The “mark of the beast” and 666 are not the same.
- Thread starter GraceBwithU
- Start date
Larry II ... exactly what I was trying to get accross. There are so many approaches to this Book and it has been debated till the cows come home and no body has been able to come to any conclusion so to me God has the final say.
The different approaches have been... the : "Futurist " Approach, the "Historiscist " Aproach, The Preterist" Approach"and the "Symbolic" Approach.
All four approaches do agree that Christ will return some time in the future. Christ will defeat evil, judge evil doers, and reward the righteous.
We also need to go back to the original readers in Asia Minor to see what it is meant and try to discover what Revelation reveals about the future.
This may be because you are chasing the rabbit down his hole. By mentioning Neron Caesar only shows you are attempting the same old baloney that is popular. No one that attempts to identify the antichrist by adding some numerical number of his name will succeed. 6 is the number of “a” man not “the” man. It is really quite simple.
Anyway the topic of the thread states that 666 and the mark are not the same.
Thrust me on this one...666 is not the number of "the" man or women.maybe it is the number of the man is 6th day 6 month 06,so is already1 and a bit by now,but also this might not mean a baby but spirit of evil taking human form at any age of the man.so this could be any man in this age or women etc.maybe hilary.who knows.
Rev. 13:18 (NASB)
Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.
Then what does it mean "To count or calculate." The calculated number of a man is 666. A few manuscripts use the number 616 which is further proof that the ancient copyists understood that this was meant to be Nero because they calculated the number without using final "N" in Neron. The value of N = 50 so 666 - 50 = 616.
And where does it say that there is an "AntiChrist"?
B
Boanerges(Inactive)
Guest
Preterism is not the answer to fulfillment of scripture. Although many things could appear to be fulfilled historically all the prophecies in Revelation cannot be fulfilled from a preterist stance.
My personal opinion is that these prophesies can be considered at least for the most part historical and future in their fulfillment.
My personal opinion is that these prophesies can be considered at least for the most part historical and future in their fulfillment.
My son that is so true. The " Preterist " Approach ( Preterist means " past action" ) in understanding Revelation as a description of events confined to the Apostle John's day. The Beast represents the Roman Empire because it would have identified as the primary opponent of the church by the original readers.
Because there are Four approaches to Revelation we need to understand each approach.
All four approaches .... although different do agree that Christ will return some time in the future. Christ will defeat evil, judge evil doers, and reward the righteous.
Because there are Four approaches to Revelation we need to understand each approach.
All four approaches .... although different do agree that Christ will return some time in the future. Christ will defeat evil, judge evil doers, and reward the righteous.
Are you labeling me a "Preterist" Larry?
Larry II.... I don't think that was Larry's intent. No one is labelling any one and we all have our views and teachings. I too am very interested in this topic as we are now starting our studies on Wed. evenings on Revelation. It is like I said that revelation will always be a book that is debated and has been debated over time and that God likely made a lot of this Book unclear on purpose. and maybe the purpose would be for us to decide : Which side will we choose " Because the battle between good and evil has already been determined again I say " Which side will you chose ?"
B
Boanerges(Inactive)
Guest
Hi Larry. I am not labeling you at all brother it just seemed that your comments at the time had a preterist lean. I have much respect and love for you Larry and the only label I will affix on you is that of brother!
Your other brother Larry.
Michael.... I can't answer all of your questions but will try to answer some.
First of all the Bible does not say exactly how old John was other than that he was in exile on the island of Patmos and that he was at the end of his life.
Most scholars believe it was written around a. d. 90 - 95 in the reign of the Emperor Domitian's reign. John was banished to Patmos for proclaiming the gospel and John was seen at this time as a dangerous leader of the " Christian sect" It was at this time during John's exile , Jesus appeared to him in a vision.
Dusty and Larry,
I know - It is really difficult to understand. The decision as to whether you go symbolic or literal is one decision. (Actually everybody does both to one degree or another) Another is if you go historical or Futurist in your interpretation. These are major forks in the road and the wrong fork will severely influence the outcome of your study.
One of the problems that I have is the dating of the works of John. This is also another weighty fork in deciding the interpretation of Revelation in order to establish the historical setting of the book. Was John's works (Five Books) written before the fall of Jerusalem or afterward? Or could they even be split? It makes a big difference in interpreting Revelation and the New Testament in general.
Personally, I tend to see his writings after the fall of Jerusalem because unlike the Synoptic Gospels John in his Gospel never alludes to the Fall of Jerusalem. Also, the persecution of the Church in Rome by Nero seemed to be a local persecution that was spreading outwards and the Christians in Rome and Jerusalem were migrating to Asia because it was a place where the persecution was less severe. In 67 AD the tension was building for the siege of Jerusalem. Asia had the greatest concentration of Christians after the fall of Jerusalem. The book of Revelation was written to seven Churches in Asia - not Jerusalem. Some see the fall of Jerusalem in the pages of Revelation.
Emperor Domitian (81 AD - 96 AD) turned to total cruelty like Nero in 93 AD according to Historian Will Durant (Caesar and Christ) and started killing Christians. John was already banished before this happened. If that is true then Revelation was written in early 93 or a year or so before because John said that his warning would shortly come to pass.
Can't say that I am very familiar with the doctrines of Preterism - except they tend to believe that all is fulfilled. I don't think so because there is a lot of Prophetic things that history has shown to be unfulfilled.
Larry II
I know - It is really difficult to understand. The decision as to whether you go symbolic or literal is one decision. (Actually everybody does both to one degree or another) Another is if you go historical or Futurist in your interpretation. These are major forks in the road and the wrong fork will severely influence the outcome of your study.
One of the problems that I have is the dating of the works of John. This is also another weighty fork in deciding the interpretation of Revelation in order to establish the historical setting of the book. Was John's works (Five Books) written before the fall of Jerusalem or afterward? Or could they even be split? It makes a big difference in interpreting Revelation and the New Testament in general.
Personally, I tend to see his writings after the fall of Jerusalem because unlike the Synoptic Gospels John in his Gospel never alludes to the Fall of Jerusalem. Also, the persecution of the Church in Rome by Nero seemed to be a local persecution that was spreading outwards and the Christians in Rome and Jerusalem were migrating to Asia because it was a place where the persecution was less severe. In 67 AD the tension was building for the siege of Jerusalem. Asia had the greatest concentration of Christians after the fall of Jerusalem. The book of Revelation was written to seven Churches in Asia - not Jerusalem. Some see the fall of Jerusalem in the pages of Revelation.
Emperor Domitian (81 AD - 96 AD) turned to total cruelty like Nero in 93 AD according to Historian Will Durant (Caesar and Christ) and started killing Christians. John was already banished before this happened. If that is true then Revelation was written in early 93 or a year or so before because John said that his warning would shortly come to pass.
Can't say that I am very familiar with the doctrines of Preterism - except they tend to believe that all is fulfilled. I don't think so because there is a lot of Prophetic things that history has shown to be unfulfilled.
Larry II
B
Boanerges(Inactive)
Guest
Thanks Larry, you are allways full of ggod info and much food for thought.
Much love in Christ, Larry.
Thanx - Larry and Dusty.
I have a lot of books on Revelation, but one book that has a lot of historical information is Barclay's "The Revelation of John." I have an older two volume set and I found the first book very informative, but couldn't get into the second book. Highly recommended - if you don't have it already.
USED BOOKS
P. S. - The "Dryer" is my favorite Avatar. Stll havent figured how the hands and feet get past the hinges on the door.