Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

[Lodic]

Sir, I'm trying hard to maintain some decorum & politeness in this dialogue, but, after the intel I posted about Nero, along with some Scriptural criteria for the beast that nero didn't fulfill, to still say Nero was the beast is JUST PLAIN GOOFY ! You may check out the facts about Nero I posted in any decent world history book or encyclopedia. He was no more the beast than Charles Manson was.

I do appreciate your patience with me. The Beast from the Sea was 1st Century Rome, represented by Nero. The Beast from the earth (Rev. 13:11) was Apostate Israel, represented by the priests who aligned with Rome. "Earth" in this context is better translated as "land", meaning "the land of Israel".

Rev. 13:14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. 15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

Once again, Scripture proves a pret point wrong!

General Titus could be the "image of the Beast", as he represents Rome (Vespasian, not Nero). Titus speaks on behalf of Rome. This would be in the same way that Aaron was the "mouth" for Moses in Exodus 14:6. This also fits well with Vespasian bringing a dying Roman empire back to life after Nero's death.

GUESSWORK!
As these events haven't yet happened, you don't know if the marx will be literal or not upon the 144K. But they definitely will be upon the followers of the beast.

Talk about guesswork! The entire "Futurist" eschatological view is conjecture and science-fiction. No proof to any of it.

Must I remind you of Matt. 24:29:30. Jesus said they will SEE THE SON OF MAN coming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To "see" doesn't necessarily mean to view with your eyes. Even today, when we understand what someone is telling us, we say "I see". From Matthew 24, Jesus could easily mean "they will perceive, or understand the coming of the Son of Man".

Again, not trying to be smart-aleck, but, while I have presented Scripture & historical facts, all YOU'VE presented has been opinion, imagination, & guesswork. Again, history makes a shambles outta preterism! I hope the HOLY SPIRIT opens your eyes to realize you've been fed quite a load of baloney by the preterists! They can't prove a thing they say!

I don't believe you are being a smart-aleck, but I would have to be blind to see that I'm not causing you some frustration. I accuse you of the very thing you accuse me of - presenting opinion and guesswork as fact. Just as you believe Preterism to be a lot of baloney, I feel the same about Futurism. The Holy Spirit has indeed opened my eyes regarding the "End Times".

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm waiting till my change come, you brethren can argue with one another... Brother Glen

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[David Kent]

Baptists and reformers before the beginning of the 19th century considered the papcy to be Antichrist. This was hated by the papacy and they invented two alternative views to take the heat off the papacy. I apologise to my preterist friends, but I believe you are wrong. Their first try was by Alcazar.

PRETERISM

Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it allof Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):

• Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
• Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
• Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Caesar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
• Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, Alcazar found no application of prophecy to the middle ages or to the papacy. That his interpretation differed so greatly from that put forth by Francisco Ribera or Cardinal Bellarmine, mattered little. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible interpretations of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the reformers.

That didn't work to well so they invented futurism.

This was first intoduced to non catholism by Irving and one who I omitted before, Samuel Roffe Maitland who wrote a book in 1926. Maitland was librarian to the Archbisop of Canterbury. After writing that he met three clerics from Trinity College, Dublin. It is possible Darby was one of these as he was at the college at that time.

As I have already said, sun moon and stars in prophecy ar sybolic for leading people. Those references in Olivet were fulfilled with the overthrow of the Jewish leaders at the end of the Roman war.

The Futurists​

 

[Lodic]

I'm waiting till my change come, you brethren can argue with one another... Brother Glen

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Hello, Brother Glen. Hope you are doing well.
Of course the passage above is often used as "proof text" for the Rapture. Maybe there will be one, I can't say for sure. However, if there is one, I don't believe it will be a "secret rapture" before or during a future period of great tribulation. Maybe this will coincide the 2nd Advent of Christ.

On the other hand, I believe this subject matter of this passage is more about the resurrection of Believers. The language here may be about the raising up of those who have died in the Lord. The idea of being "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" is a picture of God's elect being brought into His presence. Whatever the answer is, we can definitely take comfort that we will be with Him.

 

[tyndale1946]

Hello, Brother Glen. Hope you are doing well.
Of course the passage above is often used as "proof text" for the Rapture. Maybe there will be one, I can't say for sure. However, if there is one, I don't believe it will be a "secret rapture" before or during a future period of great tribulation. Maybe this will coincide the 2nd Advent of Christ.

On the other hand, I believe this subject matter of this passage is more about the resurrection of Believers. The language here may be about the raising up of those who have died in the Lord. The idea of being "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" is a picture of God's elect being brought into His presence. Whatever the answer is, we can definitely take comfort that we will be with Him.

You look at it one way Lodic, I look at it another... Could be both?... No foul!... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

David thanks again for another historic outline... You got a lot of historical things in that bag of yours, don't you?... Keep them coming!... Brother Glen

 

[David Kent]

Nero could not be Antichrist as according to John, he would come ot the church. The papacy fits that. He calls himself Vicar of Christ wich means the same as anti Christ. Those who take the Engllsh common understanding of anti as being against are way off the mark. The Greek word has a very wide range of meanings. Even in Funk and Wagnalls dictionary it gives a number of diffenet meanings which correspond with the Greek, at least the copy I had did.

 

[Lodic]

Nero could not be Antichrist as according to John, he would come ot the church. The papacy fits that. He calls himself Vicar of Christ wich means the same as anti Christ. Those who take the Engllsh common understanding of anti as being against are way off the mark. The Greek word has a very wide range of meanings. Even in Funk and Wagnalls dictionary it gives a number of diffenet meanings which correspond with the Greek, at least the copy I had did.

Interesting point, Brother David. However, "antichrist" is only found in 1 & 2 John as one who opposes Christ. "The Antichrist" is nowhere in Scripture. However, Nero fits the description of "the Beast" quite well.

 

[Rob_BW]

Baptists and reformers before the beginning of the 19th century considered the papcy to be Antichrist. This was hated by the papacy and they invented two alternative views to take the heat off the papacy. I apologise to my preterist friends, but I believe you are wrong. Their first try was by Alcazar.

PRETERISM

Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it allof Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):

• Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
• Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
• Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Caesar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
• Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, Alcazar found no application of prophecy to the middle ages or to the papacy. That his interpretation differed so greatly from that put forth by Francisco Ribera or Cardinal Bellarmine, mattered little. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible interpretations of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the reformers.

That didn't work to well so they invented futurism.

This was first intoduced to non catholism by Irving and one who I omitted before, Samuel Roffe Maitland who wrote a book in 1926. Maitland was librarian to the Archbisop of Canterbury. After writing that he met three clerics from Trinity College, Dublin. It is possible Darby was one of these as he was at the college at that time.

As I have already said, sun moon and stars in prophecy ar sybolic for leading people. Those references in Olivet were fulfilled with the overthrow of the Jewish leaders at the end of the Roman war.

The Futurists​

I was going to remark earlier, that those Jesuits sure were busy.

 

[Lodic]

I was going to remark earlier, that thise Jesuits sure werr busy.

Well, everyone needs a hobby . (Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)

 

[Rob_BW]

Read Isaiah on that term. And then follow through on subsequent references.

Oh, I have. I'm a pretty big fan of my center column references.

Speaking of Isaiah, though, the 100 year life spans point to a millenium, in my estimation. I wasn't trying to get into that topic, just querying Tyndale about his thoughts on the hereafter.

 

[tyndale1946]

Oh, I have. I'm a pretty big fan of my center column references.

Speaking of Isaiah, though, the 100 year life spans point to a millenium, in my estimation. I wasn't trying to get into that topic, just querying Tyndale about his thoughts on the hereafter.

Okay I have returned after our system computer crashed and we fixed it, what about it?... Heading to Heaven on the train bound for glory... I didn't know we were going to make any stops along the way... Brother Glen

 

[robycop3]

I do appreciate your patience with me. The Beast from the Sea was 1st Century Rome, represented by Nero.

No, it's a coming empire which the 'beast/antichrist' will rule.

The Beast from the earth (Rev. 13:11) was Apostate Israel, represented by the priests who aligned with Rome. "Earth" in this context is better translated as "land", meaning "the land of Israel".

No, he will be the 'beast's' sidekick, the false prophet, as Rev. 13 says.

General Titus could be the "image of the Beast", as he represents Rome (Vespasian, not Nero). Titus speaks on behalf of Rome. This would be in the same way that Aaron was the "mouth" for Moses in Exodus 14:6. This also fits well with Vespasian bringing a dying Roman empire back to life after Nero's death.

"Coulda been" & "were" are two different things. You were plainly shown by Scripture & history that nero was NOT the AC. The TRUE AC hasn't yet been made manifest.

Talk about guesswork! The entire "Futurist" eschatological view is conjecture and science-fiction. No proof to any of it.

Well, I can't PROVE there'll be a 'new moon' on Mar. 6 this year. But I can safely PREDICT there will be, based upon astronomical knowledge of the moon's known orbit around the earth. Not only do we have the proof of the state of the world right now; we have the sure knowledge of Jesus' prophecies.

To "see" doesn't necessarily mean to view with your eyes. Even today, when we understand what someone is telling us, we say "I see". From Matthew 24, Jesus could easily mean "they will perceive, or understand the coming of the Son of Man".

WHAT A STRETCH! You prets are quite a source of amusement to me by your goofy inventions to try to justify your man-made false doctrine!
The Greek here rendered "see" is optanomai, which means "to see", the word from which we get "optics", etc! What a coincidence, eh?[/I]

I don't believe you are being a smart-aleck, but I would have to be blind to see that I'm not causing you some frustration. I accuse you of the very thing you accuse me of - presenting opinion and guesswork as fact. Just as you believe Preterism to be a lot of baloney, I feel the same about Futurism. The Holy Spirit has indeed opened my eyes regarding the "End Times".

The frustration comes from my having presented you with UNCONTESTABLE FACTS about Nero that, when compared with Scriptural criteria for the 'beast', CLEARLY PROVE Nero could NOT have been the beast, but you still insist he is, to try to justify your preterist myth than to admit the TRUTH.

All I've seen from prets over the years is opinion, imagination, and guesswork; NO PROOF NOR EVIDENCES! And prets tend to try to reduce "inconvenient Scriptures, such as Matt. 24:29-30 or Rev. 13 to "symbolic" status because they KNOW they CANNOT prove they've already been fulfilled. (Why can't they prove it? For the simple reason they have NOT yet been fulfilled!)

Again, I find it hard to believe that people of at least ordinary intelligence can believe anything as silly as preterism!

 

[robycop3]

Interesting point, Brother David. However, "antichrist" is only found in 1 & 2 John as one who opposes Christ. "The Antichrist" is nowhere in Scripture. However, Nero fits the description of "the Beast" quite well.

The "beast/man of sin/son of perdition/that Wicked" will be the same man.(Jesus also called Judas 'son of perdition'.) The term 'THE antichrist" will fit that man as well, as he will be opposed to Jesus and anyone/anything else who's ever been worshipped as God.

 

[robycop3]

Nero could not be Antichrist as according to John, he would come ot the church. The papacy fits that. He calls himself Vicar of Christ wich means the same as anti Christ. Those who take the Engllsh common understanding of anti as being against are way off the mark. The Greek word has a very wide range of meanings. Even in Funk and Wagnalls dictionary it gives a number of diffenet meanings which correspond with the Greek, at least the copy I had did.

Still ignoring the FACT that Scripture indicates he will be ONE MAN?

 

[Lodic]

"Coulda been" & "were" are two different things. You were plainly shown by Scripture & history that nero was NOT the AC. The TRUE AC hasn't yet been made manifest.

At the very least, the "image of the Beast" was someone who represented the Beast, and carried the authority of the Beast. Titus is a very likely candidate, but it may have been someone else representing Rome. This certainly makes more sense than a talking statue or a hologram. While you've shown me why you don't believe Nero is "the AC", you haven't actually proven anything.

Well, I can't PROVE there'll be a 'new moon' on Mar. 6 this year. But I can safely PREDICT there will be, based upon astronomical knowledge of the moon's known orbit around the earth. Not only do we have the proof of the state of the world right now; we have the sure knowledge of Jesus' prophecies.

And the sure knowledge of Christ's prophecies point directly to AD 70.

WHAT A STRETCH! You prets are quite a source of amusement to me by your goofy inventions to try to justify your man-made false doctrine!
The Greek here rendered "see" is optanomai, which means "to see", the word from which we get "optics", etc! What a coincidence, eh?

That definition doesn't change anything. Speaking of "goofy inventions", the rapture, the "7 year tribulation", the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, and that gap you tried to place in Acts 2 are as goofy as you can get.

The frustration comes from my having presented you with UNCONTESTABLE FACTS about Nero that, when compared with Scriptural criteria for the 'beast', CLEARLY PROVE Nero could NOT have been the beast, but you still insist he is, to try to justify your preterist myth than to admit the TRUTH.

Imagine my frustration from showing you what Scripture clearly proves, and you insist on hanging on to your "futurist" dogma. As I said in another post, if I truly thought the Preterist view was false, I would drop it in a New York minute. Taking the example of the Bereans, I've studied the Scriptures to see weigh the evidence for the Futurist view vs the Preterist view. Preterism has much stronger Biblical support.

 

[Lodic]

The "beast/man of sin/son of perdition/that Wicked" will be the same man.(Jesus also called Judas 'son of perdition'.) The term 'THE antichrist" will fit that man as well, as he will be opposed to Jesus and anyone/anything else who's ever been worshipped as God.

You do acknowledge that "The Antichrist" is not found anywhere in Revelation - nor in the rest of the Bible, for that matter. We definitely agree that the "antichrist" definition fits anyone opposed to Christ. We also agree that the terms above most likely point to the same guy.

 

[Rob_BW]

Been reading therough Eusebius lately. It seems he has Domition as the 666, and adheres to a late date for the writing of Revelation.

 

[Lodic]

Been reading therough Eusebius lately. It seems he has Domition as the 666, and adheres to a late date for the writing of Revelation.

Since he adheres to the late date, it makes sense that he would see Domition as the Beast. On the other hand, Eusebius does see an early fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation prophecies. I personally hold to the early date (65-67) authorship. I've run across an intriguing theory that the Beast could be better understood as Rome, and "personalized" in Nero. Since Nero committed suicide in 68, the "Rome" theory makes sense to me. (Not sure how my fellow Preterists might view that.)

 

[robycop3]

At the very least, the "image of the Beast" was someone who represented the Beast, and carried the authority of the Beast.

No, it'll be a statue, or at the very least, a hologram. I'll let SCRIPTURE prove you wrong again:

Rev. 13: 14 And he deceives fthose who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. 15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
Those that dwell on the earth cannot make a man, but they've made quite a few statues!

Titus is a very likely candidate, but it may have been someone else representing Rome. This certainly makes more sense than a talking statue or a hologram. While you've shown me why you don't believe Nero is "the AC", you haven't actually proven anything.

Actually, SCRIPTURE & HISTORY HAVE,(I merely pointed out those facts) but you choose to believe some quacks such as Preston, Gentry, DelMar, etc. insteada the plain truths I pointed out. Those book salesmen have really taken you in!

And the sure knowledge of Christ's prophecies point directly to AD 70.

No, it points to coming events.

That definition doesn't change anything.

Actually, it DOES, but you'd rather believe your gurus than JESUS. His words in Matt. 24, plus Rev. 1:7 prove your pret hooey wrong yet again.

Speaking of "goofy inventions", the rapture, the "7 year tribulation", the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks, and that gap you tried to place in Acts 2 are as goofy as you can get.

Not at all. No pret has proven one word of them wrong.(And neither has anyone else.)

Imagine my frustration from showing you what Scripture clearly proves, and you insist on hanging on to your "futurist" dogma.

All you've shown me is opinion, imagination and guesswork. You've not shown me one thing from history to support the pret blather.

As I said in another post, if I truly thought the Preterist view was false, I would drop it in a New York minute. Taking the example of the Bereans, I've studied the Scriptures to see weigh the evidence for the Futurist view vs the Preterist view. Preterism has much stronger Biblical support.

Know what "BAH ! HUMBUG !" means?

Preterism doesn't have one quark of HISTORICAL support! I believe we agree that Scripture shapes history, not vice-versa, and NOT ONE eschatological event is found in history!

Again, when a pret comes across a Biblical prophecy he/she KNOWS can't be found fulfilled in history, the pret tries to hide behind a wall of "That verse is SYMBOLIC!" You prets are ASHAMED to admit you were DECEIVED cuz your gurus LIED to you, just to sell more boox.