The Beast Revelation

[brakelite]

Your view does not seem historical in either sense of the world. You seem to think Revelation and its concerns are about what is to come. Revelation has traditionally been understood as a book meant to comfort Christians who were about to undergo a great persecution by the Roman Imperial cult. There is sort of a glimpse of the very end.

It was only in recent centuries that Revelation has been reconsidered to be talking about events happening today or in the near future, rather than talking about the events that were taking place at the time it was written.

The Roman Imperial Cult you speak of....the 'iron' kingdom of Daniel 2, and the beast with 'iron teeth' in Daniel 7, began in the second or third century BC with its replacement of the Greek Empire. This is historical fact. The Babylonian, Meda-Persian and Greek empires were named specifically by the angel interpreting the visions, it was left to sincere and Spirit-filled readers of scripture to understand that logically, historically, and scripturally Rome completed the vision. The iron of Rome continues all the way down to the toes where it is destroyed by the rock, Jesus Christ at the second coming. No break, just a continuation of 2000 odd years of history. Now as we all know pagan Rome passed on a long time ago, slowly destroying itself from the inside until the 4th or 5th centuries.

Which leaves us to use our God-given wisdom to understand how Rome continued according to the prophecy. There is only one answer. It continued, and continues to this day, in the form of the Roman catholic Church. She was the entity who received from the dragon " his power, and his seat, and great authority."Revel. 13:2
Take a quick study of the formation of the papacy. She is a continuation of the iron kingdom, Rome. She even names her leaders as pagan rome named theirs'; she sits in the same throne; she persecuted the same people; she teaches the same doctrines; her roots are embedded in the same pagan church/state philosophical leanings as her predecessor; need I continue?
Historicism is not rooted just in past fulfillments, nor is it a soothsayer foretelling the future, but rather an intelligent study and comparison of past and ongoing unfolding history with prophecy, and a prayerful and careful study of current events and a comparison with past practice knowing that leopards don't change their spots.

 

[New Legacy]

The Roman Imperial Cult you speak of....the 'iron' kingdom of Daniel 2, and the beast with 'iron teeth' in Daniel 7, began in the second or third century BC with its replacement of the Greek Empire. This is historical fact.

Actually, you are mixing historical facts with vague biblical prophetic concepts.

The Babylonian, Meda-Persian and Greek empires were named specifically by the angel interpreting the visions,

Not sure if you are referring to Daniel or Revelation. Can you provide a verse?

it was left to sincere and Spirit-filled readers of scripture to understand that logically, historically, and scripturally Rome completed the vision.

If that is true then why does everyone have a different view? Where does the bible support your view?
Also, why would John write to a Church facing horrible persecution about events that would happen thousands of year later that were of no relevance to them?

The iron of Rome continues all the way down to the toes where it is destroyed by the rock, Jesus Christ at the second coming. No break, just a continuation of 2000 odd years of history. Now as we all know pagan Rome passed on a long time ago, slowly destroying itself from the inside until the 4th or 5th centuries.

The Roman Empire ended in the 16th Century. It was the western empire that declined earlier.

Which leaves us to use our God-given wisdom to understand how Rome continued according to the prophecy. There is only one answer. It continued, and continues to this day, in the form of the Roman catholic Church. She was the entity who received from the dragon " his power, and his seat, and great authority."Revel. 13:2

The Roman Catholic Church was not a continuation of the Roman Empire, since the two had been opposed to each other for several centuries.

Take a quick study of the formation of the papacy. She is a continuation of the iron kingdom, Rome.

The Roman Empire lasted long enough to see the beginning of the Reformation.

She even names her leaders as pagan rome named theirs';

Not really - bishop, priests and deacon all refer to bible names. Perhaps you are talking about some of the titles for the Pope. Latin was the universal language of Europe and so the Church. It is not surprising that some words and concepts are similar.

she sits in the same throne;

The Pope does not use the same throne as the Roman emperor - which by the way moved to Constantinople. So your examples pertain more to the Orthodox Church.

she persecuted the same people;

Catholics persecuted Catholics?

she teaches the same doctrines;

Rome was a imperial pagan cult that persecuted Christians. Roman Catholicism is based on Christianity.

her roots are embedded in the same pagan church/state philosophical leanings as her predecessor; need I continue?

Not sure what you mean there.

Historicism is not rooted just in past fulfillments, nor is it a soothsayer foretelling the future, but rather an intelligent study and comparison of past and ongoing unfolding history with prophecy, and a prayerful and careful study of current events and a comparison with past practice knowing that leopards don't change their spots.

Which ends up being a guessing game about the EU, black helicopters, microchips and other conspiracy theories.

 

[New Legacy]

Oh and the Roman Imperial cult refers to the Roman Imperial cult. They believed that everyone in the empire needed to revere their gods and offer sacrifices - and act Christians did not do.

 

[brakelite]

Oh and the Roman Imperial cult refers to the Roman Imperial cult. They believed that everyone in the empire needed to revere their gods and offer sacrifices - and act Christians did not do.

true, Christians do not demand sacrifice and adoration of gods...but Catholicism does.
You made a number of points above. We are speaking of history here, so let me cite a number of historians, one of them being of the Roman Catholc persuasion, in support of my points regarding historicism and its prophetic implications. This is a copy of a post I offered as part of another thread a few years ago.

2 Thess 2:1 ¶ Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.....

Authors note: this bolded portion is commonly referred to as “the restrainer”, that is, he who with-holds the development, establishment, or appearing of the Antichrist. The modern understanding of these verses, particularly in the futurist paradigm, is that the restrainer is in fact the Holy Spirit. The following evidence however should dispel such thoughts, and reveal the true facts

.....7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Nearly all commentators are unanimous That the 'restariner', so called, was not named by Paul because it was too dangerous. He had already spoken in person to the Thessalonian church on the matter, so they knew who Paul was writing about...the very power that if it had read that letter, would take no little umbrage to being informed that they would soon be removed from power and another rise up in their stead. The 'restrainer' of course being pagan Rome.

Not a few of the early church fathers wrote on this subject, and all agreed that Rome was the one eluded to in Paul's letter. Let me quote one or three.

Tertullian (160-240)
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its
own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”

“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563



There is some debate as to whether the ‘falling away’ referred to here is in reference to the empire, or the church. Some say one, some the other, while some would contend that it can apply equally to both. This author contends that the falling away [spoken of by Paul in 2 Thess 2:3] is in reference to the church. The falling away transpired when she aspired to political power at the expense of spiritual, thus committing spiritual adultery. (see Revelation 17:2; James 4:4) Either way, Tertullian was certain in his belief that the restrainer was the Roman Empire. That it was Rome itself that inhibited in some way the rise of the antichrist. This was generally accepted throughout the church at that time, and it was common for the church to pray to God that He would keep the Roman power intact in order to keep the antichrist from coming to power in their time. Interesting also is Tertullian’s reference to the ten kingdoms that would result from the break up of Rome. This is a direct reference to Daniel 7 and the ten horns that would grow from the 4th beast, Rome. The Antichrist, according to Bible scholars, was the 11th horn. Tertullian was using the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, that method which viewed prophecy as an historical unfolding throughout history from the time the prophecy was first given, and culminating at the second coming. This is significant when understanding Paul’s letter, because Paul is clear that the Antichrist would appear as soon as Rome moves aside, and that very same Antichrist would still be there to be judged at the second coming. Not futurist, not preterist, but a historicist approach, just like Tertullian.)


Elsewhere, Tertullian states:

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactanctius, in the early 4th century wrote:
“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).


Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386).

But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire have been fulfilled and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; but after those, an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magic craft will seize upon the Roman power, and of the kings who reigned before him, "three he shall humble" and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself."
(Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).


Much could be said about this quote; he also is clearly linking the prophecy of Daniel to the text of Paul’s, agreeing with other eminent writers of his time that out of Rome would evolve ten kings, 3 of whom the antichrist would subdue. When the restrainer, Rome, was to be taken out of the way, and the horns of Daniel 7 arise, the antichrist would be revealed

Ambrose (died 398)
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)……

Chrysostum (died 407)
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9, ” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389
[New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1905]…..

.....and finally Jerome (died 420)
“He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”
(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome's testimony is interesting, because from his perspective, he had seen and witnessed the fall of Rome, but was yet to see the rise of Antichrist. The reason is that history had not yet revealed who the Antichrist actually was, despite the early beginnings of the church of Rome at that time. The 3 nations had yet to be vanquished: It was this event that would definitively prove the Antichrist's identity.

I think it would be a good time to quote a Catholic source, the eminent historian Cardinal Manning.


“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.
The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul. While attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfilment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming, when Paul says she will be destroyed by the “brightness of His coming”. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

 

[New Legacy]

true, Christians do not demand sacrifice and adoration of gods...but Catholicism does.

I do believe that Catholics are Christian (their actual beliefs are similar to other forms of mainstream Christianity). I would like to know on what basis you are claiming that Catholics 'demand sacrifice and adoration of gods'.

You made a number of points above. We are speaking of history here, so let me cite a number of historians, one of them being of the Roman Catholc persuasion, in support of my points regarding historicism and its prophetic implications. This is a copy of a post I offered as part of another thread a few years ago.

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.....

Authors note: this bolded portion is commonly referred to as “the restrainer”, that is, he who with-holds the development, establishment, or appearing of the Antichrist. The modern understanding of these verses, particularly in the futurist paradigm, is that the restrainer is in fact the Holy Spirit. The following evidence however should dispel such thoughts, and reveal the true facts

.....7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Nearly all commentators are unanimous That the 'restariner', so called, was not named by Paul because it was too dangerous. He had already spoken in person to the Thessalonian church on the matter, so they knew who Paul was writing about...the very power that if it had read that letter, would take no little umbrage to being informed that they would soon be removed from power and another rise up in their stead. The 'restrainer' of course being pagan Rome.

Not a few of the early church fathers wrote on this subject, and all agreed that Rome was the one eluded to in Paul's letter. Let me quote one or three.

Tertullian (160-240)
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its
own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”

“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563






Elsewhere, Tertullian states:

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactanctius, in the early 4th century wrote:
“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).


Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386).

But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire have been fulfilled and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; but after those, an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magic craft will seize upon the Roman power, and of the kings who reigned before him, "three he shall humble" and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself."


Much could be said about this quote; he also is clearly linking the prophecy of Daniel to the text of Paul’s, agreeing with other eminent writers of his time that out of Rome would evolve ten kings, 3 of whom the antichrist would subdue. When the restrainer, Rome, was to be taken out of the way, and the horns of

Ambrose (died 398)
“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”

(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)……

Chrysostum (died 407)
“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”

.....and finally Jerome (died 420)
“He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”
(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236

Jerome's testimony is interesting, because from his perspective, he had seen and witnessed the fall of Rome, but was yet to see the rise of Antichrist. The reason is that history had not yet revealed who the Antichrist actually was, despite the early beginnings of the church of Rome at that time. The 3 nations had yet to be vanquished: It was this event that would definitively prove the Antichrist's identity.

I think it would be a good time to quote a Catholic source, the eminent historian Cardinal Manning.

None of your quotes supports a futurist version. They are all referring to anti-Christs. The bible speaks of anti-Christs, plural.

Most of the people you quoted would have called themselves Catholic, by the way. Tertullian left the faith.

“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.
The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul.

None of what he says correlates with your interpretation of Daniel which you have presented here.

While attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfilment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining.

It might have helped if you read his book yourself - or at least the title. He is not talking about the rise of the Pope, he is talking about the formation of the Papal States in which the Pope had temporal power on Earth in addition to spiritual authority.

It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming, when Paul says she will be destroyed by the “brightness of His coming”. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

As I said, you are confusing the formation of the Papal states with the office of Pope itself. I would be interested in knowing all these 'non-Roman bible commentors from the time of the 6th century" that were 'almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin.

Confession was practiced in both the Latin west and the Greek east, so none of them would have had a problem with confession. The Pope also doesn't believe he is God.

Also, Arians were opposed to Catholic because they opposed what most Christians believe, which the Pope believed and still does.

 

[NoHype]

Main problem with that New Legacy is that no such final beast kingdom with ten kings (or seven) along with the final Antichrist as beast king with them appeared after the fall of the old Roman empire. Nor did Jesus return to end man's reign on this earth.

Just as Matthew 24:1-3 about the destruction of all stones of the Temple Mount complex served as a partial historical prophetic pattern for 70 A.D. Jerusalem, it still has a future fulfillment at Christ's second coming when literally, not any... stones at all will be standing there, like the present existing Wailing Wall.

So also did the fall of pagan Rome appear to fulfill the Daniel prophecy, but specific parameters given have yet to be fulfilled today. The biggest one missing is Christ's second coming and the destruction of man's works off the earth on the Day of The Lord like Apostle Peter said (2 Pet.3).

 

[HarpT]

OK. So, what do you guys think it means that according to the sequence given in Scripture those who have risen in the first resurrection are alive on earth during the thousand years that satan is locked away simultaneously with those who have not yet experienced death? Because obviously some who were not killed for remaining faithful passed through the tribulation or who would populate the earth during the millennium? And who would it be that Satan "gathered together to battle" after he got out? And it doesn't say that there were none remaining who's names were in the book of life (Rev. 20). Obviously, not only those who have risen to reign with Christ for the one thousand years are the only ones left who are in the book of life or why bother hanging around for a thousand years? Rule over what? Must be their own subjects and therefore also people of faith who know God.