Who Was The Beast Of The Book Of Revelation?

[norwegen]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

 

[irosie91]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[norwegen]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

 

[irosie91]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaic
scroptures

 

[norwegen]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaic
scroptures

And oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."

 

[irosie91]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaic
scroptures

And oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."

you got your scoptures all wrong

 

[norwegen]

fascinating------who is the whore of babylon?

Jerusalem

how do you come to that conclusion?

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

you are really confused-----none of the imagery you present EXISTS in hebrew and aramaic
scroptures

And oddly enough, I referenced some of these "scroptures."

you got your scoptures all wrong

Well, that's a well-thought out counterpoint; I'll keep it under consideration.

 

[JAG]

In light of Revelation's significance to its first-century
audience, the Beast must be someone relevant to
that first-century audience.

Love ya JAG, but you misunderstand prophecy. It can be what will take place 2 days from now or 2,000 years from now. It is relevant to the time, not the people. That we humans just now have the ability to wipe out life on earth is totally irrelevant to the dead of the first century.
There have been a bunch of bad humans, but none so far fit the description of the beast laid out in end time prophecy. For one, he will be loved the world over. Nero wasn't even loved at home. Nero produced no peace treaty with Israel. Nor did he suffer a mortal head wound to the head or neck and survive. He had no weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he responsible for Christ returning to stop the destruction.
Wiping life off the earth is a prophesy that could only be fulfilled and relevant to us.

"Love ya JAG"__The Irish Ram
Back to ya.
God Bless.
JAG


``

 

[Esdraelon]

Conclusion: The Beast of Revelation was the beastly
Nero Caesar of the 1st Century.

Okay... what's your plan "B"?

 

[onefour1]

The non-preterist view of the beast is summed up fairly accurately in the following link:

The Beast

I tend to agree with the idea of the Roman Catholic Church as being the first beast of Revelation 13 and that they will be a major part of the 2nd Beast of Revelation 13. The beast is to be a one time political power that was, but lost its political power at some point, but later regained its political power. Thus the saying, "the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". The Catholic church held political power up until the late 18th century. For awhile it was without political power, but later was able to claim Vatican City as a nation state. We are yet to see if it will regain the powers it once held at first.

I do however enjoy the view of the last beast being a combination of Islam and the Catholic Church.

 

[surada]

The non-preterist view of the beast is summed up fairly accurately in the following link:

The Beast

I tend to agree with the idea of the Roman Catholic Church as being the first beast of Revelation 13 and that they will be a major part of the 2nd Beast of Revelation 13. The beast is to be a one time political power that was, but lost its political power at some point, but later regained its political power. Thus the saying, "the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". The Catholic church held political power up until the late 18th century. For awhile it was without political power, but later was able to claim Vatican City as a nation state. We are yet to see if it will regain the powers it once held at first.

I do however enjoy the view of the last beast being a combination of Islam and the Catholic Church.

Rev is talking about Nero or probably Domitian. Nero died of assisted suicide and the fear was that he would return.. He did sort of in the person of Emperor Domitian.

Remember ..the Mark of the Beast?

The Catholic Church didn't exist yet..

 

[onefour1]

Rev is talking about Nero or probably Domitian. Nero died of assisted suicide and the fear was that he would return.. He did sort of in the person of Emperor Domitian.

Remember ..the Mark of the Beast?

The Catholic Church didn't exist yet..

The fourth beast of Daniel and the first beast of Revelation 13 was the Roman Empire and the Catholics were a continuation of that very beast. You simply need to put the word "Holy" before Roman Empire.

The mark of the beast doesn't arise until the second beast of Revelation 13 arises and forces many to worship the first beast again. The second beast of Revelation 13 is prophesied after the first beast had lost its power. It is through the second beast that the first beast makes his second appearance. He is the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 13:11-18
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

 

[surada]

Love ya JAG, but you misunderstand prophecy. It can be what will take place 2 days from now or 2,000 years from now. It is relevant to the time, not the people. That we humans just now have the ability to wipe out life on earth is totally irrelevant to the dead of the first century.
There have been a bunch of bad humans, but none so far fit the description of the beast laid out in end time prophecy. For one, he will be loved the world over. Nero wasn't even loved at home. Nero produced no peace treaty with Israel. Nor did he suffer a mortal head wound to the head or neck and survive. He had no weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he responsible for Christ returning to stop the destruction.
Wiping life off the earth is a prophesy that could only be fulfilled and relevant to us.

Nope.. That's the Scofield heresy.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, that's Revelation...

 

[surada]

No, that's Revelation...

Most prophecy was written after the fact... and most of Revelation took place in the first century. Israel was surrounded by foreign armies in 70 AD.

 

[irosie91]

Most prophecy was written after the fact... and most of Revelation took place in the first century. Israel was surrounded by foreign armies in 70 AD.

the problem is the WORD "prophecy" The hebrew word (approx.) NAVI does not
allude to a magician who sees into the future-----it is a person who is considered to
have some level of communication with g-d and SAYS or WRITES stuff consistent with
that communication

 

[irosie91]

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

- you are thinking of the age of the crusades........even the crusader sluts liked to
ride their horses naked thru the holy city. It is true that the city of Jerusalem,
in its history was BESIEGED by filth. The priests and levites wore purple and
scarlet? I like both colors----BUT my relatives long ago used the colors you
describe VERY SPARINGLY (ie purple and scarlet) ----only as reinforcing
threads in a decorative manner. Blue and white was the favored fashion

 

[surada]

Whereas Christ was the true vine (Jn 15:1), Jerusalem was a useless vine (Ez 15). Through Christ, the branches remain faithful to God in the abiding holy city. Harlotry, on the other hand, characterized the ancient idolatrous city.

Rome was never called Babylon. The Imperial City, in fact, never even appeared on ancient Israel’s radar until the New Testament era. That city is never mentioned in the Old Testament. She was never the city in union with God; she was never in a position to betray Him and thus earn the name harlot.

The great Babylon was metaphorically called Sodom; it was where the Lord was crucified (Rv 11:8). The only city in the Bible other than historical Sodom itself that was ever called Sodom is Jerusalem (Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ez 16:44-48). The righteous Israelites would not have known if Rome had a history of drunkenness and sexual immorality. They would have seen this trait in Jerusalem, though. Prone to idolatry, Jerusalem had become an unfaithful city, and Isaiah laments its descent into adultery (Is 1:21), as do Ezekiel (Chapter 16) and the whole host of righteous prophets. The ancient city (the holy people under the Old Covenant) was once wed to the Father (Jer 31:32), but over and over again she proved herself an adulterous bride who broke covenants and engaged in debauchery.

Witch hunts and persecutions emanated from Jerusalem, the symbolic Babylon where the Lord was crucified. Stephen and Paul were only two of the Christians whom the Jews persecuted in this city and her tributaries throughout Judea. The adulterous city consumed the entire land of milk and honey. On this beast Jerusalem, once a mighty and seductive center of commerce adorned with purple and scarlet, the colors of priestly garments, sat a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints.” On Jerusalem sat a spirit of harlotry and bloodlust.

Jerusalem is scolded over and over again for whoring after false gods.

Rome wasn't even on their radar.

 

[surada]

- you are thinking of the age of the crusades........even the crusader sluts liked to
ride their horses naked thru the holy city. It is true that the city of Jerusalem,
in its history was BESIEGED by filth. The priests and levites wore purple and
scarlet? I like both colors----BUT my relatives long ago used the colors you
describe VERY SPARINGLY (ie purple and scarlet) ----only as reinforcing
threads in a decorative manner. Blue and white was the favored fashion

Nope. The Crusades came a thousand years later.

 

[surada]

the problem is the WORD "prophecy" The hebrew word (approx.) NAVI does not
allude to a magician who sees into the future-----it is a person who is considered to
have some level of communication with g-d and SAYS or WRITES stuff consistent with
that communication

Clearly they were observant and insightful with regard to the political winds, but most prophecy was after the fact, and the text was redacted to show that.