Mark of the Beast

[Thomas]

The Book of Revelation was disputed by the community for a long time, and for many reasons.

It is widely believed by scholars today that the book was addressed to a community suffering persecution, so it's a rather polemical text, intent on urging the oppressed to stand firm in their faith, and that if they suffer in this world, they'll be rewarded in the next.

The symbolism, of which so many have, and continue, to make so much, was immediately obvious and intelligible to its audience at the time, they knew who was being referred to — there was nothing esoteric about it.

The idea that Revelations was written as a key to unlocking prophetic times and events is, I believe, a mistake. I think the arguments supporting this idea rest more upon the fact that history tends to repeat itself, rather than any prescience on the part of the author ... in any age and at any time, one could come up with a likely list of candidates, signs, portents, to fit the bill.

By the way ... I was camping this weekend, and with only a thin sheet of nylon between myself and the stars, I narrowly missed being taken out by that washing machine falling out of orbit on the 24th. It landed a few thousand miles away I know, but in stellar terms, that's a really close shave!

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

Nicked my chin!

[Dream]

It got my goat.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Dream

That's interesting with several questions. Is that a personal theory? Is it the product of a particular circle of scholars?

Actually, this was the standard interpretation among everybody, until the Reformation. This IS "the millenium", the rule of Christ's church over the world; that's what medievals thought.

Originally Posted by Dream

Is it based upon a late date for the book?

I give it an earlier date than some would. I think it is from the reign of Nero, that Rev. 18:18 (talking about the great city burning down) was part of the "evidence" against the Christians in the Great Fire of Rome case (they were accused of having predicted the fire beforehand), that "666" is gematria (alphabet code) for Nero himself. The church's standard view, from the time of Irenaeus (late 2nd century), was that it was written during Domitian's reign (a later persecution). I think it was circulated again in Domitian's time, but without much alteration from the text circulated in Nero's time.

Originally Posted by Dream

Does it depend upon the analysis of writing styles in any way? Thanks, Bobx.

The book is written in truly atrocious Greek, by someone who only knows Greek as a second language, and that not very well. This is why I think it is the genuine voice of an angry Galilean fisherman.

Originally Posted by ciel_perdy

I disagree with you bob. In all those time you mention there was not the ability to put something on everyones hand or forehead...

But all those other interpretations had their own particular point, about some other passage or other, which they thought were just as impressive as your favorite point about "the mark".

On what Jesus taught, I think you have completely missed the point. NO commandment means anything except insofar as it fits in with the principles of "Love God with all your being" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". If a rule that once served those principles has ceased to do so, it should be abandoned. That is what Jesus was trying to tell you.

[Servetus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The idea that Revelations was written as a key to unlocking prophetic times and events is, I believe, a mistake. I think the arguments supporting this idea rest more upon the fact that history tends to repeat itself, rather than any prescience on the part of the author ... in any age and at any time, one could come up with a likely list of candidates, signs, portents, to fit the bill.

It has been a long time since I have read either, though I have read both, and I am wondering, Thomas, if you don’t mind my asking, if you are familiar with the early (circa 170+ ?) tractate on Christ and Antichrist written by St. Hippolytus of Rome and, more recently, John Cardinal Newman’s Advent Sermons on Antichrist? I would describe both of these as being interpretive prophecies of the future, of a time in both of their futures, which do naturally involve expositions of history, as well, and even of the cyclical nature of history.

Arnold J. Toynbee, too, in his monumental study of history, which some have rightly called history as metaphysics, saw a juggernaut pushing civilizations into and out of existence, creating higher religions in the process, but also foresaw the recrudescence of a type of absolute paganism, which was present in his day but as yet unrealized, and aptly described it, using the Biblical phrase, as a vain repetition of the Gentiles.

[ciel_perdy]

Bob wrote:

On what Jesus taught, I think you have completely missed the point. NO commandment means anything except insofar as it fits in with the principles of "Love God with all your being" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". If a rule that once served those principles has ceased to do so, it should be abandoned. That is what Jesus was trying to tell you.

Sure ALL commandments are summed up by the two greatest commandments, but Jesus did give many other commandment to show us HOW to love God and our neighbor. He even gave a new commandment ''love one another as I have loved you''. So, I am not sure what your point is? Jesus has MANY commandments, teachings his disciples about what to do and not to do, and ALL of them are designed to help us love our neighbor and God. The point I was making previously was, that you would be VERY hard pressed for a Christian to be able to tell you 15-20 things Jesus commanded his disciples (Christians) to do and not do. And the reason is, unfortunately, the majority of Christains aren't following Jesus.

[ciel_perdy]

Dream wrote:

As a practical consideration I do have a problem with that, but you may have a point about what Jesus is literally saying.

This was in reponse to Jesus teaching us NOT to work for money. Well, Jesus did say it, and he was pretty clear, and literal. His disciples live according to this teachings. I don't understand why Jesus and his disciples obeyed this teaching/principle, yet Christians today fight tooth and nail against doing so? There may be many 'practical considerations' that one can come up with as excuses for stepping out and obeying in faith what Jesus taught, but don't you think Jesus also knew about these kinds of things before he taught it? If you will, what practical considerations do you have?

It really comes down to when you say "...either we are both just promoting our own IDEAS about what it means, or one of us has more light/truth about what it means." I feel this is a mostly American attitude that is homegrown rather than a Biblical, even sola-scriptura, point of view. There is strong emphasis in the Bible on the perfection of God and our own imperfection, so that you'll see verses like "Let God be true but every man a liar...that he be proved right in his judgments." By 'Dismissive' I mean you see it as a situation where one of us can be more right than the other. Its suggesting that God is favoring one of us. It naturally leads to divisions and the promotion of idle persons to ministry, but it also separates close friends unnecessarily and divides everyone up into rankings.

Reality is we ALL have some truth, and reality is some of us know more than others. This principle works in every area of life. It doesn't mean God favors anyone more than an another. Jesus taught that the more we use the truth we have, the more we will be given, and if we don't use it, then the truth that we THINK we have, we will loose it. This may sound like God favoring one more than the other, but in reality it's a reflection of what each person does with his or her truth. Similarly, when God judges people at the end of time, he says he will seperate people according to the love they have shown. This again, could be seen as favoring and in many ways it is, in that he is doing it according to what PLEASES him. However, again, it is all a reflection of what each of us has done with the truth that we have known.

I don't think one needs to react to the idea that others know more truth

[A Cup Of Tea]

I might have misread you ciel_perdy, I don't know. You say some things very differently than how you say other things.
You seem to have ignore my previous question asking if thought yourself arrogant, it is understandable. It was a genuine question and not meant as an attack. You appear to prefer straight questions so I didn't think you would have a problem with it. I sincerely hope you weren't offended.

[Thomas]

Hi Servetus —

Originally Posted by Servetus

Thomas, if you don’t mind my asking, if you are familiar with the early (circa 170+ ?) tractate on Christ and Antichrist written by St. Hippolytus of Rome and, more recently, John Cardinal Newman’s Advent Sermons on Antichrist?

I've not read Hippolytus in depth, 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.)

...but a quick glance at the text you mentioned offers a more concise answer than my own.

+++

Any 'revealed' text, that is a text inspire 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.

Originally Posted by Servetus

I would describe both of these as being interpretive prophecies of the future...

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.

If fact Christ Himself warns against it.

So I suppose I'm saying that the interpretation of Revelations is always speculative, and certainly nowhere near as determinate as some would like to think ... certainly not enough to make absolute definitive statements about 'Babylon' being this culture and not that.

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 ....

God bless

Thomas

[radarmark]

The whole issue comes down to what we Quakers see as the three manifestations of Christianity. First you have those that are traditionalists, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Then you have the scrituralists, most Protestent sects. Then there are those who look for themselves, Quakers and a few others.

If one wishes to interpret scripture, the first and the third have rather a better basis for it. It just seems to me, coming from the third group, but having strong traditionalist roots, that Protestant "reinterpretations" from Calvinist pre-destination to Korean Unificationism are merely tries to implement a new tradition. Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Margaret McDonald, William Miller, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, the Stewart Brothers, and Moon all really began new traditions IMHO.

If one cannot trace one's belief system to someone between the Christ Jesus and Huss, the argument proves itself.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

[Etu Malku]

Originally Posted by radarmark

. . . that Protestant "reinterpretations" from Calvinist pre-destination to Korean Unificationism are merely tries to implement a new tradition. Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Margaret McDonald, William Miller, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, the Stewart Brothers, and Moon all really began new traditions IMHO.

Yet, wasn't early Christianity merely a new 'try' to implement a new tradition from the older Judaic beliefs?

**Reminds one of the blues, where everyone uses the same lyrics but writes a new song.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ceil Perdy

Reality is we ALL have some truth, and reality is some of us know more than others. This principle works in every area of life. It doesn't mean God favors anyone more than an another. Jesus taught that the more we use the truth we have, the more we will be given, and if we don't use it, then the truth that we THINK we have, we will loose it. This may sound like God favoring one more than the other, but in reality it's a reflection of what each person does with his or her truth. Similarly, when God judges people at the end of time, he says he will seperate people according to the love they have shown. This again, could be seen as favoring and in many ways it is, in that he is doing it according to what PLEASES him. However, again, it is all a reflection of what each of us has done with the truth that we have known.

I don't think one needs to react to the idea that others know more truth

Thanks. That's what you think. I'd respond but it would completely derail the topic. As impossible as it seems to me to live without working, I understand that what I said seems impossible to you. Nevertheless.

[ciel_perdy]

Thomas wrote:

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 ....

I agree. I think Babylon refers to any system of man that isn't the God's eternal Kingdom. It's also interesting that Babylon is presented as a whore. Like a prostitute, the world talks about offering 'love', but it's real goal is making money.

[ciel_perdy]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thanks. That's what you think. I'd respond but it would completely derail the topic. As impossible as it seems to me to live without working, I understand that what I said seems impossible to you. Nevertheless.

Fair enough. Perhaps I will start a different thread for you to post your thoughts on.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ciel Perdy

Well, Jesus did say it, and he was pretty clear, and literal. His disciples live according to this teachings. I don't understand why Jesus and his disciples obeyed this teaching/principle, yet Christians today fight tooth and nail against doing so? There may be many 'practical considerations' that one can come up with as excuses for stepping out and obeying in faith what Jesus taught, but don't you think Jesus also knew about these kinds of things before he taught it? If you will, what practical considerations do you have?

Maybe we have a misunderstanding of what you are talking about. I understand that when you work you are producing. When you don't work, you are consuming. In order for someone to consume, somebody has to work -- in the human way of thinking. I don't know if you accept the things Paul writes, but he says "If any one will not work, let him not eat." and "Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living."

Perhaps Jesus isn't saying what you are saying he is saying, or perhaps there is some sort of contradiction here.