John's Vision of Two Beasts

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

Daniel's vision of four beasts, ranging from the Neo-Babylonian Empire (609–539 BC), the Medo-Persian Empire (539–332 BC), the Hellenistic Greek Empire (332–63 BC), to the Roman Empire (63 BC–AD 1806), lasted almost 12 centuries.

The Roman general, Pompey the Great, conquered Judea in 63 BC. Constantine the Great played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in AD 313, which declared tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire. With the Edict of Thessalonica in AD 380, Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the Empire's state religion. Later, on the death of Theodosius I in AD 395, he divided the empire between his two sons, with Honorius as his successor in the West, governing briefly from Mediolanum and then from Ravenna, and Arcadius as his successor in the East, governing from Constantinople.

In 476, after the Battle of Ravenna, the Roman Army in the West suffered defeat at the hands of Odoacer and his Germanic foederati. Odoacer forced the deposition of emperor Romulus Augustulus and became the first King of Italy. The papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Roman Emperor in AD 800 marked a new imperial line that would evolve into the Holy Roman Empire, which presented a revival of the Imperial title in Western Europe.

The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire occurred de facto on 6 August 1806, when the last Holy Roman Empire, Francis II of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, abdicated his title and released all imperial states and officials from their oaths and obligations to the empire. Since the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire had been recognized by Western Europeans as the legitimate continuation of the ancient Roman Empire due to its emperors having been proclaimed as Roman emperors by the papacy. Through this Roman legacy, the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be universal monarchs whose jurisdiction extended beyond their empire's formal borders to all of Christian Europe and beyond.

"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication (Rev. 17:1–2)."

"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth (Rev. 17:18)"—Rome.

"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues (Rev. 17:15)."

"So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 17:3)."

From the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806:

Seven Heads (Italian Kings) (Rev. 13:1):
1. Victor Emmanuel I (1802–1821)
2. Charles Felix (1821–1831)
3. Charles Albert (1831–1849)
4. Victor Emmanuel II (1849–1878)
5. Umberto I (1878–1900)
6. Victor Emmanuel III (1900–1946)*
7. Umberto II (1946)**

* "ITALIAN KING WOUNDED BERLIN. Dec. 28. (Via Sayville by wireless.) King Victor Emmanuel of Italy has been wounded by an Austrian grenade and is now in the hospital, it is stated by the Overseas News agency. The agency attributes its information to a traveler who has just arrived from Italy. Terroristic and anti-government demonstrations are extending to an alarming extent in Italy, according to this traveller"—Rev. 13:3. Source: South Bend News-Times, Volume 32, Number 362, South Bend, St. Joseph County, 28 December 1915.

** Reigned 34 days ("a short space")—Rev. 17:10.

"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth (Rev. 17:9)"—seven hills of Rome.

1. Aventine Hill
2. Caelian Hill
3. Capitoline Hill
4. Esquiline Hill
5. Palatine Hill
6. Quirinal Hill
7. Viminal Hill

From the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire:

Ten Horns (German Rulers) (Rev. 13:1):
1. Frederick William III (1797–1840)
2. Frederick William IV (1840–1861)
3. William I (1861–1888)
4. Frederick III (1888)
5. Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
6. Friedrich Ebert (1918–1925)
7. Hans Luther (1925)
8. Walter Simons (1925)
9. Paul von Hindenburg (1925–1934)
10. Adolf Hitler (1934–1945)*

* Whose holocaust lasted 42 months (3 1/2 years), from November 1941 to May 1945—Rev. 13:5.

"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. 13:11)."

1946: Mobile Telephone Service (St. Louis, MO)
1948: Manchester Baby (Manchester, ENG)
1949: Manchester Mark 1 (Manchester, ENG)
1951: Ferranti Mark 1 (developed by a team including Tim Berners-Lee’s father, Conway)
1958: Visa
1969: ARPANET
1974: Internet
1975: Microsoft
1976: Apple
1979: MasterCard
1981: IBM Personal Computer
1984: Apple Macintosh
1989: World Wide Web (WWW)
1991: SIM card
1994: Amazon
1995: eBay
1996: Nokia 9000 Communicator
1997: Mobile commerce
1998: Google
1998: PayPal
1999: BlackBerry
1999: Napster
2001: Apple iPod
2003: MySpace
2004: Facebook
2006: Twitter
2006: Apple MacBook
2007: Apple iPhone
2009: Bitcoin
2009: Samsung Galaxy
2010: Apple iPad
2011: Apple Siri
2014: Amazon Alexa
2016: Google Assistant
2020: e-Yuan
2020: Libra

Two Horns (Kings) like a Lamb:
1. Tim Berners-Lee (1989–present)
2. David Ben Berners-Lee?

British physicist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) in 1989. The project was originally conceived and developed to meet the demand for information sharing between physicists in universities and institutes around the world. Tim Berners-Lee came like a lamb—innocent and useful—but the beast (the Information Age) speaks like a dragon—deceitful and greedy.

On 30 April 1993 CERN put the World Wide Web software in the public domain. CERN made the next release available with an open license, as a more sure way to maximize its dissemination. Through these actions, making the software required to run a web server freely available, along with a basic browser and a library of code, the web was allowed to flourish.

Twenty years of a free, open web

Tim Berners-Lee was raised as an Anglican, but he turned away from religion in his youth. After he became a parent, he became a Unitarian Universalist (UU). When asked whether he believes in God, he stated: "Not in the sense of most people, I’m atheist and Unitarian Universalist."

His only son, David "Ben" Berners-Lee, born in 1994, has a Ph.D. in Communication from the University of California, San Diego.

"And he (the beast from the earth) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 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"—Rev. 13:16–18 (KJV).

The 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is "waw." It has the numerical value of 6, like the Roman numeral V is 5. So WWW is literally 666.

In English, six hundred threescore and six is written 666, which, digit by digit, equals WWW. In Hebrew, six hundred threescore and six equals 600+60+6=םסו. But we’re not translating from Hebrew to English; we’re translating from English to Hebrew, so WWW=666.

“Mark of the beast:” the English word “mark” was originally translated from the Greek “charagma,” which means “thing carved, sculpture, graven work.”

G5480 - charagma - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

Manufacturing process of iPhones in Apple Factory, California, USA

So the beast (kingdom; Information Age) from the earth is causing all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. Eighty percent of Americans now own a smartphone. Likewise, 46% of the world owns a smartphone. Mobile payment users unlock their mobile wallets with facial recognition software.
Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States
Smartphone users worldwide 2020 | Statista

Assuming 7.5 billion people in the world, 0.0000013% of people have implanted RFID chips. That trend has a long way to go before all, small and great, rich and poor, free an bond, are chipped. Also, if RFID chips are the mark of the beast, how are you going to tell an individual the amount to pay? What about direction of sales? People will need a device with a graphic user interface to specify these things, and we’re already doing them with smartphones. What do RFID implants have to do with the number 666?

What percentage of people have an RFID chip implanted in them at this moment? - Quora

"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

The mark = a smartphone. The name of the beast = the Information Age. The number of the beast's name = 666 = WWW = the World Wide Web.

Libra is a permissioned blockchain digital currency proposed by the American social media company Facebook, Inc. The currency and network do not yet exist, and only rudimentary experimental code has been released. The launch is planned to be in 2020.
Libra (digital currency) - Wikipedia

 

[ViaCrucis]

Daniel's vision of four beasts, ranging from the Neo-Babylonian Empire (609–539 BC), the Medo-Persian Empire (539–332 BC), the Hellenistic Greek Empire (332–63 BC), to the Roman Empire (63 BC–AD 1806), lasted almost 12 centuries.

How do you get that the Roman Empire lasted until 1806? The Roman Empire fell in 1453 with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire.

I assume what's happening is that you are confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire--they aren't the same thing.

While the sacking and taking of Rome by the Goths resulted in the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire, and resulted in a power vacuum which was soon filled by various Gothic and Germanic tribes and kingdoms; the Roman Empire was still very much around for another thousand years. We usually refer to it in this period as the Byzantine Empire, but that's just what modern historians call it because it can be helpful, historically, to make a distinction between the united Roman Empire before the fall of Rome, and also because the seat of power had transitioned from Rome to Byzantium, aka Constantinople. But what we call the Byzantine Empire was simply the Roman Empire. It would probably instead be far more helpful to speak of the period as the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire, as calling it by another name can lead to some confusion.

In contrast, the Holy Roman Empire was a political entity that has famously been remarked as having been neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The Holy Roman Empire emerged in the 10th century out of the Frankish Empire, generally Otto I is considered the first Holy Roman Emperor. Though Charlemagne had been crowned "emperor of the Romans" by the bishop of Rome, not only because of Charlemagne's defense of Rome against the Lombards, but for also giving refuge to the bishop of Rome and bringing him back to Rome safely. This has led some to sometimes identify Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor, but this is technically not really the case--again the better pick is Otto I.

So question: Given that your opening premise is faulty--how does this effect the rest of your ideas?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

How do you get that the Roman Empire lasted until 1806? The Roman Empire fell in 1453 with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire.

I assume what's happening is that you are confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire--they aren't the same thing.

While the sacking and taking of Rome by the Goths resulted in the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire, and resulted in a power vacuum which was soon filled by various Gothic and Germanic tribes and kingdoms; the Roman Empire was still very much around for another thousand years. We usually refer to it in this period as the Byzantine Empire, but that's just what modern historians call it because it can be helpful, historically, to make a distinction between the united Roman Empire before the fall of Rome, and also because the seat of power had transitioned from Rome to Byzantium, aka Constantinople. But what we call the Byzantine Empire was simply the Roman Empire. It would probably instead be far more helpful to speak of the period as the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire, as calling it by another name can lead to some confusion.

In contrast, the Holy Roman Empire was a political entity that has famously been remarked as having been neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The Holy Roman Empire emerged in the 10th century out of the Frankish Empire, generally Otto I is considered the first Holy Roman Emperor. Though Charlemagne had been crowned "emperor of the Romans" by the bishop of Rome, not only because of Charlemagne's defense of Rome against the Lombards, but for also giving refuge to the bishop of Rome and bringing him back to Rome safely. This has led some to sometimes identify Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor, but this is technically not really the case--again the better pick is Otto I.

So question: Given that your opening premise is faulty--how does this effect the rest of your ideas?

-CryptoLutheran

I don't disagree with anything. I simplified. The Western Roman Empire fell in AD 476 and wasn't revived until AD 800 with Charlemagne. It wasn't completely established until AD 962 with the Ottonian Dynasty. The Eastern Roman Empire survived and became the Byzantine Empire when the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin in the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641).

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

How do you get that the Roman Empire lasted until 1806? The Roman Empire fell in 1453 with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire.

I assume what's happening is that you are confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire--they aren't the same thing.

While the sacking and taking of Rome by the Goths resulted in the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire, and resulted in a power vacuum which was soon filled by various Gothic and Germanic tribes and kingdoms; the Roman Empire was still very much around for another thousand years. We usually refer to it in this period as the Byzantine Empire, but that's just what modern historians call it because it can be helpful, historically, to make a distinction between the united Roman Empire before the fall of Rome, and also because the seat of power had transitioned from Rome to Byzantium, aka Constantinople. But what we call the Byzantine Empire was simply the Roman Empire. It would probably instead be far more helpful to speak of the period as the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire, as calling it by another name can lead to some confusion.

In contrast, the Holy Roman Empire was a political entity that has famously been remarked as having been neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The Holy Roman Empire emerged in the 10th century out of the Frankish Empire, generally Otto I is considered the first Holy Roman Emperor. Though Charlemagne had been crowned "emperor of the Romans" by the bishop of Rome, not only because of Charlemagne's defense of Rome against the Lombards, but for also giving refuge to the bishop of Rome and bringing him back to Rome safely. This has led some to sometimes identify Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor, but this is technically not really the case--again the better pick is Otto I.

So question: Given that your opening premise is faulty--how does this effect the rest of your ideas?

-CryptoLutheran

I don't disagree with anything. I simplified. The Western Roman Empire fell in AD 476 and wasn't revived until AD 800 with Charlemagne. It wasn't completely established until AD 962 with the Ottonian Dynasty. The Eastern Roman Empire survived and became the Byzantine Empire when the Empire adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin during the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), and fell in 1453 to the Ottoman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire survived until 1806.

 

[Douggg]

Seven Heads (Italian Kings) (Rev. 13:1):
1. Victor Emmanuel I (1802–1821)
2. Charles Felix (1821–1831)
3. Charles Albert (1831–1849)
4. Victor Emmanuel II (1849–1878)
5. Umberto I (1878–1900)
6. Victor Emmanuel III (1900–1946)*
7. Umberto II (1946)**

The sixth king was ruling at the time of John. The kings prior to the sixth king had already died.


10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

The sixth king was ruling at the time of John. The kings prior to the sixth king had already died.


10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Would you agree that the eighth king in Revelation 17 is the antichrist?

"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition (Rev. 17:11)."

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is (Rev. 17:8)."

Is this the same beast that will kill the two witnesses?

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them (Rev. 11:7)."

Do you think the two witnesses have come yet?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't disagree with anything. I simplified. The Western Roman Empire fell in AD 476 and wasn't revived until AD 800 with Charlemagne. It wasn't completely established until AD 962 with the Ottonian Dynasty. The Eastern Roman Empire survived and became the Byzantine Empire when the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin in the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641).

Saying that it was "revived" with the advent of the Carolingian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire is cracking open a proverbial massive can of worms, historically speaking.

It is true that the Holy Roman Emperors, saw themselves as having taken up the mantle of the Roman Empire in the West, in the absence of the Roman Empire in the West. The question of whether that position is valid is, at best, questionable. And is part of the incredibly complex situation of the middle ages in the disputes, debates, arguments, and growing division occurring between the Christian East and the Christian West, both religiously and politically.

I disagree that the Holy Roman Empire was in any way a continuation, a revival of, or in anyway a continuation of the Roman Empire in the West. I simply do not believe that this is a justifiable position historically.

There, objectively speaking, was already a Roman Empire still in existence--in the East. And it is the only polity that can deservedly be called the Roman Empire after the fall of Rome in the 5th century, because that's what it was. It was the Roman Empire. And it lasted until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Douggg]

Would you agree that the eighth king in Revelation 17 is the antichrist?

"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition (Rev. 17:11)."

I think the eighth king (the beast) is king seven after king seven has been killed and comes back to life.

The kings are Roman Empire kings of the Julio-Claudian family.

1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus Caesar
3. Tiberius
4. Caligula
5. Claudius

6. Nero - the one ruling at the time of John

7. The little horn person - end times leader of the EU, forthcoming.

8. The little horn person, after he is killed and comes back to life as the beast, dictator of the EU.

_________________________________________________________________________

As the little horn and beast - king of the Roman Empire.
As the Antichrist - king of Israel, coming in his own name.

little horn - leader of the EU, forthcoming.

then, following Gog/Magog, as the Prince who shall come (into the middle east).

then, anointed the King of Israel, perceived messiah by the Jews - now the Antichrist.

then, commits the transgression of desolation, 2Thesslaonians2:4 act, revealing himself to be the man of sin. End of his time the Antichrist, as the Jews will reject him as continuing as their king.

then, God has the person killed for his act, Ezekiel 28:1-10.

then, once the person finds his soul in hell, mocked, God in disdain for the person brings him back to life. The person sits up in his casket as the world looks on, dumbfounded, as it appears he has overcome death.

The person becomes possessed by the spirit of the original serpent beast in the garden, tool of Satan, which is allowed to ascended out of the bottomless pit.

The ten EU leaders give their EU kingdom over to him to be dictator.
____________________________________________________________________________


The two witnesses have not come. Their 1260 days is in the first half of the 7 years.

zig-zag down through my chart of the 7 years...

 

[ViaCrucis]

The 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is "waw." It has the numerical value of 6, like the Roman numeral V is 5. So WWW is literally 666.

In English, six hundred threescore and six is written 666, which, digit by digit, equals WWW. In Hebrew, six hundred threescore and six equals 600+60+6=םסו. But we’re not translating from Hebrew to English; we’re translating from English to Hebrew, so WWW=666.

This is pure unfettered tosh.

You already admit as much that the number is six hundred and sixty-six, not six-six-six; so you already know better than this and so the conclusion is absurd.

A 'W' is not a 'ו' (vav), it's a 'W'.

The evolution of the 'W' can be found in what we still call it in English today, a "double-U", and is an evolution of writing 'UU' to represent the phoneme /w/ (the voiced labio-velar approximant), which prior to being phased out earlier in the evolution of the English language had been taken up by the letter 'Ƿ' (wynn). The 'W' is literally forcing two 'U's together. Since in the Latin alphabet the character 'V' was used to represent both what we call the letters 'V' and 'U', the actual orthography makes it a 'VV'.

English does not use the English Latin alphabet for its numerals, prior to the adoption of Arabic numerals it was Roman numerals that were used. So if you want to "translate" six hundred and sixty-six, which you correctly point out is םסו in Hebrew, would be to use Arabic numerals, so 666, meaning 600+60+6, rather than six, six, six (again, something you already understand).

There is no way to convey a number into the English Latin alphabet, because our characters are not assigned numerical values. We don't use them to write out numbers.

Any numerical assignment to English letters would be arbitrary and/or for a specific reason (such as the use of certain Latin characters in mathematical formulas).

WWW does not mean 666, and it quite literally can't mean that. There is no means to reach that conclusion that does not involve invoking the totally absurd and false.

Beyond all of that, it fails as an explanation, to actually engage with what St. John writes in the Apocalypse, where the number he gives is the number of a human being's name. 666 is not some abstraction, it is the numerical value of someone's name, and John gives it to us as a clue as to who he is talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Douggg]

666 is not some abstraction, it is the numerical value of someone's name, and John gives it to us as a clue as to who he is talking about.

I don't think it is Nero.

But, I think it important to know that the mark is the mark of his name.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


the name of the beast.
the number of the beast's name.
the mark of the beast's name.

letters, number, symbol.

the name of the beast - letters make up a name.
the number of the beast's name - number 666 associated with the beast's name.
the mark of the beast's name - something other than letters or numbers. a symbol of some sort of his name.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

This is pure unfettered tosh.

You already admit as much that the number is six hundred and sixty-six, not six-six-six; so you already know better than this and so the conclusion is absurd.

A 'W' is not a 'ו' (vav), it's a 'W'.

The evolution of the 'W' can be found in what we still call it in English today, a "double-U", and is an evolution of writing 'UU' to represent the phoneme /w/ (the voiced labio-velar approximant), which prior to being phased out earlier in the evolution of the English language had been taken up by the letter 'Ƿ' (wynn). The 'W' is literally forcing two 'U's together. Since in the Latin alphabet the character 'V' was used to represent both what we call the letters 'V' and 'U', the actual orthography makes it a 'VV'.

English does not use the English Latin alphabet for its numerals, prior to the adoption of Arabic numerals it was Roman numerals that were used. So if you want to "translate" six hundred and sixty-six, which you correctly point out is םסו in Hebrew, would be to use Arabic numerals, so 666, meaning 600+60+6, rather than six, six, six (again, something you already understand).

There is no way to convey a number into the English Latin alphabet, because our characters are not assigned numerical values. We don't use them to write out numbers.

Any numerical assignment to English letters would be arbitrary and/or for a specific reason (such as the use of certain Latin characters in mathematical formulas).

WWW does not mean 666, and it quite literally can't mean that. There is no means to reach that conclusion that does not involve invoking the totally absurd and false.

Beyond all of that, it fails as an explanation, to actually engage with what St. John writes in the Apocalypse, where the number he gives is the number of a human being's name. 666 is not some abstraction, it is the numerical value of someone's name, and John gives it to us as a clue as to who he is talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

It's actually quite simple.

WWW (English) = waw waw waw (Paleo Hebrew) = ווו (Paleo Hebrew) = 666 (English) = χξς (Greek)

Waw (letter) - Wikipedia

It is the number of a man. One man invented the World Wide Web. He is a Brit. Which is why the number is translated from English.

Paleo Hebrew is what was used during Biblical times.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's actually quite simple.

WWW (English) = waw waw waw (Paleo Hebrew) = ווו (Paleo Hebrew) = 666 (English) = χξς (Greek)

Waw (letter) - Wikipedia

It is the number of a man. One man invented the World Wide Web. He is a Brit. Which is why the number is translated from English.

Paleo Hebrew is what was used during Biblical times.

Saying it again doesn't make it a better argument.

The W isn't a vav.
The number of the Beast isn't six six six.

-CryptoLuthean

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

Saying it again doesn't make it a better argument.

The W isn't a vav.
The number of the Beast isn't six six six.

-CryptoLuthean

WWW=666