christian

David Wilcox wrote:

"D: Yeah, I’m not saying it’s bad. In fact, the Gnostic Christians knew that Christianity was going to become a negative force. And that’s why, when you go into the Book of Revelation and you’re reading about the Antichrist, it doesn’t say 666 is the number. It actually says six hundred, three score thirty, and six. And before that little passage, it says, for he who hath ears, let him hear. Now, for anybody who’s a cabbalist, meaning somebody who knows the secret magical tradition, when it says that little phrase, for he who hath ears, let him hear, it means take the numerical value of each letter and add ‘em up, and the number that you get from this passage is the secret code.

So when you add up the passage that describes the Antichrist and the number of the beast as being 666, the number it adds up to is 3160. And that number, in the secret code, is Lord Jesus Christ.

So what this -- and I know it’s going to sound crazy, but you can read all this in a book by John Michell, called The Dimensions of Paradise. And when you actually go through the account of the Antichrist in the Bible, what it says is that the Antichrist would be wounded on the side and yet did live and fashioned into an idol to be worshipped by all peoples, in nations, of all tongues.

And there is nothing else we see in the world except mainstream fundamentalist Christianity that fits that. So, they knew. They knew that the original positive message of Jehoshua (which is actually the real name of Jesus, bastardized into the name Jesus) ... Jehoshua’s teachings were positive. They taught service to others. They said, love thy neighbor. They didn’t say, love thy neighbor, provided that he’s not a faggot, or that he’s not ..."

He makes an interesting observation, and certainly his interpretation can be added to the tens of thousands before him that has applied their human reason to this Mark of the Beast. However, over the years, I'm not so sure one can identify the mark using history+reason. Granted, if the Scriptures themselves are false and filled with contradictions among themselves, then logically there is no certainty as to what they can mean. The conclusion must mean there is no divine order of things, but rather caos, circumstance and chance. Indeed for the finite mind, this too requires faith to believe. Mathematics is not the litmus test in my opinion.

Therefore, when understanding the Mark of the Beast, we should look only to the source documents for which arises the text itself. If indeed the Scriptures are the source, perhaps we can learn from Christ Himself, when He writes, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matt.22:29) compared with "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" (Mk.12:24) and as to help aide those who have ears to hear, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Lk.24:27) compared with "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day" (Lk.24:45-46).

You see dear reader, even if one does not believe the Scriptures to be true, nor even believe them to be remotely reliable, it is still best to appeal to them to define its words. Contrary to the Papal Antichrist, the Scriptures must be interpreted by themselves. The most faithful way to define what words mean in those source documents are by the source documents only. Words and doctrine (in this case eschatology) cannot be defined by human reason, nor by history, nor by the "sacred" traditions of the church. The Scriptures must be interpreted in their "literal sense". This literal sense is not defined as that which appears at face value--but rather the literal sense is that sense which the author (God) intends--that "intended meaning" which is taken from the words themselves, whether the words are to be taken strictly or figuratively. The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean.

Again, the "literal sense" does NOT mean what they "literally" mean, as claimed by the Evangelicals and the wicked Neocon's, but can and MUST mean what the author "intended" them to mean. Simply, whether the author is God or mere man/women, the source best qualified to define what its meant by what is said is the author themselves...this logically there can be no disagreement.

In respect to the Mark of the Beast, I don't believe the author intended for the meaning of "six hundred, three score thirty, and six" to be that as explained above by Mr. Wilcox. Although I find his taped discussion highly informative, my suggestion is to look more to the Scriptures themselves for the true definition of the Mark.