It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
this is the simple word of God showing us that the beast is a man who comes out of the bottomless pit to become the eighth king, yet is one of the former seven kings. He was alive before AD 96 ,was dead in AD 96 , and shall ascend OUT OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT to become the eighth king.
Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
You or durwood have yet to answer how a MAN can come out of the bottomless pit. If a man cannot come forth out of the bottomless pit your whole assumption is a error.
I challenge you and durwood to provide "ONE" scripture "ANYWHERE" in the bible that states that "MEN" are in the bottomless pit.
I have posted scripture that state that men are confined to "HELL"
Where are your Scriptures ?
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Well I agree with Durwood here, for the most part, but not that the beast is Nero himself. To understand what Durwood is getting at, it is necessary to understand what the situation at the time was, and more specifically the Roman Caesars and their successor planning. However I start with Julius as the first and not Augustus. That actually leaves Nero as the sixth. Whether the number is actually, 666, 616 or 656 is irrelevant as it is obvious that the author(s) of Revelations engaged in heavy editing until they were satisfied with the document they wanted.
Beginning with Julius, succession to the praetorship was based on familial ties, so much so that where sons were not available, sons were adopted by marrying within the Julio-Claudio families. Even nephews and stepsons were adopted for this purpose. The line did manage to continue through these methods, but was briefly interrupted by a commoner. Galba #7.
"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is (Nero) and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."
"And the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth- Nymphidius AD68-69, and is of the seven (Caesars), and goeth into perdition.
The Beast therefore is not Nero, or any particular Caesar, It was the Caesarian line from Julius' heritage. Galba was not related in any way, which explains the return of Caesar's bloodline, Nymphidius, as being of the seven.
Perdition-They all were deeply involved in assassinations in order to further the bloodline control, and with the exception of Augustus and Tiberius, all of them were murdered.
The ten horns relate to the Pro-Consuls and Praetors of the Roman empire. "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."
Of note, Caligula reign is one of the most disturbing of that era, and lasted between 42 and 46 months.
FACT 1 - THE ANGEL SAID THE BEAST IS THE NUMBER OF A MAN REV 13:18
Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
FACT 1 - THE ANGEL SAID THE BEAST IS THE NUMBER OF A MAN REV 13:18
This is exactly what I am talking about, you twist the scripture to suit your means. this is what that verse says:
Re 13:18 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.
It does not say "the Beast is the Number of a Man" It says The "NUMBER OF THE BEAST IS THE NUMBER OF A MAN" And the "MANS" Number is 666
Get your facts correct.
You still avoid answering the question of how a Man ascend from the bottomless pit.
As the scripture clearly shows, HELL is the abode of MEN, where does it asy anywhere in the bible that men are in the bottomless pit.
This is the end of this detour, either post your scriptures or quit. Rev 17 does not state that a man will come out of the bottomless pit, it says the Beast will.
It is you that is trying to make it say what it does not say. It says "The Beast" not "The Man" or "Nero" will ascend out of the bottomless pit
[edit on 13-11-2004 by Lastday Prophet]
And your personal interpretation is better than mine is it? Why is that exactly? Such disdain in your posts suggests you have been confronted with a truth you do not wish to know. That is exactly why the truth behind the Bible, the secrets contained within, the libraries of the Hebrew and Christian elite are hidden. The vast majority would not know how to handle this. The moral compass would be broken. Man would revert to being barbaric. Order would become chaos.
Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Again, Your personal interpretation.
Unless you expect to find a red dragon in the end times, or a beast, or either of them wearing crowns or horns, then they are metaphors. But my interest is piqued. is that exactly what you expect to see? Do tell. I really wish to know.
You can use the bible when it states your assumptions, but when you are challenged you have no answers, it is a "Metaphor"
That is what metaphors are about. Per the OED; An application of a word or a phrase to something that it does not apply to literally. Now I have given you a reasoned analysis of this beast and "666" not just because I pulled something out of the air, but because I have not relied on the Bible as my sole historical context for those times. I know you have though. Despite that, your only rebuttal is to call into question my deciphering of the metaphors by invoking rudimentary dismissal without providing your own reasoned hypothesis as to why you think I am incorrect. And that is supposed to convince me that your shallow interpretation is correct? Provide some substance please.
So that means your interpetation of Nero being the Beast could be a Metaphor also .
Well that dismissal convinces me. And your interpretation is backed by whom? The unknowns who are presumed to have written Revelation? Do you have affidavits? A video? Anything? Even a reasonable assessment of the book itself, save for; and some guy by the name of John, who is published in the Bible says so?
What a bunch of garbage, all you have is your misguided interpretation, no scriptual proof whatsoever.
Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. How is that?
I have not seen "ONE" verse anywhere that confirms your assumptions, what a joke. you guy's have "NO" " NONE" " ZERO " "ZEELCH" proof.
I take no issue with your order, I merely place Julius at the top, above Augustus. The issue here boils down to whether Julius did in fact exist. To determine that, one needs to look at how history represents Octavius( Augustus). Plus, we already know that Cleopatra and Antony have a historical basis. To dismiss Julius, is to dismiss Augustus and Caligula.
Originally posted by DurwoodYou seem to be wrong on the five kings as almost every place I have seen puts them in order i have them.
That may be so, however, I prefer to draw my own conclusions based upon what I know and not what other interpretations are. For example, I have no use of the early chuch, or any church, as that removes me from being an independent thinker, and especially since I have come to determine the early church did set out to rewrite history. In addition, the unearthed manuscripts, when balanced against the knowledge of the various religious councils and their heavy leaning by any one set of theological doctrines to suppress or promote information to their favour, solidifies my scepticism. were I to lean in favour of one side, I would view the information with biased eyes.
Also where it talks about the ten horns being ten kings it is talking about 10 nations under nero is the tribulation. they give their authority to him. And do a thorough seach of nero and you will see that the early church taught he would come back as the antichrist. He is as far as i know the only king who was considered to be the antichrist.
As opposed to what previous royal blood? The historical references for the Caesars are documeted a spertains to their obsession with bloodline.
Evidently Julious ceasar is not recognized because he was not of royal blood.
Website about the kings
www.friesian.com...
Once more I have no issue with your rule, only with who was the first ruler.
Another website about the kings
www.britannia.com...
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I take no issue with your order, I merely place Julius at the top, above Augustus. The issue here boils down to whether Julius did in fact exist. To determine that, one needs to look at how history represents Octavius( Augustus). Plus, we already know that Cleopatra and Antony have a historical basis. To dismiss Julius, is to dismiss Augustus and Caligula.
Originally posted by DurwoodYou seem to be wrong on the five kings as almost every place I have seen puts them in order i have them.
Almost all that i have read lists nero as fifth just like i showed you. I knew julius was before them. But, evidently when you talk about roman emperors then this is the time frame they give you. I have seen where Julius was not recongnized because of his bloodline. You can take it for what it's worth. There were four kings in the year after nero , but the bible doesn't recognize them and only says one will last a short time. Since the bible doesn't list it's qualifications of who it recognizes then i will have to only speculate. I will leave it at that.
That may be so, however, I prefer to draw my own conclusions based upon what I know and not what other interpretations are. For example, I have no use of the early chuch, or any church, as that removes me from being an independent thinker, and especially since I have come to determine the early church did set out to rewrite history. In addition, the unearthed manuscripts, when balanced against the knowledge of the various religious councils and their heavy leaning by any one set of theological doctrines to suppress or promote information to their favour, solidifies my scepticism. were I to lean in favour of one side, I would view the information with biased eyes.
Also where it talks about the ten horns being ten kings it is talking about 10 nations under nero is the tribulation. they give their authority to him. And do a thorough seach of nero and you will see that the early church taught he would come back as the antichrist. He is as far as i know the only king who was considered to be the antichrist.
The ten horns isn't my interpetation, it is what the Angel told John
Rev. 17:12
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Daniel 7:24
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
As opposed to what previous royal blood? The historical references for the Caesars are documeted a spertains to their obsession with bloodline.
Evidently Julious ceasar is not recognized because he was not of royal blood.
Website about the kings
www.friesian.com...
Once more I have no issue with your rule, only with who was the first ruler.
Another website about the kings
www.britannia.com...