|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 15, 2006 0:20:20 GMT -6
Has revealed itself in my postcount. This is my 666th post.
So on this topic because nothing else is being discussed in Natopia...
A lot of people thing that 666 revealed ANYWHERE is evil. I think it's wierd. I think 666 has to do with something particularly related to the beast, his name, birthday, and means nothing when it reveals itself in regular society... so... er... yeah.
And also Three 6 Mafia, according to them, does not imply 666 mafia. The group claims it started with three members and then added three more, creating the name of the group... er... wierd...
and yes this post is pointless. So what?
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 15, 2006 11:29:26 GMT -6
Well all 666 is a coded way to refer to "Creaser Nero" (the sum of all the letters in Caesar Nero [in the Greek alphabet]) so 666 really isn’t to evil by modern standards. Since the book of revelations was written by a political religious prisoner it isn’t surprising that "the beast" is the leader of the vast and evil (by Christian standards) Roman Empire.
Most peoples problem with the book of revaluations is that they assume that the vision is meant to describe things which have yet to happen, when in point of fact just the opposite is true. Babylon refers to Rome(n Empire), the great whore is the emperor. The seven headed monster refers to the seven hills of the city of Rome. 666 refers to Nero who had died (when he was assassinated by the Roman armed forces) but it was believed that he was the culmination of all evil ("Nero fiddled while Rome burned").
Anyway besides being a historian and politician I'm a biblical scholar at heart. Funny being that I'm an atheist...
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Jun 15, 2006 11:37:05 GMT -6
haha, Natopia: Capitol of Useless Posts
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 15, 2006 11:39:37 GMT -6
And DAM proud!
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 15, 2006 23:16:11 GMT -6
Er... it very specifically says it has yet to happen.
...and don't believe the 666 meaning just because you read it on atheist.com.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 15, 2006 23:17:26 GMT -6
Neither, of course, by any means, should you just believe me, but the Caesar Nero thing to ME seems far-fetched especially when that would have been the past and Revelation specifically refers to things to come...
but when, then, was the tribulation? I don't know of any fire breathing horses that have shown up yet.
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 16, 2006 10:52:27 GMT -6
It's all metaphors man! And besides if you really want to understand Revelations you need to read the book of Daniel. Revelations is just a modernization of Danial (well it was a modernization back around 90 A.D.) And actually I didn’t read the " Caesar Nero thing" on Atheist.com I have been told it by A. My brother (masters in theology specializing in the no canonic gospels) B. My new testament teacher (Presbyterian minister and Chaplin of my high school) C. The history channel! (Now that's reliable!!!) ? But my point is that the book of revelations describes things which are yet to happen but the meaning is grounded in the events and political climate of the first century Roman empire. Nero is the antichrist by all accounts. Of course this brings up the issue of the propositional v. nonpropositional view of the bible. If your a propositionalist then you would beleive that the bible is an exact retelling of gods own words. (in other words seven headed monsters have yet to pop out of the sea) On the other hand if your a nonpropsitionalist it is safe to assume that the bible shouldn’t be interpreted literally. Furthermore, the book of revelations is far from the only apocalyptic writing which was floating around the Mediterranean in the first century. Indeed numerous volumes of such works were written at about the same time. The Apocalypse of Peter, The Book of Enoch the Prophet, The Book of Daniel, The Book of Revelations, etc all depicted similar visions of the end of days. However what separates all of these volumes is the agenda of the author. Revelations (presumably authored by John of Patmos) was a secret encoded cheer for the Christians saying “keep up the good work soon enough Lord Jesus shall be around to shit all over those filthy Romans”. The fact is that John could not come out and say Rome is an evil abomination. If he did he would have ended up in an even worse situation than he was in. So he wrote about the fall of Rome in code. 666 (a human number ) for Nero, Babylon for Rome (in the old testament the Jews are enslaved and persecuted by the Babylonians so the Christian persecutor [Rome] is given the name of a traditional biblical enemy], the seven headed monster for the city itself, the antichrist as Nero/Emperor. It all fits very nicely.
Whether one believes it or not is up to them but I can offer you the facts so as to make a more educated decision.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Jun 16, 2006 13:40:47 GMT -6
Woo go Z!!!
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 16, 2006 20:10:31 GMT -6
A. Taught by an atheist or taught as a theory and decided it was real B. Er... your minister. First, I thought you were an atheist, and second, Westboro baptist church is an example of ministerial stupidity. C. Not necessarily, and on top of that it could have easily been along the lines of "this person theorized." I mean, on History it talks about the Jesus Papers, about the Da Vinci Code, both of which are utter bollocks. It, however, treats it a theory and presents both sides of the coin on that show, whereas the movie about the code present it as completely factual even though it can be proven wrong.
I'd be a mix between the two, believing the vast majority to be true but some things (a la 7 days literally being 7 24 hour periods) to be perhaps less than entirely literal.
I would imagine John saying "Jesus was good and fighting empires is good" would be a better way to say it if that was the truth. However, I take the whole thing about Jesus literally appearing to John a bit differently.
And if you're an atheist you should have no take on it and believe it as entirely craperrific anyway. So there would be no "fact" to you.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 16, 2006 20:14:18 GMT -6
Fortunate, nonetheless, that we can turn a useless post into a useful one.
|
|
|
Post by FCM on Jun 22, 2006 5:57:44 GMT -6
i find it interesting that rome, seen as seemingly totally evil, would become the center of christianity
i used to be an apathetic agnostic, i think thats the right term for "not sure if god exists but really couldnt care less" but over the last couple of years ive become totally atheist
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 22, 2006 11:20:07 GMT -6
No offense to the agnostics of the world but I've always felt they were just atheists without balls.
A. No comments their B. Not my minister my schools Chaplin and a Presbyterian minister. My school is a Presbyterian boarding school founded circa 1860 something. I don't know/understand this comment about the Westboro Baptist Church??? C. History channel was a joke...
About my having an opinion the way the books were written is something anyone can have an opinion on as the authorship and intentions of said author is not a matter of faith. Sure I don't believe in god but I certainly believe that John of Patmos had something in mind when he wrote Revelations. To say that because one is not a believer one cannot engage in what I personally regarding as one of the most fascinating and intellectual pursuits is rubbish. The study of the bible is not a matter of belief v. faithlessness it's a matter of careful study and intellectualism like any other philosophy (philosophy meant in the very broad more Greek sense of the word)
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 22, 2006 11:23:42 GMT -6
i assure u i have the necessary number of balls required for membership in my gender
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 22, 2006 11:33:25 GMT -6
excuse me!
|
|
|
Post by FCM on Jun 22, 2006 11:39:32 GMT -6
erm i think u must mean religious without balls, u get laughed at if u say u believed in god. atleast thats the way it was wen i was at school
an i went to a church school
|
|