The mark of the beast????

[pnggrad79]

Yesterday, my 16 yo daughter finally got her driver's license, after months of driver's ed, wrangling with my ex over whether or not she needed a standard, sports car as her first car,( I asked whether or not he was going to help with the insurance, he said no, he wasn't obligated to help me pay for her insurance). so I had to go get her a more sensible, used car and pay for it myself. Anyway, I digress... We went to the DPS yesterday and they are requiring a new thing as a part of identification-your birth certificate. My 20 yo daughter was with us and said she didn't remember needing a birth certificate when she got hers 4 years ago. We had to leave the DPS, go to the county clerk's office and get a copy of her birth certificate. We went back to the DPS, and had to wait in line for another hour or so to get her picture taken, blah, blah, blah.

I sat in line griping and complaining about us having to provide her permit, her Social Security card, her driver's ed verification, her student enrollment verification, and now her birth certificate , and so waiting with the throng of people there, I said where those around me could hear, "What are they gonna make us bring now, a DNA sample from our mothers?" and some old guy and his wife heard me, giggled and said, "No, they are going to either tattoo us or put a computer chip under our skin, like they are doing animals now."

Immediately, I recoiled and thought, "The mark of the beast! Yikes!" I didn't say anything else, plugged my iPod in and listened to it the rest of the time, but was seriously disturbed.

Does anyone think this could happen as a means of identification, or is this guy blowing smoke? If this happened, is this the mark of the beast? I mean, it is getting ridiculous at the airports and all, as well. I was joking that they would soon start making us totally strip and them do a full body search, since they make us take off our shoes and jackets, and we have to scan everything as it is.

Think about it guys....with the threat of global terrorism and identification theft, would the government actually start tattooing infants being born, and/or inserting computer chips under the skin? Is this what John saw in Revelation? Was the mark of the beast a metaphor? What is going on here?:eek::eek::eek:

[HarmlessEccentric]

Whatever John described in Revelation, it was intended for a first-century audience, not a twenty-first-century audience. He was writing about the Roman empire, not microchips. How could it be otherwise? John never stood in line at the DMV or saw a computer, and a book that is about the twenty first century would be irrelevant to the previous twenty centuries that passed it on; how presumtuous would we be to assume that of all the generations who have read this book, we are the ones it is about?

Apocalyptic literature was a genre; bizarre visions that could be understood to illuminate the present. John's wasn't the only book in this genre; there were plenty of them. We'll get more useful insight from Revelation by looking for the spiritual meaning of what John wrote than by trying to turn it into a science fiction story about the future of the human race.

[sailaway58]

Computer chips have nothing to do with the "mark" What ever the mark is it has more to do with renouncing Christ. Now if we ever become a Muslim State, worry.

HarmlessEccentric is right on

[andrewlittle]

Now if we ever become a Muslim State, worry.


Excuse me - could you unpack this so I don't make assumptions.

[ladyinred]

I would seriously doubt that we would ever become a muslim nation.LOL Not that we don't have our own Christian fundamentalists to worry about.

[pnggrad79]

I agree with you Lady. We have more to worry about with a theocracy than we do Muslim extremist.

I did some research on the internet after I posted the original thread starter and this author contends that the mark is an external symbol of the beast that people will have put on them as a sign of their allegiance to him. He contends that an internal microchip is not the sign of the beast, but it is coming as a means of identification and it will most likely include your social security info, medical records, bank information, credit information, etc. He contended that it would make airports safer and bank transactions safer and would diminish identity theft. He cautions against religious extremism that would call this the mark of the beast and said that when social security numbers came out, they also said this was the mark....Here is the website I looked at for this information:
http://www.av1611.org/666/biochip.html

I guess it just shows that I need to quit listening to the tapes in my head of Southern Baptist fundamentalism from my childhood...

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Whatever John described in Revelation, it was intended for a first-century audience, not a twenty-first-century audience. He was writing about the Roman empire, not microchips. How could it be otherwise? John never stood in line at the DMV or saw a computer, and a book that is about the twenty first century would be irrelevant to the previous twenty centuries that passed it on; how presumtuous would we be to assume that of all the generations who have read this book, we are the ones it is about?

Apocalyptic literature was a genre; bizarre visions that could be understood to illuminate the present. John's wasn't the only book in this genre; there were plenty of them. We'll get more useful insight from Revelation by looking for the spiritual meaning of what John wrote than by trying to turn it into a science fiction story about the future of the human race.

I always thought Revelation was about Empires in general and how the gov't having absolute control basically sucks. I think the whole tattoo/computer chip is creepy, big brother-ish.

[sailaway58]

Excuse me - could you unpack this so I don't make assumptions.
I mean Gays have done so well in Muslim countries. Christians have done a little better but women are treated with such high regard I can't imagine why any woman wouldn't want to be either Muslim or Pentecostal. :rolleyes: I hate radical Islam. :hissy:

[Pablo Rafael]

I believe that the whole "mark of the beast" image is totally allegorical. Those who harbor hatred in their hearts and turn aside from the love of God, have the "mark".

The "mark" is apparent all around us. Muslim and Christian fundameltalists being two good examples. I think the mark is not put on from without, but is shown by those who lack a spirit of love. Love within a person will come to the surface. Hatred also will show itself.

Pablo

PS I also don't get worked up by the number 666. :D

[Erik]

I used to believe that St John the Apostle was speaking allegorically when he wrote of 666 being the number of the beast. Now, I'm not so sure. I found a website that makes a pretty compelling argument that what St John wrote was prophecy. http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

[BenL]

Not to derail this discussion about apochraphal literature, but there is even more concern from a civil liberties perspective. All the documentation you must now provide to get a driver's license is a result of the Real ID Act of 2005, passed without hearings or debate by a Republican Congress as part of a military spending bill.

The Real ID Act requires that states verify everyone's identity and citizenship status when issuing driver's licenses. The federal goal is to get all 50 states on a single database, or at the very least compatible databases that talk to each other. so law enforcement and homeland security can track everyone's movements. Even senior citizens who have driven for decades will have to show a birth certificate when they renew their licenses. The goal is to create a national ID card, which is something Americans have opposed consistently throughout our history. It affects our transsexual brothers and sisters incredibly because it will make it much more difficult, nigh unto impossible, for them to change the gender marker on their birth certificates and driver's licenses after transition.

Here is the Homeland Security take on it: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm

Here is a Web site opposed to it: http://www.realnightmare.org/

There's plenty to worry about here, folks, without worrying about he mark of the beast.

[RedneckDyke]

I have no doubt that there will be push towards biometric tagging for humans. The National Animal Identification System NAIS wants to do this to animals. Every cow,chicken,rabbit,sheep,goat,duck,goose,pig, every farm animal to get a RFID tag. It is "voluntary" now but the USDA says it will be required if not enough people do it voluntarily. I won't do it. I'll go to jail first. The NAIS is too complicated to get into here, but I'd ask anybody to Google it and read it about it. It is nothing less that a government attempt to completely control the food suppluys and put independent growers out of business. It is the Mark in that if your animals aren't tagged, you won't be able to move them, buy or sell them, or process them.

[Rick336]

Is this what John saw in Revelation? Was the mark of the beast a metaphor? What is going on here?

Nothing is going on. Revelations is absurd bullshit.

[Daniel]

Great to see you back. Along with your aply worded statement. John was 'tripping' and we're all supposed to make sense of that? I don't think so.

Know what I think? Revelation- the activity- not the book, is a personal, not public matter. Gotta watch what Gnosis you smoke.

[found49]

I think we'll all have to wait and find out whether or not the events described in Revelation will come true in a literal sense, but I think its worth noting that according to a literal reading of events in the book, the mark of the beast is not going to come into play until the Antichrist actually accedes to world power. Thus, until people disapear suddenly, leaving piles of clothing behind, and someone accedes to world power suddenly with total control and a huge following, and this government requires a mark of allegiance under pain of death and/or severe mistreatment, I don't think we need to worry about that. If that does happen, people would have the choice of whether to accept or reject such a mark, as it would probably entail denouncing Christ and accepting the idea that the Antichrist is God.

Two quick asides-

It's hard to know or predict when such an event may occur based on world events. For instance, if I had lived back in the 1940s, I think that I would have been almost 95 percent sure that the Antichrist was Adolf Hitler-he fit the criterion: having a huge following, proclaiming to have god-like abilities, demanding total allegiance under penalty of death, decrying religious expression, murdering God's chosen people, the Jews-and mudering the innocent-those who were not aryans, gypsies, the handicapped. He caused major war and profound destruction, inspired the use of the atom bomb, and caused mass mayhem and confusion. He definitely would have been at the top of my list. But, according to a literal reading, Hitler was not the antichrist, because Christ did not come back.

There is another interesting interpretation of Revelation that asserts that this book is meant to apply to the ongoing battle between good and evil that goes on in human events, and that when Revelation talks about the antichrist, christ returning, and the persecution of believers, it is referring to such events as the Holocaust, whereby catastrophic events occur and people who love God and his creatures must rise up against it. So, Revelation's predictions apply to any situation-personal or widespread-where there is a battle between righteousness and evil.

Secondly, there are some weird things about six, six, six that indicate that there's something to what Revelation says about it, although obsessing about it has nothing to do with reality. For instance, living in apartment 666 does not mean that you are going to die a horrible death by Satan's hand. But, it is interesting to note some situations where the 666 thing does come into play

For instance, in 2000, the shooting of a six year old girl by another six year old took place in room 6 of their school building- 666

In the Columbine shooting, there were 13 victims-13 is also supposed to be an "evil" number, and if you count the two shooters, there were 15. 1 plus 5 equals 6.

Both shooters in the Columbine shooting were 18-6x3 is 18

All of this is interesting, although, as I said, not very valuable for stopping bad things from happening or living life productively.

[NathanATX]

Just pondering some things...

What if those who have embraced a Christ-consciousness are the realization of a "returning Christ"... and those who have rejected love, truth and justice and thus have rejected a Christ-consciousness are the realization of the "anti-Christ"...

[keltic63]

Secondly, there are some weird things about six, six, six that indicate that there's something to what Revelation says about it, although obsessing about it has nothing to do with reality. For instance, living in apartment 666 does not mean that you are going to die a horrible death by Satan's hand. But, it is interesting to note some situations where the 666 thing does come into play

For instance, in 2000, the shooting of a six year old girl by another six year old took place in room 6 of their school building- 666

In the Columbine shooting, there were 13 victims-13 is also supposed to be an "evil" number, and if you count the two shooters, there were 15. 1 plus 5 equals 6.

Both shooters in the Columbine shooting were 18-6x3 is 18

All of this is interesting, although, as I said, not very valuable for stopping bad things from happening or living life productively.


and let's not forget that President Reagan may have fit the description of the anti-christ. afterall, his full name is Ronald Wilson Reagan, each name comprised of 6 letters!! :eek:

[pnggrad79]

Nothing is going on. Revelations is absurd bullshit.

I disagree very much. I don't think anything in the Bible is bull*&%$! I think John was being allegorical, but Revelation is something to which we need to pay attention.

For instance the different judgments is very good reading, and I hope it is true for believers to stand before God and have Him look at us and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Rick you have every right to believe what you want, but I think Revelation is important as I do every book in the Bible.

[NathanATX]

Let us be careful to keep our focus on the ideas in question... and to do our best not to make this discussion personal.

[tdogg]

Ok, just a slight attempt at some humor...

Hi Nate!

Back to the topic at hand...I'm not sure what to think. I will tell you that I was raised A of G, and ever since a small child (and let's just say that was in the '60s folks), Jesus was coming back 'any second.' It was happening NOW. And anybody and everybody was the anti-Christ. And so it continues.

I used to be quite afraid of the prospect. And after I grew up a little, found it interesting that even in the Pentecostal world, none of them can even agree what the heck the book of Revelation meant. There are many different beliefs as to when Jesus is coming back, what's going to happen and the time line. Oh, and who's going to 'raptured' and who's not. Many belief some Christians will not. Many think the rapture will happen later in the tribulations, many others before. Some think it will happen right at the end.

So, if those who consider themselves Bible believing, literalist, fundamental, conservation religious Christians cannot come to an agreement, how will the rest of us ever figure it out? The answer? Follow Christ's teachings of love, compassion, charity, helping the poor and hungry, taking care of the widows and orphans, and being best pals with folks that those same religious zealots wouldn't throw table scraps to.

[NathanATX]

Ok, just a slight attempt at some humor...

Hi Nate!

Back to the topic at hand...I'm not sure what to think. I will tell you that I was raised A of G, and ever since a small child (and let's just say that was in the '60s folks), Jesus was coming back 'any second.' It was happening NOW. And anybody and everybody was the anti-Christ. And so it continues.

I used to be quite afraid of the prospect. And after I grew up a little, found it interesting that even in the Pentecostal world, none of them can even agree what the heck the book of Revelation meant. There are many different beliefs as to when Jesus is coming back, what's going to happen and the time line. Oh, and who's going to 'raptured' and who's not. Many belief some Christians will not. Many think the rapture will happen later in the tribulations, many others before. Some think it will happen right at the end.

So, if those who consider themselves Bible believing, literalist, fundamental, conservation religious Christians cannot come to an agreement, how will the rest of us ever figure it out? The answer? Follow Christ's teachings of love, compassion, charity, helping the poor and hungry, taking care of the widows and orphans, and being best pals with folks that those same religious zealots wouldn't throw table scraps to.

I think you're right on the money... the only piece missing for me is extending that same love and care to the zealots.

If we truly awaken to the Christ-consciousness within us and come to know God as present everywhere, in everyone... there is no enemy. There is no one to fear. There is only love.

My own anger and fear-responses to life, violence, people, etc... let me know that I still have much to learn about resting in the Secret Place of the awareness of God's presence.

That's one of the powerful things that Soulforce calls us to do... to reevaluate our anger and fear... to embrace the principles of non-violence in all areas of our lives and thinking... to take a stand for people who are being victimized, but to do so in a way that brings all people closer to reconciliation as the "beloved community."

Like you said... it's hard to hold to that kind of conscious living when worrying about doomsday events and prophecies.

"God has not given you the spirit of fear, but She has given unto you a spirit of power, love and a sound mind."

[Steven E. Webster]

I disagree very much. I don't think anything in the Bible is bull*&%$! I think John was being allegorical, but Revelation is something to which we need to pay attention.

For instance the different judgments is very good reading, and I hope it is true for believers to stand before God and have Him look at us and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Rick you have every right to believe what you want, but I think Revelation is important as I do every book in the Bible.

I'm coming to this discussion late--sorry. I take the book of Revelation seriously, but it was a product of its own time. It does not predict the future. I believe the images of a New Jerusalem, of no more darkness and no more tears are an expression of hope that Christians should embrace. But it does not predict the future. It was written in response to Roman persecution in the first century. It is written in a literary style known as "apocalyptic" and is not the only ancient Jewish or Christian document written in this style. It is not to be taken literally as predictions of the future.

The beast and the number 666 in Revelation refer to Nero, one of the Roman Emperors of the first century and the first one to persecute Christians.

You're probably going to find that most UCC pastors agree with this interpretation of the Revelation of John. Maybe another reason you're going to disagree with the Pastor you mention elsewhere. I hope you take the time to give this point of view some serious consideration. I know it may run counter to your evangelical upbringing.

You may, in the end, decide to stick with the interpretations of your evangelical upbringing, but I hope you can understand and respect the kind of interpretation you might find in the UCC church as well.

I believe in Christian unity---but it sure can be tough when it comes to disputes over deeply held convictions about Scripture. We run into these same problems of interpretation when it comes to the LGBT issue, and the churches get all divided over interpretation of scripture on the LGBT issue, too.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

What source did you get your facts from that says that 666 refers to Nero and the Roman Empire? Just curious, because I have never read anywhere where this might be an explanation for John's vision here.

[tpdncr4christ]

What source did you get your facts from that says that 666 refers to Nero and the Roman Empire? Just curious, because I have never read anywhere where this might be an explanation for John's vision here.

There is a really good book of fiction that takes another look at Revalation from a different factual background that says things about how 666 is Cesar Nero. I'll try and find it for you... really a good book.

Does anyone think this could happen as a means of identification, or is this guy blowing smoke? If this happened, is this the mark of the beast? I mean, it is getting ridiculous at the airports and all, as well. I was joking that they would soon start making us totally strip and them do a full body search, since they make us take off our shoes and jackets, and we have to scan everything as it is.

At the moment, the current political standing of personal identification that is considered part of the body is considered an invasion of privacy and a violation of personal rights. I work at Target and we always joke about how much easier it would be to just place your thumb on a screen rather than having to swipe a card or use cash. The thing is though, most people consider that a serious invasion of personal space, so I don't think its going to happen for a very long time.

[Steven E. Webster]

What source did you get your facts from that says that 666 refers to Nero and the Roman Empire? Just curious, because I have never read anywhere where this might be an explanation for John's vision here.

My understanding is that it is commonly accepted among many biblical scholars that Nero = 666. I probably first read of this 30 years ago in a Bible commentary, but I am just now reading a book by two biblical scholars that refer to this. Here is what they write as they discuss the image in Revelation of the dragon who seeks to devour the baby of a woman "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet" (Revelation 12):

It is clear that the child is Jesus, and the dragon, the ancient serpent, the beast, is Rome, the incarnation of empire of that time. After the dragon, the beast, the ancient serpent, loses a battle in heaven, he is cast down to the earth, where he rules the world. Later in Revelation, we are told that the beast is the city built on seven hills that rules the world (17:9, 18). In the first century, that could only mean Rome.

Moreover, we are told the "number" of the beast: "It's number is six hundred sixty-six" (13:18). Using an ancient Jewish technique for encoding a name into a number, called gematria, the number 666 decodes into "Caesar Nero," the emperor Nero. Nero ruled the empire from 54 to 69 CE and was the first emperor to actively persecute the followers of Jesus. According to early Christian tradition, both Peter and Paul were executed during Nero's reign.

Now I don't know anything personally about this "ancient Jewish technique for encoding a name into a number," but I believe these two scholars, Marcus Borg (an Episcopalian) and John Dominic Crossan (a Roman Catholic) are reliable and wouldn't make this stuff up. Not only that, if they did make it up, they wouldn't get away with it because other scholars would call them on it.

The passage quoted above is found on page 194 of the book The First Christmas.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

All I can say is that this discussion has taken a fascinating turn. Interesting stuff history.

[pnggrad79]

So if Nero was the beast, he sure doesn't fit all the other characteristics. He didn't desecrate the temple in Jerusalem. He didn't force everyone to have this number on their forehead or right hand. He didn't try to kill Jesus as he was being born. Herod was the only figure that this remotely fits. And by that time Jesus was 2 years old and on his way to Egypt because the angel had warned Joseph in a dream to get out of there because Herod wanted to kill him. That story isn't in this passage.
Nero didn't kill the two witnesses, although reportedly Peter and Paul were both killed during his reign. But their bodies weren't left in the street for everyone to see. (Rev. 11) If they were, I have not read anything to that effect.

There is no record of Roman citizens being forced to put Nero's number on their foreheads or right hands. Where does it say that? Moreover, when did plagues hit the Romans who did have this mark on them, happen? Where is that recorded?

When did the Euphrates River dry up during Nero's reign? (Rev. 16:12) When did the seas become blood? (Rev. 16:4) When did the battle of Armageddon happen? (Rev. 16:13)

If Revelation is mostly symbolic of actual events, I just don't know how all the symbolism fits with what actually happened during Nero's reign.


Point is, if Nero was the beast, or antichrist, he doesn't fit any of the other descriptors in Revelation. I would be interested to read this book to see how the author ties all this together.

[Steven E. Webster]

So if Nero was the beast, he sure doesn't fit all the other characteristics. He didn't desecrate the temple in Jerusalem. He didn't force everyone to have this number on their forehead or right hand. He didn't try to kill Jesus as he was being born. Herod was the only figure that this remotely fits. And by that time Jesus was 2 years old and on his way to Egypt because the angel had warned Joseph in a dream to get out of there because Herod wanted to kill him. That story isn't in this passage.
Nero didn't kill the two witnesses, although reportedly Peter and Paul were both killed during his reign. But their bodies weren't left in the street for everyone to see. (Rev. 11) If they were, I have not read anything to that effect.

There is no record of Roman citizens being forced to put Nero's number on their foreheads or right hands. Where does it say that? Moreover, when did plagues hit the Romans who did have this mark on them, happen? Where is that recorded?

When did the Euphrates River dry up during Nero's reign? (Rev. 16:12) When did the seas become blood? (Rev. 16:4) When did the battle of Armageddon happen? (Rev. 16:13)

If Revelation is mostly symbolic of actual events, I just don't know how all the symbolism fits with what actually happened during Nero's reign.


Point is, if Nero was the beast, or antichrist, he doesn't fit any of the other descriptors in Revelation. I would be interested to read this book to see how the author ties all this together.

Pnggrd,

I don't think one needs to intepret Revelation as being a precise allegory in which every element corresponds precisely to specific individuals and events in exact chronological order. Nero, after all, is himself a symbol of Roman power, as are any number of people including Herod, who was a mere puppet of Roman power. The Temple was, in fact, desecrated by the Romans in 63 B.C.E. by the General Pompey. It was, presumably, desecrated again in 70 C.E. when it was destroyed by the Romans (this time after Nero's time). The Emperor Caligula seriously threatened to descrate the Temple by setting up his own image in the Holy of Holies just a few years before Nero. I believe Caligua died before he could accomplish this outrage.

The book I refer to, The First Christmas by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan doesn't deal very much with the Book of Revelation at all, but deals primarily with the Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke. They don't believe those stories give us much in the way of facts. For instance, it's most likely that Jesus was born in Nazareth in Galilee and not in Bethlehem at all. You might find the book a real eye-opener since it is written from what you might consider a "liberal" point of view. Even if, in the end, you feel you must reject its point of view, I would hope that you might appreciate the point of view of liberal and progressive Christians like myself who agree with the approach and general point of view of Borg and Crossan.

Who knows what the author of John had in mind when he refers to the "mark of the beast." It may be to some historical situation that his readers knew about and understood, but that we don't know about because what ever the situation was, it has been lost to history. The Romans certainly had an extensive taxation system and controlled trade in such a way that they could collect money on all kinds of business and trade. The "mark of the beast" might refer to some kind of tax stamp or something. Again, it might not be a literal mark on people's foreheads. I just doubt that is was a microchip planted under people's skin either.

The Amish believe that social security numbers are "the mark of the beast" and they refuse to use social security numbers. (When I worked in the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, I guess I was working for the beast, and we just arbitrarily assigned the Amish numbers so that we could process their tax returns.)

As for the Book of Revelation, I would suggest you do some research on what scholars outside of narrow "Evangelical" or "conservative" circles are writing about it. Borg and Crossan are by no means unique in their point of view.

I'm not insisting that you agree with "liberal scholarship," but I'd hope that you would appreciate it as one possible Christian viewpoint and not as "heresy" or "apostacy." I believe that Borg and Crossan are very serious Christians indeed.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

And that is the perspective- one in which I do not claim to have a expertise- of modern psychology, specicially, the work of Jung ( a student of Freud), who posited something called the the Collective Unconscious- which has it's own images and symbols. As well, he posisted, based on dream analysis, that the imgages encountered could also be personally specific, that is, about the person having the experience.

How is one to dertermine The Revelation of John in light of this perspective? (BTW-Dream states and mystical states of consciousness- if I am not mistaken- are not different from an objective point of view: both ulitize alpha and theta brain waves). Certainly, one things comes to mind. The man was having some kind of mystical experieince- we can probably all agree about that. However, what his experience means, and it's relevance to the reader is something else entirely.

If I have learned anything from sitting on a cushion, it is that mystical experieinces are exceedingly difficult to translate into words, much less anything resembling a coherent narative. They simply defy the kind of left brained logic that is all too often imposed upon them. In that sense, I believe one must be careful in assigning broad external realities to otherwise personal matters.

Let's not forget this: it was John's Revelation. No one else's.

[pnggrad79]

I personally know of conservatives who view Titus' desecration of the Temple in 70 A.D. as the "first" desecration and that it was a foretelling of the desecration by the beast/antichrist.

Who says Christ was NOT born in Bethlehem and instead Nazareth, when it is what the Bible says? Is this too some metaphor or allegory? Does Bethlehem represent somehow Nazareth? I would love for someone to show me credible evidence that this is true.

As for the mark of the beast and Revelations- I agree, a lot of it seems to be a metaphorical vision of John's. That is not my point of contention. I can entertain a more liberal approach, but I am not open to completely ignoring what is there and making up stuff because it makes me feel better. The Bible says what it says, and until God himself tells me different, I don't think any human has any business rewriting or redefining anything. I just want to understand exactly to what John is referring , and not someone's supposition or conjecture.

[tdogg]

The thing about the Bible is, that over hundreds and thousands of years, it was been interpreted and re-interpreted and translated and re-translated into numerous languages and versions. So, a person's understanding of what the scriptures mean would be personal and not necessarily across the board. In other words, I could read a set of verses and they would mean something specific to me, but you could read them and it might mean something different. The Bible is undisputably written that way.

Similar to the exercise - take 20 people in a circle, then tell the first person something and have them tell the next and so on until the 20th person say sit out loud. With very few exceptions, what the 20th person says differs entirely from what the first was told. I cannot believe that what we may read in the Bible sitting on our bookshelf is exactly what the original writings said. If I believe that the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, I certainly cannot believe that what I read today is necessarily what God meant to be in there.

And then of course, there are the missing books that various religious leaders of the day refused to include in what we know as The Bible. My opinion - read the Bible, use what you read, pray and meditate much, so you can get the full benefit on a personal level (yourself only). It takes faith, but my Bible says my God is sufficient for me. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Book of Revelation (although I did growing up, probably read it at least 50 times in my life), I can't buy into a fear-based faith.

[Steven E. Webster]

I just want to understand exactly to what John is referring , and not someone's supposition or conjecture.

But, Pnggrd, didn't this whole thread begin with your supposition or conjecture that "the mark of the beast" refers to some new government identification plan? Doesn't all our interpretations of the Bible involve supposition and conjecture?

The idea that Jesus was born in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem doesn't seem at all outrageous to me. There are only two Gospels that deal with this question at all--Matthew and Luke. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth." According to Luke the family home is in Nazareth, but the family has to make a trip to Bethlehem where Jesus is born away from home. According to Matthew, Bethlehem seems to be Jesus' home--the family lives in a house there, but Joseph decided later to settle the family in Nazareth because he thought it was safer. So, scholars come to the conclusion that the birth in Bethlehem was inserted into the story because Bethlehem is "David's City" and it was appropriate for Jesus to be descended from David.

It seems likely that he was called "Jesus of Nazareth" because he really was from Nazareth, born and raised. I suppose this kind of ruins some of our favorite Christmas Carols--but not really. My favorite one is still "Once in Royal David's City." Where Jesus was born is not as important as who he was and is.

Simply compare the two stories--Luke and Matthew. They don't really agree on very much. Luke has no side trip to Egypt, no mention of Herod, no indication that Joseph moved the family to Nazareth to avoid danger in Bethlehem, no special star guiding wise men from the east. Matthew has nothing at all to say about the Archangel Gabriel appearing to Mary, or a journey to Bethlehem from Nazareth. These stories are literary creations--they convey an important message about our faith in the fulfillment of God's promises through Jesus--they just aren't literally factual in every detail. That wasn't the intention of the authors.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

If I have learned anything from sitting on a cushion, it is that mystical experieinces are exceedingly difficult to translate into words, much less anything resembling a coherent narative. They simply defy the kind of left brained logic that is all too often imposed upon them. In that sense, I believe one must be careful in assigning broad external realities to otherwise personal matters.

Let's not forget this: it was John's Revelation. No one else's.

Daniel,
I'm not disagreeing with you too much. But I do believe that The Revelation of John did have meaning to his readers in the early church--it was not simply a private experience with a meaning only for John. It is written very much in the style of literature known as "apocalyptic." It uses the conventions of that style of literature.

You are probably not far off with Jung and archetypes---but any good literature might tap into the same archetypes.

Had Revelation had meaning for no one at all but John, it probably would not have been preserved and included in the Bible.

Of course, we should remember that the inclusion of Revelation in the Bible was always controversial from the beginning and remained controversial right into Luther's time. (Luther didn't care for it much either.) One of the objections to it from the beginning was the extreme violence of much of its imagery. It is likely that it was composed under the stress and pressure of severe persecution.

Steven Webster

[Pablo Rafael]

I think there is a danger to try to read into the book of Revelation events from our current times. People throughout history have tried to pinpoint the "antichrist". Martin Luther said that the papacy was the antichrist. And at that time in history it probably was a reasonable idea; the Medici family had hijacked the papacy and had great secular and religious power. Today I doubt many people worry about the papcy being the antichrist. When I was a teenager there was a preacher who claimed that Jimmy Carter was the antichrist. Hal Lindsey made himself a major religious figure by claiming to have pinpointed the events in Revelation as modern day (1970's) events. The fact that none of his predictions panned out did not prevent him from making more predictions decades later.

I think John's Revelation is packed with meaning, but trying to associate a specific person with a prophecy is useless. Revelation gives a message of hope to people who are suffering under persecution. It repeatedly shows that God always gives a second chance; there is always a call to return to God. It encourages those who sufer telling us that God is not absent or impotent but actively working for his people.

Also it is a relatively recent (1800's) idea that the Revelation is prophecy for future events. That is part of the Dispensational theology that came into being at that time. Prior to the advent of Dispensational theology the church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) understood Revelation as written to a church suffering persecution at the hands of the Roman empire. But just because I think that the focus of the book is the church during Roman persecution, doesn't mean that I think it has no meaning for today. I think the Bible has meaning for all times and all generations.

Also the number "7" is used to represent God in the Revelation. "6" is used to represent sinful man who falls short. Therefore "666" shows us a force that is not God and always falls short of God's ideal. I think the antichrist is alive in all forces that seek to bring hatred and selfishness into the world.

[pnggrad79]

Pablo,
I can see your point as being somewhat plausible. Anything that falls short of God's ideal would be antichrist. So what your point says, at least that is what I think, is that the antichrist could be more of a collection of evil men or motives, rather than an individual.
I remember my Dad showing me a book called "The Dispensation of Truth" that encapsulated the prophecies of Daniel, Jesus and Revelation and tied them all together in a neat little graphic in the shape of a man, and how each world empire was represented-Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and then when it fell, Europe represented the remnants of Rome through the Catholic church. As nations were created and formed, it formed the fingers and toes of this man. The US iwas included as a "grandchild" of Europe. This book alluded to if not directly stated that when all the ten toes of the man had been identified then the antichrist would appear and begin his reign of terror. I remember being very scared when the 11th member of the EU was admitted, because this book says that the antichrist will come from one of those countries. Well nothing happened and now there are like 14 countries in the EU, correct? or have more been added? Point is, it seemed like it made sense, but then again, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want, by posing conjecture and questions, and people buy it!!! I did. How many people thought WW1 and WW2 were the end of the world? How many people thought Adolf Hitler was the antichrist?

It showed me that we should question and pose possibilities, but never be so arrogant as to say this is what it means and this is what is going to happen. We don't know and I think God wants it that way.

[Daniel]

Daniel,
I'm not disagreeing with you too much. But I do believe that The Revelation of John did have meaning to his readers in the early church--it was not simply a private experience with a meaning only for John. It is written very much in the style of literature known as "apocalyptic." It uses the conventions of that style of literature.

You are probably not far off with Jung and archetypes---but any good literature might tap into the same archetypes.

Had Revelation had meaning for no one at all but John, it probably would not have been preserved and included in the Bible.

Of course, we should remember that the inclusion of Revelation in the Bible was always controversial from the beginning and remained controversial right into Luther's time. (Luther didn't care for it much either.) One of the objections to it from the beginning was the extreme violence of much of its imagery. It is likely that it was composed under the stress and pressure of severe persecution.

Steven- I don't feel like we're disagreeing. Certainly- the early church put a lot of stock in the Book of Revelation. That isn't the basis of my argument.

What I've been trying to say is that written accounts of revelation, whether they are from John or Julian of Norwich (Revelations of Divine Love) and others....

(Interesting site: http://www.umilta.net/mystics.html#BirgittaSweden)


....may be relevant in some way to the Seeker of God. But that search, as far as I see it, doesn't begin by assigning meaning to another person's experience as if it was one's own, especially as specifics are concerned. In that regard, we might as well be dicussing the Prophecies of Nostradamus. Confusion, more than undestanding, reigns therein.

It is this confusion that is addressed in the Zen Buddhist warning of not mistaking the moon for the finger pointing towards it, or seeing the reflection of the moon on the surface of a still lake and forgetting what is what.

Now. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to throw out all experiences of a mystical nature or the rich vein of literature from which one can find much gold. Heck. I've had (as I'm sure many can attest- we each- I bet- have a story or two which runs toward the mystical) my share of 'interesting' experiences. But I must agree with the many voices, who, across the ages, have warned against running after, or trying to replicate them. Making sense out of them, even for one's self, much less someone else, isn't an easy proposition (I guess one question I am asking myself is this: can the logic centers of the brain understand that which is beyond it's grasp, that is, mystical experience's which are by their very nature- abstract and- seemingly- not bound by the laws of time and space?)

Grace, as they say- seems to have her own way of doing things. And this is why I find the need to find personal meaning in another person's experience disquieting. Sharing one's experience is one thing. Having it is something else entirely.

No doubt John thought his experience was relevant to others than himself. And while I mean no disrespect towards him: what human doesn't think thus?

We're all a pretty egocentric bunch.

If I drop acid and see God that doesn't mean what I see means what another may suppose.

[Pablo Rafael]

It showed me that we should question and pose possibilities, but never be so arrogant as to say this is what it means and this is what is going to happen. We don't know, and I think God wants it that way.

Good point! The Bible is often vague, complex and at times seemingly contradictory. I think that God has not spelled out every detail because first of all we would not be able to comprehend it, and secondly because faith is something that takes a lifetime of searching, prayer and reflection.

So often conservative Christianity has tried to define God and confine him to a set of approved doctrines. To say, "I don't know" or "I don't understand" is seen as a sign of a weak faith. Actually I think admitting that one doesn't know and understand shows a strong faith. A faith that doesn't have to limit God to a set of teachings figured out by fallible people.

[antiochian]

The Book of Revelations has been distorted by so many. How many quacks haven't used its pages to try and predict the end (despite the fact that scripture says NO ONE but the Father knows that). It would almost have been better to not have included it in the canon, it's so problematic.