of leprosy without becoming leprous. Murder, without murdering, lying without telling a lie. He also fulfills the law of blasphemy, which is making God's name common. He fulfills it not by degrading God's name, but by making His name known to all.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

So, yes, it does sound like Christ to me.

Ten kings:
quote:

The ten horns are ten kings that at the time of this vision have not received a kingdom yet, but they will give their power to the beast when they do have it.


12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Ten represents man. As a nation of kings and priests, the church would receive power with Christ for one hour (time or season). That fits verse twelve real well. Since Christ was also a man, it might also represent him. But I haven't fully parsed it out yet. (And lest I be accused of cheating again, since we are made like Christ, sometimes a symbol, such a stone when plural refers to us.)

One mind, ... should be the church, and all the power and strength of the church should be given to Christ. Yep still looks like Christ to me.

Had I thought for a moment you were taunting me just to get me to parse out the rest for you, I would continue to play. But you are obviously more interested in scoffing. So I have again found the ignore button. Thanks for playing.

I am more than willing to discuss the topic with those who wish to discuss it. As I said, it is an observation. The observation is verifiable to any who will look. It obviously doesn''t fit with popular eschatology and typology. It is a different hermeneutic. Trying to discredit it by mixing popular typology is not a legitimate argument against it.

And anyone truly familiar with the web site, would know this.

Furthermore, anyone familiar with the eschatological vision of the website would be wrestling with this page rather than Rev 17:

http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Red_letters_and_black_letters_in_Matthew

I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread.

If you wish to know how I came about seeing shadows, see http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Letter_to_Mark which is an attempt to explain it to a friend.



MrFribbles -> RE: The beast of Rev 17 (7/10/2008 10:29:19 PM)

For anyone else who stumbles upon this thread (since, if rcjones has truthfully ignored me, he certainly will not read this), may I point out that blocking someone because they are bringing legitimate arguments against your view is a fairly good indicator that their view is not built on a solid foundation?
Both FurGodWurLivin and myself tried to discuss this view with rcjones, and he blocked both of us. Why? Because he interpreted honest questions and comments about the view as scoffing. Responding in such a hostile, defensive manner is a strong sign that their view is in need of some very serious, very thorough questioning before it is accepted!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI