a reply to:
neoholographic
Sorry it took so long to get back to you; I needed to double-check my research. You are challenging me here!
I was thinking about this also and the last Pope is supposed to be Peter the Roman. This is interesting because he may have skipped Francis
who's the beast or the false prophet.
Pope Francis cannot be the beast; the beast is a country (or seven countries, correlating to the seven heads). He could conceivably be one of the ten
horns of the beast, but I have trouble even with that. He doesn't have the power to lead outside of the Papacy, and even there he does not seem to
have the following of the Popes before him.
The false prophet prediction is interesting in that the false prophet is not mentioned prior to this passage from Revelation 16:13:
And I saw three
unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false
prophet.
Obviously the false prophet is tied to the dragon (Satan, the Devil) and the beast, but his appearance is not detailed.
I looked up the Greek word translated as "false prophet." It is
pseudoprophētēs, which is a combination of
pseudēs (a liar or
impersonator, the root from which we get the prefix "pseudo") and
prophētēs.
Prophētēs itself it a combination of two roots which
mean "one who speaks of that to come" (rough personal translation). So the false prophet would be one who lies about what is to come.
I find it interesting that that does not necessarily indicate a religious speaker, although the root words used can implicate such. It could also
indicate any charismatic figure who lies about the future, including a politician. In truth, there are, according to that, plenty of false prophets
acting today in governments around the world. Revelations indicates one single false prophet, however, and that could indicate the figure we refer to
as the "antiChrist."
There is not a single antiChrist. That is something worth pointing out. An antiChrist is one who pretends to hold the annointing of God (the Christ)
but does not. Nostradamus referenced several antiChrists, including Napoleon and Hitler. It seems to me, and this is again a personal interpretation,
that the false prophet spoken of in Revelation is simply the greatest antiChrist, who will somehow come into play after the beast.
The timing doesn't seem right to me though. Revelation 16:13 occurs during the pouring out of the seven bowls of the wrath of God, specifically
between the sixth and seventh bowls. These bowls roughly coincide with the seven trumpets of the seventh seal in Revelation 8; the effects are quite
similar in most cases and never contradictory. I tend to think the seven bowls are additional insight into the seven trumpets.
That means, since we are now somewhere between the third and fourth seal (the third, black horse is the United States and the fourth, I believe, is
China), that we are not there yet. There is the fourth seal, the pale (green) horse of sickness and plague, then the fifth seal of a waiting period
yet to come before we get into the really "juicy" parts of the prophecy John saw.
That doesn't mean the beast cannot arise before that time; since a beast represents a nation, the beast can exist for quite some time (and there is
the possibility that the beast continues to exist in the statue, the "abomination that maketh desolate" which is tied to the Mark of the Beast). The
dragon, of course, is an immortal being, Lucifer. The false prophet, however, would appear to be a man, and man has a specific lifespan. Therefore,
assuming that we are still a ways off from Revelation 16:13, I don't see how Francis can be the false prophet indicated in Revelation 16:13.
He may well be a false prophet, just not
the false prophet.
No, I tend to think of Francis as a kind of "false pope," a placeholder in the Papal seat who is irrelevant in the eyes of God (which would explain
why St. Malachy chose not to even name him)... remember that St. Malachy did indicate the possibility of one or more unspecified popes between the
"Glory of the Olive" and the second "Peter the Roman." And on that point, your information on Pietro Parolin is quite the eye opener! I can certainly
see him becoming Pope in his time, even if more unnamed Popes must follow before that time.
TheRedneck