The Beast of Revelation 13

[John317]

The group who gave us the New Testament part of the Bible is the same group who gave us the Universal Christian Church, better known as the Catholic Church. As Seventh-day Adventists, we have gone to great lengths to show that the RCC and it's daughters are Babylon and the image to the beast. How can we justify this when we use the same canon etc?

Two points:

1) The papacy wants Christians to believe that the NT depends on the authority of the Catholic Church but this is not true. The books of the NT were accepted by Christians before the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church.

This, from wikipedia--

Quote:

The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that the apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Thus, McDonald states:

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

Similarly, from Patzia:

It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church.

However, this is not to say that no councils touched the issue of the canon. Some of these include the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Eastern Orthodoxy. Although these councils did include statements about the canon, they were only reaffirming the existing canon which was reached by mutual agreement over many centuries—they were just making it official.

2) The issue is not that all Christians accept the same NT canon but that some accept church tradition and councils as authority above that of the Bible.

[Musicman1228]

The purpose of the establishment of the N.T. documents as canon was to unify the disparate factions of the Roman Empire under Constantine under one religious authority, namely the Universal Christian Church. This unification included various Christian sects, pagan religions, and Jewish traditions. The Council of Leodicea met in 325 C.E. was called together by Constantine as an extension of the Council of Nicea that took place earlier to collate and choose from hundreds of writings that were circulating among the churches and place them in a self-proclaimed officially sanctioned textus wherein all religions of the empire could find common ground.

Fifty years after the Council of Leodicea the book of Revelation was finally included in the canon and that is the way the N. T. looks today. It WAS put together by the Catholic church for purposes of firmly establishing the Catholic church as the ruling authority. You may choose to believe otherwise but that does not change the truth.

[Lutz13]

The purpose of the establishment of the N.T. documents as canon was to unify the disparate factions of the Roman Empire under Constantine under one religious authority, namely the Universal Christian Church. This unification included various Christian sects, pagan religions, and Jewish traditions. The Council of Leodicea met in 325 C.E. was called together by Constantine as an extension of the Council of Nicea that took place earlier to collate and choose from hundreds of writings that were circulating among the churches and place them in a self-proclaimed officially sanctioned textus wherein all religions of the empire could find common ground.

Fifty years after the Council of Leodicea the book of Revelation was finally included in the canon and that is the way the N. T. looks today. It WAS put together by the Catholic church for purposes of firmly establishing the Catholic church as the ruling authority. You may choose to believe otherwise but that does not change the truth.

You don't think God had His guiding hand in all of this? At any rate, believe what you will. It would be nice if you would stop turning every thread into a Paul bashing. I personally and most of the people here on this board believe that Paul was inspired. So expect to see Paul quoted a lot.

So it will come down to me skipping over anything you write from here on out. Since there is no ignore function.

[Musicman1228]

I understand how you feel, Lutz13, I think we should get back on topic also. I am only responding to what others are writing about Paul, I am not instigating "Paul bashing".

Let's make a deal: As a courtesy to me and Wayfinder if you will refrain from using Paul as Scriptural proof I will refrain from voicing concern over his validity. In addition if this is not possible on your part I will promise that even though you decide to use Paul as proof I will prove my points or rebut yours using only the word of God in the O.T. and the words of the Son of God and His disciples from the N.T.

This Paul issue is not personal with me, I am only trying to get to the truth as Jesus Christ presented it. If this agreement will aid in getting to the truth then I am all for it. Let's bury the hatchet; I promise not to bury it in your skull if you agree not to bury it in mine. Mature discourse includes civil disagreement; I'm willing, how about you.

[Guest]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tim 3:16

[John317]

The purpose of the establishment of the N.T. documents as canon was to unify the disparate factions of the Roman Empire under Constantine under one religious authority, namely the Universal Christian Church. This unification included various Christian sects, pagan religions, and Jewish traditions. The Council of Leodicea met in 325 C.E. was called together by Constantine as an extension of the Council of Nicea that took place earlier to collate and choose from hundreds of writings that were circulating among the churches and place them in a self-proclaimed officially sanctioned textus wherein all religions of the empire could find common ground.

Fifty years after the Council of Leodicea the book of Revelation was finally included in the canon and that is the way the N. T. looks today. It WAS put together by the Catholic church for purposes of firmly establishing the Catholic church as the ruling authority. You may choose to believe otherwise but that does not change the truth.

I'm writing about what I've learned over many years of studying the history of the Christian Church and of the development of the NT canon.

See page 7 of Bruce Metzger's book, The Canon of the NT. You can access it online by Googling. He says the same thing that I said previously and that the wikipedia is quoted as saying in my earlier post. It's the same thing that you would find in any class you take on a university level in the study of this topic.

I find the evidence compelling that God guided in the making of the Bible, both of the Old and the New Testaments. Considering what Jesus said about the church and of how the Holy Spirit would guide the church, it shouldn't be surprising that God would watch over His inspired Word. He didn't go to the trouble of inspiring prophets and apostles to write their books only to allow Satan to destroy it or to make it so confusing that we can't trust it. God took the same care in the development of the New Testament that He did with the Old Testament. The same God inspired both in order to teach us truth about Himself, about Christ and the way of salvation. He didn't change from the time He inspired the Old Testament prophets. It wouldn't make sense for God to allow Satan to add his lies to the New Testament. After all, He kept the Old Testament pure. We can expect God to be consistent.

[skyblue888]

I understand how you feel, Lutz13, I think we should get back on topic also. I am only responding to what others are writing about Paul, I am not instigating "Paul bashing".

Let's make a deal: As a courtesy to me and Wayfinder if you will refrain from using Paul as Scriptural proof I will refrain from voicing concern over his validity. In addition if this is not possible on your part I will promise that even though you decide to use Paul as proof I will prove my points or rebut yours using only the word of God in the O.T. and the words of the Son of God and His disciples from the N.T.

This Paul issue is not personal with me, I am only trying to get to the truth as Jesus Christ presented it. If this agreement will aid in getting to the truth then I am all for it. Let's bury the hatchet; I promise not to bury it in your skull if you agree not to bury it in mine. Mature discourse includes civil disagreement; I'm willing, how about you.

MM You are not trying to present the truth as Christ presented it for it was Christ who chose the apostle Paul through whom He accomplished a great work. So please don't waste your time here because you will get absolutely nowhere except to dig a bigger hole for yourself. Every time you "open your mouth" about the apostle Paul you are shooting yourself in the foot. You can only do this so many times!!!

sky

*are you ready to face the music, "musicman"? the only way "wayfinder" seems to have found is the way of separation from God for one cannot speak of the apostle Paul in the manner both of you are without being guilty of blasphemy. God has not left it to you or to your friend, or to anyone else for that matter, to tell the whole Christian world what is inspired and what is not, period.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The purpose of the establishment of the N.T. documents as canon was to unify the disparate factions of the Roman Empire under Constantine under one religious authority, namely the Universal Christian Church. This unification included various Christian sects, pagan religions, and Jewish traditions. The Council of Leodicea met in 325 C.E. was called together by Constantine as an extension of the Council of Nicea that took place earlier to collate and choose from hundreds of writings that were circulating among the churches and place them in a self-proclaimed officially sanctioned textus wherein all religions of the empire could find common ground.

Fifty years after the Council of Leodicea the book of Revelation was finally included in the canon and that is the way the N. T. looks today. It WAS put together by the Catholic church for purposes of firmly establishing the Catholic church as the ruling authority. You may choose to believe otherwise but that does not change the truth.

I'm writing about what I've learned over many years of studying the history of the Christian Church and of the development of the NT canon.

See page 7 of Bruce Metzger's book, The Canon of the NT. You can access it online by Googling. He says the same thing that I said previously and that the wikipedia is quoted as saying in my earlier post. It's the same thing that you would find in any class you take on a university level in the study of this topic.

I find the evidence compelling that God guided in the making of the Bible, both of the Old and the New Testaments. Considering what Jesus said about the church and of how the Holy Spirit would guide the church, it shouldn't be surprising that God would watch over His inspired Word. He didn't go to the trouble of inspiring prophets and apostles to write their books only to allow Satan to destroy it or to make it so confusing that we can't trust it. God took the same care in the development of the New Testament that He did with the Old Testament. The same God inspired both in order to teach us truth about Himself, about Christ and the way of salvation. He didn't change from the time He inspired the Old Testament prophets. It wouldn't make sense for God to allow Satan to add his lies to the New Testament. After all, He kept the Old Testament pure. We can expect God to be consistent.

And all the people said Amen!

[Guest]

And AMEN!

[Guest]

It wouldn't make sense for God to allow Satan to add his lies to the New Testament. After all, He kept the Old Testament pure. We can expect God to be consistent.

If he kept the OT pure, (and I believe he did) then he kept the NT pure.

Praise God for all the word of God, it is able to make you wise unto salvation.

(2Tim 3:15)

[Twilight]

I understand how you feel, Lutz13, I think we should get back on topic also. I am only responding to what others are writing about Paul, I am not instigating "Paul bashing".

Let's make a deal: As a courtesy to me and Wayfinder if you will refrain from using Paul as Scriptural proof I will refrain from voicing concern over his validity. In addition if this is not possible on your part I will promise that even though you decide to use Paul as proof I will prove my points or rebut yours using only the word of God in the O.T. and the words of the Son of God and His disciples from the N.T.

This Paul issue is not personal with me, I am only trying to get to the truth as Jesus Christ presented it. If this agreement will aid in getting to the truth then I am all for it. Let's bury the hatchet; I promise not to bury it in your skull if you agree not to bury it in mine. Mature discourse includes civil disagreement; I'm willing, how about you.

Why would anyone on here agree to such a request?

We accept the Canon as is, in the main.

If you do not and wish to present a non-SDA position, then no-one is complaining, but quite how that gives you the right to ask people not to quote what they believe to be inspiration is baffling?

Paul is here to stay MM, you might as well get used to it. :-)

Mark

[Guest]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:16

[Guest]

That would be like me saying: "ok fellas you can talk about anything you want, but don't mention the 10 commandments around me, because I don't like em".

[Michaeneu]

And AMEN!

And AMEN!

[Musicman1228]

Skyblue888,

Will you abide by the agreement I proposed to Lutz13? If you will then I will. You are making a statement about Paul and my relationship to him that I would dearly love to respond to, but I won't because I will abide by my agreement. You have every right to believe what you will, and so do I. Just because I believe something that you don't does not make me a blasphemer, because you don't have the authority to make that claim on my behalf. You can only make that claim on your behalf.

[Musicman1228]

Twilight said, "We accept the Canon as is, in the main".

So you decide for yourself what is acceptable truth from Scripture ('in the main'). That is good. It's one thing to be a sheep, it's quite another to be a blind sheep.

Richard Holbrook quoted 2Ti. 3:16. When Paul wrote this THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT, so he could NOT have been talking about the N.T. or anything that he wrote. The only Scripture he had to use was the O.T.

Why do you believe that this verse is speaking about the N.T.?

[skyblue888]

Twilight said, "We accept the Canon as is, in the main".

So you decide for yourself what is acceptable truth from Scripture ('in the main'). That is good. It's one thing to be a sheep, it's quite another to be a blind sheep.

Richard Holbrook quoted 2Ti. 3:16. When Paul wrote this THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT, so he could NOT have been talking about the N.T. or anything that he wrote. The only Scripture he had to use was the O.T.

Why do you believe that this verse is speaking about the N.T.?

When Paul wrote this THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT!!!

The fact is the New Testament was being written!!!!

sky

[Musicman1228]

Some disciples MAY have been writing during the time of Paul, but there were NO writings that were in use as canon. The N.T. was not officially sanctioned until 325 C.E. at the Council of Leodicea. This is an historical fact. Check it out.

The accepted times for the writing of the documents included in the N.T. is between 45 C.E. and 95 C.E., but these dates are only approximations.

So in fact it was impossible for Paul to be talking about the N.T. or any of the documents that would eventually make up the canon when he said what he did in 2Tim.3:16.

One final point; Paul was writing letters to the churches that he established in order to 'council' them on certain issues specific to those individual churches. Paul did not need to cite proof texts from his own writings as each of these churches already had his writings that pertained to their situation. The various gospels that were written by the disciples of Jesus and others had either not yet been written or certainly had not been distributed and read in these churches. And even if they had been copied and distributed (this happened much later) there was no unification as to the validity of these writings within the Christian community. No one would have thought or dared to use any of these writings claiming them as having divine authority as did the O.T. Again, because of this 2Tim.3:16 is referring ONLY to the O.T.

[Musicman1228]

Getting back to the Beast-

If there is one thing that I am certain of in studying prophecy is that God is consistent in His use of symbols and numbers from the O.T. prophecies to the N.T. prophecies. A symbol spoken of in a prophecy in Daniel will have the same meaning as in a prophecy in Revelation. For example, a 'head' has the same meaning in Daniel as it does in Revelation, i.e., a ruling authority. These ruling authorities can be either civil or religious depending on how they are used in the prophecies, but they still mean the same thing. The meaning of a number is always literal when used in describing a characteristic related to that number; ex., 7 heads NEVER means 3 heads.

Because of this consistency here is how I view the Beasts in Daniel 7 and Rev.13. They do not represent the same entity.

The 1st Beast of Rev. 13 that has 7 heads, 10 horns and 10 crowns IS NOT the same as the 4th beast identified as the Great and Terrible Beast as seen in Dan.7. That Beast is commonly associated with the RCC and the Papacy. The two are totally different because the beast in Dan. 7 has one head and started with 10 horns, 3 were uprooted with another taking 1 taking the place of the 3. 10 - 3 = 7, 7 + 1 = 8.

It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. Dan. 7:7-8.

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 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. Rev. 13:1-2.

The Daniel 7 beast has ONLY ONE HEAD, upon which are TEN horns to start with. That beast eventually ends up with EIGHT horns. The Rev. 13 beast has TEN HEADS upon which are SEVEN horns. The common SDA interpretation is that these beasts are identical, but clearly they are not. If the number of heads and horns are different for each beast then the beasts cannot have the same identity.

[Musicman1228]

I find it interesting that there is not yet a response to my latest post.

[Guest]

Why is that so interesting?

[Lutz13]

Not much to debate I guess. Accept it or you don't. There is only one religion/government today that absorbed Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman traditions. A power that kings have fornicated with throughout time, and even still to this day.

So yeah...My views are pretty much set on this. Yours is pretty much set. So it is pointless to continue.

[Musicman1228]

That is just the point, there is a lot to debate, if you are up for it. Debate is the life blood of learning, and I always have something to learn, even if it is that on a particular subject I have nothing to learn; and the fact is, that has not happened yet.

You included Rome in the litany of kingdoms that appear at the end. But Rome is not included in the beast of Rev.13 as far as I can see. The text mentions the lion, the bear and the leopard. It does not mention Rome. Check out Daniel 7 again and you will find that the lion, bear and leopard are given an extension of life, but that the beast that was Rome was thrown into the burning all consuming fire of God's judgment and will never be seen or heard from again. That is another reason why I do not believe that characteristics of the ancient Roman empire will be included in the entity that holds sway over the whole earth.

Certainly the Roman Catholic church will be one of the seven heads of the beast, but it by itself will not be the beast.

Would you care to respond to that?

[Musicman1228]

By the way, Happy Sabbath everyone.

[John317]

Some disciples MAY have been writing during the time of Paul, but there were NO writings that were in use as canon. The N.T. was not officially sanctioned until 325 C.E. at the Council of Leodicea. This is an historical fact. Check it out.

The key word here is "officially." The Hebrew Scriptures were not "officially sanctioned" until the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90. But did the council give the books of the Bible their authority? No. The authority of those various books had already been recognized by the Hebrew people.

Did Jews and Christians have to wait until AD 90 and 325 before they were sure which books were authoritative? No. The councils merely verified the decision that Jews and Christians had already made.