European Union

[Fortigurn]

Fair enough. Please show individual verses and expound.

• Daniel 2: Four empires are shown here (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), each empire being taken over by a new empire, except for the last empire (Rome), which simply falls apart into strong and weak fragments. These fragments try to unite, trying to put the empire back together again, but to no success. What's the European Union doing today? It's trying to put that empire back together again.

• Daniel 7: Four beasts are shown here, which are said to be the four empires on earth. We need only to go to Daniel 2 to prove that these four beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Daniel 7 we receive more information about the fourth empire.

We are shown that it is divided (the 10 horns show the empire is divided), and that shortly after the division of the empire (476 AD), a new horn springs up which supplants three others. This is a power which persecutes God's people for a certain time, dating from shortly after the fall of Rome.

But the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.

• Revelation 12: We see a dragon which looks like the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It is in fact the fourth beast of Daniel 7 - it is the Roman Empire. But it doesn't have the crowns on the horns yet, so it's the pagan Roman Empire prior to 476 AD, prior to the Roman Empire falling apart.

• Revelation 13: We see that the dragon gives over its power to a new beast, which looks almost exactly like the dragon, but which has the 10 horns, and also has a mouth which looks like the little horn of Daniel 7. So we see that the pagan Roman Empire gives way to another Roman empire which looks just like it, but which is different in some way - it has a leader who specifically blasphemes God and persecutes His people.

This leader springs up after the fall of the Roman Empire, which is described in Revelation 13 as a 'deadly wound' from which the beast is healed.

• Revelation 17: We see the same beast yet again, with 10 horns yet again, and the 10 horns represent the fact that kings of the earth are combining to give their power to the beast. In other words, they are combining to restore the empire of the beast - the beast of the sea in Revelation 13, which is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which is the fourth empire of Daniel 2, which is the Roman Empire.

So we look for a united system of the kings of the earth which is attempting to combine to restore the Roman Empire. And we find that in the European Union.

'For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe, not by force of arms, but on the basis of shared ideals and agreed common rules.

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, EU Parliament, 13 October 1999

[puritan lad]

But I don't think it made it to the distant western sea port of Tarshish (Isaiah 60:9). Nor to 'Tubal, Javan, and to the distant coastlands that have not heard about me or seen my splendor' (Isaiah 66:9). Nor to 'the isles afar off' (Jeremiah 31:10).

It most certainly spread into Tubal (Turkey), and the Persian Empire, which allowed the Jews to go home, did extend to Carthage and Tarshish (Greece). In the passages you cite, you failed to mention the incense, rams, altars, and the temple (of which there is no sign that there will ever be one.) Do you believe that God will once again accept animal sacrifices (Isaiah 60:7, 66:20). So much for the finished work of Jesus (Heb. 9:12).

There's nothing here which explicates the passage as saying that the Jews would never return to their land. Did I miss something?

No. The point is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that said that they would return to their land. There is nothing about modern day Israel in the Bible.

So in other words, you have no positive evidence for your case, you are simply reduced to criticising my case.

You arguing from the negative, which would require me to expound every verse in the Bible to show that modern day Israel isn't mentioned. While that can certainly be done, I don't have the time nor the fortitude to pull this off. It'll be much easier for you to expound one verse that you feel does mention modern Israel and we'll go from there.

The New Testament also defines Jews as being physical descendants of the people of Judah (more broadly, as physical descendants of Abraham).

Which "profits nothing". Those who reject Christ are not Abraham's children, but are of their father the devil (John 8:39-44).

[puritan lad]

• Daniel 2: Four empires are shown here (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), each empire being taken over by a new empire, except for the last empire (Rome), which simply falls apart into strong and weak fragments. These fragments try to unite, trying to put the empire back together again, but to no success. What's the European Union doing today? It's trying to put that empire back together again.

Already Happened. It was called the Roman Civil War. The Empire nearly crumbled after Nero's suicide and was ruled by a series of usurpers beginning with the Spaniard Galba. It was finally revived under Vespasian. The Beast was resurrected. By the way, your image began with "7 toes" and now has 25 with 5 more on the way.

• Daniel 7: Four beasts are shown here, which are said to be the four empires on earth. We need only to go to Daniel 2 to prove that these four beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Daniel 7 we receive more information about the fourth empire.

I agree. I just don't see the EU in here anywhere. The Roman Empire is gone and isn't coming back. If you think that the EU is an "empire" then you need to look up the definition of an empire. Their economy is a shambles, and the entire combined military fleet of the EU couldn't even handle a Civil War in Bosnia. Some beast this has turned out to be.

But the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.

Says who?

• Revelation 12: We see a dragon which looks like the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It is in fact the fourth beast of Daniel 7 - it is the Roman Empire. But it doesn't have the crowns on the horns yet, so it's the pagan Roman Empire prior to 476 AD, prior to the Roman Empire falling apart.

Talk about a stretch. The Bible itself identifies the dragon as Satan (Rev. 12:9. On what basis do you contradict this by stating it to be the EU?

• Revelation 13: We see that the dragon gives over its power to a new beast, which looks almost exactly like the dragon, but which has the 10 horns, and also has a mouth which looks like the little horn of Daniel 7. So we see that the pagan Roman Empire gives way to another Roman empire which looks just like it, but which is different in some way - it has a leader who specifically blasphemes God and persecutes His people.

This leader springs up after the fall of the Roman Empire, which is described in Revelation 13 as a 'deadly wound' from which the beast is healed.

The Roman Empire gave way to no one. They gave power to "image of the beast" (Israel) to persecute Christians. You can do your own study of this relationship between the Herods and the Caesars, Pilate and the Pharisees, etc.

• Revelation 17: We see the same beast yet again, with 10 horns yet again, and the 10 horns represent the fact that kings of the earth are combining to give their power to the beast. In other words, they are combining to restore the empire of the beast - the beast of the sea in Revelation 13, which is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which is the fourth empire of Daniel 2, which is the Roman Empire

What we see if the Great Whore (Israel) being destroyed by the Beast (Rome). No EU here.

So we look for a united system of the kings of the earth which is attempting to combine to restore the Roman Empire. And we find that in the European Union.

Huge assumption. Especially seeing that Revelation was written to seven First Century Churched (1:4) about things that must "shortly" take place (1:1), were "near" (1:3), and were "about to take place" (1:19). How does the EU fit in there?

'For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe, not by force of arms, but on the basis of shared ideals and agreed common rules.

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, EU Parliament, 13 October 1999

So What?

[Fortigurn]

It most certainly spread into Tubal (Turkey)...

I think that's a stretch. Cilicia might be part of Turkey, but it's not very much of it. So now you have to prove that the Jews were exiled there, and returned from there (by sea).

...and the Persian Empire, which allowed the Jews to go home, did extend to Carthage and Tarshish (Greece).

You're certainly making the history work hard. The Persian empire did extend this far, but you have to prove that the Jews were exiled this far, and that they returned from these places (by sea).

That's the first time I've heard Tarshish identifed as Greece by the way, and I've seen some outrageous interpretations of Tarshish in my time ('Tartessus' is one of the most laughable).

In the passages you cite, you failed to mention the incense, rams, altars, and the temple (of which there is no sign that there will ever be one.) Do you believe that God will once again accept animal sacrifices (Isaiah 60:7, 66:20).

Sure do.

So much for the finished work of Jesus (Heb. 9:12).

I agree that it's finished. But we still remember it, don't we?

No. The point is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that said that they would return to their land. There is nothing about modern day Israel in the Bible.

I can accept that as an assertion with which to work. But what you provided earlier was a verse which you claimed gave positive evidence that the Jews would never return to their land, and that modern day Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy.

You arguing from the negative, which would require me to expound every verse in the Bible to show that modern day Israel isn't mentioned. While that can certainly be done, I don't have the time nor the fortitude to pull this off.

No I am not arguing from the negative (remember, I've provided Bible verses which I believe constitute positive evidence for my case). But what you provided earlier was a verse which you claimed gave positive evidence that the Jews would never return to their land, and that modern day Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy.

It seems now that you have withdrawn from this position, which is fine. So your argument is not being made from positive evidence, it's being made from an alleged absence of references to such a return.

It'll be much easier for you to expound one verse that you feel does mention modern Israel and we'll go from there.

I've given you a few to get on with.

The New Testament also defines Jews as being physical descendants of the people of Judah (more broadly, as physical descendants of Abraham).

Which "profits nothing".

Chapter and verse please (I'm not sure which passage you're applying here).

Those who reject Christ are not Abraham's children, but are of their father the devil (John 8:39-44).

I can agree with this. Where do you think that gets you?

[Fortigurn]

• Daniel 2: Four empires are shown here (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), each empire being taken over by a new empire, except for the last empire (Rome), which simply falls apart into strong and weak fragments. These fragments try to unite, trying to put the empire back together again, but to no success. What's the European Union doing today? It's trying to put that empire back together again.

Already Happened. It was called the Roman Civil War. The Empire nearly crumbled after Nero's suicide and was ruled by a series of usurpers beginning with the Spaniard Galba. It was finally revived under Vespasian. The Beast was resurrected.

Could you possibly find any historian who believes that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian?

By the way, your image began with "7 toes" and now has 25 with 5 more on the way.

The number ten here is an aggregate number, not a literal enumeration (see the use of 10 in Scripture, it's pretty consistent).

• Daniel 7: Four beasts are shown here, which are said to be the four empires on earth. We need only to go to Daniel 2 to prove that these four beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Daniel 7 we receive more information about the fourth empire.

I agree. I just don't see the EU in here anywhere. The Roman Empire is gone and isn't coming back. If you think that the EU is an "empire" then you need to look up the definition of an empire. Their economy is a shambles, and the entire combined military fleet of the EU couldn't even handle a Civil War in Bosnia. Some beast this has turned out to be.

The same could be said for the Roman empire at various stages of its life. So what?

But the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.

Says who?

Ok, so no real response to this point. Can you suggest how the Roman beast is alive at the return of Christ?

• Revelation 12: We see a dragon which looks like the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It is in fact the fourth beast of Daniel 7 - it is the Roman Empire. But it doesn't have the crowns on the horns yet, so it's the pagan Roman Empire prior to 476 AD, prior to the Roman Empire falling apart.

Talk about a stretch. The Bible itself identifies the dragon as Satan (Rev. 12:9. On what basis do you contradict this by stating it to be the EU?

Please read my post with care. I said nothing about the dragon in Revelation 12 being the EU. I said it was the Roman empire, which was the satan of the 1st century (I don't hold the same view as you on satan, but we can sort that out in the theology forum). You'll find this view among a number of the standard Protestant expositors.

• Revelation 13: We see that the dragon gives over its power to a new beast, which looks almost exactly like the dragon, but which has the 10 horns, and also has a mouth which looks like the little horn of Daniel 7. So we see that the pagan Roman Empire gives way to another Roman empire which looks just like it, but which is different in some way - it has a leader who specifically blasphemes God and persecutes His people.

This leader springs up after the fall of the Roman Empire, which is described in Revelation 13 as a 'deadly wound' from which the beast is healed.

The Roman Empire gave way to no one.

Please read what I wrote. I didn't say they gave way to anyone. I said that one form of the empire gave way to another form of the empire - the character of the empire changed dramatically, but it was still the Roman empire.

They gave power to "image of the beast" (Israel) to persecute Christians. You can do your own study of this relationship between the Herods and the Caesars, Pilate and the Pharisees, etc.

That is an extraordinary intereptation. I need you to walk me through this please. In what way, specifically, was Israel 'the image of the beast', especially if the beast was Nero? Or was it the Roman empire? You seem to equivocate on this point.

• Revelation 17: We see the same beast yet again, with 10 horns yet again, and the 10 horns represent the fact that kings of the earth are combining to give their power to the beast. In other words, they are combining to restore the empire of the beast - the beast of the sea in Revelation 13, which is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which is the fourth empire of Daniel 2, which is the Roman Empire

What we see if the Great Whore (Israel) being destroyed by the Beast (Rome). No EU here.

I need to see your reasoning please (what you've given here is mere assertion). I've given my reasoning, and a critique of my reasoning would also be helpful.

So we look for a united system of the kings of the earth which is attempting to combine to restore the Roman Empire. And we find that in the European Union.

Huge assumption.

I need to see your reasoning please (what you've given here is mere assertion). I've given my reasoning, and a critique of my reasoning would also be helpful.

Especially seeing that Revelation was written to seven First Century Churched (1:4) about things that must "shortly" take place (1:1), were "near" (1:3), and were "about to take place" (1:19).

This is a problem for Futurism, but not for Historicism.

How does the EU fit in there?

It's part of the 'things which must come to pass'.

So What?

It's just one of many quotes which could be provided to demonstrate that people are well aware that they know exactly which model they're building on - they're building on the model of the Roman empire. They're putting the thing back together again.

By the way, have you seen Brueghel's 'Tower Of Babel'?

[puritan lad]

In the passages you cite, you failed to mention the incense, rams, altars, and the temple (of which there is no sign that there will ever be one.) Do you believe that God will once again accept animal sacrifices (Isaiah 60:7, 66:20).

Sure do.

And you claim to be Reformed? Can you site any Reformed Church Father who taught this? Christ work is finished. Never again will animal sacrifices be given or accepted. The very idea is ridiculous. The fact that we remember it is irrelevant.

It seems now that you have withdrawn from this position, which is fine. So your argument is not being made from positive evidence, it's being made from an alleged absence of references to such a return.

This is correct. You need to see the entire discussion with Wayne, who keeps asserting that the Jews must return to their homeland before the tribulation.

The New Testament also defines Jews as being physical descendants of the people of Judah (more broadly, as physical descendants of Abraham).

Which "profits nothing".

Chapter and verse please (I'm not sure which passage you're applying here).

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

1 Corinthians 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

God never chose anyone based on their DNA, Old or New Testament.

Those who reject Christ are not Abraham's children, but are of their father the devil (John 8:39-44).

I can agree with this. Where do you think that gets you?

So does God have a Covenant with a certain DNA or not?

[puritan lad]

Could you possibly find any historian who believes that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian?

“The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors failed by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Illyricum was disturbed, the Gallic provinces wavering, Britain subdued and immediately let go. The Sarmatae and Suebi rose against us; the Dacians won fame by defeats inflicted and suffered; even the Parthians were almost roused to arms through the trickery of a pretended Nero. Moreover, Italy was distressed by disasters unknown before or returning after the lapse of ages. Cities of the rich fertile shores of Campania were swallowed up or overwhelmed; Rome was devastated by conflagrations, in which her most ancient shrines were consumed and the very Capitol fired by citizens hands. Sacred rites were defiled; there were adulteries in high places. The sea was filled with exiles, its cliffs made foul with the bodies of the dead. In Rome there was more awful cruelty. . . . Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunder bolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it more fully proved by awful disasters of the Roman people or by indubitable signs that gods care not for our safety, but for our punishment.” (Tacitus, Histories 1:2-3.)

"And now they were both in suspense about the public affairs, the Roman empire being then in a fluctuating condition, and did not go on with their expedition against the Jews, but thought that to make any attack upon foreigners was now unseasonable, on account of the solicitude they were in for their own country….The reports of the destruction and rapine were so horrible that it is reported of General Vespasian: "And as this sorrow of his was violent, he was not able to support the torments he was under, nor to apply himself further in other wars when his native country was laid waste.” (Josephus, Wars 4:9:2 and 4:10:2)

"So upon this confirmation of Vespasian's entire government, which was now settled, and upon the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin, Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea." (Josephus, Wars 4:11:5)

The number ten here is an aggregate number, not a literal enumeration (see the use of 10 in Scripture, it's pretty consistent).

I agree. But that's not what they were saying 20 years ago.

I deleted the EU=Revived Roman Empire Part for now, due to the increasing lengths of the post. I assert that the Roman Empire has already been revived from destruction (see above). I'll now put the burden of proof on you to show that the EU is a "revived Roman Empire" and that it is mentioned in the Bible.

But the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.

Says who?

Ok, so no real response to this point. Can you suggest how the Roman beast is alive at the return of Christ?

I repeat. Says Who? Who says that "the beast is alive at the return of Christ" (or at least in the form of the Roman Empire)?

Please read my post with care. I said nothing about the dragon in Revelation 12 being the EU. I said it was the Roman empire, which was the satan of the 1st century (I don't hold the same view as you on satan, but we can sort that out in the theology forum). You'll find this view among a number of the standard Protestant expositors.

Good enough. We won't get far here until that gets straightened out.

They gave power to "image of the beast" (Israel) to persecute Christians. You can do your own study of this relationship between the Herods and the Caesars, Pilate and the Pharisees, etc.

That is an extraordinary intereptation. I need you to walk me through this please. In what way, specifically, was Israel 'the image of the beast', especially if the beast was Nero? Or was it the Roman empire? You seem to equivocate on this point.

Yes. The Beast was the Empire (Daniel 7), personified by it's leader, which at that time was Nero (Yes, I believe that Revelation was written prior to 68 AD). Just like the church is personified by it's leader and referred to as "the body of Christ". The theology of the Beast refers to any kingdom in conflict with the kingdom of God. From the "seed of the serpent" in the Garden of Eden to the four "beast" kingdoms of Daniel. Ironically, the nation of Israel in NT times had become "an image of the beast" persecuting God's true chosen people. The image got power from the Roman Beast to accomplish this. (See John 18:31, 19:12, Acts 17:7). Thus, Israel the Harlot (Isaiah 1:21, Ezekiel 16, 23), rode on the back of the Beast. But the Beast ultimately destoyed the Harlot, "the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8).

[It's part of the 'things which must come to pass'.

Correction. These are "things that must SHORTLY come to pass" in John's Day (Rev. 1:1)

[It's just one of many quotes which could be provided to demonstrate that people are well aware that they know exactly which model they're building on - they're building on the model of the Roman empire. They're putting the thing back together again.

By the way, have you seen Brueghel's 'Tower Of Babel'?

Haven't seen it, but would be interested.

[Fortigurn]

In the passages you cite, you failed to mention the incense, rams, altars, and the temple (of which there is no sign that there will ever be one.) Do you believe that God will once again accept animal sacrifices (Isaiah 60:7, 66:20).

Sure do.

And you claim to be Reformed?

No, I do not claim to be 'Reformed'. I believe that the 'Reformed' branch of Christianity has many errors.

Can you site any Reformed Church Father who taught this?

I really don't care if they did or didn't.

Christ work is finished. Never again will animal sacrifices be given or accepted. The very idea is ridiculous. The fact that we remember it is irrelevant.

I agree that Christ's work is finished. The rest of what you wrote is assertion.

This is correct. You need to see the entire discussion with Wayne, who keeps asserting that the Jews must return to their homeland before the tribulation.

Well they've already returned, so that's a moot point. :p

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

1 Corinthians 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

None of these indicate that being a physical descendant of Abraham no longer entails the blessings and curses which were promised to Abraham's physical descendants (not only under the promises made to Abraham, but also with the covenant made at Sinai, and the promises made in the prophets).

God never chose anyone based on their DNA, Old or New Testament.

I agree He doesn't choose them on the basis of their DNA. What's your argument?

So does God have a Covenant with a certain DNA or not?

No, He has a covenant with the fathers, which He will not break. Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, not break them. In regard to the gospel, unbelieving Jews are enemies, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.

If God is in the habit of breaking His promises, then none of the promises He has extended to Christians are worth relying on.

[Fortigurn]

Could you possibly find any historian who believes that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian?

(Tacitus, Histories 1:2-3.)

(Josephus, Wars 4:9:2 and 4:10:2)

(Josephus, Wars 4:11:5)

I note that none of these historians say that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian. The generally accepted date for the disintegration of Rome is about 476 AD. The usually accepted era of its restoration is the reign of Justinian (6th century).

I agree. But that's not what they were saying 20 years ago.

I really don't care what 'they' were saying 20 years ago. Historicists have been saying that this is an aggregate number since at least Beda (730 AD). I find it interesting that modern Futurists have started to borrow from classical Historicist exposition. It just helps prove that Historicists are - and always have been - way ahead of the pack.

I deleted the EU=Revived Roman Empire Part for now, due to the increasing lengths of the post. I assert that the Roman Empire has already been revived from destruction (see above).

I've responded to your first assertion (your historical evidence is not convincing, and flies in the face of standard scholarship).

I'll now put the burden of proof on you to show that the EU is a "revived Roman Empire" and that it is mentioned in the Bible.

I've given my case from Scripture already.

I repeat. Says Who? Who says that "the beast is alive at the return of Christ" (or at least in the form of the Roman Empire)?

Says Daniel 7.

Yes. The Beast was the Empire (Daniel 7), personified by it's leader, which at that time was Nero (Yes, I believe that Revelation was written prior to 68 AD). Just like the church is personified by it's leader and referred to as "the body of Christ". The theology of the Beast refers to any kingdom in conflict with the kingdom of God. From the "seed of the serpent" in the Garden of Eden to the four "beast" kingdoms of Daniel.

I agree with the general 'two seeds' representation in Scripture, all the way through Daniel to Revelation. But this doesn't change the fact that specific empires and enemies are identified along the way.

I also think it's very difficult to identify the beast as both Nero and the Roman empire, especially if you're going to be naming the beast as Nero.

You provide no means of differentiating between which prophecies concerning the beast apply personally to Nero, and which generally to the empire. It seems very 'pick and choose'.

Ironically, the nation of Israel in NT times had become "an image of the beast" persecuting God's true chosen people.

The one who makes an image of the first beast is actually the beast of the earth. What is the beast of the earth? The beast of the earth causes 'the earth and those who inhabit it worship the first beast'. How did this happen? Did they worship Nero? Did they worship the Roman empire?

The beast of the earth tells 'those who live on the earth to make an image to the beast who had been wounded by the sword, but still lived'. So it's actually 'those who live on the earth' who make the image of the first beast.

Who are 'those who live on the earth', and in what way can they be said to have made 'the nation of Israel in NT times'?

The beast of the earth 'was empowered to give life to the image of the first beast so that it could speak, and could cause all those who did not worship the image of the beast to be killed'. What is the beast of the earth, and how does this apply to 'the nation of Israel in NT times'?

The beast of the earth also did this:

Revelation 13:
16 He also caused everyone (small and great, rich and poor, free and slave) to obtain a mark on their right hand or on their forehead.
17 Thus no one was allowed to buy or sell things unless he bore the mark of the beast—that is, his name or his number.

What is the beast of the earth, and in what way did it do this?

The image got power from the Roman Beast to accomplish this. (See John 18:31, 19:12, Acts 17:7).

This requires that the beast of the earth is the Roman empire. So if the beast of the earth is the Roman empire, what's the beast of the sea? The Roman empire still? Or Nero and the Roman empire?

You now have two beasts which are both supposedly the Roman empire, only one of them has passed off the scene. Why?

By the way, I see nothing in those passages which say that the Roman empire gave authority to the Jews to persecute Christians. Note also the large number of occasions on which the Roman authorities threw out the Jewish accusations against Christians (see Acts).

Thus, Israel the Harlot (Isaiah 1:21, Ezekiel 16, 23), rode on the back of the Beast.

I think you're forgetting Jezebel the harlot (Revelation 2:20-22). Riding on a beast is emblematic of control, not receipt of authority. In what way could 'the nation of Israel in NT times' be said to be in control of either the Roman empire or Nero?

But the Beast ultimately destoyed the Harlot, "the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8).

You do realise that Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem? By the way, what do you do with the city on seven hills?

Correction. These are "things that must SHORTLY come to pass" in John's Day (Rev. 1:1)

Thanks, I meant to say part of the 'things which shall be hereafter'.

Haven't seen it, but would be interested.

Utterly stunning. See it here. That's the large version. There is also the 'Little Babel', which he painted as a separate study.