Who is the Anti-Christ?

[liberalismo]

Luke is right. Either Caligula or Nero was the Anti Christ. Or more generally Rome itself.

[Butterbean]

STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?

Because of what is written in the bible about him.  Yes, I have faith that the bible is true.

[Butterbean]

STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
 
Thanks for taking the time to answer:)

lol, sorry I was out of town for the last few days...real life got in the way of getbig

[Deicide]

Because of what is written in the bible about him.  Yes, I have faith that the bible is true.

Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.

[loco]

Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.

He was the beast?  He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?

[Deicide]

He was the beast?  He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?

Once again reading the Bible in a totally literal way...

The historical-critical method treats Revelation as a text and attempts to understand Revelation in its first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

This approach considers the text as an address to seven historical communities in Asia Minor. Under this view, assertions that "the time is near" are to be taken literally by those communities. Consequently the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to contemporary Greco-Roman society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic and subject to divine judgment. There is further information on these topics in the entries on higher criticism and apocalyptic literature.

The acceptance of Revelation into the canon is itself the result of a historical process, essentially no different from the career of other texts. The eventual exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon may throw light on the unfolding historical processes of what was officially considered orthodox, what was heterodox, what was even heretical. Interpretation of meanings and imagery are anchored in what the historical author intended and what his contemporary audience inferred; a message to Christians not to assimilate into the Roman Imperial Culture was John's central message. Thus, his letter (written in the apocalyptic genre) is pastoral in nature, and the symbolism of Revelation is to be understood entirely within its historical, literary and social context. Critics study the conventions of apocalyptic literature and events of the 1st century to make sense of what the author may have intended.

During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI remarked: "The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century."

Anyway...

Dismissal
Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books".[29] Thomas Jefferson omitted it entirely from the Bible he edited, and wrote that he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[30] "Martin Luther found it an offensive piece of work" and "John Calvin had grave doubts about its value."[31]

[Deicide]

He was the beast?  He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?

Diffferent scholarly interpretations...talkin g about ancient people not magic devils or the like...

Interpretations

[edit] Name
One interpretation is that 666 encodes the letters of someone’s name or title, identifying the Antichrist.

Nero
Scholars who believe that the Book of Revelation refers to historical people and events argue that the number represents Nero. In Hebrew gematria, every letter has a corresponding number. Summing these numbers gives a numeric value to a word or name. The Greek spelling, “Nerōn Kaisar,” transliterates into Hebrew as “נרון קסר” or “nrwn qsr”. Adding the corresponding values yields 666, as shown:

Resh (ר) Samekh (ס) Koof (ק) Noon (נ) vav (ו) Resh (ר) Noon (נ) TOTAL
200 60 100 50 6 200 50 666

By contrast, the Latin title for Nero is spelled simply “Nerō Caesar,” which transliterates to “נרו קסר” or “nrw qsr” and has a value of 616, which may explain that variation.[17]

Resh(ר) Samekh (ס) Koof (ק) vav (ו) Resh (ר) Noon (נ) TOTAL
200 60 100 6 200 50 616

The hypothesis that 666 or 616 is a code for a Roman emperor seems to have historical support. The emperors were noted for their oppression of both Jews and Christians. Both communities were known to use numerology, codes and symbols (such as the Ichthys) when living under Roman rule to avoid persecution.

Caligula
David Parker, professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham said that the correct number, 616, refers to the emperor Caligula[18]. Caligula's attempt to erect his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem may have inspired the author of Revelation to speak against the Roman Emperor.[4] In Hebrew, Gaius Caligula Caesar is גסקלגסקסר (gsqlgs qsr). Adding the values yields 616.

Resh Samekh Qoph Samekh Gimel Lamed Qoph Samekh Gimel TOTAL
200 60 100 60 3 30 100 60 3 616

In Greek, "Gaios Kaisar" also yields 616

Γ α ι ο σς Κ α ι σς α ρ TOTAL
3 1 10 70 200 20 1 10 200 1 100 616

Domitian
The German Protestant theologian Ethelbert Stauffer, arguing that gematria had been the most popular form of numerology not only among Jews but also in the Graeco-Roman world (Pergamon, Pompeii)[19], conceived a Greek gematrical procedure to explain the number 666. Judging from the precise information that the Book of Revelation gives about the person behind the number 666[20], Stauffer concluded that the "beast" can in general only refer to a Roman emperor and argued that this Emperor must be Domitian, because he had reigned during the proposed time of origin of the Apocalypse and supposedly was called "The Beast" as a "secret derisive nickname" by Romans, Greek, Christians and Jews.[21] Stauffer computed the Number of the Beast using the short form of Domitian's five titles and names A KAI ΔOMET ΣEB ΓE, as derived from the abbreviations on coins and inscriptions.[22] Domitian's official title in Latin was Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus. This was rendered as Autokrator Kaisar Dometianos Sebastos Germanikos for his Greek-speaking subjects. And in turn, for their coins, this abbreviated to A.KAI.DOMET.SEB.GE which totals 666 in Greek Gematria.

Α Κ Α Ι Δ Ο M Ε Τ Σ Ε Β Γ E TOTAL
1 20 1 10 4 70 40 5 300 200 5 2 3 5 666

Robert Graves suggested that DCLXVI, 666 in Roman numerals, is an abbreviation for the Latin sentence “Domitianus Caesar Legatos Xti Violenter Interfecit”, or “The Emperor Domitian violently killed the envoys of Christ”.[23]

Papacy
Some Protestant Bible commentators have equated the "beast" of Revelation chapter 13 with the Papacy.[24] To this end, the letters of a title of the Pope used from 8th - 16th century, Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of The Son of God), are summed to total 666 in Roman numerals. The earliest extant record of a Protestant writer on this subject is that of Professor Andreas Helwig in 1612 in his work Antichristus Romanus. The title was contained in the Donation of Constantine, a forged document falsely claiming to come from the Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church.[25] However, this title was never an official title of the Pope.

V I C A R I V S F I L I I D E I TOTAL
5 1 100 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 50 1 1 500 0 1 666

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the "mark of the beast" (but not the number 666) refers to a future, universal, legally enforced Sunday-worship. “Those who reject God’s memorial of creatorship — the Bible Sabbath — choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God’s appointed day of worship, will receive the ‘mark of the beast.’”[26] "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast."[27]

Some fundamentalists believe that the mark of the beast refers to the Catholic practice of making the sign of the cross. [28]

Martin Luther wrote in a footnote to Rev 13:15-18: "Spirit means / that it is active / and not a dead image / but that it has its rights and offices in its womb. These are six hundred and sixty and six years. So long the earthly papacy remains." During the Reformation, Martin Luther noted that "Benediktos" added up to 666 in Greek gematria, and he thought it might refer to a Pope named Benedict or to Benedictine monks.

Β ε ν ε δ ι κ τ ο σς TOTAL
2 5 50 5 4 10 20 300 70 200 666

Luther has many comments and theories against the papacy in the footnotes to his translation of the Book of Revelation.


[edit] Lateinos, Euanthas, Teitan
 Please wikify this article or section.
Help improve this article by adding relevant internal links. (June 2008)

Irenaeus suggested that the number indicates that the beast is the sum of all apostasy committed over the course of six thousand years.[29] Irenaeus suggested that 666 might refer to Lateinos (The ancient Greek word for "Latin man"), Euanthas or Teitan. Irenaeus wrote:
It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshiped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed "Titan" by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name "Titan" has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan."[30]

L A T E I N O S TOTAL
30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 666
T E I T A N TOTAL
300 5 10 300 1 50 666
E U A N TH A S TOTAL
5 400 1 50 9 1 200 666


[edit] Other suggested names
Andrew of Caesarea in his Commentary on Revelation gives seven names: Lampetis (the lustrous one), Teitan, Palaibaskanos (an ancient sorcerer), Benediktos (blue bastard), Kakos Odegos (bad guide), Alethes Blaberos (really harmful), and Amnos Adikos (unjust lamb) each of which gives a total of 666. Most of these names are repeated by Arethas of Caesarea, who in his Commentary adds Teitan from Irenaeus and O Niketes (the winner).[31]

Victorinus of Pettau gives the names Teitan, Antemos (opponent), Diclux (double-dealer) and Genserikos; the last he calls Gothic. As it is plainly Genseric, the Vandal king, who captured Rome in 455 AD., the passage as a whole can not go back to Victorinus, who belonged to the third century. It is not, however surprising that the commentary should be brought up to date, after Genseric became notorious through the sack of Carthage or of Rome. Of the other names in Victorinus only Diclux needs mention. It is said to be the Latin counterpart of Teitan and by reckoning each letter at its value in Roman numerals, the total of 666 is again given.[31]

Venerable Bede gives three names: Teitan, Antemos (opponent), and Arnoyme (I deny).

Beatus, a Spanish monk, gives eight names among which are Damnatus (Damned), Antichristus (Antichrist), and Acxyme (for aichime or achine=666). The numerical interpretation of Antichristus is based on the order of letters in the Latin alphabet, a=1 to x =300, but the accusative must be taken and spelled Antechristum.

[Butterbean]

Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.

Most biblical scholars agree?  That seems like quite a claim but maybe you have a list of all biblical scholars and a list of the ones that agree w/your assertion?

I do believe that Nero can be seen as a type of anti-christ...as well as Hitler.

But "the" anti-christ I'm talking about will be the one that:

"causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and he provides that no one should be able to buy or sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)

[kiwiol]

Question: "Who is the antichrist?"

What do you think of this, STella?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki

And would you say that is the exact same thing as the biblical concept of an AntiChrist or a parallel concept? And FYI, anyone who has claimed to be Kalki so far are lying.

[The Luke]

The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.

How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?

The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc


All the other "Antichrist-spotting" bullshit is just that... millenarianist bullshit.


Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:
-Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler, Dracula "Son of the Dragon") actually officially declared the Antichrist by the Orthodox Church
-Oliver Cromwell (genocidal zealot) who helped dismantle Christian orthodoxy  
-Genghis Khan, pillage the Church's tax base and that's what you get
-Mohamed... 'nuff said
-Charles Darwin, only declared the Antichrist by some nutty Christian sects... but excommunicated officially by "Book and Candle" ceremony by the Vatican



The Luke

[Deicide]

The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.

How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?

The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc


All the other "Antichrist-spotting" bullshit is just that... millenarianist bullshit.


Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:
-Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler, Dracula "Son of the Dragon") actually officially declared the Antichrist by the Orthodox Church
-Oliver Cromwell (genocidal zealot) who helped dismantle Christian orthodoxy  
-Genghis Khan, pillage the Church's tax base and that's what you get
-Mohamed... 'nuff said
-Charles Darwin, only declared the Antichrist by some nutty Christian sects... but excommunicated officially by "Book and Candle" ceremony by the Vatican



The Luke

These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety is an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.

[The Luke]

These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety in an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.

...Christ. That's just sad.

The Bible is so flawed it's not even funny.


Just consider the stuff that has been edited out of the Old Testament:

-the Book of Enoch... Enoch is Noah's grandfather, who travels to the north pole and then Ireland lead by the Archangel Uriel to be shown the geodesic evidence that a climatic catastrophe is on the way (the Flood). It was excised from the Bible long before Jebus' time because no one understood the metaphors involved: albino giants and clockwork pyramids etc etc

-the Book of Jasher... Jasher was the king of the Jews who sent Moses to repatriate the Egyptian contingent of the Hibiru (Hebrews) to the homeland in the valley of Petra (in Jordan). Jasher ruled the Jews after Moses' death , and his daughter took over after him. All excised from the bible when the Israelites went to war with Petra, except they forgot to delete Solomon's statement "For is it not written in the Book of Jasher".

There's more... but I don't want to bore anyone.


Every fundie should at least be aware that both these books were part of the Old Testament for about a thousand years... and only redacted relatively recently for political reasons.


The Luke

[Butterbean]

What do you think of this, STella?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki

And would you say that is the exact same thing as the biblical concept of an AntiChrist or a parallel concept? And FYI, anyone who has claimed to be Kalki so far are lying.

Interesting Kiwi!  And no, it doesn't really seem parallel to me.

[Butterbean]

The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.

How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?

The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc

The Luke, where did you get this information and why do you accept it as true?

Also can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of slavery back in those days?  Thanks!

Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:

What church?  If it's the Roman Catholic church I don't subscribe to their thinking.

[Butterbean]

These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety is an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.

...Christ. That's just sad.

The Bible is so flawed it's not even funny.


Just consider the stuff that has been edited out of the Old Testament:

-the Book of Enoch... Enoch is Noah's grandfather, who travels to the north pole and then Ireland lead by the Archangel Uriel to be shown the geodesic evidence that a climatic catastrophe is on the way (the Flood). It was excised from the Bible long before Jebus' time because no one understood the metaphors involved: albino giants and clockwork pyramids etc etc

-the Book of Jasher... Jasher was the king of the Jews who sent Moses to repatriate the Egyptian contingent of the Hibiru (Hebrews) to the homeland in the valley of Petra (in Jordan). Jasher ruled the Jews after Moses' death , and his daughter took over after him. All excised from the bible when the Israelites went to war with Petra, except they forgot to delete Solomon's statement "For is it not written in the Book of Jasher".

There's more... but I don't want to bore anyone.


Every fundie should at least be aware that both these books were part of the Old Testament for about a thousand years... and only redacted relatively recently for political reasons.


The Luke

What years were they a part of the OT?

[The Luke]

3,000 BC till about 900 BC (the founding of Jerusalem and subsequent power struggle with the main Hebrew authority in Petra).

The problem with modern Christianity (shown daily on this board) is one of chronic ignorance...
-the 76 "lost" gospels are dismissed in favour of the canonical gospels
-the literary traditions from which most of the Bible stories are lifted is unknown (to Christians)
-the astrological allegories used are not understood
-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc

I would say to any true believer (in any faith) that if you really feel it is literally true; then you either don't know enough about the text or are a moron.

At least Muslims understand the teachings of their faith... they're just morons.


The Luke

[Butterbean]

3,000 BC till about 900 BC (the founding of Jerusalem and subsequent power struggle with the main Hebrew authority in Petra).

Where did you learn this information?

-the 76 "lost" gospels are dismissed in favour of the canonical gospels
-the literary traditions from which most of the Bible stories are lifted is unknown (to Christians)

And this?

-the astrological allegories used are not understood

Can you be more specific?  I'm not sure what you're referencing here.

-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc

Are you talking about Jewish people that observe certain Mosaic Laws or Christian Evangelicals? 

Could you please reference New Testament scriptures that forbid owning engravings ( ), eating shellfish and pork and not being circumcised? 

What do you mean by engravings

The Luke, where did you get this information and why do you accept it as true?

Also can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of slavery back in those days?  Thanks!

Not sure but you may have missed this post?

[The Luke]

 Stella!


I write a detailed post explaining that Evangelicals are by and large chronically ignorant of their own religion, and your answer is to ask me to explain each and every line of the post because you don't have a clue about any of it?

It's called Google... use it.



The Luke
PS... this post is to be read with a tone of exasperation, rather than an irate one.

[Butterbean]

I write a detailed post explaining that Evangelicals are by and large chronically ignorant of their own religion, and your answer is to ask me to explain each and every line of the post because you don't have a clue about any of it?

It's called Google... use it.



The Luke
PS... this post is to be read with a tone of exasperation, rather than an irate one.

Luke, I'm sorry but it looks like you can't back up your position and it looks like it's because you really don't know what is in the bible.

From what I infer, you get your information from an outside source and don't have any (or much) real knowledge of the bible.  That's fine in general but do you see the problem when you say something is in there and cannot back up your claims by posting the verse(s)?  Maybe it is in there and I don't know.  All you have to do is direct me to the passage.

Just to make it simple how about you just give me the New Testament Scriptures that forbid not being circumcised OR eating shellfish OR eating pork.


(I'm not irate either, we're just conversing...I don't mean to make you upset )

[The Luke]

Just to make it simple how about you just give me the New Testament Scriptures that forbid not being circumcised OR eating shellfish OR eating pork.

...it's not in the New Testament, and I never claimed it was.

Dig up the Old Testament imprimatur on male homosexuality (I know all you Evangelicals have that bookmarked), then read the entire passage for a change.

From what I infer, you get your information from an outside source and don't have any (or much) real knowledge of the bible.

...yes, I have read other books. Try it.


The Luke
PS-your knowledge of the Bible is pretty sparse Stella.

[Butterbean]

...it's not in the New Testament, and I never claimed it was.

You said:

-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc

What Evangelicals are you talking about? 





Also, please give the verse(s) in the Old Testament that forbid owing engravings.

[The Luke]

What Evangelicals are you talking about?

...I was mistaken. All American born-again Christians are pro-choice and pro gay rights.

Also, please give the verse(s) in the Old Testament that forbid owing engravings.

...that would be one of the Ten Commandments.

You gotta read the literal academic translations rather then the touchy-feely colloquialisms that pass for translations these days:
"I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other god before me. Thou shalt have no graven images."

...I'm pretty sure that includes engraved coins.


The Luke

[Butterbean]

...I was mistaken. All American born-again Christians are pro-choice and pro gay rights.

hehehe.  Some are, but we were talking about forbidding circumcision, and eating shellfish and pork that you said applies to Evangelicals.  It doesn't.

...that would be one of the Ten Commandments.

You gotta read the literal academic translations rather then the touchy-feely colloquialisms that pass for translations these days:
"I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other god before me. Thou shalt have no graven images."

...I'm pretty sure that includes engraved coins.


The Luke

Oh!  You meant graven image! 

Doesn't graven image pertain to an object that is made to be worshipped?  I suppose some people do worship money

[The Luke]

hehehe.  Some are, but we were talking about forbidding circumcision, and eating shellfish and pork that you said applies to Evangelicals.  It doesn't.

...why not.

The anti-homosexual stuff is in the same list as the dietary proscriptions.


The Luke

[Deicide]

...why not.

The anti-homosexual stuff is in the same list as the dietary proscriptions.


The Luke

An Luke, as I said, debating with Stella is much the same as with MCWAY. Archaeological, exegetical and other forms of evidence are routinely rejected. Faith heads don't believe the things they do because they have sound reasons but because they want to believe...at all costs...remember R. Prices' words:

Holding argues that “Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and that thus “the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Here he serves notice that we will be asked to "admit" that miracles are the only way to account for the rise and success of Christianity. In any other field of inquiry this would be laughed off stage. I am thinking of a cartoon in which a lab-coated scientist is standing at the chalkboard, which is full of integers, and he is pointing to a hollow circle in the midst of it all, saying, "Right here a miracle takes place." Appealing to miracles as a needful causal link is tantamount to confessing bafflement. But in fact, there will be no need for this.