Revelation; Seven kings and an eighth

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 

To be honest, I think life is simpler if I pay no attention to the non-Biblical prophecies.
Once we get into them, where do we stop, and how distinguish between good ones and bad ones?
So I haven't formed any views on this one.
I suppose I'm really expecting the sequence of Popes to continue on regardless, but I may not be around by the time we definitely know one way or the other.




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Fair enough. As prophecies go, I think they're quite remarkable in that we can identify the timeline and where we are today. The biblical prophecies have so many possible interpretations they just leave me scratching my head.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Maigret
The Scarlet Beast is the body/congregation while the BEAST / Eighth Head that 'was, is not and yet shall be present' is the 'resurrected' Antichrist.

These two beasts are one and the same beast. The chapter very clearly identifies them, and the distinction between them is a false distinction.

Note how in v8 the beast that "was and is not" etc is called the beast "WHICH YOU SAW", ie the one at the beginning of the chapter, the scarlet beast.
Note how, as this introduction indicates, the whole point of the passage from v7 onwards is to explain to John the meaning of the beast WHICH YOU SAW, ie the one at the beginning of the chapter, the scarlet beast.
The scarlet beast carries the woman.
The beast being described from v7 carries the woman.
They are the same beast.
The text gives you no reason to distinguish between them, especially when the second is explictly presented as the fuller explanation of the first.
As Occam said, "do not multiply entitiies".

I've already identified the main fault in your method. You're making assumptions about what ought to be happening, and stubbornly trying to impose them on the text, instead of drawing your conclusions out of the text.
Throw all these assumptions away.
READ THE TEXT.



edit on 18-11-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


You're saying that the Beast that was, is not and yet shall be present is the same as the Scarlet Beast?
You state that I am making assumptions?
You say that I should read the text?

Read Verses 10 &11 which say 'There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue for a short time. And the Beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth [of these heads/kings/hills of the Scarlet Beast], is of the seven, and is going to perdition'.
Reading this text/verse, it is clear that the Scarlet Beast and the Beast/Eighth King that was, is not and yet shall be present, are two different beasts and that the eighth head is not yet visible.
edit on 18/11/2011 by Maigret because: Edited to ensure clarification.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

I've got to rest on the identification made in ch17 v8, which is unrelenting;
"The beast which you saw [the scarlet beast] was and is not...and is to go to perdition"; the whole beast.
This is later repeated about "the eighth".

And the text does not say that the Beast which is involved in the attack on the Harlot in v16 ("they and the beast will hate the Harlot") is any other Beast than the one it has been talking about all through the chapter. It just continues saying "the Beast", the one that was mentioned previously.

The solution which I adopted in ch13, and would repeat here, is that each head, as a corporate state, is "the current manifestation of the beast for its own time" (so that the overall Beast is actually the whole sequence of states).
Then "the eighth", similarly, as a corporate body, is the current manifestation of the beast for its own time.

In the OP I drew attention to the very suggestive sequence in ancient Roman history in which the legendary seven kings of Rome were then followed by the Roman Republic- a corporate body, and effectively the eighth in the sequqnce.




edit on 18-11-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
edit on 9/12/2011 by Maigret because: Formatting correction.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



From: en.wikipedia.org...


In the 1920s, the papacy — then under Pius XI — renounced the bulk of the Papal States and the Lateran Treaty (or Concordat) with Italy was signed on February 11, 1929, creating the State of the Vatican City, forming the sovereign territory of the Holy See, which was also indemnified to some degree for loss of territory.


No other popes were sovereigns / kings of this particular sovereign state formed in 1929... only the last seven have been.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
[B]IMHO:[/B]

Pope Benedict XVI is the Olive; peacemaker and he was 'called' by Pope John Paul II on his last physical public appearance during Easter (20 April) when he lifted and Olive Branch in his bedroom window to bless the people.

PETRUS ROMANUS is reflecting on all popes; being the assigned rulers over the Church said to be established by the Apostle Peter almost 2,000 years ago. If you read the last section of Malachy agian; think in the line of 'When all of these has ruled, and during their rules faced numerious tribulations, took care of the 'sheep' - then when this passed there will be the Terrible Judge; the city of seven hills (could be in order of likelyness Rome, Jerusalem, Athens, Tehran, Istanbul) will be destroyed.

Pope Benedict XVI is in very weak physical condition. Is time running out?

I wrote an essay Here



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Just to clarify;
Nothing in the OP is intended to suggest any particular prophetic significance in the year 2012 or the date 21/12/2012



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


My response to the claims made about the year 2012 was that I could see no prophetic significance in the date.
This position seems to have been vindicated.





top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join