Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 367

Thread: the wound of the beast

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,161

    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.
    You say that īt is odd" and later "really confusing" which indicates you are not fully satisfied with your own explanations as yet. Yet your theory is as good as mine?

    Firstly, v17 the four beasts are four kings. But there were hundreds of kings during the time of Babylon/Persia/Greece/Rome. So demon princes make more sense than actual kings. So it makes sense that a beast is a kingdom, or a demon prince, but to introduce a human there too does not make sense, it just too confusing for a symbol to have 3 meanings, and the text of Daniel 7 is already clear on two meanings. We both agree that when the beast is given a mouth , the antichrist is in view, where we differ is that a beast is ALWAYS and ONLY a demon prince or a kingdom until it is clearly given human features to express itself. If we apply that rule, nothing is "odd"anymore, we just know there is a human closely involved too.

    Now the 7 heads cannot be human kings, because their existence continues right from before Revelation was written until the end times. Thus we have to find 7 entities that are spread out over more than 2000 years, the 5 were , one is, and one is to come of Rev 17 clearly indicating a consecutive spread of heads. And the leopard of Daniel 7, if you know your history, is a clear reference to the four Greek kingdoms in existence until the Romans dominated. The symbol of head = kingdom (not king) because the timeline of Daniel 7 concerns the rise and fall of kingdoms, not just the short dominance of four Greek generals post-Alexander. So the balance of logic points to the rise and fall of seven consecutive kingdoms. It is a kingdom that is wounded, not a human.

    The ten horned beast is sometimes symbolic of Rome through the ages (the 3 stages of Rome) and sometimes symbolic of ONLY end-times ten horns/antichrist Rome. This explains your confusion of Rome existing (ONE IS) yet at the same time Rome WAS AND IS NOT. It is the 6th head (IRON ROME) that exists during the writing of Revelation, but it is the 8th kingdom that "was and is not" . 3 times we can confirm that the actual city of Rome is no longer central to the ten horns/antichrist stage of Rome:
    1) This final location "IS NOT" but Rome existed then
    2) The movement of the final power of Rome to a little horn indicates a shift in location to a smaller kingdom/power
    3) The beast hates the harlot (city of Rome)

    And that my friend explains the confusion of "IS BUT IS NOT", the 8th kingdom of Rev 17 is a new location, one that used to exist thousands of years ago, and re-arises to amaze non-believers.
    The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.
    The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,865

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You say that īt is odd" and later "really confusing" which indicates you are not fully satisfied with your own explanations as yet. Yet your theory is as good as mine?
    Yes, from *my pov* several of these arguments are equally good. For me there is no controlling factor to determine which theory is best. The Beast could've been a demon spirit, Satan, Antiochus, Rome, etc. They all existed in the past, and came to experience a "fatal wound" of some kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Firstly, v17 the four beasts are four kings. But there were hundreds of kings during the time of Babylon/Persia/Greece/Rome. So demon princes make more sense than actual kings. So it makes sense that a beast is a kingdom, or a demon prince, but to introduce a human there too does not make sense, it just too confusing for a symbol to have 3 meanings, and the text of Daniel 7 is already clear on two meanings. We both agree that when the beast is given a mouth , the antichrist is in view, where we differ is that a beast is ALWAYS and ONLY a demon prince or a kingdom until it is clearly given human features to express itself. If we apply that rule, nothing is "odd"anymore, we just know there is a human closely involved too.
    Yes, it does make sense to see Antichrist as previously existing as a demon spirit. A couple of you here argue that. And I've agreed that it is possible, because Paul argues that the spirit of Antichrist preexists the actual appearance of Antichrist.

    On the issue of whether the 4 Beasts of Dan 7 are 4 kings, I'm not sure that the argument is important to me personally. If someone said that the Beast is Caesar, I wouldn't have to identify any particular Roman Caesar. Caesar is the office, and not a particular individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Now the 7 heads cannot be human kings, because their existence continues right from before Revelation was written until the end times. Thus we have to find 7 entities that are spread out over more than 2000 years, the 5 were , one is, and one is to come of Rev 17 clearly indicating a consecutive spread of heads. And the leopard of Daniel 7, if you know your history, is a clear reference to the four Greek kingdoms in existence until the Romans dominated. The symbol of head = kingdom (not king) because the timeline of Daniel 7 concerns the rise and fall of kingdoms, not just the short dominance of four Greek generals post-Alexander. So the balance of logic points to the rise and fall of seven consecutive kingdoms. It is a kingdom that is wounded, not a human.
    Again, to say that the 7 heads are not individual rulers, but kingdoms, is irrelevant to me. The 7 heads, which represent *leaders* to me, are themselves representative of kingdoms. And Rev 17.10 point blank identifies these heads as "kings."

    So perhaps we are in agreement that these "7 kings* represent *7 kingdoms?* And I do believe they are consecutive kingdoms in history that have impacted the Mediterranean region and Israel. In the endtimes I think the heirs of the Roman Empire, the 10 horns, will impact not just Israel, but also the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    The ten horned beast is sometimes symbolic of Rome through the ages (the 3 stages of Rome) and sometimes symbolic of ONLY end-times ten horns/antichrist Rome. This explains your confusion of Rome existing (ONE IS) yet at the same time Rome WAS AND IS NOT. It is the 6th head (IRON ROME) that exists during the writing of Revelation, but it is the 8th kingdom that "was and is not" .
    This is where I have the problem. We are told that *one of the 7 heads* received the fatal wound, and not the *8th king.* So yes, the 8th king "was and is not,* but he also does not receive the "fatal wound," right? While it is true that the 8th king "belongs to the 7," the Beast is said to have had only 7 heads when the fatal wound was applied to one of these 7. So it seems to me that the Antichrist in some sense had preexisted in one of the earlier 7 heads? Perhaps this was Rome, who was the 1st head to be an actual antichrist, because it was Rome that had Christ put to death?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    3 times we can confirm that the actual city of Rome is no longer central to the ten horns/antichrist stage of Rome:
    1) This final location "IS NOT" but Rome existed then
    2) The movement of the final power of Rome to a little horn indicates a shift in location to a smaller kingdom/power
    3) The beast hates the harlot (city of Rome)
    Yes, that's strange to think that the Roman Empire may have been one of the 7 heads of the Beast, and yet the final form of that Beast, an 8th king, turns against Rome? And indeed, Rome existed in John's day, and John saw the Beast as *not existing* at that time? Weird!

    I usually try to see this in light of the Roman Catholic Church, which would not be "loved" by Antichrist when he appears. However, the best way to look at this, I feel, is in the way 1st century Christians would've read John. And there was no Catholic Church at that time.

    What did exist in John's day was the city of Rome. And obviously, a coming Antichrist would want to overthrow Rome in order to succeed that kingdom as the 7th kingdom. However, none of this is really said, and I remain somewhat confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    And that my friend explains the confusion of "IS BUT IS NOT", the 8th kingdom of Rev 17 is a new location, one that used to exist thousands of years ago, and re-arises to amaze non-believers.
    The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.
    The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
    Yes, a reasonable solution to the problem. However, my point was not that your position is untenable--only that there is little doctrinal basis to interpret these things. Sometimes future prophecy is deliberately vague for the purpose of keeping us focused on today, and letting tomorrow be understood by those who have to experience the actual events. It was that way with the prophets, according to Peter, who had to prophesy Christ's Coming, and yet were kept from fully appreciating what they were predicting. Their focus was to be on the implications of those things for their own time.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    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.
    I think you are the one inventing all sorts in your interpretation of Rev 13.
    The Beast is NOT the government as you claim. The term beast per the Book of Daniel comes from his (AC's) attack on Israel.
    IOW, beast in Rev 13:1 and little horn Dan 7 all refer to the AC.
    It is illogical to conflate the AC and False prophet as one person. See Rev 19:20

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    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.
    All the beasts in Daniel were represented by men/kings who ruled over their kingdoms...

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    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.
    Many have misinterpreted the above text and have appropriated it as evidence that God will whisk them out to heaven to avoid the Great Tribulation. This, of course, is dilutional.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    I don't believe Smyrna and Philadelphia take the mark.
    Are you by any chance alluding that the 7 churches in Revelation are still future?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,173
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The Beast is NOT the government as you claim.
    I don't claim it, Revelation 17 does.

    The term beast per the Book of Daniel comes from his (AC's) attack on Israel.
    IOW, beast in Rev 13:1 and little horn Dan 7 all refer to the AC.
    You still have the wrong beast as the AC. It's Rev 13's second beast that is the AC.

    It is illogical to conflate the AC and False prophet as one person. See Rev 19:20
    That's like saying "It is illogical to conflate Christ and Jesus as one person. "

    Rev 19:20 doesn't show two individuals. It shows the 1st beast, something spanning 7 mountains and has ten kingdoms, and a second beast who is the all powerful false prophet. Only those go into the LOF. Your two individual theory is not scripturally supported. Not to mention scripture states the FP exercises all the power of the first beast which you teach against by claiming the FP serves the AC and therefore is lesser in power.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,173
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    This, of course, is dilutional.
    Don't bother trying to properly dispute anything, just state it's wrong with no evidence of support. That will probably be good enough.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,173
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Are you by any chance alluding that the 7 churches in Revelation are still future?
    Yes I believe the 7 symbolize the end times believers.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,161

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    All the beasts in Daniel were represented by men/kings who ruled over their kingdoms...
    The four beasts are four kings. Which four kings?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,932
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The four beasts are four kings. Which four kings?
    Four FUTURE kings.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    I don't claim it, Revelation 17 does. You still have the wrong beast as the AC. It's Rev 13's second beast that is the AC.

    That's like saying "It is illogical to conflate Christ and Jesus as one person. "
    I am at a loss on how to help you further. I can only hope that in due course, you will receive the discernment to reverse your poor interpretation of the text. Because it is superfluous and akin to banging head on the wall for me to repeat what has been said to you over and over

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Rev 19:20 doesn't show two individuals. It shows the 1st beast, something spanning 7 mountains and has ten kingdoms, and a second beast who is the all powerful false prophet. Only those go into the LOF. Your two individual theory is not scripturally supported. Not to mention scripture states the FP exercises all the power of the first beast which you teach against by claiming the FP serves the AC and therefore is lesser in power.
    1. Do you believe that Jesus will fight and defeat a symbolic beast ("something spanning 7 mountains") or a literal being at Armageddon?
    2. The Beast spanning 7 mountains is NOT literal. It is merely symbolic and therefore does not fit the literal (flesh and blood) persons Bible says are cast into the LoF in Rev 19:20
    3. What do you think of this statement "the secretary of state exercises the power of the president". Now, would you say that the secretary of state by exercising the power of the president is (a) serving at the pleasure of the president and therefore subordinate or that (b) by exercising the power of the president, is superior?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Don't bother trying to properly dispute anything, just state it's wrong with no evidence of support. That will probably be good enough.
    I don't see any joy in a vacuous repetition of what has been stated time and again. I suppose that by claiming I have not disputed anything, you mean that I disagree with you? And on this, I agree.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,900
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Yes I believe the 7 symbolize the end times believers.
    So the 7 mountains are actually end-time "believers"? Incredible

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,173
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I am at a loss on how to help you further. I can only hope that in due course, you will receive the discernment to reverse your poor interpretation of the text. Because it is superfluous and akin to banging head on the wall for me to repeat what has been said to you over and over
    I hope the same for you as well.




    1. Do you believe that Jesus will fight and defeat a symbolic beast ("something spanning 7 mountains") or a literal being at Armageddon?
    He fights an army of that kingdom and defeat it, the kingdom will be destroyed much like the Nazi's "kingdom" was destroyed when they were defeated. The false Christ/Prophet will be destroyed so that whole global religious entity cannot reform again.


    2. The Beast spanning 7 mountains is NOT literal. It is merely symbolic and therefore does not fit the literal (flesh and blood) persons Bible says are cast into the LoF in Rev 19:20
    The bible doesn't say any flesh and blood persons are cast into the LOF there. That is your interpretation.

    3. What do you think of this statement "the secretary of state exercises the power of the president". Now, would you say that the secretary of state by exercising the power of the president is (a) serving at the pleasure of the president and therefore subordinate or that (b) by exercising the power of the president, is superior?
    Your analogy is flawed because in Rev 13 a person exercises the full power of a government/kingdom not the power of a man. A more accurate analogy would be "the President exercises the power of the United States." Think back to a time when the United states was new and hadn't elected a President yet. It as a beast of a nation rises up, and then a "beast" of a man rises up to exercise the power of this new nation. It's similar in basic principle with how the beast government rises up, and the false prophet rises up and exercises all of it's power.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

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
  •