Preterism

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun May 22, 2005 7:21 am

I read that the 'NUMBER OF MAN' is mistranslated and is actually 'NUMBER OF A MAN'

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Sun May 22, 2005 10:40 am

You should check out the following website:

http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

There are numerous reasons why the UPC cannot be the mark of the beast. First off, the units people claim are hidden 6's are nothing of the sort. They do not have the proper number of units to be a 6 in barcode language. They look similar, but upon closer inspection they prove not to be 6's at all.

The website lists a bunch of other reasons near the bottom of the page. The UPC = mark doesn't hold up under scrutiny, both of the UPC and of the Bible passages concerning the mark.

However, the website does say(and I agree with this) that the UPC(and other barcodes) opened up the door to the future mark. It was the first time nearly everything had been given an easy-to-read number that allows for quick access to certain informations. While the mark won't be a barcode, it will operate under similar principles. It will probably be something easy to scan that can provide all necessary info on a person. Enough to identify the person, and to allow them buy and sell, at least.

Or the mark of the beast could be a total surprising throwback. Perhaps a tattoo of some sort with no biochip or anything. Just an identifying mark that nobody would dare buy or sell without. Wouldn't that be ironic.

kateliz · Post by **kateliz** » Sun May 22, 2005 8:20 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:Or the mark of the beast could be a total surprising throwback. Perhaps a tattoo of some sort with no biochip or anything. Just an identifying mark that nobody would dare buy or sell without. Wouldn't that be ironic.

Yes it would. Actually, that'd be a little funny!

twoedgedsword · Post by **twoedgedsword** » Mon May 23, 2005 6:48 pm

what ever the mark turns out to be we who have been sealed to the lord by the holy spirit will know it for what it is.

the sword

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:21 pm

twoedgedsword wrote:what ever the mark turns out to be we who have been sealed to the lord by the holy spirit will know it for what it is.

Nah. We'll be gone long before it even becomes an issue.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:55 pm

We can hope, anyway. Anything is possible.

Maybe joining internet messaging boards is the mark.

twoedgedsword · Post by **twoedgedsword** » Mon May 30, 2005 4:02 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:
twoedgedsword wrote:what ever the mark turns out to be we who have been sealed to the lord by the holy spirit will know it for what it is.
Nah. We'll be gone long before it even becomes an issue.

I think your right shep but in case we are wrong

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:55 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
What about the Anti-christ, 666? We usually see Nero as having filled that slot, though I know others have suggested Titus, Vespasian, and others.
The Anti-Christ is supposed to usher in peace, and he's supposed to be a blasphemous imitation of Jesus. Nero wasn't a very good man in anyone's eyes....unless you know another version of history?

bizzt wrote:On top of what Felgar says in the Book of Daniel it tells us that there will be a peace treaty between Israel and The Anti-Christ for 7 years. We have not seen that yet!

Felgar wrote:
j316 wrote:I would put myself in the preterist camp so I believe that all that has already happened but there is one thing I find kind of interesting. Prior to the final events of revelation, after the millennium, satan is to be released for a time. I wonder, given the nature of some of the things that have happened in the 150 years, if we are not in that period of time now. The primary reason I say that is because satan is the accuser of the church, and the pace of that has been increasing almost exponentially in the recent past.
No we couldn't be in that period now due to the fact that we have not seen the battle of Ameggedon that marks the demise of the anti-christ and the start of the 1000-year reign.

A few notes here.

1.) There is no person called “antichrist” in the Bible. “Antichrist” is defined as anyone “who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22). There are lots of “antichrists” out there, and Nero (the beast) was surely one.
2.) The word “antichrist” does not appear in either Daniel or Revelation, and requires some very sloppy exegesis to find a future world dictator in either. (Much less a “peace treaty”)
3.) The Battle of Armageddon (har, Megiddo — “hill of Megiddo”) was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

For a good article on Nero as the Beast, check out http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/beast.html

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:35 am

I disagree but have not the time to argue. When the vast majority of honest, spirit-guided scholars who commit large portions of their life to studying something come to an overwhelming consensus, then likley that is the truth.

Even the numbers recounted about the battle of Armegeddon were no where near the actual size of the armies that could have been around for the destruction of Jerusalem. Those are unambiguous and easy to verify... The only thing Armegeddon has in common with the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century is the location.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:45 am

Felgar wrote:I disagree but have not the time to argue. When the vast majority of honest, spirit-guided scholars who commit large portions of their life to studying something come to an overwhelming consensus, then likley that is the truth.

Are you a Darwinist then?

Define Scholar? Does that include great scholars such as Dr. (NOT) Jack Van Impe and Professional polygamist Hal Lindsey?

How about studying the works of some real Scholars instead of reading pop paperback fiction novels. Scholars such as...

1. Kenneth Gentry
2. David Chilton
3. Gary DeMar
4. R.C. Sproul
5. R.C. Sproul Jr.
6. Greg Bahnsen
7. Gary North
8. Gordon J. Wenhem
9. Keith Mathison
10. Ed Stevens
11. David Green
12. James B. Jordan
13. Phillip Carrington
14. Ray Sutton
15. Austin Farrer
16. J. Massyngberde Ford
17. Meredith Kline
18. James Stuart Russell
19. Moses Stuart
20. Henry Barclay Swete
21. Milton S. Terry
22. R.J. Rushdoony
23. Ed Hinson
24. Samuel M. Frost
25. Walt Hibbard
26. Francis Nigel Lee
27. Dave MacPherson
28. Philip Mauro
29. Jay Adams
30. Kelly Nelson Birks
31. John L. Bray
32. F.F. Bruce
33. Kenneth Davies
34. P.S. Desprez
35. Jonathan Edwards
36. E.B. Elliott
37. F.W. Farrar
38. Jack Gillespie
39. Steve Gregg
40. Henry Hammond
41. Ernest Hampden-Cook
42. Daniel Harden
43. Walt Hibbard
44. Donald Hochner
45. J. Marcellus Kik
46. Max King
47. Tim King
48. Greg Kiser
49. Joseph Lewis
50. John Lightfoot
51. John Locke
52. James MacDonald
53. James MacKnight
54. Ron McRay
55. Arthur Melanson
56. J.D. Michaelis
57. Stan Moody
58. Ovid Need, Jr.
59. Thomas Newton
60. N. Nisbett
61. Gary North
62. Randall Otto
63. William W. Patton
64. Don Preston
65. Joseph Ernest Renan
66. Daniel Silvestri
67. Kurt M. Simmons
68. Foy Wallace
69. N.T. Wright
70. John Noe
71. Phillip Schaff
72. Frederic W. Farrar
73. James M. MacDonald
74. F.N. Lee
75. Ovid Need, Jr
76. Francis Schaeffer
77. Charles Hodge
78. Ernest Renan
79. B.F. Westcott
80. J. A. T. Robinson
81. Cornelius Vanderwaal
82. Adam Clarke
83. Francis Nigel Lee
84. David E. Aune
85. G.R. Beasley-Murray
86. James Burton Coffman
87. David Crews
88. Earle Ellis
89. George P. Fisher
90. Joseph A. Fitzmeyer
91. William Hurte
92. George E. Ladd
93. Jim McGuiggan
94. Robert Mounce
95. J.W. Roberts
96. A.H. Strong
97. Arthur Cushman McGiffert
98. C. C. Torrey
99. H.A. Whittaker
100. Herbert B. Workman
101. Robert Young
102. Robert Reymond
103. S. Scott Willett
104. John Owen
105. James Farquharson
106. Peter Toon
107. J. A. De Jong

Being popular and selling fiction novels does not make one a scholar.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 am

I find your arogance repugnant and that in and of itself identifies to me that you represent neither Christ nor truth, and I therefore have nothing further to say.

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:02 pm

Felgar wrote:I find your arogance repugnant and that in and of itself identifies to me that you represent neither Christ nor truth, and I therefore have nothing further to say.

Wow thems' Fighting words

Felgar I have never heard that tone before. Just seeing David Chilton on that List makes me Cringe. I guess he is a Puritan at Heart.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:47 pm

Felgar wrote:I find your arogance repugnant and that in and of itself identifies to me that you represent neither Christ nor truth, and I therefore have nothing further to say.

Easily offended???

Are you willing to deal with the substance of the debate instead of taking a popular vote wming who has the most "scholars" supporting it. Does it not bother you that your entire eschatology did not even exist before the 1820's, yet you want to rest on the "overwhelming consensus" of "honest, spirit-guided scholars".

First of all, there is no "overwhelming consensus", particularly in historic Christianity. Secondly, I could take offense to you implying that preterists are not "honest, spirit-guided scholars", but my skin isn't quite as thin as yours.

And David Chilton has more Bible knowledge in his toenail that Mr. Van Impe and Lindsey put together.

August · Post by **August** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:53 pm

Hi Puritan Lad,

You will find that most of the people that frequent this board are good, well-meaning Christians, intent on having an honest debate. It is a bit different to other places on the web. While we still have good aggressive debates, it normally concentrates on the issues, as you rightly said it should.

Having said that, I think that you would do well to accept that you don't know the people who post here, just as we don't know you. We don't know much about each others education, background, Christian maturity etc, and therefore we should be careful not to misread and attack each other. After all, we all profess to be Christians and share in God's grace. There is no benefit to be had from alienating fellow Christians. It is your responsibility to patiently guide and instruct those fellow Christians who hold a different point of view, or subscribe to another doctrine.

I know that we all passionately believe we are (always) right, including me. As you know, that is impossible, so we should attempt to stay intellectually honest and continue on our path of Godly growth. I have learnt a lot since starting to post here, and continue to do so every time I visit here.

Welcome, and I hope you hang around for a long time.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:28 am

Well said August.

I never meant an "attack" on my fellow users. If someone took it that way, then please accept my apologies.

The point I wanted to make was that there is no "consensus" among scholars, and that most of our popular endtimes teachers are anything but scholars. I posted a list of many preterist scholars, and there are many many more.

Evidence for God from Science

Preterism

the mark

Re: the mark

Re: the mark