It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Revelation of the name of the Beast

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:08 PM
what about 1106,1206 and on
I think i must have missed somethig

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:12 PM
I posted on 07/06//2006 - I guess the antichrist dont notice that GMT is a bit ahead of your time zone - ah well

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by St Udio

but...the "Revelations (of Jesus Christ unto John)"
where the actual # of the Beast is laid out to 666...
was written on Patmos, by John, in the Greek language.

Why would old Hebrew be the official translation language of a 666 name value?


WEll John wasnt Greek was he ? The Christian God is supposed to have chosen Israel hsa His ppl... so why on Earth would he be speaking greek to John ?

He was arrested in Greece, he want born there.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by MrMicrophone
The following is a synopsis from the web site of Tim Cohen's book:
The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea

This is the foremost book on the subject of the AntiChrist in the world today. In The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea, Tim Cohen provides biblical evidence to demonstrate that all of the prophecies pertaining to the coming AntiChrist that can be fulfilled before he assumes control over a global government during the Great Tribulation are already fulfilled in a living prince of Roman lineage; this is true of no one else, not even that same prince's sons. This prince, for example, has the lineage: he claims descent simultaneously from Israel's King David, Islam's false prophet Mohammed, and, by way of a false occult lineage, Jesus Christ Himself! This prince has the imagery: his personal heraldic achievement or coat of arms has the literal symbolism of the first beast of Revelation 13, which represents the AntiChrist, and of Daniel 7 (i.e., the little horn having eyes like the eyes of a man a unicorn with human eyes). This prince's coat of arms also bears the red dragon described in Revelation 12 and 13, specifically representing Satan, and he was seen globally as he faced this dragon in 1969 to be coronated as "Prince of the Red Dragon" (i.e., Satan). This prince has the name calculation: his title, by which he is globally known, calculates to 666 in both Hebrew and English on the original biblical numbering system the very system used in the underlying Greek text of Revelation 13:18 to specify the number six-hundred and sixty-six. This prince has the involvement in the Mideast peace process. In fact, the current Road Map, as well as the Oslo process from which it derives, and the Madrid Peace talks from which the Oslo process itself derived, can be directly traced to the London Agreement of 1987, which in turn can be directly traced to...THIS PRINCE. Also, this prince has the global authority.... That's right he is not the ignored wimp that the masses have been misled to believe; rather, he is the number one globalist on the planet today, and has been for decades. Indeed, this prince is over the entire New World Order power structure. This is accomplished through the world's most prominent and oldest order of chivalry: the Order of the Garter. This order is very much more than merely a revival of King Arthur's legendary round table. And to top it all off, this prince NOW HAS THE IMAGERY OF WHAT COULD BE THE FUTURE ABOMINATION THAT CAUSES DESOLATION! What is that? In March 2002, while trekking through Brazilian rain forests, this prince was presented with a Brazilian state government inspired item: a miniature version of a statue depicting himself as an angelic figure with large wings standing atop a mass of human bodies looking up to him (this prince) as savior! In fact, the inscription on the base of this miniature statue reads "Saviour of the World"!!!

I'm not passing judgment on this theory, just thought this was interesting considering the previous news story released today.Text

once again I must remind you that it's not the anti-christ,... this man might be bad as all,... but seeing as the antichrist isn't actually mentioned in therse prophecies you can't just make up new character and say that something represents them. How do you know that's what it mean unless it has come out and said it. There is no interpretation that says that this beast is the representation of the "Anti-Christ". As for Islam,... Ino big fan of the or what they do,... but let's face it, technically theur the real heirs to the promised land. They are the decendents of the first born of Abraham (Ishmael). He was disowned by his father (Abraham) because of who his mather was for the most part. And I can't count the number of time that the Jews have committed genocide alll in the name of the lord. (kind like the crusades),...

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:48 PM

you are not entirly accurate. the WHOLE bible was not originally written in hebrew. just the old testiment. the new testiment which includes the book of revelation and 666 was written in ancient Greek. therefore its calculation should be used in accordance with the Greek Alphabet since the alphabet has numerical values as well.

as far as john not speaking Greek, he did as did all of the apostles. and most of the jews at that time that lived outside of israel spoke greek as well, hence the reason why there is the septuligent (sp?) which is the old testiment written in Greek, which is actually quoted by several of the apostles in the new testiment word for word. this is because Jews outside of israel in rome and elsewhere faced persecution during this time and their language in a certian sense was outlawed so the septuligent was created so they could continue their worship during the hellinstic period and so on in a language that was permitted. and like i said the part of the proof that the apostles spoke greek including john is because the septuligent is quoted word for word when refering to many things in the old testiment. many christians use the book of isaiah as one of their proofs that christ was prophesied in the old testiment by saying that the book states that "He will be born of a virgin." because the apostles in the new testiment quote it this way. however in the hebrew old testiment isaiah would have read that "he would be born of a young woman." so why would they be quoting from this greek version of the old testiment, because that is all that was available at the time due to the persecution of the jews outside of their holyland. so yes the new testiment was in Greek any historian will tell you that and if you look up information on John, you will see that he spoke greek as well, he wrote other books in Greek besides revelation, and he headed a church in ephesus which is a Greek District, if you traveled in ancient Greece knowing the language was required for certian things such as trade and commerce as well as religious practices (ie the example of the Jews i gave previously).

just because he wasnt greek in ethinicity doesnt mean he didnt speak it. take a look at the apostle paul for instance: he was a jew, a roman citizen, but he spoke Greek.

so it makes sense that you translate 666 using the Greek alphabet. since all of the people that could have read the book would have had to read it in greek.

Kind Regards,

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:33 AM
so, if "the beast" is coming for his 7 year war or what-ever, won't things be spoiled by so many people claiming to know who he is, what he will do, it's all foretold, etc & etc. personally, if i was "the beast", i wouldn't be worrying too much about planning anything, everyone already knows!

sarcasism aside, too many put too much time into worrying about the AC and not enough about fulfilling their life. what a shame.

and by the way, i am a satanist and i'm not waiting for his return or comeing, we'll destroy ourselves long before any such thing could ever happen.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:41 AM
I still don't understand why christians don't realize that the 'anti-christ' is not 'the beast.' the term antichrist isn't even in revalations....criminy. I've already posted this in another forum, but I suppose you need to see it again:

1st John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

That means there have already been more than 1....2 thousand years ago.

1st John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

That means that anyone who is not not christian is an antichrist (which there were many of back then I suppose)

1st John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world"

Basically just combining the first two mentionings of antichrist.

2nd John 7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Again, anyone and everyone who 'does not confesseth' (haha) that Jesus came down in the flesh (I confessth he did not, meh) is an antichrist.

And those are the ONLY 4 TIMES the term ANTICHRIST appears in the bible. Please, for the love of your god, tell me what that has to do with 6/6/6?!?!?!

seriously, if you're going to be a christian, learn the bible more than a heathen antichrist like me.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:43 AM
By the time the beast is in power, the world will be screwed. Chrisitans know he is coming, but by the time most people realise it, it will be way to late. So thats the reason why it dosent matter if every one knows of the beast. Maybe the beast is already in place in one of the worlds biggest governments. Maybe the beast is bill gates lol.

I personally dont care because I have nothing to fear.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:45 AM
I am pretty sure there is three anti christ, and then comes the beast at the end of times.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:47 AM
I am not sure...

Isnt The Antichrist:
3)Not Yet Known

Then comes the Beast when the final antichrist ruels the world?

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Then comes the Beast when the final antichrist ruels the world?

Look in your concordance in your bible. The term antichrist is only mentioned 4 times, all in the letters form john, NOT revalations. John described the antichristS as just people who didn't belive that Jesus was god in the flesh. That's it. The end. That means 4-5 billion people are all antichrists, that are ALIVE. Let alone all the dead antichrists since the begginning of the common era.

In fact, antichrist in the bible is never hyphenated, nor capitalized. It's just stories that came fro medieval europe and crazy popes. somehow, they make the roun in todays churches, and never get checked by the masss. Just ingested and taken in.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:08 AM
Jesus was never GOD in the flesh Jesus is GODS Son, theres a big difference.

Heres A Link Of Wikipedia For Antichrist:


posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:10 AM
Can someone help me here?
I thought the bible was written in several different languages prior to being put together and translated by the Catholic Church.

What language were the books that were not included by the church written in?

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:44 AM
What does that mean?

Mostly it's interpreted by gematria. As has been pointed out here however, Revelations was never a Hebrew book, not part of the Torah at all, and would indeed have been written in Greek originally. Unless there are some Aramaic scrolls out there that were later transcribed.

A mark for buying and selling could well indicate the Universal Product Code - but how is that the number of a man?

Then the further problem of anything that is predicted in advance of it occuring - why wouldn't there be people trying to name things or do things so that it matches up to some prediction made? How would you then tell the difference between anyone it may have designated from someone who has been named or whatever to seem to be who it designated?

Looking at the King James Revelations text it sure can be seen as symbolicly describing all kinds of things that go down these days. For example this bit here,

"And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;"

Revelations 13:14 (partial)

That, in context, seems to be about the actual means that make war, and if someone in the past were to do something like remote-view what is happening today then perhaps they might record it as something like having seen a person on TV describe the intent to war and because they do not state how that will happen (because we today all know it'll be by way of a military and armed forces so there's no need to say that every time) then this could be interpreted as them decieving people as to how their 'miracles' of fire from the sky will occur.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:52 AM
Thank you,

But have not those same texts been the subject of debate for centuries without any true revelations? No pun intended.

I have heard many interpretations and most of them do not agree with each other.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:37 AM

no the books were not all in different languages. old testiment was in hebrew the new in ancient Greek.

the catholic church also did not translate the books either, nor did they put them together. there is a misconception that the catholic church is the first historical church. at the begining of christendom there was one unified christian church..the term used was "one holy catholic apostolic church" this is not the catholic church we know today. this church was a combination of christians from the Byzantine empire and the roman empire. for a long time it existed without a pope and theories concerning mary etc... in 1054 the roman empire decided to launch the crusades the byzantine christians disagreed and in 1203 the roman empire/western christian church sacked constantnople which was the center for byzantine chrisitianity. the church, one holy apostolic church was already being strained due to the roman empires change of doctrine and imparting the office of the pope etc...but the sack of constantnople sealed the deal. the start of the crusades is what really divided christendom and "The Great Schism" is dated at 1054. from this point on you have western christianity (roman) and then you have byzantine christianity, which is now called orthodox christianity. orthodox dont recognized the pope and they do not agree with the idea that mary was immaculatly concepted like christ. they also dont believe in purgatory. there are other things. pretty much they stay with the tradition that the one holy church laid out that was from 787 and back, except for the pope thing. Christen masses were originally called liturgies and they were done in Greek, the roman empire decided to call it mass later in history and changed over the language to latin mainly for political reasons.

so basically it wasnt the roman catholics that did the putting of the books together it was all of christiandom. the latin translation of the bible wasnt even done until Jerome translated it into to latin many years later.

here is a short timeline that will show you how the early church was actually formed and how orthodox christians maintained old traditions. not to imply that catholics are bad or anything, im just speaking in terms of history, here are the facts.

hope this helps

(just scroll down a bit until you get to a huge chart. this is the clearest one online i could find)


[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:40 AM
I didn't even try to answer your question if you meant me! I think that it all boils down to - Hebrew for the books that were from the Torah (most of the Old Testament), Aramaic for the likes of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek for the New Testament, and then those all (excepting perhaps some of the Scrolls as they hadn't been rediscoverd until about 1945) would have been translated into Latin. Then into English - I think the King James edition used English when it was compiled, that was just after the era of Shakespeare and Marlowe when English was a new language. But the Mass was said in Latin for a long time after, that's Catholic though, not sure about in England.

Don't know about other European languages.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Jesus was never GOD in the flesh Jesus is GODS Son, theres a big difference.

Heres A Link Of Wikipedia For Antichrist:


Read I John 4:3 and II John 7

He says, straight out, that if you don't believe Jesus is the flesh of God, then you are one of the many antichrists.

And, from the first link YOU gave me:

Contrary to a popular misconception and to the surprise of many Christians and non-Christians, the actual words "Antichrist" or "Antichrists" do not appear in the entire text of the Book of Revelation (e.g. in relation to the Tribulation, Beast, Dragon, Whore of Babylon, False Prophet, etc.), the Book of Daniel (e.g. in relation to the Abomination of Desolation or the Beasts/Empires) or Paul's passages on the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2. The words "Antichrist" or "Antichrists" are never used by Christ during his ministry, including his discussion about the signs of the "End of the Age" in Matthew 24. While the word "Antichrist" does not appear in these sources, the concept has been recognized in that "scripture warns against a false Christ image that becomes a living icon, and an object of worship (Revelation 13:14-15). Satan's plan is to be worshiped as God and Savior (Isaiah 14:12-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; 2 Corinthians 11:14" (excerpt from Norbert H. Kox's artist's statement at

Thank you for proving my point.

Thus the term 'antichrists' is never mentioned near or in relation to ANYTHING about the beast or false prophets or even armageddon. For Christs' (ha) sake, am I the only one who sees this?!

[edit on 6/8/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:51 PM
I don't believe in the Anti-Christ.... to me its a phrase penned by the writers of the Bible to keep the believers, believing.

To make my point, if I don't believe in the word of Christ, does that make me an Anti-Christ?

I don't believe in Nuclear Weapons so some may say I'm Anti-Nuke. I hope that this makes sense.

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

noone has to buy the book, at least i didn't .. all the info about who the Antichrist is and who he is connected to is THERE. if ppl took the time to read it properlty, instead of the same old bullcrap criticism ..

I read the website, and it just didn't seem to hold much water. The little warnings like, if you say matreiya, you will summon a demon, or possibly the devil himself. I said it a few times, and got nothing. It doesn't really seem like much of what he is saying is that new, either. It's just another bible code reading, and it seems to me that he got lucky with finding one that was also in another religion. Adds to the appeal. I wasn't making fun of you, I just don't believe it, that's all.

It says its a possibility...obviosuly summoning spirits is not just a question of SAYING a name over and over again... im glad you know nothing about it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in