An Amillennial Timeline leading up to the end

[Lodic]

Man of Sin and final Antichrist had not yet arrived when Bible was authored!

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I believe the Man of Sin was most likely General Titus. Of course, that also means that I believe Revelation was authored in the late 60s, and not in the mid 90s. I don't see a "final Antichrist" in Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Revelation recapitulates according to the oldest commentary found on the book. And we can see the mark of the beast reoccurring throughout history. With more to come. But I believe most has been fulfilled and Jesus could return today.

Partial fulfillment, cycles through church history, that will end in final antichrist...

 

[Yeshua1]

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I believe the Man of Sin was most likely General Titus. Of course, that also means that I believe Revelation was authored in the late 60s, and not in the mid 90s. I don't see a "final Antichrist" in Scripture.

The majority of the external and internal evidence favors the later dating though!​

 

[1689Dave]

But not yet the final Antichrist!

Since the tenth century, some, and later the Reformers, I.D.ed the papacy as the Antichrist. Most Reformational Creeds also say this. But the Reformers also saw Islam looming as another.

 

[Lodic]

The majority of the external and internal evidence favors the later dating though!​

Again I respectfully disagree, Sir. I believe the internal evidence strongly favors the early dating. More and more scholars are coming to this view.

 

[Lodic]

Revelation recapitulates according to the oldest commentary found on the book. And we can see the mark of the beast reoccurring throughout history. With more to come. But I believe most has been fulfilled and Jesus could return today.

If I may ask, how do you see the mark of the beast reoccurring through history? We are in agreement that Jesus could return today.

 

[1689Dave]

If I may ask, how do you see the mark of the beast reoccurring through history? We are in agreement that Jesus could return today.

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)

This is obviously not literal and defines the mark as an allegiance or form of worship. So the mark of the beast would be of the same nature. Placing wicked laws above God's laws under threat of loss or death. We recently saw the Mark received by many in America who favored the sinful laws defending homosexual marriage while making it impossible for Christian businesses to buy or sell unless they complied. And this would be an example of similar situations throughout history. Nero, the Papacy, Islam etc., etc.

 

[Lodic]

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)

This is obviously not literal and defines the mark as an allegiance or form of worship. So the mark of the beast would be of the same nature. Placing wicked laws above God's laws under threat of loss or death. We recently saw the Mark received by many in America who favored the sinful laws defending homosexual marriage while making it impossible for Christian businesses to buy or sell unless they complied. And this would be an example of similar situations throughout history. Nero, the Papacy, Islam etc., etc.

That makes perfect sense, especially with today's "comply with the sinful laws or go out of business" example. I appreciate your insight.

 

[robycop3]

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I believe the Man of Sin was most likely General Titus. Of course, that also means that I believe Revelation was authored in the late 60s, and not in the mid 90s. I don't see a "final Antichrist" in Scripture.

WOW, what a turnaround, Lodic! You argued with me for a good while the MOS/beast/antichrist was Nero!

There will only be one evil big kahoona. I carefully showed you Nero could NOT have been him, and Titus fulfilled even less of the Scriptural criteria. He had no false-prophet sidekick, he did not overthrow anyone to become Caesar, and he died of natural causes; he was NOT cast alive into the lake of fire.

Wonder who's gonna be your "beast" next week ? Augustus Caesar? Herod Agrippa? Charles Manson?

 

[1689Dave]

WOW, what a turnaround, Lodic! You argued with me for a good while the MOS/beast/antichrist was Nero!

There will only be one evil big kahoona. I carefully showed you Nero could NOT have been him, and Titus fulfilled even less of the Scriptural criteria. He had no false-prophet sidekick, he did not overthrow anyone to become Caesar, and he died of natural causes; he was NOT cast alive into the lake of fire.

Wonder who's gonna be your "beast" next week ? Augustus Caesar? Herod Agrippa? Charles Manson?

The way I see it, many could end up wearing the mark not knowing it until it's too late. Why? Because they look for the symbol to become real instead of what it represents. Number of a man = Man's number.

 

[robycop3]

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)

This is obviously not literal and defines the mark as an allegiance or form of worship. So the mark of the beast would be of the same nature. Placing wicked laws above God's laws under threat of loss or death. We recently saw the Mark received by many in America who favored the sinful laws defending homosexual marriage while making it impossible for Christian businesses to buy or sell unless they complied. And this would be an example of similar situations throughout history. Nero, the Papacy, Islam etc., etc.

Howdya KNOW this isn't literal?

Jesus was called the Lamb of Gos in John 1:29 & 36. And how do we know that in the vision, the image of a lamb with great power & majesty wasn't used? And the 144K could easily have hd God's name written on their foreheads, both in the vision and when the vision is fulfilled.

And God has never said to not do business with LBGTQs. I believe Jesus wants us to preach the Gospel to them. After all, they're not ineligible for salvation.

 

[Lodic]

WOW, what a turnaround, Lodic! You argued with me for a good while the MOS/beast/antichrist was Nero!

There will only be one evil big kahoona. I carefully showed you Nero could NOT have been him, and Titus fulfilled even less of the Scriptural criteria. He had no false-prophet sidekick, he did not overthrow anyone to become Caesar, and he died of natural causes; he was NOT cast alive into the lake of fire.

Wonder who's gonna be your "beast" next week ? Augustus Caesar? Herod Agrippa? Charles Manson?

Yes, I did for a while. With all the discussions with you and others over the past couple of months, I've studied the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, Daniel, etc. in more detail. I don't believe there is such a person as "The Antichrist". The Man of Sin and the Beast are separate entities. Additionally, I believe the Beast of the Sea was Rome, but it was personified in Nero. I made it clear a few weeks ago that I believe Rome was the Beast, and that hasn't changed.

While Scripture clearly states that the Beast had a False Prophet, it doesn't say the Man of Sin has a false prophet. As they say on the Millionaire game show, "that's my final answer".

 

[1689Dave]

Howdya KNOW this isn't literal?

Jesus was called the Lamb of Gos in John 1:29 & 36. And how do we know that in the vision, the image of a lamb with great power & majesty wasn't used? And the 144K could easily have hd God's name written on their foreheads, both in the vision and when the vision is fulfilled.

The symbols depict spiritual truths. If you take them literally they will never happen. But what they represent is history and taking place now with more to come.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since the tenth century, some, and later the Reformers, I.D.ed the papacy as the Antichrist. Most Reformational Creeds also say this. But the Reformers also saw Islam looming as another.

Yes, as there are still those among Reformed holding to some for of Premil view!

 

[Yeshua1]

The symbols depict spiritual truths. If you take them literally they will never happen. But what they represent is history and taking place now with more to come.

You take it all as symbolic in order to have your theology fit though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again I respectfully disagree, Sir. I believe the internal evidence strongly favors the early dating. More and more scholars are coming to this view.

Only those who tend be more of a critical sense of the Bible, who tend to not adopt traditional dating.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I did for a while. With all the discussions with you and others over the past couple of months, I've studied the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, Daniel, etc. in more detail. I don't believe there is such a person as "The Antichrist". The Man of Sin and the Beast are separate entities. Additionally, I believe the Beast of the Sea was Rome, but it was personified in Nero. I made it clear a few weeks ago that I believe Rome was the Beast, and that hasn't changed.

While Scripture clearly states that the Beast had a False Prophet, it doesn't say the Man of Sin has a false prophet. As they say on the Millionaire game show, "that's my final answer".

The Man of Sin will be the leader around at time of the Second Coming event!

 

[Lodic]

Only those who tend be more of a critical sense of the Bible, who tend to not adopt traditional dating.

Rather, I suggest that it's those who do take a more critical sense of the Bible and the history of the times that accept the early dating of Revelation. In his book "Before Jerusalem Fell", Ken Gentry presents several very strong arguments for an early dating of Revelation.

 

[Lodic]

The Man of Sin will be the leader around at time of the Second Coming event!

While I do look forward to the Second Coming of Christ, I believe the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse and most of Revelation were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

As much as I truly enjoy discussing this, I will not try to convince you to change your views (as if I even could). You are obviously an intelligent guy who has studied this subject enough to draw your own conclusions. This is not a "salvation" issue, only a difference of opinion. Besides, whether the events are in the past or future, we can't do anything about them. We still have the Great Commission to carry out; we still have to shine the light of Jesus into an increasingly dark world. On those points, I'm pretty sure we are in agreement.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, I did for a while. With all the discussions with you and others over the past couple of months, I've studied the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, Daniel, etc. in more detail. I don't believe there is such a person as "The Antichrist".

Well, there WILL BE, or Scripture is incorrect. While John mentiones the spirit of antichrist & said many antichrists have come, the context shows he'd heard that "the" antichrist will come, the most-evil person in history. John wanted to remind his readers that anyone not FOR Christ is antichrist. The coming "beast" will be the penultimate antichrist, with Satan being the ultimate one.

The Man of Sin and the Beast are separate entities.

No, they're not. Same man, multiple titles, just as Jesus has multiple titles.

Additionally, I believe the Beast of the Sea was Rome, but it was personified in Nero.

No, Rome was not THE "beast" kingdom. It was the 4th 'beast' of Daniel's vision, & the 6th one of Revelation. remember, when Rev was given, the 7th kingdom was then future, as was the 8th, which will come outta the 7th. The 7th was the Holy Roman empire which lasted til 1806. The 8th, which will be the beast of Rev. 17, will be formed at first from peoples & nations that made up the two Roman empires. This empire will absorb many other peoples & nations til it rules most of the world.
And while Nero was a bad boy, several other Caesars were as bad, or worse, such as Caligula, Domition, or Commodus. All engaged in many debaucheries, incest, murders, etc.

I made it clear a few weeks ago that I believe Rome was the Beast, and that hasn't changed.

And I made it clear that it wasn't, and why, & that's NOT gonna change. The Roman empire was small, compared to later empires, such as that of Genghis Khan, the Soviet Union, and especially the British empire. But the "beast" empire will be greater than any before it.

While Scripture clearly states that the Beast had a False Prophet, it doesn't say the Man of Sin has a false prophet. As they say on the Millionaire game show, "that's my final answer".

Revelation merely expands upon earlier prophecies, as well as introducing new ones. Other examples of that expansion are its description of many of the plagues of the great trib, and the events of Jesus' return.
While the false prophet will be totally evil himself, he will be subject to the main man. Remember, he can only work miracles in the presence of his boss. But he will be cast alive into the LOF with his boss when Jesus returns.

You really need to abandon that pret garbage so you can tell people what's REALLY coming.