I noticed an interesting item while reading John Grisham's latest novel. He mentions a feature of Bologna, Italy called the Colle della Guardia. Here is the brief description from a travel guide.

Erected in the Baroque style by Carlo Francesco Dotti in 1741, the long portico leading to the majestic Santuario is made up of 666 arches which run for 3,500 metres from Porta Saragozza to the sanctuary on Colle della Guardia. Built in honour of an image of the Madonna, the edifice is beautiful, both for its architecture and its exclusive view.

Note that this item with 666 arches goes to a Roman Catholic basilica in honor of the Madonna.

This, of course, should lead us to the true meaning of the number of the beast!

Ted

So the madonna is the antichrist?

Originally posted by wfaber

So the madonna is the antichrist?

no silly. McDonald's is the antichrist. It's the arches, y'know.

Originally posted by Ted

This, of course, should lead us to the true meaning of the number of the beast!

Ted

*deep sigh* *long groan*

Thank God for preterism, which hath delivered us from evil (well, from silliness, at least).

Originally posted by Ted

I noticed an interesting item while reading John Grisham's latest novel. He mentions a feature of Bologna, Italy called the Colle della Guardia. Here is the brief description from a travel guide.

Erected in the Baroque style by Carlo Francesco Dotti in 1741, the long portico leading to the majestic Santuario is made up of 666 arches which run for 3,500 metres from Porta Saragozza to the sanctuary on Colle della Guardia. Built in honour of an image of the Madonna, the edifice is beautiful, both for its architecture and its exclusive view.

Note that this item with 666 arches goes to a Roman Catholic basilica in honor of the Madonna.

This, of course, should lead us to the true meaning of the number of the beast!

Ted

Of course John had it wrong....

Rev 13:18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Originally posted by studyhound

Of course John had it wrong....

It took me so long to realise that it does not refer to a specific man, but it is a man's number as opposed to God's number (7). It's reffering to men who make themselves out to be God.

Originally posted by La Scala Boy

It took me so long to realise that it does not refer to a specific man, but it is a man's number as opposed to God's number (7). It's reffering to men who make themselves out to be God.

Not realy, Madonna is now a Jew because of her love for Kablabla' Kablabla opposes Jesus, plus most of them are not Hebrews- it just a cult made up of many different kind of people.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Originally posted by Sparko

no silly. McDonald's is the antichrist. It's the arches, y'know.

Oh. Then we should be looking for somebody who owns 333 Franchises?

Originally posted by wfaber

Oh. Then we should be looking for somebody who owns 333 Franchises?

yes. It could be Madonna. I think her and Cher both are evil incarnate. Just look what they have done to poor Ivo (Rahxephon) http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...36&postcount=8

He is obsessed with them.

Originally posted by La Scala Boy

It took me so long to realise that it does not refer to a specific man, but it is a man's number as opposed to God's number (7). It's reffering to men who make themselves out to be God.

Nope. John specifically said that his readers could figure out who it referred to. They had the book of Daniel already, so they knew the beast referred to a world kingdom. The number just showed them the man who represented that kingdom. Nero. Easy as pie.

Originally posted by Theonomy

Nope. John specifically said that his readers could figure out who it referred to. They had the book of Daniel already, so they knew the beast referred to a world kingdom. The number just showed them the man who represented that kingdom. Nero. Easy as pie.

Even the varying numbers in different mss. (616) give away that it's Nero.

It's not some huge mystery for all time folks. It's not a microchip, it's not Madonna, Bill Gates, the Pillsbury Doughboy....Whoever. John had real, political threats in his time and encrypted the name as a safety measure.

I knew you guys would have fun when I planted my tongue firmly in cheek...

Unfortunately, there are many who would actually take the OP seriously. How do we reach them?

Originally posted by Straylight

Even the varying numbers in different mss. (616) give away that it's Nero.

It's not some huge mystery for all time folks. It's not a microchip, it's not Madonna, Bill Gates, the Pillsbury Doughboy....Whoever. John had real, political threats in his time and encrypted the name as a safety measure.

I never cared for Nero. Roxio is a better burning program.

Originally posted by Straylight

Even the varying numbers in different mss. (616) give away that it's Nero.

It's not some huge mystery for all time folks. It's not a microchip, it's not Madonna, Bill Gates, the Pillsbury Doughboy....Whoever. John had real, political threats in his time and encrypted the name as a safety measure.

(sigh)

And God could never inspire a Scripture to have dual meanings over time, could He? He could never, say, have David write about his son Absalom in his own time and then use this Scripture to point to Judas as a fulfillment, could He?

Preterists are about as hard-headed in their insistence that Nero is the Beast as futurists are that the Beast is yet to come. Could be they're both right.

It could be, or it might not be. Understanding Revelation without understanding the genre of Apocalypse is impossible. I reserve judgement on the issue but whilst I agree that both sides are being too simplistic I don't think interpretations reached without recognising and understanding the genre of the text have much of a chance.

Originally posted by James Peter

It could be, or it might not be. Understanding Revelation without understanding the genre of Apocalypse is impossible. I reserve judgement on the issue but whilst I agree that both sides are being too simplistic I don't think interpretations reached without recognising and understanding the genre of the text have much of a chance.

I understand that it is an apocalyptic text. The sensibility of preterism is that it's the natural end and conclusion of the literary hermeneutic approach (in addition to the "scripture by scripture" exegetical approach). You will find no hermeneutic in preterism that interprets it otherwise. Nor will you see preterists trying to interpret the Bible with a 21st century newspaper in the other hand as futurists do.

Preterists have the upper hand on hermeneutics, exegesis, as well fulfillment examples from 1st century history. Futurists have the New York Times, Bill Gates microchip conspiracies, and a heretical dual salvation plan for the followers of Jesus Christ and the political state of Israel. Futurists have the late, great, planet Earth, while preterists have the reign of Christ on earth in the here and now.