Revelation Chapter 13 -

[Massorite]

I would be inclined to reject any Empire not affiliated with Israel's past, present and future as being the seventh . . . since I believe Israel is a key to understanding the identity of all the "heads" or "kings," especially the seventh and the eighth.

Actually, Europe was heavily involved with the possession of the Promised Land (the time of the Crusades), as well as Muslims (though I don't know which nation of Muslims had the strongest hold on the Land). Britain just had it at the end.

Please keep it in mind that ch. 13 and ch. 17 I have posted on this thread has been done for about 6 years and there are some up dating to be done. One of these such up date is about the group of seven. Russia was added in to make the group eight but is no longer included into the group and is again a group of seven.

Hope you like it.

Revelation 17:1

And there came one of the seven angels which had

the seven vials, and talked with me, saying to me,

Come here; I will show to you the judgment of the

great whore that sits upon many waters.

We should take notice that the judgment of the great whore

is still yet future in this verse. There will be a short space of

time between the end of wrath and the rule of Christ and then

Jesus will finally rule the world as it was intended to be

[BlindSeeker]

I would be inclined to reject any Empire not affiliated with Israel's past, present and future as being the seventh . . . since I believe Israel is a key to understanding the identity of all the "heads" or "kings," especially the seventh and the eighth.

Actually, Europe was heavily involved with the possession of the Promised Land (the time of the Crusades), as well as Muslims (though I don't know which nation of Muslims had the strongest hold on the Land). Britain just had it at the end.

Agreed Sister Nebula . . . but believe the Beast that "was, was not and yet is" is correlated with Israel which also "was, was not and yet is."

I believe the distinguishing of the heads must be discerned as existing during the establishment of Israel and not during her absence. That is why England is the 7th and not all of Europe or the Muslims.

[nebula]

I see what you are saying - but . . .

Well, I guess part of my problem is that I see the re-establihment of Israel as a nation as a part of God's redemptive plan . . . the Valley of the dry bones . . . rather than as one of the Beasts.

What made Babylon and subsequent empires different from Egypt et al in belonging to Nebuchandnezzer's statue were they were Gentile nations who included Israel in their empires. Thus it makes more sense that the feet of iron and clay - extending from the Roman Empire - are the two extensions of "the Holy Roman Empire." Both the European extension and Byzanthian extensions were "mixed" (mixed nations and peoples, but a collective unit of sorts under one religion . . . Byzanthium though got taken over by Islam). Both extension had their feet in "the Holy Land" and held power back and forth.

Now I can see the US as having strong influence over Israel, but it doesn't exactly contain Israel as within an empire . . . so I'm not sure it matches up.

I could be wrong, I know . . . after all I am not a prophet (I'm a firm believer in the prophets having the decoders to prophecy more so than anyone else).

But that's my line of thinking in this.

[Massorite]

I would be inclined to reject any Empire not affiliated with Israel's past, present and future as being the seventh . . . since I believe Israel is a key to understanding the identity of all the "heads" or "kings," especially the seventh and the eighth.

Actually, Europe was heavily involved with the possession of the Promised Land (the time of the Crusades), as well as Muslims (though I don't know which nation of Muslims had the strongest hold on the Land). Britain just had it at the end.

Agreed Sister Nebula . . . but believe the Beast that "was, was not and yet is" is correlated with Israel which also "was, was not and yet is."

I believe the distinguishing of the heads must be discerned as existing during the establishment of Israel and not during her absence. That is why England is the 7th and not all of Europe or the Muslims.

OK show us some scripture to back that idea up because Isreal never was and is not today considered to be the beast by God. How can Isreal be the apple of God's eye and considered to be His people by God and be the beast at the same time. Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. When you can,t show a historical Jewish connection between the heads if we were to run down your road.

[Massorite]

I see what you are saying - but . . .

Well, I guess part of my problem is that I see the re-establihment of Israel as a nation as a part of God's redemptive plan . . . the Valley of the dry bones . . . rather than as one of the Beasts.

What made Babylon and subsequent empires different from Egypt et al in belonging to Nebuchandnezzer's statue were they were Gentile nations who included Israel in their empires. Thus it makes more sense that the feet of iron and clay - extending from the Roman Empire - are the two extensions of "the Holy Roman Empire." Both the European extension and Byzanthian extensions were "mixed" (mixed nations and peoples, but a collective unit of sorts under one religion . . . Byzanthium though got taken over by Islam). Both extension had their feet in "the Holy Land" and held power back and forth.

Now I can see the US as having strong influence over Israel, but it doesn't exactly contain Israel as within an empire . . . so I'm not sure it matches up.

I could be wrong, I know . . . after all I am not a prophet (I'm a firm believer in the prophets having the decoders to prophecy more so than anyone else).

But that's my line of thinking in this.

NO NEBULA YOU ARE NOT WRONG. Because the word of God re-enforces how you think.

[traveller]

I see what you are saying - but . . .

Well, I guess part of my problem is that I see the re-establihment of Israel as a nation as a part of God's redemptive plan . . . the Valley of the dry bones . . . rather than as one of the Beasts.

What made Babylon and subsequent empires different from Egypt et al in belonging to Nebuchandnezzer's statue were they were Gentile nations who included Israel in their empires. Thus it makes more sense that the feet of iron and clay - extending from the Roman Empire - are the two extensions of "the Holy Roman Empire." Both the European extension and Byzanthian extensions were "mixed" (mixed nations and peoples, but a collective unit of sorts under one religion . . . Byzanthium though got taken over by Islam). Both extension had their feet in "the Holy Land" and held power back and forth.

Now I can see the US as having strong influence over Israel, but it doesn't exactly contain Israel as within an empire . . . so I'm not sure it matches up.

I could be wrong, I know . . . after all I am not a prophet (I'm a firm believer in the prophets having the decoders to prophecy more so than anyone else).

But that's my line of thinking in this.

Neb - BlindSeeker is not saying that Israel is the beast. He explained it here.

[Celt]

I would be inclined to reject any Empire not affiliated with Israel's past, present and future as being the seventh . . . since I believe Israel is a key to understanding the identity of all the "heads" or "kings," especially the seventh and the eighth.

Actually, Europe was heavily involved with the possession of the Promised Land (the time of the Crusades), as well as Muslims (though I don't know which nation of Muslims had the strongest hold on the Land). Britain just had it at the end.

It was the Ottoman Empire, the Turks. That's who Britain defeated to free Jerusalem from total control by Muslims.

But it still does not tie in with the 7th or 8th king of Rev.17, which are consecutive types related to the beast kingdom types of Daniel 7. Preterism mainly, but historicism to some degree, disagree about Rev.17:10 pointing to 7th and 8th kings being yet future to us.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Celt

[Celt]

Rome does not have the power many like to give it today. There is no 'revived Roman Empire' today, and nor even signs of that happenning in the world. Instead, I see someone's personal agenda working those ideas about today's Roman Church and its pope.

Does the pope head the United Nations? No.

Does the pope head the European Union headquatered at Brussels? No.

Does the pope head the U.N. headquarters in New York? No.

Does the pope head the Bilderburger summits? No.

Does the pope head the Kremlin elites in Russia? No.

Does the pope head the Chinese Communist Party in Peking, or in North Korea? No.

Does the pope head any of the Communist parties in Europe, or even the CPUSA (Communits Party in the USA)? No.

What about Mecca, does the pope head the Islamic religion? Again no.

The pope might get invited to some of those functions, but he's by no means the head of those functions. He does not control them. He isn't the leader of it anymore than Billy Graham could be considered to be, just because Graham went to Russia and preached The Gospel.

World Communism has not stopped its goal for takeover of the world. It's simply done now under the names Socialism or secular humanism. Red China is threatening war with the United States, and preparing its arsenal, while pecking at taking Tawain (which we have a treaty with to help defend), and Russia is still under the control by a Communist infrastructure which still supports other Communist countries like China and North Korea, and radical Islam. Socialist leaders in the West are allowing Islam a stronger foothold in the West while removing many freedoms western peoples have been accustomed to, while even destroying our economic systems in the West.

How can Rome and the pope be blamed for all that? He can't, and he doesn't head a revived Roman Empire to do all that either. That idea is a red heiring. Even pagan Rome during the time of Christ provided freedoms for both Jews and Christians in its own land, which is exactly why the apostle Paul deferred to the powers at Rome when the unbelieving Jews wanted him brought to Jerusalem to be executed. Paul was even allowed to be under house arrest in a house he was given at Rome, while preaching The Gospel! Some of the royal family of Britain were even under house arrest in Rome at that time, with a palace even built for them to live in. And all that while Rome was still mostly pagan.

Later persecutions of Christians at Rome came at the hand of later heads, until Constatine adopted Christianity. And then Christianity grew in leaps and bounds at Rome. It was not until corruption starting creeping into the Roman Church to persecute some of their own that a rebellion against papal authority started. It was then that those Christians began equating the pope to the antichrist of The Bible, and they branched off to begin a Protestant rebellion against the Roman Church. But even after the Protestant rebellion, the Protestants still held some contact with the Roman Church, even as it still does today. The British Church at the time of the KJV translators did not admit any authority over its members by the pope or Roman Church, and is why they included such statements in the original KJV edition Letters. The majority of Protestant Churches today still do not admit any authority over them by a pope.

So was the pope really the antichrist, dragon, or beast of Revelation? Obviously not, because today, here we are again on the edge of a one world government system that is attempting to take over the authority of all nations on earth. And it's not seated at Rome, nor with a pope as head.

Some are simply refusing to update their understanding of the times we are in today in relation to Bible prophecy. Instead, those keeping focused on Rome and a pope are still living in past history.

[Massorite]

I see what you are saying - but . . .

Well, I guess part of my problem is that I see the re-establihment of Israel as a nation as a part of God's redemptive plan . . . the Valley of the dry bones . . . rather than as one of the Beasts.

What made Babylon and subsequent empires different from Egypt et al in belonging to Nebuchandnezzer's statue were they were Gentile nations who included Israel in their empires. Thus it makes more sense that the feet of iron and clay - extending from the Roman Empire - are the two extensions of "the Holy Roman Empire." Both the European extension and Byzanthian extensions were "mixed" (mixed nations and peoples, but a collective unit of sorts under one religion . . . Byzanthium though got taken over by Islam). Both extension had their feet in "the Holy Land" and held power back and forth.

Now I can see the US as having strong influence over Israel, but it doesn't exactly contain Israel as within an empire . . . so I'm not sure it matches up.

I could be wrong, I know . . . after all I am not a prophet (I'm a firm believer in the prophets having the decoders to prophecy more so than anyone else).

But that's my line of thinking in this.

Neb - BlindSeeker is not saying that Israel is the beast. He explained it here.

I read his explanation and it doesn't change hie position at all.

In Rev 17:8 the bible is talking about a beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit "that was and is not yet still is". Yet in his post 64 he says that the beast is corralated with Lsreal because Isreal was, was not, yet is. There is no corralation there. Isreal was never in the bottomless pit and Isreal has alway been Isreal in the eyes of God both the people and the land. There has never been a time when Isreal WAS NOT. They have always been a people and the name has always been Isreal.

As long as he is using the words from Rev. 17:8 to connect Isreal to the beast and the discription of the beast in the book of Daniel he is saying or at the least leading everyone to think that he is connecting the beast to Isreal and it simply does not work. There are no simularities between Isreal and any beast of any kind spiritual or otherwise. Trickery I tell you Trickery. LOL

[Massorite]

Rome does not have the power many like to give it today. There is no 'revived Roman Empire' today, and nor even signs of that happenning in the world. Instead, I see someone's personal agenda working those ideas about today's Roman Church and its pope.

Does the pope head the United Nations? No.

Does the pope head the European Union headquatered at Brussels? No.

Does the pope head the U.N. headquarters in New York? No.

Does the pope head the Bilderburger summits? No.

Does the pope head the Kremlin elites in Russia? No.

Does the pope head the Chinese Communist Party in Peking, or in North Korea? No.

Does the pope head any of the Communist parties in Europe, or even the CPUSA (Communits Party in the USA)? No.

What about Mecca, does the pope head the Islamic religion? Again no.

The pope might get invited to some of those functions, but he's by no means the head of those functions. He does not control them. He isn't the leader of it anymore than Billy Graham could be considered to be, just because Graham went to Russia and preached The Gospel.

World Communism has not stopped its goal for takeover of the world. It's simply done now under the names Socialism or secular humanism. Red China is threatening war with the United States, and preparing its arsenal, while pecking at taking Tawain (which we have a treaty with to help defend), and Russia is still under the control by a Communist infrastructure which still supports other Communist countries like China and North Korea, and radical Islam. Socialist leaders in the West are allowing Islam a stronger foothold in the West while removing many freedoms western peoples have been accustomed to, while even destroying our economic systems in the West.

How can Rome and the pope be blamed for all that? He can't, and he doesn't head a revived Roman Empire to do all that either. That idea is a red heiring. Even pagan Rome during the time of Christ provided freedoms for both Jews and Christians in its own land, which is exactly why the apostle Paul deferred to the powers at Rome when the unbelieving Jews wanted him brought to Jerusalem to be executed. Paul was even allowed to be under house arrest in a house he was given at Rome, while preaching The Gospel! Some of the royal family of Britain were even under house arrest in Rome at that time, with a palace even built for them to live in. And all that while Rome was still mostly pagan.

Later persecutions of Christians at Rome came at the hand of later heads, until Constatine adopted Christianity. And then Christianity grew in leaps and bounds at Rome. It was not until corruption starting creeping into the Roman Church to persecute some of their own that a rebellion against papal authority started. It was then that those Christians began equating the pope to the antichrist of The Bible, and they branched off to begin a Protestant rebellion against the Roman Church. But even after the Protestant rebellion, the Protestants still held some contact with the Roman Church, even as it still does today. The British Church at the time of the KJV translators did not admit any authority over its members by the pope or Roman Church, and is why they included such statements in the original KJV edition Letters. The majority of Protestant Churches today still do not admit any authority over them by a pope.

So was the pope really the antichrist, dragon, or beast of Revelation? Obviously not, because today, here we are again on the edge of a one world government system that is attempting to take over the authority of all nations on earth. And it's not seated at Rome, nor with a pope as head.

Some are simply refusing to update their understanding of the times we are in today in relation to Bible prophecy. Instead, those keeping focused on Rome and a pope are still living in past history.

I agree with you Celt. Although I do believe that thye antichrist will be using the Catholic church in some form or fashion. Perhaps the false prophet?