Your Hero Nero

[Martin Marprelate]

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

I agree (mostly) with your review of history and that Nero cannot be the 'beast' or the 'AntiChrist.' Nero was certainly not the worst persecutor of Christians among the Emperors. I think Diocletian claims that dubious honour. Nero's persecution seems to have been confined to Rome, whereas those of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian were much more widely spread.

Also, the Year of the Four Emperors in AD 69 was not a unique time of war-- there was another such year in AD 192-3-- and if it had been, it would not have been true to say, "See that you are not troubled, for.......the end is not yet," because the end had come upon the Jews; it was right at their doors. No one among the Jews was saying, 'Peace and safety!' (1 Thessalonians 5:3) in AD 69.

 

[Lodic]

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.

I really envy your detailed knowledge of history. It was only a few years ago that I learned the "fiddling" story was just a myth.

That being said, I am firmly convinced of two things from your answer. #1 - Scripture is 100% true, the ultimate authority as the Word of God; and #2 - Nero was the Beast.

 

[Lodic]

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".

True, it doesn't matter what title the "kings" (or "kingdoms") have, as the main point has to do with their role / power and position. The Caesar reign was unique. The Caesars ruled during the time of Christ.

I understand your arguments regarding Daniel's visions, the HRE, etc. Furthermore, I appreciate your "steelworker's" perspective on the statue. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the "futurist" viewpoint.

 

[Lodic]

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".

A fair question, Brother Roby. I base this largely on my understanding of "time" statements in the Olivet Discourse, NT prophecies, and in Revelation. "Time statements" encompasses statements from "you will see", "soon", "shortly", "at hand", "this generation", etc. I also understand the prophecies to be about the end of the Old Covenant age, not the end of the world. You will remember, of course, that we've discussed this distinction before, where you make the case that the Old Covenant was ended at the Last Supper. I agree that the New Covenant began at that point, but the Old Covenant was finally brought to an end with the destruction of the Temple.

 

[robycop3]

I really envy your detailed knowledge of history. It was only a few years ago that I learned the "fiddling" story was just a myth.

That being said, I am firmly convinced of two things from your answer. #1 - Scripture is 100% true, the ultimate authority as the Word of God; and #2 - Nero was the Beast.

Again, I'm utterly mystified why you STILL believe Nero was the 'beast' when it's been CLEARLY PROVEN he was NOT the beast!

 

[robycop3]

True, it doesn't matter what title the "kings" (or "kingdoms") have, as the main point has to do with their role / power and position. The Caesar reign was unique. The Caesars ruled during the time of Christ.

I understand your arguments regarding Daniel's visions, the HRE, etc. Furthermore, I appreciate your "steelworker's" perspective on the statue. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the "futurist" viewpoint.

Why disagree? You can't prove it wrong.

 

[robycop3]

A fair question, Brother Roby. I base this largely on my understanding of "time" statements in the Olivet Discourse, NT prophecies, and in Revelation. "Time statements" encompasses statements from "you will see", "soon", "shortly", "at hand", "this generation", etc. I also understand the prophecies to be about the end of the Old Covenant age, not the end of the world. You will remember, of course, that we've discussed this distinction before, where you make the case that the Old Covenant was ended at the Last Supper. I agree that the New Covenant began at that point, but the Old Covenant was finally brought to an end with the destruction of the Temple.

While the Old Covenant is long-over, there are still millions of Orthodox Jews, & some others of different religious factions that still live and worship under it. They would still sacrifice animals, but for the fact most govts. forbid it. And the jews fully intend to resume them when they build their new temple in Jerusalem.

You may repeat "shortly, at hand, when you see" all you wish, but that will NOT overcome the FACT that those events HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET! There's simply no getting around that FACT!

Now, please tell me what your basis in in believing Nero was the beast when you've been shown many FACTS about his life that PROVE Nero did NOT fulfill many Scriptural criteria for the beast. You agree that Scripture is 100% true,and it plainly describes certain acts the TRUE beast will perform, while history shows Nero did NOT perform many of them.

For instance, Nero never declared himself to be above every god that'd ever been worshipped before. Nor did he issue any "marka the beast". Nor did he perform the AOD, as he never set foot in Jerusalem.

How can you believe Scripture is 100% true, & still believe Nero was the beast?????????????????

 

[Lodic]

Why disagree? You can't prove it wrong.

I've "proven" my view, but you don't accept my "proof". Then again, you've "proven" your case, but I do not accept your "proof". Guess it comes down to what presuppositions we start from.

You may repeat "shortly, at hand, when you see" all you wish, but that will NOT overcome the FACT that those events HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET! There's simply no getting around that FACT!

Contrary to the "futurist" view, I believe history shows that those events have happened. Those who hold to the "futurist" view are quick to point out how they are the ones to interpret Scripture literally (unless it's obviously an allegory). Yet, you do not take the literal meaning of the "time texts".

Now, please tell me what your basis in in believing Nero was the beast when you've been shown many FACTS about his life that PROVE Nero did NOT fulfill many Scriptural criteria for the beast. You agree that Scripture is 100% true,and it plainly describes certain acts the TRUE beast will perform, while history shows Nero did NOT perform many of them.

I've given you my basis for why I believe Nero is the Beast. However, I am going to change it up a bit. The Number of the Beast and the Man of Perdition point to Nero, but the Beast doesn't have to be a man. I suggest that the Beast also applies to the Roman Empire.

For instance, Nero never declared himself to be above every god that'd ever been worshipped before. Nor did he issue any "marka the beast". Nor did he perform the AOD, as he never set foot in Jerusalem.

As a historian, you know that Emperor worship was common. We've already discussed the mark of the beast, but I'll state my view again. This was not a literal mark any more than the 144K were literally marked as God's people. From Luke 21:20, we can surmise that the desolation happened when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. While Nero never set foot in Jerusalem, Rome certainly left a large footprint.

How can you believe Scripture is 100% true, & still believe Nero was the beast?????????????????

By taking the Scripture for what it says, it's clear that Rome / Nero was the Beast. If I may ask, what does my view of eschatology have to do with whether I believe Scripture is 100% true? I mean, I have no doubt that you believe every word from "In the beginning" to the last "Amen", even though I completely disagree with your interpretation regarding the "End Times".

 

[robycop3]

I've "proven" my view, but you don't accept my "proof". Then again, you've "proven" your case, but I do not accept your "proof". Guess it comes down to what presuppositions we start from.

With all due respect, Sir, you HAVE NOT proven your view. All you've presented has been opinion, imagination, and gursswork, most likely obtained from the writings of the quacks you, for some strange reason, believe.

Contrary to the "futurist" view, I believe history shows that those events have happened.

no, they HAVEN'T! They're NOT found in history.

Those who hold to the "futurist" view are quick to point out how they are the ones to interpret Scripture literally (unless it's obviously an allegory). Yet, you do not take the literal meaning of the "time texts".

Actually, I DO. "Shortly" to GOD is often "far-off' to US.

I've given you my basis for why I believe Nero is the Beast. However, I am going to change it up a bit. The Number of the Beast and the Man of Perdition point to Nero, but the Beast doesn't have to be a man. I suggest that the Beast also applies to the Roman Empire.

The "beast" will also be the empire of the man Scripture calls the beast. But I PROMISE you, IT WAS NOT NERO ! ! ! A little reminder: Nero DIED; his death was witnessed by about a dozen men. Scripture says the beast & FP will be cast ALIVE into the lake of fire. And no, he didn't simply go unconscious. He bled out. And his body was embalmed before being buried. Were he merely unconscious, that woulda killed him for sure! So, ya gotta get that foolishness outta your head. NERO WAS NOT THE BEAST ! !

As a historian, you know that Emperor worship was common. We've already discussed the mark of the beast, but I'll state my view again. This was not a literal mark any more than the 144K were literally marked as God's people.

Neither the marka the beast nor the marking of the 144K Israelis has occurred yet. And the marka the beast will be literal, likely some sorta microchip. But we don't know just how GOD will mark His people.

From Luke 21:20, we can surmise that the desolation happened when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies.

Yes, JERUSALEM was made desolate. But the ABOMINATION of desolation is another thing entirely. remember, Daniel said what it'll be-the evil man setting up his image in the temple while exalting himself above every god that's ever been worshipped. It'll be an ABOMINATION that CAUSES desolation, as Daniel wrote.

While Nero never set foot in Jerusalem, Rome certainly left a large footprint.

Again, that was NOT the AOD. You've made yourself quite a conundrum! While you still say Nero was the beast(despite uncontestable evidence to the contrary) you admit he was never in Jerusalem. So, he could NOT have committed the AOD, SIMPLE AS THAT ! ! tHEREFORE, HE WAS NOT THE BEAST ! !

By taking the Scripture for what it says, it's clear that Rome / Nero was the Beast.

No, they were NOT! It's plain that the harlot in Rev. 17 is Rome, and the Roman empire NEVER turned on its own capital !

If I may ask, what does my view of eschatology have to do with whether I believe Scripture is 100% true? I mean, I have no doubt that you believe every word from "In the beginning" to the last "Amen", even though I completely disagree with your interpretation regarding the "End Times".

It has to do with the FACT that you're trying to add MAN-MADE INTERPS to the TRUE meanings of many Scriptures, as if you don't believe its ACTUAL meanings! That's cause for serious concern!

You've accepted the garbage written by some quacks, crackpots, fuddy-duddies, & mountebanks insteada allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and for the HOLY SPIRIT to guide you. You've fallen for the spiel of some book salesmen, just as I once did for the road apples of Herbie Armstrong!

Now, I've presented SOUND PROOF that Nero could NOT have been the beast, but, against all reason, you still insist he was! And I'm gonna KEEP presenting that material, lest someone else believe those demagogues & fall into their pit of lies as YOU have.

 

[robycop3]

Lodic, I hope & pray you get well real soon!

The only reason I see for your still believing Nero was the beast is that you believe the garbage of the quack pret authors over history, reality, and Scripture, which, together, **PROVE** Nero could NOT have been the "beast/antichrist/man of sin".

I believe every non-preterist reader of the assessment of Nero presented in the OP will agree with it.

Please, don't forget that Biblical prophecy must be fulfilled EXACTLY, TO-THE-LETTER! Any event not meeting that strict standard is NOT a fulfillment! And plainly, Nero did NOT fulfill many of the Scriptural criteria for the "beast" ! !

 

[Lodic]

Lodic, I hope & pray you get well real soon!

The only reason I see for your still believing Nero was the beast is that you believe the garbage of the quack pret authors over history, reality, and Scripture, which, together, **PROVE** Nero could NOT have been the "beast/antichrist/man of sin".

I believe every non-preterist reader of the assessment of Nero presented in the OP will agree with it.

Please, don't forget that Biblical prophecy must be fulfilled EXACTLY, TO-THE-LETTER! Any event not meeting that strict standard is NOT a fulfillment! And plainly, Nero did NOT fulfill many of the Scriptural criteria for the "beast" ! !

Thank you. Turned out to be bronchitis and a touch of the flu, but I'm finally on the mend.

The reason I still believe Rome / Nero was the Beast is because it makes sense. The prophecies were fulfilled exactly.

 

[robycop3]

Thank you. Turned out to be bronchitis and a touch of the flu, but I'm finally on the mend.

The reason I still believe Rome / Nero was the Beast is because it makes sense. The prophecies were fulfilled exactly.

Glad you're doing better. Just be careful it doesn't turn into PNEUMONIA, which is still a significant killer!

WHAT prophecies did Nero fulfill?

Your belief that Nero was the beast simply makes NO SENSE, as you believe Scripture completely, and you agree Nero did NOT many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast, from the facts of history I posted ! !

 

[Lodic]

Glad you're doing better. Just be careful it doesn't turn into PNEUMONIA, which is still a significant killer!

WHAT prophecies did Nero fulfill?

Your belief that Nero was the beast simply makes NO SENSE, as you believe Scripture completely, and you agree Nero did NOT many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast, from the facts of history I posted ! !

Thank you, Roby. I appreciate that. I'm also praying that my wife doesn't come down with this. She has a weakened immune system from chemo several years ago. Long story.

Nero was the 6th "king" of Rev 17:10. The "Beast" was both Rome and Nero. The Roman Empire contained 10 provinces, and the governors of each one granted their authority to Rome and exercised authority on its behalf. This included aiding in Nero's persecution of the saints and the Roman war against the Jews.
Rome is famous as the "city on 7 hills". According to Josephus and other early historians, the first five Roman emperors were Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius. The 6th was Nero, and the 7th (Galba) only reigned 6 months. This fits Rev 17:10 perfectly.
Nero demanded and received worship. After his death, he was hailed as Apollo, Hercules, etc.
Back in Rev 13:18, John's 1st century readers were told they would be able to calculate the number of the Beast as 666. Again, Nero fits this perfectly.

 

[robycop3]

Thank you, Roby. I appreciate that. I'm also praying that my wife doesn't come down with this. She has a weakened immune system from chemo several years ago. Long story.

My wife has COPD from having both lungs punctured in a schoolbus accident in 2000, & has had pneumonia 3 times since. She's doing better now, but she uses 2 liters O2 24/7. We both are vaccinated against most pneumonia strains, flu, hep A, & shingles.

Nero was the 6th "king" of Rev 17:10. The "Beast" was both Rome and Nero.

First, thanx for attempting to justufy believing Nero was the beast.
Actually, Roma had had many more than 5 rulers before Nero. And Rome didn't rule that much of the world, and was not invincible in battle.

The Roman Empire contained 10 provinces, and the governors of each one granted their authority to Rome and exercised authority on its behalf.

But nero did not overthrow 3 of those rulers to become Caesar. He inhertied the office from his uncle Claudius, & was peacefully approved by the Senate.

This included aiding in Nero's persecution of the saints and the Roman war against the Jews.

nero persecuted only some saints in the city of Rome, not thruout the empire. And the Jewish war came about due to their rebellion against Roman rule, doubtlessly influenced by God so He could use the Romans to punish them.

Rome is famous as the "city on 7 hills". According to Josephus and other early historians, the first five Roman emperors were Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius. The 6th was Nero, and the 7th (Galba) only reigned 6 months. This fits Rev 17:10 perfectly.

Josephus, who wrote mostly to entertain Vespasian, left Pompey, who preceded Julius, from the mix. In fact, Julius overthrew Pompey to become Caesar. But again, a quick check of Roman history will show you there were quite a few rulers of Rome before Nero.

Nero demanded and received worship.

Actually, Nero openly worshipped the Roman pantheon, repairing several temples to Zeus & other Roman gods after the great fire.

After his death, he was hailed as Apollo, Hercules, etc.

Just about every popular Roman ruler was deitized after his death. Vespasian and Titus each were, though they didn't seek such praise themselves. That's a lot different from exalting oneself above every god.

Back in Rev 13:18, John's 1st century readers were told they would be able to calculate the number of the Beast as 666. Again, Nero fits this perfectly.

Many other Roman names could be calculated as 666, depending upon which system of gematria one used. And that included the system of letters representing numerals, I. E. the familiar "Roman numerals".

Nice try, Lodic, but your explanation still falls far short of filling in all the Scriptural criteria for the beast that Nero missed. For instance, there's the matter of the AOD. hard for Nero to heve done it when he was never in Jerusalem!

I hope the HOLY SPIRIT will soon open your eyes so you see the line of hooey from those pret authors that you've swallowed is FALSE!

 

[Lodic]

My wife has COPD from having both lungs punctured in a schoolbus accident in 2000, & has had pneumonia 3 times since. She's doing better now, but she uses 2 liters O2 24/7. We both are vaccinated against most pneumonia strains, flu, hep A, & shingles.

That's gotta be rough. God bless you both.

Nice try, Lodic, but your explanation still falls far short of filling in all the Scriptural criteria for the beast that Nero missed. For instance, there's the matter of the AOD. hard for Nero to heve done it when he was never in Jerusalem!

I hope the HOLY SPIRIT will soon open your eyes so you see the line of hooey from those pret authors that you've swallowed is FALSE!

The Beast wasn't only Nero, but also Rome itself. We clearly do not understand the prophecies of the OD and Revelation in the same way. While I have read a lot from Preterist authors like DeMar and Gentry, I read from a lot of "futurist" authors long before I'd even heard of preterism. Now I see their view to be in error.

 

[robycop3]

That's gotta be rough. God bless you both.


The Beast wasn't only Nero, but also Rome itself. We clearly do not understand the prophecies of the OD and Revelation in the same way. While I have read a lot from Preterist authors like DeMar and Gentry, I read from a lot of "futurist" authors long before I'd even heard of preterism. Now I see their view to be in error.

Sir, I don't know how I could make it any plainer to you, from the facts of history about Nero's life that **PROVE**, beyond any doubt, that Nero did NOT fulfill many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast & therefore could NOT have been the beast! You admit those facts of history, and those Scriptural criteria are correct, so how can you still stubbornly cling to that false belief???????????????????????????????????

As for the Roman empire being the beast, it didn't ever include that large a percentage of all the land & all the people on earth, even at its zenith. The Mongol empire, the Soviet Union, and, especially, the British empire, were VASTLY-larger!
The coming empire will at first be formed from the remains of the old Roman empires, then, will include almost the whole world, as Scripture says. No need to repeat its characteristics.

The pret view couldn't be more-wrong!

 

[Lodic]

Sir, I don't know how I could make it any plainer to you, from the facts of history about Nero's life that **PROVE**, beyond any doubt, that Nero did NOT fulfill many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast & therefore could NOT have been the beast! You admit those facts of history, and those Scriptural criteria are correct, so how can you still stubbornly cling to that false belief???????????????????????????????????

As for the Roman empire being the beast, it didn't ever include that large a percentage of all the land & all the people on earth, even at its zenith. The Mongol empire, the Soviet Union, and, especially, the British empire, were VASTLY-larger!
The coming empire will at first be formed from the remains of the old Roman empires, then, will include almost the whole world, as Scripture says. No need to repeat its characteristics.

The pret view couldn't be more-wrong!

Our views are so different on this topic, I hardly know where to begin.
The events prophesied in the OD and in most of Revelation were not about the end of the world, but about the end of the Old Covenant system. These were not world-wide catastrophes, but were limited to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

There will be no coming empire or one world government. You are looking for a future fulfillment of a past event that happened in a way that you do not see. This is similar to the Jews looking for a future Messiah when they don't recognize that Messiah came 2,000 years ago.

 

[robycop3]

Our views are so different on this topic, I hardly know where to begin.
The events prophesied in the OD and in most of Revelation were not about the end of the world, but about the end of the Old Covenant system. These were not world-wide catastrophes, but were limited to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

There will be no coming empire or one world government. You are looking for a future fulfillment of a past event that happened in a way that you do not see. This is similar to the Jews looking for a future Messiah when they don't recognize that Messiah came 2,000 years ago.

The Scriptures clearly show the eschatological events, including the great trib, will be WORLDWIDE. Please read Rev. 13 to see the beast's authority will be over ALL NATIONS & PEOPLES. And the death of all life in the sea won't only affect Israel, but the WHOLE WORLD, as will the burning up of all green grass, etc. And the marka the beast will be universal as well, as Scripture says.

And again, study some history. The catastrophe of 70 AD wasn't nearly as severe as that of the nazi holocaust, not to mention other catastrophes thruout the world that've occurred since 70 AD.

And still, NERO WAS NOT THE BEAST! I believe that's been PROVEN!

 

[Lodic]

The Scriptures clearly show the eschatological events, including the great trib, will be WORLDWIDE. Please read Rev. 13 to see the beast's authority will be over ALL NATIONS & PEOPLES. And the death of all life in the sea won't only affect Israel, but the WHOLE WORLD, as will the burning up of all green grass, etc. And the marka the beast will be universal as well, as Scripture says.

And again, study some history. The catastrophe of 70 AD wasn't nearly as severe as that of the nazi holocaust, not to mention other catastrophes thruout the world that've occurred since 70 AD.

And still, NERO WAS NOT THE BEAST! I believe that's been PROVEN!

No sir, the Greek word "oikumene" is used when it describes these events. Oikumene means the inhabited earth; in context, it refers to the Roman Empire. This is the same word used in Luke when Augustus called for a census. It is not the same as "kosmos", which does mean the literal earth.

Again, the severity of the catastrophe is not the issue. It's the impact of what happened when the Old Covenant system ended.

And still, NERO WAS NOT THE BEAST! I believe that's been PROVEN!

And I've proven that Nero / Rome was the Beast. We are at an impasse on our views, Brother.

 

[robycop3]

No sir, the Greek word "oikumene" is used when it describes these events. Oikumene means the inhabited earth; in context, it refers to the Roman Empire. This is the same word used in Luke when Augustus called for a census. It is not the same as "kosmos", which does mean the literal earth.

Again, the severity of the catastrophe is not the issue. It's the impact of what happened when the Old Covenant system ended.

The ending of the Old Covenant was not the carrying out of eschatology. It was the advent of the New Covenant!
The eschatological events will usher in the almost-end of sin, as Satan will be banished, & Jesus will be ruling the earth. Sin won't return til the millenium is up, & Satan is released.

And I've proven that Nero / Rome was the Beast. We are at an impasse on our views, Brother.

No, you HAVEN'T. You've presented only imagination, opinion, & guesswork, while I & others have presented KNOWN HISTORICAL FACTS that **PROVE** Nero did NOT meet many of the Scriptural criteria that the TRUE beast will meet EXACTLY, TO-THE-LETTER. Nero didn't come as close to being the beast as Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin did. (Not to mention Prince Albert who was Queen Victoria's hubby while she was queen of the largest, richest empire of all time so far, while the British Empire was at its zenith..)

Again, you need to REALLY PRAY EARNESTLY to know the truth, and to quit reading the trash of those quack pret "authors" who invent stuff as they go, and, same as you, can't prove a word of it. Those charlatans have really corrupted you!