Oh No Not Another Apocalypse Thread By Chrysostom

[Idolater]

It isn't like the earliest Church was like, "WE HAVE NO IDEA who Mr.666 is." They were like, "It's Nero." Caesar Nero when transcribed in Hebrew alphabet (btw the first two letters in the Hebrew alphabet are alef and bet), equals 666 when the letters, which are also numbers in ancient Hebrew, because they didn't have digits 1,2,3,4, are all added up. You get 666.



When you don't give someone the benefit of the doubt you belie ideological commitment, not measured reason. So especially then if you won't give THE EARLY CHURCH the benefit of the doubt—all the more so.

It doesn't make it conclusive, but you do have to explain why what the earliest Church thought was wrong. Otherwise we're just supposed to ignore the man behind the curtain? It doesn't make sense. You have a novel theory—OK. Why was the early Church wrong though? You have to explain that. Explain about the man behind the curtain—what's the story there?

 

[chrysostom]

That's not it at all. Nero is Mr. 666. Earliest Church knew this. You override and overrule them—why? Why aren't you at least giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Have you identified the beasts, Babylon ?? Can't say Nero fits until you do.

 

[Idolater]

Have you identified the beasts, Babylon ?? Can't say Nero fits until you do.

Non-responsive.

 

[Clete]

I positioned myself and questions to get to the root, and it contradicted itself from telling me it wasn't used anywhere else in the NT. I have a tangent, and in my opinion, it is a good one.

Huh?