Revelation; The Beast- 666

reply to post by Student X

The ultimate question, from the Christian viewpoint, is whether the Creator God was, or was not, communicating with the human race through what was happening and being said in the Bible.

If he was, then of course we must pay attention to what the communication says, and disregard alternatives- it becomes decisive.
If he wasn't, then we may as well give the whole thing up.

But, in the last analyis, I don't think it's possible to find a mediating position between "Yes, he was" and "No, he wasn't". The situation must be one or the other. That, I think, makes it imposible to bring Christianity into an "inclusive" religion in any genuine way.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Student X

 

The ultimate question, from the Christian viewpoint, is whether the Creator God was, or was not, communicating with the human race through what was happening and being said in the Bible.

That is a question for all of humanity. Our categories of knowledge must come together to answer it. Communicating with the Divine is a matter of mysticism by definition.

Are you a mystic?

But, in the last analyis, I don't think it's possible to find a mediating position between "Yes, he was" and "No, he wasn't". The situation must be one or the other. That, I think, makes it imposible to bring Christianity into an "inclusive" religion in any genuine way.

Straightforward Aristotelian logic, eh? You are reducing the question to a pair of opposites: yes or no. But God transcends all pairs of opposites, just as he transcends all categories of thought. Coincidentia oppositorum.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

to me christianity actually does include every tribe every nation. it's very apparent how israel, the true israel, does not even know its own identity any longer.

israel has been blinded in part until the fulness of the gentiles comes in..

the fullness of the blessing in that the gentiles are mostly responsible for spreading the word of God and the fulness of their sins too.

then israel shall remember and come in remembrance before God.

i expect the antichrist to look something like froto. just a young chap.

Originally posted by Student X
Communicating with the Divine is a matter of mysticism by definition.
Are you a mystic?

No, I'm just trusting in the statements of other mystics (eg prophets).
Like most Christians, I'm reliant on the indirect communication.

Straightforward Aristotelian logic, eh? You are reducing the question to a pair of opposites: yes or no. But God transcends all pairs of opposites.

The God described in the Bible does not. There is a fundamental distinction all the way through the Bible between God and not-God. The concept of holiness depends on it. The "you shall have no other gods but me" depends on it. The God you're describing is another kind of God. And that, ironically, is a difference.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X
Communicating with the Divine is a matter of mysticism by definition.
Are you a mystic?

No, I'm just trusting in the statements of other mystics (eg prophets).
Like most Christians, I'm reliant on the indirect communication.

I see.

The God described in the Bible does not. There is a fundamental distinction all the way through the Bible between God and not-God. The concept of holiness depends on it. The "you shall have no other gods but me" depends on it. The God you're describing is another kind of God. And that, ironically, is a difference.

Well, the God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He transcends spacetime and therefore He transcends all pairs of opposites. But the Holy Spirit, which is also God, is immanent.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

Originally posted by Student X

Well, the God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He transcends spacetime and therefore He transcends all pairs of opposites. But the Holy Spirit, which is also God, is immanent.

But one thing which he certainly does not transcend, as I've already mentioned, is the distinction between "holy" and "not holy". The concept of holiness is part of the fundamental difference between God and not-God.
It is akin to the difference betwen "Is" and "Is not", which is also not transcendable.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X

Well, the God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He transcends spacetime and therefore He transcends all pairs of opposites. But the Holy Spirit, which is also God, is immanent.

But one thing which he certainly does not transcend, as I've already mentioned, is the distinction between "holy" and "not holy". The concept of holiness is part of the fundamental difference between God and not-God.
It is akin to the difference betwen "Is" and "Is not", which is also not transcendable.

Yes and no. Whenever people have categories of thought God will transcend them. We may think a pile of cow dung can't be Holy. But it is. We may think that the outrageously violent crucifixion of an innocent person can't be Holy, but it is. Whenever we think something is a certain way we create a limitation. Even the words and symbols we use are limitations. God surpasses all limitations. That can be a painful lesson.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

Originally posted by Student X
We may think a pile of cow dung can't be Holy. But it is. We may think that the outrageously violent crucifixion of an innocent person can't be Holy, but it is.

This doen't abolish the difference between holy and unholy.
It just reminds us that we don't control where the boundary line comes.
If I get out a concordance, I can probably run up a whole catena of "God is not..." statements, which would demonstrate that there is a difference, Biblically speaking, between what God is and what God is not.
In fact the difference between "Is" and "Is not" is, in itself, just as fundamental.

I see "difference exists".
You say "difference doesn't exist".
But the very fact that we have different viewpoints on the matter proves me right- because that's a difference.
If that difference could be transcended, we would be agreeing with each other.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X
We may think a pile of cow dung can't be Holy. But it is. We may think that the outrageously violent crucifixion of an innocent person can't be Holy, but it is.

This doesn't abolish the difference between holy and unholy.
It just reminds us that we don't control where the boundary line comes.

You lost me there. Can you give me an example of something that is not Holy? An example might help me understand what you mean.

I see "difference exists".
You say "difference doesn't exist".
But the very fact that we have different viewpoints on the matter proves me right- because that's a difference.
If that difference could be transcended, we would be agreeing with each other.

Yes, but we are both stuck using mere words in time and space.

In time and space, differences exist because the subject/object dichotomy is real for everyday ego-consciousness. God separated subject/object when he separated heaven and earth. Thus God created pairs of opposites, and we chose to enter them when we ate the fruit of opposites (good/evil).

The fruit of eternal life, which is Jesus, is the fruit that transcends opposites.

Yup...we are dealing with contradiction and paradox because we are dealing with the limitations inherent in words vs the unlimited mystical experience. God knows language confounds us.

"God is, as it were, the sewer into which all contradictions flow." -Hegel

Mystics don't have to rely on words to understand, but they have to use words if they want to describe their mystical experience to non-mystics. That can lead to trouble for the mystic...even death.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

Originally posted by Student X
You lost me there. Can you give me an example of something that is not Holy? An example might help me understand what you mean.

For the moment, I would rather rely on the existence of the word "holy".
The word "holy "is a word which has been provided- and provided by God, on the Biblical premise- to identify a distinction,viz. the distinction between what is holy and what is holy.
God uses the word "holy" to describe himself.
Anything else is only comparatively holy.
(but perhaps the absolutely not-holy items would include "death" and "sin")

And I'm not sure why you should have been "lost" by my previous argument.
I claimed there was a boundary line between the "holy and "not-holy" categories.
You observed that the "holy" category included some unexpected things, like a crucifixion.
The point of my response was that your observation did nothing to prove that the boundary line did not exist;


[edit on 30-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X
You lost me there. Can you give me an example of something that is not Holy? An example might help me understand what you mean.

For the moment, I would rather rely on the existence of the word "holy".
The word "holy "is a word which has been provided- and provided by God, on the Biblical premise- to identify a distinction,viz. the distinction between what is holy and what is holy.
God uses the word "holy" to describe himself.
Anything else is only comparatively holy.
(but perhaps the absolutely not-holy items would include "death" and "sin")

I have a very strong distrust of words. To me, words are symbols and symbols are very tricky things. The meaning of symbols can change from person to person, culture to culture. I need to have a solid example of something to associate with a word, and I need to know that the other person has that same example in mind. Especially when it comes to mysticism.

And yes we are talking about mysticism because if God used the word Holy to describe himself, then God did it through a mystic. Right?

And I'm not sure why you should have been "lost" by my previous argument.
I claimed there was a boundary line between the "holy and "not-holy" categories.
You observed that the "holy" category included some unexpected things, like a crucifixion.

It is this line that confuses me: "It just reminds us that we don't control where the boundary line comes." I don't know what you mean by that.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I note vague waffle, absence of specifics.

A vague waffle? Good with a little butter and maple syrup?
Christians can't even agree on teachings, doctrines, or bible translations, doesn't seem that vague. How many different denominations are there now?

Another slightly baffling reference to something I haven't said.

Pardon us but we don't believe we said you said. Just a question and a point made.

a) The Mormons teach Christ out of books other than the New Testament.
b) If I did believe the Mormons were Christians, how would "you are a Mormon" follow from that?

Christians have more books about their different ideas of what Christ is and what their personal interpretations of things are, which many aren't' even bible based, than you can shake a stick at.
Is the Jesus of the Mormons the Jesus of the bible?
Mormons say; We believe the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament to be historical and truthful. For us the Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith.

No it doesn't. I can't be responsible for everything any Christian has ever done, and I'm not going to try.

"Well", is that ok to use, we don't want to be a party with those who don't obey the scriptures. That same Christian mentality is going to persecute those that refuse to bow down to their Jesus and his image the crucifix. As you know the beast will be given a death blow and then have life breathed back into him. Then those that receive him will receive the mark.

None of my ancestors have been anywhere near the US. I haven't got your land.

Christians aren't one big happy family. Oh that's right they have a history of persecuting each other and anyone else who refuses to accept their religion and lifestyle. Actually heard a Rabbi once say more Jews would become Christians if they hadn't been so persecuted by them.

My criticism of your "so" really smarts, doesn't it?

We actually don't have a problem with the word and don't personally feel it automatically makes anything a dud.

"Well", the lawlessness started over 2000 years ago, it bears the name Jesus, it has an image of itself, it appears as the light and its teachers appear as teachers of the true Christ 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And this was then, what you see in Christianity is what is has become.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by The Riley Family]

Originally posted by Student X

It is this line that confuses me: "It just reminds us that we don't control where the boundary line comes." I don't know what you mean by that.

"It" was the fact you were quoting, that "holy can be found in unexpected places.
I was rejecting the implied suggestion that this proves the boundary line, between "holy" and "unholy" did not exist.
Instead, I was saying, the fact you were quoting does something else- it demonstrates "just" that the boundary line can run in unexpected places. The reason it runs in unexpected places is that we do not control where the boundary runs. God controls what is "holY and "unholy"- because it is, in the last rsort, a question of what is or is not compatible with himself.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Let me put it this way;
"The Lord spoke to Aaron, saying..."You are to distinguish between the holy and the unholy, and between the clean and the unclean" Leviticus ch10 v10.
If God wants them to distinguish between the holy and the unholy, then there must be a distinction between the holy and the unholy.
End of story, in Biblical terms. The fact that the distinction exists is the point that matters.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
"It" was the fact you were quoting, that "holy can be found in unexpected places.
I was rejecting the implied suggestion that this proves the boundary line, between "holy" and "unholy" did not exist.
Instead, I was saying, the fact you were quoting does something else- it demonstrates "just" that the boundary line can run in unexpected places. The reason it runs in unexpected places is that we do not control where the boundary runs. God controls what is "holY and "unholy"- because it is, in the last rsort, a question of what is or is not compatible with himself.

I think I understand. A question of what is or is not compatible with God is the same as what is or is not Holy. Your position is that this proves that pairs of opposites are real, even though we don't know where the boundary is.

Imagine a cosmic prism. It divides the transcendent white light into the immanent spectrum of the rainbow. All colors are compatible with the light, because all are the light. Even the opposite ones.

The rainbow is the symbol of God because it is immanent, and yet all the colors are ONE. God is One.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Student X]

Originally posted by Student X
Imagine a cosmic prism. It divides the transcendent white light into the immanent spectrum of the rainbow. All colors are compatible with the light, because all are the light. Even the opposite ones.

You forget that there is a distinction between light and darkness.
The picture you are presenting is not the picture the Biblical God gives of himself, and therefore it is not compatible with the Biblical God.
The Biblical God distinguishes betwen himself and us- and does so, in fact, by the very act of communicating with us. The act of communication implies a difference between "I" and "You". The Biblical God is a communicating God, and a communicating God is by nature one who is "other".

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X
Imagine a cosmic prism. It divides the transcendent white light into the immanent spectrum of the rainbow. All colors are compatible with the light, because all are the light. Even the opposite ones.

You forget that there is a distinction between light and darkness.

Then, in the context of the rainbow metaphor, is darkness your example of unholy?

Originally posted by Student X

Then, in the context of the rainbow metaphor, is darkness your example of unholy?

Yes, if you like.
Perhaps, in Biblical terms, a better example is "Death". The basic antagonism between God and Death runs all the way through the Bible. It makes sense, because God is understood to be the "Living One". It shows up in practical ways like not wanting priests to go near dead bodies, or even express mourning,not wanting people to consult the spirits of the dead, and so on. One of the promises at the end of Revelation is that there will be "no more death". The difference is absolutely fundamental.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Student X

Then, in the context of the rainbow metaphor, is darkness your example of unholy?

Yes, if you like.

I like.

Perhaps, in Biblical terms, a better example is "Death". The basic antagonism between God and Death runs all the way through the Bible. It makes sense, because God is understood to be the "Living One". It shows up in practical ways like not wanting priests to go near dead bodies, or even express mourning,not wanting people to consult the spirits of the dead, and so on. One of the promises at the end of Revelation is that there will be "no more death". The difference is absolutely fundamental.

Darkness, death, unholy, evil. All are synonymous. Yes you are right, Jesus conquered them all. That sacred promise is something that I have faith in, in Jesus name. It's the promise of the Phoenix.

On the other side of that promise is the transcendent Coincidentia Oppositorum.

The Doctrine of Coincidentia Oppositorum in Jewish Mysticism

Hey, what was that number again? Oh, yeah, 666

regarding the numbers, since Revelation was written in Greek - should not that be our basis to work this conversion. If it matches in Hebrew or other fine but I think Greek, or possibly the name of this man as he spells it today.

so it is the "number of a man". a little further could this not be a man's title also? like Mr President Earth?

maybe look at some titles for fun instead of numbers.... see if the number fit?

antichrist ENG antichristos GRK Vicarius Christi LATIN

Vicar of Christ ENG Vicarius Christi LATIN


antichristos against Christ greek word ANTI can mean substitute

I know the Catholics always expressed this as Substitute.


I find it hard to call any man or title a substite for Christ.


Oh, some greek translations may show xristos rather than xhristos - strong's concordance shows antichristos



Now, throw some numbers on it, go, go, go, come on.