Posted on 04/01/2002 7:06:12 AM PST by marshmallow
So by WHOSE WORDS do you cling to your misbelief that Revelation was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple? Whose scholarship do you accept in order to believe that? By whose words do you believe that the following...
Rev 13:15 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.
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.
...all these mind-blowing events happened between the years 32 AD and 70 AD??????
In any event, as I said, it's been a fascinating insight into the Roman Catholic mind. I know Campion, that it is terribly important for you to "win" this argument. So, as Bill O'Reilly always says...
I'll give you the last word...
As far as those earth-shattering events:
Rev 13:15 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.
You've heard of emperor worship, right? Most of the early Christian martyrs were killed specifically because they wouldn't engage in it.
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
I believe you'll find something very much like that was enforced by the Romans, however, that may be merely metaphor for emperor-worship.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.
"Caesar Nero" in Hebrew letters gives exactly the required number.
You know, don't you, that after Titus' legions conquered the Temple precincts in AD 70, their first act was to set up their regimental standards in the court of the Gentiles and sacrifice to them? But I want you to have the last word, so perhaps you can explain this verse:
Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
What or who are the seven kings upon which the woman sits, five of whom had fallen before John wrote this verse, one of whom was reigning as he wrote the verse, and one who would be yet to come?
The revived ROMAN empire led by the antichrist is the one to come. (With a False Prophet leading a bogus One-World Religion, also of ROMAN origin)
Now you answer ME a question...
When -- in the 1st century -- did the Romans cause an IMAGE to speak? By what technology?
When did the 1st century Romans (or whoever) "cause fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men"??? (Rev 13: 13)
When did Nero (from your example) cause all humans on the earth to have a mark on their hand or forehead without which NO ONE could buy or sell?
Reading what you two so eloquently state, not only on this thread but many others I've "lurked" on, lets me know it was the right decision to come back to the Catholic Church.
Recently come back? I never would have known! Your eloquence on Catholic facts belies that.
My "leave of absence" spanned 25 years. I'm trying to get back up to speed on dogma.
Take care.
Blessings to you!
Okay, you answered one-seventh of the question. Who are the other six?
Now you answer ME a question...
Well, you didn't answer mine. It seems hardly fair.
When -- in the 1st century -- did the Romans cause an IMAGE to speak? By what technology?
They had magicians in the ancient world, too. You'll recall Moses met some in Pharaoh's court.
Actually, this undermines your interpretation a good deal more than it does mine. Has it not occurred to you that making an image speak is not much of an accomplishment these days, and most people would react to it, not with awe, but with amusement? I mean, if you want an "image that speaks," you can buy various kinds down at Toys 'R' Us for very reasonable prices, but I wouldn't expect anyone to fall down in idolatrous worship before them.
By WHOSE SCHOLARSHIP do you believe Revelation was written before 70 AD?
Chilton, for one. But there are many sources that argue that. I gave you the link above, why don't you check it for yourself. The obvious question in any case is that, since Rev 1:1 says it concerns "things that must shortly take place," if it doesn't concern the events of AD 70, what else can it possibly be referring to?
I think it's odd that you take verses about images speaking to be absolutely literal to the extent that you are asking what "technology was used," but you take Rev 1:1 to be so non-literal that you make it absolutely meaningless. "These events must shortly take place, sometime with in the next 2500 years or so." Uh-huh.
Be Blessed!
I gave you a link to a CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA that freely admits Revelation was written in 95 AD.
The number of reverts and converts, just here mong Freepers, can be extrapolated out into the culture at large, to point out a number so staggering that it must have the anti-Catholic folks in a tizzy.
They just cannot comprehend why all their ranting, insults, and proof texts do not win them converts, but drive folks home to Rome. But it does. Repeatedly.
It would be alike wearisome and useless to enumerate even the more prominent applications made of the Apocalypse. Racial hatred and religious rancour have at all times found in its vision much suitable and gratifying matter. Such persons as Mohammed, the Pope, Napoleon, etc., have in turn been identified with the beast and the harlot. To the "reformers" particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl then against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting. Owing to the patient and strenuous research of scholars, the interpretation of the Apocalypse has been transferred to a field free from the odium theologicum. But then the meaning of the Seer is determined by the rules of common exegesis. Apart from the resurrection, the millennium, and the plagues preceding the final consummation, they see in his visions references to the leading events of his time. Their method of interpretation may be called historic as compared with the theological and political application of former ages. The key to the mysteries of the book they find in 17:8-14. For thus says the Seer: "Let here the mind that hath understanding give heed".
I (for one) will concede Revelations could have been written about 95 A.D. Thank God the Catholic Church saved the references for us!
Wonderful!! Then you will no doubt conceed, that when Revelation talks about Israel and the Temple etc. it is prophesying the future, (Since Israel and the Temple were destroyed in 70 AD 25 years before Revelation was written.)
Therefor, I hope you will agree that it was GOD, not puny mortal men at the UN, that brought Israel back to the land in 1948, so that the prophesies in Revelationcould be fulfilled (which is the will of God).
How curious then, that Pius XII did NOT want this to happen! (See my note #18, with link to the story). Since the Catholic Encyclopedia admits Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Revelation prophesies about a literal, physical Israel, restored to their ancient homeland, WHICH GOD GAVE TO THEM FOREVER AND EVER
Gen 13:14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
Then my question is, if the pope is of God, why did Pius XII not want God to keep His word to His chosen people, Israel?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.