|
Post by Josh on Aug 4, 2010 16:04:48 GMT -8
I want to compare these results with some I saw on the same question in Christianity Today.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 9, 2010 13:34:12 GMT -8
The Bible specifically says that no one knows, but it also says that it is a good thing to look for the signs and to interpret the prophecies.
There seem to be a lot of signs... But I voted for, "Who Knows?"
This may be a different topic, but I have come to the conclusion that one of the things that has to happen before the end is that America must dissolve. A force for freedom, the Bill of Rights, and a Constitution like ours is incompatible with a one-world government and an anti-Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 9, 2010 13:35:16 GMT -8
Which signs to do you think are valid signs that his return in close at hand?
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 9, 2010 13:37:56 GMT -8
Signs? Or valid signs?
That's the big question, isn't it? They saw signs in the first few decades after Christ left. Much of the New Testament was written from an apocalyptic point of view -- one that would occur in their lifetimes....
It is obvious that we are moving to a one-world government.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 9, 2010 15:08:29 GMT -8
As a partial preterist, there are very few if any "signs" that I think will serve as precursors to Christ's second coming.
Most signs futurists point to (such as those listed in Matt 24), have, in my view, already occurred and were signs of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Also, in my view, we have been in the "latter days" since the first century.
I don't think it's obvious. And I don't require it for my eschatology.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 9, 2010 16:10:12 GMT -8
Yeah, I agree with what you are saying.
But I do think it is probable that we will have some sort of one-world government to usher in, or as a result of, the anti-Christ.
(Is anything really required for eschatology other than the faith and knowledge that Christ will make himself known beyond a doubt, and to all mankind?)
A few things that have me thinking this is happening: There is a big push to do away with the dollar, and to go to a one-world currency. China and Russia are right now petitioning the UN for this. In fact, there is even a test currency already coined and running in simulations next to real-time markets.
The European Union, modern NATO, the UN, etc... are all reflective of this ideal, as is the socialistic/communistic peace movement.
The atheist movement is also moving in this direction.
Globalism in politics and the economy are becoming a reality.
So, what do you think will happen in the end times? How do you read Revelations -- as with many things, I think it is both a prediction of the temple destruction times, and of the final end times. Do you think Christ has a specific time and place picked out, and why would there not be signs and prophecies to go with it -- as there were with His first coming?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 9, 2010 21:01:50 GMT -8
Well, I don't expect a future single anti-christ figure. The Beast was Nero/ Rome in my view. I believe we are in the Millennium, so all I'm anticipating is the release of satan from his binding and his final deception, defeat, and the return of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 10, 2010 7:24:51 GMT -8
Yes, but couldn't one as easily say that Hitler was the beast? If so, it stands to reason that there will come another anti-christ, worse than the two previous. Satan himself, perhaps. Isn't he the ultimate anti-christ?
Wouldn't the release of satan result in a lot of signs, like Timothy was describing, ushering in the end times?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2010 10:16:22 GMT -8
Certainly not. No candidate fits the details better than Nero/Rome.
Also, Matthew 24 seems to indicate that the "worst" (at least from a spiritual perspective) has already happened in AD 70.
I think Timothy was describing AD 70. As to what exactly the release of satan will look like (if it hasn't happened already), we just can't say-- other than that it will involve deception- perhaps on a grand scale. One could argue that we are seeing that- but I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 10, 2010 11:14:32 GMT -8
I have a hard time believing that it won't get worse than Nero's Rome at some point in the future. The world is going to come to an end, how much worse can it be?
As far as the new testament people, speaking of 70AD, can you tell me how the destruction of the Jewish temple fits with the ultimate end times that we are ostensibly speaking? I always thought the prophecies often overlapped and that one was metaphorical for the other.
I believe that someone like Hitler is in the spirit of the anti-Christ -- like a dry run, an attempt that didn't work well enough for him. Same as Nero. The real, final anti-Christ will be someone that is very, very difficult to not like; but much more deadly than Nero or Hitler ever were.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 23, 2010 14:50:34 GMT -8
Depends on how you measure "worse". Spritually speaking, the destruction of the Temple and the violent end of old covenant was incomparable.
Also, I'm not sure the world (as in the planet) is going to come to an end. Rather, I tend to think it is going to be renewed.
Not sure I understand this question. Can you restate it?
Scripturally speaking, though, why do you think there must be a future anti-christ figure? Are you saying it is because Nero or others didn't fit the description of the Beast of Revelation well enough?
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 1, 2015 4:58:32 GMT -8
Nero, most definitely, does not represent all the marks of prophecy, given in Daniel and Revelation, as well as other portions of Scripture, in describing antechristos.
Nero is the Roman Catholic position and has been since the Jesuit, Lucius Alcazar, wrote the opinion in the late 16th/early 17th centuries.
Nero died in 68. John wrote his comments on antichrist in his epistles and Revelation at the close of the century. Daniel portrayed a march of nations reaching centuries past Nero. Nero does not even come close to being the prophetic antichrist which "shall come," 1 John 2:18. He was AN antichrist, not THE antichrist of Daniel and Revelation. He certainly had nothing on despots throughout the ages, and of the 20th century he did not hold a despotic candle.
"Antechristos" is a term of distinction marked by a comparison which is deceptive in nature, and antagonistic as a result. Nothing about Nero claimed equality to Christ. He totally denied Christ's place, and sought to wipe out His church. That is not the work of an imposture.
If one will lay out all the marks in Scripture of the character and aims of antechristos, the man of sin, the little horn power, the beast, etc., over 100 different marks of identification, one will see just 1 entity in history which matches all the marks - the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church, and that church's own doctrines and traditions which are "in place of Christ," which is what the term antichrist means.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 1, 2015 12:35:13 GMT -8
Firstly, of course the dating of the writing of revelation is a matter of debate between prefer it's and futurists, prettiest arguing for a mid 60s composition
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 2, 2015 8:17:18 GMT -8
Firstly, of course the dating of the writing of revelation is a matter of debate between prefer it's and futurists, prettiest arguing for a mid 60s composition May I assume you wrote this hastily and meant to type Preterists? :-) I'm not aware of what 'prefer it's' are, nor 'prettiests.' It would be quite sexist to talk about the looks of female scholars, no? I'll not take offense you did not include the research of historicists in dating John's writings. Which, in fact, has nothing to do with Daniel and its obvious ties to Revelation. So, really, even if John wrote everything mid-60s, Nero does not meet all the marks of identification for antichrist throughout Scripture, including prophetic times when antichrist arises. It was not the first century. The man of sin, son of perdition, little horn power, Rev 13 composite beast, etc, arises out of the roman empire, yes, but after it's fall, according to Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11. Rev 13 gives us a composite beast made up of the creatures in Daniel 7. Daniel 7 places antichrist after the ten horns/toes arise and take down the Roman empire, which the various barbaric tribes did, right on prophetic schedule. The little horn, antichrist, was responsible for removing three of those horns by the roots, totally uprooted. The armies under papal supervision and expense routed the Vandals, the Heruli, and finally the Ostrogoths, in 538 which, which opened Rome to papal control, especially after Justinian's edict of 533 naming the pope the head of the churches and corrector of heretics. Nero just cannot meet thge marks and details of prophetic history, which is why I have no trust in Preterist commentary. I notice you have yet to say anything about Alcazar being the father of Preterism and the purpose of Preterism; a way to derail the Reformation, along with the efforts of fellow Jesuit, Ribera, developing what is now called Futurism. The counter Reformation is based on those two lines of reasoning. If you want to believe this line of reasoning from Alcazar, so be it. I just do not understand why evangelicals believe either of them.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 3, 2015 22:35:29 GMT -8
I was typing on my phone so: prefer its= preterists. And sure, throw in historists too
Btw, I don't have nearly as much time as you do to respond to posts these days, so I'm constantly feeling behind (slow down a bit, eh?)
Anyway, so....
Preterists who associate Nero with the beast (as I do) aren't saying that the beast in it's entirety is one man, Nero. Obviously, the beast in Revelation represents a system or empire, because Revelation says it contains different kings (five have fallen, one is (Nero), and So, really, it's the ancient Roman empire of the 1st century that needs to "meet all the requirements" not just Nero. Which "requirements" don't you think can be met by 1st century Rome?
I'll comment on this on the related thread:
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 4, 2015 10:48:11 GMT -8
I was typing on my phone so: prefer its= preterists. And sure, throw in historists too
Btw, I don't have nearly as much time as you do to respond to posts these days, so I'm constantly feeling behind (slow down a bit, eh?)
Anyway, so....
Preterists who associate Nero with the beast (as I do) aren't saying that the beast in it's entirety is one man, Nero. Obviously, the beast in Revelation represents a system or empire, because Revelation says it contains different kings (five have fallen, one is (Nero), and So, really, it's the ancient Roman empire of the 1st century that needs to "meet all the requirements" not just Nero. Which "requirements" don't you think can be met by 1st century Rome?
I'll comment on this on the related thread:
LOL. I can't slow down! I love this place. One is yet to come ... ? Romanism places 666 and antichrist upon Nero, via Alcazar. Who is yet to come, in your view? 1st century Rome cannot meet requirements of Daniel 2, which places the iron going into an iron and clay situation after Rome is divided. It does not meet requirements in Daniel 7, which sees ten horns coming out of that beast and three plucked up by the roots by the little horn. Of course, the Papacy came up out of Rome and is the continuation of the Roman empire, just as Pope Boniface the VIII stated, wearing a crown and a holding a scepter, sitting on a Constantinian throne, no less, - "I am Caesar. I am emperor." Quite a bit of drama at the Jubilee of 1300. Pagan Rome cannot meet the requirements of Daniel 8 because in 10-12 we see a transition from pagan to papal Rome. Pagan Rome did not cast truth to the ground to practice and prosper. The papacy sure did. Rome did not care less about Christ. Just another trouble maker. They killed him, yes, but they did not gain a host by transgression. What transgression did God hold Rome accountable for, especially when He held the Jews responsible for Christ's crucifixion. But papal Rome gained an enumerable host of converts throughout the empire as it cast down truth and practiced and propered through her traditions borrowed from paganism. Plus, while it may be said pagan Rome took down the temple, Christ had already declared it 'desolate.' Papal Rome cast down the sanctuary in heaven by instituting its own apostate priesthood and blasphemous mass. If I jump to Rev 13, the first composite beast is made up of aspects of Daniel 7's beasts. OUT of the Roman empire comes a power who gets its SEAT from the dragon, working through Rome. Pagan Rome established papal Rome. Mercy, the regal nature of the dark ages papacy is saturated with pagan Rome. Well, it still is, but at least they don't walk up a 30' staircase and sit on a gold throne as ruler of heaven and earth and the underworld, thinking they can excommunicate angels that err in the faith. The gold throne is still there, though. Quite a sight. They just wear a triple tiered crowns to show that power now. Mark. One of the heads is wounded to death and heals. How is that applied to pagan Rome? At the close of the 1260 years, we have Napolean taking down the papacy. Newspapers around the globe stated it as the deadly wound of Revelation. Two years later, new pope on the throne. Now we have the Vatican, 109 acres of state power. JP2 consistently the most admired man in the world and all the world wondered [admired] after the beast. Ratzinger, steps down and creates more attention to the papacy in one month than many others could in centuries. Now we have Bergoglio, who has made inroads into evangelical ecumenism like no other. He has people asking just what is he? A communist? A tree hugger? A total apostate from the faith? To see Kenneth Copeland say the things he did about Francis and offer to meet with him to discuss ecumenical needs ... made me sick, and I have no respect for Copeland anyway. Just on principle. This is a power that is worshipped. Who worshipped pagan Rome from within the confines of professed believers? Papal Rome is worshipped. Goodness, not just the man, but buildings and things in the buildings are all considered sacred and holy, and people prostrate before them. A statue of Jupiter, renamed to be Peter, with a toe kissed by so many millions of people it has worn down. What is blasphemy? Biblical blasphemy is to take the position of God, and say you can forgive a man's sins. Pagan Rome did not do that. Sin was of no issue. But Christ was called a blasphemer because he made himself one with God and claimed authority to forgive sin. Papal Rome claims such authority. Pagan Rome is long gone before all these marks come to bear, as well. You have the 3 1/2 times, the 1260 days, and the forty-two months of time this power pushed itself around. The day/year principle, which I reckon Preterists deny, places the history of the papacy spot on, from 538 to 1798 when pope Sixtus was taken captive by Bertfier and died in exile >>> the deadly wound, 1260 years of papal dominance over. Has nothing to do with the Roman empire. The beast blasphemes Christ's name, tabernacle, and even those who dwell in heaven. As I stated elsewhere the pope claims authorioty to excommunicate angels that err from the faith. Blasphemy? In spades. Pagan Rome had no care for Christ's name, His authority, nor the tabernacle in heaven, and certainly not anybody residing there. They had Olympus. But papal Rome, yes. It has taken to itself Christ's authority, designed its own priesthood and mass, and thinks they are God on Earth. The quotes are all over the web. As a Catholic I was totally ignorant of it all. Most professed Protestants today are ignorant, as well. They are walking straight into the beast's mouth and are yet daughters of the whore. All that dwell on the earth shall worship him. Pagan Rome had quite an empire but the pope has a billion and half people bowing down to him from all over the planet. No pagan Roman emperor could claim that. On and on it goes. The lists of marks cannot be applied to Nero or pagan Rome. That is why Alcazar's writings had little effect on the Reformation. It was Ribera's futurism that has derailed it in the last two centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2015 8:40:48 GMT -8
Don't have a lot of time, but I can answer a question or two you posed.
From the preterist perspective, here is a suggested conjoining of Daniel's 10 horns/kings and Revelations 17's 7/8 kings.
Five have fallen 1. Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2. Augustus (31 BC-14 AD) 3. Tiberius (14-37 AD) 4. Gaius Caligula (37-41 AD) 5. Claudius (41-54 AD)
One is:
6. Nero (54-68 AD – the sixth king ruling when Revelation was written) "the beast wounded"
The other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.
7, 8 & 9 = the three horns uprooted/subdued:
7. Galba (68-69 AD) 8. Otho (69 AD) 9. Vitellius (69 AD)
The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
10. Vespasian (69-79 AD) "the beast revived" 11. (Titus was the ‘little horn/beast’ who was the Roman general who led the invasion of Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD as virtual co-ruler with his father Vespasian; and he was the one who was worshipped in the Jewish temple after its destruction)
The only hard sell here would be calling Galba, Otho, and Vitellious collectively "the other king". However, this could conceivably be explained a few ways; e.g. their individual reigns were of no consequence, thus they are demoted to "one king who remains but a little while". On the strong side, it is notable how well these books predicted what would happen after Nero's reign, especially the near collapse and then revitalization of Emperial Rome.
|
|