187 replies to this topic

[joc]

Arbitran, on 01 October 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Well, to be fair, we have no idea who the author of Revelation was. And there isn't any evidence to link the mark of the beast with television screens, or frankly anything we have today; this is partly due to the fact that the text is so delightfully cryptic as to what the "mark" was actually supposed to be in the first place. Either way, I largely agree with you though. In the Greek it certainly seems clear to me that all will accept the mark of the beast, Christians included. Either way, I don't believe in any of it, and seemingly you don't either (sorry, still a bit hard to tell). In any case, that's about the end of that I suppose.

Not quite the end...Revelations says... And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed...That is where I get Television Imagery.  Christians seem to think there is this guy that everyone worships...I don't think so...I think the author...whoever it was...is saying that the world worships after itself.  Who knows?  I personally don't care.  I don't believe in prophesies.  I believe in logic.   Religion...anyone's religion...is illogical.  But...the fact that most of the world believes in a Deity does make the whole concept of 'creating one's own reality' a frightening prospect...does it not?

[Bluefinger]

Arbitran, on 01 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

I haven't heard any valid evidence whatsoever. If that's what you're referring to as evidence, then of course it would be foolish for anyone to accept it (as of course I think it is). What evidence has convinced you, precisely?

Foolishness would be to write off what you don't fully understand simply because its too cryptic to be precise.  But then again, Peter answered for that, when speaking about how difficult it was to understand Paul's writing, stating that it was a sort of barrier to those who like to distort the Chrisian religion.  By Revelations emphasis on the punishment of those who attempted to add or take away from the text, its evident that it was common practice at that time, as was even shown in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Isaac Newton seemed convinced that Revelation was not written during the reign of Domitian, but during the reign of Nero (which has convinced me to change my stance on Revelation's historical background as well.)  

Isaac Newton then pointed out that the Epistles that mentioned eschatology were actually interpretations of the book of Revelations by the Apostles as also shown by the fact that many other Apocalypses (false) followed it.  

If that is the case, which I now believe it is, then it was likely written while the Church was dispersed (as evident in 1 Peter, where Peter calls Rome 'Babylon') and shortly before Jerusalem's destruction.  

It also defends why the Gospel of John never included the Olivet Discourse, which are evident interpretations of Revelations seals, as seen in Luke 21, Matthew 24, an Mark 13.

It tells a story other than one Eusebius told, indicating his own personal bias (thinking that the Roman Emperor's embrace of Christianity was the actual fulfillment of Christ's reign on earth.)

I believe, therefore, that Revelation has happened exactly with history and that we have been in the Great Tribulation since Nero first persecuted the Christians and warred against the Jews.  When the sixth seal is opened, that tribulation will be coming to a close.

Edited by Bluefinger, 01 October 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Bluefinger]

joc, on 01 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Not quite the end...Revelations says... And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed...That is where I get Television Imagery.

I've believed what 2 Thess. 2 said about it (obviously an interpretation Rev. 13's second beast and its demise in Rev. 19.)  The lawless one, will exalt himself above all that is called God and will reveal himself in God's temple, the Church, as God.

Toward the end of the 12th century, the pope (Innocent III) began calling himself the vicar of Christ, standing as a representative of Christ (authoritatively) to rule while Christ is in heaven.  This assertion was practiced when an opposing king begged outside the pope's window in the cold, with no shoes on.  The pope, back then, believed that he had the authority to crown or depose kings.  This would, in a sense, make him a king of kings, a title rightfully claimed by Jesus.

This pope then, with the miraculous help of St. Dominic and St. Francis, convinced many in the Holy Roman Empire that the Roman Church was their only hope of salvation.  When it became evident that the Cathars were still growing, the Office of The Inquisition was instituted to find non-Catholics and judge them according to Canon Law.  Those who refused were put to death.  Those who converted were given back their property (sometimes) and kept a close eye on.

The mark of the beast is evidently the exercise of state religion under impulse of persecution.

Quote

  Christians seem to think there is this guy that everyone worships...I don't think so...I think the author...whoever it was...is saying that the world worships after itself.  Who knows?  I personally don't care.  I don't believe in prophesies.  I believe in logic.   Religion...anyone's religion...is illogical.  But...the fact that most of the world believes in a Deity does make the whole concept of 'creating one's own reality' a frightening prospect...does it not?

Perhaps it isn't one man, but one man's title.  And the prophecy of St. Malachy shows that Rome will be destroyed in the end, and Jesus will judge.  Paired with Revelation 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19, Jesus will destroy the authority of beast, the false prophet, and the dragon.  In other words, all kingdoms will be put under Christ's authority.

Early Christians evidently believed this literally, as do I.

[joc]

Bluefinger, on 01 October 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Early Christians evidently believed this literally, as do I.

Early Christians believed what Peter and the boys told them.  You believe Peter and boys...I do not.  I think that Peter and the boys, knocked unconcious the guards at the tomb and stole the body of Jesus.  It was embalmed and hidden here and there amongst them until the Church was strong enough to protect that secret.  I believe that the real reason for the Knights Templar to exist was to protect that secret.  I believe that within the walls of the vatican lies the body of christ.  That doesn't make it true because I believe it...but it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Shabd Mystic]

Bluefinger, on 01 October 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Foolishness would be to write off what you don't fully understand simply because its too cryptic to be precise.

Equally as foolish is to believe you know what it means when nobody has any idea what was being said, and more importantly, what time period it was being said about.

[Bluefinger]

Shabd Mystic, on 01 October 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Equally as foolish is to believe you know what it means when nobody has any idea what was being said, and more importantly, what time period it was being said about.

True.  Which is why I rely on the Apostles' interpretation.

[Shabd Mystic]

Bluefinger, on 01 October 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

True.  Which is why I rely on the Apostles' interpretation.

And that is as reliable as my interpretation or Joe Blow's interpretation.

[Bluefinger]

Shabd Mystic, on 01 October 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

And that is as reliable as my interpretation or Joe Blow's interpretation.

You have a better source?

There is a great difference between the skeptic and the militant.  Your hostility toward this discussion reveals your stance on this issue.  (Should I still treat you as a skeptic when you truly are not?)

Edited by Bluefinger, 01 October 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Shabd Mystic]

Bluefinger, on 01 October 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

You have a better source?

Much better.

Bluefinger, on 01 October 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

There is a great difference between the skeptic and the militant.  Your hostility toward this discussion reveals your stance on this issue.  (Should I still treat you as a skeptic when you truly are not?)

I don't care how you treat me. I'm surprised you'd even think that matters to me.

I don't even know what you are trying to say by calling me a "militant" but calling me a skeptic is far of the mark as well. There is nothing to be gotten from Revelations except a bunch of wild theories and ridiculous self-serving interpretations of various sorts.

[joc]

Shabd Mystic, on 01 October 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Much better.



I don't care how you treat me. I'm surprised you'd even think that matters to me.

I don't even know what you are trying to say by calling me a "militant" but calling me a skeptic is far of the mark as well. There is nothing to be gotten from Revelations except a bunch of wild theories and ridiculous self-serving interpretations of various sorts.

How would you know if you haven't read it?  Or...have you?

[Arbitran]

joc, on 02 October 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

How would you know if you haven't read it?  Or...have you?

I think it's a safe bet that all of us here have read the Book of Revelation. I could be wrong, and I can't speak for everyone, but anyway...

[joc]

Arbitran, on 02 October 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I think it's a safe bet that all of us here have read the Book of Revelation. I could be wrong, and I can't speak for everyone, but anyway...

Pfff...I wouldn't make that bet... I mean, seriously, if someone said that there is nothing to be gotten from Moby Dick except a bunch of stupid stories and ridiculous tales of fishermen and whale killers...would you make the same bet that they had actually read Moby Dick?   Call me Ishamel but...I don't think so.

[Arbitran]

joc, on 02 October 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Pfff...I wouldn't make that bet... I mean, seriously, if someone said that there is nothing to be gotten from Moby Dick except a bunch of stupid stories and ridiculous tales of fishermen and whale killers...would you make the same bet that they had actually read Moby Dick?   Call me Ishamel but...I don't think so.

A slightly... laboured analogy, wouldn't you say? I mean... I think that most of the people here have read Revelation. Perhaps not, but I have seen a general understanding by the people here of its contents. Either way... not that important.

[joc]

Arbitran, on 02 October 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

A slightly... laboured analogy, wouldn't you say? I mean... I think that most of the people here have read Revelation. Perhaps not, but I have seen a general understanding by the people here of its contents. Either way... not that important.

K
Back to the topic...if there still is one...
...Here is some injected Reality into the thread which I find very interesting...This isn't skeptical mish-mash...this is fact:  Many Jews are waiting for the Messiah.  Many Christians are waiting for the Messiah...second coming.  And many Muslims are waiting for the Messiah...the Mahdi.  Everyone is waiting for the Messiah it seems to come and save the world from itself.  The world therefore is ripe for some sort of polarizing figure that can bring everyone together, willing or not...and create 'peace' in a world of bloodshed and doom.  Whether Revelations is true or not becomes irrelevant because it very well may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Shabd Mystic]

joc, on 02 October 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

How would you know if you haven't read it?  Or...have you?

If you are talking about Revelation, yes I have read it.