HOME - THE FINAL GENERATION

EMAIL ME by clicking HERE

Email 1: An Important Email (David to Peter) 8/23/03

Email 2: Marathon Email (Peter to David) 8/27/03

Email 3: A Breakthrough! (?) (Peter to David) 8/30/03

Email 4: Two Witnesses and an Idea (David to Peter) 9/15/03

RE: Two Witnesses and an Idea (David to Peter) 9/23/03

Email 5: First Seal (David to Peter) 9/30/03

Email 6: Another Question (David to Peter) 9/30/03

Email 7: Gary Vaterlaus Critique (David to Peter) 10/010/03

To: [email protected]

Hi Peter:

I apologize in advance for the length of this email. But I hope you'll give it your attention.

I am very grateful for the information on your site. Your model for the timing of the rapture, the Day of the Lord, the Magog Invasion, the 70th Week of Daniel, and the coming of the Lord Jesus, as well as the identification of the 24 elders, the martyrs under the throne and the white robed throng before the throne, makes alot of sense to me. It is the very best prophetic model out there, in my opinion. And I have seen many of them.

The purpose of this email is to point out something very important to you, and also pose a few questions/comments to you regarding your model. I would greatly appreciate a detailed response from you, though I acknowledge you are in the middle of a monstrous project concerning American Babylon. When finished, I plan to read that, as I am a CPA and very interested in the financial side of things to come. In fact, you might find extremely useful, as have many others, the following link that details the deception of the Federal Reserve and fiat currency in a flowchart format. There's nothing like it on the Internet. Here is the link: http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/mandrake/mandrake.htm

Now, for the thing I want to point out to you, followed by the questions/comments regarding your model:

I don't know if the Lord showed this to me, or if I found it on my own. I rather believe it was illumination by the Spirit. I noticed something very interesting when reading about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the Matthew 27 saints, and the resurrection of the two witnesses - all of them resurrections into immortal, eternal bodies. That something was that an EARTHQUAKE occurred in each case.

I don't know whether there is some sort of molecular action that occurs when the dead are raised into their immortal bodies, but it is a fact that an earthquake occurs in all three cases. So, I see a pattern there. What does this mean, then, for the resurrection of the dead in Christ at the rapture?!

I wrote an essay on this prophetic pattern, dated in November 2002 (and recently updated), which details what happens at the resurrection/rapture of those in Christ, and comparing the earthquake pattern when other resurrections into immortal bodies occurs in the Bible. I believe this is very strong evidence for the conclusion that there will also be earthquake or multiple earthquakes at the time of the resurrection of the dead in Christ.

Furthermore, this meshes perfectly with your Red Moon Rapture model, which I have read very closely. While I noticed you mentioned the fact that earthquakes accompanied the resurrection of Jesus and the saints and Matt 27, you didn't tie in the resurrection of the two witnesses, nor did you suggest that the resurrection act into immortal bodies CAUSES these earthquakes.

I hope you will read the following from my website and consider how it fits into, and strengthens, your red moon rapture model: http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/earthquakerapture.htm

Now, onto my several comments/questions in regards to your model:

1. One of the interpretive parts of your model is how you interpret the first four seals of Rev 6, the four horsemen. If I'm not mistaken, you see them as predictive of the particular characteristics with which they are associated, which occur during the entire length of the tribulation period. I see them quite differently, as follows:

a. first, I believe it is important to separate the horses themselves from their riders. Note that all four horses are introduced, then "he that sat on him" is described.

b. second, I don't believe it is necessary for these seals to be opened in the future just before the tribulation begins.

Here's what I'm driving at. I believe the horses represent what the rider will carry out, and that the horses have ALREADY been loosed. Yes, I believe the first four seals have already been opened, and the horses are awaiting their riders. While I'm still working on what each horse represents, below is what I have generally come up with as of this date:

a. the white horse represents the globalists - the Fabians/Illuminists/Round Table/Bilderbergers - whatever title you give them - that currently control the world. Given your monstrous project that you're currently working, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here. Without going into a lot of detail, this globalist agenda began in Europe, infiltrated America, and is now spread worldwide. I do not believe the AC is the rider of this horse, or any single person, for that matter. I believe the rider is symbollic of the system that driven by the principality spirit controlling it.

b. the red horse represents false wars - perpetual war for perpetual peace. History is fraught with examples of engineered and concocted wars, the majority of which began with WWI. Again, without going into a lot of detail, a major plank of the Albert Pike crew is that wars must be engineered - with the Illuminists financing both sides - in order bring humanity submissively under the hammer of their globalist agenda. This has been going on ever since the beginning of this century: WWI, WWII, Vietnam, the Middle East, Racial Tensions in America, 9/11.

c. the black horse represents the control of financial systems of the world. This has been largely accomplished by the large central banks in America, Europe, Japan, etc. The plan was written, again, by the Illuminists based on the Communist Manifesto - that the citizens should pay a progressive income tax to the government, and that the government should decide how that wealth is redistributed. Income taxation and inflation has been the result of the monetary policy that spring from the central banking cartel that controls the world. Look at what the rider is holding: a balance - symbollic of central banks/governments controlling the economies of the world. Inflation is indicative of the saying uttered regarding this horse (the wheat/barley saying).

d. the pale (green) horse gives me problems, because the red horse kills with the sword (war), and so does this one. As the cherised and favorite color of Islam is green, I tend to associate this horse with Islam. The color green is in every flag of an Islamic country. Their adherents wear green headbands. Every mosque is lit up with green lights at night. The favorite color of Mohammed was green. And as this horse has control of 1/4 of the population of the earth, and 1/4 of the earth is Muslim, this interpretation is bolstered. However, the disease and famine that it brings is more indicative of the manufactured disease brought into the world by the Illuminists in the form of cancer, AIDS and other disease. Again, I have problems with this horse...

Now, the riders may or may not have taken their places on their horses. But perhaps the most important thing you will ever read in your life is located at the following link. The information in the following link is the main reason I have interpreted the horses in the manner above and separated the horses from their riders. Please read the following and then come back to the email: http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/visions/1977eurovision.htm. Again, this web page has been earthshaking in its importance to me.

2. My second comment is regarding Matthew 24:29-31. I don't remember you addressing this in your model, so here's my question. If Jesus is describing his return at the end of the tribulation, I believe there is a problem. Jesus says the sun is dark, the moon will be dark, the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven are shaken. Then the Lord says he comes in the clouds. In Revelation 19, there is NO mention of the sun, stars, moon, etc. when he comes. Does this give you any pause as to what Jesus was referring to? How does Matthew 29-31 fit into the timing of your model?

3. Here's another reason for you to incorporate into your model as to why the 24 elders are NOT representative of the raptured church. In Revelation 7, one of the 24 elders asks John who the white robed throng is - John says he doesn't know - and the elder tells him who they are. It seems clear from the fact that the elder even asks this question that the elder, and therefore all 24 elders, are NOT part of that group in front of the throne - otherwise he wouldn't have brought up the question. So, IF the throne throng of Revelation 7 is the raptured church, which I believe it is as you do, the 24 elders are not a part of that group. That means the 24 elders in chapter 4 and 5 are NOT part of the raptured church and the rapture has not yet occurred in chapter 4 and 5, as the traditional pre-trib model demands.

4. Revelation 20:5-6 gives me many problems. Why on earth does John say the resurrection of the beheaded tribulation martyrs is "the first resurrection"? This can't be if the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs pre-trib at the rapture. Also, there are the resurrected saints of Matt 27 which were resurrected, and Jesus was resurrected. So we have at least three resurrections prior to this "first resurrection" referrence in Revelation 20. Does this also give you troubles? I get this argument from post-tribbers all the time, and its difficult to answer them...

Well, again, I'm sorry for the length of this email. But I hope you will seriously consider its contents and provide a reply. Please read the web pages linked inside this email, especially the one regarding the horses and their riders. I also hope you'll read my short essay on the earthquake rapture, linked above. I'll be awaiting your reply.

Christian Blessings,

Dave in Wichita, KS

CPA

Back to top

Back to Top

Peter,

Thanks for the quick reply. My comments are below in bold:

Thanks for contacting me and offering your thoughts. I'm glad that we hold so many understandings in common regarding Bible prophecy. It's not often that I run into someone who has come to so many of the same conclusions independently.

I have been only been studying prophecy seriously since 9/11/01. I was brought up in an A/G church since birth, but backslid. I was awoken spiritually on 9/11, and since I have been on information overload. My journey began with Perry Stone's TV show on 9/21/01 on the which he was discussing the prophetic implications of the attack. I was hooked! I ordered a video from his ministry on which he claimed he was given a vision of the 9/11 attack in 1996, and he documented the vision on video in 1999, two full years before it even happened! I had to see this. When I saw that video, I couldn't believe my eyes. It was true. (This is all now documented on my website).

Well, since then, I've purchased 40 videos and over 100 audio tapes by Perry Stone. At first, since the man was given a vision of 9/11 and several other visions (such as the four horsemen, which you read), I tended to not doubt a word of his teaching. He made an 8 hour video study on the book of Revelation, and I took what he said on those tapes as gospel. However, over time and by my own study, I've come to the conclusion that he is wrong about some of his interpretations (he is a pre-tribber that believes the tribulation starts with the first seal).

Regarding the earthquake/rapture connection, I noticed it before but I have not followed up on it to the degree that you have. I've read your study and I believe that it alone offers a good deal of evidence for a sixth seal rapture. Thanks for writing it and I will turn back to it often in the future.

Thanks. I've received many comments from others who have read it, all stating that they had never put the resurrection/earthquake connection together. Most people forget that at the rapture of the living, there is also a resurrection of the dead. When I realized the earthquake rapture fit into your red moon rapture model, and that there was a great earthquake just prior to it, I became very excited.

By the way, the "Interpreting the Dream" section is my work, not Perry's.

The only sure conclusion that I take from it is that the advent of the Euro currency was a sign of the approaching end. Fyrthermore, it has been my belief that with the eclipse of America, the Antichrist's base of operations will be Europe, and even now the Eurasian heartland is making an alliance, and we see it with the ever-closer cooperation between France, Germany and Russia. The British have known all along that this region is the region that is the key to geo-strategic domination of the entire earth, and the only way their Empire survived was because of their overwhelming sea power and their role as a revolutionary base keeping France, Germany and Russia always at each others' throats. Well, now the tables are turning. Britain will betray the United States and throw her allegiance over to Eurasia when the time is right. London has been the occult capitol of the world for three centuries now, and my belief, as I will explain for you one day, is that the Antichrist will come from London and rule Europe as his beginning base of operations.

Interesting. I believe that A. Epiphanes was a foreshadowing of the AC according to Daniel 8, and that Daniel 8 demands that the AC will also arise from the Seleucid branch of the Grecian empire. As the Roman empire also stretched into the area of Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, the Daniel 9:26 reference to the AC being from the Roman empire is not a problem. It seems you've done some research into the AC British connection, and while I don't discount it, I don't see a clear connection. But I do see in Daniel 8 a clear connection to A. Epiphanes.

Read my take on the four horsemen within my "Entering the Apocalypse" article, and then get back to me so we can compare notes further.

Comments below.

Your second comment deals with the connection between Matthew 24:29-31 and the Second Coming in Revelation. I believe the connection is clear if we examine the nature of the Day of the Lord and the parallel Old Testament texts. Remember that in my model I place two great astro-physical catastrophes as bookends to the Day of the Lord. One at the beginning (Magog invasion and sixth Seal), and one at the very end. The final catastrophe is given by Jesus to come at a time of complete darkness, and it will include falling stars and the shaking of the heavenly bodies. In my NIV Bible (not always the best version, but helpful in this case) Matthew 24:29 is footnoted with references to Isaiah 13:10 and 34:4. If you turn to Isaiah 34 you can see that it refers to the judgment of nations at the end of the tribulation, and in verse 4 it mentions the disappearance of the stars and their falling to heaven. In Isaiah 13 the context is harder to determine, but verse 10 mentions the Day of the Lord and a complete darkening of the heavens just as Jesus mentioned in Matt24:29. Furthermore, verse 13 mentions the shaking of the heavens, (as Jesus mentioned) and the shaking of the earth. I believe that Isaiah 13 describes the events at the end of the Day of the Lord, when the wicked are punished, and when Babylon suffers its final judgment.

I'm not following you here. The first bowl is a sore on those who have the mark of the beast. In Revelation 16, I don't see the sun or moon being darkened, and unless the hailstones are stars, I don't see those falling from heaven. What am I missing?

This is not a partial darkening through which a red moon shines, but a complete darkening that extinguishes all light, as explained by Isaiah and Jesus. Then the final events occur with the seventh Bowl: There is a massive earthquake, followed by the final destruction of Babylon (per Isaiah 13), which is in turn followed by a rain of massive hailstones upon the earth. I see this as a fulfillment of the prediction of falling stars. Hailstones that strike the earth are simply falling stars that failed to completely burn up in the atmosphere. The only thing I don't see exactly fulfilled in Revelation is Jesus' prediction of the shaking of "heavenly bodies," but this may be implicit in the hailstones and/or other phenomenon associated with the massive earthquake. To conclude, I think there is enough evidence that we are justified in interpreting Matthew 24:29 as occurring at the end of the trib. And the fact that the very next verses show the physical Second Coming is further confirmation. Pre-wrath advocates may not like this interpretation, but I think it is reasonable to most honest and unbiased people.

I appreciate your further comments on the 24 Elders issue, and they are well noted. It is clear to me that they cannot refer to the Church, and I make similar arguments in my "Entering the Apocalypse" article.

Your final comment is one that has also given me a great deal of grief. Oh well. If we didn't have problems like this then we wouldn't be so motivated to continue to seek out the truth. I think you pointed out the important key, which is that this post-trib resurrection is definitely NOT the first ever resurrection in time. Therefore the meaning must be different. Basically I believe that the First Resurrection merely refers to the first phase of resurrections, and that they occur in stages. First the group resurrected at Jesus' death, then Jesus himself, then the Church saints, and then the tribulation martyrs. If you take part in any of these resurrections then you have "had a part in" the First Resurrection, and you are spared the pain of a Second Death. The second resurrection then takes place after the millenium. It may be the second resurrection, but it is still the first for those who are resurrected. Then those judged unworthy are throne into the lake of fire to experience the second death. I think the phrase "have part in" in 20:6 kind of implies that the First Resurrection takes place in stages.

I like your explanation of the first resurrection. As you say, this is definitely not the first resurrection according to scripture!

Thanks again for taking the time to contact me and share with me your thoughts. I have looked at your site as well and I will return to it often. You have some very interesting studies. I am almost finished with my study on end-times Babylon, and after it is done I plan to seriously return to other aspects of the prophetic model that we seem to share in common. Please stay in touch.

Thanks. It appears we may disagree on the origin/identity of the AC. No biggie - we'll be out of here before we know who it is anyway! I think the most interesting parts of my website are the Perry Stone visions. If these are truly visions from the Lord Almighty - what a blessing! I find it amazing that the Lord showed Perry that Bush would be the year 2000 president in 1998, three months before he announced he was even running (and just after he had won the Texas governor re-election).

Now for my further comments/questions for you regarding your model:

1. Does your model provide a beginning for the Magog invasion? I see that it provides an ending for the invasion - the latter events of the sixth seal. You might explain this in your "Peace and Safety" essay, which I have not yet read all of.

2. There are several things about the Magog invasion that make me wonder how this could be a future attack. I won't go into those now, but one of the things that gives me the most trouble is that Israel will be dwelling safely in unwalled villages. This is not the case now, and I don't see how it ever will be given the daily bombings in Israel. I suppose a left field scenario would be that the USA sets up shop in Israel and provides defenses for Israel, and promises retaliation to any enemy who attacks them. But the problem Israel faces now is within - terror within - with the Palestinians. I don't think a US presence would help that situation. Does this reference to unwalled villages give you trouble?

3. One of the arguments Perry Stone gives for why the Rev 7 throng is tribulation martyrs is the fact that they "made their robes white". He says this means they weren't white at the rapture, but in going through the tribulation and dying a martyr, they make their robes white in gaining salvation. I suppose this argument makes a bit of sense, but your arguments make much more sense and I agree with your position. But I don't remember if you addressed the "made their robes white" phrase in your explanation.

4. Does the fourth horsemen causing death with "wild beasts of the earth" give you trouble like it does me? When in history has this happened? Sure, people are killed every once and a while by a wild animal, but it hardly seems worth including in this list. You'd think something like automobile deaths, which I dare say have caused exponentially more deaths than have wild beasts, would be included in the list before wild beasts are.

5. I tend to disagree with your assessment that Israel is not the fig tree of Matt 24:32. As I explain on my website:

c. As you know, there are some denominations who don't believe in the rapture - who are a-millenialists, etc. They aren't looking for a return of Jesus Christ in the rapture. I believe Pat Robertson, a Christian and a believer, host of 700 club, etc., does not believe in the rapture of the church. I truly believe these people are "saved", and have accepted Christ's sacrifice for their sins. But are they looking for his appearing? No. Some are preterists - rapture fighters.

d. Reading the letters to 7 churches, there are several conditional statements: if you will do this, then you'll be spared the tribulation, etc. Well, what about those who DON'T do those conditional things? I believe they are saved, but may have to endure the tribulation.

e. Revelation 13 says the AC has power "over the saints". I have trouble believing that these are only the Jewish remnant who believed as a result of the ministry of the two witnesses. It seems that there will be people who accepted Christ as their Savior before the rapture, but were backslidden or not living a clean Christian life, that are left behind. Again, the parable of the ten virgins. Yet, I believe these folks will have a chance to renew their walk and have to endure the tribulation, especially the fifth trumpet judgment.

I guess my question is: based on the above, do you see a partial rapture, where people believe in Jesus Christ, or have in the past, but were not ready or living right when he returned miss the rapture, are saved from eternal hell, but must endure the tribulation and the "strong delusion"?

7. Wow, I just read part of your "Peace and Safety" essay. I had not read the research that Magog is actually Turkey, not Russia!! What makes that more interesting is a news story I read today about Turkey being very upset at Israel - something about oil and a pipeline out of Iraq. Did you happen to see this story? Let me see if I can find it on the Net real quick: here it is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Here' s a quote from the article: "In response to rumors about the possible
Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations."

Anyway that is an interesting development, eh? I'll have to read that entire essay!

8. In regards to your "First Seal" explanation in the "Entering the Apocalypse" essay, your idea that the first seal is the physical birth of the AC is interesting. However, there may be a problem with that idea: if the first seal is the physical birth of the AC, and if the first seal precedes the second seal; and, if the second seal is WWII as you suggest, then that makes the AC around 70 years old, at least, IF his first seal birth precedes the second seal. As you argue for a sequential fulfillment of Revelation, I'm assuming you'd agree with this.

Now, the rider of the horse may indeed be the AC himself. According to Perry's vision, the horse was already present in 1977 when he had the vision (in fact, all four horses were present), but the RIDERS were NOT YET on the horses. And, whether the Euro currency emblazoned on the white horse means it is associated with the EU, or whether it was simply a sign that the end was near when Perry saw it on the TV news story in January 1999, is up to debate.

I believe this explanation fits your model better than the physical birth of the AC scenario. And, it flows chronologically as well. What do you think?

Keeping this in mind, I'm not sure if I asked you to listen to this yet from my website, but click the link below and listen to this (you need to be able to listen to MP3 audio on your computer), then come back to the email:

http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/visions/srilanka.mp3

Now, when you think about the earth ticking, ticking, ticking, ticking, as described by this lady, could it be that 9/11/01 was the water breaking in the spiritual birth process? Could it be that 9/11/01 is the bridge that is going to take us into all the things are going to happen in the future (Magog invasion, Syria destroyed, the decline of the USA, the rise of the EU) and the contractions are going to get even closer and closer? Very interesting indeed, and it ties in well with your idea that the Matt 24 signs are related to the horsemen seals....

Well, this has been a marathon email, but I hope you find the content interesting, and that you don't mind the discussion with me. If you don't have time, I will understand. But in the pursuit of understanding these tough issues, I have found that stimulating conversation with others has led to some illumination for myself. This has definitely been for me with your information.

Christian blessings,

Back to Top

Hi Dave,

I've printed out your email and read it through. Thanks for the engaging dialogue. I'll respond to several of the points you brought up.

First of all, regarding the darkness of the sun and moon, I wrote that it begins with the first seal, but I meant the fifth seal. With that, as well as the events of the seventh seal, I find Jesus' words of Matthew 24:29 fulfilled in Revelation.

Your points on the Antichrist are noted. I am not entirely set in my belief that the first seal represents his birth, but I think it should be considered. Something I am working on right now that ultimately might change my view is the research I have done on the seven kings of Revelation 17:10. Most of the prophecy scholars I know always seem to understand "kings" as meaning "kingdoms" but I think this is wrong. God knows the difference between a "king" and a "kingdom." He mentions "kings" in Rev. 17:10, and a "kingdom" in 17:12. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at guessing whoe these seven kings might be, who have lived throughout history. Five existed prior to when John wrote the Revalation, one existed when he wrote the Revelation, and the seventh was predicted to be in the future. Furthermore, there is to be an eighth king, the beast, who was also one of the five that preceded John. Take a shot at figuring this out even if you're not sure you agree with me, and then we can compare notes. One hint is that the one that existed at John's time was the Emperor Nero of Rome, the crazy Christian killer who acted like a madman possessed. I think he clearly was possessed, just like the other six, and the eighth who will be the beast.

In your email you ask several questions that I deal with in my Peace and Safety article. Perhaps you could read it all the way through and then get back to me.

The Globalists hate mankind, and they hate God. They want to enslave mankind, reduce our numbers, and keep is enslaved, working in agriculture, or subsistence labor, and dependent upon them for survivial. The fourth of the earth that is referred to by the fourth seal may refer to the regions of the earth where they have deliberately returned man to a primitive state, fighting against his brother, his neighbors, or other tribes, ravaged by plagues like AIDS, or SARS, and always faced with the threat of famine. At the same time society in these areas has degenerated to such an extent that rural people are forced again to defend their homes against wild animals. I think the picture is a perfect rendition of Africa, and other regions such as Southeast Asia or even in South America as the situation there gets worse and worse.

The last point I think I should cover is the question of a partial rapture. I don't believe that any saved people will be left behind, but I do believe in a more precise and exclusive definition of "saved." My understanding comes from my study of the material of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org. He's an excellent teacher, but like you and Dr. Stone, I don't agree with everything he says.

The invisible Church, on the other hand, is the body of believers that we cannot see for certain with our eyes. Salvation is a personal matter between each individual and the Creator. Only you know if you are truly saved, because you are saved by making a sincere commitment to God and a surrender of your will, which is only made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross on your behalf. How can I tell if your commitment to God is genuine? I can't. If you tell me you are saved I have to take your word for it, but only you and God know the truth about the matter. Of course "by your fruits you shall know them," and sometimes a guess can be made whether or not you think someone is saved based on their behavior, but you can never know for sure.

There are many people who claim to be Christians, who we see as members of the visible Church, but are not truly saved, and are not considered by God to be members of the invisible Church, the true Church.

I believe that the rapture of the Church is the rapture of the invisible Church, the true Church, the body of believers that are sincere and committed in their faith. These will be taken and none will be left behind. However, there will be many people left behind who call themselves Christians, or even claimed to be saved. Perhaps this perspective helps to make the parable of the ten virgins and the letters of the seven Churches more easily understood.

Thanks again for your letters and please keep in touch. God bless,

Back to Top

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:15:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: marathon email To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

I've got some comments on your email below, but I'll save those for another day. Right now, I want to ask you a question. I've quickly scanned your American Babylon paper, and it looks like it will be a killer read.

Have you heard of or read the book "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt? While I have problems with much of Dave's prophetic interpretations, I believe he is correct with regard to the identity of the WOMAN who rides the beast. The woman is the Vatican - or I suppose you could call it the spiritual rule of Rome - Papal Rome.

I agree with your comment that the 7 heads of the beast are "kings". You asked me who I thought the kings were. Up to now, I have agreed with Perry's view that the seven heads are represented by the empires of Daniel:

1. Egypt

2. Assyria

3. Babylon

4. Persia

5. Greece

(these are the five that are fallen)

6. Rome

(this is the one that "is")

7. Reformed Rome

(this is the one that is to come and continue a short space (3.5 years?))

In addition to representing these empires, the seven heads also represent "chief evil spirits" that direct and control these empires. Daniel 10 refers to two of them: the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia. The prince of Persia withstood Gabriel from delivering the Daniel 11 message, but Michael came to help Gabriel. These "princes" are definitely supernatural. Revelation 9 refers to four angels loosed from the Euphrates.

Now, the 8th is "one of" the previous 7 empires. Perry Stone's interpretation is that the 8th is the Babylonian empire, which will be reformed at the midpoint of the tribulation when the 10 nations give him their power. He says Babylon is the only one of the seven that fits the description, "the beast that was, and is not, even he is the 8th, and is one of the seven". There were five that were, one of which was Babylon. Rome and Revived Rome are not options. Babylon "is not" in John's day, because Egypt, Assyria, Persia and Greece all existed in some form in John's day. Babylon did not exist in any form, therefore, that is why Perry believes the Babylonian empire will be reborn as the 8th empire, being led by an Islamic dictator (the AC). It is the only empire that fits "the beast that was, and is not, even he is the 8th, and is one of the seven".

So, are you going to tell me who you believe the seven kings are? There is debate, is there not, that Nero was the "one is" in John's day? Nero killed Peter and Paul, but was he still in power when John was exiled? If you believe that the eight "kings" are individuals, how do you explain how an individual, the 8th, is also "one of" the seven previous. Is a king from the 1st century AD going to rise from the dead?

Dave

Back to Top

Hi Dave,

Consider Revelation 12:3. Satan is described as a dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Then in Revelation 13:1-3 the Beast of Revelation is described. He has ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns, and it is said that on each head is written a blasphemous name. Each head has the name of the blasphemous person that it represents. Then in verse three we are told very clearly that one of these heads was at one time fatally wounded, but now it is healed. This is reiterated in 13:12 and 13:14.

Now to identify the seven kings. We must start at the beginning of the history of the nation of Israel, after God chose Abraham, and after him Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

The first king is Pharoah of Egypt, who held the Israelites in bondage against the word of the Lord as commanded through Moses. This first king was clearly insane, as evidenced by his refusal to let the Hebrews go, even up to the threat against his first-born son. Then for a brief moment he relented and allowed the Hebrews to go, but only days later he took the entire Egyptian army out to recapture the Hebrews, and they all perished as a result. Satan knew that Israel was God's only nation on the earth, and that all the rest served false Gods, and so throughout history he has been trying to destroy Israel.

The second king is Sennacharib of Assyria. You can read about him in 2Kings 18-19, 2Chronicles 32, and Isaiah 36-37. He was one of the greatest Assyrian kings that conquered almost the entire Middle East. He came against Jerusalem with a huge army and demanded surrender. Nonetheless, Isaiah had the courage to speak the word of the Lord and he predicted that Sennacherib would fall. Then King Hezekiah had the faith to believe the Lord, and he resisted Sennacherib's demands and ignored his blasphemous insults. In the night an angel of the Lord slaughtered 165,000 Assyrian troops and Sennacherib fled, to be murdered in his own temple in Ninevah by his two sons.

The third king is described in Isaiah 14 as simply the king of Babylon. He is either Nebuchadnezzar I, or perhaps his descendant Belshazzar, the last king of ancient Babylon. Isaiah 14 is key for me, because in the description of the King of Babylon the texts transtions seemlessly into a description of Lucifer in 14:12-15. I think this is evidence for my theory that these kings were literally possessed by Satan during their careers, and Babylon was definitely a nation that directed its attention against God's people. Also, the king of Babylon's crimes include his great blasphemy and his desire to take the place of God.

The fourth king is similar to the third. It is described in Ezekiel 28. He is the King of Tyre, and again, the text transtions seemlessly from a description of the king to a description of Satan. Tyre's crimes were of an economic nature and I think it is amazing that at the annual Bohemian Grove ceremonies that are attended by the world's Elite in a resort in the redwoods north of San Francisco, that the Cremation of Care ceremony that takes place in front of the owl god Moloch, also contains a reference to "goodly Tyre and Babylon." See Alex Jones' investigations of this pagan worship that is attended by people from the Bush and Rockefeller familes, Henry Kissinger, corporate CEOs, international diplomats and the like. See http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html. According to Ezekiel, the king of Tyre is also to be condemned for his great blasphemy.

The fifth king should be familiar to you. He is Antiochus Epiphanes who was predicted by Daniel. He ravaged the nation of Israel and tried to destroy the priesthood. Then he took over the Temple, dedicated it to Jupiter, and made a sacrifice of a pig on the altar. He could also be described as criminally insane, and I have no doubt that he was possessed by Satan.

These five are the five that "have fallen," according to Revelation 17:10, when John wrote the book of Revelation. The sixth is one that existed at John's time. You are quite right that there is a question as to when Revelation was written. Consider the following article that contends that John wrote the Revelation between 64-67 AD, during the time of Nero: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-3eschaton.php.

The article is from a preterist perspective, so don't be distracted by their bias, but consider the main conclusion. I think Nero was possessed by Satan, and he is known as the Roman emperor who was the most bloodthirsty in his attacks against Christians. He was also blasphemous to the core. He was the sixth king.

The seventh king is a king that was in John's future. I would identify him as Hitler, a man clearly possessed, who hated God's people with a genocdical passion, and showed a reckless attitude towards the fate of his nation and even towards himself. He ended up committing suicide when he knew that his career was over and that he could not kill any more Jews.

The eighth king was also in John's future. He is the beast, "who once was, now is not, and yet shall be." He belongs to the seven. I take this to mean that he is one of the seven, and this is proven by a look back at Revelation 13:3, which shows one of the seven heads killed, but then brought back to life.

If he "once was" then he must be one of the five that preceded John. He can only be Antiochus Epiphanes, and his description in Daniel transitions seemlessly from the prophecies of the first part of his life in ancient Israel, to his career in the end times when he is able to take over Jerusalem once again before his end comes. Daniel 11:36-45 has many parallels with the descriptions of the beast of Revelation.

When I first decided upon this theory it was very strange to me. I still have many questions. How will Antiochus be resurrected? This also conflicts with my theory that the Antichrist was "born" prior to World War II, as signified by the white horseman and the first seal. But perhaps the first seal has some connection to Hitler? What I have found is that Greek mythology has many connections to Old Testament cosmology, and the pagan Greek gods are actually the fallen angels, led by Jupiter who is Satan. Hades is another of these gods and he is mentioned at least twice in Revelation as the master of the underworld. I have also found out that the Greek god Apollo is the son of Jupiter, and he is known as The Archer and is almost always pictured with a bow. Perhaps that ties in with the white horseman of the first seal and Hitler, whose rise to power preceded World War II, which I see as indicated by the second seal. Note also that the seven kings are shown with crowns in Revelation 12:3, and the white horseman is also given a crown. Hitler also rode out as "a conqueror bent on conquest."

I just had another one of those moments of realization when I get a tingle up the back of my spine and a warm feeling throughout my body. You see, as I have been writing this email the entire Hitler connection has just come to me. I have seen him as the sixth king for a while, but only now have I been able to connect him with the first seal. Also see Revelation 17:10. When the sixth king comes "he must remain for a little while." It almost as if the text describes him as coming closely before the Antichrist described in 17:11. I think this is a breakthrough.

Consider what I've written and get back to me with your thoughts. I'm confident of the Hitler connection, but I am unsure how Antiochus is supposed to arrive. However, no matter how strange this may appear to be I think it is clear that one of the seven kings suffers a deadly wound, but is then brought back to life. He "once was, now is not, and yet shall be." Can there be any other interpretation?

One final suggestion. You need to understand the Old Testament concept of the Divine Council, and the division of the nations to the fallen gods that are led by Satan. I recommend the groundbreaking work of Michael S. Heiser at http://www.michaelsheiser.com/introtonewsletter.htm. You should join his newsletter service. It costs ten bucks, which is cheap. Then you can read all of his studies on the Divine Coundil. He has about fifteen of them.

You should begin with the article located here, which is free: http://www.facadenovel.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

It is 27 pages, and hard reading, but print it out and take the time to read and understand it. It will open your mind up to the true nature of the spiritual war that is being waged for this planet today.

I have to get back to my Babyon article. So much to do and so little time.

God bless,

Peter

Back to Top

From: David Lowe To: Peter Goodgame Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: A Breakthrough! (?)

Pete,

Comments are in bold below:

I make the argument on my website that end-time Babylon is made up of three parts: economic, spiritual, and military. Economic Babylon is headquartered in NYC. Spiritual Babylon is headquartered in the Vatican, which the AC destroys according to Daniel. Military Babylon is headquartered in Babylon, Iraq, and will be destroyed in a future war, causing the AC to move his headquarters to Jerusalem mid-trib. So your statement that NYC is end-time Babylon agrees with my beliefs, yet I'm sure you go into much more detail than I did. But I also believe Babylon spans the globe and includes more than just the economic side.

By the way, you didn't answer my question about Dave Hunt's book "A Woman Rides the Beast". Have you read it, and do you not agree that Papal Rome fits the description of the woman in Revelation 17?

Another thing to point out is that Babylon and the Antichrist himself are antagonists. They do not coexist. I agree with your implication below that the beast with seven heads and ten horns is a spiritual entity, and that this entity then becomes the Antichrist when one of the heads is given a mouth to speak. It is true that for a time the woman rides the beast. To put it very bluntly I believe that this is symbolic of the rise of the Anglo-American Establishment, working together for the long-term goal of a world government. The beast in this sense is the hard-core Satanic political faction that uses the power of the US and NYC to destroy the sovereignty of nations. The "Anglo" or British half is no longer just "Anglo," because many of the highest levels of power throughout the world, including Europe, the UN and the Vatican, have signed on to the Satanic Globalist agenda. The woman riding the beast may more properly be said to represent the Globalist-American Establishment. The globalists aligned with Satan are typified by the ten horns or ten kings of the beast. They are presently subdued or at least overshadowed by the power of Babylon, but this will change when the Antichrist makes his personal appearance.

The key texts for me are 17:12-13, "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their authority to the beast."

and 17:16, "The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire."

The time of the woman riding the beast is the period right now during which the USA is being manipulated into acting as the dominant greedy and oppressive force on the planet. You or I may be sympathetic to American actions in Iraq and around the world, but I assure you that the rest of the world is not. America is hated around the world, and not without reason. Even in Britain 80% of the public was against the American conquest of Iraq. Prince Charles himself even made it clear through press leaks that he is against American imperialism and unilateralism. One wonders then what type of mandate Tony Blair acts under, to go against the will of the British people and the monarchy to support the USA. The answer is that America is being made to look big and bad for a purpose, so that when the Antichrist appears he can take his place on a moral pedestal and appear as mankind's liberator, as an advocate of compassion and sharing, working against the evils of "nationalism," against the greed of the "free market," and against a fundamentalist Christianity that will be falsely blamed as the basis of all of the USA's wicked actions, that are directed from the corporate/financial capital of New York.

The point I want to make is that the beast at first represents the "spirit" of the Antichrist, at least while Babylon rides it. See 1John 4:3. Then when the Antichrist personally appears the ten kings give him their allegiance and betray Babylon and indeed the entire United States, making the harlot their number one enemy. The Antichrist himself never rules from Babylon. He hates Babylon. There is never an alliance between Babylon and the Antichrist once he makes his physical appearance. There is only war.

In my studies I have concluded that Babylon's fall goes through stages. The first stage is a judgment from God, and it occurs at the very beginning of the 70th Week, near the same time when the AC appears and the rapture occurs. This is when Babylon's economic/political system rules the world with the arrogant and self-righteous attitude described in Revelation. This attitude could not continue past the second trumpet which destroys so many of the very ships that Babylon depends on for trade. Also compare the second trumpet judgment with the words of the angel in 18:21, and compare the first trumpet with the description of the judgment in 18:8. I think they tie together.

Recall that I believe in two major astro-physical catastrophes that strike the earth, one at the beginning of the trib, and another at the end. Well the first one results in the destruction of Babylon, which comes about as the judgment mentioned in 18:8. It occurs when the Antichrist is just appearing, and in fact he is never mentioned throughout chapter 18. Babylon's fall paves the way for the appearance and success of the Antichrist. That is why the global economic system is being propped up the way it is. He must be on the scene when the system is destroyed to make sure that the new system is under his control.

The fall of Babylon is another long study itself, and perhaps I can get into it more later and I will offer more reasons why I believe it falls initially at the beginning of the trib. I know many point to a mid-trib fall of Babylon, but I can see little evidence for this. This alleged mid-trib fall of Babylon is only arrived at because this is when the AC takes over Jerusalem. Some believe that he migrates from Babylon, but I don't think this is the case. The AC always hates Babylon when in physical form, and he will never ally with it, or rule from it.

The first stage of the fall destroys NYC as an effective economic/political force at the beginning of the trib, the second stage is when the struggling remnant of Babylon is then subdued by the AC and ten kings (17:16), and then the final phase is the complete obliteration of Babylon at the end of the trib. I know I need to fill this conclusion of mine out more, so go easy on me when you bring your rebuttals ;)

Regarding the Vatican, I still realize that Dave Hunt's research is very important and his criticisms of it are very valid. I don't think that the Vatican applies to Babylon, but I do see a role for the Vatican through the career of the False Prophet. Now this ties in with my research into the occult/spiritual side of the Establishment. Perhaps if you read my material on the Maitreya movement that is associated with the Globalists, London and the UN you might better understand my views. Basically the dark side has made some very bold predictions that when the global liberator arrives he will be supported by a future pope of Rome. This also ties in with the predictions of Saint Malachi, regarding an anti-Pope prior to the Second Coming. He will be a Pope that rejects every last vestige of traditional Christianity within the RCC and he will embrace the Antichrist. There is much material that says the False Prophet will be this last RCC anti-Pope. The FP directs the world to worship the AC, and who better to direct the world in worship than the world's most powerful and most respected spiritual leader, the Roman Catholic Pope?

Consider Revelation 12:3. Satan is described as a dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Then in Revelation 13:1-3 the Beast of Revelation is described. He has ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns, and it is said that on each head is written a blasphemous name. Each head has the name of the blasphemous person that it represents. Then in verse three we are told very clearly that one of these heads was at one time fatally wounded, but now it is healed. This is reiterated in 13:12 and 13:14.

1. Don't forget verse 2: the beast was like a leopard, feet like a bear, mouth like a lion. Is this not a reference to the beasts in Daniel 7? And if so, don't you have to understand the beasts of Daniel 7 in order to understand this beast?

Yes, in Daniel we do have some very clear references to "kingdoms." These are the pagan kingdoms of old, and when they form a part of the final "Beast" they represent the pagan Satanic influence over the Antichrist's World Order. But again, I think we must make a clear distinction between "kings" and "kingdoms."

2. Verse 3 says "one of its heads were wounded to death". Obviously, the first three verses are not referring to a human beast, but a spiritual beast, since a human being cannot have 7 heads. My interpretation of the 7 heads, again, are seven chief evil spirits that have led the 7 empires over time. This, again, is bolstered by Daniel 10's references to two of them: the prince of Grecia and Persia.

Here is where it would be good for you to read about the Divine Council and the division of the nations of the earth to the fallen gods that are led by Satan. There are seventy of these chief evil spirits, not just seven. They were given all of the nations of the earth, while God chose only one among all the nations, through his choice of Abraham. I'll highlight the article you should read below.

Regarding these heads, Revelation 17 clearly says they refer to seven kings. One of the heads is wounded unto death, therefore one of the kings is wounded unto death. If the "head" is indeed a spirit, then what could this mean?

3. Only in verse 5 do human characteristics become evident. He's "given a mouth". But the reference in verse 3 to "one of his heads" being put to death, then healed, must be referring to one of the previous 7 chief evil spirits coming back to power. Revelation 17 clears it up for us, I believe.

In summation, you cannot discount the spiritual side, the spiritual references that are evident in Daniel. The four "angels" loosed in the Euphrates during the 6th trumpet may be four of these evil angels who were defeated and bound at the Euphrates, but are coming back as part of the seven headed beast.

I don't connect these angels with the seven kings. I think they are the fallen angelic captains of the huge army that comes from the sixth trumpet. I think only one of the seven heads will come back at the end, not four.

Now to identify the seven kings. We must start at the beginning of the history of the nation of Israel, after God chose Abraham, and after him Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

The first king is Pharoah of Egypt, who held the Israelites in bondage against the word of the Lord as commanded through Moses. This first king was clearly insane, as evidenced by his refusal to let the Hebrews go, even up to the threat against his first-born son. Then for a brief moment he relented and allowed the Hebrews to go, but only days later he took the entire Egyptian army out to recapture the Hebrews, and they all perished as a result. Satan knew that Israel was God's only nation on the earth, and that all the rest served false Gods, and so throughout history he has been trying to destroy Israel.

The second king is Sennacharib of Assyria. You can read about him in 2Kings 18-19, 2Chronicles 32, and Isaiah 36-37. He was one of the greatest Assyrian kings that conquered almost the entire Middle East. He came against Jerusalem with a huge army and demanded surrender. Nonetheless, Isaiah had the courage to speak the word of the Lord and he predicted that Sennacherib would fall. Then King Hezekiah had the faith to believe the Lord, and he resisted Sennacherib's demands and ignored his blasphemous insults. In the night an angel of the Lord slaughtered 165,000 Assyrian troops and Sennacherib fled, to be murdered in his own temple in Ninevah by his two sons.

The third king is described in Isaiah 14 as simply the king of Babylon. He is either Nebuchadnezzar I, or perhaps his descendant Belshazzar, the last king of ancient Babylon. Isaiah 14 is key for me, because in the description of the King of Babylon the texts transtions seemlessly into a description of Lucifer in 14:12-15. I think this is evidence for my theory that these kings were literally possessed by Satan during their careers, and Babylon was definitely a nation that directed its attention against God's people. Also, the king of Babylon's crimes include his great blasphemy and his desire to take the place of God.

The fourth king is similar to the third. It is described in Ezekiel 28. He is the King of Tyre, and again, the text transtions seemlessly from a description of the king to a description of Satan. Tyre's crimes were of an economic nature and I think it is amazing that at the annual Bohemian Grove ceremonies that are attended by the world's Elite in a resort in the redwoods north of San Francisco, that the Cremation of Care ceremony that takes place in front of the owl god Moloch, also contains a reference to "goodly Tyre and Babylon." See Alex Jones' investigations of this pagan worship that is attended by people from the Bush and Rockefeller familes, Henry Kissinger, corporate CEOs, international diplomats and the like. See http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html. According to Ezekiel, the king of Tyre is also to be condemned for his great blasphemy.

Very interesting idea! Excellent stuff. I have no problems with the first three you refer to, because they are three rulers associated with what most people regard as the 7 empires of prophecy that have affected the Jewish people:

2. Assyria - Sennacharib

3. Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar

4. Persia - ??

5. Greece - Antiochus Epiphanes

6. Rome - Nero

7. Re-formed Rome - Hitler ?

But to follow this pattern, the fourth king would have to be one from the Persian empire. However, I know of no Persian king who was bad to the Jews. In fact, they were accomodative to the Jews. Persia is defintely identified over and over in Daniel as of the empires of prophecy, so I see this as a stumblingblock for your idea.

Persia is definitely one of the four kingdoms mentioned by Daniel, but again I think we may be confusing "kings" with "kingdoms" where we need to be more careful. I think Daniel mentioned the four kingdoms that were to come in Daniel's future, that would affect Israel, either positively or negatively, and that the fourth is kind of split in half. The first half was Rome at the end of old Isreal, and the new European-based kingdom of the AC is the revived Rome that will rise up with the AC and deal with the new Israel.

I don't see how the king of Tyre fits in. First, there is no person named - it is obviously referring to Satan due to the Ezekiel 28 references. Second, there was empire of Tyre that was ever against the Jews, and no king or ruler that persecuted Jews. The next section after the ruler of Tyre in Ezekiel is the ruler of Sidon...why not this person? But my strongest objection would be that Persia, not Tyre, is identified in Daniel as a prophetic empire.

Yes, Daniel identifies Persia as a prophetic empire, but my argument again will be that Daniel does not connect Persia with the seven kings of Revelation. As you point out, Persia was not necessarily an enemy of Israel, so I find no need to include Persia as a member of the seven heads of the dragon that is Satan (Revelation 12:3).

Tyre may have oppressed Israel just as the USA oppresses Argentina through the criminal policies of the IMF. We have destroyed that nation's economy, but we have done it subtly and without using the military. Of course it is up to me to offer further evidence for this line of reasoning, but I have already found a few leads in the book "Kingdom of Priests - A History of Old Testament Israel" by Eugene Merrill.

The main reason for picking Tyre rather than Sidon is that the King of Tyre's description leads to the conclusion that he was possessed by Satan. This makes him comparable to the King of Babylon in Isaiah 13 and Antiochus in Daniel 11. They seem to be linked together in this manner.

That said, however, I will definitely be looking at the links you gave me concering the pagan worship with Kissinger, Bush, Rockefeller, etc. That freaked me out! You may have something with the king of Tyre, but there may be a better fit within scripture, somewhere. I don't see it within the Persian empire, though.

The fifth king should be familiar to you. He is Antiochus Epiphanes who was predicted by Daniel. He ravaged the nation of Israel and tried to destroy the priesthood. Then he took over the Temple, dedicated it to Jupiter, and made a sacrifice of a pig on the altar. He could also be described as criminally insane, and I have no doubt that he was possessed by Satan.

Sorry to be playing the devil's advocate here, but I feel I should point out things to you that others may - problem points. AE is a good fit as he is from the Grecian empire - Seleucid line. Daniel 11 has always given me problems, because it moved from the history of AE right into things that AE definitely did not do. This happens around verse 35 or 36, as I recall. It's as if his exploits will be continued at some point in the future?? This definitely supports your idea of AE being the one that comes back from the dead.

Thanks for the agreement. The transition in the text definitely supports my conclusion.

However, according to reliable historic records, AE did not die of a sword wound. He died of some kind of disease. Revelation 13 twice makes reference to the beast dying by a sword wound. I think the sword is symbolic of a "war", but still, AE didn't die in a war either. This is a problem - a major problem - with your idea.

Oh man, you burst my bubble! I had a good thing going and now you had to ruin it. Just kidding.

Actually, I was aware of this problem. This demands further research. You see, Sennacharib would be a fit here because he was stabbed by his two sons. Perhaps Pharoah would fit because he died technically at war (although by drowning). Nebuchadezzar's fate is unclear. The identity of the king of Tyre is unknown to me and so an unlikely choice.

I'm stuck with Antiochus, and the narrative of Daniel 11, as you conceded above, seems to confirm this. The only hope I have left is an obscure, but contradictory account of Antiochus' death from the book of II Maccabees. Consider this from http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/apocrypha.htm

"There are two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea�s priests" (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19-29)."

These five are the five that "have fallen," according to Revelation 17:10, when John wrote the book of Revelation. The sixth is one that existed at John's time. You are quite right that there is a question as to when Revelation was written. Consider the following article that contends that John wrote the Revelation between 64-67 AD, during the time of Nero: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-3eschaton.php.

The article is from a preterist perspective, so don't be distracted by their bias, but consider the main conclusion. I think Nero was possessed by Satan, and he is known as the Roman emperor who was the most bloodthirsty in his attacks against Christians. He was also blasphemous to the core. He was the sixth king.

According to Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Domitian was the Roman ruler than banished him to Patmos, so wouldn't he have to be the king described as "one is" during John's day? Nero was definitely the worst, but Domitian certainly wasn't a saint to Jews and Christians either....

Yes, it depends on the dating of the writing of Revelation. Read the article above that argues for Nero and against Domitian.

The seventh king is a king that was in John's future. I would identify him as Hitler, a man clearly possessed, who hated God's people with a genocdical passion, and showed a reckless attitude towards the fate of his nation and even towards himself. He ended up committing suicide when he knew that his career was over and that he could not kill any more Jews.

The eighth king was also in John's future. He is the beast, "who once was, now is not, and yet shall be." He belongs to the seven. I take this to mean that he is one of the seven, and this is proven by a look back at Revelation 13:3, which shows one of the seven heads killed, but then brought back to life.

If he "once was" then he must be one of the five that preceded John. He can only be Antiochus Epiphanes, and his description in Daniel transitions seemlessly from the prophecies of the first part of his life in ancient Israel, to his career in the end times when he is able to take over Jerusalem once again before his end comes. Daniel 11:36-45 has many parallels with the descriptions of the beast of Revelation.

When I first decided upon this theory it was very strange to me. I still have many questions. How will Antiochus be resurrected? This also conflicts with my theory that the Antichrist was "born" prior to World War II, as signified by the white horseman and the first seal. But perhaps the first seal has some connection to Hitler? What I have found is that Greek mythology has many connections to Old Testament cosmology, and the pagan Greek gods are actually the fallen angels, led by Jupiter who is Satan. Hades is another of these gods and he is mentioned at least twice in Revelation as the master of the underworld. I have also found out that the Greek god Apollo is the son of Jupiter, and he is known as The Archer and is almost always pictured with a bow. Perhaps that ties in with the white horseman of the first seal and Hitler, whose rise to power preceded World War II, which I see as indicated by the second seal. Note also that the seve! n kings are shown with crowns in Revelation 12:3, and the white horseman is also given a crown. Hitler also rode out as "a conqueror bent on conquest."

Hitler does seem to fit well. He definitely persecuted the Jews. And if you know your history, as I'm sure you do, Hitler was financed by the Establishment in America and Britain. He could easily be symbolic of the reformed Roman empire.

I just had another one of those moments of realization when I get a tingle up the back of my spine and a warm feeling throughout my body. You see, as I have been writing this email the entire Hitler connection has just come to me. I have seen him as the sixth king for a while, but only now have I been able to connect him with the first seal. Also see Revelation 17:10. When the sixth king comes "he must remain for a little while." It almost as if the text describes him as coming closely before the Antichrist described in 17:11. I think this is a breakthrough.

Wait a sec. You said when the 6th king comes, Revelation 17:10 says he'll continue for a little while. You mean the 7th king, right? And if so, would you consider Hitler fitting the "continuing a short space" reference? Most believe this is referring to the first 3.5 years of Daniel's 70th week and the reformed Roman empire. HItler, as a world power, was definitely short-lived. I find Hitler an interesting choice both as a persecutor of Jews and as symbolic of the Establishment.

Yes, I meant the seventh king. Sorry for the confusion. I place both the seventh (Hitler) and eighth (the AC) kings in John's future, but I think only the eighth relates to the seven year tribulation.

Consider what I've written and get back to me with your thoughts. I'm confident of the Hitler connection, but I am unsure how Antiochus is supposed to arrive. However, no matter how strange this may appear to be I think it is clear that one of the seven kings suffers a deadly wound, but is then brought back to life. He "once was, now is not, and yet shall be." Can there be any other interpretation?

Whether the king that comes back is an actual king or merely a demonic spirit, the fact remains that he must be one of the five that preceded John. He "once was, now is not, and yet shall be." He is one of the seven heads that was wounded in Revelation 13:3, and then he comes back as an eighth. During John's time and prior to his physical return at the end he exists in the Abyss. He could be the soul of a king, or as you are arguing, an evil spirit that was banished and will be allowed to return.

Regarding the seven heads, they have two meanings, only one of which affects Babylon. This is that the heads represent mountains "upon which the woman sits." My friend Richard Coombes, who wrote "America, the Babylon," at www.aoreport.com, shows that this Greek word is intepreted sometimes as "hills" and sometimes as "mountains," but it can also refer to major land mass, continent, and in some Greek manuscripts it even means "desert." The connection I make is with the Statue of Liberty, which wears a crown of seven spikes. Here is what it says on the Statue of Liberty web page at http://www.nps.gov/stli/prod02.htm :

By the way the Statue of Liberty is a Masonic statue steeped in occult symbology, and it is actually a representation of the Roman Goddess Venus, also known as Libertas, which actually can be traced back to Isis of Egypt and Inanna of Babylon, the original Mother of Harlots. See my old article at http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-6.html

Perhaps the first interpretation of the seven heads is that they represent Babylon's global domination, which is reinforced later in the text, while the second interpretation explains the nature of the heads mentioned in Revelation 12:3 and 13:1-3.

Another thing to consider about AE being resurrected: both Rev 13 and 17 tell us people will be completely astonished by the beast rising from the dead. Now, sure, anyone rising from the dead who lived over 2000 years ago would be big news, but would anyone really know who AE is? You and I would, but the majority of people would not. Ask the average person on the street who AE is, and I'm sure you'd get blank stares from over 95% of persons.

But, if some person who most everyone on earth knew, who everyone knew had died in some sort of war, all the sudden came back to life by the false prophet performing some kind of resurrection ceremony over him - THAT would cause people to be astonished. AE coming back to life? People just wouldn't have that much of a intimate connection to AE - and how would you be able to prove that it was actually AE? I'm certain his DNA is long gone. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

I understand the teaching that the AC will be killed during the tribulation and then resurrected in front of the entire world, which would create a great deal of astonishment. However, I have to return to the description in Rev. 17:10 which clearly says that the AC, or eighth king, is a king that "once was," which to me clearly places his pre-resurrection career prior to the writing of Revelation.

You have some good points here, but couldn't the same points also be made against the "seven kings = seven spirits" theory? Would the world be aware and astonished at a future demonic possession that would not even be visible to the eye?

I think something that may come into play here could be the role of an alleged stargate within the great Pyramid of Egypt. What if AE is brought back from the Abyss in an occult ceremony that is later televised to the world? I think there are many possibilities for the resurrection of a pre-Christian era king to astonish the world.

Like you, when I first was drawn to the AC = AE theory I had many doubts, but strictly abiding by the clues in Revelation, I have yet to find any other explanation that makes sense.

Your theory of seven evil spirits is one of the better theories, but I still believe that the seven heads of Satan described in Revelation 12:3 are the seven physical manifestations of Satan on the earth since the foundation of Israel, rather than seven separate spirits that are controlled by Satan, that then in turn control their human hosts, but I could be wrong.

Daniel 8 is such a key chapter in my opinion, because AE is definitely referred to, yet in the angel's interpretation, THREE times within the space of a few verses, he makes it clear that what he is telling him is for the "time of the end" or the "end of time". So it can't be talking about the AE of 167 BC, because that WAS NOT the "time of the end".

Well, I must this email has taken awhile to type, and as I have started to type certain things, I've had to rethink and retype several times due to conflicts I see in scripture, and things I just don't understand. Why did the Holy Spirit have to make everything so cryptic and difficult? In a few of the passages I was reading while I typed this, I saw the admonition that it takes a mind of wisdom to understand what is being told the reader. I pray for that wisdom, but I don't know that I have it. There are so many questions and ideas that give me problems that it's easy to want to give up. But the desire to search out and KNOW what was being said described is also powerful.

One final suggestion. You need to understand the Old Testament concept of the Divine Council, and the division of the nations to the fallen gods that are led by Satan. I recommend the groundbreaking work of Michael S. Heiser at http://www.michaelsheiser.com/introtonewsletter.htm. You should join his newsletter service. It costs ten bucks, which is cheap. Then you can read all of his studies on the Divine Coundil. He has about fifteen of them.

You should begin with the article located here, which is free: http://www.facadenovel.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

It is 27 pages, and hard reading, but print it out and take the time to read and understand it. It will open your mind up to the true nature of the spiritual war that is being waged for this planet today.

I have to get back to my Babyon article. So much to do and so little time.

God bless,

Peter

You're welcome. You've definitely stimulated my brain with your web site and the emails. In fact, my mind is sort of swimming due to your introduction into my thinking of the seven kings. As I've stated above, I think there are several things you need to think about from a devil's advocate point of view. I hope you don't take them as putting down your ideas, but just things to think about on the journey to understand.

I'll be reading the links you provided....

Dave

God bless,

Back to Top

From: David Lowe To: Peter Goodgame Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: A Breakthrough! (?)

1. Ok, I've read the 27 page document by Heiser on the Divine Council. I had never heard of any of this before today. I believe I understand what the author was trying to convey, but I'm not sure I agree. Heiser apparently is arguing that there are other gods, but they cannot challenge THE God, nor are they omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. I believe he's taking it too far. These "gods" could simply be angelic beings. If the translation of Deut 32:8 is supposed to be the "sons of God", how is that different from Genesis 6:2-4, where the sons of God is the correct interpretation and is understood to be angels who fell had sexual relations with human women? I thought for sure that was the argument he was going to get at given his book "The Facade" (which I haven't read) deals with the angelic/UFO theory. But he never got there in that document...he just came up with the goofy, in my view, postulation that there ar! e other gods, but Yahweh God is "THE" God. In the story of the lying spirit sent to Ahab that Heiser talked about, it is obvious that the beings God is questioning are angels or spirits.

Anyway, maybe he has other articles on the Divine Council that go beyond this one. My belief is that, yes, the pagan peoples back in the time of Isaiah DID have other gods - in their own minds. They were not truly Gods, but they were designated as such by those pagan religions. And the scriptures Heiser refers to are talking about angels/spirits, not other gods that Yahweh God created. I have no problem believing that the Septuagint and Qumranic texts are the accurate ones when compared to the Masoretic Text, but the "sons of God" means angels, just like it does Genesis 6, Job 1 and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

So, how does this Divine Council tie into today's leaders and their apparent pagan worship tendencies?

2. I have gone to the Alex Jones infowars.com website, and I am ashamed that I have never heard of the Bohemian Grove before today. That is earthshattering, amazing stuff that I'll bet less that 1% of the population is aware of. Did you purchase the video that he made? I am debating whether I should. Can you tell me if this guy can be trusted? Could he have staged the whole ritual out in the woods somewhere and acted like he was filming the real thing? Sorry that I am skeptical, but it seems so amazing that he could get back the security that is described in the video with that camera.

3. Have you read the book "The Facade" by Heiser? If so, is it a good book?

Dave

Back to Top

Back to Top

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:27:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: A Breakthrough! (?) To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Pete,

My responses are in blue below:

I make the argument on my website that end-time Babylon is made up of three parts: economic, spiritual, and military. Economic Babylon is headquartered in NYC. Spiritual Babylon is headquartered in the Vatican, which the AC destroys according to Daniel. Military Babylon is headquartered in Babylon, Iraq, and will be destroyed in a future war, causing the AC to move his headquarters to Jerusalem mid-trib. So your statement that NYC is end-time Babylon agrees with my beliefs, yet I'm sure you go into much more detail than I did. But I also believe Babylon spans the globe and includes more than just the economic side.

By the way, you didn't answer my question about Dave Hunt's book "A Woman Rides the Beast". Have you read it, and do you not agree that Papal Rome fits the description of the woman in Revelation 17?

To me, the whole scenario is far-fetched. But I do believe prophecy will be fulfilled 100%, and if so, Babylon still hasn't been destroyed as the prophets said it would be. What do you say to that? Has NYC taken the place as the Babylon of the world in your view??

I disagree here. The woman is who Hunt is describing, not the beast system. He lists 17 points about her description in Rev 17-18, all of which match perfectly with Papal Rome. The verse of 17 describes her as the city that was currently reigning over the kings of the earth in John's day - that was Rome. Also, Mystery Babylon was a code name for Rome. If John would have said all these bad things about Rome, and they read his letter to make sure it was OK politically, they would have objected to him talking about Rome. The code name Mystery Babylon was therefore used. The readers understood that John meant Rome because the Babylonians and the Romans both sacked Jerusalem on the 9th of Av.

Another thing to point out is that Babylon and the Antichrist himself are antagonists. They do not coexist. I agree with your implication below that the beast with seven heads and ten horns is a spiritual entity, and that this entity then becomes the Antichrist when one of the heads is given a mouth to speak. It is true that for a time the woman rides the beast. To put it very bluntly I believe that this is symbolic of the rise of the Anglo-American Establishment, working together for the long-term goal of a world government. The beast in this sense is the hard-core Satanic political faction that uses the power of the US and NYC to destroy the sovereignty of nations. The "Anglo" or British half is no longer just "Anglo," because many of the highest levels of power throughout the world, including Europe, the UN and the Vatican, have signed on to the Satanic Globalist agenda. The woman riding the beast may more properly be said to represent the Globalist-American Establishment. The globalists aligned with Satan are typified by the ten horns or ten kings of the beast. They are presently subdued or at least overshadowed by the power of Babylon, but this will change when the Antichrist makes his personal appearance.

After I read your document, I may have a better appreciation of what you are describing here. I'd like to somehow see a strong link tied between Papal Rome and the Anglo-Saxon Establishment - that would help me. You are aware, aren't you, that Pope John Paul's real name is Karol Wojtyla, and he was a seller of Zyklon B in Poland to the Nazi's as an employee of IG Farben chemical company? Amazing stuff.

The key texts for me are 17:12-13, "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their authority to the beast."

and 17:16, "The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire."

Yes, they will hate the prostitute - the Catholic church. That's not how you see it? Of course, if the beast is Muslim, we might understand better why he would want to harm the Catholic Church in its quest for religious dominion during the tribulation??

I am not sympathetic, believe me. From day 1, I wanted proof that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and that would justify our going over there are finishing off Saddam. That proof was never brought forth. It's obvious to why Bush, or the elites who run Bush, wanted to do this: to get Iraqi oil; to keep the price of oil above $30 per barrel; to democratize the country (more money for the central banks); and all the other reasons they like war.

America is hated around the world, and not without reason. Even in Britain 80% of the public was against the American conquest of Iraq. Prince Charles himself even made it clear through press leaks that he is against American imperialism and unilateralism. One wonders then what type of mandate Tony Blair acts under, to go against the will of the British people and the monarchy to support the USA. The answer is that America is being made to look big and bad for a purpose, so that when the Antichrist appears he can take his place on a moral pedestal and appear as mankind's liberator, as an advocate of compassion and sharing, working against the evils of "nationalism," against the greed of the "free market," and against a fundamentalist Christianity that will be falsely blamed as the basis of all of the USA's wicked actions, that are directed from the corporate/financial capital of New York.

Yes. I John clearly states that the spirit of antichrist is that spirit which denies the relationship between the Father and the Son; specifically, that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Islam is the best example of this today, and Catholicism/British Anglicanism is not far behind.

Then when the Antichrist personally appears the ten kings give him their allegiance and betray Babylon and indeed the entire United States, making the harlot their number one enemy. The Antichrist himself never rules from Babylon. He hates Babylon. There is never an alliance between Babylon and the Antichrist once he makes his physical appearance. There is only war.

In my studies I have concluded that Babylon's fall goes through stages. The first stage is a judgment from God, and it occurs at the very beginning of the 70th Week, near the same time when the AC appears and the rapture occurs. This is when Babylon's economic/political system rules the world with the arrogant and self-righteous attitude described in Revelation. This attitude could not continue past the second trumpet which destroys so many of the very ships that Babylon depends on for trade. Also compare the second trumpet judgment with the words of the angel in 18:21, and compare the first trumpet with the description of the judgment in 18:8. I think they tie together.

Those are interesting parallels that I had not put together before now.

Recall that I believe in two major astro-physical catastrophes that strike the earth, one at the beginning of the trib, and another at the end. Well the first one results in the destruction of Babylon, which comes about as the judgment mentioned in 18:8. It occurs when the Antichrist is just appearing, and in fact he is never mentioned throughout chapter 18. Babylon's fall paves the way for the appearance and success of the Antichrist. That is why the global economic system is being propped up the way it is. He must be on the scene when the system is destroyed to make sure that the new system is under his control.

The fall of Babylon is another long study itself, and perhaps I can get into it more later and I will offer more reasons why I believe it falls initially at the beginning of the trib. I know many point to a mid-trib fall of Babylon, but I can see little evidence for this. This alleged mid-trib fall of Babylon is only arrived at because this is when the AC takes over Jerusalem. Some believe that he migrates from Babylon, but I don't think this is the case. The AC always hates Babylon when in physical form, and he will never ally with it, or rule from it.

The reason why people believes this is because Daniel tells us he will plant his palace in between the two seas between the glorious holy tabernacle. Then, Revelation 11 tells that the beast kills the two witnesses in Jerusalem at mid-trib. That made sense to me when it was explained to me. Also, did you know that it is a Muslim custom to let the body of their enemies lay in the streets or places they are kill for 3 days so that can mock them? This is what happens to the two witnesses...interesting parallel.

The first stage of the fall destroys NYC as an effective economic/political force at the beginning of the trib, the second stage is when the struggling remnant of Babylon is then subdued by the AC and ten kings (17:16), and then the final phase is the complete obliteration of Babylon at the end of the trib. I know I need to fill this conclusion of mine out more, so go easy on me when you bring your rebuttals ;)

No about it. The false prophet will be an apostate pope. Even the Catholics agree with this.

Perhaps if you read my material on the Maitreya movement that is associated with the Globalists, London and the UN you might better understand my views. Basically the dark side has made some very bold predictions that when the global liberator arrives he will be supported by a future pope of Rome. This also ties in with the predictions of Saint Malachi, regarding an anti-Pope prior to the Second Coming. He will be a Pope that rejects every last vestige of traditional Christianity within the RCC and he will embrace the Antichrist. There is much material that says the False Prophet will be this last RCC anti-Pope. The FP directs the world to worship the AC, and who better to direct the world in worship than the world's most powerful and most respected spiritual leader, the Roman Catholic Pope?

Yes, agree with all this. I've read your Maitreya material. Very interesting. I just wonder when the dude is going to come out of hiding and show himself. If he really is the AC or the false prophet, or whatever he is, then he probably won't appear until Christians are gone...

Consider Revelation 12:3. Satan is described as a dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Then in Revelation 13:1-3 the Beast of Revelation is described. He has ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns, and it is said that on each head is written a blasphemous name. Each head has the name of the blasphemous person that it represents. Then in verse three we are told very clearly that one of these heads was at one time fatally wounded, but now it is healed. This is reiterated in 13:12 and 13:14.

1. Don't forget verse 2: the beast was like a leopard, feet like a bear, mouth like a lion. Is this not a reference to the beasts in Daniel 7? And if so, don't you have to understand the beasts of Daniel 7 in order to understand this beast?

Yes, in Daniel we do have some very clear references to "kingdoms." These are the pagan kingdoms of old, and when they form a part of the final "Beast" they represent the pagan Satanic influence over the Antichrist's World Order. But again, I think we must make a clear distinction between "kings" and "kingdoms."

2. Verse 3 says "one of its heads were wounded to death". Obviously, the first three verses are not referring to a human beast, but a spiritual beast, since a human being cannot have 7 heads. My interpretation of the 7 heads, again, are seven chief evil spirits that have led the 7 empires over time. This, again, is bolstered by Daniel 10's references to two of them: the prince of Grecia and Persia.

Here is where it would be good for you to read about the Divine Council and the division of the nations of the earth to the fallen gods that are led by Satan. There are seventy of these chief evil spirits, not just seven. They were given all of the nations of the earth, while God chose only one among all the nations, through his choice of Abraham. I'll highlight the article you should read below.

Regarding these heads, Revelation 17 clearly says they refer to seven kings. One of the heads is wounded unto death, therefore one of the kings is wounded unto death. If the "head" is indeed a spirit, then what could this mean?

Yes, I agree with this. Perry Stone explains that John saw the revelation that Daniel did not (about the 7 empires instead of just 4), but I tend to disagree with this. I agree that Rev. 17 sounds as if it is talking about 7 actual men.

3. Only in verse 5 do human characteristics become evident. He's "given a mouth". But the reference in verse 3 to "one of his heads" being put to death, then healed, must be referring to one of the previous 7 chief evil spirits coming back to power. Revelation 17 clears it up for us, I believe.

In summation, you cannot discount the spiritual side, the spiritual references that are evident in Daniel. The four "angels" loosed in the Euphrates during the 6th trumpet may be four of these evil angels who were defeated and bound at the Euphrates, but are coming back as part of the seven headed beast.

I don't connect these angels with the seven kings. I think they are the fallen angelic captains of the huge army that comes from the sixth trumpet. I think only one of the seven heads will come back at the end, not four.

Now to identify the seven kings. We must start at the beginning of the history of the nation of Israel, after God chose Abraham, and after him Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

The first king is Pharoah of Egypt, who held the Israelites in bondage against the word of the Lord as commanded through Moses. This first king was clearly insane, as evidenced by his refusal to let the Hebrews go, even up to the threat against his first-born son. Then for a brief moment he relented and allowed the Hebrews to go, but only days later he took the entire Egyptian army out to recapture the Hebrews, and they all perished as a result. Satan knew that Israel was God's only nation on the earth, and that all the rest served false Gods, and so throughout history he has been trying to destroy Israel.

The second king is Sennacharib of Assyria. You can read about him in 2Kings 18-19, 2Chronicles 32, and Isaiah 36-37. He was one of the greatest Assyrian kings that conquered almost the entire Middle East. He came against Jerusalem with a huge army and demanded surrender. Nonetheless, Isaiah had the courage to speak the word of the Lord and he predicted that Sennacherib would fall. Then King Hezekiah had the faith to believe the Lord, and he resisted Sennacherib's demands and ignored his blasphemous insults. In the night an angel of the Lord slaughtered 165,000 Assyrian troops and Sennacherib fled, to be murdered in his own temple in Ninevah by his two sons.

The third king is described in Isaiah 14 as simply the king of Babylon. He is either Nebuchadnezzar I, or perhaps his descendant Belshazzar, the last king of ancient Babylon. Isaiah 14 is key for me, because in the description of the King of Babylon the texts transtions seemlessly into a description of Lucifer in 14:12-15. I think this is evidence for my theory that these kings were literally possessed by Satan during their careers, and Babylon was definitely a nation that directed its attention against God's people. Also, the king of Babylon's crimes include his great blasphemy and his desire to take the place of God.

The fourth king is similar to the third. It is described in Ezekiel 28. He is the King of Tyre, and again, the text transtions seemlessly from a description of the king to a description of Satan. Tyre's crimes were of an economic nature and I think it is amazing that at the annual Bohemian Grove ceremonies that are attended by the world's Elite in a resort in the redwoods north of San Francisco, that the Cremation of Care ceremony that takes place in front of the owl god Moloch, also contains a reference to "goodly Tyre and Babylon." See Alex Jones' investigations of this pagan worship that is attended by people from the Bush and Rockefeller familes, Henry Kissinger, corporate CEOs, international diplomats and the like. See http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html. According to Ezekiel, the king of Tyre is also to be condemned for his great blasphemy.

Very interesting idea! Excellent stuff. I have no problems with the first three you refer to, because they are three rulers associated with what most people regard as the 7 empires of prophecy that have affected the Jewish people:

2. Assyria - Sennacharib

3. Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar

4. Persia - ??

5. Greece - Antiochus Epiphanes

6. Rome - Nero

7. Re-formed Rome - Hitler ?

But to follow this pattern, the fourth king would have to be one from the Persian empire. However, I know of no Persian king who was bad to the Jews. In fact, they were accomodative to the Jews. Persia is defintely identified over and over in Daniel as of the empires of prophecy, so I see this as a stumblingblock for your idea.

Persia is definitely one of the four kingdoms mentioned by Daniel, but again I think we may be confusing "kings" with "kingdoms" where we need to be more careful. I think Daniel mentioned the four kingdoms that were to come in Daniel's future, that would affect Israel, either positively or negatively, and that the fourth is kind of split in half. The first half was Rome at the end of old Isreal, and the new European-based kingdom of the AC is the revived Rome that will rise up with the AC and deal with the new Israel.

I don't see how the king of Tyre fits in. First, there is no person named - it is obviously referring to Satan due to the Ezekiel 28 references. Second, there was empire of Tyre that was ever against the Jews, and no king or ruler that persecuted Jews. The next section after the ruler of Tyre in Ezekiel is the ruler of Sidon...why not this person? But my strongest objection would be that Persia, not Tyre, is identified in Daniel as a prophetic empire.

Yes, Daniel identifies Persia as a prophetic empire, but my argument again will be that Daniel does not connect Persia with the seven kings of Revelation. As you point out, Persia was not necessarily an enemy of Israel, so I find no need to include Persia as a member of the seven heads of the dragon that is Satan (Revelation 12:3).

Tyre may have oppressed Israel just as the USA oppresses Argentina through the criminal policies of the IMF. We have destroyed that nation's economy, but we have done it subtly and without using the military. Of course it is up to me to offer further evidence for this line of reasoning, but I have already found a few leads in the book "Kingdom of Priests - A History of Old Testament Israel" by Eugene Merrill.

The main reason for picking Tyre rather than Sidon is that the King of Tyre's description leads to the conclusion that he was possessed by Satan. This makes him comparable to the King of Babylon in Isaiah 13 and Antiochus in Daniel 11. They seem to be linked together in this manner.

That said, however, I will definitely be looking at the links you gave me concering the pagan worship with Kissinger, Bush, Rockefeller, etc. That freaked me out! You may have something with the king of Tyre, but there may be a better fit within scripture, somewhere. I don't see it within the Persian empire, though.

The fifth king should be familiar to you. He is Antiochus Epiphanes who was predicted by Daniel. He ravaged the nation of Israel and tried to destroy the priesthood. Then he took over the Temple, dedicated it to Jupiter, and made a sacrifice of a pig on the altar. He could also be described as criminally insane, and I have no doubt that he was possessed by Satan.

Sorry to be playing the devil's advocate here, but I feel I should point out things to you that others may - problem points. AE is a good fit as he is from the Grecian empire - Seleucid line. Daniel 11 has always given me problems, because it moved from the history of AE right into things that AE definitely did not do. This happens around verse 35 or 36, as I recall. It's as if his exploits will be continued at some point in the future?? This definitely supports your idea of AE being the one that comes back from the dead.

Thanks for the agreement. The transition in the text definitely supports my conclusion.

However, according to reliable historic records, AE did not die of a sword wound. He died of some kind of disease. Revelation 13 twice makes reference to the beast dying by a sword wound. I think the sword is symbolic of a "war", but still, AE didn't die in a war either. This is a problem - a major problem - with your idea.

Oh man, you burst my bubble! I had a good thing going and now you had to ruin it. Just kidding.

Actually, I was aware of this problem. This demands further research. You see, Sennacharib would be a fit here because he was stabbed by his two sons. Perhaps Pharoah would fit because he died technically at war (although by drowning). Nebuchadezzar's fate is unclear. The identity of the king of Tyre is unknown to me and so an unlikely choice.

I'm stuck with Antiochus, and the narrative of Daniel 11, as you conceded above, seems to confirm this. The only hope I have left is an obscure, but contradictory account of Antiochus' death from the book of II Maccabees. Consider this from http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/apocrypha.htm

"There are two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea�s priests" (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19-29)."

These five are the five that "have fallen," according to Revelation 17:10, when John wrote the book of Revelation. The sixth is one that existed at John's time. You are quite right that there is a question as to when Revelation was written. Consider the following article that contends that John wrote the Revelation between 64-67 AD, during the time of Nero: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-3eschaton.php.

The article is from a preterist perspective, so don't be distracted by their bias, but consider the main conclusion. I think Nero was possessed by Satan, and he is known as the Roman emperor who was the most bloodthirsty in his attacks against Christians. He was also blasphemous to the core. He was the sixth king.

According to Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Domitian was the Roman ruler than banished him to Patmos, so wouldn't he have to be the king described as "one is" during John's day? Nero was definitely the worst, but Domitian certainly wasn't a saint to Jews and Christians either....

Yes, it depends on the dating of the writing of Revelation. Read the article above that argues for Nero and against Domitian.

Yes, I read that article, and I didn't get much out of it. This confusion about Nero, Domitian, the Herod's, etc. would be quelled in my view if we agreed that it was a chief evil spirit that controlled the entire Roman empire that John was describing in Rev 17. Then again, I think there is ample reason to believe it is talking about 7 individuals. Tough stuff to apprehend...

The seventh king is a king that was in John's future. I would identify him as Hitler, a man clearly possessed, who hated God's people with a genocdical passion, and showed a reckless attitude towards the fate of his nation and even towards himself. He ended up committing suicide when he knew that his career was over and that he could not kill any more Jews.

The eighth king was also in John's future. He is the beast, "who once was, now is not, and yet shall be." He belongs to the seven. I take this to mean that he is one of the seven, and this is proven by a look back at Revelation 13:3, which shows one of the seven heads killed, but then brought back to life.

If he "once was" then he must be one of the five that preceded John. He can only be Antiochus Epiphanes, and his description in Daniel transitions seemlessly from the prophecies of the first part of his life in ancient Israel, to his career in the end times when he is able to take over Jerusalem once again before his end comes. Daniel 11:36-45 has many parallels with the descriptions of the beast of Revelation.

When I first decided upon this theory it was very strange to me. I still have many questions. How will Antiochus be resurrected? This also conflicts with my theory that the Antichrist was "born" prior to World War II, as signified by the white horseman and the first seal. But perhaps the first seal has some connection to Hitler? What I have found is that Greek mythology has many connections to Old Testament cosmology, and the pagan Greek gods are actually the fallen angels, led by Jupiter who is Satan. Hades is another of these gods and he is mentioned at least twice in Revelation as the master of the underworld. I have also found out that the Greek god Apollo is the son of Jupiter, and he is known as The Archer and is almost always pictured with a bow. Perhaps that ties in with the white horseman of the first seal and Hitler, whose rise to power preceded World War II, which I see as indicated by the second seal. Note also that the seve! n kings are shown with crowns in Revelation 12:3, and the white horseman is also given a crown. Hitler also rode out as "a conqueror bent on conquest."

Hitler does seem to fit well. He definitely persecuted the Jews. And if you know your history, as I'm sure you do, Hitler was financed by the Establishment in America and Britain. He could easily be symbolic of the reformed Roman empire.

I just had another one of those moments of realization when I get a tingle up the back of my spine and a warm feeling throughout my body. You see, as I have been writing this email the entire Hitler connection has just come to me. I have seen him as the sixth king for a while, but only now have I been able to connect him with the first seal. Also see Revelation 17:10. When the sixth king comes "he must remain for a little while." It almost as if the text describes him as coming closely before the Antichrist described in 17:11. I think this is a breakthrough.

Wait a sec. You said when the 6th king comes, Revelation 17:10 says he'll continue for a little while. You mean the 7th king, right? And if so, would you consider Hitler fitting the "continuing a short space" reference? Most believe this is referring to the first 3.5 years of Daniel's 70th week and the reformed Roman empire. HItler, as a world power, was definitely short-lived. I find Hitler an interesting choice both as a persecutor of Jews and as symbolic of the Establishment.

Yes, I meant the seventh king. Sorry for the confusion. I place both the seventh (Hitler) and eighth (the AC) kings in John's future, but I think only the eighth relates to the seven year tribulation.

Consider what I've written and get back to me with your thoughts. I'm confident of the Hitler connection, but I am unsure how Antiochus is supposed to arrive. However, no matter how strange this may appear to be I think it is clear that one of the seven kings suffers a deadly wound, but is then brought back to life. He "once was, now is not, and yet shall be." Can there be any other interpretation?

Whether the king that comes back is an actual king or merely a demonic spirit, the fact remains that he must be one of the five that preceded John. He "once was, now is not, and yet shall be." He is one of the seven heads that was wounded in Revelation 13:3, and then he comes back as an eighth. During John's time and prior to his physical return at the end he exists in the Abyss. He could be the soul of a king, or as you are arguing, an evil spirit that was banished and will be allowed to return.

Regarding the seven heads, they have two meanings, only one of which affects Babylon. This is that the heads represent mountains "upon which the woman sits." My friend Richard Coombes, who wrote "America, the Babylon," at www.aoreport.com, shows that this Greek word is intepreted sometimes as "hills" and sometimes as "mountains," but it can also refer to major land mass, continent, and in some Greek manuscripts it even means "desert." The connection I make is with the Statue of Liberty, which wears a crown of seven spikes. Here is what it says on the Statue of Liberty web page at http://www.nps.gov/stli/prod02.htm :

By the way the Statue of Liberty is a Masonic statue steeped in occult symbology, and it is actually a representation of the Roman Goddess Venus, also known as Libertas, which actually can be traced back to Isis of Egypt and Inanna of Babylon, the original Mother of Harlots. See my old article at http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-6.html

Very interesting. It's obvious that you have done much more research on this. But, that article keys in on Revelation 18's description rather than 17's. I believe 17 is clearly referring to Papal Rome, whereas 18 is probably referring to NYC. Again, I'd like to see some kind of link drawn between Papal Rome and the Anglo-American establishment. Do you know of one?

Perhaps the first interpretation of the seven heads is that they represent Babylon's global domination, which is reinforced later in the text, while the second interpretation explains the nature of the heads mentioned in Revelation 12:3 and 13:1-3.

Another thing to consider about AE being resurrected: both Rev 13 and 17 tell us people will be completely astonished by the beast rising from the dead. Now, sure, anyone rising from the dead who lived over 2000 years ago would be big news, but would anyone really know who AE is? You and I would, but the majority of people would not. Ask the average person on the street who AE is, and I'm sure you'd get blank stares from over 95% of persons.

But, if some person who most everyone on earth knew, who everyone knew had died in some sort of war, all the sudden came back to life by the false prophet performing some kind of resurrection ceremony over him - THAT would cause people to be astonished. AE coming back to life? People just wouldn't have that much of a intimate connection to AE - and how would you be able to prove that it was actually AE? I'm certain his DNA is long gone. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

I understand the teaching that the AC will be killed during the tribulation and then resurrected in front of the entire world, which would create a great deal of astonishment. However, I have to return to the description in Rev. 17:10 which clearly says that the AC, or eighth king, is a king that "once was," which to me clearly places his pre-resurrection career prior to the writing of Revelation.

You have some good points here, but couldn't the same points also be made against the "seven kings = seven spirits" theory? Would the world be aware and astonished at a future demonic possession that would not even be visible to the eye?

True. The world would likely not be astonished by this. The world gets astonished when Britney Spears changes her hairstyle.

I think something that may come into play here could be the role of an alleged stargate within the great Pyramid of Egypt. What if AE is brought back from the Abyss in an occult ceremony that is later televised to the world? I think there are many possibilities for the resurrection of a pre-Christian era king to astonish the world.

Whoa, now you are talking. I wonder what role the pyramids have to play in this. What is your view regarding their origin? Were they pre-flood structures, built by the nephilim?

Like you, when I first was drawn to the AC = AE theory I had many doubts, but strictly abiding by the clues in Revelation, I have yet to find any other explanation that makes sense.

Your theory of seven evil spirits is one of the better theories, but I still believe that the seven heads of Satan described in Revelation 12:3 are the seven physical manifestations of Satan on the earth since the foundation of Israel, rather than seven separate spirits that are controlled by Satan, that then in turn control their human hosts, but I could be wrong.

Daniel 8 is such a key chapter in my opinion, because AE is definitely referred to, yet in the angel's interpretation, THREE times within the space of a few verses, he makes it clear that what he is telling him is for the "time of the end" or the "end of time". So it can't be talking about the AE of 167 BC, because that WAS NOT the "time of the end".

Well, I must this email has taken awhile to type, and as I have started to type certain things, I've had to rethink and retype several times due to conflicts I see in scripture, and things I just don't understand. Why did the Holy Spirit have to make everything so cryptic and difficult? In a few of the passages I was reading while I typed this, I saw the admonition that it takes a mind of wisdom to understand what is being told the reader. I pray for that wisdom, but I don't know that I have it. There are so many questions and ideas that give me problems that it's easy to want to give up. But the desire to search out and KNOW what was being said described is also powerful.

One final suggestion. You need to understand the Old Testament concept of the Divine Council, and the division of the nations to the fallen gods that are led by Satan. I recommend the groundbreaking work of Michael S. Heiser at http://www.michaelsheiser.com/introtonewsletter.htm. You should join his newsletter service. It costs ten bucks, which is cheap. Then you can read all of his studies on the Divine Coundil. He has about fifteen of them.

You should begin with the article located here, which is free: http://www.facadenovel.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

It is 27 pages, and hard reading, but print it out and take the time to read and understand it. It will open your mind up to the true nature of the spiritual war that is being waged for this planet today.

I have to get back to my Babyon article. So much to do and so little time.

God bless,

Peter

You're welcome. You've definitely stimulated my brain with your web site and the emails. In fact, my mind is sort of swimming due to your introduction into my thinking of the seven kings. As I've stated above, I think there are several things you need to think about from a devil's advocate point of view. I hope you don't take them as putting down your ideas, but just things to think about on the journey to understand.

I'll be reading the links you provided....

Dave

Back to Top

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:31:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: two witnesses and an idea... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

1. he has already come in the form of John the Baptist, or
2. he will still come in the future during the tribulation, in addition to the two witnesses, despite John not talking about this in Revelation?

As you know, in Malachi, it is stated that Elijah will be sent before the great and notable "Day of the Lord". According to your model, that means he must show up before the 6^th seal red moon. So, if he is not one of the two witnesses, yet he must appear before the Day of the Lord, that really only leaves John the Baptist as a possibility.

Jesus himself said that Elijah will come and restore all things in the future�and this statement by Jesus was uttered after John the Baptist had been beheaded. So, it is still to come in the future:

Matt 17:10 The disciples asked him, "Why then do the experts in the law say that Elijah must come first?" 17:11 He answered, "Elijah does indeed come first and will restore all things. 17:12 And I tell you that Elijah has already come. Yet they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted. In the same way, the Son of Man will suffer at their hands." 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

How do you explain the Eljiah factor�that he will come in the future, but that he isn't one of the two witnesses, yet he must appear before the Day of the Lord?

I must leave with you something that blew me away, that Perry Stone mentioned in one of his recent messages but didn't elaborate on. I've done a bit of study into this myself.

Think about the transfiguration stories in Matthew 17, Mark 9 and Luke 9. Everyone knows that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on an unnamed mountain. In the transfiguration story, there is no mention of which mountain Jesus took the disciples up to. It just says a high mountain. But it does say something interesting: that after 6 days (Luke says about 8 days) they went up into the mountain. Six to 8 days prior, then, they would have been near the sea of Galilee (as the narrative tells us). So, what went on during those 6-8 days?

Think about this: when Moses went up to get the 10 commandments back in Exodus 19-20, it was at Mt. Sinai, also known as Mt. Horeb. Moses spent 40 days up there, and finally God appeared in his glory on that mountain. Then, Elijah wandered through the wilderness for 40 days and made it to, again, Mt. Horeb or Mt. Sinai in I Kings 19. It was here that Elijah experienced God's glory, similar to what Moses did. Same mountain.

Could it be that Jesus took the disciples on a 6-8 day journey from Galilee to Mt. Sinai, to the same mountain where God came down to meet Moses and Elijah? I don�t know if you are aware of the research done by both Lennart Moeller and Bob Cornuke, but both men have discovered that Mt. Sinai, where God came down and burnt the top of it, is NOT in the Sinai Peninsula as is traditionally believed, but is instead in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Paul in Galatians 4 confirms this fact when he says "mount Sinai in Arabia". Anyway, I'm not certain how long it would take to journey from Galilee to this mountain�that is one of the things I want to do further research on. But assume with me for now that they could make the journey from Galilee to Mt. Sinai in 6-8 days.

If this was the mountain, Mt. Sinai, that Jesus and the disciples went to, and God for a third time came down on this mountain, then think about this possibility. Is it possible that when Moses was encountering God in Mt. Sinai, that Moses was allowed by God to briefly leave the earthly time domain? Is it also possible that when Elijah was encountering God in Mt. Sinai, that Elijah was allowed to briefly leave the earthly time domain? And then is it possible that at the Mount of Transfiguration (Mt. Sinai?), when Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah, he was actually seeing Moses when he was in Mt. Sinai back in Exodus, and Elijah when he was in Mt. Sinai back in I Kings, at the SAME TIME? I'm talking about a "Back to the Future" scenario here, where God allowed these two men, when he appeared to them in Mt. Sinai, and both were fast forwarded to the future to the Transfiguration to meet with Jesus Christ!?!? God is not constrained by our dimension of time - he sees past, present and future all at once - so could he not have brought these two men forward in time to the Transfiguration so that they could converse with Jesus Christ about his coming death and resurrection? I believe it is entirely possible that this is why Moses and Elijah appeared on that Mount of Transfiguration, that 6-8 days after their last activity, Jesus and the disciples were at a "high mountain", and that the narrators describe the entire encounter, from the perspective of the disciples, as a "vision".

I don't know if you've ever thought about this, or heard someone else talk about it, but this is first time I had ever thought about this. When I heard it, my head starting spinning a bit, and I started saying "Oh man�oh man." I was kind of freaking out! It would really be awesome if this is really what happened, but I don't think there's any way to prove it conclusively. It's probably quite speculative, yet I believe dynamic and exciting to think about.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your responses to my emails�

Dave in Wichita

Back to Top

---

From: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]> | To: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: two witnesses and an idea... Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:56:22 -1000

Hi Dave,

I'm sorry I've taken so long to answer you. Things have been busy lately as you can guess, and the time I get at the computer I've been spending on my American Babylon report.

You're not the first to mention the Elijah factor. Several times I've sent out long emails explaining my view, which I learned from Arnold Fruchtenbaum (www.ariel.org.) Basically, I believe that Elijah must come in the future, and he'll appear prior to the Day of the Lord. To this day Jews set a place for Elijh at their table for every Passover feast, and perhaps his appearance will be fulfilled in a supernatural way in connection with Passover.

To understand Elijah, his relation to John the Baptist, and his relation to the end-times requires a proper understanding of about a half dozen texts and several statements from Jesus. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, but he was not Elijah. If Israel had accepted John's message he could have fulfilled the prophecies of Elijah, but they did not, and so Elijah must still come. I don't have all the information in front of me right now, but I suggest you get the new update of Fruchtenbaum's classic look at Bible prophecy, "The Footsteps of the Messiah." Every prophecy scholar should have it, and he offers a brilliant and in-depth analysis of the Elijah issue. One of these days I'll write an article on the issue, quoting from his work, explaining it for my readers, but right now I have other items at the top of my list.

Your speculation about Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration is interesting. I am aware of Cornuke's work and I understand that the real Mt. Sinai stands in Arabia where Cornuke says it does. Actually many more scholars are coming out in support of this new theory, that has more historical and physical support than the traditional view. Regarding the time travel theory, I don't think it's impossible, and I believe that something similar happens in Revelation 4-5. It appears that John travels first back in time when he appears in Heaven, prior to the triumph of Jesus on the cross, and then while he weaps time speeds up until Jesus' sacrifice is made.

I agree that time is a very strange aspect of God's creation, and He can utilize it and manipulate it at will. I don't doubt that in history some of us have been caught up in that type of miracle.

Thanks for the comments, and I'll try to reply quicker the next time.

God bless,

Peter

Back to Top

---

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:45:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: two witnesses and an idea... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Comments below in bold:

Hi Dave,

I'm sorry I've taken so long to answer you. Things have been busy lately as you can guess, and the time I get at the computer I've been spending on my American Babylon report.

I was beginning to wonder if you were still alive, but I figured you were just busy.

You're not the first to mention the Elijah factor. Several times I've sent out long emails explaining my view, which I learned from Arnold Fruchtenbaum (www.ariel.org.) Basically, I believe that Elijah must come in the future, and he'll appear prior to the Day of the Lord. To this day Jews set a place for Elijh at their table for every Passover feast, and perhaps his appearance will be fulfilled in a supernatural way in connection with Passover.

To understand Elijah, his relation to John the Baptist, and his relation to the end-times requires a proper understanding of about a half dozen texts and several statements from Jesus. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, but he was not Elijah. If Israel had accepted John's message he could have fulfilled the prophecies of Elijah, but they did not, and so Elijah must still come. I don't have all the information in front of me right now, but I suggest you get the new update of Fruchtenbaum's classic look at Bible prophecy, "The Footsteps of the Messiah." Every prophecy scholar should have it, and he offers a brilliant and in-depth analysis of the Elijah issue. One of these days I'll write an article on the issue, quoting from his work, explaining it for my readers, but right now I have other items at the top of my list.

I've wanted to get that book for a long time. Now I have even more reason to get it.

Your speculation about Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration is interesting. I am aware of Cornuke's work and I understand that the real Mt. Sinai stands in Arabia where Cornuke says it does. Actually many more scholars are coming out in support of this new theory, that has more historical and physical support than the traditional view. Regarding the time travel theory, I don't think it's impossible, and I believe that something similar happens in Revelation 4-5. It appears that John travels first back in time when he appears in Heaven, prior to the triumph of Jesus on the cross, and then while he weaps time speeds up until Jesus' sacrifice is made.

I agree that time is a very strange aspect of God's creation, and He can utilize it and manipulate it at will. I don't doubt that in history some of us have been caught up in that type of miracle.

Thanks for your comments. I have tried to find this idea somewhere on the Internet, but so far, no luck. I just find it odd that Moses had been dead for so many years, and that his bones were fought over between Satan and Michael. It had to be a vision, OR, my explanation of them stepping out of the time dimension is correct, because Moses was dead and gone at that time. I'm also puzzled as to how Peter knew what Moses and Elijah looked like, or how he knew it was them. Some say that Jesus told Peter it was Moses and Elijah, but I don't think you can hold the view, because immediately after they saw them, Peter said "Let's make three tabernacles: one for thee, one for Moses and one for Elijah". This was spoken "as the men were starting to leave." If they were starting to leave, Moses and Elijah were still up there with Jesus, but hadn't totally left yet. So, here are the possibilities as I see them:

1. Peter knew what Moses and Elijah looked like somehow (Tradition? Handed down sketchings?)

2. The disciples knew what Moses and Elijah looked like and told Peter.

3. Peter overhead Jesus speaking with them and heard Jesus say their names.

4. Jesus told Peter it was Moses and Elijah while still speaking with the prophets.

5. The Holy Spirit quickly revealed to Peter who they were.

6. It was a lucky guess, or intelligent speculation, that it was Moses and Elijah.

7. They were wearing name tags.

There may be at least one other example of time travel in scripture, besides John in Revelation. That would be Abraham. In reading Genesis 22:4, one can easily read over it quickly without understanding what is actually being told to us. The phrase "saw the place afar off" can also be translated as "saw the place it the distant future". Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "the place" is also one of the names of God. So you could say Abraham saw God's future! Think about this: when God told him to go offer his son, it says go to the place in the mountains that I will show you. He didn't tell him any specific place to go. Then, it says Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. What did he see, an altar in the mountains!? I think not, because verse 9 tells us Abraham himself BUILT the altar! What he saw was JESUS CHRIST on the cross on Mt. Moriah. HE SAW GOD'S FUTURE SACRIFICE!! It says in he called the place "Jehovah Jireh" or "in the mountain of the Lord IT shall be seen". IT is the lamb referred to in verse 8, because there was a RAM, not a LAMB, provided for him. But not just any lamb would be provided in the future, but the Lamb of God! Later in the gospels, Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." I argue that Abraham stepped outside of time, when he lifted up his eyes, and was shown the crucifixion of Jesus in the future. That is the only way he could have said the things that he said, and that is the only way verse 4 makes any sense. (sorry I couldn't explain this better�I was in a big hurry to finish typing it at work�I'd like your comments on it, though, if you understand what I'm getting at!)

One other question: would you be opposed to me posting our emails back and forth on my website for others to read? I think people would find it interesting, and it would be a good way to keep our conversations in one place for reading rather than having to open up and find something within several different emails.

See ya,

Dave

Back to Top

---

From: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]> | To: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: two witnesses and an idea... Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:59:32 -1000

Dave,

Your comments on Abraham are brilliant. I have always wondered about Jesus' words in John 8:56, that Abraham saw Jesus' day and was glad. Your speculation makes a lot of sense. I had not realized the distinction between the "Lamb" and the "Ram" and I thank you for pointing that out. The other point to make is regarding Genesis 22:2. God tells Abraham to take Isaac his "only son" to Moriah for the sacrifice. Either this is an error on God's part, or another message that points to the future sacrifice of Jesus. Isaac was not Abraham's only son, for he had earlier bore Ishmael through Hagar the servant girl.

Chuck Missler has some great studies on the entire life of Abraham, and especially this episode, that show how the Bible is full of hidden surprises and constantly points to Jesus as the focal point of the divine plan. It's simply awesome.

I'll be very busy in the near future, and I probably won't be able to return lengthy correspondences for a while, but I'll always be here for short notes, and I hope you will stay in touch. I'll be working on Part 8 and 9 of American Babylon, and some other projects. Feel free to post our correspondence on your website, at your discretion.

God bless,

Peter

Back to Top

---

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: two witnesses and an idea... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

 

Comments below in bold:

Your comments on Abraham are brilliant. I have always wondered about Jesus' words in John 8:56, that Abraham saw Jesus' day and was glad. Your speculation makes a lot of sense. I had not realized the distinction between the "Lamb" and the "Ram" and I thank you for pointing that out. The other point to make is regarding Genesis 22:2. God tells Abraham to take Isaac his "only son" to Moriah for the sacrifice. Either this is an error on God's part, or another message that points to the future sacrifice of Jesus. Isaac was not Abraham's only son, for he had earlier bore Ishmael through Hagar the servant girl.

Thanks for the response! Yes, "thine only son" would give the casual reader pause, seeing Ishmael was born 13 years before Isaac. But as Paul tells us in Galatians, the bondwoman and her son were cast out. So, Isaac was the only son he had at home. But as you point out, it is also a parallel to John 3:16, pointing to the only begotten Son of God.

One clarification: when I said in the previous email "the Hebrew word for 'the place' is a name for God" is sort of iffy. I have heard the Jewish teaching that since God is omnipresent, he is every place. Since he is every place, the Hebrew word "Maqowm" for "the place" takes on the meaning that it is a name for God. So, you could loosely translate it as "He saw God in the future". But I don't see any harm in saying "he saw the place in the distant future of time", because the Hebrew word for "afar off" is "rachowq", and it definitely has a time element in its definition of distance. And as you point out, Jesus makes it clear that Abraham saw Jesus' day. One could argue that Abraham was simply given a vision of the future, that he did not fast forward through the time domain into the future to actually see Jesus on the cross. But I think my idea is more exciting than that one!

Chuck Missler has some great studies on the entire life of Abraham, and especially this episode, that show how the Bible is full of hidden surprises and constantly points to Jesus as the focal point of the divine plan. It's simply awesome.

Very awesome. I have Missler's Cosmic Codes series in which he goes through Genesis 22, explaining the parallels with Jesus.

I'll be very busy in the near future, and I probably won't be able to return lengthy correspondences for a while, but I'll always be here for short notes, and I hope you will stay in touch. I'll be working on Part 8 and 9 of American Babylon, and some other projects. Feel free to post our correspondence on your website, at your discretion.

Thanks. I've been pretty busy myself. Good luck on your essay and other projects. Care to divulge what other projects you have in store?

Dave

Back to Top

---

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: First Seal To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Pete,

Hey again. I have a thought for you in regards to your essay on The Four Horsemen and the Birthpangs. You said the following:

"Certainly the breaking of the first Seal is a momentous event, but why did Jesus not refer to it within the Little Apocalypse? Why did Jesus refer to the World War, an event related to the second Seal, as the first visible birthpang of the tribulation period?

. . . It is the position of the Red Moon Rapture model that the opening of the first Seal represents the birth of the Antichrist, the very first birthpang of the Apocalypse, visible to those in heaven, but hidden to those on earth. He is born with a destiny to conquer and thus the rider of the white horse is symbolically given a crown and armed with a bow as he rides off. With that event there will be no turning back on the earth's timeline."

Here's my thought. Why do we have to make the rider of the white horse represent any actual person? Is not the horse he rides symbolic? If so, is not the rider himself symbolic? Also, if we are going to make the rider of the white horse the AC, then who is the rider of the red horse? Who is the rider of the black horse? Who are the riders of the green horse? Are these also actual people to come in the future, or in the tribulation?

Is it not strange that traditional pretrib calls the white horse rider the AC, but doesn't do the same for the red, black or green horse riders? I think it is strange.

Now I know we've covered this path before, but not in detail. I think you know more about the global elite establishment than I do, so I'm going to pose this question to you. Is there a specific key date or pivotal agreement in history which you regard as the main starting point for what we find ourselves in currently: global conquest by the elite bankers and globalists? Now, I know we can trace the Illuminati back into the 1600's and earlier through the Illuminati and the Knights Templar, etc. I've read a book that even traces it back to Simon the sorcerer of Acts chapter 8.

What I'm getting at is the first horse and rider has a 'bow', he's given a stephanos 'crown', and he goes out to 'conquering bent on conquest'. To have a bow without any arrows, yet to be a conqueror seems like a contradiction. How can you be a conqueror without any weapon? Could it be this description was trying to tell us that this entity's demeanor will be peaceful on the outside, yet underneath the façade there is wickedness and the desire to conquer through subtle means? I believe so.

When Jesus said "nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom", it is actually referring to ethnic groups and religious groups that are rising against each other. We have definitely seen the globalists achieve this in stirring up hatred against Jews, hatred against blacks, hatred of Muslims, hatred of Christians. These are ethnic and religious groups! The globalists plan is to have the goyim fight each other in order to justify war, which leads to big profits for bankers and corporate elites, and population control.

Maybe you can see what I'm aimlessly driving at here, b/c I feel like I'm rambling. What I'm trying to get at is the first horse and rider representing a sort of covert oppression of the people and nations of the world - peaceful conquest. Does Jesus refer to it in Matt. 24? Yes, as I explained above. Can you come up with a good starting point for this?

In case you are thinking that the "nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" phrase can only be matched with one horse and rider (the red horse), I would disagree. Jesus' phrase can apply to both the first and the second horse and rider, just as Jesus' referring to earthquakes in Matt. 24 but they are not in the Revelation 6 horses. They don't have to match perfectly with each other. Jesus statement was a broad overview, while the description of the first four seals is more specific.

So, I'd especially like comments on:

1. Why does the first horse rider have to be an actual person (i.e. the AC) when the second, third and four horsemen are never given this distinction?
2. Do see a good time in recent history when the plan for covert, manipulative global dominance began? 1913? 1907? Earlier?

Back to Top

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:40:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: another question... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

If the Revelation 7 throne throng is the raptured church, I think we have a problem with our prophetic model. The resurrection of the dead occurs before the rapture, so the resurrected dead saints and the alive raptured saints meet the Lord in the air and we are ever with the Lord, right? Ok, so when the elder and John are conversing and the elder tells John who they are, he says they came out of "great tribulation".

Here's the problem: would not the throne throng be represented by the raptured saints AND the resurrected saints? If so, then how can we claim that the resurrected saints came out of great tribulation? The resurrected saints didn't come out of any tribulation. They were dead! Some may have died of persecution, but I would bet that the great majority of resurrection saints died of natural causes or sickness. So how could we say that resurrection saints, as part of the throne throng, came out of great tribulation?

Or do we just say that the throne throng is only made up of raptured saints, not resurrection saints?

Help me out here.

Dave

Back to Top

From: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]> | To: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: another question... Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:39:57 -1000

Dave,

Right now I am trying to finish up an article on the first four seals and seven kings that tries to address all the points and arrive at solid conclusions. I'll be revising my previous view that the first seal represents the birth of the AC.

You have some good points regarding the first seal and I have considered many of them before. How come the first horseman is viewed as representing an actual person, while the other horsemen are viewed as representing events? It does seem a bit arbitrary.

I understand your line of reasoning but in my limited understanding of history I can't find a single point or event when the globalist agenda was first manifested. I think there have been many such Satanic conspiracies, many of them fighting against each other. The Soviet communists thought they were on the verge of an inevitable global class revolution and they believed they would one day rule the world. With fascism we had the same thing. Hitler was on the verge of forging a new fascist paradigm until Britain let him down at the last moment. He thought he could dominate Europe, and then be in a position to gradually take over the world from there. Both of these were Satanic conspiracies in my mind.

The most successful, however, has been the Anglo-American conspiracy. This was forged prior to World War I, but was only installed as the new global paradigm after World War II, which is why I still believe that WWII was a hugely significant prophetic event. And Hitler was the key to kicking it off. Remember my brief thoughts to you several emails ago that Hitler is probably the seventh king, and might be the person symbolized with the first seal? Well I have taken that theory and I have run with it.

According to Revelation 17, there would be seven Satanic kings to appear on the earth until the final maifestation of the Antichrist. It took almost 2000 years after the sixth king's appearance for the seventh to come on the scene, but he finally did come and he helped to create the situation that we face today, where the Globalist Elite are poised to take over the world once the influence of the USA is neutralized.

God may judge among the gods, but Satan rules the gods as well. God's word is law, but then Satan schemes among the "gods" as to the best course of action to take within the limited bounds that God allows them. That is how God makes the claim to rule over all the kingdoms in the world in Daniel 5:21, while at the same time Satan makes the claim that he rules over the kingdoms of the world in Matthew 4:8-9. Satan could have given Jesus the kingdoms of the world, but then Jesus would have existed under the greater authority of God, just as Satan and the fallen angels that rule the nations exist under that greater authority. Satan's claim over the kingdoms of the earth was not entirely legitimate, but not entirely false either.

Consider the rise of Alexander the Great. He was predicted in Scripture to take over the Greeks and subdue the Persians. But his rise to power was almost effortless. It was of a religious/spiritual nature, rather than one of fierce antagonism or bloodshed. At every pagan oracle he went to he was accepted as the new king of the world. He took Egypt without a fight. The oracles in Turkey said that he would conquer Persia, and it was against Persia that his only major fights occurred. It was the will of the gods, but also the will of God, as he made it known to them through his rulership over the legitimate divine council.

I have found a web page at http://www.banner.org.uk/dev/seal1.html that looks at the first four seals through the lens of Greek "mythology." Our legacy of historical "mythology" is actually much more real than we imagine, because like I said, it has been almost 2000 years since all of humanity was first able to come out from under the shackles of the gods. These "gods" were given the nations of the earth at the time of the tower of Babel, but when Christ sacrificed his life for us he allowed humanity an escape. That is why the very concept of the "gods," a concept once very real throughout the entire world, is now seen as a fairy tale. But the "gods" are mounting a comeback.

At the webpage I Iink to above, the first seal is shown as a representation of Apollo, the son of Jupiter (Satan in the counterfeit pantheon). He rides a horse, drawing a bow, but without any arrows.

Hitler viewed himself as Apollo/Horus. Hitler was a black magician, and this comes from Gerald Suster, who was a practicing Golden Dawn magician himself, a friend of Israel Regardie, who was Aleister Crowley's apprentice. Regardie is revered because he published all of the Golden Dawn material that he could: all of the exercises, incantations and inititiations, against fierce internal resistence, to make known to the general public the means that existed to contact the gods.

In my upcoming article I will make the case that Hitler was one of the seven kings of Satan, who viewed himself as a tool of the gods doing their will on earth. The rider of the white horse carries a bow, he rides out as a conqueror, and he wears a crown. I think this crown signifies "kingship." It does for the seven heads of Satan. It does for the ten horns of the beast, and I believe the same is true for the figure that rides the white horse. He is the seventh of the seven kings of Satan, a virtual, perhaps actual son of Satan. He paved the way for WWII, and in this way I agree with you that the first and second seals are very closely connected.

Regarding the great multitude, you bring up a good point. I may not have the best answer, and it does not seem to satisfy everyone, but here it is.

In heaven, the souls of dead believers come up from the earth to be with Jesus one by one, say perhaps every few seconds or minutes. Once we die and go to be with Jesus we will never be away from Him again. When the souls of dead believers are given a new body it won't take plave on the earth but in heaven. This resurrection won't be an introductiion of a mass of believers into heaven, but instead simply a transformation of souls that are already existing in heaven.

The rapture is another story. There will be a moment when all of a sudden perhaps a billion souls appear in heaven ALL AT ONCE. This is the great multitude, and this is the event that caused such an amazed response from John. They were the group taken "away from" the great tribulation. They are the fulfillment to the promise given to the church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, that God would keep faithful believers from the hour of trial. My belief is that the Great Multitude will include dead believers that were resurrected as well, but I just think that John's wonder stemmed from the great influx of believers that occurred at one time, an influx unprecedented in the history of heaven, at least as we know it. Let me know what you think.

God bless,

Back to Top

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: another question... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Right now I am trying to finish up an article on the first four seals and seven kings that tries to address all the points and arrive at solid conclusions. I'll be revising my previous view that the first seal represents the birth of the AC.

Back to Top

From: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]> | To: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: another question... Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:54:25 -1000

Dave,

Here is another article on the Divine Council that I think you should read: http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/divine_council.htm

It is much simpler than Mike Heiser's presentation, but it still includes all of the relevant passages. Like I've said beforem I think this area of research is the most important key to understanding the spiritual war that is being waged for humanity today.

Regarding Hitler, yes I completely agree that he was a puppet of the British and Wall Street. They made his career possible and then when he got out of hand they destroyed him.

The problem is identifying the rapture anywhere in Revelation. The 24 Elders theory has problems, the post-trib theory has problems, the pre-wrath rapture theory has problems, and so does my revised pre-trib/sixth seal theory. Thanks for helping me try to solve them.

God bless,

Back to Top

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: another question... To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Dave,

Back to Top

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Gary Vaterlaus critique To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Hi,

I just received an email from Gary Vaterlaus on your prophetic model. I saw on your site that if you ask him for it, he will send it. So I sent him an email and he replied back quickly with a long critique that was sort of difficult to read.

I think Gary and their crew are way off on their interpretation. The same thing he faults you for, namely, illogical and unbiblical assumptions, seem to be their forte. Their model is full of assumptions that are not biblically based.

One of the points he made that I thought showed some merit, though, was the idea of the red moon only applying to the Joel 2 prophecy. I believe his argument was that Jesus description in Matt 24:29 is in harmony because if the moon is red, it is definitely darkened. Also, he cites a verse in Joel 3 in which it states the day of the Lord is NEAR, and the sun and moon are darkened. Well, if the day of the Lord is near, that would mean it hadn't yet arrived. So this Joel 3 prophecy is also before the day of the Lord, so how can you narrowly interpret Joel 2 only applying to Revelation 6:12?

Have you prepared a response to his critique? If so, I'd be interested in reading it.

Dave

Back to Top

Hi Dave,

Here is a brief article I wrote on the very question you have raised. Let me know if my answers meet the challenge.

http://www.redmoonrising.com/signs.htm

Back to Top

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:29:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: Gary Vaterlaus critique To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Thanks, that helps a lot. Gary is quite virulent in his delivery! I bet he would really have problems with my earthquake rapture model.

I don't remember you addressing this in your model, so I'm going to ask you now:

In Revelation 10:7, we are told that in the days when the 7th angel blows the trumpet, the "mystery of God" is complete.

In Revelation 11:14, we are told the second woe has just passed (which was the 6th trumpet described in Revelation 9).

In Revelation 11:15, the 7th angel blows the trumpet, and the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our God.

Any opinion as to what the mystery of God is? It sure sounds like everything is wrapped up at this point, but we still have Revelation 13-16 and 19 to be completed.

Dave

Back to Top

From: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]> | To: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Gary Vaterlaus critique Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:41:14 -1000

Hi Dave,

I see the seventh trumpet as the completion of the seven-sealed scroll. The seventh seal brings forth the seven trumpets, so I view all of the trumpets as a part of the seventh Seal judgment. The seventh trumpet then signals the completion of the scroll.

I view the scroll as a sort of deed or legal document that is associated with the fallen "sons of God" that were given the pagan kingdoms of the earth at the time of the division at the tower of Babel, which goes along with the concept of the Divine Council that I've been telling you about. The kingdoms of the earth were parcelled out to these fallen beings, but then when the seventh trumpet is sounded heaven proclaims, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ..."

Then after this proclamation is made verse 18 lists several things that are to follow:

1. The wrath of God "has come."

2. The time has come for "judging the dead" ...

3. and for rewarding the prophets and saints

4. and for destroying those who destroy the earth

The wrath comes in the form of the seven Bowls which follow after the seventh Trumpet, and the first is a judgment of vile sores on those who have accepted the mark. Then judgment and rewards follow after the wrath and then the wicked are destroyed.

I think the seventh Trumpet is not sounded until far into the second half of the 70th Week, so it is near the end, but it does not signify THE end. The first Bowl must be poured out after the Mark of the Beast global economic/spiritual program/enslavement has been implemented everywhere in the world. It is first initiated right after the midpoint of the Tribulation, but I don't think that is is completely implemented until many months or even a year or so after it is begun.

Let me know if this makes sense to you.

Back to Top

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:41:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Lowe" <[email protected]> | Subject: Re: Gary Vaterlaus critique To: "Peter Goodgame" <[email protected]>

Comments below in bold:

I see the seventh trumpet as the completion of the seven-sealed scroll. The seventh seal brings forth the seven trumpets, so I view all of the trumpets as a part of the seventh Seal judgment. The seventh trumpet then signals the completion of the scroll.

I view the scroll as a sort of deed or legal document that is associated with the fallen "sons of God" that were given the pagan kingdoms of the earth at the time of the division at the tower of Babel, which goes along with the concept of the Divine Council that I've been telling you about. The kingdoms of the earth were parcelled out to these fallen beings, but then when the seventh trumpet is sounded heaven proclaims, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ..."

Ok, so this is where the Divine Council might come into play in the future regarding prophecy. The completion of the seventh trumpet judgment signals the end of their "reign" on the earth and the beginning of the bowls - the wrath of God.

Then after this proclamation is made verse 18 lists several things that are to follow:

1. The wrath of God "has come."

2. The time has come for "judging the dead" ...

3. and for rewarding the prophets and saints

4. and for destroying those who destroy the earth

The wrath comes in the form of the seven Bowls which follow after the seventh Trumpet, and the first is a judgment of vile sores on those who have accepted the mark. Then judgment and rewards follow after the wrath and then the wicked are destroyed.

I think the seventh Trumpet is not sounded until far into the second half of the 70th Week, so it is near the end, but it does not signify THE end. The first Bowl must be poured out after the Mark of the Beast global economic/spiritual program/enslavement has been implemented everywhere in the world. It is first initiated right after the midpoint of the Tribulation, but I don't think that is is completely implemented until many months or even a year or so after it is begun.

Yes, the mark of the beast has to have been successfully implemented already. Here's the lone question I have for you in this email. Do you find it hard to believe, as I do, that the no one in the world will be able to buy or sell with the mark? What about the black market, etc? I realize that by this time in the 70th week, major earth changes will have happened (quakes, pole shift, islands vanished, mountains moved), but I can't see the continents of Africa, S. America, Central America totally vanishing and/or being devoid of people. Given this, how will this hi-tech mark be executed on the people in these areas? Some of the folks have never seen a computer or a TV. This has always given me problems and seems extremely far-fetched and unlikely to me. Yet John is dogmatic that he (the false prophet) makes ALL, small, great, rich, poor, free, bond, to take this mark. That pretty much covers everyone. I just can't see a dude with a bone through his nose in Africa needing to take this mark, or the false prophet/AC even worrying about whether some African in an obscure village has or has not taken the mark. Do these thoughts also cross your mind, and if so, how do you deal with them?

I disagree wholeheartedly with the overlap view, and it has zero credibility in my view.

It does make sense, but also makes me realize I need more seasoning in this divine council area. What would you suggest beside that web site link you gave me earlier?

Back to Top

HOME - THE FINAL GENERATION

EMAIL ME by clicking HERE