Is the Roman Catholic Church the Beast Prophesied about in Revalation?

[shepard]

Lets examaine this Abogado del Diablo stated
" I can tell you that there was no end to the Catholic regime at the hands of Napoleon in 1798 when the "Republic of Rome" was temporarily declared. Anyone who doubts that can go to a travel agent today and see if they can book a vacation to see the Sistene Chapel in the "Republic of Rome."

Come on now dont say state this of the top of your head. Do some research, I have. This documented in history. On 11 January 1798, General Berthier and his troops rode into Rome. The Museo Napoleonico has a vivid engraving of the scene designed by Thomas Charles Naudet (c. 1772-1810) and engraved by P.J. Direxite (Fig. 7). (43) This shows the French troops, wearing their cockaded hats and carrying banners decorated with cockerels swarming into the Piazza del Popolo, watched by the Roman crowd. General Berthier, on horseback, takes off his hat to receive a victory wreath from a Roman official.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAL/is_503_159/ai_112540506/pg_2

I not sure what a travel agent has to do with anything. And what errors. Show me.

Also you say
"Anyone wanting to put "666" on something will give lists of things involving "6"s or anything related to a "6". Since there's only ten digits, it's pretty easy to find three "6"s if one wants to call something the "Beast." You'll see unsupported statements like the "recognized" meanings of certain symbolism, etc."

Don't just discount the number for that is only one of many desriptions.
1) Received its "seat" and authority from Rome. Revelation 13:4.
2) Rules the world for 1260 years (from 538 A.D. - 1798 A.D.),
3) Then received a "deadly wound!' which later heals. Revelation 13:3.
4) Is both a political and a religious power, which is worshiped. Revelation 13:4.
5) Tampered with God's law. Daniel 7:25.
6) Has a leader who claims to be God on the earth and to be able to forgive sins. (which is blasphemy)
Revelation 13: 1.
7) Is a mother church (daughters have come out of her). Revelation 17:5.
8) Made war with the saints. Revelation 13:7.
9) Is a world power which is wondered at. Revelation 13:3,4.
10) Has "a man" at the head of it with the number of his name being 666. Revelation 13:18.
11) Has a dreaded "mark" which, if received, will cause a person to be cast into the lake of fire and lose
eternal life. Revelation 14:9,10.



All I am saying is don't just dismiss this, I could have used the same excuses just talking of the top of my head. But I accepted that i don't know everything and have research history and have found the books of Revaltion and Daniel to be accurate. I have attempted to becareful in not just state a point but to back it up with things you can research on your own. You can argue all day about how do we know when it was written, but some of the vary thing mentioned in Daniel are also mentioned in Revalation. God Bless

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Lets examaine this Abogado del Diablo stated
On 11 January 1798, General Berthier and his troops rode into Rome. The Museo Napoleonico has a vivid engraving of the scene designed by Thomas Charles Naudet (c. 1772-1810) and engraved by P.J. Direxite (Fig. 7). (43) This shows the French troops, wearing their cockaded hats and carrying banners decorated with cockerels swarming into the Piazza del Popolo, watched by the Roman crowd. General Berthier, on horseback, takes off his hat to receive a victory wreath from a Roman official.

So the Catholic Church is no longer in charge of the Vatican City? Your whole line of reasoning is absurd. You are trying to come up with bookends for the "beginning" and the "end" of Catholic political authority that can be spaced 1,260 years apart. You are wrong on both counts. The Catholic Church's political power did not start in 538 and it did not end in 1798. Your argument is unconvincing. The travel agent has to do with the fact that the Republic of Rome declared by the French Revolution in 1798 disappeared rather quickly and as of today, the Vatican City is an independent political state under the political authority of the Catholic Church. To suggest otherwise is ignorance to the point of absurdity.

Don't just discount the number for that is only one of many desriptions.
1) Received its "seat" and authority from Rome. Revelation 13:4.

So did lots of other things.

2) Rules the world for 1260 years (from 538 A.D. - 1798 A.D.),

Baloney. For starters, there were no Catholics in North or South America until 1492. Let your logical faculties carry you from there.

3) Then received a "deadly wound!' which later heals. Revelation 13:3.

That's so vague it could mean anything.

4) Is both a political and a religious power, which is worshiped. Revelation 13:4.

Catholics worship the Trinity. There are inumerable institutions that are both political and religious powers. How about the Anglicans? How about the Calvinists? How about the Puritans? How about Chinese Communist Party? How about Third Reich?

5) Tampered with God's law. Daniel 7:25.

Another vague comment that could apply to just about anybody depending on your point of view.

6) Has a leader who claims to be God on the earth and to be able to forgive sins. (which is blasphemy)

We are all able to forgive sins. But I'll grant you the first part.

7) Is a mother church (daughters have come out of her). Revelation 17:5.

Another vague reference that could mean just about anything.

8) Made war with the saints. Revelation 13:7.

In their view they were "heretics" rather than saints. Can you think of any non-Catholic Christians who killed other Christians? I bet if you pick up a European History text it wouldn't take you long to find some. Who would be included in the "saints?" Would that include the Bogomils, the Jews, the Cathars, the Muslims, or just the Protestants after the wars of religion following the Reformation? I will grant you the Church has made a lot of war in its history.

9) Is a world power which is wondered at. Revelation 13:3,4.

I almost can't believe someone would take this sort of thing as "evidence" of anything.

10) Has "a man" at the head of it with the number of his name being 666. Revelation 13:18.

Using Greek gematria, "Bush's War" is also "666." This "evidence" is the silliest of all of them. Using ASCII values, Bill Gates III is the anti-Christ. Where does it say in the Greek of Revelation that a an almost unheard of Latin title used by some popes is what we should be looking for. "Neron Ceasar" also makes "666." Or if you prefer, you can leave out an "n" - "Nero Caesar" - which adds up to the "616" found in many of the earliest surviving manuscripts of Revelation. As reported in Monday's news: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=634679

11) Has a dreaded "mark" which, if received, will cause a person to be cast into the lake of fire and lose
eternal life. Revelation 14:9,10.

Who dreads it? Not Catholics. Got some evidence for that "lake of fire" for all Catholics part? This is classic circular logic.

All I am saying is don't just dismiss this, I could have used the same excuses just talking of the top of my head. But I accepted that i don't know everything and have research history and have found the books of Revaltion and Daniel to be accurate.

Daniel was pretty accurate (though not completely). I explained why this is so above, however.

As far as Revelation goes, the vague apolyptic symbolism you are trying to rely on could mean just about anything. This isn't any more impressive than the "interpretation" of Nostradamus's quatrains.

 

[Quahom1]

Ahem,

This is a discussion on Catholics which has now turned into a blatant attack on Catholics (and the Catholic Church). It is strongly suggested that all go back and read CR's Code of Conduct.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/code-of-conduct.php

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

After reviewing the posts here, I am of the conclusion that in order to keep from offending those that consider themselves devout Catholic Christians, and in light of the fact that this thread serves no constructive purpose for any Christian, I am closing it.

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

The argument that Revelations was fulfilled in 1798 makes no sense - even if the argument were to be accepted that this date corresponds to a cross-referencing between Revelations and Daniel, it doesn't at all account for the breadth of other detail and imagery in Revelation which was apparently to follow. Where is the judgement of mankind on earth? That is what Revelations was building up to - the judgement and redemption of Man, but I just don't see the almighty spectacle of the return of Jesus in 1798, nor any of the other potent symbols and accounts of Revelations.

Also, note that trying to apply numerology to Latin via numbering of the English alphabet is outside the bounds of general Gemetria, which is something applied to the Hebrew alphabet in Biblical scriptures, not Latin.

Another point of note is that there is early record of Revelations stating that the number of the beast is 616, not 666. I should figure that any attempt to "translate" Revelations will need to explain that into account.

Anyway, as to this general thread - I'm sure we'll see more like it, but it would be great if we could see a little more discussion, and a little less...ahem, pontificating...on the nature of any particular NT book. Revelations is certainly enigmatic, but it would be great to try and approach the subject with a little more regard next time.