Mark of the Beast
#92
(12-14-2009, 04:11 PM)59zvc Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 02:40 PM)Rosarium Wrote: That is a Catholic perspective isn't it?

The gist of his position seems to be that the "only future to the original reader in Revelation begins in ch. 20."  And no, I don't believe there is substantial precedent for that position, and I don't think it comports with the Catechism. Even Pope JPII warned the faithful about Revelation 12:4.

You'll see that "my perspective" is the most worthy of all Catholic perspectives.  It completely explains passages in the Gospels and equates 100% with St. Augustine's Amillenial position, a position that has been accepted by the Catholic Church!  This is NOT "my perspective."  This is historical preterism (known nowadays as "partial preterism") that was held at least in some form by Church Fathers such as St. Augustine, St. Eusebius (much preterism in his writings), St. John Chrysostom, St. Ignatius and others.

We know that the Catholic Church has accepted the amillenialism of St. Augustine.  It is widely accepted among Roman Catholics that we are now living in the millennium, the symbolic "thousand years" of Revelation ch. 20.  If you read the beginning of this chapter, you will see that the Catholic who upholds amillenialism is actually forced to agree that everything previous to those verses MUST be in the past.  Take a look:

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. 4* Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

We know that Satan was bound either in 28 - 33 AD when Christ died and was resurrected, or in 70 AD when He came spiritually to judge Jerusalem, which seems to be the case according to this book (for Satan is bound after we read several recapitulations of the judment of Jerusalem from different perspectives, with the last showing full-force the judgment of the "Great Harlot" - Jerusalem).  We can agree on that as Catholic amillenialists.  NOW, if Satan was bound in the 1st century, then the "beast" and the "false prophet" must have been on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound in such a way.  Look at the text, it states that after Satan is bound, St. John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus, and had not worshipped the beast or its image and hadn't received its "mark."  They came to life and ruled during the thousand years, the millennium.  So, if you believe that the "beast" is the future Antichrist and not Nero Caesar and the Roman Empire, then you must also logically believe that Satan has yet to be bound, for obviously the "beast," being the future Antichrist, has yet to show up, and that there is still a future "millennium" after the "beast" (Antichrist) is defeated. This notion is called premillenialism, which the Church declared "cannot be taught safely."  The only reasonable thing a Catholic can do is claim that the "beast" is Nero, and can be a type for the future Antichrist, and that Satan was bound after the "beast" (Nero/Roman elite) and the "false prophet" (Sanhedrin/Pharasaic elite) were thrown into the "lake of fire."

Another clue to the identity of the two evil personas is their descriptions.  The "beast of the sea" and the "beast of the earth (land)."  The sea was used in Hebrew esoteric language as the gentile nations, thus the "beast of the sea" would be Nero and the Roman Empire, which was red (color of Rome) had seven heads (representing the Roman Emperors) and ten horns (representing the Roman provinces).  The "beast of the land," and I use "land" becasue the Greek word "ge" is better translated as "land," would be the Jewish elite, the Pharasiaic Sanhedrin.  Israel considered themself the "Land," the 'Holy Land."  This beast had two horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon.  A better clue for the Sanhedrin there is not.  This Jewish "land beast" supported the gentile "sea beast" in during the "Great Tribulation" - that period between 64 and 66 AD when Nero and the Jewish elite severely persecuted the Christians.  Why did Nero do such a thing?  On the testimony of the Jews, that's why!  The Jewish elite told Nero that the Christians would be the proper scapegoat for the burning of Rome, thus we see the two beasts side together.  Speaking of "fire falling from the sky" and the image that speaks is all Apocalyptic symbolism which all has its proper meanings.  The original Jewish readers would have made out this symbolism instantly, as all of the other symbols in the book.

So, those first few verses in ch. 20 will make or break your notions of the Book of Revelation, either forcing you into Amillenialism and the belief that the first 19 chapters deal with the 1st century -- or Premillenialism with the whole book in the future.  But that is really only at first glance, because there is SO very much evidence right in the book that proves that the scope of the apocalyptic symbolism is in the 1st century, dealing with the abolishing of Biblical Judaism via the destruction of the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.  It was an old Hebrew legend that the transition time of the Messianic Kingdom would take 40 years.  The most accurate date for the Death and Resurrection of Christ is 30 AD.  Forty years later, the "covenental transition" was complete, and the Old way was forever destroyed so there could be no more confusion among Jewish Christians, hence there is no more "Jew or Greek."

Now, with all of this being said, there could be some dual-fulfillment of Revelation in the future.  It is not unheard of in Scripture for prophesy to be fulfilled on different levels and at different times.  BUT, the primary scope of this book is the 1st century, which is who St. John was writing to, the 1st century Jewish Christians and established Christian Churches.  Just as St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians etc., we see that the writers of the N.T. were writing to specific groups of people during their time, for they did not know that their writings were going to be included in the Holy Bible, and be labeled the innerrant word of God.  For all they knew their letters could have been burnt up in some violent Roman raid and lost forever.  It was later on when the Church canonized these sacred writings that they were given to the whole Church - but keep in mind that these letters, now the books of the Bible, were at first letters to specific groups of people giving specific instructions
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)