Revelation 17...???

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Acts is not an accurate historic account.

a reply to: windword


You don't believe any part of the Bible is an accurate historical account, I'll save my pearls.

a reply to: Dcopymope

No, Israel is the woman who gives birth to the man child, the whore is a different woman. There are only two. The book of Revelation is distinctly Jewish after chapter 4:1

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by Joecroft
Why is it Gods will that they the Kings (only) if you prefer, (although I still contend that Kings ultimately drag the nations and people along with them) are to give their Kingdom to the Beast…?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I did offer a response to that question, when I first brought in the "kings" point. You did not notice it, because you were still insistent on changing "they" into "we".

Well, can you highlight it, or answer it again in just one post, so that its’ clear and easy to see and understand…?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
As for God putting things into their hearts, this is the same kind of issue as God "hardening the heart of Pharaoh".
I think this is making the point that even the conscious enemies of God can do no more than he allows them to.

And if this response of yours above was your answer to it, then it only gives an example of God doing something remotely similar in the past…it doesn’t answer the question as to why…?

Unless you just mean Gods doing it just to harden their hearts….Oh - and just the hearts of the Kings ONLY…lol

Originally posted by Joecroft
When we know from the complete context, that the Beast is using the Harlot to deceive the Nations, the People, and the Kings…they are all tied together…they are all one mind as verse 13 puts it…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
But this generalisation does not include the "saints".

I wasn’t including the Saints in that statement…why do you keep accusing me of things which I’ve never even implied, you’ve been doing it since the start of this discussion…?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Revelation makes that clear. That is why the Harlot is "drunk with the blood of the saints""; that is, she colludes in the persecution of the saints described in ch13. That is the whole point of this book, the reaction of the Beast and the Harlot to the fact that the saints reject them, and the reaction of God to the reaction of the Beast and the Harlot.

Yes, but I believe it’s referring to past Saints and Martyrs for Jesus, not some future Saints…In the past most Nations had Kings but that’s not true of today…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
If you choose, you may identify with the persecuting Beast and Harlot, take their side against God, and call them "we".

How can I be going against God when the verse states that’s it actually gods will that those things should happen…???

Plus aren’t people supposed to question their Kings, Rulers, Presidents, and Prime Ministers etc…when they believe something is wrong…?

And more to the point, we haven’t even established what the Harlot is yet lol so how can you possibly say I’m identifying with it and taking its side etc…?

You’re starting to sound foolish…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
So the Beast is the political power, and the Harlot is some kind of religious
power (NOT necessarily one that is visible today).

Also, your reply above from one of your other posts, suggests that you’re not sure if the Harlot is going to appear in the future, or is already here…

So again, how can you possible state that I’m identifying with something that might not even be here yet, and when you don’t even know what it is yourself…?

You clearly haven't thought any of this through…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I choose to identify with the saints and join with them in defying your hostility.

What hostility…? lol where have I been hostile…?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
As far as I am concerned, your band of persecutors is not "we". You are only "they".

My band of persecutors…???

The people and nations that are going to get deceived (or already have been deceived IMO) by the Harlot are going along with it…partly because they don’t realize it…so they are indirectly giving up the Kingdom that they belong too as well…

On a side note - I’m seriously getting worried about your responses…


- JC

a reply to: windword

You are saying that the Gospel of John is not a eye witness account ? .....You might have to dig deep and far not realize that John was a contemporary of Jesus and the rest of the 12 ...good luck with that ..

a reply to: BO XIAN

Originally posted by BO XIAN
ISAIAH 14:26 MAKES CLEAR that the WHOLE EARTH is involved in the END TIMES festivities.

That whole chapter has interesting details of the prophetic aspects of the END TIMES that Revelation is also all about.

So God is going to “take out” the Assyrians in the End Times…?

In Isaiah 13:26 I don’t think the translation of
Strong's H776 can definitively be translated as the word “world”…It could just as easily be translated as Land, Nation, Territory, Region, Ground,…etc...

It seems to me like the prophecy's in Isaiah 13:26 are all connected with the time period they’re written in. They are directed towards things and characters (such as the King of Babylon) that existed in that past.

To suddenly throw in a prophecy about the whole world, in some much distant future, 2000 years plus later or more, seems a little out of place with the overall feel of the chapter…IMO


- JC

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

You are saying that the Gospel of John is not a eye witness account ? .....You might have to dig deep and far not realize that John was a contemporary of Jesus and the rest of the 12 ...good luck with that ..

Im pretty sure she was saying said books are copies... There are no originals so we don't actually know IF said people are witnesses or not... The gospels are accounts, but they are accounts "according to" the named author...

Which does not necessarily mean they are accounts OF that person

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by Joecroft
How and in what way are you linking the 2 mysteries together…?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
From what I gather, the only times the word "mystery" is used in the entire bible is outlined HERE. If you take a look at the results of the word "mystery" it is used only in Paul's epistles, Revelation, and Daniel, and as we know Revelation mirrors Daniel in many aspects.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Paul is the only author other than Daniel/Revelation that uses the word "mystery" to describe his teachings.

There is one other reference to a mystery in Mark 4:11 and the context of that passage is that Jesus talks in parables to hide information from certain people, so a mystery is something that is meant to hide information from people. Paul's doctrine, that of a sacrificial Jesus, is a mystery that hides truth from people in my opinion. His doctrine, the church/whore, is the mystery on her forehead.

I think a lot depends on how you view and see the word mystery…in other words what is the mystery? is it negative or positive…It’s negative if people keep it hidden, but it’s positive when people are teaching it openly…but then again, it all depends on what you think the mystery is…

For me this verse below is talking about the “Real Truth”…

Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

How many sermons do you see preaching that one!


In regards to Mark 4:11…I think there’s 2 good reasons why Jesus is teaching in secret. (1) The tptb at the time would have seen such teachings as threatening their rule, and power. And I personally think they (the higher up Pharisees) new the secrets but kept them hidden, so would have accused anyone teaching them as being blasphemous.

And (2) Jesus realised that people had to search for God, and parables are great way to bring in those who are seeking, because they begin to genuinely search and go within, and seek Gods truth etc…

So is Jesus teaching a mystery; in some ways he is, but it’s done in a righteous way, and not the false way…


Looks like the Nag Hammadi text has it correct regarding the mystery…

From Allogenes
"Since your instruction has become complete, and you have known the Good that is within you, hear concerning the Triple-Powered One those things that you will guard in great silence and great mystery, because they are not spoken to anyone except those who
are worthy, those who are able to hear: nor is it fitting to speak to an uninstructed generation concerning the Universal One that is higher than perfect.

It’s pretty clear what mystery this verse above is talking about…

The Second apocalypse of James
'My God and my father, who saved me from this dead hope, who made me alive through a mystery of what he wills,

Again similar language and the word mystery used…the phrase “made him alive” makes its pretty clear again…

The Gospel of Philip
If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian," he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back,
but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded. This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery.

This is the best verse; it clearly states that the mystery is tied in with receiving the Holy Spirit, which is higher and more important than the name Christian…

You’ve probably seen those verses before but it’s worth the refresh…


Anyway forget that, take a look at this!!!

I've highlighted the Key Parts…


The Apocalypse of Peter
"But others shall change from evil words and misleading mysteries. Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the truth is theirs alone.

And when I said these things, the Saviour said, "I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge."

"For many will accept our teaching in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment, i.e., the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration.

And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law."



What’s your thoughts on that!!!…???

I’m guessing you’ve seen all that before…?


- JC

a reply to: Akragon

A story has to begin at some point with someone and it seems to have started with the new testament writers .Call them copies of copies of copies but aside from normal errors we can assume that the NT writers and the ones that copied them is very close to the originals witnesses.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

that is true... but the problem is exactly what you just stated...

Until the time that something turns up that we don't have yet... or the Vatican releases some unknown writing from the first century

(which will never happen because IF they're hiding something it will likely completely alter Christianity)

All we can do is Assume...

a reply to: Akragon

And what makes you think that the RCC has anything to do with the original message going forth to the rest of the world ? .....They (the RCC) may be good at what they do but they had little to do with the 1st century spreading of the Gospels and had to copy them themselves .Oh and also create a fictitious link to Peter even at the cost of claiming to be the whore that rides the beast LOL

a reply to: Joecroft

Sounds like the church(s) of Christianity today...

originally posted by: Joecroft
And if this response of yours above was your answer to it, then it only gives an example of God doing something remotely similar in the past…it doesn’t answer the question as to why…?

It is as much an answer as anyone knows how to give. I have never pretended to know all God's secrets. The "hardening of Pharoah's heart" is a famous conundrum.

I wasn’t including the Saints in that statement

You were including everybody in that statement as long as you referred to the people involved as "we".
If the saints are not included, then none of them can regard those mentioned in that verse as "we". In that case the word "we" is invalid, as far as the saints are concerned.

Yes, but I believe it’s referring to past Saints and Martyrs for Jesus, not some future Saints…In the past most Nations had Kings but that’s not true of today…

It is quite clear from ch13 and ch17 that the Beast and the Harlot are working together in the persecution of "saints" who are living at the time. That is the whole point of the book. It is a manual of encouragement, giving those saints reason to be patient and faithful under the state of persecution.

And more to the point, we haven’t even established what the Harlot is yet lol so how can you possibly say I’m identifying with it and taking its side etc…?

You identify with it by the act of calling it "we". That is what the word "we" means, grammatically speaking; "I am part of this group I am describing". If you did not identify with them, you could stick with "they", which is the word found in the text.

So again, how can you possible state that I’m identifying with something that might not even be here yet, and when you don’t even know what it is yourself…?

I repeat, you identify with them by the act of calling them "we".
I don't identify with them, so I am happy to continue using "they".

You clearly haven't thought any of this through…

This question is arising because you wanted to make the dramatic statement that WE are supposed to give OUR kingdom to the Beast, and YOU are the one who hasn't thought through the implications of that.

What hostility…? lol where have I been hostile…?

The Beast and the Harlot are hostile, and you identify with them by calling them "we".
If you don't regard yourself as part of this group, then stop calling them "we". It's very simple.

My band of persecutors…???

The Beast and the Harlot are persecutors, and you self-identify with them by calling them "we".
So do you want to be part of that group or not?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

You are saying that the Gospel of John is not a eye witness account ? .....You might have to dig deep and far not realize that John was a contemporary of Jesus and the rest of the 12 ...good luck with that ..

None of the gospels were written by their name sakes. INFO and MORE

However, as long as you you've brought up The Gospel of John....
Case in Point: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The above scripture is PROOF that there was a schism among the "church" as to whether or not Jesus was [the] "Christ" and if "The Christ" would/could ever appear in the flesh on Earth, during the complication of the gospels.

a reply to: windword

The schism's came quickly and well before John wrote his Gospel .Paul and in the book of Acts you see divisions entering the early Church .They are addressed and left as a witness to that effect .That is what happens when the truth is told .Then comes the lies ....

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The schism's came quickly and well before John wrote his Gospel

The entire era was riddled with schisms within the Jewish community. There is no indication that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. It is/was an anonymous work, as the links I have provided show, that was later assigned to John.

Paul and in the book of Acts you see divisions entering the early Church

The book of Act shows that Paul's concepts were not readily accepted by the various early Judaeo/Christian/Pagan movements. The book itself is not a reliable historic source.

a reply to: windword

So you have counter sources to the NT books that can be dated to the time of the originals that have a variant message to what the NT books propose ? this I have to see :>)

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You were including everybody in that statement as long as you referred to the people involved as "we".

If the saints are not included, then none of them can regard those mentioned in that verse as "we". In that case the word "we" is invalid, as far as the saints are concerned.

Can you please move away from this whole “we” thing, it’s not getting us anywhere…

You see, I didn’t infer/include the saints because one would presume that the Saints are following a righteous path i.e. following the real truth and not participating in the Beast agenda…

For example, I can state the whole world is being deceived whilst not inclusively involving my own group with the ones being deceived…if that make s sense…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You identify with it by the act of calling it "we". That is what the word "we" means, grammatically speaking; "I am part of this group I am describing". If you did not identify with them, you could stick with "they", which is the word found in the text.

So let me ask you a simple question, just to help clarify things here…

If Revelation 17:17 where it says “their Kingdom” who’s Kingdom is it referring too…?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I repeat, you identify with them by the act of calling them "we".
I don't identify with them, so I am happy to continue using "they".

For the record I don’t identify with the Beast…and you’re not understanding what I meant by “we”, although I have tried to explain it several times…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
The Beast and the Harlot are hostile, and you identify with them by calling them "we".

The Beast and the Harlot are persecutors, and you self-identify with them by calling them "we".

But that’s crazy talk…clearly you can see that I don’t identify with Beast…if your concluding that from just the word “we” without trying to understand my perspective, then you’re just not thinking straight…

Originally posted by DISRAELI
So do you want to be part of that group or not?

God is stating that he wills, that the Kings are to give their Kingdom unto the Beast…

I clearly reject the Beast and his agenda…So which group are you asking me to be a part off…?


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

If Revelation 17:17 where it says “their Kingdom” who’s Kingdom is it referring too…?

Try thinking about the other 3 beasts of Daniel that is on earth at the end times and that they may be the kingdoms that give it to the little horn beast kingdom . Its the little horn kingdom that gets destroyed and the other 3 are allowed to carry on for a short time .

originally posted by: Joecroft
Can you please move away from this whole “we” thing, it’s not getting us anywhere…

As long as your primary question is being phrased as "Why does God want US to give up OUR kingdom", then we CANNOT get away from it.
Are you prepared to substitute "Why does God want THEM to give up THEIR kingdom"? That's all it takes.

So let me ask you a simple question, just to help clarify things here…
If Revelation 17:17 where it says “their Kingdom” who’s Kingdom is it referring too…?

I have answered that question before. v17 is the second half of the sentence which begins in v16, and it is talking about the "ten kings", the subordinate rulers of the world. This is the continuing subordination which is what gives the Beast his dominance over the world.

nd you’re not understanding what I meant by “we”, although I have tried to explain it several times…

I certainly don't understand why you should be so stubbornly insistent on using the word, when the text says "they".

f your concluding that from just the word “we” without trying to understand my perspective, then you’re just not thinking straight…

What, exactly, gets lost from your argument if you use "they" instead? Why is the word "we" so desperately important to you that you cling onto it with a grip like Jeremy Corbyn?

I clearly reject the Beast and his agenda…So which group are you asking me to be a part off…?

If you don't think of yourself as part of them why are you so stubbornly insistent on calling them ""we"?