Talk:The Beast (Revelation)

Opening paragraph

"This Beast is later called “The False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10) and together with the Dragon (Satan) and the First Beast (the Antichrist) forms the unholy trinity."

The opening implies this description is the view, when it is only one interpretation. You could add "commonly interpreted as" with a reliable source, or move the interpretation down to a specific section on common interpretations and where the interpretations originally came from, if specific historical scholars can be identified.

• "Unholy trinity" is in contrast to "holy trinity," so it applies to Trinitarian thought but not Nontrinitarians who may argue the bible has no textual support for the trinity, or the trinity is a human made concept introduced later. How late was the unholy trinity concept introduced, and what branches subscribed to it first?
• The dragon is called "that old serpent, the devil" which is associated with the talking serpent in Genesis, causing Christian scholars to identify the talking serpent as Satan because of this verse. Genesis doesn't say the talking serpent is Satan, and Revelation doesn't say the devil was the same talking serpent in Genesis, but it's easy to make the link based on the phrase "that old serpent", so the Genesis serpent is assumed to be Satan after Revelation is written. Is it possible to trace pre-Revelation beliefs about the Genesis serpent to see if the talking serpent was only thought of as a talking serpent, followed by beliefs that the serpent is Satan after Revelation is written?
• Identifying the First Beast as "Anti-Christ" is an interpretation; Revelation never uses the word Anti-christ, but it's easy to make an association based on a description in 2 Thessalonians. Anti-Christ can mean those who are literally opposed to Christ, as in those who are anti-Christian, or the Anti-Christian idea itself, so calling the beast "The Anti-Christ" only works if you subscribe to idea of the 2 Thessalonians description being the same as the beast in Revelation, which neither book specifically states.

Compare the article on Lilith where the evolution of the Lilith idea is discussed from early to later interpretations. See if there are any interpretations before the common interpretation became popular- did earlier scholars have a different view based on reading the text, or is there a chronology of different interpretations? Studying differences in classic antiquity, late antiquity, early medieval, late medieval and renaissance writings should provide answers.

Removals from Preterism section

I've removed part of the first sentence of the second paragraph, and a source:

The beast from the earth is generally identified with the Roman Imperial cult or the Jewish religious system of the first century that conspired with the Roman state to suppress and persecute the early church

That part of the sentence was directly copied from a website which was earlier removed as a bad reference: , and the newer provided reference seems dubious as well. I'm not able to tell if the second source (which seems authoritative) is good enough to prove that preterists commonly believe that 'the beast from earth' represents the institution of Judaism. If that *is* a common belief among preterists, then it probably belongs in Preterism as well.

2604:3D08:5483:CF00:C88C:D69C:8F74:98E1 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The standard interpretation

For the search string "Beast from the sea", the Oxford University Press website returns an unique article which is freely available. The affirms

According to the standard interpretation, the "Beast from the sea was the Antichrist and...the Antichrist was the Papacy with its episcopal paraphernalia

— John T. Watts, Guest Editorial: Robert N. Bellah's Theory of America's Eschatological Hope (doi:10.1093/jcs/22.1.5), p. 11

URL archived on [May 15, 2021. The interpretation is sourced by the professor Robert Middlekauff's book titled The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals.
It seems to be a WP:reliable source, in order to be citable in the WP article.

I don't understand this article.

Thanks. Indexcard88 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)