Mark of the Beast
#99
I have personally read Robert Sungenis' CASB Apocalypse Bible with his interpretation -- it made my head hurt.  He shifts from symbolic to literal, then back to symbolic, then back to literal again.  If you want to read the BEST book out there about Revelation (as well as other prophetic Scriptures such as Daniel), pick up Rapture:  The End Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie.  This is an outstanding book!  The fact is that Futurists like Sungenis are left scratching their heads when it comes to Apoc. chapter 20.  They don't know how to equate the first verses of this chapter with the Amillennialism that we Catholics have been taught to believe.  Those Catholic Amillenialists who claim that the "Beast" is the Antichrist have much explaining to do when it comes to these verses.  Take a careful 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. 6 Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.

St. John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their beleif in Christ, and who did not worship the "beast" and did not recieve its (spiritual) mark.  These souls came to life and ruled with Christ for the "thousand years."  As orthodox Catholic Amillenialists, we know that the "thousand years," the "millennium," is a symbol denoting the Church Age - that is, the time from AD 70 until the time that Satan is loosed for "a little while."  These souls survived the Beast BEFORE the "thousand years" began.  To say that the "Beast" is the final antichrist is absolutely illogical concerning this method.  This "beast," who was Nero Caesar - 666 - was on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound for the symbolic "millennium."

Sungenis sticks to what he THINKS the Early Fathers meant concerning the authorship of Revelation.  BUT, Sungenis, with his list of Fathers, fails to give you the TRUE picture.  There is a HUGE ambiguity concerning all of this, as you will see if you continue to read:

The late dating (AD 95) of the book of Revelation has its roots hanging on a very slender and precarious thread. This dating is determined from a single source statement by the Bishop of Lyons by the name of Irenaeus (AD 120–202). The statement he makes is not an eyewitness testimony, but is his recollection of what was said (verbal transmission) by an earlier man, Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John (who wrote the book) personally (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 20, AD 324). The Irenaeus statement appears in his book "Against Heresies, 5:30:3" dated AD 175–180.

Irenaeus spent his youth in Asia Minor, but his manhood and Christian work took place in Gaul, which is modern day France. It would not be a far fetched idea to think that for Irenaeus to remember a conversation from such a distant time in his life and at such an early age could have led to confusion of names and dates. This, however, is not the only basis for my personal doubts in this situation as you will see later.

It appears that Irenaeus' statements, as they were understood, shaped the opinions of Eusebius and Jerome on this question, and this view was passed on to later authors and authorities. It is my belief that it is not good scholarship to accept a dubious statement from the Bishop of Lyons that was orally transmitted to him when he was a young man. This does not appear to be adequate and compelling evidence to cause a person to set aside the overwhelming weight of evidence, both external and internal to the book of Revelation itself being penned earlier, as proof that the Revelation was written during the AD 95 window.

It is important to examine not only where and how Irenaeus came by his opinion, but also what Irenaeus said because as you will shortly see it is possible that his testimony has been misunderstood. The statement that Irenaeus makes consists of a testimony about the number of the beast, 666, in Revelation 13:18. A translation from the original Greek is as follows:

"We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hidden in the number 666 in Rev.13:18], for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign."

In this passage, it must be noted that the subject of the verb "was seen" is ambiguous in the Greek language and may be either "it" referring to the Apocalypse, or "he" referring to John himself. So the slender thread surfaces. If one chooses to select "it" meaning the vision, we have the Apocalypse being written at the later date. If "he" is chosen, meaning John, then the Apocalypse is written at the earlier date because he, John, would have been seen "almost in our own generation." Quite a situation to base your entire "end times" interpretation of prophecy on, wouldn't you say?  In all truth, to make any sense out of this statement by Irenaeus, one would HAVE to use HE, not IT, to make any sense out of it!  A PERSON, St. John (he), must announce something (the identity of 666), not a vision (it).  Therefore, it is most assuradely HE (St. John) that Irenaeus is referring to, which turns the "late-date" on its head!

I am convinced that what Irenaeus was attempting to communicate was something along the following lines. John would have announced the name of the Antichrist if he wanted to because he (John) was around during the reign of Domitian. Since John did not announce it, why should we (Irenaeus and his contemporaries) run the risk of announcing it! The reason for this approach would be that although Nero was gone, Domitian and the Roman threat was still present and quite capable of carrying out a swift reprisal in the name of Rome against anyone who spoke against Nero in such a manner as to identify him as the beast!

BUT, even if by some chance Irenaeus did actually mean that the Apocalypse was written under Domitian (which I highly doubt anyway), how sure can we be of his accuracy?  Irenaeus was infamous for his errors in dates and times.   He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ.  Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years.

In another place in the writing of Irenaeus, again writing about the number 666, he seems to indicate an earlier date for the dating of Revelation. In his fifth book, he writes the following: "As these things are so, and his number [666] is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he writes of the Revelation being written in "ancient copies!" His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in AD 95 which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as "ancient."

Indeed there were a few other Fathers who commented about Revelation being penned in the reign of Domitian, but their idea was, most likely, a product of an erroneous oral tradition.  Also, there were several other Fathers who seemed to point to Nero.  Clement of Alexandria says that John was banished to Patmos by "the tyrant," a title that was used nearly exclusively for Nero Caesar.

Eusebius, who was the bishop of Cesarea from AD 314–340, writes of John as being banished to Patmos and of seeing his visions there in the reign of Domitian. The problem with this source is that he quotes Irenaeus, in fact, the very passage we have under consideration (this appears in his history, book 3, chapter 18). He also refers to a tradition to the same effect, which may have grown out of the same leading of Irenaeus.

Jerome [331–420] held the same opinion, apparently on the authority of Irenaeus.

Victorinus of Petavio, who died in AD 303, in a Latin commentary on the Apocalypse, says "John saw this vision while in Patmos, condemned to the mines by Domitian Caesar."

Many others of a later age could be cited supporting this same connection between John and Domitian, but it would seem that this does no more than to continue a tradition which appears to have come from the language of Irenaeus. The conclusion most come to at this point is that the external evidence of John writing the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian's reign rests on the sole testimony of Irenaeus, who wrote a hundred years after that date, and whose words were from a verbally transmitted second source during the childhood of Irenaeus. To make matters worse, the words he used can easily have two different meanings!

Unfortunately, the earliest church fathers such as Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, the very testimonies that would be the most helpful to us, are silent on the dating of Revelation. They either omitted this point because it was understood without their testimony, or what they wrote perished along the way.

There is also in existence, a number of Syriac translations of the book of Revelation which have the following inscription: "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor." Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the "Peshito," "Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean" are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second.  The superscription on this manuscript does provide support that the dating of the Revelation goes back to the time of Nero. It is thought that the Peshitto Versions, which are dated at 150 AD, were based upon original autographs (original documents).

Clement (AD 150–215) makes the following statement supporting an early dating: "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero" (Miscellanies 7:17). Clement seems to indicate that he believes that the Scriptures were completed by the end of Nero's reign which ended in AD 68.

Epiphanies, AD 315–403, stated that the book of Revelation was written under Claudius [Nero] Caesar. This Roman ruler was emperor from AD 54 to AD 68.

Andreas of Capadocia, about AD 500, in a commentary on Revelation, dates the book as Neronian.

Arethas, about AD 540 assumes the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that its contents was prophecy concerning the siege of Jerusalem.

There is no shortage of those from the above date forward who support the earlier dating of the book of Revelation.

There is language in the book of Revelation itself that gives strong if not convincing evidence of its earlier dating. The Greek words that give us this evidence are "tachei" and "tachu." These words appear in the following verses of Revelation.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly [tachei] come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John" (Rev.1:1).

"Repent; or else I will come quickly [tachu], and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev.2:16).

"Behold, I come quickly [tachu]: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev.3:11).

"And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly [tachei] be done" (Rev.22:6).

"Behold, I come quickly [tachu]: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book" (Rev.22:7).

"And behold, I come quickly [tachu]; and my reward [is] with me, to give to every man according as his word shall be" (Rev.22:12).

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly [tachu]. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev.22:20).

These words, in their various tenses, are translated as "shortly," and "quickly." The words do not mean "soon," in the sense of "sometime," but rather "swift," "now," "immediately," "hastily," and "suddenly." The word meanings here are critical to understanding the "imminency" that is being communicated in the vision of the book! The vision is NOT something that would be expected to take place two thousand, or more years into the future!

Another word that reeks of the imminency of the revelation to John is the Greek word "eggus" which means "at hand" or "near." This word is found in the following passages.

"...for the time is at hand (eggus). (Rev.1:3).

"...for the time is at hand (eggus). Rev.22:10.

Another word we should look into is the Greek word "mello," and "mellei." These words appear in the following texts.

"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall [mellei] be hereafter" (Rev.1:19).

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall [mello] come upon the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Rev.3:10).

The meaning of these words are given to us as: "is about to come." When these words are used with the aorist infinitive the preponderance of use and preferred meaning is "be on the point of, be about to." The same is true when these words are used with the present infinitive. The basic meaning in both Thayer's and Abbott–Smith is "to be about to" and the word "mellei" with the infinitive expresses imminence such as the immediate future. This causes us to understand that the word usage in Rev.1:19 and 3:10 portray an expectation of soon or quick future occurrence.

This kind of language should lead us to conclude that the prophecy in the vision was something that was to take place very close to its being revealed to John! I see this as being fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Now, it is clear that the prophesies of Revelation, concerning the time of its writing, were extremely imminent.  This is right in the text and cannot be avoided or explained away.  Now, if AD 68 was the true date of authorship, then something of extreme importance and devastating effect DID happen very quickly - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, resulting in the abolition of Biblical Judaism.  BUT, if the date of authorship is 95 AD, then nothing of any importance happened soon thereafter.  This is why people try to force the book's prophesies now 2,000 years into the future from its authorship!  If the (true) date of authorship of 67-68 AD was held by all as a fact, then we wouldn't have all of this confusion about this fascinating book of the Bible.


With all of this being said, the "late date" of 95 AD seems to be the result of an erroneous ambiguity.  There is just WAY too much internal and external evidence that supports an earlier date of authorship for the Apocalypse of John, probably between 67-68 AD.

I believe wholeheartedly that the orthodox preterist view of Revelation is the proper one.  This view also glorifies the Catholic Church above all others, showing the divorcing of the Old Covenant and the ushering in of the New with the destruction of the one thing that kept the Jewish Christians confused - the Temple.  It had to be destroyed to allow the Kingdom of God to come in.

There are many other external evidences that attest to an earlier date of authorship, but I will show some of the INTERNAL evidence that also attests to this.  You have already seen above about the meaning of haste in the very first verse of Revelation, and how over and over again St. John states that "the time is at hand."  Here are a few others:

There can be no mistake that the city that is the center of the destruction described in the book of Revelation, Babylon, is no other than the ancient city of Jerusalem. I think the following gives adequate support for this conclusion.

John repeatedly refers to "Babylon" as "the great city." These references are found in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 18; 18:2, 10, 16, 18, 19 and 21. In addition, Revelation 11:8 identifies "the great city" as the place where our Lord was crucified.  Was Jesus crucified in Rome?  NO, he was crucified in Jerusalem.  In Jeremiah 22:8, Jerusalem is also referred to as "this great city." It would take a serious case of tunnel vision for anyone to think that the great city spoken of in the book of Revelation is any city other than Jerusalem!

The seven kings of Revelation 17:10 also help us to date the book of Revelation.

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must remain only a little while" (Rev.17:10).

Many believe these seven kings to be the emperors of the Roman Empire. This line of succession consisted of (1) Julius Caesar followed by (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, (6, the one "that is") Nero and (7) Galba as the seven kings. The first four in this succession are confirmed by Josephus in his historical writing,
Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2; Book 16, Chapter 6, Paragraph 2; Book 18, Chapter 6, Paragraphs 9 and 10. The Revelation 17:10 verse states that five have fallen, one is and one is yet to come. The five heads of this kingdom that "are fallen" would mean that they had died. "And one is" would seem to signify that one is still living at the time the book of Revelation was written. This individual would be Nero in the succession. "The other is not yet come" would refer to Galba who had not yet come into power at the time of the writing of Revelation, and who indeed only remained "a little while," for he ruled not 6 months.  If all of this is true, John is indirectly telling us when the book of Revelation was written. This would place the vision in the time of Nero which is 54–68 AD with Galba to follow who ended up reigning for only six months!  But, for those who do not count Galba, Ortho and Vitellus as true Roman Emperors, then Vespasian could also be meant as the sixth, for indeed he remained only a "little while" concerning the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70 at the hands of his son and future Emperor, Titus.  It is of my personal opinion that Emperor Vespasian is indeed the 7th Emperor in the line of succession, with the three quick-fire "Emperors (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) not being true Emperors in the eyes of many due to the fact that they did not hold sway over the entire Empire - they did not hold total power.  I believe Vespasian is meant mainly due to something else mentioned in the following verses, of an "eighth" who belongs to the "seven(th)."  This fits Titus very well, since he was the Emperor directly after Vespasian - AND he was the son of Vespasian!  He was also the General of the war against Jerusalem.

Also of much interest is the number "666."  When the Hebrew name for Nero, Neron Ceasar, spelled NrnCsr due to the fact that ancient Hebrew was without vowels, is computed using the Hebrew Gramatica, we get 666.  But here is the kicker!  There are several ancient copies that the number is NOT written as 666, but as 616.  This was obviously an error on the part of the translator, who was probably used to saying "Nero" instead of "Neron due to his Latin influence.  When the "r" is dropped, we get 616!  This little fact screams to the fact that Nero Caesar is meant when 666 is mentioned.

Also we see a lot in Revelation about the "42 months," or the "1,260 days."  These two periods are identical:  that which the Two Witnesses prophesy, the woman flees from Satan and the Holy City is trampled.  Revelation is a recapitulation of events!

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Rev 11:2).

Now how long was the Roman War with Jerusalem?  Exactly 42 months!  According to the most reknowned authority concerning the war, Josephus, the daily sacrifices dedicated to Nero in the Temple of Jerusalem was halted in July of 66 AD.  This Jewish provocation led to the full declaration of war by Rome in February of 67 AD.  The war ended PRECISELY forty-two months later when the Temple was burned by Titus's troops in August of 70 AD.  Daniel predicted this over six centuries earlier, Jesus predicted four decades earlier and John expands on their prophesies.  Also, the book of Revelation continually refers to "Gentiles," but after the Temple was destroyed and Biblical Judaism along with it, there is no more Jew or Gentile, only Christian and non-Christian.

The instructions to John to measure the Temple are also important:

"And there was given to me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months" (Rev. 11:1–2).

In this part of the vision, John is asked to measure the Temple. If the vision was before AD 70 there was a Temple that could be measured. If the vision was given at the late date of AD 95, there was no Temple to measure as it had been destroyed in AD 70! Since there is still no Temple 2,000 years later, and the vision was supposed to have been fulfilled in "tachu" time, which is real quick, then there is a problem with the vision having been given at that late date. The only logical answer is the earlier date (AD 67-68) prior to the destruction of Jerusalem when the Temple would have still been standing!

The scripture above is probably all a person should require to properly understand the time frame and context of the book of Revelation. The verse shows that the focus of the book is Jesus Christ and that it was written about "things which must shortly come to pass." This wording supports a time frame where its internal prophecies had to take place "shortly" and cannot by the rational reader be placed in any other time frame than the near future at the time it was written.

There are several other internal references in the book of Revelation for the serious Bible student to study, however, I feel this is an adequate treatment to convince those who may be open to what the Scriptures say. To regard this book as a revelation of the distant future, as some Christians do, when it expressly declares that these things of which it speaks are at hand, is to ensure misconception and failure in interpretation. Much confusion has been introduced into the Church when those who exegete this book engage in such gyrations as interpreting "near" as being "distant," "quickly" to mean "thousands of years hence" and "at hand" signifying "afar off."

One thing is clear concerning the book of Revelation:  it was written during a time of extreme persecution.  Without a doubt, the Neronian persecution was the most fierce upon Christians.  The late date advocates, that is of the 95 AD date, places it in the reign of Domitian.  There is much scholarly debate as if a massive persecution of Christians even occurred under Domitian - only a rather localized, personal persecution.  The Neronian persecution was Empire-wide, it was the "Great Tribulation" spoken of by John in the book of Revelation and by Jesus Himself in the Olivet Discoure.  This persecution wrought by Nero claimed the lives of Sts. Peter and Paul along with MANY others, who are spoken of in Revelation as awaiting underneath the altar.  Nero Caesar was known as a madman, a sociopathic, sadistic individual who delighted in chaos and death.  He was even eventually labelled by the Roman Senate as an enemy of the State, something unheard of to happen to the Emperor.  Nero was indeed the "Beast of the Sea," with the sea always being symbolic in Hebrew esoteric language as the Gentile nations.  The "Beast of the Earth," better translated as "the Beast of the Land," was none other as the beast of the "Holy Land," the Pharasaic Sanhedrin, who worked together with Rome to persecute Christians.  When the book of Revelation is seen as it ought to be seen, it truly is one of the most wondrous books in all of Scripture!  For even though the two Beast were extremely cruel and tried to extinquish the infant Church, the Lamb overcame and His Kingdom was established.  Satan was bound in the sense that he could no longer hinder the Gospel, and the Church grew by leaps and bounds.

In conclusion, there is a great deal of external evidence that attests to an earlier date for the authorship of the Apocalypse of St. John, including a steady patristic voice.  The statement of Irenaeus contains too much ambiguity to base a final conclusion upon, and this erroneous ambiguity was inherited by many other of the Fathers who commented that Revelation was written at the later date.  But, all in all, the Bible is it's own best reference for interpretation.  Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-AD70 in dating.  There is nothing within the book of Revelation itself that attests to the AD 95 date, but there is SO much that attests to a pre AD 70 date of authorship, and that is more than enough for me to believe in the earlier date and thus see the true meaning behind this fantastic, awe inspiring final book of the Holy Bible.

God Bless.
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)