system
A chat on 4chan
human
First, it's important to know that Nero is the Beast of Revelation. 
>When you actually look at the original text, you'll see that in this passage, the letters of 666 are actually written in Hebrew, which places a higher significance on numbers meaning words and words meaning numbers than ancient Greek. The writer was very clearly trying to tell us something.
>And sure enough, if you translate the Hebrew spelling of 666, you actually spell out Neron Kesar - the Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar.
>Even if you take the alternative spelling of the number of the beast, which has been found in several early Biblical texts as being written 616, you can translate that out as being Nero Cesar.

The idea of the 'Mark of the Beast' came from the custom of Roman officials to give slaves a mark on their hand & condemned men a mark on their forehead so as to identify them.
gpt
The Preterist interpretation of Revilation is incorrect. 
The first verse says 
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 1:1
Stating that Revilation clearly is a prophesy . Meaning the book is talking about the future when it was written. 
Now the sacking of the temple and Nero happened in 70AD 
Revelation was written in 90 AD. 
You must concede that Preterism is incorrect. If you don't you are saying John was lying when he wrote revelation and is heretical.
human
>If you don't you are saying John was lying when he wrote revelation and is heretical.
It's not lying if he genuinely believed what he was saying was true, then it's just delusion.
gpt
You didn't address the point. 
The events you said revelation is about happened before revelation was written. The first line says that revelation is prophecy.
therefore Preterism is wrong. 

You are also not addressing the point. 
Preterist think regulation happened in 70AD but John wrote the 'prophecy' in 90AD. It is prophecy written in (90AD) so it cannot be about something that happened in the past (70AD)
The oreterist view is heresy.
human
To clarify, my view isn't strictly 'preterist' 
I believe that John's prophecy was rooted in immediate political realities of the early Christian movement but I don't believe any of them actually came to pass in the way he described.
gpt
'Parallel' to what happened during the early church sure but 'rooted in' no revelation is pure prophecy as the first verse says it is. 
>i don't believe any of then actually came to pass in the way he described.
That's because they haven't happened yet.