Shakyamunison-
First you state that "666" is code for Nero (the beast), and later state that the beast is Rome itself. Which is it? In either case, you are wrong, Sir. Let's take a step back for a moment. Revelation 13:15-18 of the King James Bible reads:
"And he (Satan) had power to give life unto the image of the beast (antichrist), that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he (antichrist) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast (antichrist), or the number of his (antichrist) name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast (antichrist): for it is the number of a man (not a city like Rome); and his (antichrist) number is six hundred threescore and six" (commentary added for emphasis).
Obviously, the plain reading of this Scripture does not support the city of Rome being the beast; nor does Scripture support Nero being the beast, especially when you take into account other characteristics of the beast (antichrist) are riddled in Scripture. For starters, Nero never established a one world government and religion. Moreover, Nero never lead a World War against Israel, let alone a peace covenant! I could take the time to present other points; but I feel as though your interpretation has already been addressed. Scripture must be painting a picture of someone other than Nero.
Originally posted by ushomefreeLol, I keep forgetting there are religions that pretend they can interpret Revelations.
Shakyamunison-First you state that "666" is code for Nero (the beast), and later state that the beast is Rome itself. Which is it? In either case, you are wrong, Sir. Let's take a step back for a moment. Revelation 13:15-18 of the King James Bible reads:
"And he (Satan) had power to give life unto the image of the beast (antichrist), that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he (antichrist) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast (antichrist), or the number of his (antichrist) name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast (antichrist): for it is the number of a man (not a city like Rome); and his (antichrist) number is six hundred threescore and six" (commentary added for emphasis).
Obviously, the plain reading of this Scripture does not support the city of Rome being the beast; nor does Scripture support Nero being the beast, especially when you take into account other characteristics of the beast (antichrist) are riddled in Scripture. For starters, Nero never established a one world government and religion. Moreover, Nero never lead a World War against Israel, let alone a peace covenant! I could take the time to present other points; but I feel as though your interpretation has already been addressed. Scripture must be painting a picture of someone other than Nero.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-First you state that "666" is code for Nero (the beast), and later state that the beast is Rome itself. Which is it? In either case, you are wrong, Sir. Let's take a step back for a moment. Revelation 13:15-18 of the King James Bible reads:
"And he (Satan) had power to give life unto the image of the beast (antichrist), that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he (antichrist) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast (antichrist), or the number of his (antichrist) name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast (antichrist): for it is the number of a man (not a city like Rome); and his (antichrist) number is six hundred threescore and six" (commentary added for emphasis).
Obviously, the plain reading of this Scripture does not support the city of Rome being the beast; nor does Scripture support Nero being the beast, especially when you take into account other characteristics of the beast (antichrist) are riddled in Scripture. For starters, Nero never established a one world government and religion. Moreover, Nero never lead a World War against Israel, let alone a peace covenant! I could take the time to present other points; but I feel as though your interpretation has already been addressed. Scripture must be painting a picture of someone other than Nero.
You can't "plain" read a code book. These people were at war with the Empire, not just a city or just a man.
You are confusing your modern day interpretation of the book of Revelations with the interpretation that a person from the first century would have.
There was a program on the history channel that showed how 666 is a code for Nero. I would trust the history channel before I would trust you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison😆
You can't "plain" read a code book. These people were at war with the Empire, not just a city or just a man.You are confusing your modern day interpretation of the book of Revelations with the interpretation that a person from the first century would have.
There was a program on the history channel that showed how 666 is a code for Nero. I would trust the history channel before I would trust you.
Shakyamunison-
Please, let's not turn to programs aired on the History Channel to prove points. I have seen the program that you make mention of; as a matter of fact, I own a DVD entitled, "The Beast Identified," where a so-called Christian--of all things!--shares similar views. However, both views are shamefully shortsighted.
The book of Revelation can be misinterpreted just as easily--if not easier--than other books of the Bible, in particular, passages. When reading the Bible, regarding any topic, the reader must consider the entire "text" to learn of the proper "context."
In speaking of the mark (and the beast of Revelation), you can't simply build an entire case (or interpretation) based upon that passage alone. I'm speaking of Revelation 13:15-18. Why? Because Scripture is not LIMITED to that particular passage alone! The Bible, and yes, the book of Revelation itself, has much more to state about the nature and character of the antichrist. If you ignore those additional passages, you will come to terms with a false (or poor) interpretation. Period.
Claiming that the Bible speaks of Nero as the mark/antichrist may be entertaining, but it is wrong. Anyone with fair knowledge of the Bible--Christian or not--would support me on this.
You state that a program aired by the History Channel supports your views; well, programs have also been aired that do not support your views. What are we to do Shakyamunison?
Watch the video entitled, "Biometrics."
Note: Ensure Adobe Flash Player is updated.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-Please, let's not turn to programs aired on the History Channel to prove points. I have seen the program that you make mention of; as a matter of fact, I own a DVD entitled, "The Beast Identified," where a so-called Christian--of all things!--shares similar views. However, both views are shamefully shortsighted.
The book of Revelation can be misinterpreted just as easily--if not easier--than other books of the Bible, in particular, passages. When reading the Bible, regarding any topic, the reader must consider the entire "text" to learn of the proper "context."
In speaking of the mark (and the beast of Revelation), you can't simply build an entire case (or interpretation) based upon that passage alone. I'm speaking of Revelation 13:15-18. Why? Because Scripture is not LIMITED to that particular passage alone! The Bible, and yes, the book of Revelation itself, has much more to state about the nature and character of the antichrist. If you ignore those additional passages, you will come to terms with a false (or poor) interpretation. Period.
Claiming that the Bible speaks of Nero as the mark/antichrist may be entertaining, but it is wrong. Anyone with fair knowledge of the Bible--Christian or not--would support me on this.
You state that a program aired by the History Channel supports your views; well, programs have also been aired that do not support your views. What are we to do Shakyamunison?
You made it sound like I had made it up, earlier. Look, my belief about Revelations is far more profound and personal. My father was a Baptised minister, and that was his main study. My dad had it figured out. His brother wrote a book about it, and my dad helped in the study. Don't ask me what book; I was like 10 at the time (a hell of a long time ago).
The year 2000 was a long ways away; better then 35 years. My dad could show you with the bible, that it was all going to happen by the year 2000. It is 2008, and the prophecies of Revelations have not come to pass. Please do not tell me that my dad was stupid. My father was an ordained minister.
No one can know something that does not exist. The future and the past do not exist. Only "the now", and "the now" is eternal, and "the now" is God.
Shakyamunison-
I would never offend anyone on the forum by accusing his (or her) family members as "stupid" or any other saucy, provocative term; without a doubt, your father may have been a brilliant man--probably is--but how (and why) he attempted to outline the book of Revelation as to its exact fulfillment is beside me. How would he even begin to do that?! Perhaps your father was entertaining himself--simply having fun? The Bible states time and time again, that only God knows the future. If your father is (or was) a minister, he must have known this!
People throughout the centuries have gone through great pains to predict the second coming of Christ, for instance, and they are always wrong. No one--not even angels in Heaven--beside God knows the future. When people make predictions about the Bible that fail to pass, that does not--by mere necessity--indicate that the Bible is gibberish (or the likes of Enquirer Magazine).
Now... your last statement was self-refuting; answer me this: if no one can know "something that does not exist," how can you know that the future and the past do not exist? They supposedly do not exist. Moreover, if the first premise is true, how can you define anything about the "now"?
Originally posted by ushomefreeAny argument that cuts both ways is fluff. Loose the fluff. Need I expound?
Shakyamunison-I would never offend anyone on the forum by accusing his (or her) family members as "stupid" or any other saucy, provocative term; without a doubt, your father may have been a brilliant man--probably is--but how (and why) he attempted to outline the book of Revelation as to its exact fulfillment is beside me. How would he even begin to do that?! Perhaps your father was entertaining himself--simply having fun? The Bible states time and time again, that only God knows the future. If your father is (or was) a minister, he must have known this!
People throughout the centuries have gone through great pains to predict the second coming of Christ, for instance, and they are always wrong. No one--not even angels in Heaven--beside God knows the future. When people make predictions about the Bible that fail to pass, that does not--by mere necessity--indicate that the Bible is gibberish (or the likes of Enquirer Magazine).
Now... your last statement was self-refuting; answer me this: if no one can know "something that does not exist," how can you know that the future and the past do not exist? They supposedly do not exist. Moreover, if the first premise is true, how can you define anything about the "now"?
Originally posted by ushomefreedont fall back into not quoting
Shakyamunison-I would never offend anyone on the forum by accusing his (or her) family members as "stupid" or any other saucy, provocative term; without a doubt, your father may have been a brilliant man--probably is--but how (and why) he attempted to outline the book of Revelation as to its exact fulfillment is beside me. How would he even begin to do that?! Perhaps your father was entertaining himself--simply having fun? The Bible states time and time again, that only God knows the future. If your father is (or was) a minister, he must have known this!
People throughout the centuries have gone through great pains to predict the second coming of Christ, for instance, and they are always wrong. No one--not even angels in Heaven--beside God knows the future. When people make predictions about the Bible that fail to pass, that does not--by mere necessity--indicate that the Bible is gibberish (or the likes of Enquirer Magazine).
Now... your last statement was self-refuting; answer me this: if no one can know "something that does not exist," how can you know that the future and the past do not exist? They supposedly do not exist. Moreover, if the first premise is true, how can you define anything about the "now"?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-I would never offend anyone on the forum by accusing his (or her) family members as "stupid" or any other saucy, provocative term; without a doubt, your father may have been a brilliant man--probably is--but how (and why) he attempted to outline the book of Revelation as to its exact fulfillment is beside me. How would he even begin to do that?! Perhaps your father was entertaining himself--simply having fun? The Bible states time and time again, that only God knows the future. If your father is (or was) a minister, he must have known this!
People throughout the centuries have gone through great pains to predict the second coming of Christ, for instance, and they are always wrong. No one--not even angels in Heaven--beside God knows the future. When people make predictions about the Bible that fail to pass, that does not--by mere necessity--indicate that the Bible is gibberish (or the likes of Enquirer Magazine).
Now... your last statement was self-refuting; answer me this: if no one can know "something that does not exist," how can you know that the future and the past do not exist? They supposedly do not exist. Moreover, if the first premise is true, how can you define anything about the "now"?
My father really believed that the end times were near, and that he would live to see Jesus, but he died in 1993.
Knowing something is relative: everything in the universe is in motion, and in a state of flux. We experience the illusion of time because we have memory. We can remember things that have happened in the past, but just like a clock is a representation of time, our memory is a representation of the past. We do not go back in time when we remember something; we remember things, in the now. We can make short term predictions of the future by using math to examine the pattern that things in the universe make. Like the orbits of the planets; we can predict were they will be into the future, but this is not seeing into the future, this is only looking at the pattern things make as they change. The only aspect of time that is real is time dilation, but even time dilation is something that happens in the present.