The beasts of Revelation 13 - Interpreted and identified.

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

When does the Diadochi end?

Scripture says their power is taken away but their lives are preserved. This is why the four still exist today.

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

What event signals the end of the Diadochi of Greece?

Nothing I know of. I ignore that in favor of the lineage of Dan 11 where we see Antiochus IV commit the A of D in 167 BC. Dan 11 follows the Seleucid line. The first 5 verses tell us who is in view, the kings of the north and the south which arose from Alexander's Greece. 

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

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

The poisoning of Alexander.  The statue and the beasts are the same kingdoms and kings just presented with different attributes. 

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

When does it happen?

If I understand, you are asking if it happened in history or it's yet future. 

I see the 4th beast as this one:

"2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:"

This symbolism reflects the 3 which came before: Persian bear, Babylonian lion, and Grecian leopard. The 4th kingdom has to be representative of the previous 3. The single common denominator is Babylon. The seat of power of these 3 was the city of Babylon in Mesopotamia. Future. Babylon is coming again either physically or spiritually, probably both.

8 hours ago, abcdef said:

What event says that it is over?

?

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, abcdef said:

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? 

Well, not that I can find. The Romans took Israel in 63 BC and Israel rebelled against this till about 40 BC. It was probably their right to do so but it resulted in many skirmishes and the death of Jews and Romans. Rome didn't act capriciously intent on extermination from what I have read. 

The Romans certainly didn't 'kill Jews all the time' from 63 BC to 66 AD just because they were Jews as no documentation supports this and in fact waxes contradictory.

17 hours ago, abcdef said:

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

Quote

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.

 

No. Too far outside what the NT teaches.

 

17 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

Quote

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.

No they did not. Not one source I have seen says so. They did put down rebellions every time one cropped up but it was not wanton slaughter from 63 BC to 70 AD as you depict. 

17 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

Quote

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. 

 

That's not true at all. The Temple in Jerusalem was a functioning place of worship from the time it was expanded by Herod in about 37-20 BC until the time it was destroyed. The Jews were worshipping Jehovah this entire time, and before, while under Roman rule with Herod at the helm and Roman procurators present. That's in scripture. Jesus taught in the Temple and honored Passover and no Romans put a stop to it. 

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

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. 

Sure that's the right quote?

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

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.

It's not a defense of one thing to correctly assess another.

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

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?

I have heard this argument before. I don't find it valid. We are to take the text as inspired by the Holy Spirit and so I don't believe the Holy Spirit was afraid of Rome or Caesar.

18 hours ago, abcdef said:

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 harlot? The Whore of Babylon? Jerusalem doesn't fit unless everything in Rev 18 is true of Jerusalem. I don't see it.

 

 

[abcdef]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Yes, they are a group over one city nation, Rev 17:18.

In the rest of this post, you will describe perfectly the Roman Empire in the time of John. "one is", Rev 17:10.

Also keep in mind the 4 heads of the 3rd leopard beast nation in Dan. 7:6.

Because the principle is the same. The beast nation is still alive as long as one of the heads is still living and in power.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

When the head is wounded, killed,

Rev 17:10, 5 have fallen, in the life of the Roman Empire, symbolic, not individuals.

One is, #6, The Roman Empire of John's time.

One, #7, is not yet come. The span of the lifetime of the remaining Roman Empire from after John until the fall of the Empire. When the 7th head dies, the power of the Roman Empire and Caesar have ended.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

the dead person doesn't come back and the whole group looks dead,

When the Roman Empire fell, the 7th head was dead, along with the other six.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

then another takes the place of the dead leader and the wounded head revives. 

Who took the place of Caesar and Rome? Well, Caesar and Rome did.

But they don't call him Caesar any more, now it is the Bishop of Rome. 

The image of Caesar worship and the image of the Roman Empire.

(But now, 1929, he has returned to sit on the seat of the beast, the Roman Empire beast. The beast has returned from the abyss, place of the dead, to EXACTLY the same place where he was 2000 years ago, Rome, Rome, Rome.)

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

I don't really hold to that but it is possible.

If it is possible, then it should certainly be considered. 

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Can you imagine that it has already taken place and was fulfilled by Rome?

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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'.

My point exactly, the heads of Rev 17 and the heads of the sea beast in Rev 13:1 are not individuals, but represent the lifetime of the beast nation. 

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Not individuals that can be identified as one head, but the heads represent all the Caesars of Rome as a group, seven representing the complete lifetime of the beast.

Also seen in the case of the 4 heads on the 3rd beast nation of Dan. 7.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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.

In the case of the Rev 17 heads it is a city. Not Babylon, Rome in 85-96 ADish.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:00 AM, Diaste said:

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.

You won't see them until you understand that they are symbolic images of the lifetime of the beast in Rev 17, Rev 13, and the 4 heads of the 3rd beast in Dan 7.

[abcdef]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

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.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Not the deification of Peter, that is a sideshow, it's the deification of Caesar as the Bishop of Rome. They don't call him the "holy father", for nothing.

Caesar worship, "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:15. You can't see the correlation between what the Jews said and the Jews recognition of Caesar as the Antichrist god? In 33 AD? 

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

I know scripture is Israel-centric. Jerusalem-centric more accurately.

The details surrounding the 70 AD fall, are being mixed up with the coming fall of Jerusalem.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

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.

What comes after Antiochus? Rome.

Why stop the time line? Continue beyond the Greeks.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

Rome didn't rule over Israel during the Islamic years, Islam did.

Rome ruled over the PEOPLE of Israel for the years of Islam. Islam had Jerusalem, but the Jews were still mainly in the European areas, continuing until WW 2.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Yes

 

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

Israel and Jerusalem were under Arab control when the Arabs were forced out in 1948 to give the Jews a nation.

The nationhood of Israel became complete in 1967 when complete military control of Jerusalem was finally returned to Israel.

 

[abcdef]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:29 AM, Diaste said:

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.

Babylon (the first beast of Dan. 7 and head of gold in Dan 2.) didn't rule the planet in the time of Daniel, but they did rule over the people of Israel.

Medo-Persia did not rule the planet, but they did rule over the people of Israel.

Greece did not rule they planet, they ruled "over all the earth" Dan. 2:39, not the planet earth, all the earth of Israel.

Rome ruled all the earth of Israel.

The beasts in Rev 13 do not rule the planet, but the whole earth of Israel.

--

You want to say that the Bible centers on the people of Israel,

But then abandon that principle when it comes to Dan. 2, Dan. 7, and the beasts of Rev 13 and 17. 

 

 

 

[abcdef]

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

Scripture says their power is taken away but their lives are preserved. This is why the four still exist today.

Dan. 7:12, Their dominion is taken away and their lives prolonged for a season and time.

What is it, that they have dominion over, that is taken away?

Not the dominion over the planet, but over the people of Israel.

The lives and power of the beasts is ended when their dominion over the people of Israel is ended.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

Nothing I know of. I ignore that

Ignoring and not trying to identify the point when the  4 heads of the 3rd beast in Dan. 7 ends in the timeline leads to a position that is questionable and not firm in it's conclusion.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

in favor of the lineage of Dan 11 where we see Antiochus IV commit the A of D in 167 BC. Dan 11 follows the Seleucid line. The first 5 verses tell us who is in view, the kings of the north and the south which arose from Alexander's Greece.

I agree. But the Greeks lost control over the people of Israel in 63 BC when Rome invaded.

That ended the time of the 4 horns/heads.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

The poisoning of Alexander.

The end of the third beast in Dan. 7 is when the 4 horns end. Not the death of Alexander. The 4 heads/horns are still part of the Greek 3rd beast.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

  The statue and the beasts are the same kingdoms and kings just presented with different attributes.

Yes, What event is shown by the stone striking in the statue of Dan. 2? Dan. 2:34, 45.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

If I understand, you are asking if it happened in history or it's yet future. 

I see the 4th beast as this one:

"2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:"

This symbolism reflects the 3 which came before: Persian bear, Babylonian lion, and Grecian leopard. The 4th kingdom has to be representative of the previous 3.

Rev 13:2, So now you are changing position on your original discussion point, that the beast of Rev 13 is an individual. Here you have taken the position that the beast of Rev 13 is a nation/kingdom that reflects the traits of the other beast/kingdoms that were previous.

Can you maintain your position that the beasts are nations and not an individual, through the rest of Rev 13?

Or will you now try to revert back to your original statement, that the beast of Rev 13 is an individual?

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

The single common denominator is Babylon.

No, the common denominator is that they all ruled over the people of Israel.

They all had different capitol cities, Babylon was just one and not the exclusive capitol of all of them.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

The seat of power of these 3 was the city of Babylon in Mesopotamia.

But not exclusively. There were other cities.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 6:21 AM, Diaste said:

Future. Babylon is coming again either physically or spiritually, probably both.

?

ROME IS BABYLON!!!!!!!

IT is here now and has been for 2000 years in the form of Caesar worship, "man is god".

 

[abcdef]

On 2/28/2021 at 7:10 AM, Diaste said:

Well, not that I can find. The Romans took Israel in 63 BC and Israel rebelled against this till about 40 BC. It was probably their right to do so but it resulted in many skirmishes and the death of Jews and Romans. Rome didn't act capriciously intent on extermination from what I have read. 

The Romans certainly didn't 'kill Jews all the time' from 63 BC to 66 AD just because they were Jews as no documentation supports this and in fact waxes contradictory.

The mothers in Bethlehem and Israel might disagree with you, seeing that all the children were killed.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:10 AM, Diaste said:

No. Too far outside what the NT teaches.

The prince of Israel is Jesus. He brought the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. It could be no one else because it takes the power of God to destroy the temple and Jerusalem.

Acts 3:15, "The Prince of life".

Acts 5:31, "A Prince and a savior".

Rev 1:5, "the prince of the kings of the earth".

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:10 AM, Diaste said:

No they did not. Not one source I have seen says so. They did put down rebellions every time one cropped up but it was not wanton slaughter from 63 BC to 70 AD as you depict. 

63 BC through 1967 AD. 

Dig deeper.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:10 AM, Diaste said:

That's not true at all. The Temple in Jerusalem was a functioning place of worship from the time it was expanded by Herod in about 37-20 BC until the time it was destroyed. The Jews were worshipping Jehovah this entire time, and before, while under Roman rule with Herod at the helm and Roman procurators present. That's in scripture. Jesus taught in the Temple and honored Passover and no Romans put a stop to it. 

The Romans did put a stop to it when they killed Jesus. Then they destroyed Jerusalem.

The Jews were in league with the Romans, that is why it was allowed to go on so long. Matt 2:3-6, John 19:15.

[abcdef]

On 2/28/2021 at 7:29 AM, Diaste said:

Sure that's the right quote?

It's not a defense of one thing to correctly assess another.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:29 AM, Diaste said:

I have heard this argument before. I don't find it valid. We are to take the text as inspired by the Holy Spirit and so I don't believe the Holy Spirit was afraid of Rome or Caesar.

John wrote the letter of Revelation to the 7 congregations,

How far do you think that the letter would have gotten, if it said that Rome is the beast and Caesar is the Antichrist?

It wouldn't have made it off the island.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 7:29 AM, Diaste said:

The harlot? The Whore of Babylon? Jerusalem doesn't fit unless everything in Rev 18 is true of Jerusalem. I don't see it.

Show me something in Rev 18 that does not fit Jerusalem, it all fits.

Especially Rev 18:24, which can ONLY, ONLY, ONLY be Jerusalem.

Lk 11:50-51.

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, abcdef said:

Show me something in Rev 18 that does not fit Jerusalem, it all fits.

Especially Rev 18:24, which can ONLY, ONLY, ONLY be Jerusalem.

Lk 11:50-51.

In the first place a visceral response renders the above repellent to me.

Second, this, "And there was found in her the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who had been slain on the earth." Cannot be true of Jerusalem. 

If this "of all who had been slain on the earth." is true then Jerusalem is responsible for the death of Abel thousands of years before Jerusalem existed.

In fact I find this to be more based in prejudice than reality. Jerusalem is responsible for the death of the American revolution or the American Civil war? 

Jerusalem is responsible for the Killing Fields, Mao's murder of millions, Lenin's purges and Amin's genocide? How? Islam slaughtered 250 million in 700 years which had nothing to do with Jerusalem. The Mongols were no where near the Middle East and again slaughtered millions.

How can you lay all that at the feet of a single city in a country without a people?

I tell you who is responsible. Satan and his economies centered in Babylon. 

Not the city of God. Not ever.