Posts by PetrW

62

Revelation 13 and 17 Beasts

by Duran in

revelation 17:8-11,12-14. revelation 13:3,5,7,8,10;11:2,3. revelation 13:11-17;19:19,20,21. revelation 15:2;20:4. what beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

what beast gets the 42-month authority given to it in which time the motb is given out?.

what beast is the 8th king?.

PetrW

I will try to explain my view of the Beast of the Sea (13:1) and that it is identical to the Beast of the Abyss.

For the sake of simplicity, I will not, at the outset, quote classical NT-lexics like Bauer or Kittel, because I assume that everyone can verify this for himself. I'll just present my view:

The sea of which he writes (13:1) is, in the usual allegorical sense understood across the churches (which I also hold in this case), identified with the wicked according to Isa 57:20. The "sea," then, expresses both the "mass" of humanity, and the constant restlessness and "spilling over" of opinions in rapid succession from one place to another. The "sea" represents a certain contrast to the (unfaithful!!!) "earth". If the "sea" of people can be understood as meaning that they do not express any fixed position (see the book by the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman: Liquid Modernity), the people who represent the "earth" may have had some contact with something solid, some "rock that is Christ", but sooner or later they abandoned it or even betrayed it. Out of them will come a false prophet.

Back to the "sea". How is this related to the abyss? An explanation of how to understand the function(!!!) of "abyssos" is provided by Rev. 20:1 and 20:7. In (20,1) it is stated that the angel has the keys to the abyss and Satan is cast into it. In 20,7 it is written that he is released from "prison" after a period of 1000 years. Abyssos thus has the function of a "prison", some controlled place where one either enters or is released from. This is illustrated in Luke 8:31 where the demons plead with Jesus not to be put into the abyss.

Where is abyssos located? If we accept the eschatological meaning of the word abyssos, as "prison," then an interesting answer is offered in (18:2), where it is written that Babylon the Great is the place of the "prison" of all unclean spirits. This is a very strong suggestion to consider the identity of Babylon the Great... (but that is a separate topic). The idea that there is a prison for spirits is also hinted at in 1 Peter 3:19.

If I focus on Revelation, there is always something that comes out of the abyss that is identified as a woe (9:12): it is the apocalyptic locusts of 9:1 (cf. 9:11) or just the Beast of the abyss (17:8).

What is the connection with the sea? If I accept that "a-byssos" means the bottomless depths of some waters, and there is a demonstrable connection between the waters of the sea (Gen 1:2 or Ps 105:9 (106:9) according to the LXX "The sea of reeds dried up...you led them in the abyss, as in the wilderness...") then the statement in 11:7 (17:8) that the Beast will come up in the bottomless depths of the human "sea" is just a refinement of where he will come up from.

The place of origin of the Beast of 13:1 and 17:8 is identical.

However, this does not necessarily prove that they are also one and the same Beast. Their number must be somehow differently defined.
For me, the defining number for the Beasts is the numerals: if in 13:11 it is stated that the false prophet (an animal from "the earth") is identified as "another" and immediately afterwards, in 13:12, that he takes over the power of the "first" animal, then only two animals are defined here. The image of the Beast is also only one (though it is assumed that it will be multiplied, but it will be the same as the image of Caesar on the coins), and the Beast will have a name (13:17-18). In 14:9, as well as 14:11; 15:2; 16:2; 16:10 (the throne of the Beast!) to 16:13, the Beast is mentioned with an image in the uniform usu. In 16:13 the Dragon, the Beast and the prophet are mentioned again, and from these come 3 unclean sayings. Again the number of actors is defined.

The final proof for the unity of the Beast from 13:1 and 17:8 is provided by 19:20: here the Beast and the false prophet are named, and those who received the χαραγμα and worshipped the image (according to chapter 13). Subsequently, the Beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. It is not stated that the two Beasts and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire.

62

Revelation 13 and 17 Beasts

by Duran in

revelation 17:8-11,12-14. revelation 13:3,5,7,8,10;11:2,3. revelation 13:11-17;19:19,20,21. revelation 15:2;20:4. what beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

what beast gets the 42-month authority given to it in which time the motb is given out?.

what beast is the 8th king?.

PetrW

@Duran

That's an interesting interpretation. My view is that when the Woman is in the wilderness for the 1260 days (12:6), then there is war in Heaven (12:7). And it is at that time - Satan is "busy" fighting - that the two witnesses begin their 1260 days (11:3).

In fact, in (11:3) it is stated that they "shall prophesy" (Greek verb in the future tense), they do not begin immediately, yet at the time of the 6th trumpet. The 7th trumpet is announced, the blowing of the trumpet is not described until (11:15). Their activity, therefore, does not fall until the time of the "last trumpet," the 7th trumpet.

I have this basic chronological idea of Revelation that (very simplistically): the first 7 years, are the seals and trumpets. Those are the fat times, from Joseph's dream in Egypt. At that time, on the one hand, the "wheat" (the daughters and sons of God) is being harvested, and it is increasing geometrically, while being purified. Then, after the last trumpet sounds, the "lean times" begin, the Beast, the false prophet, begins to work. Bowls of wrath begin to pour out, etc.

The 1260 days of the two witnesses add up to 42 months of the Beast and the false prophet. Everything culminates, the last, 14th year.

*

I am also suggesting that this contradicts, in a way, the temporal concept offered by Vidqun or you. But, on the other hand, I take your view as a good suggestion, to examine my own views and to identify any "leaky spots"...

62

Revelation 13 and 17 Beasts

by Duran in

revelation 17:8-11,12-14. revelation 13:3,5,7,8,10;11:2,3. revelation 13:11-17;19:19,20,21. revelation 15:2;20:4. what beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

what beast gets the 42-month authority given to it in which time the motb is given out?.

what beast is the 8th king?.

PetrW

@Vidqun

I'll try today, to finish the basic framework regarding the Beasts. Especially their origin i.e. land (which I already hinted) and then the connection between sea/abyss/prison (guarded place).

I think you are right to start with the need to clarify the chronology of events. I wanted to do that too, but then it would get too complicated. That's why I've started writing about my basic perspective - so far without any particular consideration of chronology. The roles, functions and relationships of the Beasts. I'll describe them first, then place them in a timeline.

62

Revelation 13 and 17 Beasts

by Duran in

revelation 17:8-11,12-14. revelation 13:3,5,7,8,10;11:2,3. revelation 13:11-17;19:19,20,21. revelation 15:2;20:4. what beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

what beast gets the 42-month authority given to it in which time the motb is given out?.

what beast is the 8th king?.

PetrW

@Duran

I will try to answer the first question briefly:

What beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

Leaving aside Rev. 6:8, the next occurrence of the word θηριον is attested in Rev. 11:8. Here it is stated that after the 1260 days, a beast will arise from the abyss and destroy the two witnesses.

The beast from the abyss is mentioned in Rev. 17:8, stating that it goes away to destruction.

Thus, it may be considered that there is a direct causation of events: the death of the two witnesses is directly connected to the beast of Rev. 17:8. Its basic description in Rev 17:9-13 is identical (the angel describes the beast to John in general terms, without paying attention to details such as the crowns or the texts on the beast's body - cf. Rev. 17:3) with Rev. 13:1.

This is my basic view of the beasts of Rev 13 and 17. It is one and the same beast.

What other reasons can be given?

The next reference to the beast is Rev. 13:1. The dragon stands on the sand by the sea (12:18) and out of the sea comes (13:1) a beast that is strikingly similar to the dragon of Rev. 12:3, who is later identified (12:9) as Satan.

The dragon lends his strength, throne, and power to this beast (13,2). The whole earth admires the beast. In my opinion, the symbol of "earth" here is understood as a symbol of people and their hearts, which are like hard or barren ground. Or as such soil, which indeed bears fruit, but the cares of the world, the thorns and thistles, will destroy everything (Matt. 13:19-22). These are people on whose hearts the small seeds of the kingdom of God may have fallen, but they have not become true followers of Christ, good soil that bears fruit. When Jesus speaks in Matt. 10:34 about not coming to bring peace on earth, but a sword, He explains in the very next verse that by "the earth" here He means the people in the inner circle of true Christians (the real/symbolic family) who will persecute the true followers of Christ. So the land in Revelation has several meanings, and the above description applies - in my opinion - to Rev 13:3 (and of course other texts, but I don't want to go into detail).

The beast becomes an object of religious veneration (13:4), its power is limited to 42 months (13:5), and it will be so powerful that it will conquer the saints (13:7) and dominate all tribes, human communities, language groups, and nations.

In 13:11, it is specifically stated that another beast will arise from the earth. If afterwards (16:13) he is identified as a false prophet (cf. 19:20), then here again we are secting "the earth" i.e. these are the people who, though they could have brought forth a crop, did not bring forth any except thorns. Or the words of the kingdom of God "leaped" from them as from hard ground, or indeed, they knew something and were at first enthusiastic, but it quickly passed from them. So from this "habitat", people will be recruited who will form the "body" of the symbolic "false" prophet. They will speak like a dragon (13:12).

The false prophet (13:14) seduces, like the antichrist (2 John 7), so - if we understand the beast to be a rather political power, then the false prophet would symbolize a pseudo-religious organization. I don't think it's necessary to associate it with any particular church or religious system. It may be some ideology that will have pseudo-religious features, and that ideology will fanatically demand that everyone be devoted to it. It does not necessarily involve a god - see the conflict between Moses and Pharaoh, or Pharaoh's wise men or sorcerers (Ex. 7:11). I think it was more of a secular dispute - the description bears traces of "magic", but the reaction of the magi was entirely rational. I see it more as a conflict between religion (Moses) and the then, secular "science" (the Egyptian wise men) and it may be repeated again.

A false prophet, creates an image (εικων - the word then became the basis of "icon") of the beast. If behind the beast and the false prophet, stands the Dragon, then the image of the beast must be something supreme. Jesus used the term εικων when he held the coin where the image of Caesar would be. The image of the beast, then, must also be something similar. Some kind of icon. In my opinion, it is the Antichrist or the one who is "in the place of Christ".

There is a variant reading in the Gospels, especially in Matt 27:17, where Pilate asks if they want to release Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ? This sequence, this brief moment, if we figuratively "pause" it, then there, in those texts, in my opinion, we find all the actors: we find the beast (represented by Pilate), there is the false prophet (the high priest in Mat 27:20), but there is the murderer who participated in the rebellion (Mk 15:7). Barabbas becomes a symbol of the future Antichrist: he too will stir up rebellion in the "city" and will murder. Everyone will know that he is a murderer, but will prefer him to Christ...

*

ugh, that was supposed to be a short text... I didn't write everything...

31

Has the Watchtower Faithful Slave become the Evil Slave?

by Vanderhoven7 in

what evidence suggests to you that the wt f&ds is actually more like the es of matthew 24?.

45¶who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?.

46blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.. .

PetrW

@Vidqun: your and Duran's views are interesting. I confess I don't agree with you on everything either, but for example your opinion that the "image" of the first animal in chapter 13 is just the animal in chapter 17 is interesting.

Let me explain: even if I think otherwise (the "image" is the Antichrist, in my opinion...), your view is stimulating, because - in a positive way - it forces one to come to terms with other views.

If you or Duran start a thread, you will definitely get one reader, or I will join the discussion...✌️😎

31

Has the Watchtower Faithful Slave become the Evil Slave?

by Vanderhoven7 in

what evidence suggests to you that the wt f&ds is actually more like the es of matthew 24?.

45¶who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?.

46blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.. .

PetrW

If I comment on Matthew 24:45ff, I think that the German attempt at a modern but humorous interpretation of the Bible (volxbibel.de) puts it this way:

*

What's a good department manager like?" Jesus asked his people. "His boss has given him the task of keeping his employees properly occupied and making sure that they have everything they need. 46 He can be totally happy if the boss comes by and checks the department and everything is OK. 47 One thing is quite clear: he would entrust the rest of the company to such a reliable head of department. 48 But if the head of department messes up and thinks to himself: 'It doesn't matter anyway, as long as the old man isn't there', 49 and then starts bullying his employees and partying all over the company every night, 50 yes, if the boss suddenly comes back, then panic is the order of the day! 51 He won't just sack him, he'll also hang a complaint on his neck and throw him out on the street in a big arc. The guy will be totally miserable, he'll start crying and get depressed, but he doesn't deserve it any other way."

*

But I think that when Jesus used the word "slave", he meant to emphasize a position of man that precluded independent, free action (which is criticized as "feasting and drinking with drunkards"), i.e. slavery. Not a servant (in the sense of a municipal official, since the exercise of public administration has also been largely privatized - see Matthew, as a publican or one who has paid to perform public service). The slave, as a lawless person who derived his existence principally from the master, was to follow strictly the master's instructions. One historian has put the position of the slave very well in relation to modern times: the slave was the best robot (which is why the ancient Mediterranean somehow did not rush to a technical revolution a la the 19th century).

In modern times, the status of the slave - in my opinion - would correspond perhaps to some lower military rank and relationship to a superior: "When a lieutenant appoints a sergeant over the men...such sergeant will be mentioned in the daily report...".

31

Has the Watchtower Faithful Slave become the Evil Slave?

by Vanderhoven7 in

what evidence suggests to you that the wt f&ds is actually more like the es of matthew 24?.

45¶who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?.

46blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.. .

PetrW

@Big Dog

That's an interesting question: why are there terms like "slave" but also "king"?

A common answer is that the NT just reflects the socio-economic conditions of the time. But this is seen by many as an insufficient answer. What is missing is any significant criticism, for example of slavery in particular. Paul's letter to Philomena does deal with the realities of "slavery", but its solution is not to criticize slavery as an institution, but to overcome the conflict that arises from this phenomenon by Christianity overcoming the conflicts of people that arise from human social roles/states as slave or master, male or female.

This is indeed a highly effective solution, but only within Christianity and only if people accept it: Paul could only appeal to Philomena. To finish: From the legal practice preserved for us in Egyptian papyri of the Roman era, it can be traced that the master, often entrusted a slave with some business dealings. Commercial contracts were standardized and contained clauses stating what damages could be claimed if the terms of the contract were not fulfilled. Typically the sale of, for example, a donkey. The donkey was described, and a sale price was set. The buyer undertook to inspect the donkey and not to claim damages if the donkey died or ran away on the way home after the sale. If in such a case the buyer demanded something back, the seller was entitled to a full refund and the buyer was to hand over the same amount to the municipal treasury as a fine...

In the hypothetical case where Filomenus had entrusted his slave Onesimus with some business and Onesimus had run away, Onesimus might have put his master in a very precarious situation: Filomenus might have been forced to return some money and might have been fined for the thwarted business, he might have been subjected to execution on the property, or he and his whole family might have been thrown into prison until he, or some guarantor, could buy him out of prison. All these things were possible...

Thus, a master could easily become a "slave" just because a slave failed to perform a task.

Paul's appeal to Philomena to forgive Onesimus because he had become a Christian could have been a great challenge to Philomena's character: a runaway slave could have been quite deservedly punished, and very brutally, because the slave's actions could have put the master or even his family in vital danger...

Again: while this explains the Christian attitude towards slavery, it in no way says that slavery is to end.

Why is there no criticism of this or any other contemporary institution?

I answer this again with an example from the Egyptian papyri of the Roman period. There are several papyri where it is written that XY found an infant, a girl or a boy, in a dunghill (really literally: dunghill, garbage dump), and gives this infant to a nursing mother QW, for a fee, for 2 years, to nurse this "little body" (the texts use the term "little body", they don't talk about the child at all), and then return it to XY. The milkmaid undertook to do this and that.

The papyri survive regarding disputes when the "foundling" died and the grantor, oak claimed the nursemaid's child, thinking this was the foundling...

There is no mention in the NT-text of the practice of abandoned children (if no one found them, they died - cf Egypt and the birth of Moses) or someone found them and gave them up for rearing and then made slaves of them. It may not have been the practice in 1st century Palestine, but since Christianity spread very soon, then they must have been confronted with the issue. What about the children left on the dung heap? How many to save? Shouldn't that be outlawed?

So there were more of these burning questions and some were not even mentioned.

The only answer I have so far is that Christianity at the time was, shall we say, a sect of a few thousand people who did not seek any "political" influence to change any social phenomenon. Question: How do you as a church feel about abortion or homosexuality or LGBT? assumes that the church has some social influence. That it has enough power to change something or at least to influence public opinion in (dis)favor of something.

This power influence, this ambition, is - in my opinion - completely alien to early Christians. They changed themselves and, at most, their family members. They were not indifferent to other people's suffering (see Samaritan), but this only confirms the above point that love or mercy ("the poor you will always have around you") was connected to their person and situation. Now and therefore. I'm not fighting against slavery being eventually replaced by feudalism or capitalism or a communist gulag.

The system was overcome (say: eliminated) by love and mercy primarily within the Christian group, not by cutting something off the attacker with a sword (already a severed ear was a problem...).

16

A Coin With a Remarkable History

by cofty in

over the years i have shared a few examples of objects i have found while metal detecting near my home in northumberland in ne england.

i live in a rural estate that was the site of a medieval village with a manor house and defensive tower.

many of the things i find illustrate the amazing history of the location.

PetrW

@BigDog

Since the end of WWII, our family is missing a few Roman coins and one silver triple grosz from 1539...

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@Cofty

Cofty, it's not that we should just trust. On the contrary, we have - I would say an obligation - to verify some facts, whether they are really so. Verification of what appear to be facts is a powerful engine of science... But it was also certainly our personal motive, which is why we are ex-JWs. On the other hand, it is also true that from a certain point - and this is very individual and depends on many circumstances - we are simply forced to trust more. That transition between trust and evidence-based certainty is not somehow sharply defined. Generally speaking, you don't want to trust, you want to be sure, but that is very difficult, so you often use trust, and trust has enormous advantages: it simplifies everything. Irenaeus of Lyons had a saying: I don't have to drink the whole sea to know that it is salty.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@TonusOH

Amen! I have nothing to add. I think trust the size of an atom* that God exists can't hurt anyone ... 😊

*someone once talked about trust the size of a mustard seed, but I think that applies to religious heroes, not us normals 😊