Revelation; War on the saints

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
"The Roundheads, on the other hand, were clean-shaven and wore tall,conical hats, white ties, and sombre garments. Under these circumstances, a Civil war was inevitable."
W.C.Sellar and R.J.Yeatman, "1066 and All That" (ch35)

I want to offer some thoughts on Revelation ch.13 vv5-10

This is the last portion of ch.13 which needs to be covered before moving on to the opposite side of the conflict.

I'm going to be asking the question; must the Beast make war on the saints?

It's the kind of question historians are always asking about any war- "was the war inevitable?" So I'm going to tackle it in the standard way by tracking the war back to its original causes.

The starting-point must be the long-term roots of the war, which can be found in ch.12.

Atonement

There's a vision at the beginning of ch.12 about the birth of a male child, who is to "rule over the nations with a rod of iron". The child is Christ himself, of course. The child is then "caught up to God and to his throne".

What follows on from that is the "war in heaven" between Michael and the dragon, which I've described elsewhere as a dramatised version of the doctrine of the Atonement. It's about the impact of the "catching up to Heaven" (the Cross and the Resurrection) on the power of evil.

And we must note the close involvement of the "woman in Heaven", representing the people of God;
The woman in Heaven

Downfall

And the effect of the Atonement?
Satan is known as "the Accuser". His function, in Jewish tradition, is to make sure that God knows about our sins. Thus his power in our lives really rests on the existence of sin, which gives him his material.
So the Atonement strikes at the root of his power- his evidence has no value and his accusations have no force when set against the Forgiveness of sin.
We're told that the brethren overcame him "by the blood of the Lamb"; that is, they destroyed his power in their lives by accepting the Forgiveness that was offered.
And they overcame him "by the word of their testimony"; that is, they were destroying his power in other people's lives by telling them about the Forgiveness.

So that was the nature of Satan's fall from power, being "thrown down from heaven".
Satan fell from Heaven

Vengeance

And the effect of the downfall?
The devil is said to be "in great wrath", which drives him in vengeful pursuit of the "woman". When that fails, he turns to making war on her "children"- which leads him to summon up the "Beast from the sea".

This brings us to the more immediate reasons for war, which can be found in ch.13.

Power

By analogy with the beasts in the vision of Daniel ch.7, we can identify the "Beast from the sea" as a political state or states. The Beast is always powerful, but the real turning point comes with the episode of the "mortal wound", and the recovery from it.

Then the world "wonders after the Beast". We find in ch.17 that the "ten kings", the rulers of the world at large, "are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the Beast". The result is that the Beast is able to exercise authority, either directly or indirectly, over "every tribe and people and tongue and nation" (v7). Its power has been extended world-wide.

Does this world-wide power make war inevitable? It depends on the attitude of the Beast.

Domination

We were told at the beginning of the chapter that the heads of the Beast carried a blasphemous name. I can't improve on the comment I made elsewhere;


So the dominating political power thinks it's God? Yes, that rather goes with the territory. There are reasons why absolute monarchies are called "absolute". There are reasons why totalitarian states are called "totalitarian". Political power tends towards making its claim to obedience more and more unconditional, until the point is reached when it encroaches on what belongs to God.


But the real turning-point, once again, is the episode of the "mortal wound". After that, the challenge becomes open. "The Beast was given a mouth uttering haughty thoughts and blasphemous words" against God (v7). The "mouth" seems to be another name for the second "Beast", which takes on the task of compelling the world to worship the first Beast.

Does this attempt to supplant God make war inevitable? It depends on the response of God's people.

Resistance

There are many of God's people (as we learn from the fact that the Beast has to find a way of dealing with them) who are unwilling to take part in this worship.
Their unwillingness would follow inexorably from that first and most fundamental commandment; "You shall have no other gods but me".
This tells them that they cannot follow their God and the Beast at the same time. They must choose one or the other.

Does this resistance make war inevitable? It depends on the reaction of the Beast.

Persecution

War becomes inevitable when the Beast chooses not to allow God's people to remain outside his system
So it is the Beast who is incurring the "war-guilt" (and, if we follow through the "Versailles" analogy, it is the Beast who will have to pay the reparations).

I would regard the distribution of the "Mark" as the opening move in the persecution, the first response to finding out about the resistance- "Let's pinpoint exactly where they are." This leads on to the boycotting and the other social pressures, and ultimately the death-penalty.

We're told in v7 that the Beast is allowed to make war on the saints "and to conquer them". That last phrase should not be misunderstood. He may be able to seize their bodies and drive the community out of public life, but this does not mean that he can conquer their faith.

We can find a common theme in the remarks at the end of the passage;

"If anyone has an ear, let him hear"

That instruction can be found in the gospels, attached to the parable of the Sower, which is interesting. It may be warning the believers facing this crisis not to become those who "when tribulation or persecution arise because of the word, immediately they fall away". (Mark ch.4 v17)

It's also a refrain in the "letters to the seven churches". This is important, because there are two things happening in those letters.
On the one hand, the churches are being warned about the twin dangers of persecution and spiritual seduction.
On the other hand, there's encouragement in every letter for those who can "conquer" the dangers. Every letter, one way or another, reminds them of that promise of eternal life.

So repeating that comment here reminds us that, although there's trouble close at hand, there's also the promise of Life on the other side of the trouble.

"If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes"

This comes from a little verse in Jeremiah, about the various fates awaiting the inhabitants of Jerusalem, when the city was to be conquered by the Babylonians;

"Those who are for pestilence, to pestilence
And those who are for the sword, to the sword.
Those who are for famine, to famine
And those who are for captivity, to captivity"- Jeremiah ch.15 v2

In other words, their immediate fate would be inescapable.
On the other hand, we all know that this Exile was followed by the Return, when Jerusalem and the Temple were rebuilt.
So anything that reminds us about the fate of Jerusalem also reminds us of the end of the story

There's trouble close at hand, and in the immediate future the trouble may be inescapable.
Nevertheless, there's the prospect of Life on the other side of the trouble.

"If anyone slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain"

This sounds like an echo of the second line in Jeremiah's verse, but it's really quoting the rebuke made by Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, in the arrest scene;
"All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew ch.26 v52).
In effect, he's telling the disciples "This is going to happen- you can't fight it".
Which is the same point that Jeremiah was making.
On the other hand, once again, we know the end of the story.
The arrest and the crucifixion were followed by the Resurrection.

So the unspoken message is the same as it was in the previous case.
There is trouble close at hand, and in the immediate future the trouble may be inescapable.
Nevertheless, there is the prospect of Life on the other side of the trouble.

"Here is a call for the endurance and the faith of the saints"

The endurance and the faith are necessary because there is trouble close at hand.
On the other hand, the endurance and the faith become possible because there is the promise of Life on the other side of the trouble.

Those who believe in the promise are the ones who will be able to "overcome".









[edit on 8-8-2010 by DISRAELI]




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I think with the "Hate Crimes" declaring preaching the gospel is equivalent to "hate" because it is "divisive" is one example of the War on the Saints.

The U.N. wants an all-inclusive religion,and that is where we are headed,except for those who refuse to give up their testimony for Jesus.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge

The U.N. wants an all-inclusive religion,and that is where we are headed,except for those who refuse to give up their testimony for Jesus.

Ah yes, the subject of the "all-inclusive religion".
That's somewhere on my list of things that need looking at.
The Jehovah's Witnesses think the UN is going to ban religion, but I think your suggestion is more plausible.

Thank you for your comments.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
United Nations & the Occult Agenda (Pt. 1 of 10)

www.youtube.com...

The Jehova Witnesses aren't the only ones!

Here's a video for later,if you get the time!



[edit on 8-8-2010 by On the Edge]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 

Thank you for that link.
I'll look them over.
I'm sure they'll be very useful.
(notwithstanding the fact that there are 10 parts!)



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 

Thank you for that link.
I'll look them over.
I'm sure they'll be very useful.
(notwithstanding the fact that there are 10 parts!)



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Religion IS much more about hate, than it is good.

I think 100% that religion should be considered a hate crime. I think it would be most wise to have Religion banned from ALL public areas, and be limited to ones home or mind only.

And there is NO war against some "saints" going on!!
That is being read out of a fictional book from cave man writings and stories. Pay attention to Science, it makes these cave man rants look more and more silly everyday.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If Mother Teresa is included in this war on saints, then I am all for it!
She was one of the most corrupt public figures of her day, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
I think 100% that religion should be considered a hate crime. I think it would be most wise to have Religion banned from ALL public areas, and be limited to ones home or mind only.

And there is NO war against some "saints" going on!!

Relating to the second paragraph above, the OP was anticipating one in the future.

Relating to the first paragraph above, that looks like a declaration of war to me.
At least I think it proves my point, because it shows where some of the driving force of such a "war" would come from.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
If Mother Teresa is included in this war on saints, then I am all for it!
She was one of the most corrupt public figures of her day, in my opinion.


Thank you for helping me to confute the other poster, who said there would not be one.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Paranoid a just bit, eh?? My little forum posting causes you to see examples of this "saints war"??
If you wish to consider that a war, than its a "war" against foolishness from cave man mythical tall tales then, Ok?

What is it with these religious "saints" and their obsession with WARS anyways??



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy

What is it with these religious "saints" and their obsession with WARS anyways??


The war was in the text already, I didn't put it there.
My task is to interpret the text, so that's what I did.

I have plenty more threads on the Revelation theme, if you're interested.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Sorry to have to reveal this to you, but your source of reference is a fictional book that is simply a copy of predating stories from other cultures myths, tall tales, and superstitions. Therefore, that makes your book of reference to be fiction, or fake. A simple research of history reveals that this book and its tall tale of this "war on the saints" is bunk. Simply bunk.

Fictional books that breed hate should be BANNED 100%.

Thats not a "saints war" comment, its a common sense comment.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
Fictional books that breed hate should be BANNED 100%.
Thats not a "saints war" comment, its a common sense comment.


If somebody wanted to "ban" something which you wanted to keep, you would regard that as a hostile act.

keep going, the evidence for my case is building up nicely.

Have you seen my thread on the "Mark of the Beast"? You would probably enjoy that one.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I spent many years looking into it, it is old news for me. Go and count for me how many times in the "mark of the beast" stories does it say that the time is very soon, at hand, or to come in this generation (meaning current generation that it was written in)??? Go re-read and see for yourself.

The stories used greek wording that meant literally SOON it was to occur, and in no way did it mean "soon" in the fashion of MUCH into the future.

The beast was Nero Caesar, it is said and done. It now makes TOTAL sense. Nobody in the christian faith is able to agree on anything in this book and there is constant friction and debate. This all occurring in the same faith tells you that they are looking at it 100% INCORRECTLY!!

You can figure this out by taking the original greek text and find out what the original meanings of the words were about. You will then see that the scripture was shamefully, and intentionally twisted and tweaked into what is complete nonsense and nothing as what was originally intended to say.

This is your magic key to solving this "Revelation riddle".

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
I spent many years looking into it, it is old news for me.


That's OK, I've got others.
Let me see. There's one here on the "Woman in heaven" vision that might be of interest. I relate that to the atonement, so it doesn't involve future prediction at all.
The Woman in Heaven
Satan fell from heaven

[edit on 8-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I dont have to even look at it. Woman means Virgo.

Satan/Lucifer equals Venus.

Do you understand where I am coming from. If not, you have a long journey my friend.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
Do you understand where I am coming from. If not, you have a long journey my friend.


I don't have a long journey, because I have no intention of travelling to the place where you're coming from.

You believe in astrology, do you? My personal opinion is that astrology is a meaningless fiction- and therefore not relevant to this interpretation.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
Paranoid a just bit, eh?? My little forum posting causes you to see examples of this "saints war"??


What is it with these religious "saints" and their obsession with WARS anyways??


I'm mildly surprised that you don't recognise quick-witted repartee.
I thought it was quite good.

a) The "war" was in the text, not something I invented.
b) The hostility evident towards the Christian faith even in areas of ATS makes the development of further hostility only too plausible.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
What if the one world religion is no religion? reminds me of John Lennon's imagine. He said it was "virtually the communist manifesto"
it got performed for obama anyway


Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

www.lyrics007.com...


[edit on 8-8-2010 by matrixportal]





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join