I agree with you, the 1st beast in revelation of John rising up out of the sea (Rev 13:1) is different to the second beast that rises out from the earth Rev 13:11.
I never mentioned the 2nd beast in Rev 13. I was distinguishing between the 1st beast rising up out of the sea being a kingdom, and the Beast/antichrist who is the 8th king/horn
on that beast, which is why I referenced Dan 7:17, because in all the prophecies about the beast kingdoms, they also represented a king.
"These four beast are four kings." So, Rev 13 is speaking about the 1st beast as the Beast that received a deadly wound as a whole. But Rev 13's first beast is made up of Rome's 10 kings, and the Beast/antichrist is the 8th. They are the 10 horns on the 7 heads, the 7 heads being the 7 hills of Rome.
"There," in the city of Rome, are 7 kings.... The Beast/antichrist is the 8th, in the city of Rome.
The "beast kingdom" is the beast the woman rides on having 7 heads....
the whole of the Roman empire, the many waters she sits on. She, the woman, is the city of Rome. The beast/beast kingdom's 7 heads are the 7 Roman hills the city of Rome is built on. There is a difference between the 5 beast kingdoms and their beast kings-the fallen angels.
If we recall that John summarises Daniel's four beasts in Rev 13:2, then he focuses on to the immediate scene of the first beast before he receives his mortal head wound.
Which has nothing to do with the beast kingdom being a entity other than the man-beast king that represents that kingdom.
A beast that rises from the sea, where sea symbolises known civilisation is located around the Middle eastern region where the craddle of civilisation is. The symbol that John further used is the river Euphrates which points to local Middle eastern region.
The second beast comes out from the earth, where the earth symbols newly discovered continents that expand outwards from the original seat of the first beast that was originally located the Middle East.
The first beast dies and the second beast a some point later in the future brings to life the image of the first beast. So this second beast must be a Christ like religious authority that has his seat outside of the middle eastern region.
Why do we have to keep going around in circles? I already pointed out life is given to a statue of the Beast, not to the Beast, and there's nothing to suggest the 2nd beast is a religious anything. You're speculating. I know you probably want to equate him to the Pope, but Revelation is describing the 11th Roman horn/king and his kingdom.
His two horns like a lamb and speaking like a dragon means he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a man just like the Beast is a man. You keep equating them with their kingdoms and not acknowledging the fact the kingdoms have a king, a fallen angel, that is referred to as the beast kingdoms too.
The first beast dies along with his false prophet before the second beast comes on the scene. The second beast is not the false prophet.
I don't see how you can deny the fact the 2nd beast is the False Prophet when you just called him a religious authority. He is the False Prophet, Dan 7's 11th horn, the 10th Roman king/horn given power one hour with the Beast, and Daniel's 5th beast kingdom of iron feet mixed with clay.
These are the facts.
These are constructs of the first beast by the symbol that is used to construct a chronological picture, yet none of those play a role in John's prophesy. The beast is Satan's work in progress and he is wielding him from phase one which I called the BC phase to phase two the AD phase. John provides an overview using the same symbols to give a historical summary, but John's beast is a blasphemer of the God of Abraham.
Wow! Dan 7's 4th beast kingdom is Rome. Why can't you understand that? Dan 7 prophesies about this final beast kingdom's demise. How is that not Revelation?
Dan 7's fourth beast kingdom, which is Revelation's 1st beast, 11th horn is given to the lake of fire in Dan 7:11, which you keep ignoring, and it is not BC.
Satan is developing his first beast from Babylon, Persian, Greece and Rome to establish a false religious system called the false prophet who lives in captivity in all those four beast and comes out as the little horn amongst them.
You are drawing unfounded conclusions. Dan 7's fourth beast is Rev's 1st beast. The 11th horn is the False Prophet and is Rev's 2nd beast.
The word amongst them means that this little horn had taken the practices of all four whom he was captive in to bring it into his own kingdom. Notice the false prophet calls his religion the Babylonian Talmud. This is compliments to the first beast developed from Babylon right down to Rome.
You are adding to scripture because there's no proof for your claims; hence you are speculating!
Rome cannot be classified as a beast that blasphemed against God, his name and his tabernacle. It requires a false prophet, which is a religious system that uses God's name and his tabernacle (temple services) in their religious practices in a reprobate way as to arouse God to anger. This religious entity that John focuses on is the little horn coming out of the first beast, throughout the ages of captivity and dictates that people worship his religious system. This no longer becomes a sectarian government but a religious power in context to the question of worship.
The 11th horn is the False Prophet, a man, the Roman 11th emperor. A religious system isn't thrown into the lake of fire in Dan 7:11. We've been thru this already.
Daniel describes 4 beast kingdoms in chapter 7, but in chapter 2 he describes a 5th kingdom of iron feet mixed with clay. Why? Why 4 beast kingdoms in one chapter and 5 in another, if they represent the same kingdoms?
Jesus would charge this false institution that when you find a covert you make him twice the child of the devil. This is what John wanted the readers to focus on and not Rome itself, but rather the question of true worship versus that of false worship, which is counted as blaspheming against God and his temple worship.
Berean777 12:4.
John's focus is on the false prophet that rides the besst and not the constructs of the beast itself.
Where does it say the False Prophet rides the beast? You're blaspheming the word.
There is no 8th king, John is saying that when the first beast that had the mortal wound is revived by the second beast who gives life to his image, signalling Satan's release from the bottomless pit who now ushers in a seventh king, who is also the eighth meaning he is resurrected at the same time the first beast is resurrected after satan is released from his bottomless pit prison, post first beast and false prophet defeat in the battle of Armageddon.
I asked you before, "How can the 8th king be the 7th king when the 7th king only exists for a short time?" You're not making any sense. The Beast is the 8th, the yr of the 4 Roman emperors. And Nero was the 5th Roman emperor, whose death caused the Roman civil war.
This resurrected first beast is not the first beast but an image of what he represented before being killed. His revival comes about by the revival of the seventh king who is also the eighth, where the number eight symbolises resurrection.
Only persons are given to the flame.
The seventh is even the eighth meanings he is being resurrected with the first beast that was, then isn't and is yet again in the future as a revived entity in the image of the original first beast.
Why are you adding to what's written. It says he is of the seven, meaning a part of them. How can he be the 7th that continues a short space and still be the 8th that doesn't? That's crazy. If he was the 7th, then there wouldn't be a need to mention an 8th. And even if you wanted to say he was both the 7th and the 8th it still proves he was a Roman king.
Again a women in the Bible does not allude to a sectarian government, it relates to the harlot which was a wife to someone, before she was divorced and made desolate.
Can you show me that in scripture? No! So, beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees!
The women in the bible represents the false prophet religious system that rides the beast to do the devil's biding.
Again, your false, illogical interpretation. Scripture specifically defines who the woman is, but you choose to willfully ignore the facts.
She is the one that chased the disciples from city to city and town to town to try and put a stop to the preaching of the gospel. The true church is described as the pregnant women ready to deliver th child (gospel) into the world all the while the devil sends out a flood of people from the false prophet after her to stop her and her seed who have the testimony of Jesus. Rev 12:1-16
???
John a disciple of Jesus would use the term to mean what Jesus used it to mean.
You didn't answer the question.
The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Again with the fairy tale.
Jesus after seeing his church being persecuted at the hands of the false prophet who rode the beast, sent his army in the form of the Romans to destroy the murderes and burn the city Jerusalem in 70AD.
John focuses on the believers and the question of worship and what is standing in their way from successfully delivering the everlasting gospel.
If I was a history student I would agree with you 100%, but John is not focusing on Rome, rather John is focusing on the false prophet who is impeding the great commission prerogative.
Historically you are right from the stand point of Daniel but from the stand point of John you are completely wrong. John's struggles snd the churches struggles as highlighted in Rev 12:1-16 isn't with the sectarian authority, it is with the pharisaical religious authority who used Hared then Caesar to crucify Jesus snd also bring the apostles before the Sanhedrin and the Israeli king Agrippa II to have them stopped at all cost.
If only John's prophecy of the 2nd beast exceeded past the lake of fire, then Revelation 19:20 wouldn't be Dan 7:11, and the 11th horn given to the flame couldn't be Rev's 2nd Beast, but it doesn't. If only it existed past the lake fire.
Ironically the same sword they wielded in the form of the sectarian Roman beast would turn on them on 70AD.
John's narrative is completely different to Daniel's narrative and you are repeatedly imposing Daniel's narrative on John's as to say that John was obliged to follow Daniel's motive.
Your Achilles heel is the 2nd beast not existing past the lake of fire in Rev 19:20 and in Dan 7:11.
Daniel's prophesy was to his people to prepare them for the coming of messiah and he ended at the timeline where John carried on to focus on the church and the great commission to preach the gospel.
You are not that naive. Rev 19:20 is Dan 7:11, and Dan 7 is Revelation's account of Christ possessing the heavenly kingdom.
I want to thank you for your replies. I will do my best to address all of your questions. Please be patient with me. Thank you kindly.
Try addressing the fact Rev 19:20 is Dan 7:11.
