Your Hero Nero

[robycop3]

There's an assertion held by some preterists that Nero(37-68 AD) was the beast/antichrist. The preterists needed a boogerman to fit their false view that all remaining Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in 68-70 AD & Nero fits their time frame. However, that view is patently FALSE, & I'll let SCRIPTURE & HISTORY prove it.
Daniel 7:8 says,"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts."
Thus, the true beast shall overthrow three other rulers to attain power, from among a coalition of ten rulers. Nero, however, was designated by Claudius Caesar to succeed him, and the Senate concurred, when Claudius died in 54. he overthrew no one to become Caesar.
Rev. 13:7 says." 7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Nero ruled only the Roman empire, & he did not order too many attacks upon neighbors.
REV. 13 describes a 2nd beast, from the land, who will be the sidekick of the main beast. Nero didn't have any assistants except his mother, for awhile.
Rev. 19:20 says," And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Nero DIED. When Gen. Galba overthrew him, he sent men to arrest Nero. As they approached, Nero decided he'd rather die than to be publicly humiliated, & executed anyway, but he couldn't bring himself to commit suicide. So, he ordered his secretary, Epiphrodates, to stab him with a sword. When Galba's men arrived, they vainly tried to keep Nero alive, but couldn't. His last words were, "What an artist dies with me!"
That's just a short list of Scriptural criteria nero didn't fulfill for the beast/antichrist. the TRUE beast MUST fulfill EVERY Scriptural criterion exactly, to the letter. Yes, Nero was a bad boy, Yes, Nero murdered many Christians, including Peter, but he still fell far-short of fulfilling all the criteria for the beast. many others came closer, including Domitian, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Stalin, & Hitler, and we know none of them were the beast, either. But Nero seemed to be a good poster boy for the prets' beast, as he fit the 68-70 AD timeline.

Simple FACT is, SCRIPTURE & HISTORY PROVE Nero was NOT the beast/antichrist. That man is yet to be made manifest, if he's even been born yet.

 

[Lodic]

I am 95% positive that the "Sea Beast" in Revelation 13 was Emperor Nero. I am 100% sure that if it wasn't Nero, it was certainly a notable figure in the 1st Century. I am also 100% sure that whatever proof I offer will be rejected by those who hold to the "Futurist" view.
To begin with, you may wonder how I can be so certain that it was Nero. When I study Scripture, I hold to the old rule that the simplest interpretations are usually correct. I also believe in a consistent interpretation of Scripture. If we were not discussing prophetic events, nobody would question the meaning of words like "soon", "shortly", etc. Nobody would question phrases like "you will see". Yet, the meaning of those words and phrases seem to change when discussing prophecy in order to make them fit a certain eschatological view.

Daniel 7:8 is similar to the Beast in Revelation, but it's not exactly the same. Daniel saw 4 beasts which coincide with different empires. The Lion is Babylon, the Ram and Bear is Medo-Persia, the Leopard and the Goat are Greece, the Beast which you pointed out is Rome. These beasts seem to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great statue (Daniel 2:32-45).

At the beginning of Rev. 13, the Beast comes up out of the sea having 10 horns, 7 heads, and 10 diadems on the horns with blasphemous names. Now go forward to Rev. 17:3, where we see a scarlet beast that matches the description that we see in chapter 13. The focus of chapter 17 is on the Great Harlot. Since these visions are confusing to John, the angel explains what all this means. We see from his explanation that the 7 heads are 7 mountains (or hills). Rome has always been known as the city on 7 hills, and the original audience would not have understood John to mean anything else. This was an alliance with Rome against Christianity.

In 17:9-12 we see that there are 7 kings. "Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come...he must remain a little while." This refers to 1) Julius Caesar, 2) Augustus, 3) Tiberius, 4) Gaius (aka Caligula), 5), Claudius, 6) Nero, and 7) Galba (who was only in power from June 68 - January 69). Note - Nero is the 6th "king".

The beast which was and is not (v. 11) is the resurrected Roman empire, following Nero's suicide. The 10 kings (v. 12) refers to Rome's 10 imperial provinces. Now I'm going to go back to Rev. 13:3. We see that one of the 7 heads of the beast as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. The Roman Empire was dealt a "fatal blow" with Nero's suicide, which was followed by civil war and "the year of 4 emperors" (AD 69). Vespasian's rise to power restored order to the Roman Empire, and he ordered his son (General Titus) to capture Jerusalem.

Finally, in Rev. 13:18, John tells his audience how to calculate the Number of the Beast. It would be impossible for John's 1st Century audience to calculate the Number of the Beast to be someone 2,000 years in their future. However, John literally tells them to use wisdom to figure out his identity. This would only be possible if they actually knew of him in their day.

Should be interested, there is a very informative article entitled "The Case for Nero Caesar Being the Beast of Revelation" at this link:
The Case For Nero Caesar Being The Beast Of Revelation

 

[JonC]

In 17:9-12 we see that there are 7 kings. "Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come...he must remain a little while." This refers to 1) Julius Caesar, 2) Augustus, 3) Tiberius, 4) Gaius (aka Caligula), 5), Claudius, 6) Nero, and 7) Galba (who was only in power from June 68 - January 69). Note - Nero is the 6th "king".

I have no interest in the topic, but I am interested in history. Why is Julius Caesar the "1st king"?

I would have chosen Caesar Augustus (based on the Roman Empire and NT age).

 

[Lodic]

I have no interest in the topic, but I am interested in history. Why is Julius Caesar the "1st king"?

I would have chosen Caesar Augustus (based on the Roman Empire and NT age).

An excellent point, Brother. While modern historians recognize Augustus as the first of the emperors, Julius Caesar was recognized as the first of the emperors during the 1st Century - e.g., Josephus. It makes sense that if early historians saw Julius Caesar as the first of the emperors, the NT writers would also.

 

[JonC]

An excellent point, Brother. While modern historians recognize Augustus as the first of the emperors, Julius Caesar was recognized as the first of the emperors during the 1st Century - e.g., Josephus. It makes sense that if early historians saw Julius Caesar as the first of the emperors, the NT writers would also.

Thanks for the reply. For some reason the topic has never held my interest (I have no clue why, and no firm eschatological position). But that caught my attention and curiosity. Makes sense to me.

 

[robycop3]

I am 95% positive that the "Sea Beast" in Revelation 13 was Emperor Nero.

I believe you agree that Scripture is 100% correct. Therefore, you must agree that the TRUE 'beast' will fulfill all Scriptural criteria for the beast, TO THE LETTER. And I clearly pointed out in the PO of this thread, and in the recent "preterists cannot..." thread that Nero didn't fulfill too many of them at all. Thus, Nero could NOT have been the beast.

I am 100% sure that if it wasn't Nero, it was certainly a notable figure in the 1st Century. I am also 100% sure that whatever proof I offer will be rejected by those who hold to the "Futurist" view.

Of course we reject it, cuz it's simply NOT TRUE. History and reality prove that.

To begin with, you may wonder how I can be so certain that it was Nero. When I study Scripture, I hold to the old rule that the simplest interpretations are usually correct. I also believe in a consistent interpretation of Scripture. If we were not discussing prophetic events, nobody would question the meaning of words like "soon", "shortly", etc. Nobody would question phrases like "you will see". Yet, the meaning of those words and phrases seem to change when discussing prophecy in order to make them fit a certain eschatological view.

It was JOHN who wrote 'shortly' & 'soon'. He was NOT quoting Jesus.at the time. And jesus said, "WHEN you see..." and he caused that statement to be recorded & preserved. Now, "when" never came for the apostles, nor has it yet come for anyone. Again, history and reality bear that out.

Daniel 7:8 is similar to the Beast in Revelation, but it's not exactly the same. Daniel saw 4 beasts which coincide with different empires. The Lion is Babylon, the Ram and Bear is Medo-Persia, the Leopard and the Goat are Greece, the Beast which you pointed out is Rome. These beasts seem to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great statue (Daniel 2:32-45).

And Revelation adds to that description, with both the "Holy Roman Empire" and the beast's coming empire being formed from many of the peoples & nations that made up the RE & HRE.

At the beginning of Rev. 13, the Beast comes up out of the sea having 10 horns, 7 heads, and 10 diadems on the horns with blasphemous names. Now go forward to Rev. 17:3, where we see a scarlet beast that matches the description that we see in chapter 13. The focus of chapter 17 is on the Great Harlot. Since these visions are confusing to John, the angel explains what all this means. We see from his explanation that the 7 heads are 7 mountains (or hills). Rome has always been known as the city on 7 hills, and the original audience would not have understood John to mean anything else. This was an alliance with Rome against Christianity.

Again, I've likely studies a lot more history than you have, as I'be been at it for around 60 of my 70 years of age. It's plain that the harlot os the RCC, as the vatican is at the heart of the city of Rome.

In 17:9-12 we see that there are 7 kings. "Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come...he must remain a little while." This refers to 1) Julius Caesar, 2) Augustus, 3) Tiberius, 4) Gaius (aka Caligula), 5), Claudius, 6) Nero, and 7) Galba (who was only in power from June 68 - January 69). Note - Nero is the 6th "king".

The beast which was and is not (v. 11) is the resurrected Roman empire, following Nero's suicide. The 10 kings (v. 12) refers to Rome's 10 imperial provinces. Now I'm going to go back to Rev. 13:3. We see that one of the 7 heads of the beast as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. The Roman Empire was dealt a "fatal blow" with Nero's suicide, which was followed by civil war and "the year of 4 emperors" (AD 69). Vespasian's rise to power restored order to the Roman Empire, and he ordered his son (General Titus) to capture Jerusalem.

No; the five fallen kings are the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-persia, and Greece. The "one that is" at the time of the Rev was the Roman empire; the 7th was the HRE, with the 8th to be formed from the remnants of the RE & HRE. The 'fatal blow' will be a mtraculous recovery of the "beast/antichrist" from a head would that shoulda killed him.

The SDAs believed this "fatal wound" was Napoleon's capture & exile of the pope for nearly 5 years, while the French army occupied Rome. however, the RCC didn't actually decline much during that time.

Finally, in Rev. 13:18, John tells his audience how to calculate the Number of the Beast. It would be impossible for John's 1st Century audience to calculate the Number of the Beast to be someone 2,000 years in their future. However, John literally tells them to use wisdom to figure out his identity. This would only be possible if they actually knew of him in their day.

Not REALLY. Jesus commanded John to record the whole series of visions, except for what the 7 thunders said. And Jesus caused those writings to be preserved to this day. Again, history and reality PROVE the 'beast' has NOT yet come, nor has the great trib nor the AOD. The only "proof" the prets have is imagination & guesswork.

Should be interested, there is a very informative article entitled "The Case for Nero Caesar Being the Beast of Revelation" at this link:
The Case For Nero Caesar Being The Beast Of Revelation

Read it a good while back. History & reality prove Nero was NOT the AC when Scripture is applied to it.

 

[Lodic]

I believe you agree that Scripture is 100% correct. Therefore, you must agree that the TRUE 'beast' will fulfill all Scriptural criteria for the beast, TO THE LETTER. And I clearly pointed out in the PO of this thread, and in the recent "preterists cannot..." thread that Nero didn't fulfill too many of them at all. Thus, Nero could NOT have been the beast.

Thank you. Likewise, I believe that you agree that Scripture is our primary source for revelation. The Sea Beast did fulfill all the criteria to the letter. As a side note, sometimes the Beast refers to Rome, which the ruling emperor represented.

It was JOHN who wrote 'shortly' & 'soon'. He was NOT quoting Jesus.at the time. And jesus said, "WHEN you see..." and he caused that statement to be recorded & preserved. Now, "when" never came for the apostles, nor has it yet come for anyone. Again, history and reality bear that out.

If the inspired Apostle was wrong, the angel or Jesus Himself would have corrected him regarding "soon". Jesus Himself indicated several times in Revelation that the events would happen soon.

Again, I've likely studies a lot more history than you have, as I'be been at it for around 60 of my 70 years of age. It's plain that the harlot os the RCC, as the vatican is at the heart of the city of Rome

I respect the fact that you've studied Scripture and history longer than I've been alive. I definitely concede to your insight for many Biblical issues, such as your recent OP about baptism. (That was great!) However, I disagree with you regarding our eschatological views. In Rev. 17:1-7, John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast with the name "Babylon the Great". The angel clearly explained this vision. In context, we see that this "Babylon" is clearly apostate Israel, not the RCC.

No; the five fallen kings are the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-persia, and Greece. The "one that is" at the time of the Rev was the Roman empire; the 7th was the HRE, with the 8th to be formed from the remnants of the RE & HRE. The 'fatal blow' will be a miraculous recovery of the "beast/antichrist" from a head would that shoulda killed him.

The SDAs believed this "fatal wound" was Napoleon's capture & exile of the pope for nearly 5 years, while the French army occupied Rome. however, the RCC didn't actually decline much during that time.

These are not "kingdoms", but "kings". This was Nero, and the short reign of Galba shows that he was the 7th king. Interesting fact about the SDAs. We agree that they were wrong.

Not REALLY. Jesus commanded John to record the whole series of visions, except for what the 7 thunders said. And Jesus caused those writings to be preserved to this day. Again, history and reality PROVE the 'beast' has NOT yet come, nor has the great trib nor the AOD. The only "proof" the prets have is imagination & guesswork.

As you pointed out, John was commanded to record everything that we know as the Book of Revelation. That doesn't change the fact that his 1st century readers were the ones told to calculate the Number of the Beast. To reverse your comment, the only thing futurists have is a lively imagination and a lot of conjecture.

 

[robycop3]

Thank you. Likewise, I believe that you agree that Scripture is our primary source for revelation. The Sea Beast did fulfill all the criteria to the letter. As a side note, sometimes the Beast refers to Rome, which the ruling emperor represented.

The scarlet beast of Rev. 17 is the coming empire of the antichrist, which will be formed largely from the remnants of the old Roman empires, at first, til it swallows up other nations.

If the inspired Apostle was wrong, the angel or Jesus Himself would have corrected him regarding "soon". Jesus Himself indicated several times in Revelation that the events would happen soon.

Again & again I'll remind you & the other readers that those events HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED. Simply no getting by that FACT!

I respect the fact that you've studied Scripture and history longer than I've been alive. I definitely concede to your insight for many Biblical issues, such as your recent OP about baptism. (That was great!) However, I disagree with you regarding our eschatological views. In Rev. 17:1-7, John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast with the name "Babylon the Great". The angel clearly explained this vision. In context, we see that this "Babylon" is clearly apostate Israel, not the RCC.

Let's let SCRIPTURE settle that'n once-for-all:
Rev. 17:18 "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
In that time/place that could only have been ROME.

These are not "kingdoms", but "kings". This was Nero, and the short reign of Galba shows that he was the 7th king. Interesting fact about the SDAs. We agree that they were wrong.

Not trying to be smart-aleck, but read back thru Scripture. many times it calls a nation or people a "king". Here's one example: Joshua 10:6 Then the men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, saying, “Do not abandon your servants; come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites that live in the hill country have assembled against us.”
Now, it's obvious that the Amorite ARMIES had come with their kings against the Gibeonites. The Gibs were hard fighters, & a few kings coming at them by themselves woulda been no cause for alarm.

And, BTW, the Romans had had many more kings before Julius Caesar. After all, they'd been around since the 700s BC. And, if you're counting only the Roman rulers who ruled the Jews, the first was Pompey, who conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC.
But the Jews' history in the city of Rome goes back even farther. They had a community in Rome, but in 139 BC the ruler Hispanus issued a decree expelling all Jews who were not Roman citizens. That's part of why I believe the "kings" in Rev. 17 refers to kingDOMS.

As you pointed out, John was commanded to record everything that we know as the Book of Revelation. That doesn't change the fact that his 1st century readers were the ones told to calculate the Number of the Beast. To reverse your comment, the only thing futurists have is a lively imagination and a lot of conjecture.

Well, now, that brings up another FACT: no one ever published any credible reference to any man's name as being the beast. There were umpteen hundred Roman names that could be added up to 666, depending upon which system of gematria one would use.(There are at least five common such systems, not counting the ones men have invented since then.)

 

[Lodic]

The scarlet beast of Rev. 17 is the coming empire of the antichrist, which will be formed largely from the remnants of the old Roman empires, at first, til it swallows up other nations.

Let's let SCRIPTURE settle that'n once-for-all:
Rev. 17:18 "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
In that time/place that could only have been ROME.

You ARE sharp, Brother! You made me realize that I made a mistake. What I should have pointed out earlier is that the Great Harlot is Jerusalem.

Not trying to be smart-aleck, but read back thru Scripture. many times it calls a nation or people a "king". Here's one example: Joshua 10:6 Then the men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, saying, “Do not abandon your servants; come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites that live in the hill country have assembled against us.”
Now, it's obvious that the Amorite ARMIES had come with their kings against the Gibeonites. The Gibs were hard fighters, & a few kings coming at them by themselves woulda been no cause for alarm.

And, BTW, the Romans had had many more kings before Julius Caesar. After all, they'd been around since the 700s BC. And, if you're counting only the Roman rulers who ruled the Jews, the first was Pompey, who conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC.
But the Jews' history in the city of Rome goes back even farther. They had a community in Rome, but in 139 BC the ruler Hispanus issued a decree expelling all Jews who were not Roman citizens. That's part of why I believe the "kings" in Rev. 17 refers to kingDOMS.

I don't take your answer here as "smart-alecky", but that you are making your case. In this case, you do make a valid point, and I can see where it does make sense. However, that doesn't mean these kings did not begin with Julius Caesar.

Well, now, that brings up another FACT: no one ever published any credible reference to any man's name as being the beast. There were umpteen hundred Roman names that could be added up to 666, depending upon which system of gematria one would use.(There are at least five common such systems, not counting the ones men have invented since then.)

Another good point, Sir. I don't have an answer, only a guess. Maybe if it was written down and discovered by the Romans, it could have meant death.

 

[robycop3]

You ARE sharp, Brother! You made me realize that I made a mistake. What I should have pointed out earlier is that the Great Harlot is Jerusalem.

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

The great harlot is ROME. That was the ONLY city which ruled over all the kings known to John. While the herods were kings, Rome ruled them.

Jerusalem was simply part of the province of Syria at that time. It didn't rule over any king.

When the 'beast' comes, the RCC will try to control him & his empire, but he will turn on it soon as its usefulness to him is over. That's why the SDA at first believed Hitler was the beast. The RC delegates in the Reichstag passed the "Enabling Act" which gave Hitler almost-absolute authority in Germany, but, soon as their usefulness to him was over, he turned on them and the whole RCC in Germany, arresting its clergy, confiscating its property, etc.

I believe the RCC will be instrumental in helping to boost the 'beast' to power. The false prophet may well be a RCC official or even a pope.

And I've seen all sortsa gematria systems devised to make a given man's name add upta 666. Thus, we have people pointing to an assortment of candidates for the beast, everyone from Japan's Emperor Akahito, Henry Kissinger, Vlad Putin, Prince Charles, Khameini of Iran, "Mayatreia", Dalai Lama, Kim Jong Un, and Donald trump, to name a few.

I believe that man will be a "nobody" til he quietly assumes some power, as were Napoleon and Hitler. He won't be any of today's celebrities. And, empowered by Satan, he will quickly become quite "charismatic", And I believe his greatest boost to fame will be brokering some sorta deal between Jew and Muslim, causing both sides to disarm & clearing the way for the Jews to build a new temple in Jerusalem.

Now, are you convinced by the Scriptural evidence above that "kings" in Rev. 17 indicates "kingDOMS"?

 

[Lodic]

The great harlot is ROME. That was the ONLY city which ruled over all the kings known to John. While the herods were kings, Rome ruled them.
Jerusalem was simply part of the province of Syria at that time. It didn't rule over any king.

Jerusalem was first called "that great city" in Rev. 11:8. This term is used for Babylon. So far we are in agreement. In Rev. 14:20, the winepress is trampled "outside the city", which refers to Jerusalem. Yet, the only city mentioned earlier (14:8) is Babylon.

"The Harlot" as a term for Jerusalem dates back to Isaiah 1:21, Isaiah 57:8, and Jeremiah 2:2 & 20. In Rev 17, the harlot has committed adultery. This only makes sense if she was "married" to God. Rome never had a covenant with God, but Jerusalem clearly did. Just as the OT prophets used the term "harlot" to describe faithless Israel, so did John. The harlot sitting upon the beast doesn't mean that she is ruling anything. Jerusalem was "in bed" with the Beast (Rome). Here is an article that describes Revelation 17 in greater detail: Revelation 17: A Preterist Commentary - Revelation Revolution.

And I've seen all sortsa gematria systems devised to make a given man's name add upta 666. Thus, we have people pointing to an assortment of candidates for the beast, everyone from Japan's Emperor Akahito, Henry Kissinger, Vlad Putin, Prince Charles, Khameini of Iran, "Mayatreia", Dalai Lama, Kim Jong Un, and Donald trump, to name a few.

I believe that man will be a "nobody" til he quietly assumes some power, as were Napoleon and Hitler. He won't be any of today's celebrities. And, empowered by Satan, he will quickly become quite "charismatic", And I believe his greatest boost to fame will be brokering some sorta deal between Jew and Muslim, causing both sides to disarm & clearing the way for the Jews to build a new temple in Jerusalem.

Now, are you convinced by the Scriptural evidence above that "kings" in Rev. 17 indicates "kingDOMS"?

You have not provided Scriptural evidence that the "kings" are kingdoms - just theory. You are right - 666 could "fit" lots of guys. However, it DOES fit one man specifically. The 1st Century Christians would have been able to calculate 666 to be Nero, but they could not have calculated it to be anyone in the future. Regarding an earlier suggestion that this could have been someone else in their day, it's very unlikely. Nero was the only one with the kind of power they needed to be aware of.

While I concede that you do present a good case for your view of eschatology, I believe Preterism is the correct view.

 

[robycop3]

Jerusalem was first called "that great city" in Rev. 11:8. This term is used for Babylon. So far we are in agreement. In Rev. 14:20, the winepress is trampled "outside the city", which refers to Jerusalem. Yet, the only city mentioned earlier (14:8) is Babylon.

"The Harlot" as a term for Jerusalem dates back to Isaiah 1:21, Isaiah 57:8, and Jeremiah 2:2 & 20. In Rev 17, the harlot has committed adultery. This only makes sense if she was "married" to God. Rome never had a covenant with God, but Jerusalem clearly did. Just as the OT prophets used the term "harlot" to describe faithless Israel, so did John. The harlot sitting upon the beast doesn't mean that she is ruling anything. Jerusalem was "in bed" with the Beast (Rome). Here is an article that describes Revelation 17 in greater detail: Revelation 17: A Preterist Commentary - Revelation Revolution.



You have not provided Scriptural evidence that the "kings" are kingdoms - just theory. You are right - 666 could "fit" lots of guys. However, it DOES fit one man specifically. The 1st Century Christians would have been able to calculate 666 to be Nero, but they could not have calculated it to be anyone in the future. Regarding an earlier suggestion that this could have been someone else in their day, it's very unlikely. Nero was the only one with the kind of power they needed to be aware of.

While I concede that you do present a good case for your view of eschatology, I believe Preterism is the correct view.

Did you just IGNORE the latter half of Rev. 17:18??????????????????????????????
it said that great cith that RULES OVER THE KINGS. Again, Jerusalem was NOT ruling over any kingdom or king at that time. ROME was!

In your zeal to defend the false pret doctrine, you're venturing into the realm of NONSENSE!

 

[Lodic]

Did you just IGNORE the latter half of Rev. 17:18??????????????????????????????
it said that great cith that RULES OVER THE KINGS. Again, Jerusalem was NOT ruling over any kingdom or king at that time. ROME was!

In your zeal to defend the false pret doctrine, you're venturing into the realm of NONSENSE!

I've already explained that "problem". In broader context, let's go to Rev 18 (next chapter). The subject of is that Babylon has fallen. Verse 21 "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown with violence". Verse 24 "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints". Sounds like Jerusalem to me.

 

[robycop3]

I've already explained that "problem". In broader context, let's go to Rev 18 (next chapter). The subject of is that Babylon has fallen. Verse 21 "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown with violence". Verse 24 "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints". Sounds like Jerusalem to me.

That has nothing to do with Rev. 17. And Scripture indicates Jerusalem will exist til it's replaced by the New J from heaven at the end of the millenium, while the 2nd Babylon will be overthrown for good.

I fully believe "Desert Storm" came about because Saddam was trying to rebuild Babylon. There's no LOGICAL man-made reason this war happened. And it's not just coincidence that the USA used Saddam's "Babylonian" buildings for artillery practice!

But the city of Rev. 17:18 is clearly ROME.

 

[Lodic]

That has nothing to do with Rev. 17. And Scripture indicates Jerusalem will exist til it's replaced by the New J from heaven at the end of the millenium, while the 2nd Babylon will be overthrown for good.

I fully believe "Desert Storm" came about because Saddam was trying to rebuild Babylon. There's no LOGICAL man-made reason this war happened. And it's not just coincidence that the USA used Saddam's "Babylonian" buildings for artillery practice!

But the city of Rev. 17:18 is clearly ROME.

I must respectfully disagree, sir. I believe they are definitely tied together. Babylon has always been a name for apostate Israel. 1st Century Jerusalem was the Babylon of Revelation.

OTOH, as a veteran of Desert Shield / Desert Storm, I completely agree with you that Saddam was trying to rebuild Babylon. I'm not sure that has anything to do with prophecy, but I do see the hand of God all over the Gulf War.

 

[robycop3]

I must respectfully disagree, sir. I believe they are definitely tied together. Babylon has always been a name for apostate Israel. 1st Century Jerusalem was the Babylon of Revelation.

And I respectfully disagree with YOU. The angel made it plain to john the harlot was THAT GREAT CITY, WHICH RULES OVER THE KINGS OF THE EARTH. At that time, it could ONLY have been...ROME! Jerusalem was a minor city in the Roman empire of the time. It was overshadowed in importance by Ephesus, Colosse, Galatia, Philippi, Pompeii, Athens, Corinth, & others.

OTOH, as a veteran of Desert Shield / Desert Storm, I completely agree with you that Saddam was trying to rebuild Babylon. I'm not sure that has anything to do with prophecy, but I do see the hand of God all over the Gulf War.

Remember, GOD said that, once Babylon was destroyed, it'd never be rebuilt.

Isaiah 13:And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, The beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.20 It will never be inhabited, Nor will it be settled from generation to generation; Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there.

Babylon wasn't destroyed when the Medes/persians conquered it. In fact, it still existed when Jesus was here, though greatly decreased in importance. it was finally completely abandoned C. 1000AD. And that area has not been inhabited since!

Again, there was NO logical reason for "Desert Storm" to have started; it was just a rumor that Saddam had WMDs. I really believe GOD caused it because Saddam was trying to rebuild Babylon, claiming to be a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[robycop3]

Jerusalem was first called "that great city" in Rev. 11:8. This term is used for Babylon. So far we are in agreement. In Rev. 14:20, the winepress is trampled "outside the city", which refers to Jerusalem. Yet, the only city mentioned earlier (14:8) is Babylon.

"The Harlot" as a term for Jerusalem dates back to Isaiah 1:21, Isaiah 57:8, and Jeremiah 2:2 & 20. In Rev 17, the harlot has committed adultery. This only makes sense if she was "married" to God. Rome never had a covenant with God, but Jerusalem clearly did. Just as the OT prophets used the term "harlot" to describe faithless Israel, so did John. The harlot sitting upon the beast doesn't mean that she is ruling anything. Jerusalem was "in bed" with the Beast (Rome). Here is an article that describes Revelation 17 in greater detail: Revelation 17: A Preterist Commentary - Revelation Revolution.



You have not provided Scriptural evidence that the "kings" are kingdoms - just theory. You are right - 666 could "fit" lots of guys. However, it DOES fit one man specifically. The 1st Century Christians would have been able to calculate 666 to be Nero, but they could not have calculated it to be anyone in the future. Regarding an earlier suggestion that this could have been someone else in their day, it's very unlikely. Nero was the only one with the kind of power they needed to be aware of.

While I concede that you do present a good case for your view of eschatology, I believe Preterism is the correct view.

The Scriptural evidence is self-explanatory. There were five prior empires that ruled Israel and Judah; Rome was the 6th one. The HRE was #7; the 8th will be the 'beast's' empire.

And I hope you check behind me on the history I provided about Nero that **PROVES** he could NOT have been the 'beast'. My sources were the encyclopediae I mentioned earlier. You may use them, or any other source of history. I betcha you won't find one error in my report!

 

[Lodic]

The Scriptural evidence is self-explanatory. There were five prior empires that ruled Israel and Judah; Rome was the 6th one. The HRE was #7; the 8th will be the 'beast's' empire.

And I hope you check behind me on the history I provided about Nero that **PROVES** he could NOT have been the 'beast'. My sources were the encyclopediae I mentioned earlier. You may use them, or any other source of history. I betcha you won't find one error in my report!

No need to check behind you. You convinced me a long time ago that you do know your history quite well, and you won't give historical information that you can't back up. I'm also familiar with the theory that places Rome as the 6th kingdom, HRE as the 7th, and the last as the Beast's empire. It's a popular theory, but not one that I agree with.

 

[robycop3]

No need to check behind you. You convinced me a long time ago that you do know your history quite well, and you won't give historical information that you can't back up. I'm also familiar with the theory that places Rome as the 6th kingdom, HRE as the 7th, and the last as the Beast's empire. It's a popular theory, but not one that I agree with.

But you SHOULD be convinced Nero was NOT the beast. You seem to believe as I do, that Scripture is 100% true & correct, so the Scriptures I posted, along with facts from history about Nero should leave you with no doubt that Nero was not the beast.

yes, Nero was a bad boy. he engaged in a wide variety of sexual perversions & debaucheries, including, but not limited to, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, & fornication. He was responsible for hundreds of murders, including Paul & other Christians,, his own mom, Agrippina. & several other family members.

He left most of the actual governing to the prefects Seneca & Burrus, who did a good job. That's something the TRUE beast won't do!

During the great fire in Rome of 64 AD, Nero did NOT play a fiddle or other instrument while Rome burned. He actually HELPED FIGHT THE FIRE as part of a bucket brigade! And he saw to it that a massive reconstruction project was begun immediately after that fire.

But his many murders & his known habit of crossdressing to solicit male prostitutes made him many enemies, including General Galba, who overthrew him & took the Caesarship for himself. Again, no man will overthrow the true beast!

And, during the "year of the four emperors", the prefects & Senate still ran the govt. efficiently. The "Pax Romana" remained in place. Only the Caesarship was in disarray. galba at once displeased the people who had supported him, so his pwn Praetorian Guard killed him. The Senate recognized Otho as Caesar that very day. But Vitellius, head of the Germanic legions, refused to recognize Otho & sent half their army to depose him. Rather than start a civil war, Otho killed himself, thus clearing the mway for Vitellius to become Caesar. But Vitellius at once began persecutions & murders of those he perceived as being against his Caesarship.

General Vespasian, universally popular with the military, govt. & common people alike, brought his army from the siege of Jerusalem to kick Vitellius out of office His men found & killed Vitellius, and insisted Vespasian become Caesar, which he did, establishing the Flavian dynasty from 69-96 AD. But during the year, 69 AD, the Roman empire remained stable.

 

[robycop3]

No need to check behind you. You convinced me a long time ago that you do know your history quite well, and you won't give historical information that you can't back up. I'm also familiar with the theory that places Rome as the 6th kingdom, HRE as the 7th, and the last as the Beast's empire. It's a popular theory, but not one that I agree with.

Why do you NOT agree with it? Again, Rome had many more rulers, be they called Caesar, emperor, prefect, president, or any other title long before Julius Caesar. As I said earlier, the Romans' rulership ofthe Jews began with General Pompey, and there was a large colony of jews in the city of Rome, first mentioned by the Romans in 139 BC.

Daniel's visions generally began with the Babylonian empire being the first one mentioned that ruled the Jews, which was, of course, in Dan's lifetime. Egypt and Assyria were then PAST rulers.

After the HRE, "Palestine" was ruled by Umayyid, then, Abbasid Turks (Muslim), the Ottoman Empire(Muslim), and Great Britain(after 1917) until Israel became a sovereign nation again. But none of those were as great as the empires that preceded them.

But the 8th empire, which Scripture says is of the 7th, will be the empire of the 'beast'. It'll at first be made up of nations & peoples that were in the old Roman empires. That includes almost all of Western Europe aand the Near East. Then, it'll absorb other nations, either by their own will, or forcefully, til it'll include mosta the world. But I don't believe Israel will join. it voluntarily. (But many Jews will take the "mark". willingly.)

And remember the statue of Daniel 2. That vision has been fulfilled to the letter so far, and will continue to be so fulfilled. The AC.s empire will be the feet of iron and clay, with ten toes. As a steel worker, I know that clay will not dissolve into molten iron, & will remain separate when the iron cools. But they WILL cling to each other. Thus, many nations in the beast's kingdom will retain their "nationalism", being part of the empire cuz they won't be able to resist it. THAT will be the empire that the stone cut without hands, that is, God's kingdom, will smash, causing all the others to be crushed to dust along with it. That'll be when Jesus returns & smashes that empire by destroying its military & casting its leaders into the lake of fire. Then, by His power, He will dissolve all other govts. and rule the whole earth, with all people being under His kingdom.

Again, while Nero was certainly a great sinner, history and Scripture PROVE he was NOT the "beast".