Mark of the Beast
#98
Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has a view that I think is reasonable, I'll post the relevant portion of his article here:
Quote:Who is “666”?

Although many people throughout history, especially in recent times, have sought to attach a specific person to the number 666 in Apocalypse 13:18, these are at best unproven speculations. As shown by various numerological enthusiasts, once given enough room for variant spellings, the names or titles of many people could equal 666 through the use of gematria (e.g., Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger, Nixon, the Pope, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, etc). These, however, are all unnecessary, and, in fact, quite wrong.

One of the reasons for the rise of such speculative interpretations of 666 is that most translations of Apocalypse 13:18 read: “the number is that of a man and his number is 666.” The actual Greek is “arithmos gar anthropou estin.” Depending on the meaning of the noun “anthropou,” it should be literally translated as “for it is number of mankind” or “for it is a human number,” and with the remote possibility of “it is the number of a man.”

The word “anthropos” is the usual word in Greek to speak of “mankind” or a man in the general sense of the word (e.g., Mark 1:17; 2:10; Apoc 4:7; 9:5), although in rare instances it is sometimes used for an individual man (Mark 14:71). Of the 25 instances of “anthropos” in the Apocalypse, all are general references to mankind or man in general. The Greek word “aner” is the usual word for an individual man or individual men (e.g., Mark 6:20, 44). The Apocalypse does not use “aner” except for Apoc 21:2.

Prior to the mentioning of “anthropos,” however, John says in Apoc 13:17 that the number he has in view is “the number of the Beast,” from the Greek “to arithmon tou theriou.” Here a Greek article appears before “Beast” (Greek: tou theriou), whereas there is no article before “man” or “mankind” (Greek: anthropou) in Apoc 13:18. Hence the designation of “the Beast” is specific, whereas “man” is generalized, that is, John is most likely referring to mankind, not a single man.

This is also suggested by the fact that if John had intended to designate an individual man he would have used the nominative case noun (anthropos) or a nominative predicate rather than the genitive anthropou. The use of the genitive points to the fact that John intended to use an adjective to modify the number, that is, he wanted to say the number refers to man or mankind, not a specific man.

John uses the same modifying genitive of “anthropou” in Apocalypse 21:17 when he says “the measure of man” (Greek: “metron anthropou”), which is then followed by “which is of an angel,” also without the article. This means that the “measure” is neither of an individual man nor individual angel, but a number that both men and angels use.

John also uses the Greek genitive “anthropou” in Apocalypse 1:13 and 14:14 in the phrase “Son of man,” which really means “Son of mankind.” Besides Apocalypse 13:18, these three are the only uses of the genitive “anthropou” in the Apocalypse, and it is apparent that each usage is of “mankind,” not an individual man.

Moreover, since John has already said that the number 666 is “the number of The Beast” (Apocalypse 13:17) then it could not be the number of an individual man, since John nowhere states that the Beast is an individual man. He has said, rather, that the Beast is a monster resembling a leopard, bear and lion with seven heads and ten horns (Apocalypse 13:1-4).

Interestingly enough, attempts made to assign 666 by use of Hebrew or Greek gematria to an individual man always met with great difficulty, since, without severe manipulation, no single evil candidate had his name add up to 666. Nero was a close candidate, but his name had to have an “n” attached to it to equal 666 (i.e., “Neron Caesar”).

Lastly, Parker’s attempt at making Caligula a candidate for the number 616 is also not as precise as he assumes it to be. It could only refer to Caligula’s if his name is rendered “Cajus Caesar” (Greek: “Gaios Kaisar”), and this is probably the reason why a scribe of the third or fourth century made a variant text containing 616. It was a tempting interpretation, since Caligula erected an image of himself in the temple at Jerusalem, and he reigned from March 37 AD to January 41 AD, which is 3 years and 10 months (or approximately three and a half years, which would seem to equate with a literal rendering of the 3.5 years of Daniel 9:24-27 and Apocalypse 12:14).

In conclusion, 666 does not refer to any one man in history and 616 is not the proper rendering of Apocalypse 13:18.
http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/dial...gs/666.htm


Here is an hour long video of a class he gave on how to interpret The Apocalypse:
#


I'll link another article by Sungenis regarding the belief that the Apocalypse was written prior to 70AD; Sungenis cites numerous sources to show that the pre-70AD dating is false, here is a snippet from his article:
Quote:
There is no Father that supports a pre-70 AD dating for the Apocalypse. There isn’t a Father within 500 years that gives any explicit mention of Nero and Patmos in the same sentence, much less says Nero exiled John to Patmos prior to 70 AD, including the attempts of modern scholars to make Epiphanius depart from the consensus. Not until well into the Middle Ages does anyone suggest a pre-70 AD date for the Apocalypse, and they are few and far between (e.g., Theophlact, Andreas of Cappadocia).
There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a massive scale, Nero and Domitian. In 67 AD, Nero killed St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. But there is no record of Nero banishing any Christians to Patmos. Nero preferred to torture Christians by burning them and throwing them to lions.
Again, all the Christian and secular sources in the patristic era place the banishment of Christians to Patmos at the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). No one places the banishment of John, or any Christian, under the reign of Nero.
For the entire article, click on the link
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissu...alypse.pdf

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)