If Revelations has occurred...

[suffer for joy]

Then who was the Beast?

Any thoughts?

-sfj

edit: i guess I should say if the prophecy in Revelations concerning the Beast has already occurred..

[spiritmech]

The most compelling identification of the Best from a preteristic point of view is Nero. He's the sixth Caesar. This would coincide with a pre-AD70 authorship of Revelation.
SM

[suffer for joy]

The most compelling identification of the Best from a preteristic point of view is Nero. He's the sixth Caesar. This would coincide with a pre-AD70 authorship of Revelation.
SM
I am aware that some claim Nero, but does Nero line up with all the prophecy concerning the Beast?

Are there any other's who may have been the Beast?

[spiritmech]

I am aware that some claim Nero, but does Nero line up with all the prophecy concerning the Beast?

Are there any other's who may have been the Beast?

Not sure. I honestly don't know. I haven't studied it enough. I haven't read much on preterism lately as I've been interested in other topics.
SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Not sure. I honestly don't know. I haven't studied it enough. I haven't read much on preterism lately as I've been interested in other topics.
SMWell most preterist (or at least most I have read) say that the beast is both the Roman Empire and Nero. As the titular head of the Roman Empire Nero is representative of the Empire. I think a case can be made that Nero/Rome did fulfill of the "beast" prophecies.

Edit to add: The 'beast' of Revelation that is Nero/Rome is the Sea Beast. The Land Beast is a different beast.

[suffer for joy]

I think a case can be made that Nero/Rome did fulfill of the "beast" prophecies.
Do you know of any links/sources for that?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Do you know of any links/sources for that?The only one off the top of my head is David Chilton's Days of Vengeance
which can be gotten and read on line at www.freebooks.com (http://www.freebooks.com/) (I think that is the address).

But it is over 700 pages long.

You might also want to try Dee Dee Warren's resource site. www.thepreteristlist.com (http://www.thepreteristlist.com/) and search the titles for something relating to the beast.

Oh, and Kenneth Gentry has a book on freebooks.com also that deals more specifically with the beast. It is shorter and easier to read than Chilton's book.

Edit to add link to Beast of Revelation (http://www.freebooks.com/sidefrm2.htm)by Kenneth Gentry.

[Ted]

There are several problems with the identification of Nero. The most critical is that it completely ignores the OT source of the imagery.

The beast is a composite of the four beasts of Daniel 7. Those beasts were pagan NATIONS. They were not individual persons. Thus, when we consider the beast in Revelation, we should begin with the idea that it is related to nations, not persons.

I could go on at length, but this illustrates a key error in many end-times scenarios. The Bible truly interprets itself. But to let it do that, you have to let the Bible speak. And to do that, you must seek out the sources for various symbols. In this case, the OT is the start of the process. An identification of Nero completely omits this step. But Dispies are no better. They wind up applying gematria to English, a language foreign to both the Bible and to gematria (in particular since it has a separate systems of numbers).

Let the Bible speak. But listen to its language. The symbols of the NT are well-developed in the OT. So learn the OT. Learn about the sanctuary. Then you have a place to start.

Ted

[spiritmech]

There are several problems with the identification of Nero. The most critical is that it completely ignores the OT source of the imagery.

The beast is a composite of the four beasts of Daniel 7. Those beasts were pagan NATIONS. They were not individual persons. Thus, when we consider the beast in Revelation, we should begin with the idea that it is related to nations, not persons.

I could go on at length, but this illustrates a key error in many end-times scenarios. The Bible truly interprets itself. But to let it do that, you have to let the Bible speak. And to do that, you must seek out the sources for various symbols. In this case, the OT is the start of the process. An identification of Nero completely omits this step. But Dispies are no better. They wind up applying gematria to English, a language foreign to both the Bible and to gematria (in particular since it has a separate systems of numbers).

Let the Bible speak. But listen to its language. The symbols of the NT are well-developed in the OT. So learn the OT. Learn about the sanctuary. Then you have a place to start.

Ted

The Bible in several places blurs the line between a king and his kingdom. Even the name Israel is for both a man and a nation. So it's not entirely unheard of. It's not like Daniel is especially clear in certain places. It requires interpretation as much as Revelation does.

SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

There are several problems with the identification of Nero. The most critical is that it completely ignores the OT source of the imagery.

The beast is a composite of the four beasts of Daniel 7. Those beasts were pagan NATIONS. They were not individual persons. Thus, when we consider the beast in Revelation, we should begin with the idea that it is related to nations, not persons.

I could go on at length, but this illustrates a key error in many end-times scenarios. The Bible truly interprets itself. But to let it do that, you have to let the Bible speak. And to do that, you must seek out the sources for various symbols. In this case, the OT is the start of the process. An identification of Nero completely omits this step. But Dispies are no better. They wind up applying gematria to English, a language foreign to both the Bible and to gematria (in particular since it has a separate systems of numbers).

Let the Bible speak. But listen to its language. The symbols of the NT are well-developed in the OT. So learn the OT. Learn about the sanctuary. Then you have a place to start.

Ted
Well the text itself identifies at the very least the mark of the beast and the name of the beast with a man:

17so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

In other words, there is a man who is identified and associated with the beast. And if the beast is a nation, then it is a nation associated with a man. If you figure out who that man is, (one who has understanding) then you can figure out who (or what) the beast is.

So at the very least a case can be made that Nero fits the criteria for being a man with the number 666.

And on further reflection, I think that you may be right, that calling Nero himself the beast is at least technically wrong. Having been raised in a dispensational futurist culture, we (or at least I) tend to think of the beast as a person. Maybe the man associated with the beast in v. 18 is not in fact the beast.

However, that does not change the fact that the text itself associates the beast with a man. And IMHO, Nero, whether or not he is actually the beast, fits very well the man associated with the beast in Rev. 13.

Just my :2cents:

[Pilgrim]

Then who was the Beast?

Any thoughts?

-sfj

edit: i guess I should say if the prophecy in Revelations concerning the Beast has already occurred..
I've been looking for the book of Revelations in my Bible. I can't seem to find it.

[eschaton]

I've been looking for the book of Revelations in my Bible. I can't seem to find it.

I had the same problem until I took the "s" off of the end.

[Starkman]

I had the same problem until I took the "s" off of the end.You...you took the "s" off the end of the book??? :eek:

May I quote (from the Book of RevelationS:

. . . and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Eschaton, have you already taken the mark? Is it too late for you? Put the "s" back on the book, Eschaton, or...doom! You will be doomed, I tell you!

...he took the "s" off the book. I can't belie...well, I thought I saw it all!

Starkman!

[commonman]

Then who was the Beast?

Any thoughts?

-sfj

edit: i guess I should say if the prophecy in Revelations concerning the Beast has already occurred..
The proper question is, "Then who is the Beast?"

And this can be asked and answered at any point in time since the resurrection of Christ through any point in the future as long as time exists.

The answer is YOU! It is also me, the Pope, the apostle Paul, Mother Theresa, Wesley, Calvin, Benny Hinn, Ayatollah al-Sistani, Condi Rice, the duck lady in the French Quarter, Crazy Eyes from that Adam Sandler movie, Steven Spielburg, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Jerry Jones, Drew Barrymore. In the flesh we always will tend to rely on our own efforts for salvation, denying Christ risen within. Paul struggled mightily with this calling himself the chief of sinners. Also in Romans 7 & 8.

John defines the antichrist perfectly - 1John4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

[Pilgrim]

You...you took the "s" off the end of the book??? :eek:

May I quote (from the Book of RevelationS:

. . . and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Eschaton, have you already taken the mark? Is it too late for you? Put the "s" back on the book, Eschaton, or...doom! You will be doomed, I tell you!

...he took the "s" off the book. I can't belie...well, I thought I saw it all!

Starkman!

That was a joke right? Because you do know that the actual book in the Bible is The Revelation to John. Not the Revelations to John.

[Starkman]

That was a joke right? Because you do know that the actual book in the Bible is The Revelation to John. Not the Revelations to John.
Pilgrim,

No, I was not joking. Eschaton is doomed. He has removed a sigma from the title of the book and...well, it's all over for him now. You read the passage I quoted, didn't you? No entrance into the New Jerusalem for him. He's a dog now, a nasher of teeth, ol' Eschaton the Nasher, he is. (Nash, nash, nash! You can see the saliva dripping from his Eye teeth, even as I write...you nasher, you, Eschaton...)

OF COURSE I WAS JOKING!

Come on, Pilgrim, keep up with me here! Don't let me die like this on stage...

I guess I didn't do too well in that humor 101 course, eh! (Now wait a minute...there's an angle here...I could make explaining the joke as part of the punch line...yeah, that's it.)

Doomed, Eschaton. Doomed, I tell you! Repeat after me: Revelations, Revelations, Revelations...

Starkman

[eschaton]

Revelations, Revelations, Revelations...

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim,

No, I was not joking. Eschaton is doomed. He has removed a sigma from the title of the book and...well, it's all over for him now. You read the passage I quoted, didn't you? No entrance into the New Jerusalem for him. He's a dog now, a nasher of teeth, ol' Eschaton the Nasher, he is. (Nash, nash, nash! You can see the saliva dripping from his Eye teeth, even as I write...you nasher, you, Eschaton...)

OF COURSE I WAS JOKING!

Come on, Pilgrim, keep up with me here! Don't let me die like this on stage...

I guess I didn't do too well in that humor 101 course, eh! (Now wait a minute...there's an angle here...I could make explaining the joke as part of the punch line...yeah, that's it.)

Doomed, Eschaton. Doomed, I tell you! Repeat after me: Revelations, Revelations, Revelations...

Starkman
Oh wow, is my face red! :blush:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Fararmir >> Well most preterist (or at least most I have read) say that the beast is both the Roman Empire and Nero. As the titular head of the Roman Empire Nero is representative of the Empire. I think a case can be made that Nero/Rome did fulfill of the "beast" prophecies. Edit to add: The 'beast' of Revelation that is Nero/Rome is the Sea Beast. The Land Beast is a different beast.
No case can be made for Nero or anybody else fulfilling the Prophecies of any beast of Scripture 2000 years ago. When did Nero take his seat in the Temple of God displaying himself as being God? 2Thes. 2:3+4? NEVER. “Titus accompanies Vespasian to the east in 67 AD to put down the Jewish Rebellion. In 69 AD the ‘Year of the Four Emperors,’ Vespasian returned to Rome to claim the throne, and left Titus behind to put down the rebellion, which he did in 70 AD with four legions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius) . But I thought some Roman Emperor was to take his seat in the Temple of God (2Thes. 2:3+4) and be worshipped by the whole world (Rev. 13:8). The beast of Revelation caused everybody on earth to take his mark of the beast in order to have the right to buy and sell (Rev. 13:16+17). Nobody living 2000 years ago had the authority or technology to enact or enforce the fulfillment of these prophecies. All of those things are yet future, as nobody in history has ever fulfilled them. The Preterist notion that the prophecies of Matthew 24 (Zechariah 14) and Revelation are fulfilled is just ridiculous, and has no basis in Scripture or Roman history.

In Christ,

Terral

[wfaber]

A few thoughts from a newbie at this website.

Let's distinguish between the Man of Lawlessness of 2 Thess. 2:3-12 and the Beasts of Revelation.

I think the most likely candidate for the Man of Lawlessness was a self-proclaimed King of the Jews named Menachem. Josephus gives more detail about him in Wars of the Jews, ii.17.8-9.

Josephus sets the beginning of the War with Rome in the middle of July, AD 66. The seditious faction, consisting of Zealots desirous of overthrowing Rome's dominion over the Jews, took over the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the temple mount, and put a stop to the offering of sacrifices in behalf of Nero. They were led by Eleazar, captain of the temple and son of Ananias, a former high priest. Menachem and the Sicarii were among them.

Ananias (the same one who confronted Paul in Acts 23-24) and the Sanhedrin maintained control of the western part of the city. They were sympathetic to Rome and hoped to avoid war with Rome. The acceptance of a daily sacrifice for Nero was intended to keep peace with Rome.

The two sides met outside the gates of the temple. Ananias and the Sanhedrin pleaded with the Zealots to keep peace. But to no avail. For seven days the two sides clashed in bloody conflict, neither side gaining ground.

Menachem, leader of the Sicarii (dagger holders), an even more bloodthirsty band of robbers and assassins, had captured the fortress of Masada and killed its Roman occupants. He led a band of Sicarii out of Jerusalem back to Masada, tore open the storehouse of weapons and war machines stored in the fortress, and brought them back to Jerusalem. Upon returning to the city, he declared himself leader of the sedition and king of the Jews. The well-armed sedition was able to capture the Fortress Antonia at the northwestern corner of the temple court. The Roman soldiers occupying the fortress were able to flee to Herod's palace at the western end of the city. But Menachem and his forces managed to capture that also and killed the Roman soldiers. They also captured Ananias and killed him also.

As a king, Menachem became a barbarously cruel tyrant, dressing in Royal robes and pompously entering the temple with his followers to worship. It was then that Eleazar's followers rebelled against him, forcing him to flee the city. The Zealots pursued him, captured him and tortured him to death.

Looking back at 2 Thessalonians: Ananias and the Sanhedrin could be the restraining force that was taken out of the way by the Zealots, so that Menachem could reveal himself as the King of the Jews. This "mystery of lawlessness" was indeed already at work in Paul's time: The would-be assassins of Acts 23:12-14 were probably Sicarii.
As for the Beasts: Faramir (post #5) suggested that the beast could represent both the empire (Rome) and the emperor (Nero). I agree. I would further suggest that the deadly wound of Revelation 13:3 was the Roman civil war, in which four emperors were killed and Vespasian took over the empire. The second beast of Rev. 13:11-15, which exercises all the authority of the first beast, could refer to Titus, who was commissioned by Vespasian to continue the war and was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

No case can be made for Nero or anybody else fulfilling the Prophecies of any beast of Scripture 2000 years ago. When did Nero take his seat in the Temple of God displaying himself as being God? 2Thes. 2:3+4? NEVER. “



Thank you for once again asserting your position without actually making a point.



You see third party readers Terral is saying that 2 Thes. 2:3:-4 is talking about 1) the beast of Revelation even though ‘beast’ is never mentioned. And, in a somewhat dishonest manner, conveniently does not post the actual text of 2 Thes. 2:3-4. But then honesty was never one of Terral’s strong points. :nose: For proof of Terral's dishonesty click here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47340)



Now let us look at what the text actually says:



[verse=2 Thes. 2:3-4] 3Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/#fen-ESV-29643a)] is revealed, the son of destruction,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/#fen-ESV-29643b)] 4who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. [/quote]



Note that there is no mention of beast in 2 Thes. 2:3-4, nor is there any mention in Revelation of the beast sitting himself up in the Temple. Yet Terral thinks he blows my position out of the water by merely asserting that this connection exist.



I don’t think so.



Next Terral gives as little history lesson, that is totally unrelated to the topic of the beast:



Titus accompanies Vespasian to the east in 67 AD to put down the Jewish Rebellion. In 69 AD the ‘Year of the Four Emperors,’ Vespasian returned to Rome to claim the throne, and left Titus behind to put down the rebellion, which he did in 70 AD with four legions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius) .



What does this have to do with the beast. (Plus notice the convenient absence of any mention that Nero did in fact set himself up to be god. Not that I think Nero is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thes. But he fits the description of that fairly well too.



But I thought some Roman Emperor was to take his seat in the Temple of God (2Thes. 2:3+4) and be worshipped by the whole world (Rev. 13:8).



Well you thought wrong. You assert that the “man of lawlessness” and the “beast” in Revelation are the same person. But you have provided zero proof of this.



The beast of Revelation caused everybody on earth to take his mark of the beast in order to have the right to buy and sell (Rev. 13:16+17). Nobody living 2000 years ago had the authority or technology to enact or enforce the fulfillment of these prophecies. All of those things are yet future, as nobody in history has ever fulfilled them.



Thank you once again for making such a great circular argument.



Translation: Terral is right about the beast being future because Terral is right about the nature of the mark of the beast.



Terral you are wrong about who/what the beast is, you are wrong about the nature of the mark of the beast. Two wrongs do not make a right, even though three lefts do.



The Preterist notion that the prophecies of Matthew 24 (Zechariah 14) and Revelation are fulfilled is just ridiculous, and has no basis in Scripture or Roman history.



Translation: The temple that Jesus was leaving when He said, “no stone here will be left unturned” is still standing and was not destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.



The problem is that is historically and scripturally proven. As I have shown here (to list just a few):







http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=2&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=2&pp=16)







(post 20, 36, 58 for starters)







http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45270 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45270)







post 2







http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45676 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45676)







post 1 and 6







http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995&page=3 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995&page=3)







http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44954 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44954)

[eschaton]

Faramir,

Should we take into account what the church fathers said about the 2nd Thessalonians/Revelation Antichrist issue? Tor that matter, the 2nd Thessalonians/Revelation/Daniel relationship. After all, they were closer to that time. Why or why not?

AF

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Should we take into account what the church fathers said about the 2nd Thessalonians/Revelation Antichrist issue? Tor that matter, the 2nd Thessalonians/Revelation/Daniel relationship. After all, they were closer to that time. Why or why not?

AF
Sure we should take them into account. But we must not place them above scripture, and if they contradict, then go with scripture.

A few points regarding this:

1. The ECF did not have a unified eschatology, so it would be impossible to follow all of them.
2. Very few people today actually accept the whole cloth of the eschatology of any ECF. Though some do claim part of an ECF eschatology, most reject at least part of the ECF eschatology as well.
3. IMHO, after the apostolic generation, most of the ECF were Greek/Latin and most of the Eschatological passages were written with a very Jewish mindset, which the ECF did not posses.

IOW, yes consider the ECF, but consider other things as well.

Not sure if that answered your question. I hope so, if not, let me know.

[eschaton]

Sure we should take them into account. But we must not place them above scripture, and if they contradict, then go with scripture.

A few points regarding this:

1. The ECF did not have a unified eschatology, so it would be impossible to follow all of them.
2. Very few people today actually accept the whole cloth of the eschatology of any ECF. Though some do claim part of an ECF eschatology, most reject at least part of the ECF eschatology as well.
3. IMHO, after the apostolic generation, most of the ECF were Greek/Latin and most of the Eschatological passages were written with a very Jewish mindset, which the ECF did not posses.

IOW, yes consider the ECF, but consider other things as well.

Not sure if that answered your question. I hope so, if not, let me know.

Maybe it's true that they weren't completely unified. Then again, who exactly are we talking about and when did they write? As far as I know, all who wrote about 2 Thess, Revelation, and Daniel believed they were connected. I don't know of any who said they weren't. There may be some, and if you know of any that clearly disagree you may point them out. So I'm going to presume they were unanimous on this point until someone points out otherwise.

The basis for presuming they saw these issues the same is because the church fathers who left us writings interpreted the scriptures in a way that used scriptures to explain scriptures. Since Revelation, Daniel and 2nd Thessalonians seemed to be talking about something very similar, they presumed they were talking about the same thing. They considered the opposite approach, dividing into many different meanings, a Jewish approach. Perhaps that confirms your statement about the Jewish mindset, but Jesus and the apostles interpreted in the same way as the church fathers did. Jesus even said the Law and the prophets were all about Him. John called Jesus the Word of God. He says that as if there were a single Word of God. IMO the ECF hermeneutics were based completely on the NT examples.

Today the Bible is usually interpreted differently than the way early Christians did. Scholars look to history to see what the writers situation and motives might be. They study the words to see exactly how each was used and what the exact definition should be. There is little theological consideration as far as the overall picture is concerned.

Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both belived Daniel's seventy weeks had been fulfilled, but neither of them ties that to Christ's second advent or the little horn of chapters seven or eight. Clement believed an image of some sort was placed in the temple during Nero's reign. Other than that I haven't found any evidence that would suggest that Revelation shouldn't be tied to Daniel and 2nd Thessalonians. All the others I have found such as Iraeneus, Origen an on through Augustine, who do examine the scriptures in regards to Antichrist, do tie 2nd Thess, Revelation and Daniel together on this point. I don't have any reason to not think the church fathers were unanimous on this point. Maybe you can show me some church fathers who clearly disagreed.

[eschaton]

Translation: The temple that Jesus was leaving when He said, “no stone here will be left unturned” is still standing and was not destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.


The problem is that is historically and scripturally proven. As I have shown here (to list just a few):








Faramir,

Isn't it true that Jesus said not one stone would be left upon another in the entire city of Jerusalem? Did that happen in 70AD?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Maybe it's true that they weren't completely unified. Then again, who exactly are we talking about and when did they write? As far as I know, all who wrote about 2 Thess, Revelation, and Daniel believed they were connected. I don't know of any who said they weren't. There may be some, and if you know of any that clearly disagree you may point them out. So I'm going to presume they were unanimous on this point until someone points out otherwise.
Well there is a lot of material in all three of those books that does overlap. I never said otherwise. I was actually talking about the more minute elements of ECF eschatology. (But you asked a legitimate question about who exactly are the ECF).

The basis for presuming they saw these issues the same is because the church fathers who left us writings interpreted the scriptures in a way that used scriptures to explain scriptures. Since Revelation, Daniel and 2nd Thessalonians seemed to be talking about something very similar, they presumed they were talking about the same thing.
I agree with this approach as well. However with this caveat. Scriptures that sound similar to a modern Western ear (or even and ancient Western Gentile ear) may not necessarily sound similar in an ancient Jewish context.
Context is important when identifying similarities.


They considered the opposite approach, dividing into many different meanings, a Jewish approach. Perhaps that confirms your statement about the Jewish mindset, but Jesus and the apostles interpreted in the same way as the church fathers did. Jesus even said the Law and the prophets were all about Him. John called Jesus the Word of God. He says that as if there were a single Word of God. IMO the ECF hermeneutics were based completely on the NT examples.
Well what I meant by Jewish mindset was a familiarity with Jewish thougth patterns, literary styles, idioms, and other cultural distinctives. Again, I agree with using scripture to interpret scripture.

(Which is why I associate the beast of Rev. with Rome as well as with Nero as the beasts in Revelation are very similar to the beasts in Dan. which we know are nations. )

Today the Bible is usually interpreted differently than the way early Christians did. Scholars look to history to see what the writers situation and motives might be. They study the words to see exactly how each was used and what the exact definition should be. There is little theological consideration as far as the overall picture is concerned.
If I am following you right, and I may not be, I am comming down with a head cold and have a splitting head ache, it seems you are putting the cart before the horse.

How can we determine what the theological consideration should be before we determine the contextual meaning of the text? Of course I agree that the next step should be to compare scripture to scripture.

Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both belived Daniel's seventy weeks had been fulfilled, but neither of them ties that to Christ's second advent or the little horn of chapters seven or eight. Clement believed an image of some sort was placed in the temple during Nero's reign. Other than that I haven't found any evidence that would suggest that Revelation shouldn't be tied to Daniel and 2nd Thessalonians. Well I never said we shouldn't connect these two. I may not connect them in the same way as the ECF, but I do make that connection.

All the others I have found such as Iraeneus, Origen an on through Augustine, who do examine the scriptures in regards to Antichrist, do tie 2nd Thess, Revelation and Daniel together on this point. I don't have any reason to not think the church fathers were unanimous on this point. Maybe you can show me some church fathers who clearly disagreed.
Well, I was talking about the ECF not having agreement on an "over all" eschatology. They may have been in agreement about their perception of "Antichrist" and the three books you mentioned, I don't know :shrug:. But it is interesting to note that the word "antichrist" is in none of those three books.

As to the question to me in your other post (about "every stone"). I have answered that in another thread here at TWeb (after a lot of research). I will see if I can find it and repost it in this thread.

[eschaton]

Well, I was talking about the ECF not having agreement on an "over all" eschatology. They may have been in agreement about their perception of "Antichrist" and the three books you mentioned, I don't know :shrug:. But it is interesting to note that the word "antichrist" is in none of those three books.

As to the question to me in your other post (about "every stone"). I have answered that in another thread here at TWeb (after a lot of research). I will see if I can find it and repost it in this thread.

It's true that the word "antichrist" is not in those three books, but the ECF referred to the Antichrist fairly often, and often in relation to those three books.

AF

[eschaton]

Basically, my point is that you seem to critisize Terral for tying different books of the Bible together when discussing the beast, but I think that is a very valid method. The Catholics probably stress prophecy less than protestant churches, but they're bigger on church traditions. In their Newadvent.org dictionary they tie together the Pauline and Johannine epistles along with Daniel and the Apocalypse in their discussion of the Antichrist. I'm just saying that I think Terral's relating of different books together in regards to the beast is valid and fairly well established in church tradition. I'm not Caholic though.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Basically, my point is that you seem to critisize Terral for tying different books of the Bible together when discussing the beast, but I think that is a very valid method. The Catholics probably stress prophecy less than protestant churches, but they're bigger on church traditions. In their Newadvent.org dictionary they tie together the Pauline and Johannine epistles along with Daniel and the Apocalypse in their discussion of the Antichrist. I'm just saying that I think Terral's relating of different books together in regards to the beast is valid and fairly well established in church tradition. I'm not Caholic though.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
Actually I was criticizeing Terral for tying different passages together without any explanation as to why they are being tied together. I agree that tying two books together can be valid, but just asserting a connection is not debate it is assertion.

IOW, if Terral had said, the man of lawlessness in 2 Thes. is the same as the beast in Rev. for X reasons, I would have been fine with that. I would not agree, but at least it would have given me something to respond to. At least it would show me some basis for his position other than mere assertion. I am a big proponent of using scripture to interpret scripture. But if you want to prove a point, you have to show how they are connected.

IOW, if Terral is trying to convince me that two verses that I do not see as connected are in fact connect, he needs to do more than merely assert the connection.

Terral's comment was equivelant of me saying, that the "once for all sacrifice at the end of the age" in Hebrews 9:26 was predicted in Daniel 9:27.

Do I think they are connected? Yes. But all I have given is an assertion. That was my complaint against Terral.

I quit addressing Terral's "position" weeks ago. Until he learns how to actually present a case for his position and address my case for mine, I see addressing the "substance" of his position as a waste of time.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Isn't it true that Jesus said not one stone would be left upon another in the entire city of Jerusalem? Did that happen in 70AD?
I answered this question earlier in another post.

Below is part of that post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=875988&postcount=14):

Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,



42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.



43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,



44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.



Jesus speaks of an entire city here. Nowhere in history is it stated that every stone in Jerusalem was taken down in 70AD. Josephus states the contrary.

Well since you are fond of Matthew Henry lets see what he had to say about this:



Neglecting the great salvation often brings temporal judgments upon a people; it did so upon Jerusalem in less than forty years after this, when all that Christ here foretold was exactly fulfilled. The Romans besieged the city, cast a trench about it, compassed it round, and kept their inhabitants in on every side. Josephus relates that Titus ran up a wall in a very short time, which surrounded the city, and cut off all hopes of escaping. [2.] They laid it even with the ground. Titus commanded his soldiers to dig up the city, and the whole compass of it was leveled, except three towers; see Josephus’s history of the wars of the Jews, 5.356-360; 7.1. Not only the city, but the citizens were laid even with the ground (thy children within thee), by the cruel slaughters that were made of them: and there was scarcely one stone left upon another.



The only thing left were three towers that were IIRC part of the wall. And the only reason these were left (according to Josephus) was to show posterity how well fortified the city was and how great Rome must have been to have taken it.

[eschaton]

I answered this question earlier in another post.

Below is part of that post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=875988&postcount=14):



The only thing left were three towers that were IIRC part of the wall. And the only reason these were left (according to Josephus) was to show posterity how well fortified the city was and how great Rome must have been to have taken it.

Okay. I accept what you're saying about your discussion with Terral.

I like a lot of things Matthew Henry says, and actually he agrees with what most Christians throughout history have said about this. I'm the one that's in the small minority here.

Jesus, speaking about Jerusalem in Luke 19, says not one stone will be left upon another. Literally that didn't happen as far as what Josephus reports. The temple was destroyed in that way, but not the entire city. Is that important? It was kinda, sorta destroyed like that, but not exactly literally.

I say if we're supposed to understand it literally, as if we're talking about a literal city and stones, then it should be important. On the other hand, if Jesus was talking about something spiritual, then perhaps it's not so important.

Is there any reason to think Jesus was talking about something other than the literal city of Jerusalem?

He said no prophet dies outside of Jerusalem. Can we confirm that about the OT prophets? Didn't Jesus Himself die outside of the city gates?

Was He talking to the literal stones of the city? He was at least talking to the inhabitants. Did they (the inhabitants of the city) stone all those sent to them, even all of the prophets?

He said the house was left desolate. Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed yet. Maybe we could agree that this was the way Jesus spoke, in a little less than literal way.

Did Jesus ever speak about a temple being destroyed and have His words misinterpreted?

Did He ever refer to people as stones or cities?

Does it ever refer to people as stones, cities or the body of Christ in the Bible?

What kind of consistency should we expect in the NT teachings?

Did any of the early church believe the temple or the body of Christ was the church?

I think Jesus spoke about spiritual matters.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Okay. I accept what you're saying about your discussion with Terral.:thumb:

I like a lot of things Matthew Henry says, and actually he agrees with what most Christians throughout history have said about this. I'm the one that's in the small minority here.

Jesus, speaking about Jerusalem in Luke 19, says not one stone will be left upon another. Literally that didn't happen as far as what Josephus reports. The temple was destroyed in that way, but not the entire city. Is that important? It was kinda, sorta destroyed like that, but not exactly literally.

I say if we're supposed to understand it literally, as if we're talking about a literal city and stones, then it should be important. On the other hand, if Jesus was talking about something spiritual, then perhaps it's not so important.

Is there any reason to think Jesus was talking about something other than the literal city of Jerusalem?

He said no prophet dies outside of Jerusalem. Can we confirm that about the OT prophets? Didn't Jesus Himself die outside of the city gates?

Was He talking to the literal stones of the city? He was at least talking to the inhabitants. Did they (the inhabitants of the city) stone all those sent to them, even all of the prophets?

He said the house was left desolate. Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed yet. Maybe we could agree that this was the way Jesus spoke, in a little less than literal way.
:yeahthat:

One, I do not equate desolate with destruction. I think that part could be (and maybe even should be) taken as spiritual desolation.

As far as His statement that not one stone would be left unturned in the city? I think it was a literal statement, but not in the very strict wooded literal sense. Every stone was effectively overturned. Nothing was spared out of mercy or spared for continued use. The only thing that was spared were three towers as an "in your face" sign of Rome's might. I believe that that is Mathew Henry's position, and I agree with him.

Semitic languages are full of hyperbole. In this case every stone being turned over is not even hyperbole, but only slight exageration. For all intents and purpose, Jerusalem was completely destroyed. The "lament" would have been much weaker sounding if Jesus had said, "Almost every stone" or "every stone but three towers". And the effectual results were the same.
I think Jesus spoke about spiritual matters.
I think He spoke about spiritual matters and physical matters. I also think that the destruction of Jerusalem (or at least the temple) had significant spiritual implications as well.

[eschaton]

I'm the one going against the grain here. I know that, but I'm convinced I'm right. And I'm not completely alone. There are a few others both today, and in early Christianity who would agree with me. It can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but then can Christianity be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a non-believer? Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm just using the proof of Christianity as an example. I believe I will eventually demonstrate my view by a preponderance of the evidence. I think Christianity can be proven that way as well. I'm working on it.

Anyway, if Jesus was just kinda sorta right about this it's less impressive. If He said there wouldn't be one stone left upon another in the entire city, then that's what should have happened, if He was who He said He was and He was talking about the literal stones in the city. If He said there wasn't enough time to go back inside and get your coat, then that's the way it should have been. If God wanted us (or them) to understand that it was Daniel's abomination of desolation that immediately preceded the destruction then both we and they should understand that. If the abomination of desolation was the destruction, then that should be clear. If Daniel spoke of several abominations of desolation, then Jesus should have made that clear. If an abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of had already been fulfilled, Jesus should have explained that (Macc 1:55, Josephus - History of the Jews). If Daniel's visions were talking about different things, then why are there so many similarities?

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app89.html

If we interpret these things by history then we divide into many different ideas and meanings. This shows randomness rather than design and purpose. The whole Inspired Scripture is One Book. The whole Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its Work. We should strive to show that in our interpretaion IMO.

Anyway, I've said everything I have time for now, but I hope to explain these things sometime.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I'm the one going against the grain here. I know that, but I'm convinced I'm right. And I'm not completely alone. There are a few others both today, and in early Christianity who would agree with me. It can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but then can Christianity be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a non-believer? Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm just using the proof of Christianity as an example. I believe I will eventually demonstrate my view by a preponderance of the evidence. I think Christianity can be proven that way as well. I'm working on it.

Anyway, if Jesus was just kinda sorta right about this it's less impressive. If He said there wouldn't be one stone left upon another in the entire city, then that's what should have happened, if He was who He said He was and He was talking about the literal stones in the city. If He said there wasn't enough time to go back inside and get your coat, then that's the way it should have been. If God wanted us (or them) to understand that it was Daniel's abomination of desolation that immediately preceded the destruction then both we and they should understand that. If the abomination of desolation was the destruction, then that should be clear. If Daniel spoke of several abominations of desolation, then Jesus should have made that clear. If an abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of had already been fulfilled, Jesus should have explained that (Macc 1:55, Josephus - History of the Jews). If Daniel's visions were talking about different things, then why are there so many similarities?

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app89.html

If we interpret these things by history then we divide into many different ideas and meanings. This shows randomness rather than design and purpose. The whole Inspired Scripture is One Book. The whole Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its Work. We should strive to show that in our interpretaion IMO.

Anyway, I've said everything I have time for now, but I hope to explain these things sometime.
That sounds very interesting. I look forward to your elaboration on this. It is always refreshing to hear new ideas and to exchange ideas in a pleasant and civil manner.

Thanks

[eschaton]

Thanks for the encouragement and civil manner Faramir. I appreciate it as well.

AF

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thanks for the encouragement and civil manner Faramir. I appreciate it as well.

AF
No, thank you. I would much rather deal with someone civily (sp?). It is IMHO more pleasant and much more productive discussion. And (believe it or not) much more inclined to my natural personality.

But, as you may have noticed, I have no qualms about going the other way with other posters if the situation merits. IMHO, Trolls deserve to be treated as such.

[suffer for joy]

Didn't Terral make a point when he noted that no one has had the technology to mark everyone in the world with some symbol?

Thanks,
sfj

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Didn't Terral make a point when he noted that no one has had the technology to mark everyone in the world with some symbol?

Thanks,
sfj

That argument is addressed here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44727).

However, to sum up.

1. This assumes that the "mark of the beast" is in fact a visible symbol that requires modern computers and/or technology. IOW it is circular.

2. This defeats the futurist argument that Soon, near, and "must shortly take place" means "could happen at any time". If the mark of the beast is only possible with 21st century technology, then it could not happen "at any time".

[GhostontheNet]

Anyway, if Jesus was just kinda sorta right about this it's less impressive. If He said there wouldn't be one stone left upon another in the entire city, then that's what should have happened, if He was who He said He was and He was talking about the literal stones in the city. I've done some research on this passage as part of my project on Yeshua Christ's prophecies (so for some pieces are hosted at DeeDeeWarren's The Preterist List and upcoming at Kyle's The Skeptical Christian in my sig), although on one level I still balk on the full interpretation of this part of the passage (in fact, I will admit that it has single-handedly hexed one part of the project. Two things are noteworthy though.

1. The referent is obviously Yeshua Christ's own generation, for He gives the accusative rationale that "you did not know the time of your visitation".
2. It is notable that Josephus, himself also a Jew of the period, uses dramatic hyperbole in his account of the depth of the destruction, for although he says only the towers remained, and that "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited", while as my edition of Josephus notes, this is "an exaggeration" because there were a few other parts of structures left partially standing.
3. It's not fair game to play the "than the way it should have happened" card being anal-retentive about a very small number of stones standing upon stones unless you can demonstrate a first century Jew would not have used hyperbole in this type of situation, and Josephus even from the get-go offers a counter to this.

[Terral]

Suffer for Joy:
Suffer >> Then who was the Beast?

Spiritmech >> The most compelling identification of the Best from a preteristic point of view is Nero. He's the sixth Caesar. This would coincide with a pre-AD70 authorship of Revelation.
No sir; wrong answer. Nobody in history can place Nero or any other Roman in the Temple of God “displaying himself as being God.” 2Thes. 2:4. Nobody in the history of the world as fulfilled the prophecies of Revelation 13 to be worshipped by “All who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 13:8. Nobody has ever given “All” (Rev. 13:16) a mark in their right hand or forehead, “that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.” Rev. 13:17. Nero’s reign came to an end before the destruction of Jerusalem. Vespasian became Emperor in July of 69 AD( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15379a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15379a.htm) ), AFTER the suicide of Nero. His son Titus was sent to destroy Jerusalem, who then became Emperor himself in 79 AD. http://www.roman-emperors.org/vespasia.htm (http://www.roman-emperors.org/vespasia.htm) .

None of these people ever fulfilled the prophecies of Scripture that pertain to the ‘man of sin,’ ‘son of destruction’ (2Thes. 2:3+4) or the ‘beast’ of Revelation. The Preterists saying so have a distorted view of Scripture and of Roman history. The technology required to place a mark on everyone on earth AND enforce the mark of the beast prophecies have only come into existence in the past 30 years. The fulfillment of all the ‘end of the age’ and ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies in Scripture are still future, which is evident to most everyone except those deluded by the fallacies of Preterism.

In Christ,

Terral

[GhostontheNet]

Suffer for Joy:

No sir; wrong answer. Nobody in history can place Nero or any other Roman in the Temple of God “displaying himself as being God.” 2Thes. 2:4. This is familiar ground covered by me in eschaton's 2 Thessalonians thread and I will not repeat my points there, but in summary, the Greek grammer need not require a purpose accomplished, but a purpose intended, and that there is evidence that Nero did have such designs. Nobody in the history of the world as fulfilled the prophecies of Revelation 13 to be worshipped by “All who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 13:8. Nobody has ever given “All” (Rev. 13:16) a mark in their right hand or forehead, “that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.” Rev. 13:17. A full reply would take longer than I wish to spend at the moment. However, riddle me this, if, as noted by N.T. Wright citing Peter Oakes, Nero held the title of ho tou pantos kosmou kyrios, that is, the entire globe's Lord. He is the Lord (or so they blasphemously said) and Son of God of the world's greatest empire, one which according to Josephus' account of a speech of Agrippa, "every people recognizes the lordship of Rome or fears that it will have to do so." (The Jewish War Book 2:397ish). Now, if this is what the Romans are saying, whats to stop John from using the same language to thrust in his audience's face the full brunt of the forces of the satan to progress to Christ's plan for their defeat? The physical mark objection is easily wiped out by noting that it was the custom of Graco-Roman society to brand their slaves on the forehead, and that also it is a reverse parody of the seal of the Lamb. Translated, this would mean; "You can either be Christ's bondservants or Caesar's slaves, there is no middle ground." I will gloss over the economic objection on the grounds that fully responding to it would require a full-fledged study in economic pressures. One major difficulty to over-reading this passage though is that the Book of Revelation makes no implication of believers being unable to obtain the necessary materials to survive, heavily implying socio-economic difficulties that are surmountable but very tough.

Edit: I will add one cite I found on my page though;

Emperor worship was no "sham religion" enforced from above. Rather, participation in this institution, as in the cults of the traditional pantheon, showed one's pietas...., one's reliability, in effect to fulfill one's obligations to family, patron, city, province, and empire. Participation showed one's support of the social body, one's desire for doing what was necessary to secure the welfare of the city, and one's commitment to the stability and ongoing life of the city. Moreover, participation was an important expression of gratitude to those who were the city's benefactors. The imperial cult in all parts of the empire focused attention on the emperor as the patron of the world.... [It was believed that as] long as the emperor was strong and his clients faithful, peace and prosperity would remain and the horrors of civil war and foreign invasion would be prevented.

Lastly, some relevant documentation can be found on this part of my blossoming fanpage of The Last Disciple at http://www.geocities.com/thelastdiscipleghost/imperialcultus.html .The Preterists saying so have a distorted view of Scripture and of Roman history. If this is so, than why is it that the more relevant scholarship I read, such as Ben Witherington's non-preterist Revelation: The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, and N.T. Wright's (who emphatically denies being a preterist) work in general, the more resolve and documentation in support of the orthodox preterist system is accurate? Even on superficially tricky verses when I find a more literal fulfillment than I expected. The technology required to place a mark on everyone on earth AND enforce the mark of the beast prophecies have only come into existence in the past 30 years. The fulfillment of all the ‘end of the age’ and ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies in Scripture are still future, which is evident to most everyone except those deluded by the fallacies of Preterism.

In Christ,

Terral And evidently renowned scholar N.T. Wright. Never mind the data pulled up in the orthodox preterist end of the age thread and the fact that the "day of the Lord" is a frequent phrase used of various judgment actions on nations.

[kofh2u]

That sounds very interesting. I look forward to your elaboration on this. It is always refreshing to hear new ideas and to exchange ideas in a pleasant and civil manner.

Thanks

Wow!
That is so Christ-lik... even for little children and adults, little still, in the Kingdom.

Really.

Anyway, it wasn't the stones of the city:

Matt. 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.

Matt. 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?
verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down (which is a prophecy extending even to the present wailing wall).





Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Bla phemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[kofh2u]

That argument is addressed here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44727).

However, to sum up.

1. This assumes that the "mark of the beast" is in fact a visible symbol that requires modern computers and/or technology. IOW it is circular.

2. This defeats the futurist argument that Soon, near, and "must shortly take place" means "could happen at any time". If the mark of the beast is only possible with 21st century technology, then it could not happen "at any time".


So true!

Of course, the only "beast" to die, lay dormant for 1000 years, then raise up in a renaissance of trade and commerce was the economic system started on the plains of Dura, in Babylon, in the days of Daniel.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the
wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, (those who
have Institutionized a system of sexual seduction into a failed
matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads (which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow) having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Anarchy, 2. Lombard-Vandalism, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy
Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi
Germany).






Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[GhostontheNet]

Matt. 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.

Matt. 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?
verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down (which is a prophecy extending even to the present wailing wall).

Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Bla phemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!! But the Wailing Wall was no part of the Temple proper. Also, I never said the Freudian Bible was heretical, I said its interpretations give me headaches.

[kofh2u]

But the Wailing Wall was no part of the Temple proper. Also, I never said the Freudian Bible was heretical, I said its interpretations give me headaches.

Sorry.

The signature...
... (Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!)...
... somehow got mixed in with the post.

It was not meant for you. I apologize for the appearance in the body of my post.

Some people like Etcera and Inchrist actually have said they find this method of stating a person's understanding of scripture to be useful and an improvement.

My signature is to acknowledge many dislike it because it is new, non-traditional, different. That's to be expected, especially on a board where the average age is probably @ 55-60. Old dogs hate new tricks.

The wailing wall... hmmm... you say it wasn't part of the temple?

If you have references may I have them. I would be very happy if you are correct. Many atheists and bashers of scripture have claimed that Jesus was not 100% right because of the wall.

The wall is threatened, nevertheless, from what I understand. And, the Islamic PLO on the other side have been accused of burrowing to undermine the wall further.







Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[GhostontheNet]

[QUOTE]The wailing wall... hmmm... you say it wasn't part of the temple?

If you have references may I have them. I would be very happy if you are correct. Many atheists and bashers of scripture have claimed that Jesus was not 100% right because of the wall. The only reference I have on hand is a map of the complex in the Penguin Classics edition of Josephus, The Jewish War, and I don't have a scanner on hand, however, The Jewish War is a worthwhile purchase on its own merits.