He's the guy with all the blue fur in the latest X-man movie. I believe he was played by Kelsey Grammer
2007-03-26 16:24:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by frich_27 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You mean the Beast of Revelation? He is not. He WAS. And he was not one, but two men.
People erroneously read that passage of Revelation in the future tense. It is written in the present tense and refers to a certain man, a historical personage alive and well when Revelation was written.
That person is none other than Caesar Nero, the great persecutor of the early Christian Church and the very man responsible for St. John's exile to Island of Patmos. Revelation's authorship is generally credited to St. John, the youngest Apostle.
To understand who the Beast of Revelation was, it is necessary to understand that the Jews and early Christians of St. John's time were bilingual, Hebrew and Greek. Also, these people were big into numerology. To them twelve was the perfect number, the number of God. Six was half of twelve, therefore... imperfect. By this reckonning, 666 which is six three times, was... completely imperfect, the number of the beast.
Interestingly enough, the name Caesar Nero written out in Hebrew with a numeric value assigned to each letter in the name totals up to... 666. The author of Revelation writes that he is astonished to see the Beast receive a mortal head wound, yet live again.
Caesar Nero died by commiting suicide by striking his head (neck) with his own sword. Nero's nephew Domition succeeded him and he became an even worse persecutor of the Christians. Thus the Beast lived again (after receiving a mortal head wound). Domition written out in Greek, with a numeric value assigned to each letter of his name adds up to... You guessed it, 666.
So now you see how the Beast is not, but was, received a mortal head wound and lived again yet is no more because that passage of Revelation is in effect... History.
I hope you are not too... disappointed. The Beast of Revelation does not refer to anyone in the present age.
Best.
H
2007-03-26 22:32:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by H 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The number of the beast is the number of man, so logic dictates man is the beast, or at least that a human is to be the beast.
2007-03-26 22:12:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Taliesin Pen Beirdd 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
in Revelations it says that the anti-christ will enter into the temple and sit in the chair reserved for the messiah and proclaim himself as the messiah. Now the beast and anti-christ are the same person. I want to point out that the jews would not let a gentile into the temple so this shows that the anti-chris will be a jew.
2007-03-27 09:52:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by davidaronis2000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on what you mean. This could be a man vs man situation here. If it is, the beast is obviously man. Man vs predator, the beast could obviously be man or beast, depending on what you're talking about again.
2007-03-26 22:22:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jadehawk 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
My ex husband............ hands down.
2007-03-26 22:15:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by FireBug 5
·
1⤊
0⤋