New Cumulative history Quiz VII

[Plotinus]

Originally Posted by peter grimes

"commonly" isn't really all that important. There are thousands and thousands of things that are commonly assumed to be 'facts' from religious texts. But just because a 'fact' comes from a religious text doesn't mean it's a historical fact. For that matter, the whole idea of an 'antichrist' is just about as far removed historical fact as is The Labors of Hercules.

Talking matter-of-factly about something like 'the number of the beast' is better suited to a mythology forum, not a world history forum.

Not at all. It's a historical fact that these things appear in texts and that people believed them. History is about beliefs as well as events. In this case it is a historical fact that, according to the book of Revelation, 666 is the number of the Beast; whether the author of Revelation was right to think this is an entirely different matter.

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Plotinus

I'm sure I said this somewhere recently, but 666 has nothing to do with the antichrist. It is the number of the Beast.

Isn't Antichrist the Beast of the Sea?

[Plotinus]

No - in fact the word "antichrist" does not occur in Revelation at all.

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Plotinus

No - in fact the word "antichrist" does not occur in Revelation at all.

Well, yes, but haven't the two (or three, actually) been quite mixed up historically? At least according to wiki (such as it is, I know...)

The Beast is a figure in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. There are two beasts described in Revelation 13; the First Beast arises out of the sea, having seven heads and 10 horns. The Second (Lamb-like) Beast arises out of the earth, having the appearance of a lamb while speaking like a dragon. This Beast exercises authority on behalf of the first beast, causing the Earth-dwellers to make an image of the First Beast, and worship him. It is able to give life to this image so that it could speak and kill anyone who doesn't worship the First Beast. This Beast is later called “The False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10). In Christian eschatology the Beast together with the Dragon (Satan) and the First Beast (the Antichrist) forms the unholy trinity.

Irenaeus (2nd century AD - c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation. [32][33]

He identified the Antichrist with Paul's Man of Sin, Daniel's Little Horn, and John's Beast of Revelation 13. He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.[34][35]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.[39]

[Plotinus]

Yes, but then you're talking about the antichrist/Beast/whatever as understood by Irenaeus/Hippolytus/whoever. If literary or mythological images, characters, or tropes appear differently in different authors, then you have to be careful about what you say about them. You can't say that the Beast simply is the antichrist when the texts in which both of those concepts first appear do not so identify them - at most you can say, as you indicated, that later authors identity them. It's like saying that the Joker is the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. He is in one version of the story, but not in others.

[civ_king]

Originally Posted by sydhe

Ronald Wilson Reagan: six letters in each name, therefore 666.
I wonder if Martin Luther had a middle name.

Martin Luther didn't need a middle name to be evil

Originally Posted by Naskra

New business:
What trivial distinction do these places share?:
France, Catalonia, Sicily, England.

Catalonia<>Spain
Sicily<>Italy
England<>UK

or something to do with finances which I know Sicily and England share
or maybe they have been owned by each other? France<>England and Catalonia<>Sicily?

[Love]

Martin luther was a douch.

[Dragonlord]

Originally Posted by Yeekim

Correct!
They've all been labelled to be the Antichrist.
I knew someone will get it before long.

Backing up a little: John Paul II as the Antichrist? WTF???? I'm no great fan of the Papacy and Catholicism in general, but labelling the Pope as the Antichrist? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Plotinus

Yes, but then you're talking about the antichrist/Beast/whatever as understood by Irenaeus/Hippolytus/whoever. If literary or mythological images, characters, or tropes appear differently in different authors, then you have to be careful about what you say about them. You can't say that the Beast simply is the antichrist when the texts in which both of those concepts first appear do not so identify them - at most you can say, as you indicated, that later authors identity them. It's like saying that the Joker is the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. He is in one version of the story, but not in others.

Ok, that makes sense. I was just a bit confused by your original statement that 666 is the number of the Beast and, as such, has nothing to do with Antichrist.

Originally Posted by Dragonlord

Backing up a little: John Paul II as the Antichrist? WTF???? I'm no great fan of the Papacy and Catholicism in general, but labelling the Pope as the Antichrist? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?

Actually, Popes (and the entire institution of papacy) have probably been labelled as Antichrists more often than anybody else throughout history.

[Atticus]

Naskra, could you give some hints? "Trivial distinction" sounds quite vague.

Originally Posted by sydhe

I wonder if Martin Luther had a middle name.

Some years ago I read book called Archimedes' revenge, which had quite hilarious passage about these beasts. I probably remember it wrong, but here we go anyway:

During the reformation a German monk was convinced that Pope Leo X was the beast, and to prove this he chose every Roman numeral from pope's name: LEO DECIMVS. They add to MDCLVI=1656. Then this monk noticed that he must add Leo's ordinal number, X, and it becomes MDCLXVI=1666. Now considering that M must be omitted as Mystery, it's DCLXVI=666.

At the same time some other monk knew that Martin Luther was the beast. He thought that every letter of his name must be coded according to it's place in the alphabet: A=1, B=2,..., but after K=10 (there's no difference between I and J) they increase by 10: L=20, M=30,... and after T=100 by hundreds: U=V=200, W=300... Now Martin Luthera= 30+1+80+100+9+40+20+200+100+8+5+80+1=674, so this isn't quite right yet. However, the monk was not deceived by the devil this time either, since he noticed that instead of I=9, it should be I=1. And again you get neatly 666. (Had to google little bit for this)

The book told that the latter monk was almost killed due to these views, and had to flee. He begun calculating the exact date of doomsday, and gained some following, but when the day came and nothing special happened, he's disappointed pupils almost killed him. After escaping for the second time he decided to quit numerology.

These are probably little bit coloured stories, or perhaps even complete fabrication, but it doesn't bother me.

There's probably somewhere in the net a machine to which you can feed names, and it tells how the beast's number is gotten from it.

[Naskra]

Hint:
Also Vienna, Paris,and Budapest
The answer is just the beginning.

[civ_king]

Originally Posted by Naskra

Hint:
Also Vienna, Paris,and Budapest
The answer is just the beginning.

Treaties to Major Conflicts? or major cultural cities?

[Naskra]

Conflict is a relevant word.

[sydhe]

A lot of those get their names from tribes. Do they all?

[Love]

Towns affected by the revolts 1848?

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Love

Towns affected by the revolts 1848?

"England"? Really?

[Love]

Oops, missed the question because of that other discussion..

[Supermath]

I know the Normans had some fun in England, France, and Sicily, but I don't think they were involved in Catalonia at all.

[Arakhor]

Well, it's nearly been six days, so Naskra has to provide the answer or someone else is entitled to jump in.

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Well, it's nearly been six days, so Naskra has to provide the answer or someone else is entitled to jump in.

I'd appreciate the answer anyway...