Armageddon was the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

  • Thread starter Thread starter theoprofessor74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theoprofessor74

Guest
Rapture came with Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge. Consider the times in which the early Christians lived… When the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelations in 96 A.D. , the world belonged to Rome. So, the Christians of the times of the Roman Empire would look at the world differently than say someone living in the 20th or 21st century… No concept of Cold War nuke attacks, Hitler, the EU, any modern American president, Cuban missile crisis…whatever. The end of the world to an early Christian might have been the destruction of Rome as they knew it. After all, history’s greatest civilization is now an antiquity.

Christian historians look at Revelations with a historical eye. When in Rome, the Christians wrote about Rome. When John was exiled in Greece, he wrote about Rome.

Revelations speaks of the new eve delivered from an old serpent… and “the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.”
  • With Constantine’s victory, Rome (and it’s pagan world) was destroyed, giving way to Christendom (Christendom translates to Christ’s kingdom). The new capitol of Rome was now Constantinople and the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire.
“This signifies the end of the Tribulation, the conclusion of the day of God’s wrath on all the ungodly and the evil armies of the world.” REV. 16:13

Rome = the world + Maxentius pagan army (evil armies of the world) The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was certainly the conclusion of the day of God’s wrath on all the ungodly armies of the world. Had Constantine lost… Well, Armageddon for the Christians giving Emperor Diocletian’s desire to wipe the Christians out. And the end of the Tribulation was the end of persecution.

CONSTANTINE’S VISION:

Constantine claimed to have seen a sign from God before the battle, a cross in the sky with the words: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.

It is commonly stated that on the evening of October 27, with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine had a vision which led him to fight under the protection of the Christian God. He had the cross painted on all of his shields.

“And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beast saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a BOW; and a CROWN was given unto HIM: and he went forth CONQUERING, and to CONQUER.” (REV 6:2-3)
  • A description of Constantine, perhaps. A prophecy fulfilled? He did conquer the world in the name of Christ.
THE SEVEN KINGDOMS:
Five of these had fallen when John was writing (Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylon and Greece) one was currently in power (Rome) and one was still to come… The Byzantine Empire which lasted 1,000 years.

Another example of John writing about Rome – the answer to the Antichrist.

EMPEROR NERO:

The Antichrist had to have lived before 96 A.D. We know this because the Apostle John says it.

Revelation 17:8: The beast, which you saw, once was {alive}, Now {in AD 96} is not {alive} and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book life… … will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was {Before AD 96}, now {In AD 96} is not {Alive} and yet will come. Rev 13:14: He {The False Prophet} will order the inhabitants of the earth to set up an image in honor of the beast who was {FATALLY-Rev 13:3} wounded by the sword and yet lived." Rev 13:3: One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound. but the fatal wound had been HEALED!! The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. (Nero committed suicide with a knife to the throat)

According to the book Ascension of Isaiah, Nero is first identified as the Anti-Christ. It says “the slayer of his mother (he killed his mother Agrippina), who himself this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.” (Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero according to The Bishop Eusebius)

I believe John saw the fall of Rome and the birth of Christendom and the Byzantine Empire.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/…tors/nero.html
 
Welcome to the forum theoprofessor.
Interesting post. The visible rule over secular society could be viewed as a foreshadowing of the final victory of the Church.

It must be kept in mind that the book of Revelation describes an invisible struggle between Christ and the world ( a vision of a war in heaven). A struggle for the conscience of man. Christianity had to already be dominating that struggle for Constantine to consider converting the empire.

The necessary prerequisite for conversion of the entire empire was won by the faithfull of the Church, Constantine made that visible. On the other hand, the final reward, the divinization of flesh, will not be the result of previous victories within the heart of man but be the lifting up to a state won by a single individual, Jesus Christ.

The conversion of the state was the world assimilated to Christ, so to speak, the Final Tribulation will be the world attempting to assimilate the Church and the Final Triumph will be the Church’s removal by a corporeal elevation to a incorruptible state.

Although the conversion of the empire can be viewed as a type of ‘rapture’ for the Christian faith, it differs fundamentally from the final corporeal conversion of the faithful.
 
I would first say that Revelation was written in the 60’s prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. I seem to recall something about Armageddon. I’ll look at my notes.
 
“the book of Revelation describes an invisible
struggle between Christ and the world ( a vision of a war in heaven). A struggle
for the conscience of man. Christianity had to already be dominating that
struggle for Constantine to consider converting the empire.”
There very well was an invisible war for the conscience of man… But make no mistake, there was a very real war going on. Ask Peter and Paul, Lawrence of Rome, Cyprian and all the other martyrs. Diocletian’s War against the Christians was very real.

And Christendom would not have been without Constantine. It was Constantine who converted Rome to Christianity. ( b/c of his vision before the battle). He was promised victory by the Christian God and from there he converted.

The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity following his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Under his rule, Christianity rose to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, and for his example of a “Christian monarch” Constantine is revered as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church. Not only the details of his adoption of Christianity make the religious beliefs of Constantine I interesting; theologians and historians alike have argued about the question to which form of Christianity Constantine ultimately converted, with regard to the legitimation of religious persecution.

Though Emperor Constantine I had been exposed to Christianity by his mother, St. Helena, there is scholarly controversy as to whether he adopted his mother’s Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[1] Whatever the case, Constantine’s endorsement of the tradition was a turning point for Early Christianity. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship, and the emperor would be a great patron of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor within the Church and the notion of orthodoxy that would be followed for centuries.

Paul K. Davis writes, “Constantine’s victory gave him total control of the western Roman Empire, paving the way for Christianity as the dominant religion for the Roman Empire and ultimately for Europe.”

John was writing about Rome. (In 96 A.D.)

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/revelation.shtml

Take care.
 
theoprofessor74 said:
Paul K. Davis writes, “Constantine’s victory gave him total control of the western Roman Empire, paving the way for Christianity as the dominant religion for the Roman Empire and ultimately for Europe.”

John was writing about Rome. (In 96 A.D.)

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/revelation.shtml

Take care.
Click to expand...
How do you know the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 96AD? The BBC, not a renowned source of theological expertise, claims that it was a different John. I think there is strong evidence that the Apostle John wrote Revelation prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

The persecutions by Nero were far worse and more widespread than the persecutions of the 90’s, which many think John was talking about.
 
wonderful… you can read one website… Bravo! on your research skills.

Now scroll up and read my list of source material I’ve provided both from religious and secular sources. Ancient historians to modern folks.

They call it a Bibliography.

Hope you have a library card… Happy reading

If your too lazy then try this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. The majority of modern scholars also use this dates. Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that “it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[18]

covenanter.org/Postmil/AntiPreterist/ponddate.htm

Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

greeka.com/dodecanese/patmos/patmos/patmos-book-revelation.htm

The late date, around 95-96 A.D. toward the end of the reign of
Domitian
a. Appeal is often made to a statement of Iraneaus who lived in
the late 2nd century A.D.
b. Irenaeus (185 A.D.) stated that the apostle John “saw the
revelation…at the close of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81-96)”
- Contra Haereses 5.30.3; ANF, 1:559-60
c. His statement is rather ambiguous, however, and can be
understood in several ways (see Redating The New Testament,
by John A. T. Robinson, for a detailed examination of
Iraneaus’ quotation)
d. Besides, if the book were written toward the end of
Domitian’s reign wouldn’t that make it a rather belated word
of comfort?

I would put down more but carpal tunnel… and mid 60’s A.D. or 96 A.D. don’t change a sentence in my theory. Nero would still be the Antichrist either way…

Again Happy reading…
 
theoprofessor74 said:
wonderful… you can read one website… Bravo! on your research skills.

Now scroll up and read my list of source material I’ve provided both from religious and secular sources. Ancient historians to modern folks.

They call it a Bibliography.

Hope you have a library card… Happy reading

If your too lazy then try this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. The majority of modern scholars also use this dates. Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that “it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[18]

covenanter.org/Postmil/AntiPreterist/ponddate.htm

Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

greeka.com/dodecanese/patmos/patmos/patmos-book-revelation.htm

The late date, around 95-96 A.D. toward the end of the reign of
Domitian
a. Appeal is often made to a statement of Iraneaus who lived in
the late 2nd century A.D.
b. Irenaeus (185 A.D.) stated that the apostle John “saw the
revelation…at the close of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81-96)”
- Contra Haereses 5.30.3; ANF, 1:559-60
c. His statement is rather ambiguous, however, and can be
understood in several ways (see Redating The New Testament,
by John A. T. Robinson, for a detailed examination of
Iraneaus’ quotation)
d. Besides, if the book were written toward the end of
Domitian’s reign wouldn’t that make it a rather belated word
of comfort?

I would put down more but carpal tunnel… and mid 60’s A.D. or 96 A.D. don’t change a sentence in my theory. Nero would still be the Antichrist either way…

Again Happy reading…
Click to expand...
No need for sarcasm. I am impressed with your evidence, however it isn’t enough to prove anything. Wikipedia hardly is credible, even with its footnotes on the bottom. No one can confirm Armageddon was the Battle of the Milvian Bridge; I don’t think the Book of Revelations would be degraded to such symbolism to their times; many theologians look at the Revelations as an insight into our past, present, and future. Certain themes of humanity, such as greed, lust, and violence, will never leave this world. The same struggles of good/evil that existed then, to which Armageddon refers to, can be found today. John the Divine, widely accepted as the author, (and the same John) of the Revelations, wouldn’t look at Armageddon as simply that Battle of the Milvian Bridge. It’s safe to say that his time period that he wrote in, whether the 70s or 90s, was a time of distress and struggle for Christians. But that wouldn’t be “revealing” (Apokálypsis) anything, everyone knew what was going on. John was referring to the future, as well as his present, but a much deeper meaning. When the final battle takes place, we’ll know.

Pax et amor,

John Monaco
 
Lactantius, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Contra Haereses the book Ascension of Isaiah (written in the 2nd century by early Christians) Paul Touilleux, Eberhard Arnold, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet and Eusebius are hardly the BBC and wikipedia… But that’s all right… continue to cherry pick my sources.

The wikipedia and BBC links were just to show that many Christian historians and scholars share my views on Revelations.
 
this is what I used from wikipedia… Sorry I don’t have the actual ancient tome of Irenaeus in front of me but there’s nothing in this paragraph that’s made up.

– According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. The majority of modern scholars also use this dates. Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that “it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution. –

Irenaeus knew John and here’s the quote, "“it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign”

Prove Irenaeus wrong or believe him – which is what I do.
 
theoprofessor74 said:
this is what I used from wikipedia… Sorry I don’t have the actual ancient tome of Irenaeus in front of me but there’s nothing in this paragraph that’s made up.

– According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. The majority of modern scholars also use this dates. Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that “it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution. –

Irenaeus knew John and here’s the quote, "“it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign”

Prove Irenaeus wrong or believe him – which is what I do.
Click to expand...
I don’t think St Irenueus knew St. John. He knew St. Polycarp who knew St. John. In any event, Domitians persecution weren’t nearly as far reaching as Nero’s.
 
Yeah, you are right on the face to face meeting with John. I agree, Irenaeus didn’t know John, instead Polycarp. Brain freeze on my part.

However, everything else stands.

And I will concede to you, there is room for debate on the actual year. (noting a majority believe it’s 96 A.D. because of Irenaeus) You have a point on the year.

It’s Nero either way…

Well, I tip my cap to you
 
theoprofessor74 said:
Yeah, you are right on the face to face meeting with John. I agree, Irenaeus didn’t know John, instead Polycarp. Brain freeze on my part.

However, everything else stands.

And I will concede to you, there is room for debate on the actual year. (noting a majority believe it’s 96 A.D. because of Irenaeus) You have a point on the year.

It’s Nero either way…

Well, I tip my cap to you
Click to expand...
The reason I think its important that Revelation was written during Nero’s reign is that much of the punishments (seals and trumpets) are predicting the fall of Jerusalem. The Bowls (or chalices) are the end of the world. I thought the Armageddon is pointing also to the fall of Jerusalem, but I need to check my studies on it. As you noted, the Battle of Megiddo, the one in Scripture (I believe there was only one in Scripture) is a clue to what John is speaking of when he mentioned Armageddon. I’ll try and get back with you later on this evening.
 
theoprofessor74 said:
wonderful… you can read one website… Bravo! on your research skills.

Now scroll up and read my list of source material I’ve provided both from religious and secular sources. Ancient historians to modern folks.

They call it a Bibliography.

Hope you have a library card… Happy reading

If your too lazy then try this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve gotten over your initial bout of sarcasm. Welcome to the Forums, my brother!

I recently finished studying Revelation from the Agape Bible Study. In the study of Revelation, in lesson 23 (chapter 16), Michal Hunt comments on this verse.
Revelation 16:16: The demon spirits “…called the kings together at the place called, in Hebrew, Armageddon.”
Click to expand...
Although Megiddo is mentioned several other times in Scripture, there is one passaage I think that relates to our theme.
Megiddo was the place where King Josiah, the last Judahite king who was a righteous descendant of King David and the brilliant hope of Judah, in deliberate disobedience to the Word of God and believing false prophets, went to war against the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho in 609BC. King Josiah was mortally wounded by Necho on the plains of Megiddo. Following Josiah’s death the nation of Judah sunk further and further into idolatry, apostasy, and destruction which led to the defeat by the Babylonians and the destruction of the Temple in 587/6BC.
Click to expand...
According to the records discovered in the Assyrian archives, the plain of Megiddo was also the site where the Assyrians assembled the 10 Northern tribes of Israel, after the defeat of the Northern Kingdom in 722BC, to send the Israelites into exile into the Assyrian lands to the east (2 Kings 17:5-6). These tribes never experienced a return to their ancestral lands and are referred to as “the lost tribes of Israel.” The same Assyrian archives documented the capture of Megiddo in 732BC and the establishment of Megiddo as Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III’s provincial headquarters.
Writing in circa 480BC, the prophet Zechariah associates the “plain of Megiddo” with death and mourning (Zech 12:1-14), remembering the exile of the 10 Northern tribes and prophesizing that the messianic age will come about through a mysterious death when the inhabitants of Jerusalem will mourn for “the one they have pierced” during a future siege of the city: “They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced as though for an only child, and weep for him as people weep for a first-born child.** When that day comes, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad Rimmon in the Plain of Megiddo***” *(Zech 12:11). John 19:37 interprets this passage as a prophecy of Jesus’ Passion.
Click to expand...
Notice Megiddo is directly related to Jesus’ passion AND the loss of the 10 tribes of Israel.

Continued on next post:
 
And then finally, Ms. Hunt points out:
The town of Megiddo was abandoned in the Persian period circa 350 BC and was never rebuilt. For the generation of St. John the Apostle, Mt. Carmel was a symbol of victory while Megiddo was a symbol of defeat and desolation for those who set themselves against the Word of God, and it would become the site of the rendezvous of the forces that would inflict the greatest defeat the Jews would ever suffer as a people. In 69AD while the Roman Emperor Flavius Titus set up his headquarters at Caesarea, he assembled his Roman legions and auxiliary forces on the plain of Megiddo. It was from this site that Titus would launch the assault on Judea that would result in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the summer of 70AD.
Click to expand...
The men who comprised Titus’ fighting force were from the various provinces and client nations across the Roman Empire who provided the fighting men of the Roman legions and the allied nation’s auxiliary forces—men of the kings of the earth. A fourth legion from Syria which had been stationed on the banks of the Euphrates River joined Titus on March/April the 14th outside the gates of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian/old covenant priest Joseph ben Matthias, who adopted the Roman name Flavius Josephus, described the force Titus assembled: “Titus, when he had gotten together part of his forces about him, and had ordered the rest to meet him at Jerusalem, marched out of Caesarea. He had with him those three legions that had accompanied his father when he had laid Judea waste, together with that twelfth legion which had been formerly beaten with Cestius; which legion, as it was otherwise remarkable for its valor, so did it march on now with greater alacrity to avenge themselves on the Jews, remembering what they had formerly suffered from them. Of these legions he ordered the fifth to meet him, by going through Emmaus, and the tenth to go up by Jericho; he also moved himself, together with the rest; besides whom marched those auxiliaries that came from the kings, being now more in number than before, together with considerable number that came to his assistance from Syria” (*The Wars of the Jews, 5.1.6[40-42]). *
Click to expand...
It was in the spring when the Roman legions marched on Jerusalem. It was the time of the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and since it was a “pilgrim feast” (Ex 23:14-17; 34:18-24; Deut 16:16) the city was backed with Jews from across the Roman Empire. When the city fell to the Romans, the total number of deaths according Josephus, who was an eyewitness to the destruction, came to 1,100,000 Jews and the enslavement and disbursement of surviving Jews into the Gentile nations of the Roman Empire totaled 97,000, with only 40,000 permitted to remain free (from Jerusalem; unknown number from the rest of the province)—it was the literal “end of the world” for Judea and the Old Covenant people of God (Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 6.9.3 (420-21; 6.8.2 [386]).
Click to expand...
 
Who or What Is the Beast?

The answer to this nearly 2000-year-old question depends on how you choose to interpret the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse), the last book of the New Testament.

Near the middle of this highly symbolic book are descriptions of several strange creatures:

First, “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads”; it is described further after being defeated by Michael and his angels in a battle in heaven: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev 12:3-18);
Second, “a beast rising out of the sea having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names… [it] was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave it his power and his throne and great authority…” (Rev 13:1-10);
Third, “another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast…” (Rev 13:11-18).
At the end of the paragraph about this third beast, the author challenges the reader with an intriguing puzzle: “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.” (13:18).

In order to understand this text, one must know that ancient Hebrew (like Greek and other ancient languages) did not have a separate set of characters to indicate numbers, but simply used the letters of its alphabet to represent numbers. This fact provides the basis for the ancient practice of “gematria,” in which numerical equivalents of words and names are calculated (still a popular game today!).

The basic idea is that every word has a number associated with it, obtained by adding up the numerical equivalent of each letter in the word.
This is mostly commonly done with names; thus every person has a number, the numerical value of his or her name.
There are several different ways of assigning numbers to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but the system most commonly used is this:
alef = 1; bet = 2; gimel = 3; dalet = 4; hey = 5; waw = 6; zayin = 7; chet = 8; tet = 9; yod = 10; kaf = 20; lamed = 30; mem = 40; nun = 50; samek = 60; ayin = 70; pey = 80; tsadeh = 90; qof = 100; resh = 200; shin = 300; taw = 400.
For example, the name “David” has a value of 14 in Hebrew (since it is written dalet-waw-dalet, which is 4+6+4); see Matthew 1:17.
The same game can be played in any language by assigning numerical values to each letter of the alphabet:
In English, for example, we could have
a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4, e = 5, f = 6, g = 7, h = 8, i = 9, j = 10,
k = 20, l = 30, m = 40, n = 50, o = 60, p = 70, q = 80, r = 90, s = 100,
t = 200, u = 300, v = 400, w = 500, x = 600, y = 700, z = 800.
Now calculate the number of YOUR name! Find the value of each letter of your name, and add them all together. You can get a number corresponding to your first name, another number for your last name, and another number for both together. You will get different results if you use longer or shorter versions of your name, or nicknames, or include middle names, or titles or suffices.
The results you want to get may also determine which numerical system you choose; for example, you can get HITLER = 666 if you choose a system in which a=100, b=101, c=102, etc.
For a more extensive introduction to Hebrew gematria, see The Art of Gematria: Hebrew Numerology.
From catholic-resources.org😦
 
juliamajor said:
Who or What Is the Beast?

The answer to this nearly 2000-year-old question depends on how you choose to interpret the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse), the last book of the New Testament.

Near the middle of this highly symbolic book are descriptions of several strange creatures:

First, “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads”; it is described further after being defeated by Michael and his angels in a battle in heaven: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev 12:3-18);
Second, “a beast rising out of the sea having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names… [it] was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave it his power and his throne and great authority…” (Rev 13:1-10);
Third, “another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast…” (Rev 13:11-18).
At the end of the paragraph about this third beast, the author challenges the reader with an intriguing puzzle: “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.” (13:18).

In order to understand this text, one must know that ancient Hebrew (like Greek and other ancient languages) did not have a separate set of characters to indicate numbers, but simply used the letters of its alphabet to represent numbers. This fact provides the basis for the ancient practice of “gematria,” in which numerical equivalents of words and names are calculated (still a popular game today!).

The basic idea is that every word has a number associated with it, obtained by adding up the numerical equivalent of each letter in the word.
This is mostly commonly done with names; thus every person has a number, the numerical value of his or her name.
There are several different ways of assigning numbers to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but the system most commonly used is this:
alef = 1; bet = 2; gimel = 3; dalet = 4; hey = 5; waw = 6; zayin = 7; chet = 8; tet = 9; yod = 10; kaf = 20; lamed = 30; mem = 40; nun = 50; samek = 60; ayin = 70; pey = 80; tsadeh = 90; qof = 100; resh = 200; shin = 300; taw = 400.
For example, the name “David” has a value of 14 in Hebrew (since it is written dalet-waw-dalet, which is 4+6+4); see Matthew 1:17.
The same game can be played in any language by assigning numerical values to each letter of the alphabet:
In English, for example, we could have
a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4, e = 5, f = 6, g = 7, h = 8, i = 9, j = 10,
k = 20, l = 30, m = 40, n = 50, o = 60, p = 70, q = 80, r = 90, s = 100,
t = 200, u = 300, v = 400, w = 500, x = 600, y = 700, z = 800.
Now calculate the number of YOUR name! Find the value of each letter of your name, and add them all together. You can get a number corresponding to your first name, another number for your last name, and another number for both together. You will get different results if you use longer or shorter versions of your name, or nicknames, or include middle names, or titles or suffices.
The results you want to get may also determine which numerical system you choose; for example, you can get HITLER = 666 if you choose a system in which a=100, b=101, c=102, etc.
For a more extensive introduction to Hebrew gematria, see The Art of Gematria: Hebrew Numerology.
From catholic-resources.org😦
Click to expand...
I recommend my commentary on Revelation. I answer those questions. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Revelation+by+John+Litteral
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Here’s my critique on Armageddon
litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/The+Battle+of+Armageddon
Click to expand...
I’m agreeing with what you are saying.
The battle of Armageddon is the final battle at the end of the Great Tribulation right before the end of the world. The word Armageddon is specifically mentioned in Rev. 16:16. Armageddon means the “Mountain of Megiddo”, which is in Israel, and it is the place where many battles have been fought. But Armageddon is to be understood here symbolically of the places throughout the world that Satan’s armies are going to attack the Church since the Church is spread throughout the world.
Click to expand...
This is why I can’t agree with the Milvian Bridge theory. It doesn’t end anything for anybody.
Whether it was the Assyrian battle at Megiddo, or the Roman attack on Jerusalem, each one signified the end - first for the 10 tribes of Israel and second for the ritual Sacrifices of Judaism. Gone. No more.

That’s why the final fulfillment of Armageddon signifies the end of the World, in my opinion.
 
Again Catholic resources"The Book of Revelation
a.k.a. The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, or The Apocalypse
(but it should not be called “Revelations,” plural!)

Abbreviation: Rev (full text)
Attributed Author: “John” (1:1, 4, 9), a Jewish-Christian prophet; mostly likely not the brother of James, son of Zebedee, named in the Gospels, nor the authors of the “Fourth Gospel” and the “Johannine Epistles”
Named Recipients: “seven churches” in Asia Minor (1:4; 2:1-22)
Date: mid-90’s, near the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian (who died in 96 CE)
Where From: the Roman Province of Asia (possibly the city of Ephesus itself)
Authenticity: almost certainly by some early Christian named “John”
Unity & Integrity: a single work, but possibly composed in stages, incorporating some older apocalyptic materials
Literary Genre: an “apocalypse” (1:1; 4:1), with an epistolary frame (letter-like introduction & conclusion - 1:4; 22:21)
Language: highly symbolic Greek, including some Semitic influences
Purpose: to encourage Christians to preserve faith in the midst of trials and tribulations (cf. 13:10b; 14:12)
(back to index)
"
 
There very well was an invisible war for the conscience of man… But make no mistake, there was a very real war going on. Ask Peter and Paul, Lawrence of Rome, Cyprian and all the other martyrs. Diocletian’s War against the Christians was very real.
Click to expand...
The invisible war transcends time. It’s already happened in eternity, it is unfolding in time, and in time, yet to be complete.
I need some clarification.
I am not sure if you are arguing that the battle of Armegeddon has already happened in time and history and the prophecy John wrote about was a done deal at the Milvian bridge or that the the event at the bridge was one of perhaps many that reveal the struggle in heaven John wrote about.

There is little doubt in my mind that Rome is Babylon to the Christians at that time. Babylon is signified by attributing characteristics of the whoredom or idolatry. The most significant is " all the blood ever shed- insert times- is on her hands’. Jesus accused the Jewish leaders of this.John extends it to all the bloosd ever shed on earth. She is a projection of Eve. So Babylon was Jerusalem when Jesus walked the earth. Rome for the fledgling church.
And Christendom would not have been without Constantine. It was Constantine who converted Rome to Christianity. ( b/c of his vision before the battle). He was promised victory by the Christian God and from there he converted.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It was just a matter of time. It happened that Constantine was appropriately positioned to turn that page of history. The Christian faith was a shoe in to replace the antiquated paganism of the Roman empire. Myth had degenerated into hollow ritual unable to offer the lives of it’s worshippers the sense of mystery and awe they sought but were able to find in the Christian life.
Though Emperor Constantine I had been exposed to Christianity by his mother, St. Helena, there is scholarly controversy as to whether he adopted his mother’s Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.
Click to expand...
I’ve read that he like many during that period, waited untill he was on his death bed to become baptized in order to die with a soul freshly cleansed of sin. If this is true it demonstrates a faith that is only found in the devoted these days.

One of my main problems with pinning Armegeddon down to this event is that the battle described by John was lost. The saints were overcome. The scene is just as it was when Jesus hung on the cross dying. All seemed to be lost. The cause of victory impossible to see or believe evwen for those who had been told beforehand.

The events surrounding the battle at the bridge and Constantine’s conversion seems a middle ground event. The religious authority of the christian religion transcended secular society at the time and was already filling the vacuum left by a paganism that had been reduced to a secular expression of loyalty to leaders.

This is how I’ve come to see it. I’m not a scholar by any stretch and I’m referencing information I remember from various sources I’ve read over the years. Thank you for the lionks by the way
Take care./
Click to expand...
Thank you. Same to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top