[b]The Beast Revelation [/b] This letter is dedicated to all Christians. [i]The following letter is a summary of Revelation 13. Its purpose is to show the method used in finding the conclusions which have been stated. Nothing new has been added from my previous letters. It is more of a compilation of them all. This writing is the same material in different words. The Bible uses this same method of explanation. There are four Gospels. In each you see a different view of the same material. This can be beneficial because the meaning becomes more exact. Although, if this is a first time reader, then this will all be news to you. With that in mind, here we go.[/i] The first thing that should be addressed when doing any study of Bible prophecy is what questions do I intend to answer. Some of these questions can seem a little simplistic, but their answers are much more complicated. In my studies there were only a few questions that I saw as needing an answer. My questions were very simple. First, who is this individual who is identified by the number 666? Second, who is the false prophet and how does he make the whole world worship the beast whose number is 666. Another question has to do with these same individuals. Could these two individuals be the same person, or for that matter Satan himself? Where is Satan during all this? That last question is very important. It actually goes straight to the answer of all the questions. Finally, when would someone expect to see these individuals on the Earth? Literally, what time frame should I see them? Those are the questions. The answers are much more involved. This narrative will attempt to show how the answers are figured out. These answers can be seen from events that happen in the nightly news. This leads me to a key, which most of us know, but most of us forget. The Bible is a history book. Some events have happened, while some are waiting to happen. It is the ones that have not happened that we are most concerned with. Here is another key. By the way, these keys I speak of are keys to understanding. The Lord spoke in parables. The reason he gave was that it was for some to know the mysteries of God, while it was for some to know not. In hearing, they do not hear. In seeing, they do not see. I compare it to telling the truth, while hiding it at the same time. Many of the parables that the Lord spoke he immediately gave an answer to. He showed how he used certain symbols and words to describe subjects and then gave their meanings. Now for the punch line. The Lord also spoke in parables that he did not identify. These parables go straight to the hidden meaning of these end times. Another key is word substitution. An example of this is a pretty well-known item from Revelation. This word substitution deals with Revelation 13:1. The beast has seven heads and ten horns. In Revelation 17 those heads and horns are defined. The heads are identified as mountains, while the horns are identified as kings. This changes the whole picture of what the beast is symbolically to what it is literally. Now Rev.13:1 can be read as follows with just the items discussed thus far. And I saw a beast rise up out of the sea having seven mountains and ten kings. That is a simple and easy word substitution. Know that this will happen many times throughout the Bible. Now, getting back to the questions. The question is, where is Satan? If this question can be answered, you will have eliminated some others. Some prophecy teachers believe that Satan is the beast, or that Satan is the false prophet, which is misleading and puts a stumbling block square in the road to a proper interpretation. I almost always get this question. How can you know who the beast is when he cannot be revealed? 2nd Thess. Chapter 2 states that he cannot be revealed, until something is removed first. Most scholars have this part right. That is a picture of the Rapture. What they have wrong is that Satan and the beast are not the same individual. Satan cannot be revealed until after the rapture, but he is not the beast. Therefore, I can identify the beast and his false prophet. People say prove it. So I did. I told them how to understand using the keys that I have mentioned. Revelation 13 is a parable, but God is not giving the definition, or the explanation. This one is for us to figure out. Ok, so where is Satan? In the book of Job, we get a view of Satan's abilities. In one scene, he is discussing with God about Job. Question, where is God? He is in heaven. Also, in his conversation with God Satan is talking as if he knows and has seen Job. God declares that he can do whatever he wants to Job, but he was not allowed to kill him. Now we know something else about Satan. He also has access to the Earth, and can affect peoples lives. So, it appears that Satan can be everywhere he wants to be, on Earth or in heaven. We know Satan and his angels will be cast out of heaven as per Revelation 12. This would further the idea that he is now in heaven. We also see Satan one other time, when he tempted Christ during his time on Earth. It says that he was taken to the wilderness to be tempted of Satan? Most people, and rightly so, have thought the wilderness to be a place on Earth, but this is a parable I believe. The Lord was in the wilderness and was tempted by Satan, but the wilderness is in heaven. This parable is read in Isaiah 35. It is the wilderness and the solitary place where the redeemed of the Lord walk. So, this last item being the most hard to prove, suffice it to say, that when Rev.12 says Satan will be cast out, he must be there in heaven to be cast out. Alright, now we can answer a couple questions. One, Satan is himself, and he is in heaven. Therefore, he is not the beast or the false prophet. These three work together, but each has his own identity. Now to dissect Revelation 13. As I have already stated, Revelation 13 is a word substitution parable. The seven heads are seven mountains and the ten horns are ten kings. Ok, we know from this description that the beast as described is a group of possibly ten countries. This brings me to another point. There are three definitions for the beast in Revelation 13. The first is a group of countries rising up out of the sea. The second is in Rev.13:11 and is a beast with two horns (kings). Remember horns are kings as per Rev. 17. Finally, there is a beast who is identified by the number 666. It is this last beast that causes all to recieve a mark and that no man can buy and sell save he who has the mark, his number, or his name. There are three items here. Nowhere does it say that the mark is the number 666. This might have been a good guess 20 yrs. ago , but it is pretty hard to believe. Imagine people running around with a mark of 666 on their right hands. It sounds like a cartoon, but this is what the prophecy teachers want you to believe. Ok, another problem that sounds like a cartoon is the interpretation of the word "all." They want you to believe that no man could buy or sell if they did not worship the beast and take his mark. Interpreting the word "all" to mean everyone in the world. This is not the case. For one, we know that the beast is made up of only possibly ten countries. Everyone in this world lives in roughly 190 countries. I don't think we could possibly mean everyone. How about, all of those people concerned with the mark. Also, how do you cause all people concerned to receive a mark, and why? The most obvious way to mark everyone is at the voting booth. All people, rich and poor, small and great, or free and bond are potential voters. So, Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, and in the process all voters received an indelible ink mark on their right hands. This mark was to prevent double voting and corruption in the election. Ok, we have a mark. It is not 666. At this point he fits the part, but not completely. Still, there is no ready identification of 666 concerning him. This election was in January 2005. Back to Rev.13. We have seven mountains and ten kings. Prophecy teachers want us to believe that a city with seven mountains is the seat of the antichrist and he rules with ten nations. Their logical conclusion was the Europe Union and the Vatican. This started the revived Roman empire theory. This theory has been around since the reformation. It is hard to believe this charade has gone on so long. Teachers are still preaching the Revived Roman Empire. This theory had some validity before the twentieth century and now has to be eliminated. None of these teachers could have predicted the fall of the Ottoman Empire and its division into so many separate sovereign nations. Back to our word substitution. There is an interesting item here concerning the word mountains in scripture. The word mountains can have two meanings. It can be either a mountain range, or a nation. This is the hardest part of this whole exercise, trying to figure out what mountains are describing. Teachers will have you believe it is a city with seven mountains. In actual fact, mountains here are referring to nations. This also pertains to the head wound. The wound was not a literal head wound at all, but was a nation that was wounded. The beast's head or nation was wounded and was healed. This is the Palestinian Authority after the beginning of the Oslo Accords. The land that Israel possessed was now being given back to the Palestinians and the beast's nation is being healed. Ok, so now I have seven nations and ten kings, Rev.13:1. Why do I have three more kings than nations? It seems I have a king for each nation, but three left over. In Daniel in says the beast subdued three kings. These three kings don't necessarily have to be from different countries. It seems so, but is not expressly mentioned. It is another parable. The three kings who were subdued by the beast were Israeli Prime Ministers. These three Prime Ministers all served during the seven years of the Oslo Accords and were voted out of office because of terror perpetrated during Yasser Arafat's rule. Now, I am down to seven nations. These seven nations will wage war. I can easily see seven nations that will wage war here very soon; Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iran and the Palestinian Authority or Iraq, and there opponent Israel. This is exactly the same beast that is presented in Rev.17, just in a slightly different appearance. In Rev. 17, five nations attacked Israel and five fell, Israel was and the one that was, and the one that came later was the Palestinian Authority. That was a picture of Israel's war of Independence. Literally, this was the beast being born. The war in 1967 is the beast rising up out of the sea in Rev.13:1. It was the unresolved issues of this conflict that resulted in the Oslo Accords of 1993. This seven year peace treaty was confirmed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Now, there is another beast in Rev.13:11. This beast has two horns or kings. This is a picture of the Palestinian Authority after the elections of January 2006. This is when Hamas ran in the elections and won a majority in parliament. Now the P.A. was a country with two kings. Abbas was the President and Ismail Haniyeh was the Prime Minister. Here is where the problem with money came about. Western Nations did not want to donate money to a known terrorist organization so looked for a way they could still fund Abbas's P.A., but not let any money get to Hamas. [u]This is when the number 666 identified an individual.[/u] The temporary international mechanism was adopted on June 16, 2006. This program allowed Western Nations to donate funds directly to Abbas, while bypassing Hamas. If you were a member of Fatah, or on Abbas's payroll you got paid. This is how the people were allowed to buy and sell. They received salaries, whereas before the mechanism, they had no way of getting paid from the Govenment. Hamas did not recieve salaries. Also, Hamas did not recieve the mark of the beast. They boycotted the elections for President in Jan. 2005. It is more obvious who is being talked about the closer you get to the end. In conclusion, to my three beast definitions. Mahmoud Abbas fits all three definitions. He was a member of the P.A. when it was formed. He took over from Yasser Arafat after his death. He was one of the two kings of the second beast in Rev.13:11. Lastly, he is the one identified by the number 666, which could have been Arafat had he lived. Now, concerning the the false prophet. The following four verses below all refer to the false prophet, Ismail Haniyeh. [i][b]Rev.13:11- and I beheld another beast coming up out of the Earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Rev.13:12- And he exercises all the power of the first beast before him, and causes the earth and them which dwell therein, to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Rev.13:13- "And he does great wonders, so that he makes fire come down from heaven on the Earth in the sight of men". Rev.13:15- And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast, should be killed.[/b][/i] Hamas exercised all the power of the first beast (Abbas's P.A.) because they were now an equal partner in the Government. Also, the leader of Hamas caused them to worship or honor the first beast because Hamas would not honor the first beast. The first beast was the PA without Hamas as a member. The image of the beast is what the Government of Mahmoud Abbas represented. Verse 12 does not mention the image yet, we are just informed that the false prophet caused them to worship the first beast. Verse 14 and 15 gives the details of how that worshipping or honor was to commence. An image was created of the first beast that he (the false prophet) caused to be honored. [u]This image of the beast is three items; the recognition of Israel, the honoring of all prior Palestinian agreements, and a renunciation of terror.[/u] The last question I think that needs addressed is how do you know the timing is right? Meaning, there have been so many translations, how do you know that this one is correct? This is a question I always get asked. The answer, in my mind, is sort of a mix between two different prophecies. The first is the seven day prophecy as recorded in Genesis. It is a similtude between this and the amount of recorded time that has already happened on Earth. In the book of Peter, God says one day to him is as a thousand years. If that idea is applied to the Genesis creation, everyday that God created something one thousand years passed. Finally, on the last day he rested from his work, and his rest was one thousand years or one of God's days. This was one full week or 7000 years. After God's rest he started his work again, and he created Adam. Starting with Adam, it was approximately 4000 years to the time of Christ. Also, we know that Christ was here roughly 2000 years ago. If God was to be consistant with his one week schedule, then we could expect his day of rest to fall somewhere after the year two thousand. 4000 plus 2000 is six days and on the seventh he rested for one thousand years. This is not an exact estimate, but it can put you in the right ballpark when searching for the correct timing of Revelation. This is the estimate. The next item is more exact. Daniel 9:27 says that he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Many in Hebrew is Rab. This was a covenant confirmed with Yitzhak Rabin. It was the beginning of land for peace, or the Oslo Accords. When you see this agreement happen you should be aware that this prophecy will last seven years. There is only one problem with this item. Prior to it happening, everyone thought that the end of the seventh year of the agreement God would return and begin his rest. Well, that did not happen. The reason was a logical misinterpretation. It just mentions that this agreement must occur along with the prophecies mentioned, not that they would all happen and end on the last day of the seventh year. This has thrown everyone watching offtrack for a time. Although, this was not such a terrible mistake if the watcher could see the right answer and get his, or her perspective back. When you have these two items coinciding at the expected time, then you know Revelation can be interpreted with accuracy. The events should start happening, as they have, as I have recorded in this letter. May God bless all who read this letter. Michae1

Or it could be Nero.

[b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] [quote]Or it could be Nero.[/quote] Ok, explain it to me.

[b]Michae1 wrote:[/b] [quote][b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] [quote]Or it could be Nero.[/quote] Ok, explain it to me.[/quote] Because I'm lazy, from Wikipedia: [quote]The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Aramaic as "נרון קסר", nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to "the second year of emperor Nero." [/quote] Basically, 666 spells Nero. [quote]In the reign of Emperor Decius (249–251 AD), those who did not possess the certificate of sacrifice (libellus) to Caesar could not pursue trades, a prohibition that conceivably goes back to Nero, reminding one of Revelation 13:17.[/quote] Obviously, his persecution of the Christian Church and goal to obliterate Christianity is well known, and it is well documented that he would burn captured Christians alive in his garden to replace lamps. Additionally, rumors circulated that Nero never actually died and would return, thus the death and resurrection of The Beast. [quote]In 310, Lactantius wrote that Nero suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen. This has led some persons of extravagant imagination to suppose that, having been conveyed to a distant region, he is still reserved alive; and to him they apply the Sibylline verses.[/quote] These Sibylline verses Lactantius spoke of are found in the Sibylline Oracles, Book 5 and 8, and talked about Nero coming backing, destroying everything, bla bla bla. Among early Christianity, this was a widely held belief, fyi. There's actually a TON more to this, but I'm posting from work and don't really feel like doing another in depth study on a matter I don't deem particularly important at the moment. :P

I think it should also be noted that with the rise and corruption of the Catholic Church, another belief that was widely held in Protestant circles was that the Papacy was what the Number of the Beast referred to (and no, I'm not going to go into all the reasons but suffice it to say that it was a pretty decent argument). In fact, at one point, it was pretty much the standard belief among Protestants, and wasn't until the Catholic Church vehemently denied it and offered a rather comical prophetic interpretation of the Book of Revelation to get the accusation away from them and onto someone else that your particular view became popular.

I was following along with the original poster until I came to this point.... "This image of the beast is three items; the recognition of Israel, the honoring of all prior Palestinian agreements, and a renunciation of terror." In what way is recognition of Israel related to the image of the beast. Furthermore, renunciation of terror doesn't either seem related to the image of the beast... particular if you look at your own posted quote.... "Rev.13:15- And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast, should be killed." It is not the PA who killed anyone who didn't serve them. It is Hamas. Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and after winning the elections proceeded to throw Fatah supporters who lived in Gaza off the roof (for not being loyal to Hamas... not the PA). Hamas doesn't renounce terror but instead encourages terror... and just as a refresher for what is meant by terror we're talking about shooting rockets and mortar shells into populated cities, sending suicide bombers into Israeli grocery stores, shooting anti-tank missiles at school buses, etc.... unwavering attempts at *killing* those who do not "worship the image of the beast" ie serve Hamas. *however* it is worth noting Hamas has *not* (at least yet) been given power to cause death to *all* who don't worship the image of the beast. But neither has Fatah. It is an interesting study I would say, but I find myself curious as to why one would paint the PA as being the beast and Hamas being the one who refuses to worship when Hamas more closely resembles biblical quotes you used here. Furthermore Fatah and Hamas have agreed to form a "unity" government, and when Israel tried to refuse to make payments to Fatah on the grounds that Fatah and Hamas are now merging, the international media made it look like Israel's just stealing Fatah's money instead of the reality which is that Hamas is a terrorist organization whose *stated* objective is the destruction of Israel and the extermination of Jews from the world. It would seem from my perspective that Hamas is the larger organization, and Fatah is merely Hamas' "lets get some of that western cash" branch. This is further supported by their "unity" deal which comes after Hamas proved itself a terrorist organization even to Fatah, by attacking Fatah supporters, discrediting Fatah endlessly, and refusing to allow Fatah's chosen prime minister after they agreed to a "unity" deal. While I do believe there are some Fatah supporters who believe in their cause, I believe Yasser Arafat's original intent was to create Fatah, while Hamas already existed (even if by another name) in order to deceive the world into believing what they want is peace. Yasser Arafat himself was a terrorist, and was not born "palestinian" but Egyptian... how he became the spokesman for the "palestinians" is beyond me.... Fatah and Hamas are competing political parties now (even though Hamas is still also a terrorist organization), what sense it makes for Fatah to merge with Hamas just before going to the UN for recognition is beyond me. It's essentially Fatah giving up everything they worked for to Hamas... Hamas who would've never even had an audience at the UN without Fatah's "peaceful" branch doing all the leg work. In regards to your original post I would say the Fatah/Hamas organization more closely resembles this.... "Rev.13:11- and I beheld another beast coming up out of the Earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." One beast, 2 horns.... Fatah is one horn, and Hamas the other horn. Well I can't find any supporting links on Google, but I have heard it said that a Dragon speaks with 2 voices. This would fit nicely with whatever you call the merged entity of Fatah/Hamas, as they do speak with 2 voices. One insists peace is what they want, the other insists they want to destroy. Together their voice speaks unending slander against Israel, and only because of their "peaceful" side are they not destroyed completely when their destructive side sends declaration after declaration of war in the form of rockets being shot into Israeli cities. I think it's an interesting interpretation, which is why I've gone into detail to try to make this more of a workable theory. That said, I tend to agree with Nathan's point about Catholicism being the beast. "Rev 17:12 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. " Here is the other problem I see with your interpretation. You interpreted horn to King, and then King into country... see examples... "The seven heads are seven mountains and the ten horns are ten kings. Ok, we know from this description that the beast as described is a group of possibly ten countries" "For one, we know that the beast is made up of only possibly ten countries." It can't be ten countries, as it says right there where it identifies the horns as kings it also specifies that those ten kings have received no kingdom yet. Thus ten kings WITHOUT nations. I'll admit interpreting the kings as nations is so common, more people are likely to agree with you, but it is clear from scripture that the kings spoken of have no kingdom but receive power as kings "one hour with the beast". I read that part and thought it curious, this was written almost 2 thousand years ago. They didn't have a clock back then. So an hour (by modern definition) did not exist.... Luckily I got my e-Sword right here we can see the original meaning.... being new testament it comes from the Greek.... "G5610 ὥρα hōra ho'-rah Apparently a primary word; an “hour” (literally or figuratively): - day, hour, instant, season, X short, [even-] tide, (high) time." Wow with all that information it kind of makes you wonder why some translator would put "hour" in that place.... could be a day, could *not* be an hour, as previously stated an hour as you and I know it didn't exist back then (well it existed perhaps but not in the minds of the people who lived back then), could be an instant, a season, essentially they were given power for a time.... power, but it doesn't say a kingdom. So how does one have power as kings without having a kingdom.... oh that's right... money.... If someone had like 100,000,000,000 dollars, even if they weren't president or king of their particular country, that money gives them power as kings over people (who need money). Quick calculation before I continue... how many man hours does 100 BILLION dollars command.... we'll say at $10/hour... that's right 10 BILLION man hours... so lets say some king with no kingdom wanted to start a company that employed 1000 workers for each of 3 shifts 365 days of the year... you take the 10 billion man hours, divide it by your (total) of 3000 workers, gives you a total of 3333333.333333333 man hours per person, which they work in 8 hour increments... gives you a total of 416666.6666666667 days of work.... amounts to 1141.552511415525 years of work each. So with 100 billion dollars you could work 3000 people for 1141 and a half years. Perhaps we should increase the amount of workers... they could work 30,000 people for 114 years (and that's without making a penny from their labor)... that's like practically enough to build a pyramid without any technology whatsoever..... Not to mention with a decent pay rate and without expanding the work day (though this doesn't figure weekends in). However, fear not, the world's richest person isn't quite there yet.... Carlos Slim Helu & family $74 B Not far though either.... and with the economy the way it is it won't be long til employers can dictate to us what we make (ie 10/hour could seem to them excessive.... after all if you only get 5, that's twice the man hours they can get out of the same money.... Also it's worth noting that's the richest person in the world, but that's not to say there isn't an organization with more.... especially when you account for all that money hidden in swiss banks... It's unlikely that the 10 kings of the earth would choose to reveal themselves on Forbes wealthiest persons list.... That's just my interpretation of the kings of the earth without a kingdom... Feel free to point to a set of nations if you'd feel more comfortable doing so, it's easier to deal with nations than people, or kings, who individually have that much power. It has been said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" ... it is also said "the love of money is the root of all evil". In any case back to the point....

I believe that much of revelations refers to the Catholic Church or to say in another form, Rome. We are taught in history that Rome fell, leaving Europe in the "Dark Ages" However, just prior to Rome's "fall" they "converted" to Christianity through Constantine.. who while he never converted to Christianity during his life (not til his deathbed), he managed to do quite a bit to fundamentally change Christianity during his life. One thing was he made a declaration that in Rome the Sabbath shall be on the day of the sun (sunday, the 1st day of the week, day of creation) as opposed to the traditional Sabbath which is on Saturday (the 7th day of the week, the day God rested, and the day which God commanded us to "*Remember* the Sabbath and keep it holy"). This alteration of the Sabbath was not done by a Christian Emperor of Rome, but rather by a Roman Emperor who later converted to Catholicism. That would be like the US President declaring that Ramadan is a different time than it is.. even if he later converted to Islam, it doesn't make sense that he should have had the power to change something which he was neither a part of, nor given authority over (scripturally). And indeed he did change it.. because of this change Christians and Jews have a different Sabbath to this day.. one of these days was commanded by God to God's people who have kept it to this day.. the other was commanded by a non-christian Roman Emperor and is still practiced not only by Catholics but also by most "Protestant" denominations. I think it's worth remembering what it is we are protesting and why.. There were other changes that he did prior to coming to faith at his deathbed. But it all boils down to (in my opinion) making Christianity void of truth where ever possible. Soon thereafter Catholicism (which means "Universal") was adopted by the Roman Empire as their official religion.. and though it was not "Christian" but rather a universal religion of Rome intended to put Christians and Pagans all under the same roof.. they all followed the same authority (not God, the Pope.. who hails from Rome no less). This "universal" church still hails from Rome to this day, and it has never ceased operations.. so I ask did Rome really fall? I have heard someone tell me (with much scriptural evidence shown) that it is the nature of the beast to cause people to sin. By making people forget the Sabbath (among other things), the beast intends to perpetuate our sin forever.. but in the modern era God countered by giving people reason, reason which ultimately leads us back to his grace. I have also heard it said that the Papacy created Islam. It is historically evident that there was much cooperation between Catholicism and Islam. In fact to this day many muslims believe that only Catholics are true christians (in fact I had one who now lives with a friend of mine tell me that very thing not 3 weeks ago), who they respect because it's the branch formed by Yeshua (Jesus), but all others who say they are christians are not. In todays world christian countries know how to defend themselves.... but in days passed this essentially led to the slaughter of countless truly faithful christians, who parted ways with Catholicism in order to please God. Islam killed non catholics in Islamic territory, and Catholicism (or Pope appointed rulers, ie Charlemange) killed non Catholics in Catholic controlled territory. Which is why it took so long for a movement to separate themselves from Catholicism while remaining christians (and not instantly being killed, churches burned, and writings destroyed). It's intuitive to me that the Papacy is one of the beasts, given that the nature of the beast is to cause people to sin. Killing people for believing differently, not a christian thing to do, was what Catholicism did under the banner of Christianity for centuries.. to this day people say stuff like Christians killed anyone who didn't convert.. no.. Christians were void of any power whatsoever until the Protestant Reformation (which only began to give them a little bit of power, which the King of England wanted to hold as a scepter in his hand, like the pope did before him, until America came).

*just to clarify to any Catholics on here, I'm not saying *you* are evil... but what better way to cause people to sin than to convince them that following the pope's commands makes you free from sin, and also that disobeying the pope's commands could cause him to Excommunicate you, which means to everyone around you that you are going to hell.. everyone around you that's left that is, because everyone else you were ordered to kill* Point being.. Catholicism waters down Christianity, and gives all Christians a bad name.. Catholics wage war, and then people later say "christians wage war"... it all comes down to creating an atmosphere of general disrespect for Christians... where is the source of disrespect for some of the nicest people you'll ever meet? Catholic deception.... It could even be said that it is Catholic intention to eliminate Christians from the world.. historical this is obviously the case.. Certainly I wouldn't expect your priest to know about this ambition.. I believe probably 90-95% of Catholics are good people, within the lower echelons of their hierarchical structure. But as the Catholics say (I learned it in school and was immediately appalled) "The road to hell is paved on good intentions".. and all it takes is one evil pope from whom all others derive their orders to make a great many sin without being aware.. As Nathan pointed out.. at one time Protestants were united in the belief that the Papacy was the beast. I merely am challenging you to consider it a possibility.. and take evidence into account before deciding if it is based on sound reasoning.. Also to clarify those winks in my previous posts are the end of parenthesis not winks just fyi ;)

"the condescension in your post is interesting." interesting the one who is first condescending is the first to outright accuse the other of condescension. "Oh, you people. *snicker snicker* Everybody thinks they know so much about church history." That's not condescending at all is it? Now I could equally reply to your post with condescension and lack of substance in a forum of debate.... but that's just not the kind of person I am. Debate is ideas clashing... however ignorant you may perceive me to be, it's the fact that you think I'm ignorant *and* have no desire to discuss these ideas, that I perceive as condescension. You may believe what you want, and it may be different from me, but rather than think "he's just stupid let's not give any further information but make him look stupid" as was the case in your previous post, I actually used scripture to back up my statements, rather than relying solely on hearsay and arrogance to prove my point. Further I never claimed to know greek... "as to times, days, and feasts, each should be convinced in their own mind" Convinced in their own mind? So in other words there is no definite times/days/feasts? Again I beckon you to back up your statement with scripture. This statement you have made seems eerily to coincide with the scriptural reference I used from Daniel... as indeed if people are convinced that despite scriptural clarity on the matters of times/days/feasts that it's interpretable in any manner you wish then it allows the beast which daniel spoke of to rein. Oh but that's right, you're perhaps one of the many who look at the "old testament" with a scorn, nothing to see here folks..... it's only the VERY THING that inspired the messiah in everything he did and everything he taught. Course one must look deeper into it in order to see the new testament in the Torah... but I assure you it's there. "I don't believe someone should work on the Sabbath, and I am actually more strict about it than many of my fellow Reformed and Presbyterian brethren. However, as to whether it is Saturday or Sunday, I don't think that altogether matters." So let me ask you this then. You don't believe someone should work on the Sabbath? Then where do you get that belief from? Perhaps from the same book which establishes the DAY of the Sabbath as an eternal covenant with his people.... a topic altogether ignored by those who argued to change the Sabbath. "Does that mean you should stone your son if he's rebellious" The messiah establishes the order of importance of commandments.... Love God first! Then love your neighbor as yourself.... should your son be rebellious? no... but more importantly, if you love your neighbor as yourself, would you want to be stoned for being rebellious? unlikely.... so hopefully you can love your neighbor as yourself and not stone your son for being rebellious. In this manner one day your son might not be rebellious any longer and return, as did the prodigal son. "what about the laws about cities of refuge" who's to say there aren't cities of refuge still established in Shamayim? Actually if you read about the cities of refuge in detail you can see that a person for instance who accidentally kills someone is to go to this city and live in refuge under the authority of the high priest for as long as he lives.... "and he shall abideH3427 in it untoH5704 the deathH4194 of the highH1419 priest,H3548 " wow... until the death of the high priest? But our high priest isn't going to die and indeed has ordained a place of refuge for those that believe in him.... coincidental similarity? or perhaps just old testament rubbish, depends on your perspective I guess. "remember the Sabbath on the Lord's Day are obeying that commandment" So if I am told "remember Christmas Day!" for instance (I'm not but that's beside the point), then if say New Years rolls around and I celebrate it then and say "See I remembered!" is that accurate? no... I in fact forgot... and if everyone was made to forget, but then refused to remember later when the knowledge was available to them.... it still doesn't make it a fulfillment of the commandment to "remember Christmas Day" as I didn't remember but forgot and instead established a different day for Christmas. "we must not make this an entrance exam into Christianity. If someone is out based upon their adherence to Sabbath laws" I never claimed it was an entrance exam, I find it odd that you would suggest that. Further I never claimed "someone is out" based on not remembering the Sabbath... I am not the judge, merely a student... a good student shares his knowledge with other students so they will be better prepared for the "entrance exam" to come.... lol... The messiah establishes the order of commandments as previously stated. If I were to forget the Sabbath would I want to be damned for eternity? no, I would want a chance for correction.... but don't try to tell me forgetting is remembering.... despite your derogatory statements towards Bob Marley I will again quote him, as he had the courage to speak about God when all the American popular musicians were out talking about Sex Drugs and Rock N Roll.... do you know even know what Reggae means? "Lord guide and protect us.... when we're wrong please correct us" "That's really an argument you're using?" Actually that was one point among many points in the argument, as you know since you responded to far more than that... but none the less you of course must use condescension to augment your argument.

"you'd have to prove that the little horn was Constantine" HUH? I don't see how that's a logical response to my statement.... "So the beast shall think (think = H5452 = "bear in mind, that is to hope" to change times and laws *and* they shall be given into his hand.... so he will succeed! ... amazing" I have established a motive. I have not stood to accuse Constantine or anyone else of being ANY of the beasts talked about in the book.... My point was only that the motive to change the times and laws is CLEAR. It was told that it would happen before the coming of the Messiah, by now it *has* happened... you haven't argued that at all... in fact while you criticize my use of the calendar as a supporting point, and admit that the Sabbath has changed to the first day/eighth day (which would make the 7th day the day before, regardless of what calendar you use), AND having established the motive, your response is that I have to prove who the beasts are? No... you can speculate who the beasts are... if ever I have enough information to definitively argue who they are (as I do regarding the Sabbath) then I assure you I will share it with you all... until then I don't think one must find the culprit before they can establish definitively that a crime has been committed. Rather the reverse is clearly the case to any logical mind. "Lastly, as to your: "Jesus never said He was changing the Sabbath!" *sigh* Really? He also never said God was a trinity. He never said anything about a rapture, and you likely believe that, too. He never outright said: "You should totally baptize babies," but we should and (some of us) do. " Ok, so in other words, you have found no argument that confirms the messiah said he was changing the sabbath and instead would rather bring up unrelated points.... I would agree he never said God was a trinity, in fact because he says (and is backed up by Torah) that Yahweh Echad (is one). and that he is Echad with the father. Rapture.... "Joh 14:2 InG1722 myG3450 Father'sG3962 houseG3614 areG1526 manyG4183 mansions:G3438 if it were notG1490 so, I would have toldG2036 G302 you.G5213 I goG4198 to prepareG2090 a placeG5117 for you.G5213 Joh 14:3 AndG2532 ifG1437 I goG4198 andG2532 prepareG2090 a placeG5117 for you,G5213 I will comeG2064 again,G3825 andG2532 receiveG3880 youG5209 untoG4314 myself;G1683 thatG2443 whereG3699 IG1473 am,G1510 there yeG5210 may beG5600 also.G2532 " So he's leaving... and coming back to receive us so that where he is (the place he's preparing) we might be also.... That sounds a little like what today's christians refer to as the rapture. So it appears in this example there is foundation, though perhaps not to the extent that the Left Behind series portrays it.... Baptism of babies has indeed become a tradition unfounded in scripture. As indeed those who were baptized in scripture were not babies but were adults at the time of their baptism.... However baptism in general is established in scripture not arbitrary tradition. Largely the baptism of babies eases the notion that some people still cling to called original sin, or the sin of being created. As if one's baby doesn't live til their teenage years, in order to be baptized of their own volition, people were afraid their baby wouldn't go to heaven. However if you read scripture and see the purpose of baptism (and if you get passed the notion of original sin or that those not baptized in water go to hell whether they've done wrong or not) then you will see that baptism of a baby isn't nearly as meaningful as baptism of an adult who actually has sin to be forgiven and can be grateful for such a cleansing. As indeed, even the one who lived his life without sin wasn't baptized as a baby unaware of what's happening... but rather as an adult when he could recognize what was happening, and indeed the Father spoke when the adult without sin nonetheless was baptized alongside many sinners by one who claimed himself not worthy to baptize the other. Furthermore the baptism with water was the tradition established by John the Baptist, but John the Baptist insists there is one coming who baptizes not with water but with the Fire of the Ruach HaKodesh... Believe it or not there are churches that believe one can be baptized not in water but in the holy spirit. However a parent concerned for their child's eternal soul can't confirm that their child has been baptized in the holy spirit as they can in water... so that's the tradition they cling to, even though it's clear which baptism is more meaningful than the other. Any more examples of nonrelated topics you'd like to throw at me, I'll be happy to seek answers to... "Though I try to find the answer to all the questions they ask, though I know it's impossible to go living through the past... don't tell no lie." - Bob Marley.... but of course unrelated topics... don't relate to the topic at hand lol.... "I'm sure by your constant use of "Yah"" "I AMH1961 hath sentH7971 me untoH413 you." "ThusH3541 shalt thou sayH559 unto the childrenH1121 of Israel,H3478 I AMH1961 hath sentH7971 me untoH413 you. " Of course I am is the translation of the name being given.... haYah, the shortened version of.... H3068 יהוה yehôvâh yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069. show me a biblical backing for your use of the word "God" and I'll further justify this again condescending talk with more of a response. As to your "more righteous than thou" mentality in reference to Bob Marley, you should be ashamed... as Bob Marley brought more to faith through his music than you could ever hope to. Perhaps God only works through the arrogant who look down upon even other believers for their differing beliefs. Further, he uses Jah, not Yah as I do... but if you're gonna call his son 'Jah' 'Zeus' or Jesus then I don't see a problem with calling his Father Jah instead of Yah. It's inaccurate on both accounts... but gives reference to someone who is clearly defined as the one spoken of in the Bible, whereas God could be in reference to any number of religions... Heavens Gate cult members would've called God God, but wouldn't have called God Yah or Jah. Lord isn't exactly an accurate name of God either, but I don't accuse you for using the word. Focus "monergism" focus, what are we talking about here? The Sabbath.... why you must talk about everything but the topic at hand to make your point is quite obvious to me... you lack supporting arguments. If I'm wrong then prove it with supporting arguments not irresponsible and irrelevant accusations... though I can make them too.. "given your use of baptism as an example of why scripture doesn't have to state when a change to scripture occurs, I could conclude you've never read (and understood) the scripture about baptism and it's purpose, and further can conclude that you don't remember your baptism as it was done before you can recall. I can also conclude that if I can convince enough people to believe something contrary to scripture, then it CAN ACTUALLY change scripture... as obviously scripture isn't the basis of the beliefs, but rather tradition... right?" Of course all that is entirely speculative, and while it may be true, it certainly doesn't follow automatically as a result of the evidence given.... like I said irresponsible and irrelevant. But just for arguments sake... are you suggesting that one who smokes pot is condemned to hell? or that they couldn't make a scripturally backed argument beyond the comprehension of someone who instead "drinks coffee" (oh the HUMANITY!)...