Mark of the Beast
#88
Like I stated previously, the "Mark of the Beast" was an internal mark that was imprinted on one's soul denoting Emperor worship.  The reason why people try to shove the Book of Revelation WAY in the future is because the date of authorship is clouded.  It was held by many for a long time that 96 AD was the correct date of authorship, when St. John was nearly 100 years old!  This has been shown to be a very faulty date, and that the internal and external evidence all point to 67-68 AD, under the reign of Nero Caesar, as the correct date of authorship.  This means that St. John wrote Revelation first, then his Gospel, then his Epistles.  For his Gospel does not mention the impending destruction upon Jerusalem and the signs before that event as the Synoptics do, that is because the event had already happened when he wrote it.  Read in Revelation 10:11:  " And I was told, "You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings." This would seem to be showing that he would write again under the guid of the Spirit, which would have been highly unlikely at the age of almost 100!  It would seem that he wrote Revelation first, in his late 60's, then he wrote his Gospel and his Epistles.

We see all this hooplah about the "Mark of the Beast."  People say it will be a barcode or a chip under one's skin.  Well, I ask these people:  What about the other mark mentioned in Revelation, the Mark of the Lamb?   What is it going to be?  Will it be a chip or a barcode, or a tattoo of a cross on the forehead?  If you are going to demand that the Mark of the Beast is a literal mark, then you must also believe that the Mark of the Lamb is too.  I find it funny how people ignore this...

It has been shown most evidently that 666 is none other than Nero Caesar, for the Hebrew Gematria proves this.  The "Mark of the Beast," the infamous 666, is a spiritual mark on one's soul denoting worship of the Roman Emperor, the infamous Nero, who demanded that he was a god.  Never was their an Emperor who was more of a tyrant than Nero, a sadistic, twisted individual. The same thing goes with the Mark of the Lamb, it is a spiritual mark on one's soul, the mark of Baptism.  The head and the hands are symbolic of what one thinks and believes (the head, the mind) and what one does (his right hand, since most people are right-handed, denoting his actions taken to defend his beliefs and stand up for what is righteous).  Also, the oil of Chrismation is taken on the head, the mark of the cross, also denoting the Mark of the Lamb.  The Mark of the Beast was the opposite of this spiritual mark.

Understand that I have spent countless hours studying this fascinating and horribly misunderstood book of the Bible.  I was raised as a Fundamentalist Protestant (Southern Baptist) who was instilled with a faulty interpretation of this valuable Scripture.  I was told that it was a literal and chronological look at the "end times."  I have seen that this is not only erroneous, but places serious doubts on the intelligence of those who interpretted this book in such a way - not seeing that Apocolyptic literary style was popular among the ancient Hebrews and its colorful symbolism was used to show spiritual and physical realities.

What most people don't understand about the Book of Revelation is that it, like all of the other Scriptures, is primarily speaking to the people of the time.  If it wasn't, it would be strikingly different than every other book of the New Testament!  When the authors of the New Testament (St. Paul, St. John, St. James etc.) were writing their books, they had NO idea that they were writing Scripture that would one day be included in the "best-selling book of all-time."  This would have been rather vain of them to think such things.  No, they were writing to specific people, as seen in St. Paul's Epistles.  In Revelation, St. John is writing to the Christians in Jerusalem, telling them what was about to befall that city in a short time, as the very first verse states clearly.  He is also writing to the established Christian churches, telling them that the Kingdom of Heaven is on the horizon, and that Jesus is Coming on the Clouds to judge Jerusalem for what they had done to him: "For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."(Luke 19:43)  This time had special significance, for:  "These are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Lk. 21:22)  St. John was showing them that Jesus was about to come, that is spiritually, to judge Jerusalem.  The Gospels point to this truth several times, for example:  Speaking about the disciples mission, Jesus said in Matthew 10:23:  "You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, before the Son of Man comes."    Speaking about St. John, who outlived all the other Apostles to a very old age, Jesus said this about him in John 21:22:  "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" Indeed, Christ did come spiritually "on the clouds of heaven" as "the Son of Man" (see Daniel) to judge Jerusalem within the lifetime of St. John, who lived to be nearly 100 years old!  He was shown what Christ Himself spoke about in the Synoptic Gospels, namely Matthew 24 and Luke 21.  Jesus told them that when these signs mentioned were taking place, to flee to the mountians away from Jerusalem - because:  "...when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." (Luke 21:20)  This was NOT customary for the Jews facing a seige, for a walled city was a safe-haven against an oncoming army.  No, they were told to flee to the mountians, which they DID.  The Christians in Jerusalem fled to Pella, away from the city that was about to be judged.  Remember, Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass until all these things take place."  He was absolutely correct!  St. John used Apocalyptic literary style, a style popular among Jews at the time, to show the Jewish Christian readers that Christ's promises were about to come to fruition - that the Kingdom of Heaven was going to be fully established and that all prophesy from the "Old Testament" prophets was about to be fulfilled.  Remember when Jesus was being questioned by the Sanhedrin right before being sentenced to death, he said "Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 24:64).  "Coming with the clouds" is symbolic for coming in judgement, a literary device that was used many times in the Old Testament.  Jesus told the High Priest, the members of the Sanhedrin that were present, that THEY would see him "coming on the clouds of heaven," that is, coming on the clouds of judgment.  This is why the High Priest was outraged at the comment and rent his garment.  And what does the very first chapter of Revelation say:  "THE revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place. . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds"

Therefore, the book of Revelation is showing the destruction of Biblical Judaism and the Fall of the Temple in 70 AD.  It does this through an old literary technique popular among the Hebrews called recapitulation.  The same event is spoken of several different ways, with a respite in the middle to allow the reader to re-gain his grasp on the material (ch. 12).  Notice how the 7 Trumpets and the 7 Bowls (vials) are almost identical.  Place them side by side and you will see what I mean!  The author, that is St. John, uses dramatic Apocalyptic symbolism to show to the reader the same event happening from different points of view.  This surely is a masterpiece of literature, not to mention God-breathed, inerrant literature! 

The only future to the original reader in Revelation begins in ch. 20 where it describes Satan being bound for the "thousand years," which symbolically denotes the present Church Age.  The only future to us is when he is released from the prison and leads an assault upon the "Blessed City" -- the Church, which in my opinion Satan has been released and is leading an internal incursion upon the Church (as seen in the "spirit of Vatican II") - when that fails, he will lead an external persecution headed by the "Son of Perdition.".  The book returns to its premise in ch 21:8 where it describes the New Jerusalem, the Church.  After this the reader is again warned, THREE TIMES, that Judgment is coming quickly:  "And, Behold I come quickly" 22:7  --   "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." 22:10 "...Surely I come quickly" 22:20.

Thus, the Kingdom of Heaven, which Christ spoke about as being imminent, was fully established in 70 AD when Christ came "on the clouds of heaven" as "The Son of Man" to judge Jerusalem for "not knowing the hour of their visitation," thus mis-interpretting all of the Messianic Prophesies and sentencing the Son of God to death. Satan was bound due to this event for the symbolic "thousand years," thus allowing the Gospel to be spread without limitation and the "nations to be healed."  The Kingdom of Heaven IS the Holy Catholic Church.  Amen.
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)