Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I will say this about the movie, though. A careful study of the biblical texts reveals that the beast and the woman were Rome of the 1st and 2nd centuries, not the modern-day Roman Catholic church. The image of the harlot refers to Rome's tendency to worship just about any god under the sun. Take the Pantheon: in it was an idol representing every single god worshipped by anyone under Roman rule, except the Christians. The Christians did not permit their God to be reduced to the status of a mere idol.

Anyway, the exegetical error made by the creators of this movie is that they assume that the events described in Revelation 13 - 17 will take place either in modern times or in the near future. This is clearly false. The events of Revelation 12 describe the birth of Christ; therefore, the events of Ch 13ff took place shortly thereafter. My own belief is that St. John is foreseeing events that take place either near the end of his life or shortly after his death. Consider this: the name Nero, when transcribed into Hebrew, adds up to 666. The most common alternate reading, 616, is what you get when you add up the Greek characters of his name (keeping in mind that St. John wrote in Greek, but tended to think in Hebrew).

In short, this piece of garbage film is based on a completely modern misunderstanding of the biblical text. The beast is Rome under the pagan emperors (Nero and his successors), and the harlot is the pagan religion of Rome.

As a Lutheran, I have plenty of reason to disagree with some of the theology and practices of the Roman Catholic church. But considering that they worship the same Triune God that I do, I cannot and will not demonize them in this way. I'm too intelligent and pious for that.

For more information on biblical eschatology, please read:

The End Times: A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism

A Response to the Left Behind Series

_________________

Ok...I got almost all the way to the end of the slideshow and then it kicked me off, so after the part about the Catholic Church being responsible for deaths of Christians, I have no idea what the rest of the thing said...it's a little long, and I don't seem to have a FF button on my browser....stupid IE....

Anywho, since I'm not a master theologian, I'ma have to agree with Didymus on this one. I'll admit though, if it's true, doesn't that mean we're all screwed? I mean, most of us that consider ourselves Christians celebrate Sunday as the Sabbath. And don't we all change the date at midnight? And I know in the church I was raised in (Lutheran), our minister forgives our sins...maybe the difference is that he says he does it on behalf of God, not in place of God.

I've never agreed with Catholics on their seeming worship of the Pope (or of Mary for that matter; to me, she's a figure to be honored, but not worshiped, and the same goes for the Pope) but that doesn't mean that I condemn them for it. I think most of this is just a big coincidence. Interesting, yes, but a coincidence, nonetheless.

_________________

I also disagree with the postulate put forth by the movie. I know many Catholics, and their religion has helped many of them become better people.

However, Didymus, I think I will only halfway agree with you on your later statements. I believe that the book of Revelation refers to current and future events. I also believe that it refers to the ancient events that you described. I believe that those ancient events are a type for an event that will happen someday in the future. I disagree on the meaning of Revelation 12 specifically. My understanding of the chapter is that the woman is the Church of God, and the child is the Kingdom of God. The time when the woman flees into the wilderness is a great apostasy, and their return and eventual triumph is a restoration of the church.

I think that the fact that it can be read that way, as well as referring to Jesus' birth just reinforces how much God uses types to teach his children.

About that Sabbath stuff: relax. There is New Testament precedent for worshipping on Sunday. According to Acts 20:7, St. Paul preached on at least one Sunday, and according to 1 Corinthians 16:2, he expected offerings to be gathered on Sunday, which means he most likely anticipated them worshipping on that day.

There was a reason for this: St. Paul often went to Synagogue on Saturdays in order to witness to the Jewish people. This meant that he needed another time to meet with Christian Jews and Gentiles. Sunday worked out perfect for him. In time, Sunday became associated with Christ's resurrection (in a very real sense, every Sunday is Easter). This is why the Christian Church--which includes traditions much older than Roman Catholicism (Eastern Orthodoxy, for example)--celebrates worship on Sundays.

_________________

I have no Idea what to post because in my church we are currently studying the book of revelation but we are not that far yet.

_________________

It's my band! please listen

Racer X: I will concede that Ch 12 can be read as an allegory of the Church. However, considering that St. John was the one who took care of Mary after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, I am pretty sure that he was also referring to Jesus' real mother and the birth of Jesus himself. The early church made that connection and sort of adopted Mary as a symbol of the Church as bearing Christ in the world today. In fact, the later part of the chapter does seem to fit the Church better than it does Mary herself. But read the description of the child. Can this be any other than Jesus himself? So is the chapter referring to a literal Mary or a symbolic representation of the Church? The answer is yes!

In my opinion, there are basically two errors to avoid: (1) that of the 7 Day Adventist, that the Roman Catholic Church is the antichrist, and (2) that of Dispensational theology, characterized by the "Left Behind" books. Both exclude the historic nature of St. John's writing and remove it completely from its historical context.

_________________

Hey - I've been trying to access that page cause something happened with my browser and I didn't get to see the last bit of it, but everytime I click the link, it just goes to that "Error Page Assistant". Anyone help the technology-challenged Canadienne in the corner?

EDIT: Never mind; it's working again...still wish I could fast forward though, to where I left off!

_________________

Interesting slideshows, bit slow but they do their research but they take it out of context. I don't believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that Sunday is the Mark of the Beast! What rubbish! These are the same crazies that think King James Version is the only proper Bible and all the others are of the devil! Hmmm! How about they tell people about Christ's love and grace instead of this propaganda? Besides, in the Bible it says only Jesus knows when the Last Days are and when he will return at the Second Coming, not to listen to false prophets and the like.

Hmm I do remember reading something similar. Says something about the time being 1260 days for something and it related to years for around now. Well, two of the dates included in the slideshow that seemed familiar- I did a little math. 1798 - 538 = 1260. And about times, a time, half a time with the ratios of 2, 1, 0.5 related to a certain number of years somewhere along the line. Don't remember that much of it, but it was interesting.
As with Sundays, I just feel that it's almost impossible to really link first/last day of week with the first ever Sabbath, so I don't think we can know if it's a Saturday or Sunday. What matters is that you rest on one holy day a week, and it ought to be the same day every week.

_________________
"No, no, no. You gotta get those rings... INSIDE the bottle!"
I'm just an old timer who lurks on occasion. Even in 2020, at least.