Infoabsorption

6 hours ago, T-Bone said:

An interesting thing about The Way International is its symbiotic arrangement -  where you have two different lifestyles mingling and interacting by the members of the group:

1. There is the Christian lifestyle where one professes a belief in Jesus Christ and follows a religion based on His life and teachings.

2. A destructive cult (please refer to the subcategory of   “destructive cult” on Wikipedia) follows a certain agenda to the benefit of the cult leaders and to the detriment of the followers. The  destructive cult is also parasitic when paired with a religion. It uses and feeds off the life and energy of the religion...the religion is a means to an end and not the end itself.

This symbiotic arrangement is invisible, of course - and often it depends on the individual as far as which one of the two lifestyles…eclipses…dominates…overrides the other.

== == == ==

Folks are usually not attracted to a destructive cult. In my  case with TWI, I was attracted to what they said I could learn about Jesus Christ and increasing the power of God in my life – so I enrolled in the PFAL class.

If you stick around for a while and aspire to achieve any personal goals or some level of service – I believe you will come to many crossroads in your journey. These crossroads are like an intersection – where the Christian lifestyle and the destructive cult “meet” - where a crucial decision has to be made. Do you take the direction of a Christ-centered-faith or do you follow TWI’s direction which only furthers their agenda?

== == == ==

There are always moral dilemmas in life – and I think the decisions we make and the actions we take reveals so much about our character…and keep in mind how this all plays out on an individual basis and in different ways. I could be torn between wanting to give $100 to someone I know who really needs it – or give that to The Way International who reminds me that is part of my abundant sharing and putting God first.

I knew lots of good honest folks when I was in TWI. But I also came across some real a$$holes too. And I don’t mean folks with an irksome personality. I mean folks who were really into lording it over others, of using “for the sake of God’s ministry” as a cloak for excusing their dishonesty in business practices (I was burned a time or two) - where "doing the right thing" to resolve an offense or right a wrong really just amounts to sweeping it under the carpet so as not to give the ministry a bad name.. ...it's applying a fresh coat of white paint to the sepulcher of hypocrisy.

== == == ==

You said “But I have read and heard accounts of others about how controlling and mentally devastating it can be.  Just look at what many of you have shared here on GSC.” Yeah, I think that’s the voices of the good honest folks who left TWI. The type of so called Christians  who rip others off, who are self-serving as in Matthew 18  and in II Peter 2  do NOT post at Grease Spot…

I don’t think it’s a matter of “It takes learning.  But if that learning isn't correct, and one has nothing to compare it to except even more incorrect doctrine” as you have stated – I believe it is simpler and deeper than that. It’s really  about the type of person you are to begin with. Do you have the moral fiber to do what is right no matter the circumstances, or what your shrinking pocketbook or “evil overlord” is telling you to do?

You said: “That was what my feeble attempt was of bringing up Paul.  He actually believed he was doing the right thing.” I think Paul was an honest man – even before his conversion – he once said before a religious council he had lived his whole life in good conscience see Acts 23   though he was "before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" I Timothy 1:13  With religious zeal to spare Philippians 3:6 ...after his conversion he then made decisions based on his Christ-centered-faith. Paul of course did not have the New Testament documents to give him explicit directions on how to live the Christian life; but he did have the living Christ in his heart to first help him re-interpret the Old Testament documents in light of Jesus Christ being its fulfillment...and later inspiring him to write some of the New Testament documents as well.

Perhaps if we go by a simple idea – that actions speak louder than words (even the words of the Bible, that some folks like to use to obfuscate the issues) – then what folks actually do reveals a whole lot more about their character – you said: “give them a chance to prove they have had a change of heart and mind” – they’ve had their chance for a long time now -  I think the proof is in the pudding.

Right on! It was pure deception.

There were a lot of twigs in that area in 1981. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that she had visited one of those local twigs back then.

Rev. 22 appears to be a description of the eternal state that Mark S. has alluded to with the study of the Greek "ever & ever". The tree of life whether figurative or literal indicates a restored Eden that was lost in Genesis. The healing of the "nations" from the Greek indicates gentiles which brings to mind Isaiah 65 v.17-25. I no longer see the wolves , lions,  & serpents described  as literal, but symbolic of the Gentiles from an ancient Jewish perspective. In other words the Israelite's and the Gentiles will not be separated spiritually. Compare Romans 15 with Isaiah 11 & 65 and then Rev. 22.

Remember this one: "I have no friends when it comes to the word".

Also back in the 70s and 80s everybody greeted with a "Bless you" or "God Bless"  but I wonder how many actually meant it. Is that still a prevalent expression in TWI now? 

On 4/3/2018 at 2:42 AM, spectrum49 said:

(1) The kingdom of God is overall, covering everything concerning God's own kingdom --- which (of course) includes the spiritual realm.

(2) However, the kingdom of heaven is rather limited to an earthly kingdom. You may recall how John the Baptist frequently remarked: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". (Later on, just after Jesus had heard John was in prison...to be beheaded...he began using that phrase himself --- taking over where John had left off, as it were.)

Anyway: Even though the (earthly) kingdom of heaven "was at hand", that doesn't necessarily mean it was a valid statement --- as of yet! (After all, to properly have a kingdom upon earth requires the physical presence of a king; and technically, Jesus wasn't yet a king; those of Israel merely assumed so at the time.)

[Now: There's a rather mysterious reason why God allowed Israel to (falsely) proclaim Jesus as King of the Jews, even though it wasn't yet an actual reality. But I won't go into that aspect here and now. Let it suffice that (later on) Jesus will rule as a king upon earth.]

[And that's where The Way had another thing correct: But as usual, the info was obtained (actually, plagiarized) from another source, long before PFAL.]

And this concerns how the kingdom of heaven was discontinued after Jesus departed --- and is still being held in abeyance until his return (in Revelation) when he receives his official title as King of Kings, after which he'll rule his kingdom upon earth (the finally realized kingdom of heaven...duh!) for 1,000 years (aka: the millennium).

Meanwhile, he's a resident of God's Kingdom. And it appears that he's the only one so far...who was once human. (The angels have resided there from antiquity.) Although being subjects of the realm  isn't yet a virtual reality for us, we're informed in a figure that (spiritually speaking, mind you!) it's a present reality for us --- even as "we're already seated in the heavenlies", per Ephesians.

And the reason this is so is because (as I said earlier) the Kingdom of God includes the spiritual realm, to which we have been initiated (baptized into) --- per our obedience to Ro 10:9, which pertains to the new birth (lit: born from above; ie: having received spiritual life).

Nevertheless, what we have presently (though quite vast in itself!) is a merely a portion (earnest; or token, per Eph 1:14) of what we shall have in full, even as Jesus Christ has presently. 

So yes...technically Jesus is the only actual subject of The Kingdom of God, because (per Mk 16:19) he ascended to God's throne. But sometime later on, we'll join him there, where God rules as THE KING. 

I look at this from a completely different perspective now. I strongly disagree with your dispensational approach that John The Baptist's statement was not valid at the time he made the statement. Christ said that some would still be alive and witness his coming in his kingdom: (Matthew 16: 27-28) . It was near to them just like John the Baptist, Jesus, and James(James 5:8) stated. Also Paul in Romans 13:11. How these verses got thrust thousands of years into the future is baffling. Christ never said his Kingdom was here on earth. John 18:36  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world." That is why they called it the "Kingdom of Heaven". The picture of the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven described in Revelation has been literalized and then connected with Isaiah chapter 11. Problem is Isaiah chapter 11 isn't describing the 1000 years. Paul explains the symbolism in Romans chapter 15.  

 Again, it says,“Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”^[d]11 And again,“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles;
    let all the peoples extol him.”^[e]12 And again, Isaiah says,“The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations;
    in him the Gentiles will hope.”^[f]

Isaiah 11 was fulfilled in Paul's day and will continue into eternity(new heavens & earth Isaiah 65:17-25). The Gentiles(Wolves) coming together with the Israelites(lambs) in the new covenant is what this is referring to: https://adammaarschalk.com/2012/01/29/romans-15-shows-that-isaiah-11-is-fulfilled/  

GoldStar, I admit that the tree of life may be a literal tree, I'm just skeptical of it being literal. It's one of those issues I'm not sure about. Maybe others could chime in and give us some insight. But regarding the time statements within Revelation (if you look at the Greek and not the translation) there is not much gray area there.

I think WordWolf posted sound advice when he commented about not wanting to post things that are "off the cuff" which I admit i sometimes do. I looked at the Greek interlinear on Rev. 22:2 and the "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos" which is referring to Gentiles http://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm (as distinct from Israel).

GoldStar, your theory that the "nations" in Rev 22 is referring to non-Christians is just as much speculation as my speculation that it is referring to gentiles or the 12 tribes of Israel. Btw, your case is NOT solid.

Galdstar stated: "Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians. "

I'm not 100% sure about the context of Rev 22, but the term "nations" in the old testament has referred to gentile nations and also the tribes(nations) of Israel. There is a clue in Rev 22 that the tree of life bears 12 crops of fruit. Could this be referring to a resurrected Israel... i.e the 12 tribes of Israel?

GoldStar,  Below, I'll give you a few examples from the old testament where trees are used figuratively.

Psalm 1:3 "That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers."

In Psalm 80:8-11, we read-

"Thou hast brought a 'VINE' out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen (the Canaanites), and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea (Mediterranean), and her branches unto the river (Euphrates)."

In these words the Psalmist graphically pictures the taking of Israel from the uncongenial soil of Egypt, and the planting of them in the land of Canaan.

Of course we have all read the parable of the fig tree by Jesus. The fig tree represented Israel at that time.

There very well could be a literal tree of life in the new heavens & earth but at this time I'm leaning toward it being purely symbolic.

There is more to the meaning of the instructions to the Apostle John to " Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book"(Rev22:10)  than most Christians realize. We have an example from another prophet (Daniel) at the end of the prophecy to him he was told to:  "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."  (Dan:12:9) This did not mean Daniel wasn't supposed to record the things revealed to him. Rather, he was told that the things revealed to him would not happen in his lifetime . However, the Apostle John was told to not seal the words of the prophesy for "the time is at hand" (present tense). The king James translators used the phrase "at hand". If you look at the Greek text analysis, "at hand" comes from the Greek word "eggus" which means " near (in place or time)" http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/22-10.htm

I know this is very controversial but I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written and then distributed to the seven churches.

GoldStar, I don't believe the "Tree Of Life" is a literal tree. Revelation 22:1-5 is like a picture of Eden(Paradise) being restored.(See Genesis 2) The leaves on the tree healing the nations could be a symbol of the resurrection of the dead into a restored Eden. Rev 21:4 says There will be no more death’^[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away, so I'm skeptical of the theory that a certain group of people must eat of the fruit of a literal tree of life to remain alive in the new heavens & earth. Since you brought up Revelation 22, I am curious what your take on Rev 22:10 is.

Here is an interesting story about a lady who was raised in Children Of God but eventually broke free: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5253961/Woman-escaped-cult-teen-shares-story.html

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Good question.

 

 

The way I've handled that (without getting too detailed  here) is the collaterals are my only rule on faith and practice. I use them to rule on things I hear in life, and some things I accept on that basis.

The totally unreferenced sections of my KJV serves me as background information for the collaterals. I place them on a lower priority in my study scheduling. I must put SOMETHING on lower priorities. Those sections are useful, but not for steering in tough waters. They served as the background  info  for VPW when he wrote, and they serve me that way too when I read sections that are close by. They are open to re-interpretations, and can’t serve as a ruler like the collaterals do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike stated: "Good question".     Really??? LMAO!!!   Mike, you are either posting here to get a cheap laugh or you are thoroughly brainwashed. Check out Steve Hassan's web site. Maybe they can get you some help. LOL!

10 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Interesting thread  So_crates !  Is PFAL god-breathed?

I believe wierwille very subtly suggested just that in the PFAL book. On page 83 of the PFAL book in the chapter “That Man May Be Perfect” wierwille states:

“…Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the Scriptures…” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No it says, “Search the scriptures…” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed.”

wierwille makes several insinuations here. First off, he suggests that not ALL that wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; that implies SOME of it is…secondly wierwille is not as generous with conferring the God-breathed status on others. For example - he does NOT say “not all what Calvin said was necessarily God-breathed, nor all that Luther said…& etc.” Rather he simply states “not what Calvin said, nor Luther…”which suggests that none of their writings are God-breathed whereas at least some of wierwille’s writings are God-breathed.

Another treacherous aspect of wierwille’s statement is the lack of specificity…WHAT parts of his writings ARE God-breathed? Perhaps it might have helped if he issued a red letter edition of the PFAL books – like Bibles with the words of Christ in red…This way when students needed a shot of the god-breathed wierwille – they could just go their red letter edition of a PFAL book and find exactly the passage of wierwille that was god-breathed.

Now let’s see what a little wierwille-style-vagary does to II Timothy 3:16 using the NIV:

Not all of Scripture is God-breathed but what part is God-breathed – is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Naw…I don’t like it…I’m really gonna have to apply myself to find the god-breathed stuff.

If I'm not mistaken, Christ's comments in John 5:39 was a reference to the Torah(1st 5 books of Moses) and the old testament Scriptures written after the Torah. The Gospels and Epistles weren't written at the time Christ made those statements. It's been so long since I took PFAL or read anything related to PFAL, but I don't recall VPW mentioning that fact in PFAL.

Dispensationalism may not have taken root in the 1800s if it were not for the mis-translation of the Greek word "ge". "Ge" is very different than "kosmos" or  "oikoumené". The Greek "Ge" refers to a specific region, not the world at large( e.g. the land of Judea). "Ge" was translated as "earth" in most of Revelation, so when J.N. Darby was putting together Dispensationalism, he dismissed the "shortly", "quickly", "near", and "about to" time references because the cataclysms described in Revelation such as a 1/3 part of the trees being burnt up( Rev. 8:7) haven't happened on a global scale. But they most definitely did happen in the land of Judea during the Roman invasion(66-70AD) with the implementation of their scorched earth policy. Here is a word study of "ge" that should clear up some confusion: https://adammaarschalk.com/2014/03/15/revelation-the-land-ge-is-referenced-22-times-more-often-than-the-world-kosmos/

Sadly, so many "Christian" organizations are nothing more than money making enterprises. VPW put his product together in the 1950's then capitalized on the Jesus Freak movement of the late 1960's. A lot of cults started during the 1960's. David Berg's Children of God is another one that comes to mind.

Not a problem at all modcat5. I was thinking along the lines of "questioning doctrine" when I posted these 2 messages.

As brought out previously, these 10 horns / 10 generals on the Scarlet Beast are by no means the same as the 10 crowned horns on the Sea Beast of Rev. 18.  None of these 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast have a crown or kingdom yet as of John's writing.  They gain power simultaneously, and even that is for only ONE HOUR with the Scarlet Beast.  And it is only "AS IF" they were kings, not that they ever are one, really.

I have found these same horns described elsewhere in Scripture, just based on their activity and their historical setting.  The context of Zechariah 12:5-6 duplicates the actions of the 10 horns in Rev. 17:16.  Zechariah predicts the AD 70 siege conditions of Jerusalem, and the governors/captains of Judah who would manipulate their fellow countrymen, "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" to their own advantage.  They would act like a "torch of fire" in a bound-up sheaf (like the tares bound in bundles to be burned), and they would "devour" all the people of Jerusalem - just exactly as the 10 quasi-"kings"  are predicted to do in Rev. 17, when they "hate the whore" (Jerusalem), and make her desolate, and "burn and devour her".  It was civil war let loose in Jerusalem, and her temple rulers, and Messiah-wannabes made the most of their last, desperate, one hour of opportunity before it all went up in flames.

This brief "HOUR" that the 10 horns / 10 generals governed along with the Scarlet Beast (the independent kingdom of Israel) was beset by continual conflict with various contenders for the prophesied Messiah role, who they thought was to rule the world from a physical temple in Jerusalem.  "Strong delusion", indeed.

One of these Messiah-wannabes was the first to claw his way to the top of the heap of contenders - the one termed "the Man of Lawlessness" in II Thessalonians 2.  The individual who fulfilled all the particular descriptions in Paul's Thessalonians account regarding the Man of Lawlessness was a Zealot named Menahem, who actually did present himself in the temple as King of the Jews, dressed in Herod's royal regalia stolen from Masada in AD 66.  His name means "Comforter", (the name for both Christ and the Holy Spirit - John 14:16),  a rather blasphemous moniker, considering his war-mongering actions.  If interested, one can read the account of his activities in Josephus' Wars, Book 2, ch. 17. 8-9.  He and his followers were murdered in turn almost immediately by his rival, Eleazar and his troops.  He was a flash in the pan, as it were, destroyed along with the brightness of his own sudden coming into prominence. (NOT Christ's coming, by the way.)

This Menahem was the son or grandson of Judas the Galilean from Acts 5:37. Judas was killed for instigating a rebellion against Rome's new tax in Quirinius' day.  His two sons who followed him in this revolt, James and Simon, were crucified for their participation.  So Menahem was merely carrying on the family tradition of Zealotry - a "son of destruction, or perdition" -  as the Man of Lawlessness is termed in II Thess 2:3.  Another relative of Menahem's who participated heavily in the rebellion was Eleazar ben Jairus, who later led the ill-fated last stand at Masada's stronghold.

A few other names that figure among the contenders for the Messiah role are familiar to those who have some grounding in first century historical events.  Simon son of Gioras would have been one.  Eleazar, son of Simon another; also Eleazar ben Ananias, John of Gischala, perhaps the Egyptian in the wilderness mentioned in Acts 21:38 - there were apparently many that were vying for the coveted Messiah-King role.  The names mentioned here are only those who emerged as the front-runners after lesser-known rivals were eliminated.   I John 2:18 testified that there were many antichrists in that day as he was writing, that "went out FROM US" (out from among those he was writing to in those days).

If this collection of observations above seem too small-scaled, compared to the usual grandiose, global-wide interpretations we are used to hearing, perhaps it is because we are too myopic.  We need to adjust our interpretations to fit the audience that these things were actually written to - namely, the beleaguered, persecuted saints of John's day, and the generation of Israel that was going to experience God's vengeance poured out upon them in that first century. 

Anything that extends the fulfillment of these events into our current day is to exaggerate them out of all proportion to their intended purpose.  Any such exaggerated interpretation stretches the limbs of the body of Daniel's prophetic image into a gross distortion of that human figure.  The stone cut without hands has already struck the iron and clay feet in AD 70 and shattered the power that Satan and his demons once held over all this image's kingdoms.  We are privileged to live in the age when this rock is continuing to grow and fill the world.  If we can't perceive the growth of this kingdom with our own eyes, it is because we are not able to see what God sees.  Leaven grows quietly and unobtrusively - but inexorably.   The mustard seed will become the largest of all herbs.  And contrary to all expectations.............rocks can grow.

The following is my best estimation of just how the ruling House of Annas serving as high priests could be considered the fulfillment of this 7-kings list with the 8th individual who succeeds them. They are called "kings" in a sense we don't usually think of with our western mindset. When Paul was on trial before Ananias ben Nebedeus in Acts 23:5, he referred to the high priest as "the ruler of thy people", just as God's high priest was termed in Exodus 22:28. 

The high priest is termed the "Prince of princes" over the holy people in the context of Daniel 8:24, 25.  Actually, during that Maccabean period, the offices of high priest and king merged, and were held by a single individual until  Herodian times.  Also, there are multiple references in the OT where the high priest is called the "Prince" in Israel.  Ezekiel chapters 44, 45, and 46 repeatedly  use this term for the one who would offer the proscribed sacrifices in Zerubbabel's post-exilic temple.

The high priest's vestments included a "crown" with "Holiness to the LORD" engraved on it (Ex. 39:30).

Hannah's praise exalting God in I Samuel 2:10 (I Kings 2:10 LXX) extols God because He "gives strength to our KINGS".  This was before the first monarch of Israel, Saul, had even been born.  Therefore, she was praising God for giving strength to the high priests of Israel.

The high priest under Solomon was called a "prince" in I Kings 4:1.  As does Zechariah 6:11-14.

Israel was called by God a "kingdom of priests" - with the high priest at its head invested with God's authority for the term of his life.

"Prince" and "King" are interchangeable terms for the high priest in Ezekiel 43:7 LXX. 

And Christ labels the high priests as "kings of the earth" in Matt. 17:25. 

As already noted, I believe Luke 16's parable of Lazarus and the rich man is in reference to the House of Annas and its corrupt activities.  It was given as a pointed finger of condemnation against this avaricious family of 7 men who held a monopoly over the high priesthood for decades.  Annas and Caiaphas had made it their personal agenda to entrap Christ in His words and bring Him to death. Every one of these 7 men were present in Acts 4:6 when Peter and John were defending themselves before all the "kindred of the high priest" after Pentecost.

By name, they were the following:  #1) Annas ben Seth, the patriarch, and "Father" of the Lazarus parable, #2) Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, who played the role of the "rich man" in the Lazarus parable, #3) Eleazar ben Ananus, the first of the 5 brothers, #4) Jonathan ben Ananus, #5) Theophilus ben Ananus, #6) Matthias ben Ananus, and #7) Ananas ben Ananas.  The 8th member of this House of Annas to serve as high priest was a grandson, Matthias ben Theophilus.

If one pulls up a list of the high priests of the Herodian era, with their dates of appointment and tenure, and puts this list side by side with Rev. 17's list of 7 kings, the comparison of the House of Annas with this list of 7 kings aligns perfectly with the rather obscure, convoluted language, as follows:

Revelation 17:10  -  "and there are 7 kings: five are fallen" (the first 5 high priests of the House of Annas would have died as of John's writing) "and ONE IS" (still living - which would probably be Matthias ben Ananus, the youngest son) "and the other IS NOT YET COME; and WHEN HE COMETH," (Ananus ben Ananus was appointed as high priest in AD 62, which means that Revelation had to have been written BEFORE AD 62) "he must continue A SHORT SPACE" (because Ananus had James the Just, Christ's half-brother executed and overstepped his office's authority in doing so.  He was deposed for this, after serving a brief 3 months.)  "and the beast that WAS" (the Scarlet Beast who was the independent kingdom-nation of Israel that had first been launched by the Maccabeus family around 142 BC) "and IS NOT", (because Israel as an independent kingdom ceased to exist in 63 BC when Pompey incorporated it into the Roman Republic) "even he is AN EIGHTH" (because the independent kingdom of Israel resurfaced in AD 66, led by the 8th member of the house of Annas as its high priest, a grandson named Matthias ben Theophilus) " and is OF THE SEVEN"  (Matthias was in the genetic line of the House of Annas) "and goes into destruction" (because Matthias was also murdered by the Zealots in AD 66 during their temple siege). 

Perhaps it's just me, but this language seems to fit this family of high priests like a glove. 

Next, some further details about the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast.

Despite the fact that the Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17:3 is described as having 7 heads and 10 horns, just as the Sea Beast does, THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM ONE AND THE SAME.  They are counterparts.  Here are a few points that illustrate their differences:

#1)  Their origins are different - one came from the sea, the other appears in the wilderness.

#2)  The Sea Beast is presented as an unchallenged foe who wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Rev. 13:7) - whereas the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast wage war against the Lamb, but are overcome by Him (Rev. 17:14).

#3)  The 10 horns on the Sea Beast all have crowns - the Scarlet Beast's 10 horns have none.  And even when these do gain power as if they were kings, just after John's writing, it is only for ONE HOUR simultaneously - not successively as the 10 emperor horns on the Sea Beast.  Just how long is this "hour"?  As long as the "hour" that it took to crush Jerusalem in AD 70 (Rev. 18:10, 17, 19).  Perhaps as long as the length of the 10 toes on Daniel 2's prophetic image.  In other words, about 3 1/2 years, from late AD 66 - 70.

#4)  The Sea Beast has no harlot (Jerusalem) riding in a dominant position on its back - the Scarlet Beast does.  This harlot REIGNS OVER the kings of the earth (including the 7 kings) which are part of the beast upon which she rides.  If this woman represents Jerusalem, the faithless harlot, she did most definitely reign over the kings/high priests of the earth (GE - land of Israel).  This is NOT "kings of the whole habitable world" (as in Rev. 16:14).  It's the "kings of the earth (GE - land of Israel - as in the very same Rev. 16:14 verse).  This verse separates the kings of the earth and the kings of the whole habitable world into 2 different categories.  The first were Judean kings - the other were Gentile kings.  Christ equates these Judean "kings of the earth" with the high priests who received the annual half-shekel for the temple tax from the people - not from their own sons (Matt 17:25).

#5)  One of the 7 heads / mountains of this Scarlet Beast received a deadly would, and was then healed of this wound.  My take on the 7 heads of this Sea Beast is that they represent the 7 mountains of the city of Rome.  One of these mountains of Rome received this "deadly wound" by the disastrous fire at Rome in AD 64.  It's a wound to one of the heads (mountains), NOT a wound to one of the horns (emperors) - which, at that time of John's writing, would have been the emperor Nero.  Rome's deadly wound by the fire was healed when Nero launched a massive expensive rebuilding program for the capitol city, including his fabulous "Golden House" with its Colossus of Nero image over 100 ft. tall.  In contrast to this healing of the Sea Beast's one head/mountain - the Scarlet Beast's 7 heads as kings have all either fallen, or will go into destruction (perdition), and its 7 heads as mountains have all been leveled with the ground and "are not found" (Rev. 16:20).

#6)  There is a difference in the level of blasphemy performed by the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast as well.  Rev. 13:1's account of the Sea Beast only has "the name (singular) of blasphemy" on its heads.  On the other hand, the Scarlet Beast is "full of names (plural) of blasphemy" (Rev. 17:3).  Israel's guilt exceeded Rome's guilt because Israel sinned against her own Messiah who walked her streets.

Next, how best to define the list of 7-8 kings on the Scarlet Beast.

I decided to post something that to many of you will seem rather crazy and/or unbelievable but since we were involved in TWI I would assume most of us are used to crazy. I know some on this board are aware of my preterism but some may not be. To those of you who aren't aware, Preterism is the belief that most or all of the prophetic eschatological events recorded in the Bible have already occurred. Some of my dispensational futurist friends keep asking me for historical "proof" that the things written in Revelation are symbols of events that occurred during the Roman attack on Judea & Jerusalem in particular from 66-70 AD. I don't believe that someone can provide proof (in the scientific sense) of the meaning of a symbol but I do believe that one can provide evidence.

I have copied and pasted below a commentary of the "3 Beasts of Revelation" by a fellow preterist of mine. I did not write this commentary. After reading his commentary I had a "by George I think he's got it!" moment. I thought I had most of Revelation already put together in my mind until I read this commentary. I pasted his commentary unedited. That being said, I don't agree with every little detail he proposes. For instance he sees the little horn in Daniel 7 as Nero, I believe it is the Roman General Titus. Also he sees the millennium as past, I believe that the 1000 years is in progress. But I do think he has the 3 Beasts pretty well nailed down from recorded history. Btw, this is a little different than the typical Preterist view. So here it is, starting below the line:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Just when you thought the subject of the beast was cooked to a crisp - here you are with yet another post on that constantly-visited theme.  But for those having the time and the patience to review the following series of comments, perhaps you will encounter some points you may not have considered before.  Hopefully, breaking up these comments into several portions will make them more easily digestible.  As an advance notice, some of this material will run counter to the views most often expressed by the more well-known advocates of preterism.  But as a general rule, preterists don't mind chewing on something that might taste a little different, so here goes....

As the title emphasizes, I see Revelation dividing these creatures into three distinct entities, each with its own identifying features and point of origin.  And there are definitely three of them - and the Red Dragon who first appears in heaven in Rev. 12:3 cannot be any one of these three.  In a nutshell, here below is how each of the three beasts could be described:

#1)  The "Sea Beast" of Rev. 13:1  -  represents the Roman empire rising out of the sea of Gentile nations, just as the sea and the nations are a reflection of each other is Isaiah 60:5.  This is simply a re-introduction of the 4th beast from the sea in Daniel 7, which also had these same 10 crowned horns.  One of these, the little horn, was Nero of 666 notoriety, waging war against the saints for 3 1/2 "times" (Dan.7:21), or 42 months (Rev. 13:5,7), following the AD 64 fire at Rome.  But he is NOT The Antichrist - not even one of the antichrists that I John 2:18 speaks of, for he never "went out from among" those to whom John was writing.

 The 10 crowned horns on this Sea Beast represent the succession of Caesars from Julius Caesar through Vespasian - the emperor under whose reign the "power of Daniel's people would be shattered", as in Daniel 12:7.  (This is the same "power" of John 1:12 - the power to be called the true Sons of God - which national Israel lost, as shown in Isaiah 65:15 and Mark 12:9.  It has less to do with Israel losing her military power or her national status in the Roman world than it has to do with her power to stand before God as His people.)  Any emperor's reign after the 10th (Vespasian) would have been irrelevant after any prophecy related to the dissolution of Jerusalem's temple was fulfilled. 

This Sea Beast also shares the same identity with the 4th iron kingdom of Roman domination in Daniel 2's prophetic image.  At the point in Daniel's image where the iron legs turn into iron mixed with clay in the feet and toes, it is a picture of the Roman Sea Beast "mingling with the seed of men " in Israel.  With the empire's official sanction of Judaism as a "religio licita", it enjoyed a certain level of autonomy - until the rebellion.  But until the season when that rebellion broke out, the Land Beast worked in support and cooperation with the Sea Beast.

Next, details describing that Land Beast.

I'm glad that many of you liked Mr. Gore's lecture on Dispensationalism. When I started delving into The Book of Revelation on a deeper level there were some Greek words that I ran into during my studies that I don't recall ever hearing about during my time in TWI. Back in the day, TWI was big into Greek words to gain a deeper understanding of the verses one is studying especially if the translation is a little off, but regarding the Book of Revelation it didn't seem the Greek words mattered to them. Here are a few examples. Take a look at Rev 1:19 KJV:

Revelation 1:19: Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 

Compare that to the Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-19.htm

Notice the difference? The Greek word "mello" was translated to English as "shall be". "mello" should have been translated "about to" in this context. This Greek word "mello" is one of the most mistranslated words into English in the New Testament. The translators must have really hated the Greek word mello. I wonder why?  Here is another example of "mello":

Revelation 17: 8a: ⁸ The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/17-8.htm

So the proper translation is : The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

I recently ran across a video(see below) of Bruce Gore , a former Dispensationalist, who traces the line of theologians from whom the doctrine of Dispensationalism has become so popular in this day and time. Various forms of Futurism as a system explaining biblical eschatology(end times) have been around before the 1830’s, but “Dispensationalism” is a relatively new creature. The origin of Dispensationalism as an elaborate system of eschatology can be traced to John Nelson Darby in the 1830’s. A man by the name of Cyrus Scofield(of Scofield Reference Bible fame) took the theology and really made it popular here in America.

I looked up C.I. Scofield and discovered something very eye opening. Apparently he started styling himself Rev. C. I. Scofield, D.D in the 1890s but there are no records of any academic institution granting him a Doctor of Divinity degree, not even honorary. Sound familiar?

I started having doubts about the organization of TWI sometime during my sophomore year of high school (1984-85) but at that time I still bought into the fallacy that VPW had the most accurate interpretation of the Bible and held him in high regard. From personal observations I noticed that things had deteriorated shortly thereafter and by my senior year of high school (1987) I wanted nothing to do with TWI, although I still participated so that I would not upset my mother. When my mother declined the loyalty oath in 1989 there was such a release and sense of freedom that I began reading from a variety of sources outside of TWI. It was exhilarating to say the least to be able to read from other perspectives. As time went on and my own personal research continued, I began to take the Bible less literally. I've come to the conclusion that the bible is mostly symbolic or figurative but true nonetheless. I still believe in the basic message that God has provided a means of redemption of mankind from it's fallen state. Regarding doctrinal changes... the biggest change I've made since leaving TWI is my switch to partial preterism. 

5 hours ago, Twinky said:

Might it be okay to think of "government" as "orderliness"?  Rather than any specific form of rule, domination, etc. 

• God had seen (Genesis) that the world had become chaotic, and imposed orderliness upon it.
• God is not the author of confusion, but of peace - orderliness.

Christians are supposed to be peaceful, respectful, orderly, both in the church and in their relationships with other people.  We are not "peaceable" if we are being anarchic, butting up against people, arguing and fighting.  That, however, does to mean that we should not stand up for what we believe in:

• Mordecai [book of Esther], whose act of civil disobedience was not words but simply refusing to bow when the pompous bully Haman passed by.  But Mordecai did not fight against the regime of the time - in fact, quite the opposite - his submission to that regime brought about hte liberation of his people.

Twinky, I think you are right about orderliness which ultimately comes from God and in a fallen world some form of government needs to be in place to promote peace and prevent chaos. I disagree with the Anarchists although I've had some interesting discussions with some of them.