Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 367

Thread: the wound of the beast

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Where do I say the first head above is Jesus?
    You spoke of the Rev 13 beast and the head wound and then said it also happened to Jesus, which isn't true.

    Yes there 7 mountains but also next verse 7 kings.
    Best not to mix those up because they are vastly different.


    So each mountain one king.
    No, the 7 kings speak of past present and future ones. They are unrelated to the 7 mountains with 10 kings and kingdoms on the Rev 13:1 beast.

    How could a mountain receive a mortal wound? Deeper again. Think. What do the 7 mountains represent?
    A mountain is a kingdom or area of the world with more than one kingdom. It can receive a wound through many things but a sword means it was through war.



    Well what other 7 have we seen in revelation? How about 7 churches????
    Not the same symbolisms. It's not enough just to see 7 of something and 7 of something else and connect them automatically. Nothing written about those things make a match which is likely why no scripture is presented in support of any of these beliefs you present.

    Thus we see Babylon built upon 7 churches (mountains).
    We can't simply make things up and say it's fact. Show us where a church is called a mountain. I already cited references that show a mountain is a kingdom/government by quoting a couple scholars.

    The congregation of these churches represent all those who did not overcome and have the mark of the beast. Assigned to each church is a king in power. We see 5 of the seven have fallen (loss power) and at the time John is seeing the sixth but shortly we see the 8th which is of the seven and will hold power.
    Great but you fail to remember that two of the 7 churches in Rev definitely aren't those who take the mark based on what's written of them so your theory falls apart.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  2. #47

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are probably many threads on this, but I wish to briefly revisit it with my own spin. Do you think of Bible Prophecy as a kind of "crystal ball" session? Should we get all emotional about the news like some Prophecy Teachers, thinking that Antichrist is under every rock, or can be tagged on any current irreligious world leader?

    So what about the wound of the Beast? Do you think John meant for Christians in his time to read this, and then start speculating about who the Beast was, and whether he would be "wounded" in some particular way? Or, was John referring to something that was currently understandable, and perhaps even applicable?

    What would the "wound of the beast" mean to John? Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible, it doesn't seem consistent to me with biblical prophecy overall. Most biblical prophecy has a current application, even if the fulfillment of the prophecy is future.

    So how could the "wound of the beast" be applied in John's day? We *know* the Antichrist would be long after John's day, and still has not come yet!

    I think John meant for Christians in his day to see applications of antichrist in their own day, in the same figure of the future Antichrist. They had to deal with persecution in their own day, and with the need to endure. They had to deal with the antichristian persecution of the Roman Empire.

    What then was the "wound of the beast?" It would be a blow struck against the current "antichrist," which was Rome. It would be a blow against the imperial power of Rome, whether something done against Rome spiritually and legally at the cross, or physically, in 476 AD, when Rome was defeated.

    In other words, seeing the wound of the Beast as a future event, with Antichrist physically struck down, does not seem to be the biblical method in prophecy. It is not about news sensationalism, or trying to pinpoint prophecies on current events, on a particular identification, on a particular act of murder, with an accompanying miracle.

    Rather, the method of biblical prophecy is to instruct Christians *in all generations.* What do you think?
    I am partial to the idea that what John wrote was literal prophecy.

    Mostly because I think it has a historical parallel whose name I am forbidden to mention on this site.

    When were deadly head wounds first healed? I believe it was around the first World War, and that would eliminate any timeline before then.

    I'm sure, if old-world preachers wanted to convince their congregations that the Second Coming was just after tomorrow they would have been forced to find some symbolism to correlate it with in their own time.

    I continue to reject the idea that the AC is struck down, it is the wounded-head that is struck by a weapon and healed, and he is only one seventh of the first beast.

    The AC is the Second Beast, and he will insist on building a talking statue, or commemorative to the first beast.

    And that is how we know it is him.
    JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
    JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,472

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by dan View Post
    I am partial to the idea that what John wrote was literal prophecy.

    Mostly because I think it has a historical parallel whose name I am forbidden to mention on this site.

    When were deadly head wounds first healed? I believe it was around the first World War, and that would eliminate any timeline before then.

    I'm sure, if old-world preachers wanted to convince their congregations that the Second Coming was just after tomorrow they would have been forced to find some symbolism to correlate it with in their own time.

    I continue to reject the idea that the AC is struck down, it is the wounded-head that is struck by a weapon and healed, and he is only one seventh of the first beast.

    The AC is the Second Beast, and he will insist on building a talking statue, or commemorative to the first beast.

    And that is how we know it is him.
    It is odd. The 1st Beast appears to be both a kingdom and a man. I say he is a man because 1) Dan 7 indicates he has eyes and a mouth, 2) Paul says he is a man in 2 Thes 2, and 3) he appears to be a man thrown together with the false prophet into the lake of fire in Rev 19.

    But the Beast is obviously also a kingdom because he has 7 heads and 10 horns. These 7 heads and 10 horns could also refer to kingdoms and individual leaders. So if the 1st Beast consists of other leaders and a succession of kingdoms, then he has to be a kingdom as well.

    So when the 1st Beast receives a "fatal wound," does this refer to an individual being struck, or does this refer to a kingdom being struck? I'm not sure this "wound" is a wound *in the head* because this is a "head," or leader, that is being struck--not a leader being struck *in the head!*

    And if we see the 1st Beast as an "8th king," as indicated in Rev 17, then he cannot as an individual have been "wounded," since it was "one of the 7 kings" who was "wounded." That is, the 8th king was not wounded at all!

    What makes it *really confusing* is the fact that John saw the series of 7 kings leading to Antichrist as existing in his own time. That is, one of the "heads" currently existed, whereas it is said of the Beast that he "is not," ie he did not currently exist in John's time.

    I can only see this as Antichrist existing in the form of the Roman Empire in John's time, and yet not yet existing in the form of an individual, the "8th king." The "fatal wound" must've happened prior to John's time, and seems to refer to the judgment declared by Christ against mankind, at the time of his death.

    This is pure speculation on my part.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is odd. The 1st Beast appears to be both a kingdom and a man. I say he is a man because 1) Dan 7 indicates he has eyes and a mouth,
    That's the little horn not the beast. The beast is the government, the little horn is the AC. In Rev 13 the first beast is still the government, and the second beast is the false prophet who is the AC.
    I wish people would stop inventing an individual that is of the first beast. It's the second appearance of someone whether a little horn or a second FP beast that is the individual known as the AC.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,238

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is odd. The 1st Beast appears to be both a kingdom and a man. I say he is a man because 1) Dan 7 indicates he has eyes and a mouth, 2) Paul says he is a man in 2 Thes 2, and 3) he appears to be a man thrown together with the false prophet into the lake of fire in Rev 19.

    But the Beast is obviously also a kingdom because he has 7 heads and 10 horns. These 7 heads and 10 horns could also refer to kingdoms and individual leaders. So if the 1st Beast consists of other leaders and a succession of kingdoms, then he has to be a kingdom as well.

    So when the 1st Beast receives a "fatal wound," does this refer to an individual being struck, or does this refer to a kingdom being struck? I'm not sure this "wound" is a wound *in the head* because this a "head," or leader, that is being struck--not a leader being struck *in the head!*

    And if we see the 1st Beast as an "8th king," as indicated in Rev 17, then he cannot as an individual have been "wounded," since it was "one of the 7 kings" who was "wounded." That is, the 8th king was not wounded at all!

    What makes it *really confusing* is the fact that John saw the series of 7 kings leading to Antichrist as existing in his own time. That is, one of the "heads" currently existed, whereas it is said of the Beast that he "is not," ie he did not currently exist in John's time.

    I can only see this as Antichrist existing in the form of the Roman Empire in John's time, and yet not yet existing in the form of an individual, the "8th king." The "fatal wound" must've happened prior to John's time, and seems to refer to the judgment declared by Christ against mankind, at the time of his death.

    This is pure speculation on my part.
    I've already answered each one of your confusions in other posts and threads. It's not difficult to sort through the apparent contradictions if one sees the 3 stages of Rome, with the antichist associated with the final Jerusalem stage. You associate the beast with a man, a beast is a demon/ kingdom, and is only a man when it is given a mouth.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,976
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Great but you fail to remember that two of the 7 churches in Rev definitely aren't those who take the mark based on what's written of them so your theory falls apart.
    Really. Well this is the main stance of theologians today so not suprise your a follower. GET OUT FROM THE BOX!!

    of course your reference will be to the following verse....

    Rev 3
    10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

    The common error is to think the phrase "keep thee from" is for them to either be removed or not part of the of the temptation some way. However the phrase is to mean that while the temptation will exisist God will provide away to keep thee from failing or falling into this temptation.

    The hour of temptation will be the aligining to the beast system and receiving his mark.

    We know this to be true as how else would folks be able to overcome this temptation? If they don't overcome this temptation then what are they overcoming?

    Rev 2
    12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

    Furthermore we also know many will not overcome of the church. What did they not overcome??


    So yes the chuch in the last days will face the mark. So will overcome some will not.

    Note however if the church promotes they will not be here and or will not face this....Satan is already having victory!!

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Really. Well this is the main stance of theologians today so not suprise your a follower. GET OUT FROM THE BOX!!
    It's pretty clear you don't understand my stance from what you write in this post.


    of course your reference will be to the following verse....

    Rev 3
    10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

    The common error is to think the phrase "keep thee from" is for them to either be removed or not part of the of the temptation some way. However the phrase is to mean that while the temptation will exisist God will provide away to keep thee from failing or falling into this temptation.
    I'm already aware of that fact which is why I said these two churches don't take the mark.



    The hour of temptation will be the aligining to the beast system and receiving his mark.

    We know this to be true as how else would folks be able to overcome this temptation? If they don't overcome this temptation then what are they overcoming?

    Rev 2
    12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

    Furthermore we also know many will not overcome of the church. What did they not overcome??


    So yes the chuch in the last days will face the mark. So will overcome some will not.
    That's already my position, and held it for decades.

    Note however if the church promotes they will not be here and or will not face this....Satan is already having victory!!
    I am aware of that as well.

    1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,976
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the wound of the beast

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    It's pretty clear you don't understand my stance from what you write in this post.
    Then you don't explain very well......




    I'm already aware of that fact which is why I said these two churches don't take the mark.
    Are you saying nobody from these churches will exept the mark and all overcome?

    If you are this is wrong. Thus the essence of writing to the churches that they may overcome. Many will accept the mark.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post

    Then you don't explain very well......






    Are you saying nobody from these churches will exept the mark and all overcome?

    If you are this is wrong. Thus the essence of writing to the churches that they may overcome. Many will accept the mark.
    I don't believe Smyrna and Philadelphia take the mark.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,472

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That's the little horn not the beast. The beast is the government, the little horn is the AC. In Rev 13 the first beast is still the government, and the second beast is the false prophet who is the AC.
    I wish people would stop inventing an individual that is of the first beast. It's the second appearance of someone whether a little horn or a second FP beast that is the individual known as the AC.
    It's a little "off" to wish that people would interpret things strictly the way you do! Why not let your argument speak for itself? It's a decent argument, but it is in no way definitive.

    I've considered that the 1st Beast was just a government. What stands in the way is a pretty compelling argument, that *both* the beast and the false prophet are thrown, individually, into the Lake of Fire. This is in Rev 19. Have you ever seen a Kingdom "captured?" I haven't!

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,472

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I've already answered each one of your confusions in other posts and threads. It's not difficult to sort through the apparent contradictions if one sees the 3 stages of Rome, with the antichist associated with the final Jerusalem stage. You associate the beast with a man, a beast is a demon/ kingdom, and is only a man when it is given a mouth.
    The problem is, and the "confusion" is, several different theories fit. Yours is as good as the next. I'm looking for something so certain that I'd be a fool not to believe it. That may not happen any time soon!

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It's a little "off" to wish that people would interpret things strictly the way you do! Why not let your argument speak for itself? It's a decent argument, but it is in no way definitive.
    I don't consider inventing someone part of interpreting. It's simply adding to the text.

    I've considered that the 1st Beast was just a government. What stands in the way is a pretty compelling argument, that *both* the beast and the false prophet are thrown, individually, into the Lake of Fire. This is in Rev 19. Have you ever seen a Kingdom "captured?" I haven't!
    I've never seen a 7 headed ten horned beast either but in the most symbolic book in the bible it's pretty easy that a government can be captured and destroyed, and yes, "alive" is part of the symbolism.

    Keep in mind scripture only supports and describes the beast as being 7 mountains and ten kings/kingdoms within it and only one other guy (another beast) who exercises all the power of those ten kingdoms within 7 mountains....and it is those that are destroyed in the LOF. Seems the majority of people invent another guy out of thin air that somehow has more power and authority than the guy who is written to exercise all the power himself.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,472

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    I don't consider inventing someone part of interpreting. It's simply adding to the text.



    I've never seen a 7 headed ten horned beast either but in the most symbolic book in the bible it's pretty easy that a government can be captured and destroyed, and yes, "alive" is part of the symbolism.

    Keep in mind scripture only supports and describes the beast as being 7 mountains and ten kings/kingdoms within it and only one other guy (another beast) who exercises all the power of those ten kingdoms within 7 mountains....and it is those that are destroyed in the LOF. Seems the majority of people invent another guy out of thin air that somehow has more power and authority than the guy who is written to exercise all the power himself.
    Like I said, it's an intriguing argument, but by no means definitive. We hear in Dan 7 and in 2 Thes 2 of a single Antichrist. But in the book of Revelation, ch. 13, we read of two beasts!

    So I can see why you might think there can only be one "man of sin." However, producing along with the man of sin a "false prophet" does not seem too out of the ordinary for me. The kings of Israel had their priests and prophets working alongside of them as well.

    Some in the Early Church also thought that the False Prophet was the Antichrist. So I respect that. But again, there's no need to shame those who don't sign up for your class.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,322
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    However, producing along with the man of sin a "false prophet" does not seem too out of the ordinary for me.
    Except no scripture supports such nonsense. I already explained why that is.

    Some in the Early Church also thought that the False Prophet was the Antichrist.
    I didn't know that but I haven't studied their opinions much.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,238

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The problem is, and the "confusion" is, several different theories fit. Yours is as good as the next. I'm looking for something so certain that I'd be a fool not to believe it. That may not happen any time soon!
    I don't think that's the nature of prophecy, the best we can get is a viewpoint a little more obvious than the second best viewpoint. But when the prophecy is fulfilled, because the top few views are so widespread, the fulfilment will be so obvious to the church that the correct pre-existing viewpoint is rapidly adopted throughout.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Finger wound
    By Crosstalk in forum Prayer
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul 13th 2016, 12:03 AM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: Nov 12th 2014, 02:43 PM
  3. WOUND
    By verseode in forum Poetry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jun 2nd 2011, 04:56 PM
  4. Head Wound
    By ross3421 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th 2010, 11:40 AM
  5. the first beast's fatal head wound
    By Nihil Obstat in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Mar 28th 2009, 09:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •