Question on Preterist Problems

[Magister Matt]

Questions regarding preterism, which may or may not have been answered:

1) Who were the two witnesses?

2) I heard one argument used against preterism is that the idea of Nero as the antichrist was concieved long after the events and not during or sometime before the time of the prophesied events. What is your opinion on this?

Thanks.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Questions regarding preterism, which may or may not have been answered:

1) Who were the two witnesses?

Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26592&highlight=Witnesses) is a thread with some very good preterist explanations (and some from historicist that are compatable with preterism) of the two witnesses.

2) I heard one argument used against preterism is that the idea of Nero as the antichrist was concieved long after the events and not during or sometime before the time of the prophesied events. What is your opinion on this?

Thanks.


I do not know how old the oldest extant record correlationg Nero to the "beast" (the word antichrist does not appear at all in Revelation and no preterist I know would say that Nero was "the antichrist").

The argument for Nero as the beast stems from the fact that in Hebrew the words Nero Caesar = 666. It is interesting to note that there is a variation on some very ancient text that have this number as 616. It has been debated whether this was an error or clarification. Interestingly enough 616 is the numeric equivalent of Nero Caesar in Greek, so it is quite possible that this variation was intentional so that Greek Christians unfamiliar with Hebrew would understand.

It is also significant to note that the Roman Empire was the world power at that time, and, for the most part, and enemy of Christianity. So it would be dangerous for a Christian to openly write something against a Roman emporer during the early years of Christianity. And even if a Christian felt it was worth the rist to write such a statement, there is no guranteed that it would survive to this time.

So, it may be true that we have no early record of Nero being equated with the beast, but it is at best an argument from silence. If that is the only (or even the best) argument against that particular interpreation, then IMO, there is no reason not to accept it.