The beasts of Revelation 13 - Interpreted and identified.

[Diaste]

7 hours ago, abcdef said:

Ok, so if the 8 heads are individuals, name them.

I don't think anyone knows the names. Since the scripture records the angel saying they are kings I don't see it as an 'if'.

And I don't see it as correct to assume the 'one is' in Rev 17:10  must be a king at the time John saw the vision. It works, sort of, if the vision was given in 65 AD. If John is truthful in that he saw the vison on Patmos that would place the timing of the vison in 90-95 AD and 7, 5 and one is does not fit any kingdom or emperor succession or timeline we yet know of.

It makes better sense just as a logical point the revelation was not given till after 70 AD and the end of the ancient Jewish religion and the dispersion of the people. Not proof, just more acceptable to me given other fact. 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

My brother,

You are under the spell of the Antichrist.  

--------

Rome killed millions of Israel.

Herod and the Jewish leaders tried to kill Jesus as an infant, but ended up killing all of the infants in Israel.

Rome killed John the Baptist, beheaded.

Rome killed Jesus and the apostles.

Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.

Rome chased and scattered Israel into the gentile nations, where they were forced to live for 1900 years.

And while they were in the gentile nations, they were persecuted by the Bishop of Rome who killed millions more.

For the last 1500 years at least, the bishop of Rome has had a Satanic based power of lies and murder of Israel.

I mostly agree. One thing that is assumed but not exactly factual is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Temple was destroyed in the Roman siege of Jerusalem but it was not under the orders of Titus and in fact was contradictory to his command to preserve the Temple.

From the many papers and historical documentaries I have seen a great deal of light is brought to bear revealing the actual events. Rome did not march 6 legions from the Italian peninsula to attack Jerusalem. Neither did 6 auxiliary legions march in from the Roman capitol. 

Roman commanders used troops from the Roman provinces in the region to help in the siege. The kings of the provinces provided the troops requested by Rome during this battle. At least one legion were all Roman made up of the troops they had stationed in the area.

Notably the X Fretensis was exclusively Syrian and this legion attacked from the east. It was these Syrian troops under the command of a Roman General that set fire to the Temple, not Roman troops. Historical documents show many of Arab descent took part in the siege and it was they who started the destruction by burning the Temple leading to the destruction of the city and the slaughter of thousands of Israelites.

I don't agree with conflating the Holy See with the Roman Empire. They aren't the same. Some have said it was the Roman Empire which posed as a  conduit for the speedy spread of the gospel. It was easy to travel, there was a peace in the Empire and there was no ban on any religion. 

If anyone is to blame for the death of Jesus and the persecution of the Apostles it was religious Jewry. They demanded the death of Jesus while Pilate found Jesus innocent. Paul was beaten by the Jews, not Romans. I'm not saying the Mad Emperor Nero was innocent in the martyrdom of thousands of believers, nor am I saying Roman leadership was innocent, but lets put the blame where it belongs.

Jesus didn't say, "Rome, who killed the prophets..." He said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!" - Luke 13

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

-------

Part of the spell, of the deceiving spirit is, that there is a denial of this time period. A denial of history. A diminishing of the truth about Rome and Israel. 

Why does ROME hate the people of Israel?  Didn't you ever think about who is the true Israel? Rome or Israel?

Rome has said for centuries that Israel is forever cut off and Rome is exclusively Israel. Oh, your not saved unless you are Roman Catholic, baptized into the worship of the "holy father" on his throne in Rome. "Unless you are RCC, you are not a Christian," that is what they say.

You see, the RCC false Israel has a 1500 year old problem, which is the real people of Israel are still alive.

They have tried to kill them all, but the remnants were too scattered for Rome to have power over all of them.

True, but it's nothing new. The spirit you are talking about is Satan and he is our eternal enemy until such time as he is finally destroyed.

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

------

Do you really think that the Bishop of Rome has no power? 1.2 billion people are in the RCC. International tentacles that reach into almost every nation and endorse rulers and kings.

Just see what happens if a politician or some tv preacher says something against the Bishop of Rome.

No, I didn't say that. The RCC is not the Roman Empire. The RCC roots are, "Upon this rock I will build my church." Someone got the idea that was Peter as the rock and now we have the seat of RCC power in St. Peter's basilica. An abhorrent tragedy usurping spiritual truth but not the Roman Empire, the whore of Babylon in the shape of religion. 

 

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

I'm sorry to let off some steam on this, but my brothers and sisters are following a lie.

The deception that Caesar and the Bishop of Rome are not the Antichrist, beasts.

They are antichrists. THE antichrist? I don't think that's possible.

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

----

How can we skip this history, not speculation, but history.

Maybe some will say, "No, Rome is Greece." Or some will say,"It is all future." Or some will say, "It is all fulfilled before 70 AD." Or Some will say, "there is a gap".

Don't you see?

ALL OF THEM TEACH THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME CAN'T BE THE ANTICHRIST, BECAUSE THE TIME PERIOD AFTER 70 AD DOESN'T EXIST IN PROPHECY! 

Even Martin Luther wrote that the Bishop of Rome is the Antichrist.

-----

I know what is said on the tv and what is popular to some degree, and it has made the theories popular. "Oh, everybody agrees that the Bishop of Rome can't be the Antichrist, because the Bible is all future and nothing in it is past," that is what they say. Or maybe, "The Bible is all past and nothing is future," really?

I empathize with your frustration. Truly I do.

19 hours ago, abcdef said:

----

I'm sorry for rambling on like this, but I feel that I have to be direct and to the point to break the spell that is like chariot wheels in battle. 

In some cases, believing the opposite of what the scriptures show.

-----

All is well, brother.

 

[abcdef]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't know what you are saying here. I don't find the pretrib doctrine to be valid.

Then what doctrine do you find to be valid?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Whether Rome and the Roman Empire is in or out of the timeline is irrelevant to when Jesus returns and when the gathering occurs.

The timing and recognizing the timing will tell you when Jesus is coming for the kingdom at the resur/rapt.

When the toes of the statue in Dan. 2 end, then the stone strikes. The stone striking is not the beginning of the kingdom on planet earth, it is the resur/rapt end of the kingdom on planet earth. The stone striking is the fire from heaven in Rev 20:9.

When the iron nation ends, that is when Israel is restored to Jerusalem, then sometime after that, the fire from heaven when the stone strikes.

So it is very important to recognize the iron kingdom and when it ends its rule over the people of Israel.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

But I agree.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Asia Minor[Turkey], Egypt, Greece are all countries that exist today. The Seleucid empire was centered in Iraq and the grandsons of Seleucus I ruled in Syria. Syria still exists. Literally these are all countries on the modern map.

Not in power, but Greece still exists. It's right on the map. I don't believe I implied they are a world power, just that they still exist, as scripture said would happen. "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but they were granted an extension of life for a season and a time."

Rome still exists too, but you don't count that. Why? 

Why don't you recognize Rome as the 4th beast in Dan.7 or the iron nation of Dan. 2?

Is it because you want the iron 4th kingdom to be all future? You need to keep the kingdom of Greece in power to meet your time line? And make the 4th beast kingdom future and not past?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

The world domination of Greece ended when Alexander died. At that time the Roman Empire was barely surviving having to repel invaders and hold off usurpation within their own borders. Rome did not succeed Greece in 330 BC as at this time the Empire had only just succeeded in bringing the Italian peninsula under one banner. Rome was in no way powerful enough to take on the mighty Diadochi in the late 3rd century BC. 

Just as a matter of well established historical fact the Grecian empire went to the Diadochi. It was the Syrian General and grandson of Seleucus Nicator, who was a top General of Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes that committed the A of D in 167 BC. Interestingly Roman Generals traveled from Italy in 169 BC to meet Antiochus and oppose his planned attack on Egypt. Rome at this time ruled neither Egypt nor Syria or the Levant.

And a parallel to Dan 8.

Yes, I agree, but so what?

Tell me all about Rome that destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Are there no prophecies about that?

Why shield Rome? Why protect Rome?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

This: "There the beasts are seen as nations ruling over the people of Israel." is not interpretive criteria. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did, but in no angelic interpretation is this ever seen in regards to eschatology.

Dan. 2:39, " ..., and another third kingdom of brass, which bear rule over all the earth."

Greece did not rule the planet earth. But they did rule over all the earth of the people of Israel.

The statue of Dan. 2 begins when Israel is taken captive from Jerusalem. Not the planet.

The statue's toes end when Israel is restored to control of Jerusalem.

If you can't understand that the Bible centers Israel and not the planet, your not viewing it through the right lens.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Are we just to ignore that Greece ruled over Israel?

I'm not ignoring it, it just seems that you want to disregard that it ended 2000 years ago.

Aren't you ignoring that Rome ruled over Israel for 1900 years?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

And the Seleucid kings ruled over Israel? And the Syrian Generals after that and before Rome? Islam held on to Israel for 500 years as well while Jewish people were in Israel and took the Levant from the Romans. Anyway, it's not proper interpretation in this case.

The statue of Dan 2 and the beasts of Dan. 7 both end when Jerusalem is restored to Israel.

It's not centered on the planet or the gentile nations.

[abcdef]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't think anyone knows the names. Since the scripture records the angel saying they are kings I don't see it as an 'if'.

Ok, if they are kings, then what are the kingdoms that they rule? 

Can you name the kingdoms? 7 or 8 kingdoms?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

And I don't see it as correct to assume the 'one is' in Rev 17:10  must be a king at the time John saw the vision. It works, sort of, if the vision was given in 65 AD. If John is truthful in that he saw the vison on Patmos that would place the timing of the vison in 90-95 AD

85-96 AD ish.

If you disagree that the "one is", is the "head" of John's time,

then explain what is meant by "one is".

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

and 7, 5 and one is does not fit any kingdom or emperor succession or timeline we yet know of.

That's because you are looking for individuals instead of seeing them as symbolic images in passages of symbolic images. If you are looking to identify them as individual people, you will never do it.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

It makes better sense just as a logical point the revelation was not given till after 70 AD and the end of the ancient Jewish religion and the dispersion of the people. Not proof, just more acceptable to me given other fact. 

I agree.

[abcdef]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

I mostly agree. One thing that is assumed but not exactly factual is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Temple was destroyed in the Roman siege of Jerusalem but it was not under the orders of Titus and in fact was contradictory to his command to preserve the Temple.

From the many papers and historical documentaries I have seen a great deal of light is brought to bear revealing the actual events. Rome did not march 6 legions from the Italian peninsula to attack Jerusalem. Neither did 6 auxiliary legions march in from the Roman capitol. 

Roman commanders used troops from the Roman provinces in the region to help in the siege. The kings of the provinces provided the troops requested by Rome during this battle. At least one legion were all Roman made up of the troops they had stationed in the area.

Notably the X Fretensis was exclusively Syrian and this legion attacked from the east. It was these Syrian troops under the command of a Roman General that set fire to the Temple, not Roman troops. Historical documents show many of Arab descent took part in the siege and it was they who started the destruction by burning the Temple leading to the destruction of the city and the slaughter of thousands of Israelites.

Oh well, I guess that means that Titus, Caesar, and Rome are completely innocent of any destruction that happened during siege and total destruction of Jerusalem.

Oh, it wasn't their fault. I mean it's not they were in charge or anything, right?

Just a couple of those crazy Syrians got carried away and burned down the temple during the siege.

But it wasn't Rome?

----

Again, you are defending Rome and Caesar, when it is obvious that it was their intent to destroy the race of Israel from the planet!

For some reason, you will blame anybody and everybody else, for the things that Rome has done. 

Why? What is it about Rome, that you cannot credit them for the things that they have done?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't agree with conflating the Holy See with the Roman Empire. They aren't the same.

It is the SYSTEM of CAESAR WORSHIP that makes them the same beast nation (iron).

The Roman Empire and the image Roman Empire. They are located in the EXACT same place. 

Caesar fell, but his image continues to this day, centuries.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Some have said it was the Roman Empire which posed as a  conduit for the speedy spread of the gospel. It was easy to travel,

Speedy, yes, when they weren't being killed.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

there was a peace in the Empire and there was no ban on any religion.

What history book says that? I want to read it.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

If anyone is to blame for the death of Jesus and the persecution of the Apostles it was religious Jewry. They demanded the death of Jesus while Pilate found Jesus innocent. Paul was beaten by the Jews, not Romans. I'm not saying the Mad Emperor Nero was innocent in the martyrdom of thousands of believers, nor am I saying Roman leadership was innocent, but lets put the blame where it belongs.

Jesus didn't say, "Rome, who killed the prophets..." He said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!" - Luke 13

The Jews accused Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. I blame both.

But again, why defend Rome?

Now you are trying to say again that the Romans bear little responsibility for the death of Jesus.

What about Herod and the infants? John the Baptist? The apostles?

Are you Roman Catholic?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

True, but it's nothing new. The spirit you are talking about is Satan and he is our eternal enemy until such time as he is finally destroyed.

 

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

No, I didn't say that. The RCC is not the Roman Empire. The RCC roots are, "Upon this rock I will build my church." Someone got the idea that was Peter as the rock and now we have the seat of RCC power in St. Peter's basilica.

I think that there is a little more to it than that.

The RCC is the "anti kingdom" of the true kingdom of Israel, worshiping a man as god, the "holy father", worshiping the mammon of creation, the god of ego.

Keeping millions of souls from finding salvation (infant sprinkling), and killing millions more for opposing them with the truth of the scriptures (reformation). 

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

An abhorrent tragedy usurping spiritual truth but not the Roman Empire, the whore of Babylon in the shape of religion.

The harlot is Israel/Jerusalem.

The beast city that she is riding/sitting on is Rome.

You say no?

What is the name of the city/beast that the woman sits on Rev 17:18? 

Which beast is it? Greece or Rome? Or some future Empires?

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

They are antichrists. THE antichrist? I don't think that's possible.

Caesar and the Bishop of Rome fit the image of the Antichrist.

The time line is centuries and not 7 years.

Nations and not individuals, necessarily.

 

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

I empathize with your frustration. Truly I do.

All is well, brother.

This world is headed for a nasty ending, a bitter ending.

Joy for the Christians after the resur/rapture, but horror and pain before that day.

 

 

 

[Diaste]

6 hours ago, abcdef said:

Oh well, I guess that means that Titus, Caesar, and Rome are completely innocent of any destruction that happened during siege and total destruction of Jerusalem.

Oh, it wasn't their fault. I mean it's not they were in charge or anything, right?

Just a couple of those crazy Syrians got carried away and burned down the temple during the siege.

But it wasn't Rome?

----

Again, you are defending Rome and Caesar, when it is obvious that it was their intent to destroy the race of Israel from the planet!

For some reason, you will blame anybody and everybody else, for the things that Rome has done. 

Why? What is it about Rome, that you cannot credit them for the things that they have done?

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The Jews rebelled and the Romans who were in power at the time put that down. They didn't do it capriciously like, "Let's go attack the Jews just because they are Jews, and I don't really like that hummus stuff either."

We could debate the righteousness of the Roman cause ad infinitum and say they shouldn't have been their in the first place and the destruction would not have happened but it did, and it was on their watch. 

Some historians think the existence of the Roman empire was the main conduit for the spread of the Gospel so they had to exist and enforce the Pax Romana, which the Jews unequivocally violated. But it's not about that. I was pointing out the idea it was the people of the price who is to come that destroyed the city and the sanctuary from Dan 9; trying to show this prophecy does not see the Romans but rather the people of a future prince.

That future prince could not be Titus as he was there during the fulfillment and the people destroying the city were of that future prince, not a current one, and the X Fretensis in particular was not Roman so Titus could not be their prince and those Syrian troops were on loan.

It's all just to show I do not see evidence for the Roman Empire as the Iron Kingdom or in any other prophecy in eschatology. Maybe I'm just missing it but after this many years and the pile of information I have seen from you and many others it's just not there.

7 hours ago, abcdef said:

Quote

there was a peace in the Empire and there was no ban on any religion.

What history book says that? I want to read it.

In the 1st century during the pinnacle of Roman power and when Jesus walked the earth the Jewish orthodoxy was celebrating every holy day and engaging in Temple ritual. The Sanhedrin was the power in Israel with Herod as King over a Roman procurator. That's all in the Gospels. All the Romans wanted was commerce and tribute and peace. They didn't care who you worshipped as long as you paid your taxes and weren't seditious.

 

7 hours ago, abcdef said:

The Jews accused Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. I blame both.

But again, why defend Rome?

Now you are trying to say again that the Romans bear little responsibility for the death of Jesus.

What about Herod and the infants? John the Baptist? The apostles?

Are you Roman Catholic?

I'm not defending Rome. The Empire played it's part as God willed. The RCC is a false religion based on the deification of Peter and the elevation of the Holy See to the replacement of Jesus and God. I find it arrogant and evil.

Yes, Jesus was put to death under Roman auspices after the Jews demanded it. While I shudder at the reality of what happened to Jesus I also am grateful and blame no one; His death had to happen and he died for every Jew that accused Him and the Romans who crucified Him. This is why Jesus deserves the highest praise for He is worthy for all time. It's not like the Jews or the Romans or the Mongols or any other vast array of armies or weapons could have crucified Him without His consent anyway. Jesus choose His own death. The Jews and Romans were used to that end.

I read some histories about what went on the Roman Empire after the death of Jesus. According to a couple people the Jews persecuted Christians relentlessly. It wasn't the Romans who stoned Stephen. Further persecution of Christians by the Romans were at the behest of the Jews. 

Apparently even Nero didn't persecute Christians for following Jesus as much used them as a scapegoat to cover his own bad behaviors. 

But I'm not excusing Rome, just mitigating the status of this once great empire and placing it firmly where it belongs in eschatological matters; which I see as nowhere.

 

7 hours ago, abcdef said:

The harlot is Israel/Jerusalem.

The beast city that she is riding/sitting on is Rome.

You say no?

What is the name of the city/beast that the woman sits on Rev 17:18? 

Which beast is it? Greece or Rome? Or some future Empires?

"And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”"

An elusive quarry. People say Jerusalem, rebuilt Babylon, Mecca, NYC, etc. I found this woman to be the Catholic Church for many years and a lot of people agree with that conclusion. 

Only one thing rules over the kings of the earth; economies. Money and power drive that. Transactions and the multitude of merchandise are their god and he is a cruel master.

I used to think the Pope ruled over the kings of the earth and it's true Catholicism had great power and exercised it in evil ways. But he never ruled all kings of the earth, only mammon does that. 

I see a manifestation of the god of economies on the horizon centered in a single great city complex. I don't think we have seen the reality of the whore of Babylon at the end of the age just yet.

7 hours ago, abcdef said:

I think that there is a little more to it than that.

The RCC is the "anti kingdom" of the true kingdom of Israel, worshiping a man as god, the "holy father", worshiping the mammon of creation, the god of ego.

Keeping millions of souls from finding salvation (infant sprinkling), and killing millions more for opposing them with the truth of the scriptures (reformation). 

Agreed.

 

 

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

Ok, if they are kings, then what are the kingdoms that they rule? 

Can you name the kingdoms? 7 or 8 kingdoms?

I cannot yet. Been trying. Thought I had it. Might still turn out to be on track. I allow for the possibility the heads are people at the top of a group. When the head is wounded, killed, the dead person doesn't come back and the whole group looks dead, then another takes the place of the dead leader and the wounded head revives. 

I don't really hold to that but it is possible. When this prophecy comes to pass I think we will all be amazed. Even me and my imagination has prepared me for outrageous possibilities in the fulfillment.

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

85-96 AD ish.

If you disagree that the "one is", is the "head" of John's time,

then explain what is meant by "one is".

If the 'one is' was in John's time then it would be Domitian. He was like the 12th or 13th Caesar. So to make the Roman emperors fit John would have received the vision in 65 AD making Nero the 'one is'. We agree John received the vison some 30 years later so it can't be that. I have tried to discern what "five are fallen, one is; and the other has not yet come" manifest as but to no avail. The only bit I'm certain of is it's not Roman emperors.

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

That's because you are looking for individuals instead of seeing them as symbolic images in passages of symbolic images. If you are looking to identify them as individual people, you will never do it.

 

I'm not saying it's exclusively individuals. It's whole kingdoms as well. The Kings sit atop the heap and hold prominence in the kingdom and the kingdoms are identified by the head of that kingdom. That's why it's said, "and there are 7 kings" and this how we must search, for those kings. I don't see them, yet.

[Diaste]

9 hours ago, abcdef said:

Then what doctrine do you find to be valid?

The one where we have the clearest timeline for the Return and the gathering:

Matt 24

The signs

Jesus appearance

Dispatching of the angels to gather the elect

2 Thess 2

The rebellion and the revealing

The Coming of Jesus and the Gathering

In that order. Once.

 

9 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

The timing and recognizing the timing will tell you when Jesus is coming for the kingdom at the resur/rapt.

When the toes of the statue in Dan. 2 end, then the stone strikes. The stone striking is not the beginning of the kingdom on planet earth, it is the resur/rapt end of the kingdom on planet earth. The stone striking is the fire from heaven in Rev 20:9.

When the iron nation ends, that is when Israel is restored to Jerusalem, then sometime after that, the fire from heaven when the stone strikes.

So it is very important to recognize the iron kingdom and when it ends its rule over the people of Israel.

 

9 hours ago, abcdef said:

Rome still exists too, but you don't count that. Why? 

Why don't you recognize Rome as the 4th beast in Dan.7 or the iron nation of Dan. 2?

Is it because you want the iron 4th kingdom to be all future? You need to keep the kingdom of Greece in power to meet your time line? And make the 4th beast kingdom future and not past?

The Roman Empire does not exist. The RCC does but that is a construct based on the deification of the Apostle Peter; which is an irrational interpretation of the scripture based on spiritual darkness.

 

9 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

Dan. 2:39, " ..., and another third kingdom of brass, which bear rule over all the earth."

Greece did not rule the planet earth. But they did rule over all the earth of the people of Israel.

The statue of Dan. 2 begins when Israel is taken captive from Jerusalem. Not the planet.

The statue's toes end when Israel is restored to control of Jerusalem.

If you can't understand that the Bible centers Israel and not the planet, your not viewing it through the right lens.

I know scripture is Israel-centric. Jerusalem-centric more accurately. I don't find 'rule over the earth' as interpretive criteria. I don't find 'rule of Israel' as that either. I see the scripture say; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Diadochi, Antiochus IV. No Rome in there.

9 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

I'm not ignoring it, it just seems that you want to disregard that it ended 2000 years ago.

Aren't you ignoring that Rome ruled over Israel for 1900 years?

Rome didn't rule over Israel during the Islamic years, Islam did. The Crusades sought to wrest control of Israel from Islam and the 1st Crusade was undertaken by the English. Later Constantinople was engaged in crusades but were chased back to their fortified cities by the Muslim hordes. Israel and Jerusalem were under Arab control when the Arabs were forced out in 1948 to give the Jews a nation.

 

[abcdef]

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The Jews rebelled and the Romans who were in power at the time put that down. They didn't do it capriciously like, "Let's go attack the Jews just because they are Jews, and I don't really like that hummus stuff either."

That is exactly what the Romans did, attack the Jews because they were Jews. And the truth is that they tried to wipe out the Jews/Israel off the face of the earth.

They chased Israel to the ends of the Roman world.

They were killing Jews all the time during their rule.

There was no peace. What history books are you reading? 

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

We could debate the righteousness of the Roman cause ad infinitum and say they shouldn't have been their in the first place and the destruction would not have happened but it did, and it was on their watch. 

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Some historians think the existence of the Roman empire was the main conduit for the spread of the Gospel so they had to exist and enforce the Pax Romana, which the Jews unequivocally violated. But it's not about that. I was pointing out the idea it was the people of the price who is to come that destroyed the city and the sanctuary from Dan 9; trying to show this prophecy does not see the Romans but rather the people of a future prince.

Dan. 9, The prince of the people is Jesus.

As God, He brought the Roman armies to destroy the temple and Jerusalem.

In the context it is speaking about the time of Jesus, and there is no 1900 year gap.

The "presence" coming of Jesus as God at the destruction of 70 AD Jerusalem was not a resurrection coming.

But His presence was there as the God of Israel.

--------

This points out the confusion that surrounds the details between the presence coming at the destruction of 70 AD Jerusalem, history,

And the 2nd coming for the resur/rapt. for the kingdom/church, which is future.

Deciding which details are talking about the presence coming at the 70 AD destruction, and which details are talking about the 2nd coming for salvation at the resur/rapt, clarify the prophecies. 

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

That future prince could not be Titus as he was there during the fulfillment and the people destroying the city were of that future prince, not a current one, and the X Fretensis in particular was not Roman so Titus could not be their prince and those Syrian troops were on loan.

The people of the prince were Romans.

Jesus as God brought them there.

There is no 1900 year gap in the middle of the verse and the context of the chapter is the 70 AD destruction.  

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

It's all just to show I do not see evidence for the Roman Empire as the Iron Kingdom or in any other prophecy in eschatology. Maybe I'm just missing it but after this many years and the pile of information I have seen from you and many others it's just not there.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Simon and Garfunkel, "The Boxer". 

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

In the 1st century during the pinnacle of Roman power and when Jesus walked the earth the Jewish orthodoxy was celebrating every holy day and engaging in Temple ritual. The Sanhedrin was the power in Israel with Herod as King over a Roman procurator. That's all in the Gospels.

Until they fled, were slaves, or were killed.

There was no peace.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

All the Romans wanted was commerce and tribute and peace

They slaughtered Jews every day.

What history books are you reading that gives you this idea that Rome was some kind of people who wanted peace? It was a massacre beginning when Rome invaded, 1000's, 1000's, 1000's, 1000's.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

They didn't care who you worshipped as long as you paid your taxes and weren't seditious.

Where are you getting this stuff?

They didn't care which god you worshiped, as long as you worshiped Caesar as the supreme god. "We have no God but Caesar", John 19:15. 

Otherwise it is speaking against Caesar which would be death. John 19:12. 

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I'm not defending Rome.

You are defending Rome, from being the Rev 13 beast/nation which was in power over the people of Israel at the time when the Revelation was given.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

The Empire played it's part as God willed. The RCC is a false religion based on the deification of Peter and

Yes

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

the elevation of the Holy See to the replacement of Jesus and God.

Antichrist, not 42 months, centuries.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I find it arrogant and evil.

Yes.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, Jesus was put to death under Roman auspices after the Jews demanded it. While I shudder at the reality of what happened to Jesus I also am grateful and blame no one; His death had to happen and he died for every Jew that accused Him and the Romans who crucified Him. This is why Jesus deserves the highest praise for He is worthy for all time. It's not like the Jews or the Romans or the Mongols or any other vast array of armies or weapons could have crucified Him without His consent anyway. Jesus choose His own death. The Jews and Romans were used to that end.

Yes

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I read some histories about what went on the Roman Empire after the death of Jesus. According to a couple people the Jews persecuted Christians relentlessly. It wasn't the Romans who stoned Stephen.

Yes.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Further persecution of Christians by the Romans were at the behest of the Jews.

For a small period of time.

The Christians also refused to acknowledge Caesar as God, becoming an enemy of the Roman state.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Apparently even Nero didn't persecute Christians for following Jesus as much used them as a scapegoat to cover his own bad behaviors.

Somewhat true, Christians were still persecuted.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

But I'm not excusing Rome, just mitigating the status of this once great empire and placing it firmly where it belongs in eschatological matters; which I see as nowhere.

The NT and the Revelation do not use the word "Rome", because to speak against Rome or Caesar is death.

The apostles tried to explain it as well as they could, without naming Rome or Caesar.

You don't see the name "Rome", so you automatically assume that it is not.

Try yourself to describe the situation of the apostles without using the name of Caesar and Rome.

What would you say?

You would describe them in a way that people who study the OT scriptures would understand, symbolism and images.

A beast and an Antichrist, that exist for centuries.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

"And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”"

An elusive quarry. People say Jerusalem, rebuilt Babylon, Mecca, NYC, etc. I found this woman to be the Catholic Church for many years and a lot of people agree with that conclusion.

I thought it was the RCC also.

But now I believe that the harlot is Jerusalem/Israel as a slave in Rome.

The Israel/Jerusalem of 85-96 ADish is the only one who fits perfectly into this image. Lk 11:50-51, so it can only be the generation of Jerusalem in the 30 AD period.

The image of the harlot Israel is in contrast to the faithful Israel who flees in Rev 12.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Only one thing rules over the kings of the earth; economies. Money and power drive that. Transactions and the multitude of merchandise are their god and he is a cruel master.

The sting of sin is death.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I used to think the Pope ruled over the kings of the earth and it's true Catholicism had great power and exercised it in evil ways. But he never ruled all kings of the earth, only mammon does that.

Not the planet, Israel. The whole world of Israel.

 

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

I see a manifestation of the god of economies on the horizon centered in a single great city complex. I don't think we have seen the reality of the whore of Babylon at the end of the age just yet.

The harlot is the people of Israel, dominated by Rome, until Jerusalem is restored. (1967)

The time of the domination ends when the 10 horns end. Rev 17.

It is the domination of the people of Israel that is shown, until they are restored to Jerusalem.

 

[abcdef]

On 2/26/2021 at 5:36 AM, Diaste said:

 

When does the Diadochi end?

What event signals the end of the Diadochi of Greece?

What event can you say that effectively ends the 3rd beast of Dan. 7?

When does it happen?

What event says that it is over?