Zone1 the Scripture I said I would find about Torment of the damned being FOREVER

[Red Front]

The Christian faith does not tell us to PROVE anything Godly nor Biblically to anyone. We state it and walk away, but we do not prove it.

It states in Jude 1:13 for you to earnestly contend for the faith and in 1st Peter 3:15 to always be ready to give an answer for your Christian beliefs. If you earnestly contending for your faith and giving an answer amounts to "stating it" and "walking away", your religious beliefs are bankrupt. At least I have the Hebrew Bible supporting my beliefs, you have nothing but another "Quran" or "Book Of Mormon", that you call the "NT" (A counterfeit "new covenant"). You have nothing to stand on, just an empty, dogmatic confession of faith. The Mormons and Muslims, have the same thing. You're in the same position as they are. At least the Muslims are smart enough to recognize that they can't kill God for their sins and they're strict monotheists (they reject idolatry).

 

[surada]

Believe that nonsense if you want. The Hebrew Bible is an ancient record of the Israelites and their various contacts and covenants with YHWH and His angels.

No it's not. The Jews borrowed from the much older myths of Sumer and Dilmun... they borrowed the flood story and the story of Eden from Sumer and the Akkadians.

They borrowed from the code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

They were never in Egypt.. they were just Canaanites.

 

[Red Front]

No it's not. The Jews borrowed from the much older myths of Sumer and Dilmun... they borrowed the flood story and the story of Eden from Sumer and the Akkadians.

They borrowed from the code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

They were never in Egypt.. they were just Canaanites.

OK? Are you trying to impress me with your statements? I don't care what atheists like you say about my religion or Hebrew Bible. I could care less. Do you understand? You can regurgitate all of those secular, atheistic theories about the Hebrew Bible or the existence of YHWH and his angels, I won't lose a minute of sleep. If the Christians believe that YHWH the God of Israel, as He is presented in the Hebrew Bible supports Christianity, they're clearly wrong. They have no evidence based on the Hebrew Bible.

If the Christians, like the Muslims want to reject the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible, then fine, do that. If the Christians stopped saying that they were worshiping YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, good. They would actually be in a better position spiritually and as far as debating theology. The fact that Christians tie themselves to the Hebrew Bible, makes their religion fall apart. It's completely inconsistent with its supposed foundation. Christianity crumbles, because the Hebrew Bible exposes it as false. All of the Christian claims based on the Hebrew Bible are easily debunked, by going to the Hebrew text and reading it in context. It's very easy. Hopefully the Christians for their sake, will listen to you and stop trying to kill YHWH for their sins.

 

[crossbody]

If believers ever tried to prove God or the Holy Bible to anyone they would destroy someone's faith. It would make someone's faith null and void. Many confuse contending for the faith to mean proving God, but it does not mean that. They are wrong.

 

[Red Front]

If believers ever tried to prove God or the Holy Bible to anyone they would destroy someone's faith. It would make someone's faith null and void. Many confuse contending for the faith to mean proving God, but it does not mean that. They are wrong.

A Christian presenting evidence for his or her beliefs and claims would destroy someone's faith? What do you mean? Whose faith are you referring to?

 

[surada]

Surada I have no interest in debating Biblical topics with atheists or with Muslims using atheistic-secular arguments. I could care less what you claim about my Hebrew Bible, just like you don't care what I say about your Quran or false prophet.

What Muslim are you talking about?

 

[surada]

I say Red Front's posts are way too long. Most of us don't have the time or the inclination to sit at the computer and read all that.

Why do you discuss important, complex topics, on this forum and in threads like these, if you're not willing to invest the time and effort to study the issues being discussed in-depth? You're just playing games with YHWH and your own souls. If Most of you don't have the time or the inclination to sit at the computer and read "all of that", then my posts aren't for you, but for people who do have the inclination and ability to study these important, complex topics in-depth. You can do yourself a favor and just click on my profile image and a window will pop-up, giving you the option to ignore me. Just click on ignore.

I'm not writing these posts for you, remain in your ignorance and darkness.

Most Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who stayed behind and tended the Roman aqueducts and terraces.

 

[Red Front]

Most Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who stayed behind and tended the Roman aqueducts and terraces.

That's great, now all they have to do is begin identifying themselves as Israelites or Israelis, or even better, as Jews. Unfortunately, they now take pride in identifying themselves as Philistines, "Palestinians", using the name of the archenemy of Israel in Biblical times. The epidemy of idolatry and wickedness. King David killed Goliath, a giant of the Philistines/Palestinians, and severing His head with a knife after He was dead, and throwing it off a cliff, in front of all Israel and the stinking Palestinians.

Why would a nation take pride in calling itself by the name of a vile, evil nation, like Philistina? The Romans called Judea, Palestine, to rub their victory in the faces of the Jewish people, after the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem and its Holy Temple. Why would Arabs take pride in that? Calling themselves "Palestinians". They're demonic. They're under the spell of evil spirits.

 

[kyzr]

Believe that nonsense if you want. The Hebrew Bible is an ancient record of the Israelites and their various contacts and covenants with YHWH and His angels.

I like your long posts.

Look at post #130. I said Moses wrote Genesis about 1500BC.

Surada's post says otherwise.

Can you prove who wrote Genesis? (and Exodus?)

 

[Red Front]

I like your long posts.

Look at post #130. I said Moses wrote Genesis about 1500BC.

Surada's post says otherwise.

Can you prove who wrote Genesis? (and Exodus?)

Look at the news, observe reality. That's how I've come to believe that the Hebrew Bible is real. I can't "prove" the veracity or historicity of the Hebrew Bible, anymore than a Christian can for the NT. The only advantage that an Israelite (or Jew) has in a debate with a Christian, is the fact that the Christian recognizes the Israelite's Hebrew Bible (TeNaK - Torah, Nevem, Kethuvim/Law - Prophets - Writings), as divinely inspired, legitimate scripture. That's the thorn in the side of Christendom. When one compares the so-called "Old Testament" (Hebrew Bible), with what Christians claim doctrinally, Christianity falls apart. There are horrible inconsistencies between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian's "New Testament". Irreconcilable differences.

 

[kyzr]

Look at the news, observe reality. That's how I've come to believe that the Hebrew Bible is real. I can't "prove" the veracity or historicity of the Hebrew Bible, anymore than a Christian can for the NT. The only advantage that an Israelite (or Jew) has in a debate with a Christian, is the fact that the Christian recognizes the Israelite's Hebrew Bible (TeNaK - Torah, Nevem, Kethuvim/Law - Prophets - Writings), as divinely inspired, legitimate scripture. That's the thorn in the side of Christendom. When one compares the so-called "Old Testament" (Hebrew Bible), with what Christians claim as doctrine, Christianity falls apart. There are horrible inconsistencies between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian's "New Testament". Irreconcilable differences.

1. So you don't know who wrote your Torah? "Divinely inspired" is a dodge/belief, not a fact.

2. There is no "thorn" in CHRISTendom. Christ is God, and His words are documented by the Apostles, and His miracles documented by the Romans. The direct words of God trump the words of unknown authors. I won't call the OT fiction, but lets just say that God wanted to change from the tribal viciousness (eye for an eye) to the New Covenant and "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

3. Christian "doctrine" is from God himself. It doesn't fall apart.

4. Yes there are differences between the OT and the NT. The NT wins because its author is God, in person.

5. This link says that Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible:
Yet nearly from the beginning, readers of the Bible observed that there were things in the so-called Five Books of Moses that Moses himself could not possibly have witnessed: His own death, for example, occurs near the end of Deuteronomy. A volume of the Talmud, the collection of Jewish laws recorded between the 3rd and 5th centuries A.D., dealt with this inconsistency by explaining that Joshua (Moses’ successor as leader of the Israelites) likely wrote the verses about Moses’ death.

Who Wrote the Bible? | HISTORY

Scholars have investigated the issue for centuries, but many questions persist.

www.history.com

6. Here is a better mansplain than I can do:

Library : Who Wrote the Gospels?

Who Wrote the Gospels? With so much talk lately about the Gospels, I wonder, who wrote the Gospels and how do we know? To answer this question we must first be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (...

www.catholicculture.org

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up.

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form.

 

[Red Front]

1. So you don't know who wrote your Torah? "Divinely inspired" is a dodge/belief, not a fact.

2. There is no "thorn" in CHRISTendom. Christ is God, and His words are documented by the Apostles, and His miracles documented by the Romans. The direct words of God trump the words of unknown authors. I won't call the OT fiction, but lets just say that God wanted to change from the tribal viciousness (eye for an eye) to the New Covenant and "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

3. Christian "doctrine" is from God himself. It doesn't fall apart.

4. Yes there are differences between the OT and the NT. The NT wins because its author is God, in person.

5. This link says that Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible:
Yet nearly from the beginning, readers of the Bible observed that there were things in the so-called Five Books of Moses that Moses himself could not possibly have witnessed: His own death, for example, occurs near the end of Deuteronomy. A volume of the Talmud, the collection of Jewish laws recorded between the 3rd and 5th centuries A.D., dealt with this inconsistency by explaining that Joshua (Moses’ successor as leader of the Israelites) likely wrote the verses about Moses’ death.

Who Wrote the Bible? | HISTORY

Scholars have investigated the issue for centuries, but many questions persist.

www.history.com

6. Here is a better mansplain than I can do:

Library : Who Wrote the Gospels?

Who Wrote the Gospels? With so much talk lately about the Gospels, I wonder, who wrote the Gospels and how do we know? To answer this question we must first be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (...

www.catholicculture.org

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up.

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form.

1. So you don't know who wrote your Torah? "Divinely inspired" is a dodge/belief, not a fact.

That's right, I agree with you. Yep? Welcome to reality. There isn't one "holy book" or religion on the planet that can claim its dogma or doctrine is 100% supported by, reality. Religious dogma, whether it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist..etc, amounts to nothing more than human speculation.

The true spirituality, is universal and essential, within all religions. It's a "Perennial Philosophy", transcending all religious dogma and doctrines, found in all major religions. I believe that's the truth.

When a religion begins to go beyond what is inherently, self-evident and obvious, you get into trouble. Your holy book should just be a list of tested principles and perhaps some commentary on how to apply them by experienced "practitioners" of those principles (laws). A book of proverbs. The ETs, the extraterrestrials or interdimensional beings, "angels" (holy spirits), didn't reveal any of these holy books, they just taught principles. Laws. That's it. We then came up with all of the stories, and religious dogma. Some elements of the stories might be true, but no holy book is "divinely inspired" and inerrant.

2. There is no "thorn" in CHRISTendom. Christ is God, and His words are documented by the Apostles, and His miracles documented by the Romans.

If you want to believe that nonsense, go right ahead. Your Christian theology is completely at odds with the Hebrew Bible. Christianity is founded on quick sand. At least the faith of the Jews is the foundational religion, from which Christianity and Islam derive. Jews have that advantage over Christians and Muslims. Their faith is the original faith, hence if your Christian theology and beliefs aren't in concordance with the Hebrew Bible, your Christian faith crumbles like a stale cracker. It falls apart, at its very foundation. You have no foundation, because the Hebrew Bible completely refutes everything you believe as a Christian.

The direct words of God trump the words of unknown authors.

With the exception of a few Evangelical scholars, most of NT scholarship also believes the gospels were written by unknown authors. However even if the authors were known, that doesn't prove the NT is the inspired word of any god, much less almighty GOD.

I won't call the OT fiction, but lets just say that God wanted to change from the tribal viciousness (eye for an eye) to the New Covenant and "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

That's just your Christian gobbledygook assertion, that completely contradicts everything that is said in the Hebrew Bible, about both the Mosaic Covenant and the "New Covenant". As I already showed, the reference in Jeremiah 31 of a "New Covenant" has nothing to do with Christianity.

More, it's completely asinine to pretend that "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is even a good set of principles. Love comes with qualifications, including one's love for others. Turning the other cheek is a stupid, dangerous way to interact and relate with other people. You will become a doormat, if you refuse to resist evil and turn the other cheek. Those are bad rules.

3. Christian "doctrine" is from God himself. It doesn't fall apart.

You can also believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese, if you want to. Present your evidence, that YHWH, the God of the Jews became Jesus and that he died on a Roman cross for people's sins.

4. Yes there are differences between the OT and the NT. The NT wins because its author is God, in person.

Baseless speculation. Your claims are as good as toilet paper. Actually, I'm going to correct myself and say that toilet paper is more useful and hence better than your religious Christian claims.

5. This link says that Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible:
Yet nearly from the beginning, readers of the Bible observed that there were things in the so-called Five Books of Moses that Moses himself could not possibly have witnessed: His own death, for example, occurs near the end of Deuteronomy. A volume of the Talmud, the collection of Jewish laws recorded between the 3rd and 5th centuries A.D., dealt with this inconsistency by explaining that Joshua (Moses’ successor as leader of the Israelites) likely wrote the verses about Moses’ death.

Who Wrote the Bible? | HISTORY​

Scholars have investigated the issue for centuries, but many questions persist.

www.history.com

6. Here is a better mansplain than I can do:

I agree, Moses didn't write most, if anything of the five books attributed to him. Same can be said for the gospels and the epistles of the NT. Your NT is full of internal contradictions and it's also inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible. You're quite desperate crapping on the Hebrew Bible, when it's the foundation of Christianity. The vast majority of Christians would never resort to your desperate arguments to defend Christianity, because they're smart enough to realize that if the Hebrew Bible is corrupt as the Muslims and atheists claim it is, that completely undermines Christianity and its NT.

Ironically, considering your desperate, pathetic rhetorical tactics, according to Jesus, the Hebrew Bible was the word of God, hence he often cited it to support his claims.

What Was Jesus’ View of the Old Testament? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: What Was Jesus’ View of the Old Testament?

www.blueletterbible.org

Library : Who Wrote the Gospels?​

Who Wrote the Gospels? With so much talk lately about the Gospels, I wonder, who wrote the Gospels and how do we know? To answer this question we must first be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (...

www.catholicculture.org
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up.

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form.

You're just regurgitating your religious, Catholic claims without a shred of evidence. All of the evidence points to the NT being heavily edited, redacted and fabricated from old unwritten, oral fables about Jesus and his apostles. You have no more evidence to the historicity of the stories of the Christian "NT" than the Jews have for their religious stories. If you want to argue from the atheist, secular position, with all of its critical biblical scholarship, at best we're even. It's a draw. Both the Jews and the Christians are up the creek, if you want to resort to secular biblical criticism and archeology. Surada, will kick both of our butts. That's why I don't debate Surada on this issue, because he/she will wipe the floor with my face.

 

[kyzr]

1. So you don't know who wrote your Torah? "Divinely inspired" is a dodge/belief, not a fact.

That's right, I agree with you. Yep? Welcome to reality. There isn't one "holy book" or religion on the planet that can claim its dogma or doctrine is 100% supported by, reality. Religious dogma, whether it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist..etc, amounts to nothing more than human speculation.

The true spirituality, is universal and essential, within all religions. It's a "Perennial Philosophy", transcending all religious dogma and doctrines, found in all major religions. I believe that's the truth.

When a religion begins to go beyond what is inherently, self-evident and obvious, you get into trouble. Your holy book should just be a list of tested principles and perhaps some commentary on how to apply them by experienced "practitioners" of those principles (laws). A book of proverbs. The ETs, the extraterrestrials or interdimensional beings, "angels" (holy spirits), didn't reveal any of these holy books, they just taught principles. Laws. That's it. We then came up with all of the stories, and religious dogma. Some elements of the stories might be true, but no holy book is "divinely inspired" and inerrant.

2. There is no "thorn" in CHRISTendom. Christ is God, and His words are documented by the Apostles, and His miracles documented by the Romans.

If you want to believe that nonsense, go right ahead. Your Christian theology is completely at odds with the Hebrew Bible. Christianity is founded on quick sand. At least the faith of the Jews is the foundational religion, from which Christianity and Islam derive. Jews have that advantage over Christians and Muslims. Their faith is the original faith, hence if your Christian theology and beliefs aren't in concordance with the Hebrew Bible, your Christian faith crumbles like a stale cracker. It falls apart, at its very foundation. You have no foundation, because the Hebrew Bible completely refutes everything you believe as a Christian.

The direct words of God trump the words of unknown authors.

With the exception of a few Evangelical scholars, most of NT scholarship also believes the gospels were written by unknown authors. However even if the authors were known, that doesn't prove the NT is the inspired word of any god, much less almighty GOD.

I won't call the OT fiction, but lets just say that God wanted to change from the tribal viciousness (eye for an eye) to the New Covenant and "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".

That's just your Christian gobbledygook assertion, that completely contradicts everything that is said in the Hebrew Bible, about both the Mosaic Covenant and the "New Covenant". As I already showed, the reference in Jeremiah 31 of a "New Covenant" has nothing to do with Christianity.

More, it's completely asinine to pretend that "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is even a good set of principles. Love comes with qualifications, including one's love for others. Turning the other cheek is a stupid, dangerous way to interact and relate with other people. You will become a doormat, if you refuse to resist evil and turn the other cheek. Those are bad rules.

3. Christian "doctrine" is from God himself. It doesn't fall apart.

You can also believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese, if you want to. Present your evidence, that YHWH, the God of the Jews became Jesus and that he died on a Roman cross for people's sins.

4. Yes there are differences between the OT and the NT. The NT wins because its author is God, in person.

Baseless speculation. Your claims are as good as toilet paper. Actually, I'm going to correct myself and say that toilet paper is more useful and hence better than your religious Christian claims.

5. This link says that Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible:
Yet nearly from the beginning, readers of the Bible observed that there were things in the so-called Five Books of Moses that Moses himself could not possibly have witnessed: His own death, for example, occurs near the end of Deuteronomy. A volume of the Talmud, the collection of Jewish laws recorded between the 3rd and 5th centuries A.D., dealt with this inconsistency by explaining that Joshua (Moses’ successor as leader of the Israelites) likely wrote the verses about Moses’ death.

Who Wrote the Bible? | HISTORY​

Scholars have investigated the issue for centuries, but many questions persist.

www.history.com

6. Here is a better mansplain than I can do:

I agree, Moses didn't write most, if anything of the five books attributed to him. Same can be said for the gospels and the epistles of the NT. Your NT is full of internal contradictions and it's also inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible. You're quite desperate crapping on the Hebrew Bible, when it's the foundation of Christianity. The vast majority of Christians would never resort to your desperate arguments to defend Christianity, because they're smart enough to realize that if the Hebrew Bible is corrupt as the Muslims and atheists claim it is, that completely undermines Christianity and its NT.

Ironically, considering your desperate, pathetic rhetorical tactics, according to Jesus, the Hebrew Bible was the word of God, hence he often cited it to support his claims.

What Was Jesus’ View of the Old Testament? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: What Was Jesus’ View of the Old Testament?

www.blueletterbible.org

Library : Who Wrote the Gospels?​

Who Wrote the Gospels? With so much talk lately about the Gospels, I wonder, who wrote the Gospels and how do we know? To answer this question we must first be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (...

www.catholicculture.org
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up.

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form.

You're just regurgitating your religious, Catholic claims without a shred of evidence. All of the evidence points to the NT being heavily edited, redacted and fabricated from old unwritten, oral fables about Jesus and his apostles. You have no more evidence to the historicity of the stories of the Christian "NT" than the Jews have for their religious stories. If you want to argue from the atheist, secular position, with all of its critical biblical scholarship, at best we're even. It's a draw. Both the Jews and the Christians are up the creek, if you want to resort to secular biblical criticism and archeology. Surada, will kick both of our butts. That's why I don't debate Surada on this issue, because he/she will wipe the floor with my face.

Good discussion <poof>

 

[Red Front]

Good discussion <poof>

Proof of what? Speak clearly.

 

[kyzr]

Proof of what? Speak clearly.

<poof> means I'm gone, don't expect another reply for a while.

 

[Red Front]

<poof> means I'm gone, don't expect another reply for a while.

Oh I see. I saw "proof", not "poof". Got it.

 

[Libby von H]

Each different Christian sect criticizes the others and accuses each other of receiving the beast in his/her head. A lot more tolerance is needed.

But your stupidity adds nothing.
Tolerance is acting that you believe what you believe and not attributing bad will to those who think differently AS YOU ALMOST ALWAYS DO

 

[Donald H]

But your stupidity adds nothing.
Tolerance is acting that you believe what you believe .......................

Yes, it's all just acting for a lot of pretend Christians Libby. But not all! Some actually believe it all to be true.

 

[Libby von H]

Yes, it's all just acting for a lot of pretend Christians Libby. But not all! Some actually believe it all to be true.

I am a fully orthodox Catholic, Was in a strict religous order. Why lecture me?

 

[surada]

This is Revelation 14:9

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man shall adore the beast and his image and receive his character in his forehead or in his hand, 10He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath: and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torments, shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast and his image and whoever receiveth the character of his name. 12Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Also, RE works / salvation issue

13And I heard a voice from Heaven, saying to me: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. For their works follow them.

The beast was the Roman emperor either Nero or Dominitan.

In the context of Revelation, the "beast from the sea" clearly refers to the Roman emperor, probably Domitian, who ruled from 81-96 CE. The "beast from the land," then, most likely refers to a chief administrator of Roman rule in Ephesus and Asia Minor, i.e., the "henchman" of the Emperor