The Beast of Revelation 13

[Lutz13]

John, not sure why you would want to 'hide' the thread or the posts on the thread--can you give us one good reason? You should know me by now, I like to keep things in the open and in the light. "Things" done in 'darkness' tend to bother me. But I totally agree none should (including me) talk 'trash and smash' about other posters. I have admitted calling people 'wimps' and I apologize for this. BUT--my one big question is this: If Jesus said (and I believe He did), you are either for Him or against Him (no gray area) then if anyone presents evidence that would show or prove that Paul was against what Jesus said or taught, then what would you do about or with this post?

The problem is, is that the subject of Paul hijacks just about every single topic. It would be nice if it could be kept in one thread.

[oldsailor29]

The problem is, is that the subject of Paul hijacks just about every single topic. It would be nice if it could be kept in one thread.

I understand why the question of Paul's authenticity would be an overshadowing problem. His theology is widely accepted in Christian circles. Accepting Moses has some similar problems. Jesus reinterpreted much of the Old Testament in His presentation of Christianity. I certainly agree, that if it disagrees with Jesus, then there is no light in it.

However, I think the better way to approach the problem would be to just read what Jesus said, without the interpretations of either Paul or Moses. I also think that until we are doing that, there is no useful purpose served in denying the authenticity of either Paul or Moses.

There is a similar problem with the nature of inspiration. Almost every theology post is tainted with the satanic idea that inspiration means God breathed words into the ears of His Prophets, and thus the original manuscripts were inerrant. That subject could also hijack almost every topic, so I understand that it must be severely frustrating when we want to stick to the topic. But it is difficult when some ideas in every topic are based on erroneous interpretations and statements which disagree with Jesus.

I have no easy solution for the problem, but I think we can all try a little harder, to stick to the topic ahhhhhh --- weeeelllll ummmmm ummmmm --- from now on.

[Lutz13]

I understand why the question of Paul's authenticity would be an overshadowing problem. His theology is widely accepted in Christian circles. Accepting Moses has some similar problems. Jesus reinterpreted much of the Old Testament in His presentation of Christianity. I certainly agree, that if it disagrees with Jesus, then there is no light in it.

However, I think the better way to approach the problem would be to just read what Jesus said, without the interpretations of either Paul or Moses. I also think that until we are doing that, there is no useful purpose served in denying the authenticity of either Paul or Moses.

This being a SDA forum. Most here accept the writings of Paul. So when discussing topics with other SDA's and some guy comes along and starts saying "You can't use Paul" in just about every thread. Which then changes the topic of the thread to 'Paul'. It becomes a problem. This thread was about the beast in Revelation 13, it is now about Paul. You see my point?

[phkrause]

Makes sense to me Lutz13

pk

[John317]

This being a SDA forum. Most here accept the writings of Paul. So when discussing topics with other SDA's and some guy comes along and starts saying "You can't use Paul" in just about every thread. Which then changes the topic of the thread to 'Paul'. It becomes a problem. This thread was about the beast in Revelation 13, it is now about Paul. You see my point?

Yes, and that is why I will enforce the rules on this and other Forums regarding the questions that a few members have about Paul. As the moderator, I'm determined not to let anyone hijack the threads with this topic. There are threads where that is the subject of discussion, and the debate about Paul should be kept on them.

[oldsailor29]

This being a SDA forum. Most here accept the writings of Paul. So when discussing topics with other SDA's and some guy comes along and starts saying "You can't use Paul" in just about every thread. Which then changes the topic of the thread to 'Paul'. It becomes a problem. This thread was about the beast in Revelation 13, it is now about Paul. You see my point?

I think "I see your point" is what I said.

[oldsailor29]

So, who is the latest 666? I have seen several names which add up to it, so I guess the better question is who is the real 666? Or is the number 616?

Where did the 6 headed beast come from, and what is his name? Which head was wounded?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

I understand why the question of Paul's authenticity would be an overshadowing problem. His theology is widely accepted in Christian circles. Accepting Moses has some similar problems. Jesus reinterpreted much of the Old Testament in His presentation of Christianity. I certainly agree, that if it disagrees with Jesus, then there is no light in it.

However, I think the better way to approach the problem would be to just read what Jesus said, without the interpretations of either Paul or Moses. I also think that until we are doing that, there is no useful purpose served in denying the authenticity of either Paul or Moses.

This being a SDA forum. Most here accept the writings of Paul. So when discussing topics with other SDA's and some guy comes along and starts saying "You can't use Paul" in just about every thread. Which then changes the topic of the thread to 'Paul'. It becomes a problem. This thread was about the beast in Revelation 13, it is now about Paul. You see my point?

Agreed. So back to the Beast of Rev.13 with a question. Where in the description of the Rev. 13 (first) Beast is there mentioned anything about the 4th (Great and terrible) beast of Daniel 7? It is my understanding that the Lion (Babylon), Bear (Media-Persia) and Leopard (Greece) regain their lost authority in the Rev.13 Beast, but I do not see where there is any mention of the 4th beast (Rome) regaining it's authority.

I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. Dan.7:11-12.

My understanding from this verse is that the 4th beast is destroyed forever, but the others are allowed to exist until the time of the end.

The following verse shows no mention of the Great and Terrible beast that once was Rome.

And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. Rev.13:2.

[Dr. Rich]

I agree oldsailor. Most opinions or theories were passed down from the mother church (Catholics) about this beast and then suddenly changed when protestantism came about so that the new protestants now viewed the Catholics as this beast in Revelation 13 that comes up out of the sea. When the SDA church was being formed, the same opinion was held by them that the Catholic Church had to be this beast. Problem is, they also considered the wounded head as the Catholic Church and many still do today. Yes, I know verse 12 may have caused this problem--since it states the second beast causes the world to worship the first beast whose deadly head had been healed. But remember, when does the second beast appear? We find that in Rev. 9 where this beast is Satan who is released to do his thing the last five months on this earth.

Question is, how could the Catholic Church be both the first beast and the wounded head? As MM so importantly pointed out, how could the Catholic Church be the same as 'Rome' since prophecy has it being totally destroyed and never coming back?

To answer the question on who the wounded head represents, we see that this wounded head was caused by a sword (verse 14) so it could only be a religious entity that ceased its way of worshiping practice by the way of a war. And the only one I know of was when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome and the Jews scattered all over the world. Could it be that they restore the temple and their way of worship during the last five months? Could it be that since they control the money of the world now, that they cause the whole world to worship the beast--the ONE WORLD ORDER?

[John317]

John, not sure why you would want to 'hide' the thread or the posts on the thread--can you give us one good reason?

Putting on Moderator's hat:

It's not a personal matter with me, first of all. If I were talking to you in person, you could say anything you like, and it would be fine, but as the moderator, I have to think of the other members. This is an SDA forum and members aren't interested in seeing Paul and others attacked and called names, etc. It's one thing to ask questions and seek to understand issues, but it is entirely different to make claims that various books and people are of Satan, and to do this at every turn.

I would point you back to Stan's original statements and warnings about this, which he posted months ago.

Quote:

... BUT--my one big question is this: If Jesus said (and I believe He did), you are either for Him or against Him (no gray area) then if anyone presents evidence that would show or prove that Paul was against what Jesus said or taught, then what would you do about or with this post?

The problem is not that anyone would look seriously at this question and discuss the relationship between the teaching of Jesus and the theology of the apostle Paul, but that there are those who have already made up their minds that Paul is a liar-- and much of the NT is false--and they want to propagate these notions everywhere they possibly can. This too often leads to hijacking threads.

It would be like my going on to a Catholic or Mormon forum and hijacking their threads with proofs that Joseph Smith is a false prophet or that Mary is dead and the pope is the antichrist. While I believe such arguments have merit, I think you'll agree that those forums wouldn't put up with me very long if I keep bringing those things up in that way, and ignoring their moderators request not to do it. There's a right way, and a right time, to approach these subjects, but hijacking threads is not one of them.

If you believe you have actual proof that Paul is against Jesus, I invite you to post it on the thread we have devoted to that subject and let's see what the "proof" is. Also, you could send the proof to me by PM and let me take a look at it.

An examination of the theology of Paul and of the teachings of Jesus, comparing and contrasting them, is a great idea and something very worthwhile; but it has to be done respectfully and without making attacks against either one. One can draw conclusions that Paul seems to disagree with Jesus, or that there appears to be a contradiction, etc., and it can be done in a civil, respectful way that does not give offense.

Whether you agree with it or not, the truth is that the same kinds of attacks that can be made against Paul could also be made against Jesus. As moderator, I'm not interested in seeing those kinds of attacks being made against the Bible and against Christ on the SDA forum. If you want a forum where you can openly make attacks against Paul as an evil person, you will need to either take it to a forum that invites that kind of thing, or you could do it on the private forum.

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks John, that certainly is a just way of presenting things.

[John317]

John,

What will be acceptable proof of the truth or falsehood of Paul?

I would be more inclined to consider things as "strong evidence" or "compelling evidence," etc., rather than proof. I think each person will have decide in their own mind whether something is proven to be true or proven to be false.

For instance, I can tell someone that I believe with certainty that Jesus lived, was crucified and was resurrected, but I can't force someone else to believe it. I can only present the evidence as well as possible and pray that God's Spirit will bring conviction to their hearts.

Quote:

Will the words of Jesus be less, equal or superior in weight to the words of Paul?

In any discussion of these things, each person must decide such questions for himself.

Personally I view the words of Paul as of equal weight as the words of Jesus. It's all Scripture and all of it is inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Nowhere (in my view) are we given to understand that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John are of greater authority than those in any of the other Gospels, nor that Jesus' words are to be given more weight than the words inspired by the Holy Spirit through writers of other NT books.

This is my own personal view, and I believe it is also the view of the SDA church and of Ellen White regarding the Scriptures.

Quote:

How will Scripture from the OT be viewed in this setting?

I suspect the OT will be viewed as God's truth, and I would hope that the NT will be viewed the same way. I would begin with the assumption that all of the Bible is God's Word, but I know that not everyone will want to do this.

If the Inspiration, or truth, of the OT becomes the main focus, it would probably need a separate thread.

If anyone wants to accept all of the OT as inspired but rejects the NT books, they will need to be prepared to show why they believe God only inspired the OT and not the NT. But again, it might be a subject that requires its own separate thread.

I don't think it would right for some people to tell others that they cannot use certain books of the Bible. If someone does not choose to accept the authority of a particular writer or book, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't try to compel others to follow their view.

Quote:

Could you define for us some ground rules? I will abide by whatever you decide.

I think I pretty much answered this question in post, #280310, which I posted just before this one. I would only add to this the ordinary rules of the forum. Let me know if something isn't clear.

[John317]

[Musicman1228]

John317 said, "I don't think it would right for some people to tell others that they cannot use certain books of the Bible. If someone does not choose to accept the authority of a particular writer or book, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't try to compel others to follow their view."

Does this also include EGW as an authority as equal to Scripture?

[Ted Oplinger]

John317 said, "I don't think it would right for some people to tell others that they cannot use certain books of the Bible. If someone does not choose to accept the authority of a particular writer or book, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't try to compel others to follow their view."

Does this also include EGW as an authority as equal to Scripture?

Bit of a problem there, Musicman...

While the vast majority of Adventists accept the Bible Canon as is, the same cannot be said for Adventists accepting EGW as an authority equal to Scripture.

In fact, those who really do understand EGW would follow her own instructions and not use her writings in place of Scripture, nor as equal in Scripture. A good many well-meaning Adventists lose sight of that point.

[Guest]

That's right. Our doctrines must come from the Bible.

[John317]

My own practice is not to quote Ellen White in posts directed to people who ask me not to quote her or tell me that they don't believe in her. If the conversation is about what the SDA church believes or what Ellen White taught, it might be appropriate to mention Ellen White's writings in order to explain a belief, but that is not an attempt to compel people to believe Ellen White.

I just see a big difference between telling people not to quote a certain Bible writer and not to quote Ellen White.

The SDA church doesn't accept Ellen White as an authority equal to the Bible. Some individual members no doubt do, though, unfortunately. I believe she was a genuine prophet of God but any prophet of God who comes after John the Beloved must be tested by the Scriptures. Extra-biblical prophets can't correct or judge the Bible. If there's ever any disagreement between Ellen White or the Bible, we should always accept the testimony of the Bible. That's actually the very way she herself said we must do.

[Musicman1228]

My own practice is not to quote Ellen White in posts directed to people who ask me not to quote her or tell me that they don't believe in her. If the conversation is about what the SDA church believes or what Ellen White taught, it might be appropriate to mention Ellen White's writings in order to explain a belief, but that is not an attempt to compel people to believe Ellen White.

I just see a big difference between telling people not to quote a certain Bible writer and not to quote Ellen White.

The SDA church doesn't accept Ellen White as an authority equal to the Bible. Some individual members no doubt do, though, unfortunately. I believe she was a genuine prophet of God but any prophet of God who comes after John the Beloved must be tested by the Scriptures. Extra-biblical prophets can't correct or judge the Bible. If there's ever any disagreement between Ellen White or the Bible, we should always accept the testimony of the Bible. That's actually the very way she herself said we must do.

Actually, John317, the SDA church does accept EGW as a 'continuing and authoritative source of truth'. Continuing from what? The Bible, of course. Here it is in full.

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

According to this statement while the Bible is the standard EGW continues from there with the same authority. I am sure you will deny it but that is what it says and what it means. This is why Adventists that believe in EGW believe that every single thing she wrote and said carries the same weight as that of the Bible. Since she cannot be wrong because she is considered infallible (as is the Bible considered)if there is any disagreement with the Bible it must be the fault of the understanding of the person reading her, not what she actually said.

It is for this reason I asked the question. I only want to get the ground rules straight for the sake of consistency.

[Twilight]

That's right. Our doctrines must come from the Bible.

Amen!

[Twilight]

My own practice is not to quote Ellen White in posts directed to people who ask me not to quote her or tell me that they don't believe in her. If the conversation is about what the SDA church believes or what Ellen White taught, it might be appropriate to mention Ellen White's writings in order to explain a belief, but that is not an attempt to compel people to believe Ellen White.

I just see a big difference between telling people not to quote a certain Bible writer and not to quote Ellen White.

The SDA church doesn't accept Ellen White as an authority equal to the Bible. Some individual members no doubt do, though, unfortunately. I believe she was a genuine prophet of God but any prophet of God who comes after John the Beloved must be tested by the Scriptures. Extra-biblical prophets can't correct or judge the Bible. If there's ever any disagreement between Ellen White or the Bible, we should always accept the testimony of the Bible. That's actually the very way she herself said we must do.

Double Amen!

Although I find it is not Ellen Whites writings that disagree.

It is those interpretations and usages of her writings that disagree.

Mark

[Musicman1228]

If what EGW writes never disagrees with what the Bible teaches then why would we need her writings in the first place? We would be able to get everything we need from the Bible.

[Guest]

If what EGW writes never disagrees with what the Bible teaches then why would we need her writings in the first place? We would be able to get everything we need from the Bible.

And she says that too. She said if people would study the Bible like they should, then God wouldn't need little old ladies writing books to shed more light. (paraphrased)

She makes certain things clearer.

[John317]

Look at this way:

Does the book of Judges disagree with the books of Moses? No. Yet we need the book of Judges. The same might be said about each book that God inspired the prophets to write.

The writings of Ellen White include many things that aren't said in the Scriptures, but that doesn't mean they contradict them. All it means is that they apply the principles of the Bible to our day and to our conditions.

That's somewhat the same, I think, with the entire NT. It takes the principles that God first gave us in the OT and shows how those principles reached their fulfillment in Christ and then how those teachings and principles are applied to the various situations that the church has to deal with. They're all needed. After the gospel went to the Gentiles, the situation was quite different from what existed during the time of Christ's personal ministry. It's the same truth but it needed to be expressed differently to meet the complex conditions and problems of establishing the world church.

[Musicman1228]

John317,

Jesus Christ either is God or He isn't. If He is then HOW He said WHAT He said to His disciples was perfect and needs no further explanation. If He had decided as God that more explanation was necessary then He would have included it in what He taught. Yes, He did say that there were more things He could have said to them, BUT HE DIDN'T. God does not make mistakes, and He does not leave anything out of what He says that is necessary for our understanding of the truth.

We are responsible to know the truth and to not be deceived (John 8:32, Matt. 24:4). If Jesus Christ did not give us sufficient information in what He taught His disciples for us to do these two things then there is no way He can hold us accountable for either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what He said. We will be held accountable for not only what we know but what we had the opportunity to know but refused to learn.

It is absurd to think that Jesus would go back to Heaven and say to His Father, "Oops, I forgot to tell my disciples something important, so I had better find someone to finish the job that I failed to do." Yet this is just what people say happened when they say that Jesus needed Paul to explain things about salvation that Jesus Himself couldn't or didn't explain; or to bring up new information such as salvation by grace through faith that Jesus completely forgot to give His own disciples before He went back to the Father.

And then we get close to the end of time and Jesus again says to His Father, "You know, Dad, looking back on it I guess I messed up in giving to Daniel and John all that prophetic information using the symbols and timing that I used. I had better find another prophet to fix this up for me and to clear things up in a way that I was just not able to do." This (again) is patently absurd. Jesus gave us ALL the information we need, and the keys to unlock that information at the proper time (Dan.12:4, Matt.24:45-51) so that we WILL understand everything that we need to know to be able to take the truth of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world-and then the end will come. (Matt.24:14).

It is for these reasons that I have acquired my understanding that we do not need anything other than the teachings and prophecies of Jesus Christ, the OT and the prophecies in Daniel, the prophecies of the book of Revelation, along with the guidance of the true Holy Spirit to be able to come to a full and complete understanding of how salvation really works, and what we can expect to happen during the time of the end. Everything, everyone or anyone other than these cause confusion and misinformation to cloud what was by God's design a perfect expression of the mind and character of God through Jesus Christ His Son.

[Guest]

Presumption = Nonsense