Revelation; The Beast- 666

Originally posted by passingthought
The Numerologists like simple factoids to play with. Which, is taken to the stage to let you know which CD's to purchase if that is you listening pleasure.
It might as well read +$6.66 plus tax, in my opinion.

Thank you for that contribution.
I'm inclined to agree that numerology has limited usefulness.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by passingthought
Traditional Theolegists point to the fact that Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, and other assorted Demons are the true evil stated within the text that makes up Modern Day Christian Biblical texts.

I think the general understanding is that there is an over-arching power of evil whch may be labelled by these various names.
That is what Revelation means when it gives us the picture of the dragon in ch12.

Originally posted by bekod
i wonder if not knowing Hebrew is a no no? If you can not read the true word then ? but then all things will be known when he comes.

I shouldn't worry too much about that.
Knowing Hebrew, or at least paying attention to writers who know Hebrew, is useful when it comes to fine details of the text.
But the things that really matter, the elements of salvation, depend on ideas that can be easily translated, eg that Christ died for us and rose from the dead.



[edit on 29-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Well an excellently crafted thread OP, thank you.

Your position is right, anyone can take 666 and make it mean almost anything. And i think that's what was in revelation, let him who understands, and frankly if you think it was hitler, billybob blythe or anyone else you're not understanding.

Funkydung has it pretty good i think, it's about "the babylonian system" of man. Money, centralised government, and no God in there anywhere.

The idea of man setting himself up us God, of humanity worshipping itself, via a "supreme example" leader is ... human nature. Typical really.

Man, man man ... thats what this verse tells me. And frankly it will be MAN vs GOD. All this time we are able to sit here and discuss it ... well time is running out. It is coming, everyone knows, and yet, what makes people shrink back from this realisation? Fear i guess. The usual.

DO NOT BE AFRAID ... why is that so obvious, and so hard?

We're more scared of losing man's "respect" than of losing God's. That's not rational!!! Ok, i'm ranting too, a very emotive topic!

peace and love

reply to post by DISRAELI


ah men, for he is our lord and the way, and i do not let 666 get to me, it is just a number. now the mark, now that is something to avoid.

The Bible speaks of this mark associated with the number of the beast being given on the wrist or forehead. This would be a mark that would contain all your information and allow you to pa5rticipate in the economy.

Back in the 70's in church we saw a documentary about this info and it was said there was an English company who had designed AND BUILT this exact system and it was in computer language based on 666 which had something to do with multiples of 18 in the software code if I remember correctly.

It was said that this system did indeed exist and was just waiting "underground" outside of public knowledge to be put into place.

That was so very long ago, I was a young teen and do not remember any other details but if true...

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The Bible speaks of this mark associated with the number of the beast being given on the wrist or forehead. This would be a mark that would contain all your information and allow you to pa5rticipate in the economy.

Back in the 70's in church we saw a documentary about this info and it was said there was an English company who had designed AND BUILT this exact system

I'm in the middle of writing and rewriting my piece on the Mark, and I don't want to anticipate too much.
I'd like to point out, though, that in ch14 the people who have "taken the mark" are pointed out as the enemies of God. That makes no sense unless taking the mark is a voluntary decision, by people making a deliberate choice. God is not going to make you his enemy on account of something which has been effectively forced upon you.
I think that point should help to control our understanding of what the "mark" might be.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
God is not going to make you his enemy on account of something which has been effectively forced upon you.
I think that point should help to control our understanding of what the "mark" might be.

My understanding from this documentary and other things I have seen suggest that this may be a voluntary thing not forced.

In other words it wont by any government doing this for the economy. It wll be another faction that is then in control of some type of banking system and they would use this system. Just like choosing a type of credit card.

However this is only theories based on what little we do have in the Bible.

i'm working on the theory that the 10 horns of the first beast are the 10 lost tribes of israel

the 2 horns of the second beast that is 'like a lamb' being the 2 'unlost' tribes

the capital of the northern kingdom was samaria, the capital of the southern kingdom was jerusalem

the 7 heads i think happen in succession and not all at once. this means 7 times has/will the beasts come into being, that being one sole ruler over all the kingdoms of the world.

at the time of Christ, the roman empire was in power and its sole ruler was julius caesar. this empire was the sixth head. the one that was mortally wounded. it was wounded by the Word of God which is also known as the Sword, which was prophecied to bruise the head of the serpent in the book of genesis.

Revelation 17:10
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.


these 7 kings are the ones who are the rulers of the kingdoms. The first 5 are fallen, naming exactly who they were would be interesting but really irrelevant as we are living in the time of the 6th and 7th king.

the one that currently is, is Jesus Christ the King! The 7th head is not yet come, at least i for one have not seen him in my holy place yet.

Jesus also said something interesting to the samarian woman at the well.

1.John 4:18
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly

samaria which represents the 10 lost tribes of israel has had 5 husbands, who are now fallen. Jesus is the current husband and is not the husband of samaria, he is the husband of jerusalem.

jerusalem which represents the 2 unlost tribes, is mystery babylon.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

And I stand by my other point, that Jesus canot be a false imitator of himself.

But can a false imitator be Jesus? Does he say many will come in his name claiming to be christ? What is that name they will come in?

So false imitators will have the name Jesus and claim to be Christ with many being deceived into following after them? So a false imitator can be Jesus which means Jesus can be a false imitator. That is why he says "make sure the light that is in you isn't darkness" and "Satan masquerades as and angel of LIGHT" as well as "there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death" and "many are called but FEW are chosen".

Manuscripts like the Caesarean, the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, and others support Barabbas' name to be Jesus Barabbas. It's thought the name Jesus was left out of manuscripts for reverence sake. They evidently preferred to not have the name Jesus attached to someone who was considered a sinner. Regardless of this fact it still was and is his name.

You say Jesus can't be a false imitator of himself? But Barabbas' name was the "name above all names" and the people wanteed this Jesus released to them even though this Jesus was a lawless one.

Bar-Jesus whose name means "the son of Jesus" is a false prophet as well. So yes, Jesus the lawless one and his son the false prophet are the false imitators. That is why the name Jesus adds up to 616 because this is the name of the antichirst. The false teachings of today back this up. It is an empty way of life handed down to us by our forefathers. That is why he says to Christians and those in the world "come out of her my children".

reply to post by iamnot

Thank you for that contribution.
I wonder if you've seen my thread on "The Beast from the sea"? You're not one of the people who dropped in a reply, anyway.

Just for comparison purposes;
In that thread, I agreed with your assumption that the seven heads come in succession. One of the key points leading me to that conclusion was that after the "mortal wound" business, the world wonders after the Beast- as though the "head" and the Beast were the same thing. I drew the inference that the heads were coming in succession, so that each in turn was what I called "the current manifestation of the Beast".

This was my comment on the "ten horns", drawing on the fact that in ch17 they are described as "ten kings" who have given over their authority to the Beast and rule in conjunction with it;

"10" has been described as the number of completeness or perfection. [mistyped in the original as "completeness OF perfection"] In my mind, the number "10" is pointing us towards "the full extent of the world". The implication is that the "ten kings" are ruling the world between them, and that the Beast is dominating the world with their assistance.

I expect you remember the "Ringwraiths" in Tolkien's book, which are obviously a fairly direct steal from the kings of ch17. Tolkien says that Sauron recruited these kings; maddeningly, he does not make it clear whether Sauron recruited existing kings, and gave them rings, or whether he recruited ordinary men and used his power to enable them to become kings. As far as Revelation is concerned, I think the wording of ch17 vv12-13 favours the first option.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by The Riley Family

You have serious flaws in your argument. Part of your technique is the old logical sleight-of-hand which involves changing definitions in the middle of the argument. I'm going to spell out your line of argument, so that what you're doing can be seen more clearly;

LINE 1; False imitators will have the name Jesus...
LINE 2; So a false imitator can be Jesus...
LINE 3; Which means that Jesus can be a false imitator, because he says...

Nobody can quarrel with LINE 1. It is part of the definition of an antichrist that he will claim the identity of Jesus and therefore claim his names.

But the "So" at the beginning of LINE 2 is fraudulent, because LINE 1 does not genuinely lead to that conclusion.
The only genuine conclusion you can draw from LINE 1 is;
"LINE 2; So a false imitator can be someone calling himself Jesus."
You don't put it that way, because it doesn't suit your purpose.

Your purpose becomes evident in LINE 3, where you are talking about the Jesus speaking in the New Testament and taught by the church- I'll call this the RealJesus, so that I don't have to keep repeating a long phrase.
The opening words "Which means that" are, again, fraudulent, because you are trying to imply that LINE 2 has said something about the RealJesus. And that is not the case. LINE 2, if it is presented honestly, says something about a man who falsely calls himself Jesus, and nothing more.

I would pinpoint the end of LINE 2 as the place where you deftly try to change the subject of discussion from "someone calling himself Jesus" to "the RealJesus", hoping that nobody would notice the switch. Well, I noticed the switch, buddy. You're trying to pull a fast one on us.

Satan has been known as a source of deception from the beginning.
If your method of argument involves using this kind of deceptive sleight-of-hand, what does that say about the origin of your reasoning?

I have told you that Jesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
That statement is necessarily true, because of the definition of the word "imitator".
Part of the definition of an imitator is that an imitator is NOT the original.
Therefore it follows, conversly, that the original CANNOT be an imitator.
Therefore NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, can be a false imitator of itself.
Therefore the RealJesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
If you try to maintain that anything can be a false imitator of itself, you are misusing the language and coming to an irrational conclusion..

If you are using deceptive methods of argument in the hope of demonstrating an irrational conclusion, what does that say about the origin of your reasoning?

We've been told about the spirit of antichrist, and we can guess what the agenda of that spirit would be;
What is your agenda?
If you are trying to turn the minds of people against the Jesus speaking in the New Testament and taught by the church, what does that say about the origin of your teaching?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by The Riley Family

 

Nobody can quarrel with LINE 1. It is part of the definition of an antichrist that he will claim the identity of Jesus and therefore claim his names.

Yep

I have told you that Jesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
That statement is necessarily true, because of the definition of the word "imitator".
Part of the definition of an imitator is that an imitator is NOT the original.

Exactly the point. The Jesus of today with all of the idolatry, and the fraudulent bible teachings, as well as the false doctrines is not the original by any means. Two thousand years of deception. The disciples verify its beginnings back then. The different "supposed" good news was being preached at that time and has continued to this day. Even the Catholic church knows she is the mother of the other Christian churches.

Therefore it follows, conversly, that the original CANNOT be an imitator.
Therefore NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, can be a false imitator of itself.
Therefore the RealJesus cannot be a false imitator of himself.
If you try to maintain that anything can be a false imitator of itself, you are misusing the language and coming to an irrational conclusion..

We never said the true christ is an imitator of himself. We are saying the Jesus that Christianity teaches is not the true Christ but the imitator himself.

If you are trying to turn the minds of people against the Jesus speaking in the New Testament and taught by the church, what does that say about the origin of your teaching?

So you are saying all of the "churches" teach the true Christ? Including Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Bahai, Islam, Catholicism, Baptist, Born Agains, etc... etc... etc... and all their doctrines and teachings are of the true Christ? We don't believe the one taught in any of the churches is the true Christ. Calling youself or others a Christian is not what saves you or any one else. As a metter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the bible that states anyone has to even become a Christian to be saved. Many understand the disciples never had any formal "name" for themselves. They were called Christians by the Romans who occupied Antioch Greece. It was a name meant as offense and ridicule. He says "not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom but only those who obey my father".

’This same holds true today

Matthew 15:8 ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.’”

Matthew 7:22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ 7:23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.

So Yes, Jesus is the antichrist. ("so" is not fraudulent but Jesus is)

Revelation 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.

Revelation 19:12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has names written and a name written which no one knows but he himself. 19:13 He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called “The Word of God.”

Originally posted by The Riley Family
Exactly the point. The Jesus of today with all of the idolatry, and the fraudulent bible teachings, as well as the false doctrines is not the original by any means.

So you are saying that everything found in the Bible about Jesus is false?
Obviously you can have no Biblical evidence for that, and Biblical evidence is what matters for Christian teaching.

So you are saying all of the "churches" teach the true Christ? Including Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Bahai, Islam, Catholicism, Baptist, Born Agains, etc... etc... etc... and all their doctrines and teachings are of the true Christ?

What on earth gives you the idea that I would count Islam, Bahai, the Mormons, as churches? Where have you seen me say that? When have you heard any Christian say it, for that matter? "Deliberately exaggerating the views of the other party to make them sound more absurd"- I think there's a technical name for that particular rhetorical device, but I can't remember it at the moment.

My reference point is the Christ found in the New Testament. If a church is teaching Christ out of the New Testament, that's good enough for me.

Calling youself or others a Christian is not what saves you or any one else. As a metter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the bible that states anyone has to even become a Christian to be saved... It was a name meant as offense and ridicule.

Again, I have never suggested that "calling yourself a Christian" was the way to get saved, You seem to be arguing with somebody else. It is the fact of the relation with Christ that matters, not the exact name being used. Paul describes the fact in terms like "belonging to Christ, being in Christ", and so on.

On the suggestion that the name was originally meant offensively, why should that matter? Are you not aware of the many occasions in history when people have deliberately adopted a nickname that was originally meant insultingly? Psychologically, it's a way of expressing defiance. Have you never heard of the British soldiers who proudly called themselves "The Old Contemptibles"? Have you never heard of the "Beggars" who led the Dutch revolt? So you're trying to discredit the name "Christian" as well as the name "Jesus"? Water off a duck's back.

So Yes, Jesus is the antichrist. ("so" is not fraudulent but Jesus is)

OK, I note the fact that you're hostile to Jesus. Other Christians will also take note, and know how to categorise you.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by The Riley Family
Exactly the point. The Jesus of today with all of the idolatry, and the fraudulent bible teachings, as well as the false doctrines is not the original by any means.

So you are saying that everything found in the Bible about Jesus is false?
Obviously you can have no Biblical evidence for that, and Biblical evidence is what matters for Christian teaching.

No, and it is clear we have not stated anything in the bible is false. The false doctrines and false teachings of Christianity are false, don't even need be selective of which ones, they can't even agree on teachings, doctrines, or bible translations. History and the bible is evidence of all of this.

So you are saying all of the "churches" teach the true Christ? Including Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Bahai, Islam, Catholicism, Baptist, Born Agains, etc... etc... etc... and all their doctrines and teachings are of the true Christ?

What on earth gives you the idea that I would count Islam, Bahai, the Mormons, as churches? Where have you seen me say that? When have you heard any Christian say it, for that matter? "Deliberately exaggerating the views of the other party to make them sound more absurd"- I think there's a technical name for that particular rhetorical device, but I can't remember it at the moment.

They all believe in Jesus. Don't you believe the church is wherever two or more who believe in Jesus gather together. However we do understand that most Christians consider their church building to be the "house of God", which of course it isn't.

My reference point is the Christ found in the New Testament. If a church is teaching Christ out of the New Testament, that's good enough for me.

"So", you are also a Mormon then. However, none of the Christian churches teach a christ from the New Testament, though it may appear they do they all teach their own doctrines which are contrary to scripture.

Calling youself or others a Christian is not what saves you or any one else. As a metter of fact there is absolutely nothing in the bible that states anyone has to even become a Christian to be saved... It was a name meant as offense and ridicule.

Again, I have never suggested that "calling yourself a Christian" was the way to get saved, You seem to be arguing with somebody else. It is the fact of the relation with Christ that matters, not the exact name being used. Paul describes the fact in terms like "belonging to Christ, being in Christ", and so on.

On the suggestion that the name was originally meant offensively, why should that matter? Are you not aware of the many occasions in history when people have deliberately adopted a nickname that was originally meant insultingly? Psychologically, it's a way of expressing defiance. Have you never heard of the British soldiers who proudly called themselves "The Old Contemptibles"? Have you never heard of the "Beggars" who led the Dutch revolt? So you're trying to discredit the name "Christian" as well as the name "Jesus"? Water off a duck's back.

Nothing biblical said to call each other by the name Christian. But those that do don't even accept each others Christian "faith". To be a Christian also means you bear the responsibility for all of Christianity and its anti-christ behavior. Your ancestors are guilty of many atrocities including to many tribes in the US in the name of your God. Our God on the other hand said treat others as you want to be treated. "So", are you gonna at least pay reparations and give the land back?

Yes it is a name of defiance but one towards the Creator.

So Yes, Jesus is the antichrist. ("so" is not fraudulent but Jesus is)

OK, I note the fact that you're hostile to Jesus. Other Christians will also take note, and know how to categorise you.

Thank you for that. That is how God of course says his prophets would be treated.

Originally posted by The Riley Family
The false doctrines and false teachings of Christianity are false, don't even need be selective of which ones, they can't even agree on teachings, doctrines, or bible translations. History and the bible is evidence of all of this.

I note vague waffle, absence of specifics.

Don't you believe the church is wherever two or more who believe in Jesus gather together. However we do understand that most Christians consider their church building to be the "house of God", which of course it isn't.

Another slightly baffling reference to something I haven't said.

My reference point is the Christ found in the New Testament. If a church is teaching Christ out of the New Testament, that's good enough for me.

"So", you are also a Mormon then.

Once again, that word "so" (you seem rather proud of it now) introduces dud reasoning.
a) The Mormons teach Christ out of books other than the New Testament.
b) If I did believe the Mormons were Christians, how would "you are a Mormon" follow from that?

To be a Christian also means you bear the responsibility for all of Christianity and its anti-christ behavior.

No it doesn't. I can't be responsible for everything any Christian has ever done, and I'm not going to try.

Your ancestors are guilty of many atrocities including to many tribes in the US in the name of your God. Our God on the other hand said treat others as you want to be treated. "So", are you gonna at least pay reparations and give the land back?

None of my ancestors have been anywhere near the US. I haven't got your land.

My criticism of your "so" really smarts, doesn't it?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X
Yes, I think its time for humanity to reject any exegesis that is not inclusive for all humanity.

This is very ironic. I have a recent thread on the subject of "the Beast", in which the central topic is this very same "worship of humanity", which. I think, you would want to advocate. I treat it as part of the very essence of the rule of "the Beast".

The Beast- great ruler and antichrist

[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Hello DISRAELI, I want to talk about the "worship of humanity", which you seem to think I would want to advocate. Is this the appropriate thread?

I think there is a difference between worshiping humanity and having an exegesis that is inclusive for all humanity. I think that it is possible to transcend the cultural and temporal divisions between religions...including Christianity.

All religions, including Christianity, are one. The differences are illusion and vanity, as Rumi said.

"Every war
and every conflict between human beings has happened because
of some disagreement about

names. It’s such an unnecessary foolishness, because just
beyond the arguing there’s a long

table of companionship, set and waiting for us to sit down.

What is praised is one, so the praise is one too,
many jugs being poured

into a huge basin. All religions, all this singing,
one song.

The differences are just illusion and vanity. Sunlight
looks slightly different

on this wall than it does on that wall and a lot different
on this other one, but

it is still one light. We have borrowed these clothes, these
time-and-space personalities,

from a light, and when we praise, we pour them back in.
“… Move beyond any attachment to names.” -Rumi

I think the essence of the rule of the "Beast" is materialism, scientism, consumerism, greed. These are how the mislead "worship" humanity.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

reply to post by Student X

My comment was originally based on your remark that, to Christians, your suggestion might look like "the one-world religion of the antichrist".

OK, I accept that what you're advocating is not the same thing as the "humanity worship" being discussed in this OP.

But I think it might fit very well into my conception of a future "one-world religion" for a different reason.

In my mind, the "exclusive" aspect of Biblical religion, the "You shall have no other gods but me", is actually abolutely central to its nature. And for that reason, I would see any kind of syncretism as hostile to its nature- "life-threatening", in fact. I don't see that the "all religions are the same underneath approach" can be compatible with the Christian one. So any attempt to bring them under the same umbella would certainly meet with resistance from people like me- and then you might get precisely the situation described at the end of ch13.

I might add to this when I've come out of this edit and given myself another chance to look at your post.

Originally posted by Student X

All religions, including Christianity, are one. The differences are illusion and vanity, as Rumi said.

On the other hand, for example;
The Christian faith believes that the fact that Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead is esssential to the relationship between ourselves and God.
Other religions believe this is not the case.
Whatever the truth is, one of these viewpoints has got to be wrong.
The teaching is either true and essential and not true and not essential.
It is not logically possible for them both to be right or equally right.
Therefore there is a fundamental difference, and I don't think that can be transcended.
If Rumi is right, then Christianity is wrong. You cannot bring Christianity into what he is doing.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Student X

 

My comment was originally based on your remark that, to Christians, your suggestion might look like "the one-world religion of the antichrist".

OK, I accept that what you're advocating is not the same thing as the "humanity worship" being discussed in this OP.

Good.

But I think it might fit very well into my conception of a future "one-world religion" for a different reason.

It might.

In my mind, the "exclusive" aspect of Biblical religion, the "You shall have no other gods but me", is actually absolutely central to its nature. And for that reason, I would see any kind of syncretism as hostile to its nature- "life-threatening", in fact. I don't see that the "all religions are the same underneath approach" can be compatible with the Christian one. So any attempt to bring them under the same umbrella would certainly meet with resistance from people like me- and then you might get precisely the situation described at the end of ch13.

I see where you are coming from. I understand completely. And if the situation requires resistance from people like you, I would understand why you resist.

I would understand but I would be frustrated because the entire situation is entirely avoidable. If only the fields of comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism were front and center in the minds of both sides, then all these problems would be avoided.

Have you read The Perennial Philosophy?

I believe one can be a Christian and a perennial philosopher at the same time.

I don't believe it's possible to be a religious fundamentalist and a perennial philosopher at the same time.

I don't believe it's possible to be marked by the Beast and be a perennial philosopher at the same time.