The Mark of the Beast (666)

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
gotta give you credit for going down with the ship.

so you think he would debate with you? you think he would question himself because of what you believe?

there would be no points to be made. he would ***** slap you into the pits of hell. sorry, but if there is a god (and i firmly believe there is one) then this is the way it is.

It's not my choice really, now is it? I can't just throw my convictions over board. I literally mean I CAN'T!

Maybe, maybe not. If he loves me, why wouldn't he?

Well, that's okay, if you believe that. But call that ******* loving and I will call you a liar.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not my choice really, now is it? I can't just throw my convictions over board. I literally mean I CAN'T!

Maybe, maybe not. If he loves me, why wouldn't he?

Well, that's okay, if you believe that. But call that ******* loving and I will call you a liar.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
all that matters i what we do as mortals in this life, on this earth. once you die, there is no time left to atone for what you have done. thats all i am saying.

He is not loving.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He is not loving.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was not convinced that I had dodged anything, but now you have unknowingly confirmed what I have believed.

You have always been convinced in what you believe, and I have never confirmed anything for you. You write cryptic things like above, just to make yourself feel better.

I must admit that the constant quoting of scripture is a poor debating tactic. To a non believer, it means nothing.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I must admit that the constant quoting of scripture is a poor debating tactic. To a non believer, it means nothing.

Every time someone quotes the bible, when I read it, it doesn't mean to me what the person claimed it meant.

this is what I mean. to me, scripture means something, because I am a believer. but to a non believer, it is just babble.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
this is what I mean. to me, scripture means something, because I am a believer. but to a non believer, it is just babble.

Not always, sometimes a person will take a quote out of context, and or imply their own meaning, when another meaning could fit just as easy.

to me it shows that they have no other angle and are falling back on it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
to me it shows that they have no other angle and are falling back on it.

I would say that was accurate.

and it pisses everyone off.

As was already previously mentioned, in May 2005 it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of an early (third century) version of the Book of Revelation, part of its Oxyrhynchus collection of papyri. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616.
Scholars now believe the number in question has very little to do with the devil. It was actually a complicated numerical riddle in Greek, meant to represent someone' s name. It' s a number puzzle, the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to Nero.

I like Nero's.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you say that because you are an atheist and do not believe in him.

Originally posted by Storm
It was actually a complicated numerical riddle in Greek, meant to represent someone' s name. It' s a number puzzle, the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to Nero.

Yeah, it's called gematria. And so Nero Caesar is thought to be the antichrist and some of the prophecies in Revelation are thought to have been fulfilled in 70AD when Rome destroyed Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29

Originally posted by Ytse
Yeah, it's called gematria. And so Nero Caesar is thought to be the antichrist and some of the prophecies in Revelation are thought to have been fulfilled in 70AD when Rome destroyed Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29

According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[9] The majority of modern scholars also use these dates.[10]Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that the Apocalypse "was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book. However, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[11]

It seems that the book was written in 95 AD, after the Rome destroyed Jerusalem, or 69 AD, at the time that the Rome destroyed Jerusalem. I would think that was not good prophecy, because the chances are it already had happened.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems that the book was written in 95 AD, after the Rome destroyed Jerusalem, or 69 AD, at the time that the Rome destroyed Jerusalem. I would think that was not good prophecy, because the chances are it already had happened.

No, I've read books on this debate. You've read one article and think you can tell me how it is?

*tsk tsk*

Originally posted by Ytse
No, I've read books on this debate. You've read one article and think you can tell me how it is?

*tsk tsk*

You are not an authority.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not an authority.

I didn't say I was an authority. What I meant is that I am better informed than you are on this topic. You quoted a paragraph from wikipedia and concluded that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. The paragraph immediately following that one is as follows:

Some exegetes (Touilleux, Gelin, Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

I kind of alluded to this in another thread when I contrasted premillennialism (the popular one in America) with the others (Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, etc.).