another 666 theory

[Carry_Your_Name]

I think that's exactly how I see it. I see the 6th and 7th kings as one--as the Roman Empire, ancient and modern. After all, Dan 2 and 7 seemed to indicate that the 4th Kingdom, Rome, would be the last one in history this side of Christ's 2nd Coming.

And if Rome is the last Kingdom of the age, how do we square that with the fact ancient Rome seemed to end in 476 AD with the collapse of the city of Rome under the weight of barbarian migrations? The only answer AFAIK is that Rome has had not just one but two stages in its history. Just like a leg has thighs and calves, so Rome has had ancient and modern stages, ending with 10 European States, all originating out of the same Europe that ancient Rome was part of.

Antichrist is listed as an "8th" because he is an individual, or he makes modern Europe into an Antichristian entity--today it is not yet that entity.

But I agree that this "short period" is a reference to the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign. At least that is my speculation. Thanks.

The main issue about the Roman Empire is that it's not a global empire, even in its haydays it only reigned the regions around the medditerranean sea, its territory didn't even cover the entire Europe, you know, most of Northern and Eastern Europe belonged to the Germanic and Slavic tribes, let alone India, China, Huns and other indeginous people. Today's European Union is still a fractured hodgepodge, even more fractured and less hemogenous than the Soviet Union, it's neither global nor an empire. The final Antichrist empire, however, must be a global empire ruling over all nations, tongues and tribes, including the rising power of China. I don't see how the EU will fit this criteria. This euro-centric view should be ditched.

 

[miamited]

So it seems obvious, at least to me, that in Rev 17 John is given a couple of riddles that only Christians can solve, and leaves no clear and convincing evidence that he is calling Rome "the Great Harlot," although that is in fact what I think he was doing! ;)

1) Riddle #1 is that this Great Harlot has 7 hills. Answer: Rome was known to be a city with 7 hills. Since it is given in the symbolism of apocalyptic literature, the Romans could not know, for sure, what John was saying via an angel!

2) Riddle #2 is that this Great Harlot is the 6th in a series of 7 kings. Only those knowledgeable of the Bible would count the 7 kingdoms as 1) Egypt, 2) Assyria, 3) Babylon, 4) Persia, 5) Greece, 6) Rome, and 7) Modern Rome/Europe. The *8th* is the Antichrist himself. As you can see, the 6th king would be identified as Rome, in its ancient mode.

Hi RandyK

While I agree that the inference is most definitely meant to warn us of 'Rome', I don't believe it was the great Roman city which existed in John's day. Rome wasn't known by the colors of scarlet and purple. Rome long ago lost sway over the rulers of the world, and this is a prophecy. It isn't necessarily meant to be referencing something that was existing in the day that John wrote these things. No, this is a prophecy of a future event. A time when a 'woman', which is generally accepted by most theologians to mean a 'religion', wearing scarlet and purple, a pair of colors that would later come to represent a particular religion who had great, great wealth and was cause for the spilling of the blood of many of the saints. That wasn't the city of Rome in John's day.

So, based on all of that, I confidently doubt that some concern that he was going to upset the Roman apple cart would have been the reason that he defined this woman riding the Beast as he did. It's just the way that much of the Revelation speaks, because it speaks of future events for which the man writing it had no idea what he was writing about. He was seeing visions. He saw a vision of a woman riding a beast and he wrote his description of that vision to us. Not using words carefully couched to avoid upsetting some then world power. It was a vision and he wrote what he saw. I'm confident that's just how John's writing was carried out. He saw visions, dreams if you will, and in one vision he saw this woman clothed in scarlet and purple who somehow appeared to be drunk with the blood of God's saints. She had a goblet in her hand filled with all sorts of abominations. Now, I don't know how that would have looked that he would be able to tell that this goblet was full of abominations, but that's how he interpreted what he saw and I believe that by the wisdom and guiding of the Holy Spirit, that's what he was supposed to write to us.

 

[RandyK]

Hi RandyK

While I agree that the inference is most definitely meant to warn us of 'Rome', I don't believe it was the great Roman city which existed in John's day. Rome wasn't known by the colors of scarlet and purple. Rome long ago lost sway over the rulers of the world, and this is a prophecy. It isn't necessarily meant to be referencing something that was existing in the day that John wrote these things. No, this is a prophecy of a future event. A time when a 'woman', which is generally accepted by most theologians to mean a 'religion', wearing scarlet and purple, a pair of colors that would later come to represent a particular religion who had great, great wealth and was cause for the spilling of the blood of many of the saints. That wasn't the city of Rome in John's day.

So, based on all of that, I confidently doubt that some concern that he was going to upset the Roman apple cart would have been the reason that he defined this woman riding the Beast as he did. It's just the way that much of the Revelation speaks, because it speaks of future events for which the man writing it had no idea what he was writing about. He was seeing visions. He saw a vision of a woman riding a beast and he wrote his description of that vision to us. Not using words carefully couched to avoid upsetting some then world power. It was a vision and he wrote what he saw. I'm confident that's just how John's writing was carried out. He saw visions, dreams if you will, and in one vision he saw this woman clothed in scarlet and purple who somehow appeared to be drunk with the blood of God's saints. She had a goblet in her hand filled with all sorts of abominations. Now, I don't know how that would have looked that he would be able to tell that this goblet was full of abominations, but that's how he interpreted what he saw and I believe that by the wisdom and guiding of the Holy Spirit, that's what he was supposed to write to us.

I understand your view, that the "Great Harlot" would not represent the Rome of John's own day. I've already told you my view, so I need not repeat except the following, in response to your statements.

I don't think "scarlet and purple" were given in the vision specifically to "identify" the Harlot. It was indicating that she adorned herself luxuriously.

This could apply to ancient Rome with its imperial luxury as well as to an apostate Papacy. I do think that the vision identified Rome of John's day, but also projected out into the future, when Rome would take on its Antichristian flavor.

I might suggest, however, that endtimes Rome may not be a corrupted Catholicism as much as an entirely new replacement of Catholicism. The Beast burns Rome down! But I'm undecided on this question.

We know ancient Rome had a "cup" filled with the abominations of immorality and paganism. We know that Europe today, the heir of "Rome," is returning to paganism from Christianity, and in that sense is returning to a "cup of abominations."

It was ancient Rome who put to death or persecuted Christians, as the account indicates. This sounds like ancient Rome. But the vision also foresees this modern Rome as doing the same, returning to an attack on true Christianity.

We do agree that this is consists of Future Prophecy, but I also think John was focusing, as well, on the then-current reality of Rome. After all, in the book of Daniel we read that the "4th Kingdom" follows the "3rd Kingdom," which I believe was the angient Greek Empire.

It's just that in calling this city a "Great Harlot" it sounds more aligned with future Rome, when Christian Europe sells itself out to Paganism. Ancient Rome was pagan to start with and did not sell itself out to a religion it did not yet have.

Becoming a "Harlot" sounds more like an abandonment of originally sound standards to become something despicable. Rome may have been pagan and despicable to start with. But I'm not sure?

Thanks for sharing...

 

[RandyK]

The main issue about the Roman Empire is that it's not a global empire, even in its haydays it only reigned the regions around the medditerranean sea, its territory didn't even cover the entire Europe, you know, most of Northern and Eastern Europe belonged to the Germanic and Slavic tribes, let alone India, China, Huns and other indeginous people. Today's European Union is still a fractured hodgepodge, even more fractured and less hemogenous than the Soviet Union, it's neither global nor an empire. The final Antichrist empire, however, must be a global empire ruling over all nations, tongues and tribes, including the rising power of China. I don't see how the EU will fit this criteria. This euro-centric view should be ditched.

True, Rome did not have an exhaustive global reign. But it may have represented the dominant power in that part of the world, even if it didn't have absolute control over all of the encroaching barbarian tribes.

I think that Rome represents the "4th Kingdom" of Daniel 2 and 7, indicating that God had granted it power and dominion for various purposes. It is supposed to be the last reigning power on earth, with respect to God's plan for the development of His Kingdom. Eastern powers have little to do with the evolution of God's Kingdom on earth, resisting the impact of God's Kingdom on their civilizations and empires.

Europe has become the dominant representation of God's Kingdom on earth in this age. Christianity took over the imperial Roman tradition. But it is here where I think Antichrist will restore the Roman tradition to its pagan roots. Europe will return to being a pagan culture, just as Israel left her spiritual roots to return to pagan practices.

I don't think Europe, under Antichrist, will become anything more than the dominant Superpower on earth, much as the US has been. It will have dominance in technology and in military capability. It need not have direct rule over all civilizations and kingdoms--I doubt that very much.

In fact, I think Armageddon will consist of a rebellion by Eastern Kings against Antichristian dominion, ending in a nuclear world war. If great cities fall in an hour, then this speaks of a nuclear war, in my judgment. But we speculate....

 

[miamited]

Hey RandyK

I don't think "scarlet and purple" were given in the vision specifically to "identify" the Harlot. It was indicating that she adorned herself luxuriously.

Well, that would also be an understanding that we're not in agreement on. I fully believe that the cup in her hand of her abominations and the colors mentioned of her being adorned in scarlet and purple are to give us some clarity by which we might identify this woman riding the beast.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

True, Rome did not have an exhaustive global reign. But it may have represented the dominant power in that part of the world, even if it didn't have absolute control over all of the encroaching barbarian tribes.

I think that Rome represents the "4th Kingdom" of Daniel 2 and 7, indicating that God had granted it power and dominion for various purposes. It is supposed to be the last reigning power on earth, with respect to God's plan for the development of His Kingdom. Eastern powers have little to do with the evolution of God's Kingdom on earth, resisting the impact of God's Kingdom on their civilizations and empires.

Europe has become the dominant representation of God's Kingdom on earth in this age. Christianity took over the imperial Roman tradition. But it is here where I think Antichrist will restore the Roman tradition to its pagan roots. Europe will return to being a pagan culture, just as Israel left her spiritual roots to return to pagan practices.

I don't think Europe, under Antichrist, will become anything more than the dominant Superpower on earth, much as the US has been. It will have dominance in technology and in military capability. It need not have direct rule over all civilizations and kingdoms--I doubt that very much.

In fact, I think Armageddon will consist of a rebellion by Eastern Kings against Antichristian dominion, ending in a nuclear world war. If great cities fall in an hour, then this speaks of a nuclear war, in my judgment. But we speculate....

There will be ten kings, symbolized by the ten toes of the statue and ten horns of the Beast. In the bible, number ten is also a quorum that symbolizes all, everything, the entirety, so ten virgins are all the church, ten kings are all nations, no matter how many there actually are. The Beast will rull over all civilizations and nations through these ten kings. In Daniel 7, three kings will be subdued, that might be the Eastern kings rebellion you're talking about. You might have heard of the saying, "demography is destiny", meaning a nation's future is largely determined by the size and composition of its population. Russia, China, Japan are all in deep demographic trouble, their populations are rapidly aging and shrinking, their future is gloomy and their leaders know it very well, which incentivizes them to stage such rebellion before it's too late. The Ukrainian war is just the beginning, China is watching closely and calculating its next move.

 

[RandyK]

Hey RandyK

Well, that would also be an understanding that we're not in agreement on. I fully believe that the cup in her hand of her abominations and the colors mentioned of her being adorned in scarlet and purple are to give us some clarity by which we might identify this woman riding the beast.

I don't think the colors of her adornment would've made much sense to readers of the book of Revelation, in terms of identifying who the Great Harlot was. As I've said elsewhere, for me the identifying features are given in ch. 17 where we have 2 puzzles that Christians should be easily able to decode, and we also have the flat-out statement that "Mystery Babylon" is the "city that rules." I would assume that had reference to presently-ruling Rome? I don't know, however, what relation ancient Rome had to these colors, except perhaps this:

It is associated more with the legions than with Roman society in general. The color red was the color of Mars, the god of war and patron of soldiers so naturally it became the color of the legion. The color purple was considered to be a higher class of color due to the expense of purple dye. During the Republic only high ranking men of stature wore purple and during the Imperium only the Emperor was allowed to wear a purple toga. In the Byzantine Empire the direct offspring of the Basilieus who were born in the Purple Room of the Imperial Palace were called porphyrogenitos or 'born in the purple', indicating their legitimacy and likelihood for one of them to be the heir.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1419e6/why_is_the_color_red_often_associated_with_rome

 

[miamited]

I don't think the colors of her adornment would've made much sense to readers of the book of Revelation,

Hi RandyK
I'm going to assume that you're referencing the first century believers when the words were written. I honestly believe that a lot of what's written in the Revelation of Jesus Christ wasn't meant for the first century believer to understand. It speaks quite a lot of things that would be happening hundreds of years forward for which first century believers would not have had a clue. I mean, let's face it, if God's prophecies were all easily understood by the current readers of His work, then Israel would have known of the Messiah's visitation to them because Daniel wrote to them of the exact time he would be with us. Jesus even spoke of prophecies that he was fulfilling and the majority of Israel didn't understand. So, I'm not confident that just because something written in the Scriptures wouldn't have been understood by people in the day that it was written really has ever been a concern of God's prophetic works. He just tells us of things that will be, and they come to pass. Often times we don't understand the 'how' such things will happen until they actually happen.

I mean, do you think anyone in ancient Israel understood how men's eyes would rot in their head as they stood? But today, we know that with nuclear weapons a person's flesh will literally melt off of their bones from the heat of the radiation. No one in Israel when those words were written would have had a clue as to how that was going to happen. So, I'd be careful in ascribing to God's word some condition that the reader in the day that it was written would have had to understand what was written.

 

[RandyK]

Hi RandyK
I'm going to assume that you're referencing the first century believers when the words were written. I honestly believe that a lot of what's written in the Revelation of Jesus Christ wasn't meant for the first century believer to understand. It speaks quite a lot of things that would be happening hundreds of years forward for which first century believers would not have had a clue. I mean, let's face it, if God's prophecies were all easily understood by the current readers of His work, then Israel would have known of the Messiah's visitation to them because Daniel wrote to them of the exact time he would be with us. Jesus even spoke of prophecies that he was fulfilling and the majority of Israel didn't understand. So, I'm not confident that just because something written in the Scriptures wouldn't have been understood by people in the day that it was written really has ever been a concern of God's prophetic works. He just tells us of things that will be, and they come to pass. Often times we don't understand the 'how' such things will happen until they actually happen.

I mean, do you think anyone in ancient Israel understood how men's eyes would rot in their head as they stood? But today, we know that with nuclear weapons a person's flesh will literally melt off of their bones from the heat of the radiation. No one in Israel when those words were written would have had a clue as to how that was going to happen. So, I'd be careful in ascribing to God's word some condition that the reader in the day that it was written would have had to understand what was written.

It's a general rule of interpretation that when something is written to an audience that audience must be able to appreciate what the message meant, if only descriptive of something future involving as yet unknown technology. But in the case of Rome, I think the colors scarlot and purple can serve to identify Rome as the Great Harlot, or it may serve to describe what kind of entity this Great Harlot will be, in terms of materialism and pride.

As I've said, those colors were present in the Roman legions and in the imperial leadership. But those colors alone would not have identified Rome as the Great Harlot. The cryptic riddles, along with the explcit claim that it was the "ruling city," indicated that for Christians it would identify Rome as the "Great Harlot."

And as I've said, Daniel identified the "Beast" as the 4th in a series of 4, identifying Rome. And since it is the last great empire in the present age, and had 2 stages in its history, it is likely that the Revelation was focused upon both ancient and modern Rome.

I'm not strictly a Futurist in making "everything" future, such as the 70th Week of Daniel. And I'm not Preterist, although I do agree with them that there is a focus in the Olivet Discourse on the generation of Jesus' demise. These are things that you will have to decide for yourself. I've spent decades switching positions, etc. I've come to where I am now, always open to further input. I'm open to correction if the Lord wishes to make it clear to me.

We don't have to beat our differences to death. If you have more to add, by all means share.

 

[miamited]

It's a general rule of interpretation that when something is written to an audience that audience must be able to appreciate what the message meant

And so based on your understanding, why didn't Israel know that Jesus was their Messiah that Daniel had told them would be there at the end of 69 sevens? Simple question. Why? When Herod's court even told the wise men that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and the wise men went to Bethlehem, and then Herod had all the young boys in Bethlehem slaughtered, didn't Isreal know that their Messiah had been born based on the very prophecies that the king's court had said was why the wise men should go up to Bethlehem. I'm sorry, truly, but the Scriptures are replete with examples of God's own people not understanding the prophetic words written in many of the prophet's accounts.

I honestly have no idea where you came up with the idea that the present audience has always understood the prophetic writings of the prophets, but that's ludicrous for you to think that.

 

[miamited]

Hi RandyK

Like I said before, this is going to be something that you and I disagree on. I happen to know that many of God's people, throughout the ages, have not understood the things that were written to them in the time in which they were written to them. I know that! I have read the Scriptures and there are several examples that Israel didn't understand what God was telling them. Especially about future events.

Get the picture, brother. Daniel wrote in mid 500 BC that when a decree was issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem that after 69 weeks of years Messiah would be cut off. That happened exactly to the day, some have shown, of the week that Jesus died. Yet no one in Israel or of the generations from the day of Daniel's writing of that prophecy understood that in 483 years from the decree that Nehemiah got to go and restore the city of Jerusalem, that Jesus, the Messiah would be cut off. No one!!! As far as any evidence we have from the Scriptures understood that. Yet you want to believe that the people must understand what was written in their day for it to be valid understanding. Friend, I don't think so.

 

[RandyK]

And so based on your understanding, why didn't Israel know that Jesus was their Messiah that Daniel had told them would be there at the end of 69 sevens? Simple question. Why?

I think you've missed the point. A prophet would be writing "nonsense" if he didn't communicate at all to his audience. It is not, however, "nonsense" if the prophet writes down a riddle that cannot be immediately resolved.

Israel was understood to be fatally compromised at the time Messiah would come. Daniel wrote at a time when Jerusalem had yet to be rebuilt after the Captivity, and the Temple restored. But he was told that even after they were rebuilt the Messiah had yet to come, and would come at a time when Jerusalem and the Temple both were subject to destruction.

So the People of Israel were viewed as unworthy of their own Messiah at the time Messiah would come. Many of them certainly would "not" recognize him when he came, although obviously the account was written so that *some would recognize him!* It was written to temper expectations among the faithful that everything would be "rosy" immediately when Messiah arrived.

When Herod's court even told the wise men that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and the wise men went to Bethlehem, and then Herod had all the young boys in Bethlehem slaughtered, didn't Isreal know that their Messiah had been born based on the very prophecies that the king's court had said was why the wise men should go up to Bethlehem. I'm sorry, truly, but the Scriptures are replete with examples of God's own people not understanding the prophetic words written in many of the prophet's accounts.

I honestly have no idea where you came up with the idea that the present audience has always understood the prophetic writings of the prophets, but that's ludicrous for you to think that.

No, its standard interpretation. If an author writes a play, or a musician writes a musical piece, it is expected that at least *some* in the audience will appreciate it.

The book of Revelation was delivered to a 1st century audience, and it was expected that they could understand it and benefit from it, even if not all of it would be fulfilled in their time. The time of fulfillment has nothing to do with understanding what is being said, or in the sense that those hearing it could in some way immediately benefit from the truths being communicated.

 

[RandyK]

Hi RandyK

Like I said before, this is going to be something that you and I disagree on. I happen to know that many of God's people, throughout the ages, have not understood the things that were written to them in the time in which they were written to them. I know that! I have read the Scriptures and there are several examples that Israel didn't understand what God was telling them. Especially about future events.

Get the picture, brother. Daniel wrote in mid 500 BC that when a decree was issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem that after 69 weeks of years Messiah would be cut off. That happened exactly to the day, some have shown, of the week that Jesus died. Yet no one in Israel or of the generations from the day of Daniel's writing of that prophecy understood that in 483 years from the decree that Nehemiah got to go and restore the city of Jerusalem, that Jesus, the Messiah would be cut off. No one!!! As far as any evidence we have from the Scriptures understood that. Yet you want to believe that the people must understand what was written in their day for it to be valid understanding. Friend, I don't think so.

It is a common principle of communication I'm speaking of. Even more so, it is a biblical principle that when God speaks to an audience He expects them to understand it and to benefit from what is said, regardless of the fact some will not understand it or benefit from it.

Nor does it matter if what is told an audience is about the present or about the future. It is about communicating something beneficial or not. It is ludicrous to think people received information that they could not make heads or tails out of!

If we wish to understand biblical eschatology we have to understand what was told the 1st century Christians in the Scriptures. We have to understand what they understood.

Certainly there were things said about the future that they could not fully appreciate. Daniel was told that in Dan 12, that he was given just a basic outline of things, because Peter later went on to say that prophets had inquired of God about the Messiah that they foretold but did not fully understand. But certainly they understood what they were saying, even if they couldn't appreciate what the fulfillment would look like.

 

[miamited]

Hi RandyK

I think you've missed the point. A prophet would be writing "nonsense" if he didn't communicate at all to his audience. It is not, however, "nonsense" if the prophet writes down a riddle that cannot be immediately resolved.

Ok, I hear you. Now tell me why didn't Israel know that the man Jesus walking among them was their Messiah that Daniel had prophesied?