"He Who Does Not Remember History Is Condemned To Repeat It"
- Georges
Santayana
"Power tends to Corrupt, and Absolute Power Corrupts
Absolutely" - Lord Acton
"Liberty Is The
Only Thing You Cannot Have Unless You Are Willing To Give It To Others"
- William Allen White
| 666man.Net -- Main Menu |
|---|
| Home Page |
|---|
| Home Page | Contact Us | Site Map | FAQ's | Copyright Information |
| 265 Popes in History | Prophetic Rules Of Interpretation |
| 666 Number History | Daniel |
| Powerpoint Downloads | Revelation |
| Miscellaneous Items | Other Bible Topics |
| Chinese | Espaņol | Portuguese | Tagalog |
Home Page
Revelation 17 and the Number 666
New edition of this page first posted - 2006-03-22
(Click here to get the free Adobe PDF Reader if you don't have it already)
To save the PDF file to your computer, place your mouse pointer over the link and right click, then click on "save as", then select a destination folder to save the file.
Rev. 17 - Watch Video (WMV Format)
Rev. 17 - Watch Video (Flash Format)
For Seventh-day Adventists:
West Texas and New Mexico Camp meeting 2008 archived video broadcasts
Arizona Camp meeting 2007 archived video broadcasts
Arizona Camp meeting 2006 archived videos and audios
Share Him Bible Studies - these are in Flash formatted video. Learn more about the Bible through video presentation of Bible study topics. One topic will come up automatically when you click on this link. For more topics, look at the bottom of the page that comes up and look for a prominent box that says "On Air - Live". Look just to the right of that box where a faded box appears (it is hard to see because it is faded so much) which says "On Demand". Click on "On Demand" and other study topics will come up. Click on one of them to pick the topic you wish to hear. If you have trouble with this, click here and you can see the same topics on another web site which can be played in DIVX format (you need the free DIVX player to see these videos - click here to download the free DIVX player).
Understanding the meaning of the Old Testament Sanctuary - Watch videos of short lectures explaining the Old Testament Sanctuary. These videos show a full size model of the Old Testament Sanctuary so that you can better understand its purpose and function. The purpose of the Old Testament Sanctuary was to provide a graphic picture of the entire plan of salvation for man, so if you want to understand God's plan, you will want to see these videos.
Muslims in Bible prophecy and the 7 Trumpets of Revelation - What does the Bible have to say about the Muslims, terrorists, and how they fit into events just before Jesus comes again? How does one understand the 7 trumpets of Revelation?
Videos On Demand
Streaming Videos for High Speed Internet Connections
We have streaming videos for high speed internet connections that you can listen to online or download for listening to later. To select a video to watch, Click Here. This includes videos of Revelation 17 prepared by us, and videos on the Sabbath and how it was changed to Sunday.
The King James Bible in PDF Format - You may download the entire Bible or parts of it and read it using the free Adobe Reader.
Introduction
The purpose of this web page is to help you clearly understand the true meaning of Revelation 17, something which has remained hidden for centuries until now. The hidden connection of the seven heads of the scarlet beast and the eighth king to the number 666 will be explained. We will share with you the keys found in the Bible and history to unlock the mystery of this strange and fascinating chapter and show you how it accurately predicts certain events to take place between 1798 and the end of the world when Jesus comes again. Most of these predicted events have already taken place.
You will also discover that we are extremely close to the second coming of Jesus, though we cannot tell you when Jesus will come again because the Bible does not give that information. Nevertheless, the Bible does tell us to watch for the signs of the nearness of the coming of Jesus and that we will know when the time is imminent by those signs IF we watch for them. According to the Bible, the coming of Jesus is a surprise only if you don't watch the signs. This web page will reveal signs that you have never known before, which should help you avoid a huge surprise someday when Jesus comes "unexpectedly".
We hope you find this study worth your time. This page is long, but carefully laid out to logically lead you to a full understanding of Revelation 17. The length of this page is necessarily long in order that a complete study can be presented to you on one page. We suggest that you take notes because what you are about to see is unlike any other study of Revelation 17 ever seen by the world before this time. Also, the web page is divided into different sections, each of which is indexed with links. This should permit you to study a section, stop reading and go do something else, and return later to study the next section.
The fact that this web page is new and different does not mean it is just another novel idea. The interpretation presented here is based on carefully created definitions taken directly from the Bible and history. We believe that is the best way to understand Revelation 17. We hope you will agree after you have studied it for yourself.
Unlocking Revelation 17
General Principles
First, there are a few guiding principles that must be discussed before we progress to studying Revelation 17.
Time Perspective of Revelation
With the exception of the introductory vision (the prologue) and the vision of the seven churches, both of which are presented in Revelation 1-3, the remaining visions of Revelation were about the future from John's perspective. It directly says as much when John wrote this in Revelation 4:1:
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up here, and I will show you things which must be hereafter.
The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation begin with the prophet's own time and move forward in time from there. Prophecies do not go backwards because then it is a revelation of the past and is not a prediction of the future. There is no purpose to that because God knows we usually already know the past. Naturally, the past cannot be predicted because it has already happened. Of course, it is important to understand that the function of a Biblical prophet usually included much more than merely predicting the future. Most of the work of Bible prophets did not involve predictions of the future, but rather they were involved working with the events of their time and the people involved with those events.
John was told that he was to see things which will be "hereafter", which clearly refers only to his future. Therefore, from Revelation 4:1 onward, it must be understood that everything is about the future of John's time unless it can be absolutely proven to be a review of the past. The only topics which can meet that standard in the book of Revelation after Revelation 4:1 are the verses in Revelation 12 that clearly refers to the birth, life, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to heaven, and the history of the dragon (who primarily represented Satan) starting with his life in heaven in heaven and moving forward to the ascension of Jesus into heaven (which clearly includes the secondary representation of the dragon as Pagan Rome). Virtually everything else John was shown and recorded from Revelation 4:1 onward was about the future from his point in time.
Revelation follows a repeated pattern in which John was shown things that represented events beginning roughly in his own time, and then moved into the future. It presents events to the reader as if John was traveling forward through time and stopping at various points to get a view of what was going on. Whatever was happening at each stop was presented to the reader in symbolic form. This is very similar to the visions of Daniel 2, 7, and 8, in which much the same thing is done. The "time travel" continues forward until some important point in the vision is reached, and then the reader is taken back in time again, usually to a point in time shortly after the time of John, after which the entire process repeats. Each time John was taken forward in time, it usually covered roughly the same time period again but from a different perspective. Some shorter time hops are interspersed between the longer ones. The general pattern is that Revelation tells the story repeatedly from different perspectives, starting with John's own time and moving forward towards the future.
The tricky part is correctly discerning the movement through time, both forwards and backwards as the story unfolds, a process that requires a correct understanding of the remainder of the Bible and what it teaches.
Methods of Interpreting Revelation
The book of Revelation was written with many of the elements of apocalyptic literature. Such literature was developed and became popular after the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. Examples of such books in the Bible, other than Daniel and Revelation, are Isaiah (some well developed elements), with Joel and Zechariah showing some of the elements of such literature. Apocalyptic literature often displays the following elements:
Not all apocalyptic literature was divinely inspired, but for those apocalyptic books of the Bible which are considered divinely inspired (Daniel and Revelation), a method of interpretation must be chosen. This must be done because of the highly symbolic nature of these books. For your information, we present here a description of the four main methods of interpreting Revelation.
The first method is the preterist perspective. The preterist
method of interpretation takes the position that most everything in Revelation
was about contemporary events of John's time and usually
rejects continuous divine involvement in human affairs. As a result of
this viewpoint, they deny any future application for apocalyptic prophecy beyond John's own time because, as they view
things, God did not tell John the future. For them, all apocalyptic prophecy
is only a reflection of the past, a mirror of the author's own day (Roman times of John); they
have no hope that God will come and restore the earth to its originally
created condition as he has promised to do.
The viewpoint of the preterists, of course, makes the beast of Revelation 13 into Pagan Rome and, as a result, they usually think that the number 666 refers to Nero or sometimes one of his contemporaries. It makes Revelation into a coded commentary about the "evil empire", Pagan Rome, and only about Pagan Rome. From their perspective, nothing else of significance beyond Pagan Rome occurs in Revelation and God had absolutely nothing to do with it. John created all of it.
If a person believes that God has the ability to foresee the future, then rejecting the future application of the vision rejects divine involvement with the book of Revelation. If one believes that Revelation is divinely inspired, then one must believe Revelation when it says that the angel instructed John that from Revelation 4:1 onward, the vision was about the future. Therefore, one must reject the Preterist interpretation method because it disallows any future application of the vision. Of course, if one does not believe that God has the ability to foresee the future (or maybe even does not believe that God exists), then probably nothing can be said to convince such a person that the future was foretold in the vision.
The second method is the futurist perspective. This method teaches that most everything in Revelation is about events that occur just before the second coming of Jesus. Those who take this position do the reverse of those who take the preterist position.
Futurists deny all forms of conditionality. The Bible clearly demonstrates that
some prophecies are conditional, particularly where Ancient Israel
itself was concerned, but futurists deny the evidence for this.
For them, God's prophecies to Israel in the Old Testament never "failed." Instead,
they simply apply to the future. Futurists usually look forward
to the "rapture" and a literal temple rebuilt in Jerusalem; they
expect David's kingdom to be reestablished here on earth, to flourish
during a millennium that occurs on this world (instead of in heaven), complete with childbirth, death, and animal
sacrifice. With what they perceive as the demise of historicism
after 1844, futurism has become by far the most popular approach
to eschatology (study of beliefs largely concerned with the end
of the world, such as the second coming of Jesus and events connected
with it) and apocalyptic prophecy in conservative churches and groups
today.
There is a serious problem with the futurist perspective. The books of Daniel and Revelation both show a "time travel" perspective of history rather than a futurist perspective. The dreams and visions of Daniel began with the empire of his time (Babylon) and moved forward into the future, showing the future of three additional empires important to God's people because they were directly affected by these empires. Each successive dream or vision covers much of the same historical ground but give a different perspective and greater detail of certain things. Revelation demonstrates the same approach. Futurism literally shortchanges the reader because it avoids this obvious time travel understanding of Daniel and Revelation. Those who take this viewpoint miss everything important about the prophecy because they fail to appreciate the evidence of God's working through history to bring things to a just and fair conclusion. Consequently they cannot build their faith in God as they should be able were the prophecies properly understood by them.
The third method is the idealist perspective. Those holding to this view see the prophecies of both Daniel and Revelation as symbolic pictures of eternal truths about good and evil. The sole purpose of Revelation is for us to create a spiritual lesson from the material presented. In addition, idealists reapply prophecies, depending on the situation at hand. Thus, the restoration of a defiled temple is relevant for the temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the temple defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes and finally destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
There are several problems with the idealist approach. First, this approach sometimes leaves out the obvious historical nature of the prophecies, so it shortchanges the reader. Second, It strongly suggests that the prophecies are not definite messages, but rather instead they are highly subjective because the interpretation does not so much depend on Bible definitions of symbolism, but rather much more depends on the personal experience of the individual reader, especially a situation which the reader may be observing in the world around him. Those who use this approach may believe in the broad outlines of the historical approach, but avoid the fine details of the prophecies.
The multiple application of prophecies by Idealism
often appears very uncertain to those who want an exact outline
of the end time, so they
tend to reject this approach.
Of course, the fourth and final method of interpretation is the historicist perspective in which both Daniel and Revelation are viewed as expressions of different aspects of history in progress leading up t o the end of the world as seen through symbolic means. The idea is that the progression of events evident in the prophecies can be lined up with the progression of history, usually from the prophets day and continuing to the Second Coming of Jesus. In other words, events predicted can be lined up with fulfillments of real events evident in history and the matched events will show a movement of time and events from John's time to some future time, usually the Second Coming of Jesus but may also extend to the end of the coming millennium.
A clear example of this is found in Daniel 7, in which a series of beasts came up out of the water. These beasts represent a series of empires that were to directly affect the people of God. If you study the history of the Middle East of Daniel's time and afterwards, you will discover that there were four kingdoms which came and went in succession, thus showing that the four beasts did represent the four kingdoms which came and went in succession. This shows that there is a match between the prediction , the progression of time, and actual historical events. This match is the foundation of the historicist approach to understanding Bible prophecies.
The ultimate purpose of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is to build faith in God and explain, through the events of history, that God will ultimately triumph over evil and sin will be destroyed someday, along with death, disease, and war.
Historicism first rose to prominence about 1000 AD at the end of the first millennium. According to historians, there were many predictions of the end of the world at that time. The more rigorous form
of it largely died out
Because of this apparent failure, after 1844 most people abandoned the historicist
method of interpretation with little or no further analysis to
determine why it apparently failed. This was a mistake on their
part because they never learned from the Bible how the prophecy
was actually fulfilled on the appointed date. They missed the
real event.
Note that
wallawalla.edu/staff/thomal/text/articles/daniel.rtf+historicist&hl=
en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=google-coop-np)
written by Alden Thompson.
To summarize, there are four main methods of interpretation of Revelation that are commonly used, which are:
Because the historicist method of interpretation best matches the evidence presented in both Daniel and Revelation, on this web site we adhere to the historicist method.
Revelation Is Structured Around Symbolism and Jesus
Revelation 1 begins with a vision of Jesus standing among seven golden lamp stands with seven stars in his right hand and a sharp, two-edged sword that came out of his mouth. Though Jesus did not explain the sharp, two-edged sword in Revelation 1, he did explain the seven stars and the seven golden lamp stands.
The key points of the introductory vision in Revelation 1 are:
Therefore, we should always see things in Revelation as symbolic unless they clearly are literal. This is just the opposite of Daniel, where things should be seen as literal unless they clearly are symbolic. Studying the symbolism of Revelation is a study of Jesus because he is at the center of the symbolism, contrary to the opinion of some people who think that studying the symbolism of Revelation seems to leave Jesus out of it. The book of Revelation is, after all, the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1), so why should Jesus not be at the center of the entire book and the symbols that are included within it?
Experts in Greek point to a word in Revelation 1:1 as another evidence that Revelation is a book of symbols. Here is the point that they make:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Some Greek experts say that the word "signified" means "this is a book of symbols." This is something that we would do well to remember because doing so will make our understanding of Revelation much greater.
The Core Issue of Revelation: Whom Do You Worship?
The principal issue in the book of Revelation is: whom do you worship? It presents two clear choices for every person and the consequences of those choices. By choosing whom you will worship, God or the devil, you choose your ultimate destiny. Eternal life or eternal death is the choice God puts forward in this book for every person on earth.
This also informs us that political powers, their history and activities are not the central message of Revelation. Unfortunately, many think that Revelation's beasts center on political powers. But such a message is largely unneeded in Revelation because the book of Daniel centers on political powers and events surrounding them, which was done because God wanted to reveal how political powers were going to affect his people. In contrast with Daniel, in Revelation God principally focused upon religious powers and how they would use political powers to affect God's people. This is especially true in the last half of Revelation.
There is some focus upon political powers in Revelation, especially in the first half of it, but this is not the main focus. It always comes back to the core issue of Revelation: whom will you worship?
A Tale of Two Women
The story in Revelation from chapters 12 through 20 is primarily centered around two women, the prostitute woman of Revelation 17 and the woman of Revelation 12 (who is commonly said to be pure because she does not fornicate with the kings of the earth, unlike the prostitute woman of Revelation 17), and the cities each of them represents, which are Babylon and the New Jerusalem respectively. Revelation could easily have been titled "A Tale of Two Women" or "A Tale of Two Cities." Either title is appropriate.
The battle between these two is at the heart of Revelation and is a battle that will continue until God brings this world's current history to a close when Jesus comes again. By choosing which "city" you give allegiance to, you make your choice for God or the devil. This is a battle between good and evil and the consequences for each person's choice on either side are eternal.
For many of the good choices that God has for us, the devil has his false counterpart that is designed to deceive people. The choice of cities one gives allegiance to is a choice between true Christianity and false, apostate Christianity. It is a choice of whom you will worship, God or Satan, and how you will worship, God's way or Satan's way. Satan's way of worship is a counterfeit of true worship, but for many it will lead to loss of eternal life. Therefore, it is imperative that a person determine exactly how God wants us to worship him. Following his directions leads to eternal life. You cannot expect God to accept worship done just any way we please, for God has made it plain that we must do it according to his specific instructions or it is not acceptable. If we worship him as we please, we risk losing everything, including our very lives for eternity. That lesson should be clearly evident in the experience of Nadab and Abihu in the Old Testament (see Leviticus 10:1-10).
Who Really Wrote Revelation?
This section is not intended to answer the question of whether the individual who wrote Revelation was called John or was the disciple of Jesus. Instead, the issue here has to do with the degree of participation of the author, John, in writing Revelation.
There are scholars who make comments such as "John meant _________ when he wrote_________." In light of such thinking, consider for a minute, if you will, whether the scholars can truly know what John meant?
First, how do they know what John was thinking as he wrote Revelation? He didn't tell us much of anything about what he was thinking as he wrote and nobody can talk to him today to discover his thinking because he died about 1900 years ago. So, can they really know what he was thinking? The real answer is that truthfully, they cannot know. Thus, any statements about what John meant when he wrote certain things in Revelation are almost entirely speculative. We should not be basing our beliefs on what John may or may not have been thinking but rather upon what he actually wrote. The things he wrote are descriptions of things that God showed him and told him to write.
Second, John acted as a reporter when he wrote Revelation. He was not an interpreter or commentator. He tells us as much when he wrote this:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bore witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.Rev 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
He did not make up an explanation to fill in the gap when an explanation was not given to him about certain things.
Third, who scripted the visions John saw? Was it God, or was it John? I think we all know the answer to this question, or, at least, should know it. Absent the visions God created and gave to John, we would never have heard of the book of Revelation. Therefore, God is the author and what his intentions were with regards to any given issue in Revelation should be paramount. John's intent anywhere in the book of Revelation is essentially irrelevant. John never said in Revelation that "I think the explanation of _________ is _________". Virtually all we have in Revelation is that which he recorded based on what he saw, heard or experienced in the vision which God showed him. Therefore, we should not be basing our understanding of Revelation on what people imagine John meant. Having the letters "Ph.D." or "Th.D." after one's name does not qualify one to know 1900 years after the fact what John meant when such information is not revealed to us.
Until more recent times, if a newspaper reporter for a major newspaper sprinkled his own commentary among news events he was reporting on, it was considered bad journalism because he was no longer reporting the facts, but was instead trying to sway your thinking in a particular direction. That is usually considered acceptable for a commentary where such is expected, but not in a news story. Since God was the source of the visions given to John, don't you think God would have done something about it if the book that John wrote contained his own ideas and thoughts so as to essentially change the message to fit his own viewpoint?
Some individuals go so far as to build up theological ideas based on what they think John or Daniel meant when they wrote parts of their respective books. However, given that this changes the nature of the message that God intended and either adds to it or removes from it, then in light of the warning that is given about changing the contents of the book of Revelation (Revelation 22:19), this is very serious. Such a warning would also apply to John, for, after all, he was given a message from Jesus to deliver to us. Would it then make sense for him to be adding his own commentary when that very act would in fact alter the book of Revelation, which he warns us against doing? Therefore, it seems inconceivable that he was writing a commentary.
In summary, it is better to contemplate what God meant, rather than what John meant when we are studying the book of Revelation. To do otherwise will obscure the meaning of the message that God gave and can very subtly mislead our understanding of Revelation. It was not Daniel's or John's message in either book, but God's message. This is something we must never forget.
The Bible Defines Most Things For Itself
The last preliminary issue is that the Bible usually defines things for us, so we must use the Bible as the prime source of information and definitions. If nothing is said in the Bible about a particular thing we are trying to understand, then we must use sources outside the Bible to properly understand them. So, keep in mind that the Bible will be our primary source of information and wherever possible, it will be used to define the meaning of the symbols that appear within it.
Along with this, when studying Revelation, do understand that IF Revelation defines a symbol for you, then that definition of the symbol should always be used instead of using a definition from another part of the Bible unless the definition from Revelation clearly cannot fit.
For an example of how drastically the meaning of a vision can change if you fail to use the definitions the Bible gives for the symbols, consider that one symbolic meaning of waters is the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-38). Now, if you use this interpretation for the waters in Daniel 7, then you would have the four beasts arising from the Holy Spirit. Obviously, that does not make much sense, does it? Of course not! So, you should be able to see the point, which is that the symbolic meaning given in Revelation 17 for waters should always be applied first to both Daniel and Revelation to see if it makes sense before other possible symbolic definitions from other parts of the Bible are applied and tested to see if they make sense.
The search order for symbol definitions in Revelation is this:
Keys To Unlock Revelation 17 - Page Index
There are seven keys that lead to a full understanding of Revelation 17. Below is a numbered list of those keys. Each key will be covered in detail below. Links within this page are included here so that if you have to take a break from your study, you may easily return here and then jump to the section you have been reading. Between keys 6 and 7, the author has inserted an explanation of Revelation 17 that builds on the foundation of the first 6 keys. This is then followed by key 7 to complete the story.
End of Document Comments:
The seventh key completes the understanding of Revelation 17, so you will want to be sure to go through it.
As you read each of the first six keys, they may seem like disconnected pieces of information, but they all come together when they are used to decode the message in Revelation 17. So, if it seems a bit confusing, please be patient and go through each of them so that you build a solid foundation. It takes some time but you will be glad you did it. There is no shortcut to a full understanding of Revelation 17. Remember, it is a chapter that has puzzled people for more than 1900 years. Revelation 17 can be understood with some effort and this web page will help you obtain that understanding. But because it is a chapter that has puzzled people for centuries, one cannot expect to understand it rapidly. It takes some serious thought and study.
Key #1 - the Biblical Definition of Blasphemy
The sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 both have names of blasphemy written on them. In Bible prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, things placed on the beasts such as words, wings, colors, and even the species of animal used to represent a power, always refers to behaviors of the powers the beasts represent. Use of such things can be a very effective means of facilitating identification of the power represented by a given beast. Therefore, since names of blasphemy are written upon both of these beasts and this refers to their behaviors, a good understanding of blasphemy should facilitate proper identification of the power represented by these beasts.
In Revelation 13:1, it says that there were names of blasphemy written upon the sea beast. Remember that Revelation is a book of symbols, so the word "name" in Revelation 13:1 almost certainly has symbolic meaning attached to it and is not literal. It turns out there is a symbolic meaning for the word "name" in Revelation which is consistent with the message of Revelation 13 and 14. The word "name" symbolizes "character" in Revelation 13 and 14 (see Revelation 14:1, 5 to understand that this is true), so when it says that the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 have names of blasphemy written upon them, this tells you that these beasts have the character of blasphemy, or in other words, they consistently behave in a blasphemous manner.
If you ask people to define blasphemy, very frequently the answer they give is that blasphemy is "speaking against God" or "taking the prerogatives of God". But in essence this is the modern definition from the dictionary and is not fully representative of the definition given in the Bible. Here is the dictionary definition of blasphemy taken from the Merriam-Webster's year 2000 Collegiate Dictionary, computer edition:
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
The Bible defines blasphemy in terms of very specific behaviors and does not "generalize" the definition to cover all possible cases, unlike the dictionary definition. There is nothing wrong with generalizing the definition of most words, but that does not work where the beasts of Revelation 13 and 17 are concerned, for good reasons. It appears that God intended us to use a very carefully constructed Bible definition of blasphemy to help us better understand the behavior of the powers represented by these beasts.
The author began to question the use of the dictionary definition of blasphemy when he noticed that most of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation have no names of blasphemy written on them and were not said to speak blasphemy. Yet, the beast from the sea of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 have names of blasphemy upon them. Whether the words are actually written on the beast or the beast is said to speak blasphemy, the result is the same: it describes the behavior of the beast in question.
The obvious question the author asked himself is this: Why do some beasts have blasphemy on them and others do not? Think about this for a minute. How does the dictionary definition answer this question? Perhaps the author is a little more dense than the average reader, but when the author first asked himself this question after attempting to apply the dictionary definition of blasphemy to understand the prophetic beasts, he could not differentiate between those beasts which had and those beasts which did not have names of blasphemy on them. In other words, some beast had names of blasphemy written upon them, while others did not and the dictionary definition did not make clear why the difference. The author found this rather disturbing as it is clear that God put the names of blasphemy on some of the beasts for a good reason. But what was that reason?
If you read the vision recorded in Daniel 7 and then compare the behavior of the empires the beasts represented to the dictionary definition of blasphemy, it seems that three of the four empires represented in Daniel 7 should have names of blasphemy written on them, or they should have been said to speak blasphemy. Oddly enough, none of those beasts had blasphemy written on them nor were they said to have spoken blasphemy. Why?
Let us take a few paragraphs and examine why it is that the beasts of Daniel 7 should have names of blasphemy written upon them based on the dictionary definition of blasphemy.
In the case of Babylon, the elements of blasphemy have their roots in the dream recorded in Daniel 2. In that dream, God showed Nebuchadnezzar the future of that area of the world by means of an image in which the head was gold, which represented Babylon, the chest and arms were silver, which represented the Medes and Persians, the belly and thighs were bronze (an alloy of copper and usually tin, but may have little or no tin and instead has other elements), which represented the Macedonian-Greek Empire of Alexander the Great, the legs were of iron, which represented Rome, and the feet were made of a mix of iron and clay, which represented a number of kingdoms that came into existence after the breakup of Rome. In the explanation, Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that the head of gold represented him. Apparently, being associated with gold went to Nebuchadnezzar's head and he began to have some ideas of his own concerning the future rather than listening to God's declarations..
Nebuchadnezzar had an image constructed that was made of gold from top to bottom. He then had it erected and after gathering all his officials together, he ordered that they bow down and worship the image he had made. For Nebuchadnezzar to build an image all of gold plainly indicated that he believed that his kingdom would not be replaced by others and would last until the end of time. This was done in defiance of God's declaration to the contrary. In Nebuchadnezzar's thinking, clearly, God had not gotten with Nebuchadnezzar's program! His kingdom would last at least until the end of this world and maybe, he perhaps hoped, just maybe forever! Can you imagine Nebuchadnezzar might have said, "God, I am in charge down here and you will have to go along with my improved plan!"
It seems Nebuchadnezzar thought he could order God around, which made him at least equal to, if not greater than God. Did that make Nebuchadnezzar into a deity in his own thinking? The author believes it does. Making the image of all gold and then ordering that everyone bow down and worship it strongly suggests that symbolically, they were worshipping Nebuchadnezzar when they bowed to it and worshipped it. After all, was he not said to be the head of gold? Then make it all of gold and make everyone worship it!
Therefore, the image of gold, while it represented the gods of Babylon (Daniel 3:18), also apparently represented Nebuchadnezzar as a god. If nothing else, he did show insulting behavior towards God by making the image all of gold and by that very act, putting himself at the center of worship rather than putting the true God at the center of worship. According to the dictionary definition, this behavior is blasphemy. It is showing contempt for God because Nebuchadnezzar defied God's declaration that his kingdom would be replaced by another. As far as Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, that was not going to happen.
Therefore, because Nebuchadnezzar committed blasphemy, as defined by the dictionary, the lion of Daniel 7, which also represented Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, should have had names of blasphemy placed on it. Yet, strangely, there are no names of blasphemy on the lion. We are not told of any blasphemous behaviors it engaged in. Why? Did God forget something important? Or is it that there is something about blasphemy in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that we have not understood in the past because we were too busy trying to apply the dictionary definition and not paying attention to the fact that it really did not fit? Perhaps we should permit blasphemy to be defined by the Bible?
According to a program aired on the History Channel (http://www.history.com/), Alexander the Great was a self-proclaimed god. According to the dictionary definition, this is blasphemy because it is taking on the attributes of deity. Yet the four headed leopard beast of Daniel 7 did not show names of blasphemy upon it and it did not show blasphemous behaviors in the vision. Why should this power in real life clearly engage in blasphemous behaviors and yet not be shown with blasphemy upon it in the vision? Clearly, Alexander's behavior fitted the dictionary definition of blasphemy, so why is the beast that represented him and his kingdom not show names of blasphemy upon it? What decides that a beast is to be shown with names of blasphemy upon it in a vision while another has no names of blasphemy upon it?
Pagan Rome certainly committed blasphemy according to the dictionary definition. At least some of the emperors claimed to be gods. Some emperors did not claim this publicly but still permitted or required the public to worship them, sometimes on the penalty of death if people did not comply. Some required that they be directly worshipped. According to the dictionary definition, such behavior is blasphemy. And yet, again, like the lion of Daniel 7, the dreadful fourth beast of Daniel 7 did not have names of blasphemy upon it. Why?
The Medes and Persians did not claim to be gods so they probably should not be said to have committed blasphemy. They were monotheistic in their beliefs and did not permit worship to be directed towards themselves. It is probably for this reason that the beast which represented them, the bear of Daniel 7, was not shown with names of blasphemy upon it.
Given that God is omniscient (He knows everything there is to know), it became clear to the author that God would not have failed to tell Daniel and John something so important as whether or not a beast should have names of blasphemy upon it. So, the author concluded that using the dictionary definition of blasphemy does not work when it is used to explain the names of blasphemy upon the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17, and the lack thereof upon other beasts. To put it simply, the dictionary definition simply does not work because it cannot properly distinguish between why some beasts have names of blasphemy on them and others do not.
The author concluded that in order to properly understand the names of blasphemy, it is necessary to understand exactly how God himself defines blasphemy for the beasts of Daniel and Revelation. Once that is understood, then the reasons for marking some beasts with names of blasphemy and not others should become very clear.
This led the author into a very careful study of the Bible to learn its own definitions of blasphemy. There are some 8 different ways that the Bible defines blasphemy that the author was able to discern, all in terms of specific behaviors (if you wish to read into the details of this, click on this: Blasphemy - How the Bible Defines It , http://www.666man.net/Blasphemy_Bible_Definitions_of.html).
The clue to which definitions of blasphemy to apply to the beasts for determining whether or not a beast should have names of blasphemy on it is found in Revelation 13:4, which says this:
Rev 13:4 And they worshiped the dragon who gave power unto the beast: and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
This verse says that people worshiped the beast. In the Bible, when people worshiped something, it was because they considered it to be a god (true or otherwise). Therefore, people perceive the sea beast of Revelation 13 to be a god of some sort and the true God accused it of blasphemous behaviors. To understand the accusation of blasphemy lodged against it by God, please ask yourself the following questions: elsewhere in the Bible, is there a record of a god being accused of blasphemy and if so, why was this god accused of blasphemy? What specific behaviors was this god accused of that constituted blasphemy?
It turns out that Jesus himself was accused of blasphemy. Because he is God, this means we can look to his experience to help explain why the god in Revelation 13 in the form of the sea beast is accused of blasphemy.
After very careful study, the author found that two specific behaviors, when used together, were sufficient to differentiate between the beasts with and without names of blasphemy upon them. These two definitions come from Matthew 9:2 - 8, Matthew 26:62 - 65, and John 10:30-36.
Matthew 9:2 - 8 says the following:
Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick, a paralytic, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the paralytic; Son, be of good cheer; your sins be forgiven you.
Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemes.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Why think you evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 For which is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Arise, and walk?
Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the paralytic) Arise, take up your bed, and go unto your house.
Mat 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
Mat 9:8 But when the multitude saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men.
Note that the central issue in the verses above was the claim of Jesus to have the authority to forgive sins against God's laws. Any person claiming such powers when he is not God is speaking blasphemy.
Matthew 26:62 - 65 says the following:
Mat 26:62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answer you nothing? what is it which these witness against you?
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus said unto him, You have said so: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, He has spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now you have heard his blasphemy.
John 10:30-33 says the following:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The central issue was the claim of Jesus to be God. Any person claiming to be God is blasphemy, unless, of course, he really is God. The only human who ever lived on earth rightfully able to make that claim was Jesus because he is God in human form.
Some say that this is nothing more than the dictionary definition that says blasphemy is "the act of claiming the attributes of deity", which, to a degree, is true. However, using this definition alone to define the blasphemy on the beasts does not work to determine why some beasts have names of blasphemy on them and others do not. More is necessary to properly make the distinction.
Some people have claimed to be the true God himself. The author is not speaking of insane people here, but rather of influential, powerful, religious figures of past history, and even some in the world today. How do we know whether they speak the truth or not?
To help us understand whether or not they speak the truth, the Bible tells us the following in Isaiah 42:
Isa 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; he that gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk in it:
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called you in righteousness, and will hold your hand, and will keep you, and give you for a covenant to the people, for a light to the Gentiles;
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isa 42:9 Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
It should be noted that these verses plainly speak of the things that God has done, his creative ability, and the ability to predict the future. By doing this, God is speaking of his position as God and his natural ability to be God because of the kind of being he is. But very significant is that in verse 8 he makes it plain that he will not give his glory to another. He says that just after saying his name is the Lord, which is another way of saying that he is God. In essence, he is making it very plain that he will never make another created being into a God like himself AND he will never give or delegate his authority as God to another being. Nothing in all the universe can reverse this declaration.
As a direct result of this, anyone on earth, other than Jesus, who claims to be God OR who claims God has delegated his authority as God to him is, in fact, a liar. God will never contradict himself in regards to this issue. The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). Inasmuch as God says that he does not change (Malachi 3:6), you can know he will never give his authority as God to any other being, no matter who they claim to be.
Thus, if someone tells you that their church leader has been given authority as God directly from God or Jesus, or even indirectly through an apostolic line of authority, to act in place of God himself with God's full authority, don't believe it because God has already told us he will never grant such authority to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Even if they produce a text from the Bible that appears to substantiate their claim, do not believe it because the text is being used to contradict what God has already said. Such an act attempts to make a liar out of God even if the person making the claim does not realize it. They are twisting scripture to make it say that which God never intended it to say. God will not lie and will never contradict himself.
Two Things God will NEVER, in all of eternity, do:
|
|---|
In summary, here are the working definitions of blasphemy from the Bible which, when used together, allow you to correctly explain why some beasts have blasphemy upon them and why others do not:
Definition of blasphemy:
|
|---|
It would be a very good idea to make a note of these two definitions as it will help in your study of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation. Remember that both definitions must be applied to a beast to be able to determine why it has or does not have names of blasphemy on it.
The beasts of Daniel 7 did not have names of blasphemy upon them because their leaders did not claim both to be God and to have authority to forgive sins against God's laws. For the same reasons, the dragon of Revelation 12 and the earth beast of Revelation 13 were not shown with words of blasphemy upon them. This also tells you that the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 claimed both of these powers. There is more discussion of the implications of this later on this page.
Return to Index (Keys to Unlock Revelation 17) To Main Menu
Key #2 - The Three Primary Powers of Revelation 17 and 18
Revelation 17 and 18 describe events that lead right up to the second coming of Jesus. As that event approaches, Satan will do all in his power to influence the powers that be on this earth to bring pressure against anyone not in conformity with his wishes. He will do this because it is in his own best interest. Of course, Satan's own best interest is not really in the best interests of any person on earth, but Satan does not care about that because he is thinking only of himself. The nature of sin is to do whatever it takes to get what you want without consideration for others, a principle which will control you. Sin controls Satan, so he will do whatever he needs to accomplish his objective.
Because all major forms of power that occur in societies will play a part in the final events of earth's history, it is logical that they should be presented as players in the events described in Revelation 17 and 18. And it turns out that they are part of the story told there. Most people do not realize this, but it is true. If you don't understand who the players are in this vision, how can you possibly understand it? Therefore, it is a good idea to learn about them and how they are presented.
Virtually every society on earth is run by three primary powers, which are:
|
|---|
There are exceptions, but over the course of human history, these three primary powers are quite evident in nearly all human societies. This ranges from small villages to the largest nations and empires on earth.
Let us now define the three primary powers listed in Revelation 17 and 18 directly from the Bible. They are:
These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.This verse informs the reader that the leaders of the four beasts of Daniel 7 were "kings" who "arise out of the earth". It once was that when the author read that the four kings arise out of the earth, he wondered what the phrase "arise out of the earth" actually meant (the author never connected this phrase with the nearly identical phrase in Revelation 17 until relatively recently). The meaning is neither obvious nor intuitive by itself. Obviously, the phrase cannot be literal because kings don't literally come up out of the ground to rule a kingdom, so it must be symbolic of something. The four beasts of Daniel 7 were said to rise from the waters, so the four kings rising from the earth certainly cannot be the same thing and the earth cannot be the same as the waters. The earth must be symbolic just as the waters are symbolic. Yet the kings are connected to the beasts by the verse in Daniel 7:17. What does the phrase "arise out of the earth" mean?
Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.In Daniel 7:24, the 10 horns are called "kings", just like those of Daniel 7:17. The definition of the word king is not changed anywhere between Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 7:24. Therefore, the term kings in Daniel 7:17 for the four beasts and the first half of Daniel 7:24 for the 10 horns has an identical meaning - they are "kings . . . which shall arise out of the earth", meaning that the kings in both of these verses were the political leaders of their respective empires and nations.
Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise . . . .
Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.Note that there is a big difference between the "kings . . . which shall arise out of the earth" and the "diverse king" that follows in the second half of Daniel 7:24. The fact that it is diverse (which means "different") from the 10 kings changes the definition of the word king. This means there are two types of "kings" in Daniel 7, which are:
Dan 7:24 . . .and another shall rise after them [the ten horns]; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
Here is a summary table to help you picture this information.
Remember these three important points:
Many individuals think that the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 is another primary power, so they will think that the author has omitted an important category of power. But, while it is a power to be reckoned with, it is a composite power, not a primary power. Therefore, it will be covered in the next section.
Return to Index (Keys to Unlock Revelation 17) To Main Menu
There is a general misunderstanding of the exact identity of the sea beast of Revelation 13. The same is even more true of the scarlet beast of Revelation 17. This section will show you how the Bible actually defines the beasts for you so that there need be no question about the identity of either beast. That way, if you find a web site that, for example, says Prince Charles of Great Britain is the beast (there is, or at least has been in the past, such a web site!), you know they guessed and did not study their Bible carefully enough.
The reason the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 is not listed as one of the three primary powers is that the Bible DEFINES the scarlet beast as a COMPOSITE POWER, meaning that it is a COMBINATION of two primary powers, with one of them as the dominant power. Most people never notice this and think of the scarlet beast as a single, primary power. It is also true that there are those who do understand that the Revelation 13 sea beast is a composite power, but have never come to understand that this is also true of the Revelation 17 scarlet beast. Many also do not realize that the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 represent the same power. Evidence for all of this is presented in this section.
Something that often happens when discussion of the scarlet beast comes up is that when people are told that the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 represent the same composite power, they tend to get hung up on the fact that the sea beast of Revelation 13 looks very different than the scarlet beast of Revelation 17. They believe that if these beasts represent the same power, then they should look the same. Because of the difference in appearances of the two beasts, they conclude that they represent different powers.
Those who cannot seem to get past the different appearance of the two beasts usually forget that God showed Daniel different beasts in Daniel 7 and 8 to represent the same powers. For example, the goat of Daniel 8 represents the same power as the four headed leopard of Daniel 7. There is precedent for God to show different beasts to represent the same power. Consequently, if the two beasts in Revelation 13 and 17 look different, that does not mean they necessarily represent different powers. One must distinguish them by other means, such as their behavior.
On the other hand, there are those who notice the apparently identical set of 7 heads and 10 horns on both beasts. From this they conclude that these beasts are the same or that at least the heads and horns are the same.
To begin the exploration of the Beast Formula, please note that both the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 have names of blasphemy on them. Many people take note of this and sometimes conclude that the names of blasphemy are literal. However, Revelation is a book of symbolism, something that Jesus demonstrates at the very beginning of the book in chapter 1. The word name usually symbolizes the word character in Revelation (see Revelation 14:1, 5). Consequently, the names of blasphemy on the body and heads of both beasts indicates that a fundamental character trait of these powers is to commit blasphemy. Remember that things placed on beasts indicates their behavior, so names of blasphemy placed on any given beast indicates its behavior traits.
The sea beast spoke blasphemy during the 1260 days it had power (Rev. 13:5), which refers to its behavior during that time. Its heads also had names of blasphemy upon them, which refers again to the behaviors of the heads when they are in power. The horns were not said to have blasphemy upon them for either beast, so they behave in such a way that God does not mark them with names of blasphemy. In addition, the scarlet beast is said to have names of blasphemy all over it (the body and heads but not on the horns). What does this mean? Does the blasphemy somehow tie these two beasts together?
Let us review blasphemy as it is defined in the Bible to enable us to discern the identity of the beasts which have names of blasphemy upon them. Blasphemy is defined in the Bible to be:
Consider this, please: what significant power has existed on earth beginning relatively soon after the time of John (say, within a few hundred years) and remains until the present day and which has claimed both of these powers during most of its existence?
There is only one such power known in history: the Roman Catholic Church.
The beasts which have blasphemy on them point directly to the Roman Catholic Church. This absolutely must be true because there is only one significant power on earth that claims both powers which define blasphemy. Thus, whether we like it on not, they are "it".
The Catholic Church claims to be able to forgive sins against God's laws. Catholics are required to confess their sins to a priest to obtain forgiveness for them. This is based on the priests' claim to be able to forgive sins and that the Bible tells us that we are to confess our sins to Jesus in order to obtain forgiveness. The Bible says that Jesus is our high priest in heaven (Hebrews 2:17, 4:15-16), so to make sure that the Catholic believer is confessing his sins to Christ, the Catholics claim that the priests are another Christ (think of how many Christs this makes walking around on earth, all at the same time).
Some may have doubts that the Catholics claim this power, so for evidence that they do claim this power, here are some statements of authoritative Catholic Sources to show that this is true:
"And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it." -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27
"This judicial authority will even include the power to forgive sin." [The Catholic Encyclopaedia Vol xii, article ‘Pope’ pg 265]
"the poor sinner kneels at his confessor's feet. He KNOWS he is not speaking to an ordinary man but to 'ANOTHER CHRIST,' He hears the words: 'I absolve thy sins..." and the HIDEOUS LOAD OF SINS DROPS FROM HIS SOUL FOREVER." -William Doyle "Shall I be a priest" pp 14, 15
The basis for this is that the priest is "another Christ". This is a declaration that they, as Christ, are the forgiver of sins. In some more recent Catholic statements the author has seen, it appears that they try to explain this away by saying that the forgiveness of sins is ultimately still done by Christ, but interposing an earthly priest seems to take the duty away from Jesus and clearly is contrary to the Bible.
In the New Testament, there is no authority for positioning an earthly priest between the sinner and God like there was in the Old Testament. In fact, we are told to come directly to God to obtain mercy and forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 4:15-16), so placing a priest in the pathway violates what God has already commanded. Moreover, since they teach the priest that he is another Christ, then it seems that if Christ does the forgiveness of sins, the priest is the Christ who forgives the sins of the sinner. Truthfully, there is only one Christ, so saying that the priest is another Christ is to say that he is Christ himself, unless, of course, they want to introduce more Gods beyond the trinity than they say they believe in. It appears they cannot escape this simple fact of logic.
Saying that the forgiveness of sins is still ultimately done by Christ seems to confuse the issue and contradicts their statement that the priest is another Christ. Either the priest is or he is not another Christ and the real Christ does the forgiveness of sins ultimately. If the priest is the real Christ, then the forgiveness must be done by him according to their beliefs and Jesus in heaven has nothing further to do with it. Otherwise the priest has no such authority. To say that Jesus in heaven ultimately does the forgiveness of sins seems to say that the priest is not a real Christ. So, which is it?
Clearly, from their own educational text for the priests, this is not a duty passed off to God. The priest is not a mere conduit for the forgiveness of sins, but is an active participant and is taught that God is obligated to obey the decision of the priest to grant or not grant forgiveness of sins. Clearly, this sidesteps the authority and active participation of Jesus, for if the priest has these powers and actually is another Christ, then there is no need for Jesus in the process. The power to forgive sins is explained to be a direct power that the priest possesses. It can hardly be plainer as to who is actually supposed to be doing the forgiveness of sins in these situations. Clearly, they teach that It is the priest who obtains it from God instead of Jesus.
The Bible says that only God has the power to forgive sins. Here is what it says:
Mark 2:7 Why does this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
The Bible also says that we may come directly before God (obviously through prayer) to obtain mercy from God. We need mercy when we have sinned, so this is saying that we may go directly before God to obtain forgiveness for our sins. We do not need to go through an earthly priest. We have direct access to God. Here is what the Bible has to say about this:
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
The Bible plainly says that Jesus is our advocate before God. This disallows an earthly priest because it says that there is only one who is able to go before God, and that person is the one and only Jesus in heaven. Consider that Jesus in heaven is the only one who has access to the lit ural presence of God. There is no other.
1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Any way you look at it, IF the Catholic priests can indeed effect forgiveness of sins, then the Bible, which is God's word, is a liar. Does God lie? Something to think about, is it not? If he does lie, then he is not trustworthy. But, if he tells us the truth, then those who claim that they can do what God says they cannot, are not telling us the truth. The author wishes it were otherwise.
The Catholic Church has also claimed that the Pope and the priests are God.
Perhaps you don't believe that this is true. You may say, "That is blasphemy, so surely they would not be guilty of such a claim!" Indeed, we have received letters from individuals stating that this cannot possibly be true because to make such a claim is blasphemy. Unfortunately, it is true. Just so you know, here are several statements by their own officials and popes about this (color coding of certain phrases done by the web site author):