My thoughts on the mark of the beast

[Guest]

Fr Michael Fallon is a priest and scripture scholar of some renown.  He is an Australian priest in the Missionaries of The Sacred Heart (MSC).  He has now written commentaries on all of the Books in the Old Testament and certainly all of the Books in the New Testament. Fr Michael B. Fallon MSC

Many years ago, while reading his commentary on Matthew and Luke, I wrote to him that my prayer is that he live to write commentaries on all the books of the Bible.  My prayer has been, happily for me, answered   About Father Michael

Those who would like to understand the Book of Revelation from a respected Catholic scholar's perspective can do their own research.  I have leant my copy of his Apocalypse book a few times now and the feedback has always been positive and that it was such a relief to read it.

In one column is the quotation(s) from the Book of Revelation and on the other corresponding column are Father Michael's commentary.

Books can now be purchased on his website.

 http://mbfallon.com/apocalypse.html

Quote

 

Apocalypse (Book of Revelation).

The Apocalypse: a call to embrace the Love that is stronger than death

In 1990 I published the third edition of my commentary on the Apocalypse (2002). It is published by Chevalier Press 131 pages RRP $15.00 (www.annals.com.au)

 

 

[hakutaku]

If anyone honestly believes they have seen some insight into the end times  via the mark of the beast, I am willing to make a wager with that person.

Specifically: I will wager that whatever you think is the mark of the beast is not the mark of the beast, and whatever supernatural end-time event you are expecting to follow will fail to occur in a reasonable timeframe.  If I am wrong, I will convert to Catholicism.  If, on the other hand, the time passes without incident, you will abandon Christianity as a theological framework that led to your incorrect expectation.

If you are not willing to take such a wager, then I suggest you keep your end-time speculations to yourself, lest you lead others astray with assertions you are not willing to back up.

[fides' Jack]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:01 PM, hakutaku said:

If anyone honestly believes they have seen some insight into the end times  via the mark of the beast, I am willing to make a wager with that person.

Specifically: I will wager that whatever you think is the mark of the beast is not the mark of the beast, and whatever supernatural end-time event you are expecting to follow will fail to occur in a reasonable timeframe.  If I am wrong, I will convert to Catholicism.  If, on the other hand, the time passes without incident, you will abandon Christianity as a theological framework that led to your incorrect expectation.

If you are not willing to take such a wager, then I suggest you keep your end-time speculations to yourself, lest you lead others astray with assertions you are not willing to back up.

I think the point is that we don't know specifics.  But we are actually charged with being ready and watching out for these signs.  No, I'm not comfortable pointing to anything specific as "the mark of the beast" because, obviously, nobody knows for sure what it will be yet (unless they've received that information from God).  At this point, there's a lot indicating that it will be something coming from the medical field, but that's as specific as I dare to be.  

Your "wager" makes no sense.  Basically, you're saying this:

"If you know the future, then bet on the future and I'll take that bet.  If you don't, then shut up."

I reject your conclusion that there's nothing to be gained by surmising between these two extremes.

Regarding a timeline, I will say that there's a lot indicating right now, from a spiritual perspective, that the world will be completely changed within the next 9 years.

The problem is that, if I am right, there's a very good chance you won't be alive to take that bet.

You should probably convert before the end, rather than after.

[hakutaku]

15 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

"If you know the future, then bet on the future and I'll take that bet.  If you don't, then shut up."

My position is: If you aren't completely confident, then don't advise people to avoid potentially lifesaving medical treatment.

  

On 1/25/2021 at 7:47 PM, fides' Jack said:

My main point is this: do not trust the vaccines coming out, especially the RNA vaccines.  Do not wear blasphemous face masks based on lies

 

[fides' Jack]

14 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

My position is: If you aren't completely confident, then don't advise people to avoid potentially lifesaving medical treatment.

My position on face masks and mRNA vaccines is not entirely tied to my opinions on the end times.

It's really common sense, or should be common sense to not wear face masks.  That science has been settled for decades.  Even recent studies have shown they do more harm than good, for both the mask wearer and those around them.  They have their proper place in serious medical situations (such as during active surgery - as well as a few others).  Everyday life for the healthy is not a serious medical situation.

It should also be common sense to not mess with your RNA (relatively new technology that's proven to be extremely dangerous) using a vaccine that hasn't been completely tested because of a virus that isn't that deadly.  

All that regardless of whatever the mark of the beast ends up being.  

The medical industry right now is led by evil forces.  I'm 100% confident of that assertion.  And they have way too much power in this current world.

That's all I can say.  Dissect it, do what you want, prove me wrong.  Have a joyful Lent.

[fides' Jack]

Very interesting, something noticed in the latest conference video put online for Fr. Ripperger:

 

At 11:50, the image shown is a statue of one of the 5 generals of satan's army, the demon of child sacrifice.  You tell me that's NOT a caduceus there on its stomach.  If I'm right about this, it's extremely fitting.

Of course, even if it is, it might not necessarily mean anything (see first post in this thread).  Still, I will not submit to what poses as "science" these days.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

On 2/22/2021 at 11:34 AM, fides' Jack said:

My position on face masks and mRNA vaccines is not entirely tied to my opinions on the end times.

It's really common sense, or should be common sense to not wear face masks.  That science has been settled for decades.  Even recent studies have shown they do more harm than good, for both the mask wearer and those around them.  They have their proper place in serious medical situations (such as during active surgery - as well as a few others).  Everyday life for the healthy is not a serious medical situation.

It should also be common sense to not mess with your RNA (relatively new technology that's proven to be extremely dangerous) using a vaccine that hasn't been completely tested because of a virus that isn't that deadly.  

All that regardless of whatever the mark of the beast ends up being.  

The medical industry right now is led by evil forces.  I'm 100% confident of that assertion.  And they have way too much power in this current world.

That's all I can say.  Dissect it, do what you want, prove me wrong.  Have a joyful Lent.

Yeah the RNA point could be valid. I have a concern about that too.

Common sense to not wear a mask? What harm do they cause, other than all of these females not being able to see my beautiful mug?

[PhuturePriest]

Were there this many conspiracy theorists on Phatmass in the days of yore? I'm trying to think but all I can recall is a bunch of memes and debates about gun control.

[ReasonableFaith]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

On 2/22/2021 at 10:34 AM, fides' Jack said:

 

Yeah the RNA point could be valid. I have a concern about that too.

Thank you for the opportunity to invoke my favorite term, reverse transcriptase!

In a previous post it seems you may have shifted from preferring the JnJ vaccine to preferring those from Moderna and Pfizer due to the distance of material cooperation. 
 

If you have concerns about a mRNA vaccine’s ability to alter your DNA much information can be found in popular as well as scientific literature. 
 

In regards to the two above mentioned mRNA vaccines the basic concept is the fragment of mRNA is extremely fragile. This explains much of the necessity of cold storage, to simply hold it together, and the need for the fragment to be encapsulated in a lipid bubble. The fragment(s) is inject into your arm and your body will dissolved the lipid bubble allowing the mRNA fragment to circulate in your cellular cytoplasm. The mRNA will act in concert with tRNA and rRNA to construct what we are hearing is the ‘spike protein.’ Basically you have at work the blueprint, the builder, and the building supply store, respectively. Your natural inter-cellular environment will destroy the originating strand(s) of mRNA (blueprint) you were injected. (It is much warmer in there than in storage conditions.)
 

It is possible for RNA to enter a cell’s nucleus and potentially alter DNA. This is the pathway of a retrovirus. Retroviruses are equipped with mechanisms by which to translocate from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. A successful retrovirus must also contain a primer for reverse transcriptase in order to hijack or alter DNA. The mRNA vaccine fragments have no such mechanism to enter the nucleus nor do they contain the information necessary as a primer for reverse transcriptase. 
 

The retrovirus’ ability to use its own RNA to hijack or alter DNA is fueling much of the popular discussion of mRNA vaccines’ potential to alter DNA. 

Please note this is just a little primer and not intended as a complete scholarly explanation of the nature of mRNA vaccines and why they don’t alter DNA.  

 

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

In a previous post it seems you may have shifted from preferring the JnJ vaccine to preferring those from Moderna and Pfizer due to the distance of material cooperation.

Nah I have shifted to not taking any of the vaccines. Glad you got to write transcriptase though.

[Machine_Washable]

5 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Thank you for the opportunity to invoke my favorite term, reverse transcriptase!

In a previous post it seems you may have shifted from preferring the JnJ vaccine to preferring those from Moderna and Pfizer due to the distance of material cooperation. 
 

If you have concerns about a mRNA vaccine’s ability to alter your DNA much information can be found in popular as well as scientific literature. 
 

In regards to the two above mentioned mRNA vaccines the basic concept is the fragment of mRNA is extremely fragile. This explains much of the necessity of cold storage, to simply hold it together, and the need for the fragment to be encapsulated in a lipid bubble. The fragment(s) is inject into your arm and your body will dissolved the lipid bubble allowing the mRNA fragment to circulate in your cellular cytoplasm. The mRNA will act in concert with tRNA and rRNA to construct what we are hearing is the ‘spike protein.’ Basically you have at work the blueprint, the builder, and the building supply store, respectively. Your natural inter-cellular environment will destroy the originating strand(s) of mRNA (blueprint) you were injected. (It is much warmer in there than in storage conditions.)
 

It is possible for RNA to enter a cell’s nucleus and potentially alter DNA. This is the pathway of a retrovirus. Retroviruses are equipped with mechanisms by which to translocate from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. A successful retrovirus must also contain a primer for reverse transcriptase in order to hijack or alter DNA. The mRNA vaccine fragments have no such mechanism to enter the nucleus nor do they contain the information necessary as a primer for reverse transcriptase. 
 

The retrovirus’ ability to use its own RNA to hijack or alter DNA is fueling much of the popular discussion of mRNA vaccines’ potential to alter DNA. 

Please note this is just a little primer and not intended as a complete scholarly explanation of the nature of mRNA vaccines and why they don’t alter DNA.  

 

Jazakallah. So these concerns are not valid? 

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Were there this many conspiracy theorists on Phatmass in the days of yore? I'm trying to think but all I can recall is a bunch of memes and debates about gun control.

I think you're just seeing me espouse a lot of ideas that you consider to be conspiracy theories.

There are not a lot of different people doing so.  It's just me.

And some measure of common sense, which isn't common at all, anymore.

[fides' Jack]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah the RNA point could be valid. I have a concern about that too.

Common sense to not wear a mask? What harm do they cause, other than all of these females not being able to see my beautiful mug?

Using common sense, think about it:

If you're sick, regardless of whether or not you have symptoms, and you wear a mask, one of 2 things will happen. 

1) The mask will not be effective in stopping any of the virus in which case it doesn't matter and the idea is stupid anyway (I don't support this idea), or

2) The mask WILL stop some virus particulates, and then where are they?  On the mask.  Literally hugging your face.  Building up on your mask with every breath you take.  Uh oh!  Your mask came down past your nose, you have to pull it up again - now you just touched it.  Well, you don't want to wear it ALL the time, so you take it off in the car, but it's too cumbersome to throw it away every single time you wear it (which is standard practice in the medical industry and why hospitals use disposable masks), so you put it back on later, without washing it.  Well, you just increased, not decreased, your chances of spreading it around.  Because every time you touch it you're basically putting your hand into a vat of virus.  (That is, if you truly are sick.  Otherwise it's just a vat of all the normal germs you carry around, anyway.)

So the question then is this: are you really washing your hands every single time you touch your mask?  And are you really not touching your mask at all while you're wearing it?  I don't think even 1 person can answer both of these questions as "yes" truthfully.  And if the majority of people can't answer yes, then the masks do more harm than good to the people around mask-wearers.

Even Fauci brought this up in March 2020 - he said it would likely happen (before he turned around and said that he lied).

Now to the other point.  It hurts the mask-wearers themselves in multiple ways.  They're getting less oxygen on a regular basis, which is just bad for health, and especially bad for the brain.  They're breathing in whatever is building up on their masks, which will undoubtedly cause respiratory issues.  Humans are not meant to breath through a mask.  It does damage after a while.  Many doctors can and have attested to this - that they are seeing huge rises of respiratory infections.  People have died because of respiratory infections due to the mask mandates.  I have a friend who had to go to the hospital because he developed an infection in his lungs.  There are even people who died in car accidents because they were wearing masks and had uncontrollable coughing fits.  

But all of these kinds of stories aren't being reported in the main-stream media, because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[ReasonableFaith]

11 hours ago, Machine_Washable said:

Jazakallah. So these concerns are not valid?

Thank you for the request for God’s goodness...may you also be rewarded. 
 

Concerns about one’s own and public health are valid. Concerns about altering one’s own DNA, in many different ways, are valid. What is in question is the validity of the information/claims/views used to undergird, confirm, and propagate such concerns. 
 

What I would say is:

Concerns about these mRNA vaccines’ (in particular the ones discussed in the quoted section) potential to alter one’s own DNA are not supported by the basic human biological/genetic pathways or by the ‘body of scientific knowledge.’

[fides' Jack]

53 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

What I would say is:

Concerns about these mRNA vaccines’ (in particular the ones discussed in the quoted section) potential to alter one’s own DNA are not supported by the basic human biological/genetic pathways or by the ‘body of scientific knowledge.’

What I would say is:

Nobody here has claimed that they do alter DNA.  My mention of DNA in the first post was to show how it could easily correlate to the words of Scripture as a meaning of the number 666.  

RNA is related to DNA, and personally I believe messing with either of them should be immediately refused by all humans, as we now know they are the means by which God's instructions regarding the makeup of our bodies are fulfilled.

But I have no direct fear of mRNA vaccines changing our DNA.  I know there are "conspiracy theories" out there around that; I haven't proposed anything like that here.  I think it's irrelevant.

That being said, I reject the assumption that scientists sufficiently understand basic human biological/genetic pathways enough for the 'body of scientific knowledge' to be absolutely certain.  Does science have a fair idea?  Sure.  Is it absolutely certain?  No - by virtue of calling itself "scientific", it can never hold it has absolute knowledge of any subject. 

My point is that before we go messing with RNA and/or DNA, we should be absolutely certain.  We're not.