Mark of the Beast

[Dream]

Ok, I read through all this insanity . . . so, in reality what does this Mark of the Beast mean?

Its public today but its only something that initiates need to study. Basically it means "Be good". Its encouragement to believers. Lucifer isn't even mentioned.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Ciel, I asked you at #53 and I was referring mostly to what you wrote prior to that.
I'm not casting judgement on you...yet, I don't really know you very well so I can't say that you are arrogant. I interpreted in your text that you thought that views that differed from yours where wrong and that, in my opinion, is an arrogant way to view things.
I think, also, the fact that you had such a hard time seeing the opposite side, our side, gave me that impression.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Also NCOT is short for Nice Cup of Tea, that's a different guy, I'm ACUT or something.

 

[radarmark]

Here's one for you "Mark of the Beast" could be phylacteries, giving some hidden message that seemed appropriately anti-Jewish during the 70-140 years of Jewish persecution.

 

[Servetus]

Pax tecum, Thomas.

I've not read Hippolytus in depth …

At some point, you might consider doing so. I was at times gobsmacked while reading him and, especially during the recent fighting between Israel and Lebanon, was reminded of his specific references to the cities of Beirut and Tyre being among the first in the line of fire when once the State of Israel, or what sounds like a description of that state to me, is re-established in Hippolytus’s future and our past, as he predicted. He does give an interesting description of the “mark,” too, as burning incense to the emperor, as (member) Dream, I think it was, mentioned earlier, but I am able to see in that a reference to the reemergence of the Imperial Cult, even if in disguise, which requires, on pain of penalty, public displays of fealty (such as pledges of allegiance to flags, etc.).

Anyway, Hippolytus is a fascinating and early example of a Christian, rather close in both line and time to the Apostles, who did not read the book of Revelation as a recent history of the seven churches, exclusively, but extrapolated into the future and, by use of it, described events which sound sometimes remarkably, uncannily like our own.

and only touched on Blessed JHN's work... when I did my theology studies, our Institute was in his old house. (Maryvale in Birmingham. I'm sure the carpets were the same as the ones he walked on.)

Wow. That must be a venerable institution indeed. I’ve always been interested in the Oxford Movement and do (somewhat relatedly) enjoy reading G.K. Chesterton and his partner in ideological, that is to say, ultramontane crime , Hilaire Belloc.

Any 'revealed' text, that is a text inspire[d] by God (even though the words belong to the author) opens out, as it were, to the Absolute, and the Aeternal, and likewise speaks of aeternal themes, present yesterday, today and tomorrow, cloaked in contemporary cultural forms.

As I recall, and, again, it has been a long time since I’ve read him, he goes on to envision a time in his future during which not Ecclesiastical but rather Imperial Rome could rise again. That was one of his expressed fears –a return of pagan, Imperial Rome. Furthermore, while he was no fan of Islam, he also saw portents in the decline of the Ottoman Turks. To fast forward from his time until now, it might be worth noting that there is at least a fledgling “united” Europe, from the Atlantic increasingly to the Urals, and, meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI plaintively cries, from the sidelines, that “Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots,” despite the fact that whole swathes of Europe are evidently doing exactly that (else there would be no need for the papal injunction, or admonition).

I agree, but we (the Catholic Tradition) do not seek then to 'unlock' some secret message concealed in the text as do, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses. So the interpretive and prophetic reading of the text is speculative, and not a matter of doctrine.

I understand. As I see it, following the first parousia, and as it became an institution, the Roman Catholic Church became decidedly conservative vis-à-vis the second. St. Augustine’s City of God did much to calm apocalyptic nerves, but the apparently more excitable Joachin de Flores had a definite go at riling things up at the turn of the first millennium.

And I repeat, and I think Newman agrees, that the 'Babylon' spoken on in Revelation can be applied to any number of socio-political occurrences throughout history, and across a broad spectrum of cultures, from the usual suspects, such as communism, thru to my own speculations — relativism, consumerism, Hollywood, scientism ....

Don’t even get me started on the travesties and aberrations which spring from whatever "post-modernity" is called these days. Those last four do sound like prime candidates for (at least minor) horsemen of the apocalypse.

God bless

And to you.

 

[ciel_perdy]

Ciel, I asked you at #53 and I was referring mostly to what you wrote prior to that.
I'm not casting judgement on you...yet, I don't really know you very well so I can't say that you are arrogant. I interpreted in your text that you thought that views that differed from yours where wrong and that, in my opinion, is an arrogant way to view things.
I think, also, the fact that you had such a hard time seeing the opposite side, our side, gave me that impression.

Do you think my view is wrong or right? If you think it's right, surely you would agree with me. If you think it's wrong, you would challenge it correct? I can't see much difference between what I have been doing and what you have been doing.

 

[Quahom1]

Well, a cashless society is not going to happen except in the very wealthiest nations (Switzerland... not US or Europe). And for most of the world;s people (China and India) it will never happen. Three reasons: at the bottom there is just too little cash to convert, in the middle the average citizen has enough trouble with cash backed by gov't fiat, and at the top it macks too much of "Left Behind".

That being said, I do not believe that Revelation is prophesy any more than I believe Pi = 3. Just another Bible story.

Pax at amore omnia vincunt.

PI does equal 3. 1415926535897 9323846264338 3279502884197 1693993751058 2097494459230 7816406286208 9986280348253 4211706798214 8086513282306 6470938446095 5058223172535 9408128481117 4502841027019 3852110555964 4622948954930 3819644288109 7566593344612 8475648233786 7831652712019 0914564856692 3460348610454 3266482133936 0726024914127 3724587006606 3155881748815 2092096282925 4091715364367 8925903600113 3053054882046 6521384146951 9415116094330 5727036575959 1953092186117 3819326117931 0511854807446 2379962749567 3518857527248 9122793818301 1949129833673 3624406566430 8602139494639 5224737190702 1798609437027 7053921717629 3176752384674 8184676694051 3200056812714 5263560827785 7713427577896 0917363717872 1468440901224 9534301465495 8537105079227 9689258923542 0199561121290 2196086403441 8159813629774 7713099605187 0721134 ...and then some.

And did you not mean "Pax et amor omnia vincunt" ? There is a difference...

Just checking.

Q

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Do you think my view is wrong or right? If you think it's right, surely you would agree with me. If you think it's wrong, you would challenge it correct? I can't see much difference between what I have been doing and what you have been doing.

I'm not familiar with Revelations or much of the bible at all so I have no opinion of whether it is right. I have only come here, like a grinch, to question your attitude toward truth. What I think I said was that most of us here didn't consider your evidence to be evidence and I wanted to see if we could find some familiar ground to discuss the issue from. I gave up when you answered in a way that seemed, in my opinion, to be very stuck in your own shoes unwilling to see any other side. Later I asked if you consider yourself arrogant, mostly to read your response.

So, I'm not criticising what you say but how you say it.

 

[IowaGuy]

I guess I would like to ask my question again, as it is gone unanswered twice now. IF techonology/government move to create a new monetary system that involves taking something in your right hand or forehead, would you take it?

Yes, I would take it IN my right hand because the Revelations prophecy doesn't apply to IN the hand only UPON (epi) the hand/forehead.

Now, having said that, if 7 headed beasts with 10 horns start coming out of the earth I would cut off my right hand and resort to a barter system. And if the beasts start coming out before I'm offered the mark I would politely decline whether in the hand or on it as the Revelations author might have got his meaning wrong given that he didn't speak Greek so well as it was apparently his 2nd language

I do think the move to a cashless society is a good thing and is not associated with the Beast. Cashless means more efficient, that means more resources can be used for other things. Just think how many people (many on your continent) were mistreated with all the gold mining to make those gold coins and bars back when gold was the standard from Roman times up to a few decades ago...

Regards to the greek, on or in, doesn't really matter to me.

You don't think the original language the bible was written in matters? You don't think any meaning is lost in translation from Hebrew or Greek? Do you think all of the different english versions of the bible (KJV, NLV, LNT, etc) have exactly the same meaning?

You are using some literal words from Revelations (and other parts of the bible) to make your point, yet you easily dismiss the original meaning of IN vs. UPON as written in Greek?

As gung-ho as you are about the mark of the beast and not working for money I would think you might be interested in the original meaning of the prophecy as it was written in Greek.

But I prefer what Jesus came to teach which is the Kingdom of Heaven. Sharing. There's a strange concept, hey? Imagine a world where people shared their resources, as one family.

Actually, many Native American tribes on the West Coast of this country lived as you describe, sharing all of their resources. No one locked up their tipis. Hunting and gathering for their sustenance. That is, up until they were converted to Christianity and "put to work" by the Catholic missionaries

Reminds me of a verse from a favorite song:

"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world"

of course, in that same song, he challenges:

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today"

So yes, no possessions, no heaven/hell, and everyone living in the present moment (that includes not worrying about Revelations since there's no hell) would be an ideal world

Actually, I was thinking about this topic during my backpacking trip. There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world, out of 7 billion humans. If each Christian just helped out 2 or 3 others, there wouldn't be any hunger/poverty in the world. So, actually no need to give up working for money, just share some of your resources with a couple other folks and we'll all be good to go.

Another thought is if there were no churches and the 10% tithes from the 2.1 billion Christians were used to help the needy there would likely be no hunger/poverty either...

 

[radarmark]

First, Quahom 1, you are right (see below). Fat Fingers. I was refering to the "literal word of the bible" wherein Pi=3 (no point anything). I believe that revelations is what the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox state it is, an allegory of the Seven Churches of Asis Minor during the years after the First and before the Second Uprisings of Israel. No prophecies, zip, nada. And the reason why they (Eastern Chrisrians) do not use it in the liturgical (sp?) year is that it (like Kabbala in Orthodox Judaism) is just too tempting a path away from truth. Equally true is IG's correct in stating that the "literal word of G!d" in the Greek and Revelations says "upon" or "on" not "in". So, if someone wants to implant chips, have to (except that my serious, terminal case of liberal libertarianism will never let me voluntarily do that).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[Servetus]

As I recall, and, again, it has been a long time since I’ve read him [John Cardinal Newman], he goes on to envision a time in his future during which not Ecclesiastical but rather Imperial Rome could rise again. That was one of his expressed fears –a return of pagan, Imperial Rome. Furthermore, while he was no fan of Islam, he also saw portents in the decline of the Ottoman Turks. To fast forward from his time until now, it might be worth noting that there is at least a fledgling “united” Europe, from the Atlantic increasingly to the Urals, and, meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI plaintively cries, from the sidelines, that “Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots,” despite the fact that whole swathes of Europe are evidently doing exactly that (else there would be no need for the papal injunction, or admonition).

I had a chance yesterday to review John Henry Cardinal Newman’s above-linked sermons on the subject and am posting some excerpts here, for those who might be interested. His is a viewpoint expressed by an Anglican turned Roman Catholic whose life spanned practically the whole of the 19th Century, a period characterized by "rationalism." It seems to me that, if his statements cannot be spiritually appreciated (or even defended) as a sermon, they might in any case be admitted as of interest to historians. Consider these as Cliff Notes, but, as far as I know, there will be no examination to follow.

Sermon 1

“What I have said upon this subject may be summed up as follows:-that the coming of Christ will be immediately preceded by a very awful and unparalleled outbreak of evil, called in the text an apostasy, a falling away, in the midst of which a certain terrible man of sin and child of perdition, the special and singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist, will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail, and the present framework of Society breaks to pieces; that at present the Spirit which he will embody and represent, is kept under by "the powers that be," but that on their dissolution, he will rise out of the bosom of them, and knit them together again in his own evil way, under his own rule, to the exclusion of the Church.”

“In truth, every event in this world is a type of those that follow, history proceeding forward as a circle ever enlarging.”

“… I do not grant that the Roman empire is gone. Far from it: the Roman empire remains even to this day. These ten horns, an Angel informed him, "are ten kings that shall arise out of this kingdom" of Rome. As, then, the ten horns belonged to the beast, and were not separate from it, so are the kingdoms into which the Roman empire has been divided … And as the horns, or kingdoms, still exist, as a matter of fact, consequently we have not yet seen the end of the Roman empire.”

“… at this very time there is a fierce struggle, the spirit of Antichrist attempting to rise, and the political power in those countries [European monarchies] which are prophetically Roman, firm and vigorous in repressing it.”

Sermon 2

"I am come in MY FATHER'S Name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." This they [Church fathers] consider to be a prophetic allusion to Antichrist, whom the Jews were to mistake for the Christ. He is to come "in his own name."”

“Hence, considering that Antichrist would pretend to be the Messiah, it was of old the received notion that he was to be of Jewish race and to observe the Jewish rites.”

“…. Of course I must be understood to mean ... that this belief of the Church that Antichrist should be connected with the Jews, was expressed long before [the apostate] Julian's time, and that we still possess the works in which it is contained. We have the writings of two Fathers, both Bishops and martyrs of the Church, who lived at least one hundred and fifty years before Julian, and less than one hundred years after St. John. They both distinctly declare Antichrist's connection with the Jews. The one of them speaks as follows: "In the Temple which is at Jerusalem the adversary will sit, endeavouring to show himself to be the Christ." And the other says, "Antichrist will be he who shall resuscitate the kingdom of the Jews."”

“What makes this still more observable is that the recent Shadow of Antichrist [referring here to Napoleon Bonaparte, I presume], whom our fathers or we ourselves saw, by a sort of fatality (so to speak) took up the cause of the Jews and was almost hailed by them as their Messiah, and seemed to be drawn irresistibly towards and to hover about the Holy Land, which the early Church considered would be the scene of Antichrist's exploits.”

“… after having broken away from all restraint towards GOD and man, they [French revolutionaries] gave a name to the reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of God. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity."

"And further, let it be remarked that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet's vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour.”

“Now it is very observable that one of the two early Fathers whom I have already cited , expressly says that the ten states (the "toes" of Dan. ii.) which will at length appear, shall be democracies.”

“Another expectation of the early Church was that the Roman monster, after remaining torpid for centuries, would wake up at the end of the world, and be restored in all its laws and forms … One of the Fathers … expressly deduces … that "the system of Augustus, who was founder of the Roman Empire, shall be adopted and established by him (Antichrist), in order to his own aggrandizement and glory. This is the fourth monster whose head was wounded and healed; in that the empire was destroyed and came to naught, and was divided into ten. But at this time Antichrist, as being a man of resources, will heal and restore it; so that it will be active and vigorous once more through the system which he establishes.”

“... as far as the testimony of the early Church goes, Antichrist will be an open blasphemer, opposing himself to every existing worship, true and false,-a persecutor, a patron of the Jews, and a restorer of their worship, and, further, the author of a novel kind of worship. Moreover, he will appear suddenly, at the very end of the Roman empire, which once was and now sleeps; that he will knit it into one, and engraft his Judaism and his new worship (a sort of Paganism, it may be) upon the old discipline of Caesar Augustus; that in consequence he will earn the title of the Latin or Roman King, as best expressive of his place and character; lastly, that he will pass away as suddenly as he came.”

Sermon III

“… the Apostle's description was as signally fulfilled afterwards as a prophecy, as it was accurate at the time as an historical notice.”

“… we are sent back by the prophetic description to the seventh chapter of Daniel, in which the four great empires of the world are shadowed out under the figure of four beasts, a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a nameless monster, "diverse" from the rest, "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly;" "and it had ten horns." This surely is the very same beast which St. John saw: the ten horns mark it. Now this fourth beast in Daniel's vision is the Roman empire; therefore "the beast" on which the woman sat, is the Roman empire.”

“Now then, let us consider how far these prophecies have been fulfilled, and what seems to remain. In the first place, the Roman empire did break up, as foretold. It divided into a number of separate kingdoms, such as our own [British], France, and the like; yet it is difficult to number ten accurately and exactly.”

“… when the barbarians came down [to Rome], GOD had a people in that city. Babylon was a mere prison of the Church; Rome had received her [the church] as a guest ... Thus from the Goth, Hun, and Vandal, did the Christian Church shield the guilty city in which she dwelt.”

“… nor can reason be given why Rome has not fallen under the rule of GOD'S general dealings with His rebellious creatures, and suffered (according to the prophecy), the fulness of GOD'S wrath begun in her, except that a Christian Church is still in that city, sanctifying it, interceding for it, saving it. That part of the Christian Church, (alas!) has in process of time become infected with the sins of Rome itself, and learned to be ambitious and cruel after the fashion of those who possessed the place aforetimes. Yet if it were what some would make it, if it were as reprobate as heathen Rome itself, what stays the judgment long ago begun? … Why is not Rome as Sodom and Gomorrah, if there be no righteous men in it?

“The text speaks of the great persecution yet to come—and seems referred to by our LORD in His solemn prophecy before His passion, in which He comprises both series of events, both those which attended His first, and those which will attend at His second coming—both persecutions of His Church, the early and the late. He speaks as follows: "Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be; and except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened."”

“Let us then apprehend and realize the idea, thus clearly brought before us, that, sheltered as the Church has been from persecution for 1500 years, yet a persecution awaits it, before the end, fierce and more perilous than any which occurred at its first rise. Further, this persecution is to be attended with the cessation of all religious worship "They shall take away the Daily Sacrifice,"—words which the early Fathers interpret to mean, that Antichrist will suppress for three years and a half all religious worship. St. Augustine questions whether baptism even will be administered to infants during that season.”

“We suppose indeed that it [Roman empire] will not die without some violence even yet, without convulsions. Antichrist is to head it; yet in another sense it dies to make way for Antichrist, and this latter form of death is surely hastening on, whether it comes a few years sooner or later. It may outlast our time, and the time of our children; for we are creatures of a day, and a generation is like the striking of a clock; but it tends to dissolution, and its hours are numbered … "

"Again, another anxious sign at the present time is what appears in the approaching destruction of the [Islamic] power. This too may outlive our day; still it tends visibly to annihilation, and as it crumbles, perchance the sands of the world’s life are running out.”

 

[Quahom1]

First, Quahom 1, you are right (see below). Fat Fingers. I was refering to the "literal word of the bible" wherein Pi=3 (no point anything). I believe that revelations is what the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox state it is, an allegory of the Seven Churches of Asis Minor during the years after the First and before the Second Uprisings of Israel. No prophecies, zip, nada. And the reason why they (Eastern Chrisrians) do not use it in the liturgical (sp?) year is that it (like Kabbala in Orthodox Judaism) is just too tempting a path away from truth. Equally true is IG's correct in stating that the "literal word of G!d" in the Greek and Revelations says "upon" or "on" not "in". So, if someone wants to implant chips, have to (except that my serious, terminal case of liberal libertarianism will never let me voluntarily do that).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit slow sometimes, but I'll get there eventually

 

[radarmark]

yeah, you must forgive me, I am skeptical about everything. From relativity to the Copenhagen interpretation to truth to knowledge to post-modernism to "modern traditions" (Revelations being prophecy fall into the last category).

Peace and love will conquer all.

 

[Quahom1]

yeah, you must forgive me, I am skeptical about everything. From relativity to the Copenhagen interpretation to truth to knowledge to post-modernism to "modern traditions" (Revelations being prophecy fall into the last category).

Peace and love will conquer all.

Lol, understood. Been there, done that, own the tee shirt, got holes in it... indeed...
Pax et amore omnia vincuntes.

Q

 

[radarmark]

Is the "es" correct (so much for church latin!)?

 

[Quahom1]

Is the "es" correct (so much for church latin!)?

Fat fingers lol Vincunt is correct.

One could also say "Pax et amor vincit omnia."

 

[Servetus]

Servetus asks:

If the beast is a Roman Emperor or Persian King, how can he also have been Mu‘áwíyih, the Umayyad Caliph? I wonder if the Roman Emperor referred to here is one from the past, or the reincarnation of an old one (such as Nero, for instance) to arise in future?

My reply:

Yes I see what you mean.. Most Baha'is though are more familiar with the idea that Mu‘áwíyih, the Umayyad Caliph was the beast because it is referred to in the widely read book of Abdul-Baha's discussions "Some Answered Questions" and for Islam in our view Muawiyih was a indeed a "beast" as he usurped the Caliphate of Ali and his son Hasan..members of the Prophet's family. The Umayyads then eliminate the Imams descendents of Prophet Muhammad. So we Baha'is take a Shiah perspective up until the disappearance of the Twelfth Imam ...

Thank you. I am not sure whether, in your religion, you consider reincarnation a possibility and neither, for that matter, could I understand how the beast could refer at once to a Roman or Persian King and also to the Umayyad Caliph who was, as I understand, neither Roman nor Persian.

Anyway I thought offering a Baha'i persepctive on the prophecies in Revelation might be of interest.

I was and am interested in your offering. Do the Baha'is take a position on the ahadith of Bukhari concerning the rise of Dajjal?

 

[bob x]

There is also a viewpoint that prophecies are essentially timeless, and have multiple fulfillments in different ways at different times; so that the "Antichrist" could be Nero AND the Umayyad caliph AND a nasty king of Persia AND Napoleon AND Hitler AND somebody who will be emerging shortly, without any of those people being "reincarnations" of each other, just instances of a single archetype.

 

[radarmark]

Yep... so if not a prophecy (my belief), then it is Nero, if a timed prophecy (typical Protestant belief), it is someone emergent, if "timeless" (bobx's point) then could be any real baddie.

 

[Servetus]

There is also a viewpoint that prophecies are essentially timeless, and have multiple fulfillments in different ways at different times; so that the "Antichrist" could be Nero AND the Umayyad caliph AND a nasty king of Persia AND Napoleon AND Hitler AND somebody who will be emerging shortly, without any of those people being "reincarnations" of each other, just instances of a single archetype.

Thank you. I understand. This is somewhat in line with Cardinal Newman (above). Although he doesn’t use the word archetype, as I read him, he does see various personalities of the past, including, most notably, Antiochus Epiphanes, Julian (the Apostate), Muhammad and Napoleon Bonaparte as what he called “types,” or, in Pauline terms, shadows, of that which is ultimately to come. Here are two examples:

"In truth, every event in this world is a type of those that follow, history proceeding forward as a circle ever enlarging." (Cardinal Newman)

What makes this still more observable is that the recent Shadow of Antichrist [referring here to Napoleon Bonaparte, I presume], whom our fathers … saw … seemed to be drawn irresistibly towards and to hover about the Holy Land, which the early Church considered would be the scene of Antichrist's exploits. (Cardinal Newman)

I asked about reincarnation primarily because, as I understood arthra’s post, it was one way I saw to possibly reconcile what seemed to me the discrepancy between his (that is, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s) having said, in once instance, that the beast was Mu‘áwíyih, the Umayyad Caliph, and in another that it was (or will be?) a Roman Emperor or Persian King.