Featured Poll: Was Nero the "beast/antichrist"?

The very nature of Preterism means that history and Scripture support this view. This is not about a worldwide event, but was localized to Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Nero didn't simply kill those he didn't like. Domitian may have exiled people to nearby islands, but that doesn't mean that Nero didn't also send people into exile. I did know that Patmos wasn't a desert island, but I'm glad you brought that up for the sake of other readers.

The long history of Rome has no bearing on this issue. BTW, Julius was the first Caesar. This is about the specific history of the Jewish Wars from AD 66-70. There is plenty of strong evidence that John wrote Revelation during Nero's reign, where the evidence for the later date writing is very weak.

The "666 thing" was a very big deal. Otherwise, John wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. The history of the events described in Revelation fit the Jewish Wars perfectly. Don't you find it more than coincidence that the Jewish Wars lasted 42 months? While you could associate 666 with other guys throughout history (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler, even Reagan), this specifically pointed to Nero. On the one hand, you say that many Roman names added up to 666, but then you say that it didn't take much wisdom to use "the right system of geometrics" to get 666 to make it point to Nero. Your statements contradict each other. Anyway, John didn't say it took a lot of wisdom. He said "This calls for wisdom." Big difference.

The mark of the beast was during Nero's reign. However, it wasn't a physical mark like a tattoo. The Beast from the earth was Apostate Israel. The "great tribulation" was the Jewish War. I believe the events from Rev 20:7 onward, including the two beasts being cast into the Lake of Fire, are future events.

The Beast was in power when Jesus "came" in judgment in AD 70, but this is not the same as the 2nd Advent. To reiterate what I said earlier, the Beast of the Sea was Rome, and the Beast of the Earth was Apostate Israel. Since you haven't disproven anything I've said, you can't make the claim that the Partial Preterist case has ever lost - except to your own satisfaction.

 

Many Reformed, Lutheran, English Baptist. Methodists believe the papacy is the Antichrist. Also Calvin and Luther included Islam. Clarence Larkin says the Jesuits launched "futurism" that placed a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks to make Antichrist yet future, to take the heat off of the pope which happened as planned with the advent of Dispensationalism.

 

I knew that the view that the papacy is the Antichrist was popular centuries ago, but didn't know it's still a popular view. What I really enjoy about this forum are the people you "meet" and the things you learn. Was this a different type of "futurism" than that which was promoted by Darby in the 1830s?

 

Larkin (Dispie Yoda) says Darby got it from the Jesuits.

The Jesuit Origins of Futurism

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

Thank you very much. I appreciate that you provided such a detailed history. As they say, "the more you know, the more you know that you don't know."

 

The way that I see it, you are the one fighting Scripture and history. Then again, as we've discussed before, this really comes down to how we interpret the Scriptures.

You are only half right. Both beasts came in AD 70.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. You over-literalize the seals, trumpets, and bowls. You insist that the judgement on Jerusalem was just a historical event, and that there MUST be a future fulfillment. You are simply wrong.

There is no denying what Domitian did. However, that doesn't mean that Nero did not send John into exile to Patmos. The Bible doesn't specify how or why John was on Patmos. While the most likely reason is exile, he may have been there for another reason - maybe to witness to their inhabitants.

[/QUOTE]
The only history that has any bearing on this is specifically the Jewish Wars of AD 66-70. We know Rome and Jerusalem are at the center of the prophecies. We know the events of AD 70 fit perfectly with what has been prophesied.

And neither will your guesswork make your case. It's very clear that 666 was Nero. Rev 20:10 tells us that the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast will all be thrown into the Lake of Fire at the same time. We agree that this hasn't happened yet.

As I just stated, this was NOT a literal mark. The Mark of the Beast is contrasted to God's mark. Rev 15:2 tells us that to keep the Word of God is to overcome and be victorious over the mark, or name, of the Beast. The Mark is a symbolic term used to denote a position of power. The right hand also denotes work, and the power of man. Only those Jews who aligned with the Old Covenant system were "marked" for access into the Temple.

The Beast from the earth is very clearly Apostate Israel, who had partnered up with Rome. Jerusalem is the Great Harlot of Rev 17, which fits with Israel being the "land beast". A thorough study of Rev 17 will clear up a lot of your misconceptions. The "worst disaster" type phrases were used commonly by prophets.

Absolutely NO contradictions from the Partial Preterist view. Revelation is filled with more prophetic symbolisms than any other book in the Bible. You can't read it as though it's a history book. It is in using my common sense that I see this makes perfect sense.
To repeat what we've said before, we will not come to an agreement because we take completely different approaches to our understanding of End Times prophecy.

 

The Jesuits knew it was false doctrine so they used it to deceive protestants. Which they did quite successfully.

 

Prermil was the prominent position held in the Church before Augustine, so its the Church of Rome that moved us away from that!

 

Or, you failed to see them. Looking for the symbol instead of what the symbol represents.

 

Not so fast. Jesus is Amillennial.

 

@robycop3 , rather than re-hash every point, I will give a simple response to all of them. It comes down to our hermeneutical method. You see many things as literal which I see as symbolic. We interpret these prophecies from entirely different perspectives.

I'm happy to discuss other topics with you, and I appreciate your insight on other questions. However, when it comes to "end times" prophecy, the only thing we agree upon is that Christ's 2nd Coming is still in our future. Unless you have something new to bring up, I am moving on. Besides, I will be out for several days after today.

 

You are looking for symbols to appear and missing what they represent throughout history.

 

For my part, I simply cannot go back to the futurist view when so much of prophecy (in both testaments) is written in symbolic terms. We agree that a lot of prophecies were fulfilled literally, but there is still a lot of symbolism (especially in Revelation). Each of us can use the same passages as proof texts, but we have different methods of interpretation. Since neither of us will convince the other, we will have to agree to disagree.