Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

January 13, 2016

I read a post by 8thdaypriest that Hitler might be the seventh head!

What does everyone believe about the seven/eight heads of Revelation 17?

January 13, 2016

Now both the French Revolution and Hitler were rehearsals for the demons. The French Revolution being how the demons wanted it to be: Every person a law unto themselves. But found it exhausting in trying to come up with temptations for each person. So they tried with Hitler giving one big temptation for all and found it to be much easier. Now they are studying these events to see how to present a new Hitler who the whole world can follow.

But as for the 7 heads themselves: They are the 7 periods of antichrist. The 7 mountains: often we use them as the 7 hills of Rome and there is an application to this. However it is even more so the 7 counterfeit sacred mountains. Each nation had it's own sacred mountain. Probably the most famous is Mt. Olympus in Greece. The true sacred mountain is Mt. Zion. the Tower of Babble was to be a man made sacred mountain do to being on a plane.

If Hezekiah shared the gospel with the visitors from Babylon, instead of his stuff, his reformation could have spread into the whole world and prepare for the rule of Good King Joshua. But instead Babylon came back for his stuff and instead of good king Joshua ruling it was Nebuchadnezzar. So we have Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the deadly would (a time of independent nations) and the deadly wound being healed, world unification under economic cooperation.

The super rich thought that Germany could be the center of this world, and thus they supported Hitler. But as the US won W. W. II they changed their focus from Nazi Germany to the USA. First taking over the Republican party, then the Democrat party. Thinking that John Kennedy would turn the government over to them. But he wouldn't. But every president since Johnson has. Granted Reagan thought he was going to be president but after being shot he began dancing to their tune. And we find that after being elected Obama began to just take over Bush's policies and put teeth into them. And our current election are "More of the same, no change from the past 16 years".

January 13, 2016

The BEAST is Satan's dominion. Satan always persecutes and tries to wipe out the people of God. Everyone else he can rule easily, but the people of God stand in the way of total rule. So we read that the BEAST, who is himself the 8th head, will persecute the saints for 1260 days leading up to the judgment in heaven, which will take away "his dominion" to destroy it forever. (Daniel 7).

So which powers have persecuted the people of God? Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome (which morphed into Papal Rome), France (during the atheist revolution), Hitler, the Muslim Empire.

Rome has 7 hills, but so does Jerusalem. I personally believe that Satan will want to rule the world from Jerusalem. He wants to be Christ come.

Prophecy is never completely understood UNTIL it is fulfilled. I don't believe we will see the final Antichrist clearly UNTIL he comes to power. I agree with Kevin's scenario of an economic takeover. That is what Pharaoh did. The people sold their goods, then their property, and finally themselves, for grain to stay alive. Individuals and nations today are heavily in debt - but to WHOM.

But I would add the element of FEAR and a great desire for peace. To bring that about, the BEAST must bring the heads of world religions on board with his plan. It will be political correctness taken to the nth degree. It will be forbidden to criticize another religion, which means the last witnesses cannot teach the truth. They will be seen as "stirring up trouble".

January 13, 2016

Here is my current thinking (subject to change). The 7 heads (kingdoms) that had already appeared by John's time (Rev. 17:9-11):

1. Assyria

2. Egypt

3. Babylon

4. Medo Persia

5. Greece

6. The king(dom) that was in John's time - Rome

7. The kingdom to come - either the Ottoman Empire or the 3rd Riecht (Naziism)

8. The king(dom) that "was and is not" is IMHO the Greek Kingdom. Not a Greek King or the nation of Greece; but the part of the world that was originally controlled by the Greeks before Rome came to power. Compare maps of the area of the ancient Greek Kingdom and the area currently controlled by jihadist Islam. Very similar.

January 14, 2016

Rick H wrote;

"If Hezekiah shared the gospel with the visitors from Babylon, instead of his stuff, his reformation could have spread into the whole world and prepare for the rule of Good King Joshua."

Excellent point. I agree completely.

Could you explain more about the seven periods of antichrist? What constitutes these periods and basically when these periods start and end?

January 14, 2016

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Here is my current thinking (subject to change). The 7 heads (kingdoms) that had already appeared by John's time (Rev. 17:9-11):

1. Assyria

2. Egypt

3. Babylon

4. Medo Persia

5. Greece

6. The king(dom) that was in John's time - Rome

7. The kingdom to come - either the Ottoman Empire or the 3rd Riecht (Naziism)

8. The king(dom) that "was and is not" is IMHO the Greek Kingdom. Not a Greek King or the nation of Greece; but the part of the world that was originally controlled by the Greeks before Rome came to power. Compare maps of the area of the ancient Greek Kingdom and the area currently controlled by jihadist Islam. Very similar.

Understood.

I truly believe that John was carried away in the spirit into the vision. So, I don't start with Assyria, but, with the timeline of Daniel in chapter 7.

1) Babylon

2) Medo-Persia

3) Greece

4) Imperial Rome

5) Papal Rome (Little horn in Daniel 7 and leopard-like beast in Revelation 13:1-10)

6) Lamb-like beast of Revelation 13 (USA from 1798 to its NSL)

7) Image of the Beast of Revelation 13. (Also false prophet and ten horns of Revelation 17)

8) Babylon Revelation 16:12 to 19:2 (Papacy, Apostate Protestantism and Spiritualism with Papacy at the head)

January 14, 2016

3 hours ago, Alchemy said:

Rick H wrote;

"If Hezekiah shared the gospel with the visitors from Babylon, instead of his stuff, his reformation could have spread into the whole world and prepare for the rule of Good King Joshua."

Excellent point. I agree completely.

Could you explain more about the seven periods of antichrist? What constitutes these periods and basically when these periods start and end?

At Atlantic Union College every semester we were required to read and do an essay on "The Role of Israel In Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDA BC and a similar article written by Mrs. White (sadly I've forgotten the reference. having confused it with another Mrs. White passage we had to read frequently "Destroyed for lack of Knowledge"), and Deuteronomy 4 which gives 2 possible paths for the Hebrews. Either they were to be faithful and be blessed and the world join them, or they are unfaithful and get curses and if nothing worked they would go to exile. In exile they were to tell about their God's faithfulness and their unfaithfulness. If they did this the exile would have been the last days ending with a second grand exodus back home. (of course there are other texts that helps to fill in some details). The Bible classes would take 3 approaches in our study of the Bible. First we would study it in it's local setting and how the Lord could have come err this. Then we would look at the historisist reapplication to see how the principles were applied over history. And we would also learn spiritual lessons from the text.

From this the exegesis is that Hezekiah had his reformation. Got sick and prayed for healing. We think the message of the text was that he should have just accepted it and died. But God wanted him to pray for healing and wanted to bring the healing to bring the visitors from Babylon so that they could carry the gospel back to Babylon and have his reformation spread throughout the world. (an interesting note here: about 10 years ago I heard on audio the book "Lies my Teacher Told Me" and in talking about pre-Columbus coming to America, there is evidence that there were some visits from the Phoenicians, Israel's neighbors around the time of Hezekiah: The ships were too small for much commerce, but if this was true they could have carried over missionaries to this continent.)

Sadly instead of sharing the Gospel. Hezekiah showed his stuff. And instead of it leading to the setting up of the kingdom of God, Judah got wicked king Manasseh, and the Hebrews went into exile to Babylon.

Ever since then there have been someone else besides a son of David (the Christ) who ruled over the majority of God's people : 1.) Babylon, 2.) Medio-Persia, 3.) Greece 4.) Rome [The Roman Emperors up to the time of Revelation sounded a lot like the beast with the Flavian family sounded like the little horn in Daniel; and the theme of Revelation was that the church lost it's first love but to preach again and God could have wrapped things up then, but he was dependent not on world events but wants to work through his people to spread the gospel. We find that soon after Revelation the gap that the church did not fill was filled by Buddhism. People were hungry]. 5.) The Holy Roman Empire (with Papal supremacy). 6.) The deadly wound: Independent nations. Some [based on the American Revolution] offering freedom and others [based on the French Revolution] being more oppressive. then we are told that the deadly wound will be healed; but in contrast to that prophecy is the prophecy of Daniel 2 that they shall not cleave one to another. Also this 7th head will be different.

The other heads were more political and conquest or revolution. We find the dragon chasing the pure woman into the wilderness, and we find the corrupt woman riding out of the wilderness on the beast and when John saw HER he was absolutely flabbergasted. (guess why).

See it again: Revelation 17 starting with verse 1: One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. ²With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”

³Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. ⁴The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. ⁵The name written on her forehead was a mystery:

babylon the great

the mother of prostitutes

and of the abominations of the earth.

⁶I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

When I saw HER was greatly astonished. [emphases mine] 7Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. ⁸The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

⁹“This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. ¹⁰They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. ¹¹The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

Here we find that the beast is and is not and is yet to come after 5 had been This has mystified commentators for centuries; but is simply the deadly wound. something is there but yet it's dead the crowns are on the horns not the head. In Revelation 18 we find more information on the one that is to come, and actually it starts with Daniel's prophecy that they shall not cleave one to another:

¹¹And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

¹²The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

¹³And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

¹⁴And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

¹⁵The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

¹⁶And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

¹⁷For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

¹⁸And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

¹⁹And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

²⁰Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

²¹And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

²²And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

²³And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Tell me, do these verses sound like Islam? And if it was possible would Islam deceive the very elect? This is a 7th and also an 8th in that it is not a conquered world like Alexander's kingdom. It is the "independent" nations joining together in economic cooperation and having the great banking, multinational corporations, entertainment complex ruling over them with the church (the woman) riding the beast. People are interested in what they can buy and sell and being entertained.

Daniel 2 does not say that the toes will not appear to join together, only that it will not succeed. There will be a short period of world unification it with a time of peace as prosperity as never before. Expensive goods sold from all over the world. Free trade without wars interrupting. Great entertainment, musicians. The church will support this. Satan and demons will appear as Christ and the saints. Your beloved Grandma. Peter, Paul, Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, Mrs. White and others. The counterfeit will be perfect.

Too many people base their faith in fundamentalism. In Seventh-day Adventism we had a few crisis with fundamentalism. Elder Canright had no reason for leaving and attacking the church except that he was a fundamentalist and saw that Mrs. White and Adventism did not meet the fundamentalist presuppositions. Even though Elder Haskell and Elders such as Washburn and Wilkinson argued that it did. Mrs. White and Elder Haskell were good friends. But they had many letters of discussion over this issue. Elder Haskell trying to convince Mrs. White that the fundamentalists explain her inspiration and Mrs. White trying to talk him out of fundamentalism. Both were disappointed that they could not talk the other into their view. A few years ago we had the Walter Rea issue. Once again he was simply a fundamentalist who saw that Mrs. White does not fit the fundamentalist standard.

What we saw in the Walter Rea issue with Mrs. White, we are going to find the exact same thing with the Bible. People who put their faith in Fundamentalism will reject the Bible just as there were Adventists rejecting Mrs. White with Walter Rea.

And why would we need this undependable book with all it's plagiarism and cultural influences when we have Moses, Paul and Even Jesus here with us to lead us and explain away the texts. There will be a spiritual high as never before.

Meanwhile those of us who hold on to the Bible despite it not being what the Fundamentalists say it should be, who is going through the time of Jacobs trouble will feel that we are rejecting Christ and eternal life by being faithful to the Bible. It will be painful for us when we say "I'm sorry but Jesus is really Satan" when he says to us with tears in his eyes "Can Satan cast out Satan?"

But it is not Satan casting out Satan but only the illusion of it, and the result is as Daniel 2 says they will not cleave one to another. This is only going to be for a short time and end in chaos and the 7 LAST plagues, the 7 last steps of earth no longer able to support life. In a system where people are on a religious high, doing well financially, well entertained and needing everyone to cooperate; and you have a group who is going through Jacob's time of trouble, holding to that unreliable book, saying that "Jesus" is Satan and "Grandma" is a demon and not going along with the system, they get blamed for the fall of Babylon and that the good times will return when you kill off these miserable people. We have the death decree and before the natural events of the 7 last plagues kills life on earth the 7th plague happens, as there appears in the east a small black cloud about half the side of a man's hand.... And the world will for the first time since the captivity to Babylon have the son of David as it's king. The term "Anti Christ" means in place of Christ. These 7 heads have all been reining in place of Christ until the second coming.

We can see this 7th head developing. There were 2 dreams of what America could be. Jefferson's seeing us as a more agricultural nation with people having their own land and freedom. And the views of the industrial Revolution seeing cities and the kings of industry and common people as their workers. Labor unions were designed to fight this evil but Mrs. White predicted that they would join in with the evil that they were designed to fight. William Jennings Bryan wanted to curb the kings of industry. They then supported McKinley to be president as he was going to let them do as they pleased. He was killed and his vice president Teddy Roosevelt took over and tried to limit the superrich. They wanted to avoid getting another Roosevelt, and have been working on politics ever since starting with Nelson Aldrich and the setting up of the Federal Reserve and Council of foreign relations. We see this setting up the 7th head.

January 14, 2016

Powerful post, Rick.

I don't understand it all yet, but, I will spend some time on it in the near future.

There is much I do agree with though and the one point of concern I can mention is Islam. I'm really not convinced Islam is one of the seven heads. But, like I said, I will spend time on this.

God Bless, Rick.

January 14, 2016

For further study may I recommend: The Time of the End by George McCredy Price and if you can get a hold of recordings from the 1976 Southern New England Campmeeting "Last Day Events" series.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-End-George-McCready-Price/dp/B0006BS1S6

January 15, 2016

The seven heads. In verse 3 of chapter 17 of Revelation, 1798 is given as the point of reference for the five that have fallen, the one that is, and the one that is yet to come, and, of course the eighth.

1. Babylon

2. Medo Persia.

3. Greece

4. Pagan Rome

5. Papal Rome

these are the five that had fallen by 1798

6. Atheism which is the one that is in 1798 until the seventh

7. Apostate Protestantism which is the one that is yet to come when Church & State shall unite

8. Papal Rome which was before 1798, is not after 1798 (mortally wounded) and then is again when the wound is healed.

January 31, 2016

On 1/13/2016 at 3:29 PM, JoeMo said:

Here is my current thinking (subject to change). The 7 heads (kingdoms) that had already appeared by John's time (Rev. 17:9-11):

1. Assyria

2. Egypt

3. Babylon

4. Medo Persia

5. Greece

6. The king(dom) that was in John's time - Rome

7. The kingdom to come - either the Ottoman Empire or the 3rd Riecht (Naziism)

8. The king(dom) that "was and is not" is IMHO the Greek Kingdom. Not a Greek King or the nation of Greece; but the part of the world that was originally controlled by the Greeks before Rome came to power. Compare maps of the area of the ancient Greek Kingdom and the area currently controlled by jihadist Islam. Very similar.

Everything was good until the 7th and 8th. The seventh is Papacy Rome and the final is the beast that will not appear but for one hour after the Time of Trouble has ended which is 3 1/2 years.

Blessings!

January 31, 2016

In my understanding, much of mainstream Christianity (including but not exclusively Catholics led by the papacy) is exclusively the harlot sitting on the beast. The papacy/church cannot possibly everything in Revelation (the antichrist, the false prophet, the beast the harlot). We have to choose one. I choose the harlot. Scripture says she will ride ("control") the beast for a while; but in the end, the beast (all the kings - represented by horns) will turn on her and destroy her. In other words, the harlot will be under the illusion that she is controlling the beast; when in reality, the beast (jihadist Islam) is just waiting for the right moment to turn on her and destroy her.

The papacy seemed to fit the way Protestants interpreted prophecy in the 16th through early 20th century. Things have changed. If we look at the "signs of the times" with open minds, we cannot deny that jihadist Islam is a much more imminent and existential threat to global stability than the papacy. THEY are probably the beast; and someone who arises from them will probably be the end-time antichrist (unless I'm wrong - which sometimes happens).

February 14, 2016

There’s a lot of good stuff being said here, particularly from 8^thDayPriest and JoeMo.

I think its always important when trying to look at something as deep and mystifying as Revelation, particularly the 7-headed beast, that it is important to start with a clear indisputable anchor point in the text that serves as a firm foundation in which to build everything else that is discovered from the text on. JoeMo hit the nail on the head when noting how it was the Roman Empire that existed at the time when John received the Revelation. The angel says as much when interpreting it for John: “Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come” (Rev. 17.10). The key phrase is the “one is,” indicating the present existence of the 6^th empire, which as everyone knows is the Roman Empire. There is the anchor point. The 7^th head, the “one to come,” therefore is the one that follows the Roman Empire.

Since the 7^th head is unnamed, a look at historical reality is absolutely crucial in my mind, to find out exactly who that successor to the Roman Empire is. And the key to doing that is to find out exactly when the Roman Empire ended and who ended/conquered it.

The New Division of the Empire: East and West (395 AD)

I think its important to begin with some key shifting dynamics occurring within the Roman Empire before any collapse. In 395 AD a vital turning point had been reached in the empire which was that it had been divided into two partitions: the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire:

“After the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 CE, the Empire was split into two, a western empire ruled from Rome, and an eastern empire ruled from Constantinople.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 33.

“395 Roman Empire Permanently Divided: …After Eugenius was killed in battle in September, Theodosius became, briefly, the last emperor to rule both the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire. In January 395 Theodosius died of heart disease at Mediolanum and the empire was divided between his two young sons Honorius (r. 395-423), who became emperor of the west, and Arcadius (r. 395-408). This time, the division proved to be permanent but this did not mean that the empire ceased to be a single state because laws passed by one emperor were automatically valid in the other half of the empire. However, in the long run, this arrangement disadvantaged the western half of the empire because it could now no longer automatically draw upon the resources of the wealthier and more populated east.” - John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 312.

The New Rome: Constantinople (330 AD)

Prior to that, the Roman Emperor Constantine in 330 made the new capital of the Roman Empire Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), and so the centre of gravity of the Empire shifted from West to East:

“Refounded as the “new Rome” by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire.

“Constantine the Great transferred the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium (330), renamed Constantinople and New Rome.” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople,’ ‘Istanbul,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178827/Ecumenical-Patriarchate-of-Constantinople, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul.

“Byzantium considered itself the centre of the world, and Constantinople as the replacement of Rome. Though Greek-speaking, it saw itself as the Roman Empire and its citizens as Romans.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xvii.

“The New Rome: Constantine’s ambition was to be sole ruler of the Roman empire, and Licinius’ revocation of the edict of toleration for Christians provided Constantine with the ideal pretext to march east and overthrow him. Christians were far more numerous in the Greek-dominated east than in the still overwhelmingly pagan west and Constantine found plenty of support. Following Licinius’ defeat and execution in 324, Constantine decided to mark his break with Rome’s pagan past by founding a new eastern capital for the empire, named Constantinople after himself, on the site of the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium on the Bosphorus straits. Constantine’s choice of site was an inspired one. Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) was a natural stronghold. Situated on the peninsula it was surrounded by sea on three sides and the landward approaches were strongly fortified. The city was also at a crossroads of major sea and land routes, making it a natural commercial and communications centre. While Rome’s population was now in decline, settlers flooded into Constantinople, attracted by its commercial and administrative opportunities, official financial incentives and offers of free bread for the poor.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 307.

The Roman Empire Lived On in the East After 476 AD

Therefore, when the Western half of the Roman Empire fell in 476 it did not mean the end of the Roman Empire, contrary to what is popularly thought (among many Adventist leaders/evangelists at least). The Roman Empire in fact continued on in the East for another one thousand years, having already firmly established its new capital in Constantinople and rich resources from the Eastern provinces:

“Within a comparatively short time, the western empire was submerged in a series of barbarian invasions, and in effect ceased to exist. The eastern empire survived these difficulties, and was able to maintain itself for another thousand years.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 33-34.

“When the Roman empire in the West fell in AD 476, the empire in the East, based at Constantinople, carried on business much as usual. And did so for another thousand years.” - Jon E. Lewis ed., Rome The Autobiography: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Those Who Saw It, “Epilogue: The Roman Empire in the East, AD 477-565,” (London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2010), p. 397.

“The Roman empire of the West came to an end in the fifth century; but the Roman empire – as a continuous legal, cultural and political institution – persisted in the East for another millennium, and its capital, the ‘New Rome’ of Constantinople, was the seat of Roman emperors into the age of gunpowder and cannon; the last of them died only four decades before the discovery of the Americas.” - David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233.

Romans Not Byzantines

Although in modern times the Eastern Roman Empire is termed ‘Byantium’ this was not how they viewed themselves. They indeed saw themselves as Romans of the Roman Empire:

“It is worth noting that the ‘Byzantines’ never used the term in this way themselves; right to the end they called themselves and their empire Roman.” – Colin McEvedy, The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1992), p. 30, fn. 1.

“The name Byzantine, which is nowadays generally applied to the eastern empire, is a term of modern scholarship, and is derived from the name of the settlement which previously existed on the site of the city of Constantinople. The Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines. They called themselves Romans, and were ruled by a Roman emperor, purporting to enforce the Roman law.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 34.

“This eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzantium. That name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West. Although they coined a term which has been used ever since, it is important to remember that the inhabitants of the empire called themselves Romans (in Greek, Romaioi), and saw themselves as such. Their claim on Roman qualities was not a vanity or snobbishness. From 330 to 619 Byzantium enjoyed imperial realities as well as ideology.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. 25.

‘The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire’s history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state. Theirs was, in their view, none other than the Roman Empire… they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans.” – Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire.

The Actual End of the Roman Empire: 1453

Why is any of this important? It’s important because whoever ends the Eastern Roman Empire – which as we have discovered is now resident in the East, with its capital in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul in Turkey) – is the clear winner for who the 7th Head/Empire is. So when in fact did the Roman Empire end? 1453:

“Refounded as the ‘new Rome’ by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine. The derivation from Byzantium is suggestive in that it emphasizes a central aspect of Byzantine civilization: the degree to which the empire’s administrative and intellectual life found a focus at Constantinople from 330 to 1453, the year of the city’s last and unsuccessful defense under the 11th (or 12th) Constantine. The circumstances of the last defense are suggestive, too, for in 1453 the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds seemed briefly to meet. The last Constantine fell in defense of the new Rome built by the first Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire.

And who actually caused its end? The Islamic Empire of the Ottoman Dynasty:

“The eastern half of the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, formerly Byzantium. The Eastern Roman Empire survived the collapse of the Western Empire by nearly a thousand years, only falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, when Constantinople was taken.” - Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. *

“The Empire (31 BC-AD 476 in the West, AD 1453 in the East)… In the 5^th century, hordes of trans-riverine tribesmen (eg Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths) poured into the Western provinces carrying all before them. In 476 with their deposition of the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, they marked symbolically their destruction of the Western half of the Empire. The Eastern provinces, however, proved more resilient; here the barbarian challenge was contained for another thousand years, until the Eastern capital Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.” – David Crystal, ed., Penguin Encyclopedia 2^nd Edition, ‘Roman history,’ (London: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 1315-1316.

‘Ottoman forces entered Europe in 1345, conquered Constantinople in 1453, and by 1520 controlled most of south-eastern Europe, including part of Hungary, the Middle East and North Africa.’ – Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Ottoman Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. *

“After the fall of the west, the eastern Roman empire continued to flourish and under the emperor Justinian (r. 527-65) even won back control of Italy and North Africa… During the seventh century the newly Islamized Arabs conquered Egypt, Palestine and Syria, but their attempts to capture Constantinople failed. Confined to Anatolia and the Balkans, the empire survived, as much by diplomacy as military force, as a bulwark of Christendom in the east. However, a crushing defeat by the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 sent the empire into decline, and the sack of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 ended the empire’s days as a great power. The final blow came when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. To the very end, Byzantine emperors continued to regard themselves as true Roman emperors.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 324.

“On 29 May 1453, two years after the sultan’s accession and seven weeks after the siege began, the janissaries made the final assault on the crumbling walls of Constantinople. The last Constantine was killed fighting among his troops; the crescent was raised above the dome of Hagia Sophia, and the sultan took up residence in the imperial city. With the conquest of Constantinople, for so many centuries the coveted goal Muslim arms, the last piece had fallen into place. Sultan Mehmed II, henceforth known as Fatih, the Conqueror, had sealed the union of the two continents, Asia and Africa, that formed his inheritance, and of the two traditions, Islam and the frontier, that had moulded them. The principality of the frontier fighters had become an empire; its chief, an emperor. This victory established the Ottoman sultanate as the spearhead of Islam pointing to the West, and brought it immense prestige within the Islamic world.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 110-111.

“Sultan Mehmet had promised his men the three traditional days of looting… By then there was little left to plunder, and his soldiers were fully occupied sharing out the loot and enjoying their captives. In the late afternoon, accompanied by his chief ministers, his imams and his bodyguard of Janissaries, he rode slowly to St Sophia. Dismounting outside the central doors… he entered the Great Church… At his command the senior imam mounted the pulpit and proclaimed the name of Allah, the All-Merciful and Compassionate: there was no God but God and Mohammed was his Prophet. The Sultan touched his turbaned head to the ground in prayer and thanksgiving. St Sophia was now a mosque. Leaving it, he crossed the square to the old, ruined Palace of the Emperors, founded by Constantine the Great eleven and a half centuries before; and as he wandered through its ancient halls, his slippers brushing the dust from the pebbled floor-mosaics… he is said to have murmured the lines of a Persian poet: ‘The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars; The owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab.’ He had achieved his ambition. Constantinople was his. He was just twenty-one years old. The news of the conquest was received with horror throughout Christendom. The refugees carried the epic story with them; and their story lost nothing in the telling… The Roman Empire of the east was founded by Constantine the Great on Monday, 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday, 29 May 1453.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Penguin Books, 1997), pp. 381-382.

Islam’s Attempted Conquest of the West from the Beginning

This fall did not simply occur out of the blue. The attempt at conquering Constantinople and the rest of the Western world had begun upon the inception of Islam in the 7^th century (and continues on until this day):

“Geography alone made its ultimate survival as a Christian capital impossible. It was surrounded by too many enemies – Arabs, Slavs, Turks, Bulgars, Mongols, among others – and from the seventh century onwards was engaged in an almost continuous struggle with the immense power of Islam. With the rise of the Ottoman empire, the Byzantines were confronted with an enemy that could not be defeated, and that could not be resisted indefinitely. – David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233.

In fact, one of the primary existential features of the Eastern Roman Empire is that it had been protecting the Western world from the designs of conquest by Islam:

“Perhaps for us today, the most significant feature of Byzantium lies in its historic role in protecting the Christian West in the early Middle Ages. Until the seventh century, Byzantium was indeed the Roman Empire. It ruled North Africa and Egypt, the granaries that fed both Rome and Constantinople, southern Italy, the Holy Land, Asia Minor as far east as Mount Ararat, all of today’s Greece and much of the Balkans. Then the tribes of Arabia inspired by the new religion of Islam conquered most of the eastern Mediterranean. They fought in the name of a revelation that presented itself as the successor to the Jewish and Christian faiths. Byzantium checked their expansion into Asia Minor and prevented them from crossing the Dardanelles and gaining access to the Balkans. Constantinople held out against numerous sieges… Had Byzantium not halted their expansion in 678, Muslim forces charged by the additional resources of the capital city would have spread Islam throughout the Balkans, into Italy and the West during the seventh century, at a time when political fragmentation reduced the possibility of organized defence. By preventing this potential conquest, Byzantium made Europe possible. It allowed western Christian forces, which were divided into small units, time to develop their own strengths.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xviii.

The Ottoman Islamic Empire: The Legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire

Finally, what I found absolutely striking was that according to a recent BBC documentary titled The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, the Ottomans, in particular their leader Mehmed II who had just led the enormously successful and unprecedented conquest of Constantinople in 1453, viewed their nascent empire as the natural successor to the Roman Empire! – Mehmet II paralleling himself with Augustus Caesar who changed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire:

“[Presenter BBC News Correspondent Rageh Ommar:] Mehmet saw himself as heir to the Romans, ready to model his new Ottoman Empire as their natural successor. [Professor Karen Barkey:] For the Ottoman Empire Mehmet II is Augustus. He plays the same role, because Augustus changes the Republic into an Empire, and Mehmet II changes the small Ottoman state through the conquest of Constantinople.” – Karen Barkey, Professor of Columbia University, in Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode One,’ (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013).

I find this later confirmed by other historical sources:

“Nothing could stop Turkish expansionism… On May 29, 1453, Mehmed II rode his white horse into Constantinople, making this proud city his new imperial capital and winning the honorific title of “The Conqueror.” For the West this was a dark moment. For Islam it was a cause for celebration. For nearly a millennium Constantinople had been the foremost barrier – both physically and ideologically – to Islam’s sustained drive for world conquest and the object of desire of numerous Muslim rulers… He was no longer a ghazi “blazing forth the way of Islam,” or even the foremost sultan in the House of Islam. He was the head of a great empire stretching from the Black Sea to the very heart of Europe and the legitimate heir to the universal Byzantine Empire. Manifested by Mehmed’s adoption of the title Sultan-I Rum – “Ruler of Rome” (or rather Byzantium) – and his determination to turn his new capital of Constantinople, or Istanbul as it would henceforth be called, into the leading world metropolis, this alleged continuity was to become a central component of the Ottoman claim to universal empire.” – Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History, (North Yorkshire: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 89.

“Among the titles Sultan Mehmed claimed for himself was that of ‘Roman Caesar’, signifying his aspiration to succeed to the mantle of the Byzantine Empire at the height of its greatness under Constantine and Justinian… He saw himself as the legitimate heir to Byzantium and as having realized Islamic traditions that the peerless city of Constantinople would one day be Muslim; and also as the epigone of the heroes of the Classical world. He knew some Greek, and his interest in the ancients must have been widely known in contemporary political circles. It was alluded to in his own time by the Venetian Niccolo Sagundino, a native of Euboea, in his account of the Ottomans. Mehmed, wrote Sagundino, was fascinated by the Spartans, the Athenians, the Romans and the Carthaginians but identified above all with Alexander of Macedonia and Julius Caesar. The Byzantine Critoboulos of Imbros (Gokceada) wrote in the preface to his eulogistic biography that Mehmed’s exploits equalled Alexander’s… Mehmed fostered this identification of himself with great warriors of the past… He had the Iliad and the standard life of Alexander, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander the Great, copied for his library. The historical tradition Sultan Mehmed tried to keep alive and of which he felt himself to be part reached far back into the past, but his eyes were set on a brilliant future for his empire.” – Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, (London: John Murray Publishers, 2006), pp. 70, 80.

“The capture of Constantinople bestowed on Mehmed incomparable glory and prestige and immense authority in his own country, so that he began to look upon himself as the heir of the Roman Caesars and the champion of Islam in holy war. It is not true that he had preconceived plans for his conquests, but it is certain that he was intent upon resurrecting the Eastern Roman Empire and upon extending it to its widest historic limits… Mehmed had assumed the title of Kayser-i Rum (Roman Caesar) and, at the same time, described himself as “the lord of the two lands and the two seas” (i.e., Anatolia and the Balkans, the Aegean and the Black seas), a designation that reflected his idea of the empire. During the quarter-century after the fall of Constantinople, he undertook a series of campaigns or expeditions in the Balkans, Hungary, Walachia, Moldavia, Anatolia, the island of Rhodes, and even as far as the Crimean Peninsula and Otranto in southern Italy. This last enterprise (1480) indicated that he intended to invade Italy in a new attempt at founding a world empire.” – Halil Inalcik, ‘Mehmed II: Ottoman sultan,’ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 14 Feb 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mehmed-II-Ottoman-sultan.

Conclusion

It should clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roman Empire did not end in 476 as many Adventist evangelists, speakers, leaders and pastors have continuously promulgated to this day, unabated and unopposed. To say so is to actually ignore the historical reality of (1) the transfer of the centre of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, (2) the subsequent splitting of the empire into two halves, East and West, in 395, and (3) a thousand years of existence of the eastern half of the Roman Empire up until 1453 with the Conquest of Constantinople by the Muslim Sultan Mehmed II of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. All three are powerful and irrefutable arguments against the notion that the Roman Empire ended in 476, and in favour of the successor to the Roman Empire being the Islamic Empire (of the Ottoman Dynasty).

It is also fascinating that that Islamic empire only ended less than one hundred years ago in 1924! (as part of World War I). In fact, it was because of its collapse that terrorist groups and states sprang up soon after, like the Muslim Brotherhood, in an attempt to restore the Islamic Empire, and which ISIS has successfully begun to do in our time! Unreal! This speaks to the identity of the 8^th Empire/the Beast, which is an extension of this topic but one which I won’t comment on now since I’ve said enough already.

Also, to focus on the eastern half of the Roman Empire is very natural from a Biblical standpoint since virtually all the empires are centred around, or focussed from that vantage point: Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and even Greece are all empires that are based in the Middle/Near East – even Alexander the Great ironically did not base his empire in Greece but in Babylon, and his empire stretched eastward all the way up to the borders of India. Even when Jesus arrives on the scene under the rule of Romans he focuses his ministry on Jerusalem and Israel, the Middle East. And even in Revelation 13 when we view the Beast, who is effectively the “eighth” empire succeeding the sequence of “seven” (Rev. 17.11), he is represented in the form of a Lion, Bear and Leopard – this harks back to the Lion, Leopard, Bear empires in Daniel 7, namely Babylon, Persia and Greece respectively, which are all historically Middle Eastern empires. Therefore an Eastern Roman Empire focus is fitting to the entire viewpoint of the Bible. To view the 7^th or 8^th empires as the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy is completely incongruous to the sequence, and ignores the actual historical reality of what happened to the Roman Empire as I’ve described above.

Lastly a personal note. I read and hear many believers when approaching something as serious as the Book of Revelation and Endtime prophecy in general (or any other Bible topic for that matter), where any taking away or adding to Revelation (and that includes removing or adding interpretations of things that are and are not there respectively) has serious eternal consequences, just say things on a whim, or make stuff up in their head, as if just thinking something up makes it true. But truth deserves more serious efforts than mere whim. It deserves hard evidence and tough investigation of actual historical realities. Personally, I find it offensive that many pastors/leaders/evangelists who have a huge influence on the ordinary person, have not even bothered to pick up something as simple and straight-forward as an encyclopedia to verify their so-called historical facts, and are ever-so willing to say things with absolute certainty but which they haven’t even bothered to check out or support with a quote from any historical source. With such a sacred responsibility, I would make sure I checked first. So that’s what I did. And it contradicted everything I was taught as an Adventist. Don’t be fooled. Check out the facts for yourself. You owe to yourself, others and to God Himself who died for you.

“Prove all things.”

1 Thessalonians 5.21

“Wisdom from above is… open to reason…and impartial.”

James 3.17

February 15, 2016

So much speculation about the 7 heads, especially since we have told what the Bible says but people choose to follow speculation rather than the Holy Scriptures.

Deuteronomy 4 gives 2 possible futures for the Hebrews. If faithful God would bless them, Nations would join or reject them and things would improve into the Kingdom of God. If unfaithful God would send curses and if nothing else worked they would go into exile. The exile could be the last days if they share with their neighbors about God's faithfulness and their unfaithfulness. This would have spread the gospel and the exile would have ended in a grand second exodus lead by the Messiah.

Hezekiah was a faithful king and brought about a reformation. He got sick, prayed for a healing and was healed. Because of this representatives came from Babylon. If Hezekiah showed them his true riches (his God) they could have carried the gospel back to Babylon. This could have lead to the Gospel spreading to the whole world and with in a couple of generations the world would have been ready for the Messiah to rule over them. But instead Hezekiah showed them his stuff and they went home with the memory of this stuff and instead of a few generations later they came back for the stuff. Therefore instead of having Christ ruling over them they started the first of 7 periods of someone besides Christ ruling over them. The Greek word for in place of is "Anti" If Hezekiah shared the Gospel it would have been Christ. Since he did not it was ruled by someone else, the first of the 7 periods of AntiChrist. Instead of the son of David ruling over them, there was a period of 7 who were to rule over God's people until they were able to again be ruled by the son of David.

Nebuchadnezzar had a dream. An image with 7 parts: 1.) Head of God 2.) Breast and arms of silver. 3.) Belly and thighs of silver. 4) legs of iron. 5) Feet of iron and clay. 6.) Toes of iron and clay. 7.) An attempt for the toes to join together, may even appear to for a short time but then end in utter chaos, followed by the stone cut out without mans hands when again God's people are ruled by the Christ, a son of David.

Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar "Assyria is the head of Gold" At least according to a number of people here this is what Daniel should have said and they are so much wiser than Daniel.

The beast in Revelation is on 7 mountains. In a smaller sense this can mean the 7 hills of Rome, but in a larger sense it is talking about the true and 7 false holy mountains. Mt. Zion being the true Holy Mountain. Babylon is flat so they tried to build a Holy mountain, the tower of Babel. Greece had Mt. Olympus. The 7 mountains represent 7 kingdoms.

Actually Daniel 2, had God's people been faithful in exile would have had 4 kings: 1.) Nebuchadnezzar 2.) Belshazzar, 3.) Darius and 4.) Cyrus. 5.) Then Cyrus' kingdom could have weakened and the strife between the Persians and Greeks leading to 6.) divisions and 7.) an attempt to unite followed by utter chaos and the rock without hands taking over. But by Daniel 9 it reapplies the dream from 4 kings to 4 kingdoms

Thus we have the 7 heads of Revelation which is simply the 7 parts of Nebuchadnezzar's dream: 1.) Head of Gold: Babylon 2.) Breast and arms of silver: Medio Persia. 3.) Belly and thighs of brass: Greece. 4.) legs of iron: Rome 5.) Feet of iron and clay: Clay in the Bible represents what God works with and forms. But here the clay is not being formed by God but being formed by the politics. A church state, the Holy Roman Empire with Papal supremacy. 6.) Then we had the American and French Revolutions which brought about the end of one government ruling over most of God's church but a bunch of independent nations. Some following the American Revolution offering freedom. Others following the French Revolution offered control over the people under communism. The head has a deadly wound, the crowns are on the horns. These are the toes of iron and clay. They were united as a foot under the Holy Roman Empire and separated into independent nations under the deadly wound 7.) The deadly wound being healed, world unification under economic cooperation. A fragile peace but a time of peace and prosperity as never before in a carefully balanced system that everyone has to cooperate with for it not to fall apart. Everyone will be faced with compromising their beliefs and conscience to make this system work out. Satan will be here claiming to be Jesus and the demons will pretend to be the Bible writers, prophets, Mrs. White, and your loved ones encouraging you to join the system and compromise your conscience. Too many people today do not trust the Bible but trust in Fundamentalism and what it says about the Bible. At this time the issues that Walter Rea brought up against Mrs. White will be clearly seen in the Bible. and too many would be willing to give up the Bible because it does not fit with Fundamentalism, than give up Fundamentalism. So why follow this old book by plagiarists when we have Jesus and the Bible writers and our beloved loved ones risen from the dead to guide us. For those of us who say "I'm sorry but Jesus is Satan" we will hear him say with tears in his eyes "How can Satan cast out Satan?" All our 5 senses will tell us this is Jesus, and that the others are the Bible writers and our loved ones. The counterfeit will be perfect. We will believe that we are rejecting Christ to follow the Bible. Everything we do is tainted with selfishness. Even our good and hope to go to heaven is tainted with selfishness. Here we will feel like we are giving up heaven for following the Bible. Thus giving us a victory over selfishness. People willing to do what is right because it is right. People willing to follow the Bible even it means eternal death, just as Jesus was willing to go to the cross for us even if it meant eternal death for him. Will we be willing to follow our conscience and the Bible in this situation?

This fragile system will fall to utter chaos. The merchants of the earth (the corporations) who lead the 7th head (rather than a political leader like the first 5 heads, thus making it something out of the ordinary or an 8th) will be the first to mourn. They will blame those of us who decided to hold on to that book and follow our conscience and say that they can restore order and return to the peace and prosperity if they kill those who caused it to fail. The death decree and the events leading to the last events and God's people will be delivered and finally for the first time since Zedekiah God's people would be ruled by a son of David.

The 7 heads are the 7 periods from being ruled by Zedekiah son of David to Jesus son of David. The 7 periods of someone else ruling God's people.

February 15, 2016

16 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

Lastly a personal note. I read and hear many believers when approaching something as serious as the Book of Revelation and Endtime prophecy in general (or any other Bible topic for that matter), where any taking away or adding to Revelation (and that includes removing or adding interpretations of things that are and are not there respectively) has serious eternal consequences, just say things on a whim, or make stuff up in their head, as if just thinking something up makes it true. But truth deserves more serious efforts than mere whim. It deserves hard evidence and tough investigation of actual historical realities. Personally, I find it offensive that many pastors/leaders/evangelists who have a huge influence on the ordinary person, have not even bothered to pick up something as simple and straight-forward as an encyclopedia to verify their so-called historical facts, and are ever-so willing to say things with absolute certainty but which they haven’t even bothered to check out or support with a quote from any historical source. With such a sacred responsibility, I would make sure I checked first. So that’s what I did. And it contradicted everything I was taught as an Adventist. Don’t be fooled. Check out the facts for yourself. You owe to yourself, others and to God Himself who died for you.

“Prove all things.”

1 Thessalonians 5.21

“Wisdom from above is… open to reason…and impartial.”

James 3.17

What a great study, Doubter! Your scholarship is impressive (as is your typing ability). Would you mind if I copied this and used it as a reference in some lessons that I give? You have fleshed out and documented what I have learned (but just stored in my head) over the past year. Blessings to you!

February 16, 2016

On 15/02/2016 at 4:06 PM, JoeMo said:

What a great study, Doubter! Your scholarship is impressive (as is your typing ability). Would you mind if I copied this and used it as a reference in some lessons that I give? You have fleshed out and documented what I have learned (but just stored in my head) over the past year. Blessings to you!

Thank you Joe, I appreciate your appreciation. The actual blessings comes from when others like yourself find it inspirational and useful! So thanks to you! You’re most welcome to copy it. In fact, I’m just adding a few bits that I’ve reflected on after, so if you want I can also send you my new copy with additions to you that I've attached here. Blessings to you too!

The Seventh Head of the Beast of Revelation FINALE.doc

February 16, 2016

Thank you Thomas. I intend to use this to supplement a Sabbath School class series on "The History of the Antichrist". Even though there is a scarcity of SDA's on CA that give much credence to an Islamic beast power, there is a large and growing contingent of SDA's and Messianic Jews in our area who are waking up to this scenario. Part of our response is a growing prayer ministry that Jesus would reveal Himself openly to Muslims who are seeking a way out of salvation by works and religious terrorism.

Joel Richardson just spoke here on a ministry he is working with in a predominantly Shiite area where hundreds of discrete converts are being baptized; and are praying for the security of Israel. He said many of the converts show up because of a dream about a nice man with holes in His hands directing them to this ministry to learn more about Him and a more sure way to Paradise.

February 16, 2016

Hello Kevin,

I think you’re right to rule out the practice of speculating. This is something that I also believe is not good practice, and I call it ‘The Principle of Sensibility’ – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4).

The problem that I found is immediately after you said that, I hope you don’t mind me nudging you so, but you did a whole lot of speculating also – the basic format was that (a) if the Hebrews were faithful, then (b) the Messiah would have come. A simple question I would have is ‘how could one possibly know the mind of God and be so certain he would have come?’ That could only be revealed by some special direct revelation since I haven’t seen such bold assertions that you’ve alleged mentioned in the Bible. If I’ve missed it I’d be happy to be corrected if you’d kindly point them out.

I also want to clear up something that you might have misunderstood about the nature of Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13’s empires are revealing the entire scope of history relative to the Jewish people. Naturally this has to refer to the Jewish people since there are so many other empires in the world that aren’t referred to (the Mongols for instance who in actual were the biggest empire the world had ever seen, bigger than Rome, and bigger than even Islam which was even bigger than Rome, and yet are not alluded to in the Bible at all).

The visions recorded in Daniel 2,7,8,9,11 on the other hand all begin from when each vision was given. For example, although Daniel 2 and 7 start from Babylon since it was that empire in existence at the time of its revealing to Daniel, Daniel 8, 9 and 11 start from Persia and not Babylon since Persia is the empire in existence at the time of those later revelations. I think this is already well recognised even within Adventism.

Furthermore, we have the angel’s own anchor-point in Rev. 17.10, saying that the 6^th empire “is” in existence and that “five have fallen” out of existence. If Babylon were the 1^st as you suggest in this sequence in Rev. 13, then your 6^th candidate of American and French Revolutions should have been in existence in John’s time. Obviously it doesn’t fit, so I hope now you can see why we can’t start at Babylon. We have to work from the current empire to John’s time – the Roman Empire – and work backwards to find the “five fallen” and work forwards from the Roman Empire to find the 7^th empire.

And I hope that you can see from the abundance of evidence and arguments from historical factual sources that I’ve presented that clearly the Islamic Empire under the Ottoman Dynasty represents the 7^th empire. And there are several good reasons why the Holy Roman Empire fails to fulfil the 7^th. The Holy Roman Empire begins with the crowning of Charlemagne or Charles the Great in 800AD, but at this point the Roman Empire is still in existence, and hence couldn’t succeed it at this time. More importantly, the pattern of the past 6 empires was that (1) they were based in the Near/Middle East, (2) that they were ruled by Kings not priests, and (3) for the most part they were truly monumental in territory. If you actually look at any map in Google Images of the Holy Roman Empire it does not match factors (1) and (3). For factor (2) the Holy Roman Empire was ruled by an Emperor and not by a Pope, but the only reason many have wanted the candidacy of the Holy Roman Empire is because of the Papacy and not the Emperor. This and other reasons question in the very least its candidacy for the 7^th empire.

If we compare the Islamic Ottoman Empire in its ‘Golden Age’ however, we find that Sultan Suleyman was, according to historian Eugene Rogan “the most powerful man in the world at that time” (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013)). The glory, splendour, military prowess and artistic achievements were the wonder of Europe and unmatched by any other. It also boasted a vast swathe of territory, “larger than the Roman Empire” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)), including the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, even Spain, and finally banging on the doors of Vienna in the 17^th century, closing in on Central Europe. It was truly the fear of Europe, and if it were not stopped “there is no reason why they wouldn’t have reached the North Sea” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)) – in other words, Europe most likely would’ve been Muslim if it hadn’t been stopped. This, on top of all the other reasons I mentioned already (as well as more that I’ve included in my attachment to JoeMo, “The Seventh Head of the Beast of Revelation,” which I hope you can read too), proves that the Ottoman Empire is simply too strong a candidate to be dismissed.

I admire your zeal against fundamentalism. I agree as I used to be a fundamentalist and no longer am. I would encourage you to continue that zeal and just add onto that some principles that have helped me in my pursuit of truth. They are there to help you not rebuke you. And they are not just for you but for anyone else wanting to find out the truth. I also needed this help before, but none was available, so I found out myself, learnt from the scholars and the masters who had been before me from many disciplines and learnt some basic but fundamental principles. Here they are:

Verification (1 Th. 5.21) – to verify and prove things rather than just accept immediately as true;
Impartiality (1 Tim. 5.21) – to be open to new conclusions other than the ones we have bias towards;
Evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) – to base conclusions on evidence, not have pre-determined conclusions that try to misrepresent evidence.
Argument (1 Pet. 3.15; Act 17.2-4; Act 18.24-28) – to make a case based on strong arguments.
Reason (Act 17.2-4) – to have good reasoning/logic behind the arguments.
Sensibility – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4).
Source Credibility (Lk. 1.1-3) – ensure that your information comes from accurate, reliable, authoritative, credibly established sources.

I hope you find them helpful as I do all the time.

God be with you in your quest

February 16, 2016

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Thank you Thomas. I intend to use this to supplement a Sabbath School class series on "The History of the Antichrist". Even though there is a scarcity of SDA's on CA that give much credence to an Islamic beast power, there is a large and growing contingent of SDA's and Messianic Jews in our area who are waking up to this scenario. Part of our response is a growing prayer ministry that Jesus would reveal Himself openly to Muslims who are seeking a way out of salvation by works and religious terrorism.

Joel Richardson just spoke here on a ministry he is working with in a predominantly Shiite area where hundreds of discrete converts are being baptized; and are praying for the security of Israel. He said many of the converts show up because of a dream about a nice man with holes in His hands directing them to this ministry to learn more about Him and a more sure way to Paradise.

Wow Joe!

That is truly awesome! That is truly encouraging and inspirational. I am so pleased and inspired to hear it. I pray God continues to work with you all, truly. You don't know how much that is encouraging to hear for me. It is difficult here in London, and I wish something like that were happening here. But that has really inspired me, and want to share this with others! Joe, that is great stuff. I pray God continues to work with you, your ministry and all your brothers and sisters there. In terms of studies I will do all I can to further help since I am gradually writing all material that covers all aspects of this, especially that I needed answering that weren't entirely answered by Joel Richardson's book - but his book truly paved the way for me to find the truth which I am eternally grateful. If he weren't there I would have never known any of this. It's only because I stumbled upon Sid Roth's name and Walid Shoebat's name, who I recognise from Messianic Jewish stuff and former Muslims stuff that I came across Joel Richardson. Nothing in Adventist Muslims Relations that I was a part of matched the truth that they were telling, and which I immediately clicked with since I had read both the revisionists and the traditionalist interpretations of Islam. Wow. Monumental. Awesome. God bless you Joe. And let me know if there's anything you need research on. I might not be able to get it done immediately - since I'm juggling between a course, job, baby and finding a new place at the same time - but I'll get it done as soon as I can. Take care Joe.

February 16, 2016

5 minutes ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

Hello Kevin,

I think you’re right to rule out the practice of speculating. This is something that I also believe is not good practice, and I call it ‘The Principle of Sensibility’ – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4).

The problem that I found is immediately after you said that, I hope you don’t mind me nudging you so, but you did a whole lot of speculating also – the basic format was that (a) if the Hebrews were faithful, then (b) the Messiah would have come. A simple question I would have is ‘how could one possibly know the mind of God and be so certain he would have come?’ That could only be revealed by some special direct revelation since I haven’t seen such bold assertions that you’ve alleged mentioned in the Bible. If I’ve missed it I’d be happy to be corrected if you’d kindly point them out.

It's strange that right after you talked about my so called "Speculation" you turn right to the same principle in the next paragraph. Since the discovery of archaeology we have learned that the Bible gave everything with a possible local fulfillment and if not or only partially fulfilled gets reapplied through analogy to later times. In college every semester we were required to read "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDA Bible Commentary and a writing from Mrs. White (I forgot the title) that says much the same as the Bible Commentary article. Then our Bible classes were looking at this principle. How they could have been fulfilled, whether it was or not and then the reapplications through out scripture and history and Mrs. White.

Critics of Mrs. White point out how many of her prophecies have local applications but did not work out. We saw these same things in the scriptures. Even the 2300 days were first of all given in the year that 2300 literal days later (since the text does not tell us which day of the year the vision was, although we could have a good speculation) we have Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, the night of Belshazzar's feast and the early days of Babylon. In Daniel 9 the 2300 days are reapplied to the 70 weeks of years. Ezekiel has a 2310 day prophecy and if you remember the 10 days from the New Year to Yom Kippur you have another application as to how the 2300 days could have been fulfilled as the last 2300 days of the 70 years.

We do not study Ezekiel enough because we don't see how it fit with the long term fulfillments as the reapplications of Daniel and Revelation has. But if we would start to study that powerful article in the SDA BC and really take it seriously to the Bible we will be able to open up much more of the Bible and Mrs. White.

Now sadly another way Satan hinders our study is that those who study the Bible from the Preterits school look for local applications, and since many of them are unbelievers we don't want to look like we are liberal. (of course they are wrong in first of all thinking that the text is only for that time, and 2 they have the wrong time period where they place and study Daniel.)

What you called my "speculation" has simply been what I was taught in college by studying the Bible in this frame work. We don't need to speculate. We can study the local application and from it see long term applications. We don't need to speculate. We do need to speculate if we just want to see the long term without first studying the short term.

February 16, 2016

I thoroughly enjoy Sid Roth and Walid Shoebat! If you like them and Joel Richardson, you would probably also enjoy Joel Rosenberg and Jonathan Cahn. They all bring a slightly different viewpoint, but they are all basically on the same page as we are (or we are on the same page as them).

Congrats on the new baby! Some people think marriage changes everything. I disagree - a BABY changes everything! God bless you and your family as you look for a new home! Thanks for the offer to help me in my research. You are much better at it and much more eloquent in how you say things than I am. If I can be of any help, let me know. If nothing else, you know you have a friend across the pond that thinks like you do. Great minds think alike!

:backtopic:

February 16, 2016

28 minutes ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

I also want to clear up something that you might have misunderstood about the nature of Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13’s empires are revealing the entire scope of history relative to the Jewish people. Naturally this has to refer to the Jewish people since there are so many other empires in the world that aren’t referred to (the Mongols for instance who in actual were the biggest empire the world had ever seen, bigger than Rome, and bigger than even Islam which was even bigger than Rome, and yet are not alluded to in the Bible at all).

The visions recorded in Daniel 2,7,8,9,11 on the other hand all begin from when each vision was given. For example, although Daniel 2 and 7 start from Babylon since it was that empire in existence at the time of its revealing to Daniel, Daniel 8, 9 and 11 start from Persia and not Babylon since Persia is the empire in existence at the time of those later revelations. I think this is already well recognised even within Adventism.

Here you are in agreement with me and my post.

February 16, 2016

31 minutes ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

Furthermore, we have the angel’s own anchor-point in Rev. 17.10, saying that the 6^th empire “is” in existence and that “five have fallen” out of existence. If Babylon were the 1^st as you suggest in this sequence in Rev. 13, then your 6^th candidate of American and French Revolutions should have been in existence in John’s time. Obviously it doesn’t fit, so I hope now you can see why we can’t start at Babylon. We have to work from the current empire to John’s time – the Roman Empire – and work backwards to find the “five fallen” and work forwards from the Roman Empire to find the 7^th empire.

Another possibility is that the angel is placing what was being studied in the context of the deadly wound. Had the church started to "Preach again" the Domitian persecution could have brought about the end. The Flavain emperors sounded a lot like the little horn. There were 10 emperors, three uprooted by the Flavains and they destroyed the temple. They were requiring people to worship them. (with other Roman emperors as well but especially the Flavains) the people were to bow in worship. Jews wondered if they could adjust their shoe at the time of worship. This was historically the mark of the beast. In the forehead to those who actually bowed in worship and adjusting their shoes with their right hands.

But the sign of the end is the gospel being preached into all the world. The world was hungry (as seen soon their after with the spread in the east from a small insignificant religion in India spreading east, Buddhism.) The church had preached. Paul said that he took the gospel to the whole world, but he also said that he's like to take the gospel to Spain. This showed that he had too narrow a world. He thought it needed to be spread to the Jewish world.

Jesus' Olivet discourse sounded like the temple would fall and Jesus return. Could have happened had the disciples had a larger view of the world. Jesus looked like a false prophet. But the book of Hebrews explained that Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry, comparing Jesus' ministry to the sanctuary with the earthly ministry being the holy place and heavenly ministry the most holy place. However the church got so focused on the heavenly ministry that they lost sight of their mission and the church lost it's first love.

Again, the prophecies could have been fulfilled under the Flavians, if the church would preach again despite the Domitian persecution and martyrdom. But it was again conditional to the spreading of the gospel.

As for the focus, this deals with where God's church is. While I do not believe in replacement theology, the remnant theology did move on to the church and they lived in the west under the Holy Roman Empire then the deadly wound time of independent nations.

As we look at the events of the 5 have fallen, one is and one is yet to come and the beast was and is and is yet to come (indicating that the head is dead) We are finding prophecies and events that had special meaning to those living under those times but in the end the 7th head will control every person on the face of the earth. And that it is different than the others because the others were political leaders such as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Julius, but here it is a great economic, corporate and banking power who has power over everyone's ability to buy and sell. Does that sound more like the ottomans and Muslims or does it sound more like the United States Federal Reserve and the banks in other parts of the world, the trilateral commission the international business corporation cartels,

February 19, 2016

On 16/02/2016 at 10:35 PM, JoeMo said:

I thoroughly enjoy Sid Roth and Walid Shoebat! If you like them and Joel Richardson, you would probably also enjoy Joel Rosenberg and Jonathan Cahn. They all bring a slightly different viewpoint, but they are all basically on the same page as we are (or we are on the same page as them).

Congrats on the new baby! Some people think marriage changes everything. I disagree - a BABY changes everything! God bless you and your family as you look for a new home! Thanks for the offer to help me in my research. You are much better at it and much more eloquent in how you say things than I am. If I can be of any help, let me know. If nothing else, you know you have a friend across the pond that thinks like you do. Great minds think alike!

Thanks my brother! I appreciate all that you said. Definitely, my daughter has absolutely changed my life. My gosh, you like Jonathan Cahn and Joel Rosenberg too! That is awesome! It is good to know there is a friend in the world who thinks alike! God's blessings to you Joe!

February 19, 2016

Hi Kevin,

I’ll try to explain myself better because I’m suspecting you might not have understand what I said, since I can’t make out the crux of your case. I can’t really see any evidence that you’ve posited, but it seems you’ve cobbled together many different strands of thoughts on different topics, which is not coherent enough to make a firm conclusion for your position on the 7^th empire. So let me just try and address things that I could gather from what you said (forgive me if this is a little pedantic but its only because there were many claims you brought forward that needed addressing).

Speculation

“It's strange that right after you talked about my so called "Speculation" you turn right to the same principle in the next paragraph. Since the discovery of archaeology we have learned that the Bible gave everything with a possible local fulfillment and if not or only partially fulfilled gets reapplied through analogy to later times. In college every semester we were required to read "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDA Bible Commentary and a writing from Mrs. White (I forgot the title) that says much the same as the Bible Commentary article. Then our Bible classes were looking at this principle. How they could have been fulfilled, whether it was or not and then the reapplications through out scripture and history and Mrs. White.”

So the “speculation” that I was referring to was your statements claiming that Jesus would have returned if the Hebrews did this or that. And I said no one could possibly know when Jesus would’ve come except God Himself and if he wanted, to those he chose to reveal it, which is so far nobody (although many do claim this but cannot prove this). This is just straightforward logic. Take for example someone who was visiting your house. Could you know when exactly they decided they would arrive at your house unless they told you? Of course not. So how could we possibly read the mind of God of when he would return? Jesus himself said it when he said “no one knows the day nor the hour”. And if, as you pointed out, it is a common practice within Adventist colleges to confidently infer that Jesus would’ve come earlier if people would’ve just preached the gospel, it is unfortunate, because it would show that those Adventist institutions and leaders have not learnt from the lessons of predicting Jesus’ coming from the time of the Great Disappointment, or when Ellen White predicted his return in 1850s, or when she said that in 1888 he would’ve returned if the GC would’ve adhered to the teachings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. To prove that, as 1 Th. 5.21 tells us to do, you would have to provide evidence for this (2 Pet. 1.16). If you cannot, then that is why I call it speculation – it is simply unprovable, simply from a common sense perspective, to say that you knew that Jesus would’ve come on such and such a date. And to say that archaeology proves this is a little non-sensical. Archaeology cannot tell you when God would’ve come. It’s like the equivalent of studying the architecture of a house to tell you when the owner would come – the two simply don’t correlate. And that is why I suggested the 7 principles to you to avoid such mistakes.

Ellen White

“Critics of Mrs. White point out how many of her prophecies have local applications but did not work out. We saw these same things in the scriptures. Even the 2300 days were first of all given in the year that 2300 literal days later (since the text does not tell us which day of the year the vision was, although we could have a good speculation) we have Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, the night of Belshazzar's feast and the early days of Babylon. In Daniel 9 the 2300 days are reapplied to the 70 weeks of years. Ezekiel has a 2310 day prophecy and if you remember the 10 days from the New Year to Yom Kippur you have another application as to how the 2300 days could have been fulfilled as the last 2300 days of the 70 years.”

This is digressing quite a bit from the question of this discussion and going onto the topic of Ellen White’s qualification as a prophet which is another topic altogether. And whilst I am tempted to write on it, I won’t since it belongs in a new discussion. If you would like we could do that if you open it up.

Ezekiel

“We do not study Ezekiel enough because we don't see how it fit with the long term fulfillments as the reapplications of Daniel and Revelation has. But if we would start to study that powerful article in the SDA BC and really take it seriously to the Bible we will be able to open up much more of the Bible and Mrs. White.”

Ezekiel, particularly chapter 38, is very relevant and fascinating, and its interesting that you cite it since it actually supports the case for a Middle Eastern Last Days power. It speaks of an army at the “End Years” (v.8) or Acharit HaYamim, “End of Days,” (v.16) that comprise a coalition of Middle Eastern forces that will come against the nation of Israel (vv.8,14,16,18,19): Persia – Iran (v.5); Cush – North Sudan (v.5); Phut – Libya (v.5); Meshech, Tubal (vv.2-3), Gomer and Beth-Togarmah (v.6) – all four are regions located in Turkey and the Northern regions (v.15); and many others (vv.6,22). Note that there are no Western nations or Papacy alluded to. Naturally, this would instead support an Islamic Antichrist 7^th/8^th empire.

My Point of the Difference of the Sequence of Empires in Revelation and Daniel

“Here you are in agreement with me and my post.”

Your original point was that the sequence of empires in Revelation 13 begins with Babylon like in Daniel. But my reply to that was that Revelation’s sequence is the entire scope of history and begins with Assyria, whilst Daniel’s wasn’t but begins from his time, in Babylon and in Persia. Since you now agree with my explanation, then am I right in believing that you’ve now gone against your original point, and now agree that Revelation 13’s seven heads begin with Assyria?

Your Last Post

This post had many things that were not necessarily related but strung together in a hope to make a case. But there lacked any coherent flow, clear reasoning, any evidence to support your case or lead to a natural final conclusion to the one you originally made. I want to highlight some of the statements you made, in the hope that you might be able to see that it would be better to rethink the issue from the beginning and start afresh with an open mind (Jam. 3.17), building on evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) piece by piece, ending with a natural conclusion that leads from that evidence.

God Would Have Returned in the Time of Emperor Domitian

“Had the church started to "Preach again" the Domitian persecution could have brought about the end.”

Again, I hate to point this out but this is purely speculative – it should be obvious now that you could not possibly know when God decided the end would’ve come in the past, unless of course he actually told you, which I’m sure you would agree he didn’t.

Ten Emperors in 68-69 AD

“There were 10 emperors”

According to a book I have by Nigel Rodgers and Dr Hazel Dodge, Roman Empire (London: Hermes House, 2006), p. 64, there are only a list of 4 emperors at this time (68-69 AD) – Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian – which is why at this time period it was called “Year of the Four Emperors” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 16). It can’t include previous emperors from the beginning of the empire because the angel tells us in Rev. 17.12 that they “receive authority as kings for one hour, with the beast,” in other words, they exist at the same time. But even if we did we’d still only have 9, starting with Augustus who is credited with being “the First Roman Emperor” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 66), and not Julius Caesar (although he paved the way).

Emperor Vespasian Uprooted Three Emperors

“Three uprooted by the Flavians”

This is just simply historically false. Galba was murdered by the Imperial Guard who favoured Otho:

“Otho won over the praetorians with the promise of a donative, and they murdered Galba and Piso in the Roman Forum on January 15.” – E. Badian, “Galba: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Galba.

Otho committed suicide after losing the battle against the German legions loyal to Vitellius:

“Galba had been murdered, and Vitellius’s armies fought the forces of his successor, Otho, at Bedriacum (now Calvatone, between Verona and Cremona). Otho’s forces were defeated, and he committed suicide on April 16.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius; see also “Otho: Roman Emperor,” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Otho.

It is only Vitellius that could be attributed to being “uprooted” by Vespasian:

“When Vespasian was hailed as emperor on July 1, the troops in the Balkan provinces recognized him and invaded Italy under Marcus Antonius Primus. After Vitellius’s troops were defeated in a second battle of Bedriacum (October 69), Vespasian’s brother, the city prefect Flavius Sabinus, persuaded Vitellius to abdicate. The Roman mob joined with Vitellius’s troops to chase Sabinus to the Capitoline Hill. (The temple of Jupiter was burned to the ground during the rioting.) Vespasian’s army, under Primus’s leadership, attacked and entered Rome on December 20. Vitellius was murdered with great barbarity.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius.

So it is factually untrue that Vespasian uprooted 3 kings. At most he uprooted 1.

The Mark of the Beast: Adjusting Shoes When Bowing Down

“The people were to bow in worship. Jews wondered if they could adjust their shoe at the time of worship. This was historically the mark of the beast. In the forehead to those who actually bowed in worship and adjusting their shoes with their right hands.”

This is the most oddest thing you’ve written so far. You’re saying the mark of the beast is whether one could adjust one’s shoe at the time when one had to bow down? You’re kidding right? Can you actually cite where you got this from? But in any case, if this were the Mark of the Beast as you say, then Emperor Domitian would be the Antichrist. But if that were so, the 8^th empire and last empire of all time (in which reign the Mark of the Beast is actually given) would have occurred in the first century. Don’t you don’t find this interpretation a little odd?

Paul Believed Only in Preaching Gospel to Jews

(4) “Paul said that he took the gospel to the whole world, but he also said that he's like to take the gospel to Spain. This showed that he had too narrow a world. He thought it needed to be spread to the Jewish world.”

I’m not sure if I got you right. Are you saying Paul thought the gospel only needed to be spread to the Jewish world? It has to be said, not only do you give the impression that you aren’t reading any historical sources, it doesn’t seem that you’re reading the New Testament either, if this is what you’re saying. Have you never heard Paul say he was “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13)? Or that he believed the Gospel was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1.16)? It really is a strain for anyone to take the case you are making seriously if you simply make stuff up on the spot and present it as fact.

Jesus Would Have Returned in the First Century

“Jesus' Olivet discourse sounded like the temple would fall and Jesus return. Could have happened had the disciples had a larger view of the world.”

Again, this is what I mean, you continually seem to be saying that you know when Jesus would’ve returned, as if you had supreme divine authority to know so. Do you have direct revelation from God to know when he would’ve returned, even though His Son didn’t know when he was on earth? Obviously not, so that statement is simply speculative and is unprovable.

Contradictions

“But the book of Hebrews explained that Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry, comparing Jesus' ministry to the sanctuary with the earthly ministry being the holy place and heavenly ministry the most holy place.”

This statement demonstrates emphatically that there is a deep confusion on your part because you’ve just contradicted all the “Jesus would have come back” statements you’ve made by now saying “Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry.” You’ve simply dismantled your own case. And then, in the following sentences you say:

“Again, the prophecies could have been fulfilled under the Flavians, if the church would preach again despite the Domitian persecution and martyrdom. But it was again conditional to the spreading of the gospel.”

Do you not see the self-contradiction? Not to mention that this is one presumptuous and judgmental statement you just made there against those being persecuted. I say presumptuous because you are presuming they didn’t preach the Gospel. But by crikey, they are being persecuted and martyred for the sake of Christ – is that not enough? And who’s to say they didn’t? I mean, they are dying for their Lord. If they’re willing to die then naturally they would be willing to preach. It would simply odd to die for something that they chose not to speak about. Not to mention that you cite no source that proves this. I say it is also judgmental because you speak from a vantage point of comfort – obviously you aren’t being persecuted and threatened with death by the state, so how could you judge their actions of not doing enough, when you are in relative comfort compared to them. For instance, are you preaching the Gospel to everyone around you? I’m not judging you. I’m asking how you could judge them having not suffered like them.

Interestingly I find another contradiction:

“While I do not believe in replacement theology, the remnant theology did move on to the church and they lived in the west under the Holy Roman Empire then the deadly wound time of independent nations.”

Replacement theology is the belief that the role of Israel passed onto the church and replaced Israel. So whilst you said you “do not believe in replacement theology,” which is the belief that the church replaced Israel as the chosen people, you then immediately restate your belief in the core Replacement Theology axiom – that “the remnant theology did move on to the church.” You must be able to see that this is a complete self-contradiction.

Political Leaders Are Not Economic Powers

“And that it is different than the others because the others were political leaders such as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Julius, but here it is a great economic, corporate and banking power who has power over everyone's ability to buy and sell. Does that sound more like the ottomans and Muslims or does it sound more like the United States Federal Reserve and the banks in other parts of the world, the trilateral commission the international business corporation cartels.”

Permit me to explain something that may not have occurred to you. When a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, etc., become “political leaders” like you say, in reality they became sovereigns of a vast swathe of territory, and is why we call them empires. Because they come into possession of such territory, this makes them automatically monumental economic powers not to mention military powers by default, since they possess all the resources that that territory has to offer. In fact, at the time, they were the biggest powers of the civilised world. So it is just simply non-factual that you say political leaders are not economic powers.

Buying and Selling

But the “buying or selling” that you mentioned (Rev. 13.16-18) is referring to the last 8th empire, which is effectively beginning potentially in our period, not in the past. So it cannot rule out Islam since it hasn’t happened yet. However, it is interesting to find that in Islam lie all the potentials. It possess a vast amount of oil wealth run by one of the most powerful economic cartels in the world – OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Export Countries), led by Saudi Arabia – which once brought the western world to a complete and utter standstill in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War against Israel by imposing an oil embargo on the West. It literally brought these industrialised nations a hundreds back bringing the horse and cart back literally (this is powerfully documented in a BBC documentary, Planet Oil: The Treasure that Conquered the World, (BBC, Oct 2015)). It still has phenomenal influence today, determining the price of oil globally, and thus determining the prices of all the commodities that are created by or are affected by oil. This commodity has also protected Saudi Arabia in particular from all sorts of human rights criticisms, particularly the persecution of Christians and the funding of terrorism.

A second aspect about Islam that is also relevant to “buying and selling” is a practice in Sharia Law whereby non-Muslims have to effectively pay protection money called the “Jizya” so that no harm come to them with many restrictions (Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide History of Islam, (London: Rough Guides Ltd, 2003), p.24). ISIS for example is imposing this in its territory (“in Mosul and other towns in the region, ISIS gave Christians an ultimatum—convert to Islam, pay a tax known as jizya or be killed.” – Janine di Giovanni and Conor Gaffey, “The New Exodus: Christians Flee ISIS in the Middle East,” Newsweek, Issue 3 April 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html), and it has been practiced in the past by other Islamic dynasties, like the Ottomans (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, Oct 2013)).

Combine these two aspects together, along with the real threat of a Nuclear Iran (William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth, and Peter Vincent Pry, “Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting US,” Newsmax, (01 Feb 2015), http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-ready-missiles/2015/02/01/id/621982/), and the biggest global persecution of Christians in modern times (George Thomas, “Islam’s War on Christians: Worst Yet to Come?,” CBN News, (9 January 2015), http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/January/Sound-the-Alarm-Islam-Intensifies-War-on-Christians/) and a potential future situation of Rev. 13.16-18 is not unthinkable.

But does the Vatican have such power over the world economy? Has it in the recent past exercised anything like the 1973 Yom Kippur War Oil Embargo Crisis as proof of this? Does it have access to nuclear weaponry? Does it even have the power and will to persecute Christians on a global scale (despite actually calling on the end to the global Christian persecution by Muslims)? I can’t say that it does.

Final Words

Despite all of this, and the notable sheer lack of evidence, the case I laid out originally in response to the actual topic remains untouched. I hope therefore you can see the sense of the facts I laid out and at least begin to reconsider them and start to come to a new understanding, not just of prophecy, but of a new way of looking at the world and assessing truth. I encourage you to use those 7 principles I introduced to you to prevent you falling on this detrimental path.

God be with you.

Sign In

Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

Recommended Posts

Alchemy

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thomas the Doubter

8thdaypriest

JoeMo

Posted Images

Kevin H

8thdaypriest

JoeMo

Alchemy

Alchemy

Kevin H

Alchemy

Kevin H

skyblue888

stinsonmarri

JoeMo

Thomas the Doubter

The New Division of the Empire: East and West (395 AD)

The New Rome: Constantinople (330 AD)

The Roman Empire Lived On in the East After 476 AD

Romans Not Byzantines

The Actual End of the Roman Empire: 1453

Islam’s Attempted Conquest of the West from the Beginning

The Ottoman Islamic Empire: The Legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire

Conclusion

Kevin H

JoeMo

Thomas the Doubter

JoeMo

Thomas the Doubter

Thomas the Doubter

Kevin H

JoeMo

Kevin H

Kevin H

Thomas the Doubter

Thomas the Doubter

Speculation

Ellen White

Ezekiel

My Point of the Difference of the Sequence of Empires in Revelation and Daniel

Your Last Post

Final Words

Browse

Activity