Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[hch]

41 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

If I read scripture correctly, this occurs AFTER the millennium reign; not at the Second Coming.

JoeMo,

That is how I read it too. But the timing was not the point.

The Scripture pointed out that the dragon (Satan), the beast, and the false prophet were all thrown in the lake of fire: all three not just the beast and the false prophet .

Christian regards

[Pickle]

Okay, then we can probably agree that we can't base everything on apparently being correct once, and that was my point.

Unless you can provide some sort of justification from Revelation for saying that the time of the angel's conversation was during the reign of John Paul II, then clearly it was just coincidence and private interpretation rather than a correct interpretation of the passage.

[hch]

14 minutes ago, Pickle said:

You did not answer my question. You gave no reasons from Revelation which pinpoint John Paul's day as when the 6th king is. And that was my point. If we don't date the 6th king in John's day, we have no way to date it using the passage itself. And thus the timing of the 6th king becomes merely a private interpretation.

Pickle,

If you look at the other threads on Revelation 17 and Satan personating Jesus, you will see that I have answered this in the past. I just don't have time to rewrite it all.

Benedict short space.

Babylonian calendar John-Paul II died April 2, 2005.

Benedict XVI completed JPII final year during his ascension year.

Benedict XVI first year started 29 March 2006  on Babylonian calendar 

It ended 28 February 2013 one month and on day Babylonian calendar short of 7 years

"The names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian Era. The number 7 indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end of time, while the symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world." {AA 585.3}

The RC claims to be the church established by Jesus' disciple Peter and thus is one of the 7 churches in Rev. Pope Benedict fulfilled a short space when his reign fell short of the number of completeness. And there is more, but I have an appointment

Christian regards   

[Pickle]

30 minutes ago, hch said:

Pickle,

If you look at the other threads on Revelation 17 and Satan personating Jesus, you will see that I have answered this in the past. I just don't have time to rewrite it all.

Benedict short space.

Babylonian calendar John-Paul II died April 2, 2005.

Benedict XVI completed JPII final year during his ascension year.

Benedict XVI first year started 29 March 2006  on Babylonian calendar 

It ended 28 February 2013 one month and on day Babylonian calendar short of 7 years

"The names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian Era. The number 7 indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end of time, while the symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world." {AA 585.3}

The RC claims to be the church established by Jesus' disciple Peter and thus is one of the 7 churches in Rev. Pope Benedict fulfilled a short space when his reign fell short of the number of completeness. And there is more, but I have an appointment

Christian regards   

Since nowhere did you cite a single verse from Revelation, you again did not answer my question. Neither did you provide a link to any of your posts where you cited any such verse.

And the reason is clear: There is no such verse that you can quote. Thus my point stands.

The only possible verses are the ones that picture the beast in the wilderness with the woman sitting upon it. But no one I know of uses those verses to date the 6th king because at the same time as the 6th king, the beast was and is not. No one I know of has the woman riding on the beast at the very time the beast is not.

Would you like another opportunity to answer the question, or can we simply agree that the biblical evidence thus far shows that the timing of the 6th king is John's own day? Agreeing to this doesn't mean that there isn't contrary evidence. It just means that you aren't yet sure what that contrary biblical evidence is.

[hch]

 

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

3 hours ago, hch said:

Pickle,

Are you trying to say that the time context of what he heard and saw are not the same?

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

That's what I said when I first brought up the point, as long as when you say "heard" you're referring to an extended conversation.

I'm simply saying that John saw what the angel showed him that was to happen in the future as if it was happening at the time that John saw it. And what John saw and heard in the present tense was because it was as though he was present in 1997-2017 when these things happened.

Christian regards 

[Martn]

[hch]

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

Ellen White said the woman is the papacy. Rev. 17 says she's the great city that sits on 7 mountains. That has to be Rome.

Pickle,

Allow me to show you what EGW said about the identity of the woman in Rev 17. But you need to read it very carefully because EGW speaks of an apostate church [Rome] as Babylon and Apostate Protestantism as Babylon and because she used BABYLON to describe two groups they must be kept in the correct context:

"The woman, Babylon, of Revelation 17, is described as “arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness. . . . And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots.” Says the prophet, “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” [Revelation 17:4-6.] Babylon is further declared to be “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” [Revelation 17:18.] The power [the power not the woman] that for so many centuries maintained despotic sway over the monarchs of Christendom, is Rome. The purple and scarlet color, the gold and precious stones and pearls, vividly picture the magnificence and more than kingly pomp affected by the haughty see of Rome. And no other power could be so truly declared “drunken with the blood of the saints” as that church which has so cruelly persecuted the followers of Christ. Babylon is also charged with the sin of unlawful connection with “the kings of the earth.” It was by departure from the Lord, and alliance with the heathen, that the Jewish church became a harlot; and Rome, corrupting herself in like manner by seeking the support of worldly powers, receives a like condemnation.  {GC88 382.2}
     "Babylon [the power not the woman] is said to be “the mother of harlots [the mother of the woman].” By her daughters [the woman] must be symbolized churches that cling [ride on the beast] to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14 announcing the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message [Revelation 17] follows the warning of the Judgment [Revelation 14] , it [Revelation 17] must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church [as being the woman], for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. Furthermore, in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation, in a message which is yet future, the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. At the time of their rise, these churches [Protestant] took a noble stand for God and the truth, and his blessing was with them. Even the unbelieving world was constrained to acknowledge the beneficent results that followed an acceptance of the principles of the gospel. In the words of the prophet to Israel, “Thy [Protestant] renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty; for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God.” But they [Protestant] fell by the same desire which was the curse and ruin of Israel,—the desire of imitating the practices and courting the friendship of the ungodly. “Thou [Protestant] didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown.”  {GC88 382.3}
    "Many of the Protestant churches are following Rome's example of iniquitous connection with “the kings of the earth;” the State churches, by their relation to secular governments, and other denominations by seeking the favor of the world. And the term Babylon—confusion—may be appropriately applied to these bodies [Protestant], all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories.  {GC88 383.1}
     "Besides a sinful union with the world, the churches [Protestant] that separated from Rome present other of her characteristics."  {GC88 383.2}

EGW makes it clear that the woman in Revelation 17 is the Protestant woman/churches that are clinging to her mother's [Rome's] doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The woman on the beast is clinging to the beast, the Romanish Church.

Christian regards

[hch]

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

And the reason is clear: There is no such verse that you can quote...

Pickle,

The reason is clear that you have just as much time in a day as I do to look up what has been posted earlier.

I explained "a short space" relating to Benedict. You could have read Rev_17:10  "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he [Benedict] must continue a short space."

Debating tactics and assumptions might look good to the casual reader, but they are no way to study Bible prophecy if you expect to come to a correct understanding.

If I did not answer a question, perhaps I was focusing on something else you said or asked. So don't be shy ask it again. And I try to get to it.

Christian regards 

[hch]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure of the significance.

Daniel is a book pieced together from various surviving portions, attributed to him, and for this reason it has never been accepted as authoritative in any part of the Jewish faith.

Which isn't to say it isn't true. Just that it is, by itself, uncertain. Like all the other books placed within the Writings section of Jewish Bibles (such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, etc.), having a status somewhat like the Apocrypha in Christian Bibles. Unlike books held in the Torah and the Prophets section of Jewish Bibles, which are authoritative for Jews.

One can judge all things according to the Law and the Prophets, it says. But not according to the Writings.

 

MCBGM,

Not sure of the significance? When you understand that the sea is not the earth in Bible prophecy and that the 4 earth-kings come from the earth; and what  is the earth in Bible prophecy-- then it is not too difficult to find out the names of the American Presidents that Daniel is talking about.

The argument that Daniel is a book pieced together from various surviving portions, attributed to him, and for this reason it has never been accepted as authoritative in any part of the Jewish faith was debunked years ago when Daniel was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And that proof should have never been needed. Can you be uncertain when Jesus told His followers to study The Prophet Daniel?

Matthew 24:15  "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)"

Mark 13:14  "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

One can judge all things according to the Law and the Prophets and Jesus declared that Daniel was a prophet so it looks like some Jewish authorities made a mistake. Or perhaps they understood the importance of Daniel's prophecies and attempted to silence him by Miscatorgorizing him into a literary class that had no authority?

Christian regards

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, hch said:

I'm simply saying that John saw what the angel showed him that was to happen in the future as if it was happening at the time that John saw it.

Of course.

2 hours ago, hch said:

And what John saw and heard in the present tense was because it was as though he was present in 1997-2017 when these things happened.

There are two types of things that can be heard: (a) Noises from the scenes John is seeing. (b) Explanations consisting of extended conversations.

My point from Rev. 11 is that the latter are in John's day. Thus far you haven't shown anything to the contrary.

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, hch said:

The reason is clear that you have just as much time in a day as I do to look up what has been posted earlier.

I seriously doubt that you've posted anything to answer my question. I've covered this ground before with quite a few folks. If there was a satisfactory answer, someone would have come up with it by now, and you would have it on the tip of your tongue, because it would convincingly prove that your position is correct.

1 hour ago, hch said:

I explained "a short space" relating to Benedict. You could have read Rev_17:10  "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he [Benedict] must continue a short space."

That's irrelevant to my question. I want to know what in the passage mandates that the timing of the 6th king is during Benedict's reign, in contradiction to the principle I pointed out in Rev. 11. I don't want you to tell me, "It has to mean this because it seems to fit so well." I want you instead to show me from the passage that it must be during Benedict's reign.

Otherwise, all you've got is circular reasoning, or else you're begging the question. In reality, Benedict cannot possibly be the 6th king because the book of Revelation mandates that the 6th king must exist in John's day, and Benedict wasn't even born yet in 90 AD.

1 hour ago, hch said:

If I did not answer a question, perhaps I was focusing on something else you said or asked. So don't be shy ask it again. And I try to get to it.

What in the passage mandates that the 6th king must be during Benedict's reign, when Rev. 11 mandates that the 6th king be during John's day?

Again, it has to do with the tenses used. Read Rev. 11. It switches back and forth between past tense and future tense. Past tense is used for the scenes, and future tenses is used for the explanations given during the extended conversation. The only way future tense can work is if the conversation is dated prior to 538 AD, and thus the conversation must be in John's own day.

This is the hurdle you must overcome with some sort of textual evidence in order to have the 6th king be at any other time than John's own day.

Do you understand the question?

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, hch said:

"The woman, Babylon, of Revelation 17, is described as “arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness. . . . And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots.” Says the prophet, “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” [Revelation 17:4-6.] Babylon is further declared to be “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” [Revelation 17:18.] The power [the power not the woman] that for so many centuries maintained despotic sway over the monarchs of Christendom, is Rome.  {GC88 382.2}

Come on, Henry. She's explaining what the woman Babylon symbolizes, and she very clearly says that that power is Rome. That is clearly what she is saying. To try to say that she is distinguishing the woman from the power, I can't see anyone buying that sort of idea. And I am certain you would not appreciate it if someone came along and did that kind of thing to things you have written.

[phkrause]

3 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Daniel is a book pieced together from various surviving portions, attributed to him, and for this reason it has never been accepted as authoritative in any part of the Jewish faith.

The problem with the Jews about Daniel, is if they accepted the Book, than they have a problem!! And on top of that, than they'd have to rethink there problem with the New Testament and Jesus!!

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Daniel is a book pieced together from various surviving portions, attributed to him, and for this reason it has never been accepted as authoritative in any part of the Jewish faith.

This may be true for Jews who don't accept Yeshua as Messiah; but Jesus referencing Daniel's writings while he was here was a sufficient Imprimatur for me to accept its authenticity. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/27/2016 at 6:46 AM, hch said:

Rev 20:10  "And the devil [that old serpent, Satan, the dragon] that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
 

The dragon/serpent/Satan is not thrown into the "lake of fire" until AFTER the 1000 years and the Gog/Magog Battle.  The words translated "where the beast and the false prophet are", are translated "where the beast and the false prophet WERE THROWN" in other translations.  Even in the KJV, the word "are" is in italic.  

Revelation 20:10 "The Adversary who had deceived them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (CJB)

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (NIV)

Revelation 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (NRS)

The words translated as "for ever and ever", mean "unto the age of the ages".  No one KNOWS exactly how long that will be.  It could be said that the age of evil ENDS when these evil demons are finally DEAD. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/25/2016 at 3:31 PM, JoeMo said:

hch,

I never even implied that everyone who gets the mark is the beast.  The name of the harlot is NOT the mark of the Beast.  The mark of the beast does not designate someone as the beast.  The mark only authorizes that peson to buy and sell in the market.

I refuse to do Twitter (just as I refuse to do FaceBook); so no; I never saw any of your tweets.

The 144,000 have the Father's NAME on their foreheads.  Having the Father's name designates one as part of the Father's kingdom.  Right? 

Is it also true that one will NOT receive the Father's name IF one accepts the "mark" of the Beast - in the forehead?  Is taking "the mark" a sign that one worship's the Beast?

Rev 14:9-10, makes it seem so.  The way it reads, those who receive the mark - either in forehead or in hand - will suffer the last plagues. 

Revelation 14:9  "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 "he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." (NKJ)

[JoeMo]

45 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Is it also true that one will NOT receive the Father's name IF one accepts the "mark" of the Beast - in the forehead?  Is taking "the mark" a sign that one worship's the Beast?

Based on Rev. 14:9, I would say anyone who gets the mark of the beast from the 3rd angel's proclamation onward in doomed.  If the mark is decreed (or covertly given) Prior to the 3rd angel's pronouncement shouldn't be held responsible; but I'm not God.

I've heard various people say that your SSN is the mark; that the digitized photo on passports and driver's licenses is the mark, the  implanted ID chip is the mark - no one really knows yet, do they?  So how can people be held accountable for something that hasn't yet been revealed?

There are probably some out there who will claim to have deciphered the secret mysteries of the 3rd angel's pronouncement; and that those who have not studied the ancient languages and bible codes are lost for their lack of knowledge and insight; and therefore are receiving the mark as we speak - unknowingly sealing their eternal fate already.  I don't buy it. Salvation shouldn't have a pre-requisite of intimate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek; as well as insight to God's alleged secret bible codes.  I shouldn't be that difficult if Jesus' yoke is easy and His burden light.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, MCBGM said:

The actual problem, for Jews, is there were very specific prophetic and Legal (Torah-square) requirements for King Messiah which Jesus not only did not match, but which he outright failed. There were aspects of his birth itself, for example, which disqualified him as King Messiah. If, however, he returned again as a newborn baby, and this time did not fail on the points in question, then this time he would be King Messiah, but not otherwise. Time will tell.

I would be curious to know what these were - not for the purpose of debate or argument; just curiosity.  If you are concerned about starting a firestorm, feel free to PM me.

[Pickle]

4 hours ago, MCBGM said:

That is not true. Even Jews who accept Jesus as messianic (not talking here about Messianic Jews, but mainstream Jews) don't accept Daniel as being fully in tact. (Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, for example.) The parts about "an anointed one" are not in question, by the way. Just the Christian interpretation of them.

The actual problem, for Jews, is there were very specific prophetic and Legal (Torah-square) requirements for King Messiah which Jesus not only did not match, but which he outright failed. There were aspects of his birth itself, for example, which disqualified him as King Messiah. If, however, he returned again as a newborn baby, and this time did not fail on the points in question, then this time he would be King Messiah, but not otherwise. Time will tell.

I'm not sure what requirements you are referring to.

Ben Zion Wachholder felt that Christians should invoke sabbatical cycles when interpreting Dan. 9's 70 weeks, and then proceeded to do so without have Jesus be the fulfilment. I have thought it interesting that the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks does indeed fit actual sabbatical cycles, even though they have not invoked them. I don't think that is just a coincidence.

When do you believe the 70 weeks began?

[hch]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 6:14 PM, Pickle said:

My point from Rev. 11 is that the latter are in John's day. Thus far you haven't shown anything to the contrary.

Pickle,

If the latter days were in John's days then what are the days that have come 2000-years after those latter days?

And why get hung up on Rev 11. Rev 13 explains the deadly wound. But it does not stop at the wounded beast, it focuses on the "healed beast." Are you trying to put that in John's day too? And Rev 17 moves from the healed beast to the depiction of a beast that follows the latter day beast in Rev 13.

When Peter warns against having a private interpretation, the Greek word that he used for private is idios .  From the root idios, we get the word idiotic. An interpretation that places the latter day meaning of John's prophecy 2000-years before the latter days fits the identification of being a private interpretation.

Christian regards

[hch]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:52 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

A thought hit me this morning, that all of the "heads" on the Terrible Beast have "diadems" (Rev 12:3) - meaning they are royalty of some sort. 

2Ki_11:12  "And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king."

1Ki_1:35  "Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah."

In ancient times the crowned head was the king (royalty) because he was the ruler.

[hch]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 6:24 PM, Pickle said:

What in the passage mandates that the 6th king must be during Benedict's reign, when Rev. 11 mandates that the 6th king be during John's day?

Pickle,

I took the time to look at Revelation 11 that your private interpretation is trying to place in John's day.

Rev 11:14  "The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly."

From my study: woe #1 was from 22 October 1844 till 22 February 1928

Woe #2 was from 14 October 1929 till 14 February 2013

And the third woe is not too far in the future.

Christian regards

[hch]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 7:51 AM, Pickle said:

hch,

You refer to various popes. I assume you are advocating the view that the 7 heads begin in 1929. The greatest problem I see in that view is that it contradicts the scriptural precedent found in Rev. 11, that extended conversations within the vision are spoken within a time context of John's day, while what he sees in the vision is recorded in past tense.

Revelation 11:2-3  But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Obviously, if the 1260 days run from 538 to 1798, this extended conversation must be dated before 538, and thus in John's day.

Revelation 11:10  And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Revelation 11:11  And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

In the KJV, Rev. 11 switches back to a record of scenes from a record of a conversation between vss. 10 and 11, since in 10 the rejoicing over the dead witnesses is future, and in vs. 11 the resurrection of the two witnesses is past.

Applying this simple principle to Rev. 17 mandates that the 5 fallen kings be already fallen in John's day, since the explanation that 5 are fallen is part of an extended conversation.

Pickle.

This post is illogical.

"the clear, biblical principle seen in Rev. 11" that you propose is as clear as mud from what has been presented above.

Christian regards