Mark of the Beast
#86
(11-23-2009, 05:24 PM)Nic Wrote: The "mark of the beast" is a part of a highly symbolic book that has already been fulfilled.  I find it funny how people wonder what the "mark of the beast" will be, but the other mark in the book, the "mark of the lamb," which is more important, is glossed over.

The "mark of the beast" was a spiritual mark of one who adhered to Emperor worship during the times right before the Destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70.  This is what the Book of Revelation is about - the ending of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant and the establishing of the "Kingdom of Heaven" which Christ spoke of in the Gospels as being "imminent."  The book of revelation is wrought with what is called "Apocalyptic Symbolism" - it uses colorful symbols to portray realities, both spiritual and corporeal.  One thing to note when reading the Book of Apocalypse is when you see the word "earth," don't think of the whole world, but replace the word "earth," with "land."  What group of people called themselves "the land?" - none other than Israel - so "earth" is better interpretted as "the land," and "the land" is better seen as the land of Israel.  This is the true interpretation of the word "gi," which means "land."  Another word could have been used if the whole world was meant, and in a few places in the book it is used, showing that the writer knew the difference.  Another thing to notice is the very first verse of the book:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass...  The wording in Greek used to describe this denotes haste, which is reiterated at the end of the book.  One reason why SO many Christians demand that the Book of Revelation is future is the erroneous belief that it was written in 96 AD when St. John was nearly 100 years old!  Nothing of overwhelming importance happened "shortly after" 96 AD, forcing people to place the meaning of the text way in the future. But, if the date of 68 AD is used for the correct date of authorship, we see one of the most profound events in history occuring "in a short time" after in 70 AD, when the Jews to this day lost their Temple and old form of worship, and the Kingdom of Christ began on a more profound level.  Both Biblical and external evidence strongly attest to the idea that the book was penned a bit before the Destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, probably 67-68 AD.  We even see the Temple being portrayed in the book (although some say this means a future Temple, which given the mood of this book is unlikely).

The book of Revelation is a recapulation of the events surrounding 70 AD (it is seen time and time again in the book, such as the 7 kings:  Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain only a short while  The king who "is" in none other than the infamous Nero, and the five who had fallen are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Cladius, the one who is to come and remain only a "short while" could be seen as Galba, who reigned for only a matter of months, but it could also be seen as Vespasian if the "year of the three emperors" is not used, for he did remain "only a short time" in regards to the events of 70 AD) - the only future presented in the book occurs after chapter 19.  We, as Roman Catholics, believe that we are right at this moment living in the "millenium," that symbolic "1,000 year period" of the "Church Age."  We see in chapter 20 that the beast (Nero and the Roman Empire - it is not a coincidence that Nero Caesar adds up to the infamous 666 in when given in Hebrew numbers - or 616 as is seen in several ancient manuscripts, ever proving that Nero was meant) and the false prophet (the Pharasiac Sanhedrin) are cast into perdition BEFORE Satan is bound for the 1,000 years, the millenial "Church Age."  To believe that the "beast" and the "false prophet" are future figures such as Antichrist and not representations of 1st century people would be to place the millenium and bounding of Satan AFTER the time of Antichrist .  As Roman Catholics, that would be an impossibility to do if we continue to uphold the amillenialists position of St. Augustine, the one held by the Church for centuries.  To do so would be to become premillenialists, which the Church has proclaimed "cannot be taught safely."  Premillenialism is held by a vast amount of today's Protestants, namely of the Fundamentalist ilk.

Now, with all of this being said, the book of Revelation could be a foreshadowing of future events - that is it could be dual-prophetic in nature, which is not unheard of in Scripture at all.  But, we must understand that the primary fulfillment of this book was in the past, with the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.  This is why many Protestant Fundamentalists refuse to see this - they cannot be led to believe that Christ set up a Kingdom on this earth without questioning where that universal kingdom is - to do so would inevitably lead them to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to read one of the best books out there about this subject, pick up Rapture:  The End Time Error that Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie.  This is a fascinating book that puts all of this in perspective.  I strongly recommend anyone to read it.

To John C. or anyone else who has fantastical theories about the "end-times" and uses the book of Revelation for your inspiration, please read my previous post.  666 is not the birthday of the "Antichrist."  It is not some bar-code.  The Mark of the Beast was an INTERNAL MARK of those 1st Century folks who bent the knee in favor of emperor worship instead of following the Lamb (i.e. the Mark of the Lamb, another MARK that doesn't get the attention of the infamous "Mark of the Beast.")  Although Revelation MAY be dual-prophetic, it also may not be.  There is really NO reason for us to try to force its highly symbolic apocolyptic literary style into fantastic theories of our times or the "end-times."  Revelation was fulfilled in the 1st Century, with the destruction of the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD, when the Kingdom of Heaven was publicly established on this earth (becuase it couldn't be fully established when there was a Temple present, lending to confusion among the followers of God  -  it HAD to be destroyed, and it is proof of the supernatural that it hasn't been rebuilt in 2,000 years!).  Nero Caesar IS 666 - this has been proven time and time again.  He is also the famous "616," which is seen in several other ancient manuscripts of the text.  The use of Hebrew Gematria shows this to be clearly evident. 

Trust me, once one understands the Apocalyspe of St. John for what it really is, one will have an even better understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven -- the Roman Catholic Church.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Mark of the Beast - by Munda_cor_meum - 11-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-21-2009, 07:20 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by AntoniusMaximus - 11-21-2009, 07:50 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by kimbaichan - 11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by SoCalLocal - 11-22-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Stubborn - 11-22-2009, 07:47 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Petertherock - 11-22-2009, 03:35 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 11-23-2009, 05:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by savienu - 11-23-2009, 09:43 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 11-27-2009, 08:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 02:21 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-30-2009, 03:16 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by SoCalLocal - 11-30-2009, 11:39 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 12:36 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-30-2009, 01:56 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 11-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Iuvenalis - 12-01-2009, 01:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 02:49 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-01-2009, 08:52 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 10:31 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by RalphKramden - 12-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 02:15 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 03:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-01-2009, 06:28 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Iuvenalis - 12-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 07:48 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 07:54 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 08:43 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Munda_cor_meum - 12-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 09:27 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-02-2009, 12:42 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 12:22 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 01:11 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-02-2009, 06:55 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 07:15 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-02-2009, 07:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 10:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-03-2009, 01:28 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-03-2009, 06:54 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 07:37 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 09:17 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 09:29 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Louis_Martin - 12-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 10:32 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by James02 - 12-03-2009, 11:17 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 11:32 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-04-2009, 12:52 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 02:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 03:23 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-04-2009, 07:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 09:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 12:58 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 12:59 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-04-2009, 02:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 02:16 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 12:41 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 01:16 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-05-2009, 01:29 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 02:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 02:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-05-2009, 02:07 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 04:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 04:08 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by DJR - 12-05-2009, 09:00 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-09-2009, 07:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by ggreg - 12-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by 59zvc - 12-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-14-2009, 02:40 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by 59zvc - 12-14-2009, 04:11 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-15-2009, 05:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by unknown - 12-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-19-2009, 06:10 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by unknown - 12-19-2009, 07:45 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-19-2009, 08:01 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Foligno - 01-13-2010, 06:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 01-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 01-14-2010, 07:48 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 01-15-2010, 08:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by churchesoffortwayne - 02-17-2010, 06:30 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 02-22-2010, 09:41 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)