Oh cool so you're a preterist too. Theonomy AND preterism. You got the whole Reformed bingo card filled out don't you. What's next, you gonna tell me the great tribulation was just a bad week in Jerusalem.
The Nero thing. Yeah I've heard this one. You take a Greek name, transliterate it into Hebrew, use one specific spelling to make the numbers work, and then act like first century Christians were all just nodding along like it was obvious. If it was "clear as day" then why did Irenaeus, your boy that you love to quote when it's convenient, suggest completely different interpretations? He threw out Lateinos and Teitan. Not Nero. Weird thing for a guy who supposedly understood it "clear as day."
And "let the reader understand" is not an invitation to do math homework in a different language. That's you reading your conclusion into the text and working backwards.
You know what's funny though. You spent half this thread telling everyone that words and themes don't equal fully developed systems. Remember that whole speech about oikonomia? But now a gematria trick that only works with one specific Hebrew spelling is "clear as day." So which is it. Are we being careful with historical claims or are we not. Because you keep switching the rules depending on which argument you're making.
"And the number of the beast shall be 666, let the reader understand. "
Nero Cesar written in Hebrew letters which were also numbers = 666
Christians at this time understood this clear as day
Oh cool so you're a preterist too. Theonomy AND preterism. You got the whole Reformed bingo card filled out don't you. What's next, you gonna tell me the great tribulation was just a bad week in Jerusalem.
The Nero thing. Yeah I've heard this one. You take a Greek name, transliterate it into Hebrew, use one specific spelling to make the numbers work, and then act like first century Christians were all just nodding along like it was obvious. If it was "clear as day" then why did Irenaeus, your boy that you love to quote when it's convenient, suggest completely different interpretations? He threw out Lateinos and Teitan. Not Nero. Weird thing for a guy who supposedly understood it "clear as day."
And "let the reader understand" is not an invitation to do math homework in a different language. That's you reading your conclusion into the text and working backwards.
You know what's funny though. You spent half this thread telling everyone that words and themes don't equal fully developed systems. Remember that whole speech about oikonomia? But now a gematria trick that only works with one specific Hebrew spelling is "clear as day." So which is it. Are we being careful with historical claims or are we not. Because you keep switching the rules depending on which argument you're making.
This is getting embarrassing.