Bold Believer

There is only One good news. The Good News is that Our God reigns. By raising from the dead on the 3rd day, God reigns through Christ even over death.

Joe, Paul stated that the Gospel had already been preached to every creature under heaven (Col 1:23) in his own day. The tribulation was for Israel, and specifically for that part of Israel which was unrepentant. Jeremiah called it "The time of Jacob's trouble." It was meant as vengeance upon the Jewish leadership of that day for having lead the faithful astray for so many years, hence, 'the time of vengeance'. The Gospel has been taught to the whole world (Isaiah 2) the LORD's house became the top of the mountain and the world has benefited from the knowledge of Christ. The thousand years are over. It's Gog's turn now. But only for a little while.

The abomination of desolation was a specific event referring to the temple. It was also connected (by Jesus Himself in the book of Luke) to Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. This is why it can't be something for modern Believers to be concerned with. The idea that the prophecy concerns us is in error in all of its forms.

Maybe we shouldn't think in terms of a skinny little pole, but rather a thick wooden shaft. You can whack a wolf with it from a reasonable distance and send him packing. You can defend yourself with it against attackers within reason. It helps you to keep your balance. It can be used to flick away a snake. Quite useful.

You all DO realize the title of this thread says Split Womanhood Pants, right? I needed a good laugh.

Like I wrote before: Jesus said it all occurs on the Last Day, so there won't be anyone to explain anything.

4000 BC is the 'Ussher date', named for an Episcopal bishop by the surname of Ussher who did research. If I recall, he came up with 4004 BC as the age of the earth. That may or may not be correct. As far as the original question, it is answered in Scripture but not directly. If we read the Cain/Abel account, we find that they were grown men at the time of the incident, not mere boys as it is often suggested. They have chosen life-pursuits. Boys don't do that, they learn from their fathers. So then, we have no idea just how old they were, but we do known from Genesis 5 that Adam had other sons and daughters. We also know that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, so the incident of Abel's death happened at least 9 months (given modern human gestation) prior. We also know that it was not a sin to marry inter-lineally at that time, so Cain most likely married a cousin/niece well before the incident.

You're referring to what are called Noachide laws. Rules of life given by God in Genesis 9 to Noah after the Flood. In these laws is contained the very first death penalty and permission to eat meat. Nothing much else is written concerning conduct. It isn't until the establishment of Israel as a nation and the ascent to Mt Sinai that the Ten Commandments are given. Then the Mosaic Law springs FROM the Commandments. A ceremonial law is one that portrayed Christ to the Israeli nation, or made them stand out as different amongst the other nations. The one you mentioned for example, the mixing of material in clothing, means not to mix into other godless cultures. No eating pork or shellfish were dietary laws, and pretty common-sense, since living in a desert there was no way proper way to refrigerate/process these items and therefore they were a harbor for trichinosis and other food-borne diseases. Moral laws governed conduct. Don't murder, Honor God, Honor your parents, and so forth. They were for Israel and any stranger who came amongst them.

Wasn't the question how to explain the difference between the MORAL law and the ceremonial law? Ceremonial laws set Israel apart from the Gentile nations around them; the moral law was for all men before Christ came. Now the moral law is for sinners; Believers know what is right.

I believe he's referring to the slashing incident in which 14 people were injured yesterday or day before on a college campus. And yes, I certainly don't see Congress in a mad rush to ban edged weapons and sharp objects.

Someone I know came back to the LORD, but while they were away and living the sinner's life, they often told friends and other people things that weren't true. They told me what they had said, and none of those things would have caused another hurt. My friend did what he did to make himself look better, What he wants to know is, does he have to go back and find all of those people and tell them the truth? I'm not sure that such a thing is necessary, in fact it might cause more harm than good. Still, I'd like to see what opinions some of you have in the matter.

Someone I know came back to the LORD, but while they were away and living the sinner's life, they often told friends and other people things that weren't true. They told me what they had said, and none of those things would have caused another hurt. My friend did what he did to make himself look better, What he wants to know is, does he have to go back and find all of those people and tell them the truth? I'm not sure that such a thing is necessary, in fact it might cause more harm than good. Still, I'd like to see what opinions some of you have in the matter.

By the time they figure out what's happened, they will be before God. It all happens on the Last Day.

I thank God I have so much hair, because it makes pulling it out easier. I JUST WROTE THAT THE BEAST DID RECOVER. ROME RECOVERED AFTER A YEAR OF CIVIL WAR. Apparently some people are incapable of reading OR just don't want their personal bubble broken. Daniel, while man of sin and man of perdition are terms used in MODERN FUTURIST theology to describe an alleged future antichrist figure, they were never used by the writers in that context. The man of sin is one of two things: Nero as emperor, declaring himself 'god' or a future category of people. I tend to believe the latter, but other scholars prefer the former. I know you have a hard time when people question you about your belief, but please answer with grace, seasoned with salt. If you are "loosing your hair" over this conversation, perhaps a little vacation from it would be best? After you regain your composure, return and continue? Answering in the flesh only results in ungodly reactions. One, I have explained myself until my fingers ache. I've recommended books to further explain my position. I've given historical facts that support my understanding, and I still get the same questions, over and over and over. To NOT be frustrated would be superhuman. I don't mind answering about what I believe, what I mind is having to repeat my self over and over again with the same results, It seems from this end that people don't want to hear anything except pre-millennialism.

Apparently, you don't know the history behind antichrists, because if you did, you wouldn't make the statement your making. 1. Revelation was written about 69AD, contrary to popular belief. A lot of people believe in the early date. 2. I and II John was written somewhere in 90-93, hence, there are close to thirty years between the two books. 3. John thoroughly explains himself concerning antichrists. They came out from the church. They believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Nero on the other hand was never in the Church, and could've cared less whether Jesus was in the flesh or a spirit which inhabited a body as Gnostics taught. I never said that Nero came back to life. What I wrote was that Nero (being the personification of Rome at the time) suffered a fatal wound (being one of the heads of the Beast, just as the prophecy states) and that because of his fatal wound, the Empire went into chaos and NEARLY collapsed. For a year, it appeared that the Roman Empire would not survive his death, and people were saying that Rome was on its last legs, so to speak. This is the crux of the prophecy. I suggest you look at the history surrounding the time, then look at the prophecy and you will see that it does indeed fit the passage historically.

Antichrists may not have been mentioned until 1st John, but he did say that many had already been, so whether Nero was around before John coined the phrase is irrelevant. He may have been one, he may not have been one. The timeframe of 1st John is not an issue with regards to defining Nero as one.. Antichrists don't have to fit into a time frame as such. We've had them and we'll have more. The beast may not be called an anti-Christ in Revelation, but by description, he sure sounds like one, hence the popular name for him. The word anti-christ may not be used in Revelation but that's just semantics. The word 'rapture' is not even in the Bible at all, but people use it. If the shoe fits...... He said many had COME, not been. At the writing of I John, Gnostics were inside the Church, threatening to rip her apart. The word rapture isn't in Scripture as 'rapture', however the word harpazo is used of being taken or caught up. On the other hand antichristos is only used 5 times, 4 of which are plural. It ISN'T semantics. If you try and force that shoe on, you'll get blisters. NERO is not THE antichrist or AN antichrist. The timeframe in this ENTIRE MATTER is highly germane to the issue.

1. OK...here is a challenge for you Back2. Find the word antichrist anywhere in Revelation. 2. I never said Nero was the antichrist. He isn't. Antichrists are not even mentioned until I John, roughly 30 years later than the timeframe of Revelation. 3. The Beast and False Prophet WERE destroyed. Neither Rome nor the Sanhedrin False Prophet exist any longer because Jesus came in judgment and destroyed them.

I thank God I have so much hair, because it makes pulling it out easier. I JUST WROTE THAT THE BEAST DID RECOVER. ROME RECOVERED AFTER A YEAR OF CIVIL WAR. Apparently some people are incapable of reading OR just don't want their personal bubble broken. Daniel, while man of sin and man of perdition are terms used in MODERN FUTURIST theology to describe an alleged future antichrist figure, they were never used by the writers in that context. The man of sin is one of two things: Nero as emperor, declaring himself 'god' or a future category of people. I tend to believe the latter, but other scholars prefer the former. BB you apparently need to read the scriptures. Scripture telling us that the day Jesus returns will not happen until ...... 2 Thessalonians 2 King James Version (KJV) 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Revelation 13 King James Version (KJV) 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. your personnel bubble is broken , the prederist view is simply not valid you have to accept the entire story , all of it the Only one that can defeat the son of perdition , man of sin is Christ Jesus and it happens when Jesus returns to earth to establish His kingdom , next you'll be telling us that Jesus will not return and the millenium has already begun which is also bogus. remember that multiple books in the bible speak ofthis topic Nice that you like history, now you just need to understand scripture The identity of the man of sin is predicated on the word for man. It's a word which can be either plural or singular. So then, man of sin can mean one man or a group/category of men given over to sin as a lifestyle. Whichever is the case, he or they will be destroyed at the Parousia of Christ. I believe its a category of people, a category which we see today. They believe themselves to be above anything that is written in Scripture. They are lawless. Interestingly enough, the term 'lawless one' is also used in 2 Thess 2. Now...you THOROUGHLY savaged Revelation 13. You've connected portions of the passage to one another which shouldn't be connected. You jumped completely over the "Land Beast". It is the Land Beast which has the authority to bring down fire from heaven. This phrase is a euphemism for the directing of worship. The Sea Beast doesn't have the authority to bring down fire from heaven. You left out verses 9, 10, 11 and 12. As for the millennium having begun, I believe the reign of Christ over the earth is completed. The context of Revelation 20 is that Christ can't return before the Gog Magog war. Likewise, Acts 3:21 tells us that Christ can't return until the times of restitution of all things, and that He must be held in heaven until that point.

An easier question than one might think, Patriot. Rome is the beast from Daniel, the fourth one. Nero was the head (leader) of the beast which specifically suffered the head wound. A nation acts upon the whim and will of its leadership, which at the time, was Nero. A leader personifies (whether for good or evil) the nation he or she leads. So was Nero the beast? Yes, he's its personification. He's its head, or more precisely one of them. Even the Romans had a saying in the days of the emperor: The Emperor IS the Empire. You're right, the Roman leaders at the time of Revelation were not antichrists, because antichrists wouldn't come along for another 30 or so years.

I thank God I have so much hair, because it makes pulling it out easier. I JUST WROTE THAT THE BEAST DID RECOVER. ROME RECOVERED AFTER A YEAR OF CIVIL WAR. Apparently some people are incapable of reading OR just don't want their personal bubble broken. Daniel, while man of sin and man of perdition are terms used in MODERN FUTURIST theology to describe an alleged future antichrist figure, they were never used by the writers in that context. The man of sin is one of two things: Nero as emperor, declaring himself 'god' or a future category of people. I tend to believe the latter, but other scholars prefer the former.

What I wrote is that Nero is the head of the Beast referred to in Rev 13. I also wrote (and this is a historical fact) that early Believers called Nero 'the Beast'. Rather than conjecture, how about a few facts: 1. This interpretation is based upon the Angel's explanation of the beast in Revelation 17:7, that the beast's seven heads are seven kings (Rev. 17:10) and that Nero, is the sixth king "who is", who was possibly alive and the emperor reigning at the time John was writing the book.[23] The five kings who have fallen are seen as Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, and Galba is the one who "has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a little while". (Rev. 17:10). Moreover, Rome was known in antiquity as the city of seven hills (Rev. 17:9) and Revelation was a warning about events that were "shortly" to take place (Rev. 1:1). 2. In Rev. 13:5-8, the Beast was given a mouth speaking in blasphemies against God and His Name. Inscriptions have been found in Ephesus in which Nero is called "Almighty God" and "Savior". In verse 4, the Beast is worshiped by the world alongside the Dragon that gave it authority. Nero and Caligula "abandoned all reserve" in promoting emperor worship – they were the only two who demanded divine honors while still alive. Nero claimed to be the sun-god Apollo. 3. Revelation 13:7 speaks of the power given to the beast to make war with the saints. Nero was the first of the imperial authorities to persecute Christianity. Tacitus records the scene in Rome when the persecution of Christians broke out: "And their death was aggravated with mockeries, insomuch that, wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when the darkness fell they might be burned to illuminate the night". (This is even mentioned in the Book of Hebrews.) 4. Revelation 13:5 says the beast would continue for 42 months. The Neronic persecution was instituted in 64 AD and lasted until his death in June 68 AD, which is three and a half years, or 42 months. Nero was even called the Beast. Apollonius of Tyana specifically states that Nero was called a 'beast': "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen man, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. ... And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet". 5. The manner of Nero’s death corresponds with the prophecy of Revelation 13:10: "If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if any one kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed". According to Tertullian, Nero was the first to assail the Christian sect with the imperial sword. He committed suicide by the sword at the age of 30. 6. After Nero's death in 68 AD, Rome saw a succession of short-lived emperors (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) and a year of civil wars until Vespasian eventually took control in 69 AD. The Roman Empire destabilized so greatly that Tacitus reported: "Many believed the end of the empire was at hand" (Histories 4:5:4) According to Suetonius, to the surprise of the world, "the empire which for a long time had been unsettled and, as it were, drifting through the usurpation and violent death of three emperors, was at last taken in and given stability by the Flavian family" (Vespasian 1: 1). This may be a reference to the mortal wound on one of the heads of the Beast "inflicted by the sword" which was later healed (Rev. 13:3, Rev. 13: 14). Scholar Daniel K. Wong wrote that the "healing of the wound" alludes to the so-called Nero Redivivus Legend or the "revival of Nero” myth. A rumor that Nero had just disappeared to Parthia and would one day reappear. (I disagree.) 7. Finally, the readers of Revelation were told to "calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six" (Rev. 13:18). John did not expect that his readers "who had understanding" to have any difficulty identifying the beast, since they could simply calculate the meaning of this number. "Neron Kaisar" (the Greek rendering, documented by archaeological finds), when transliterated into Hebrew נרון קסר (Nrwn Qsr) had a number of 666. The variant number 616 found in some manuscripts of the Greek text of Revelation may represent the alternative Hebrew spelling נרו קסר (Nrw Qsr) based on the Latin form "Nero Caesar". The variant probably existed to keep consistent the meaning of Nero as the Beast. The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Hebrew as נרון קסר or "nrvn qsr". Personally, this understanding makes far more sense that the seemingly endless guessing game played by Believers today. I am not the only Believer who understands Nero to be the 666 of Revelation 13, and Rome to be the Beast-nation/Daniel's Fourth Beast. I'm also not the only Believer who understands that there is no one single antichrist figure. Robert Yarbrough 1-3 John Page 344 2008 "The articles in front of “deceiver” (ὁ πλάνος, ho planos) and “antichrist” (ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ho antichristos) should be seen as marking out a certain category of persons (Wallace 1996: 227–30). This is a common Johannine usage (1 John 2:23; ") The only one of the late 1st/early 2nd Century Apostolic Fathers to use the term is Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) who warned the Philippians that everyone who preached false doctrine was an antichrist. His use of the term Antichrist follows that of the New Testament in not identifying a single personal Antichrist, but a class of people. I find it important that Polycarp was a disciple of John himself while John was still living. I further find it important that John's letters were all written AFTER he wrote Revelation. So then, much adieu is being made about a term that John didn't even use until years after he wrote Revelation, possibly as much as 30 years! Since Polycarp was closest to John, I'd personally put my money on his understanding more than anyone who came later. The idea of a singular antichrist appears to have begun in the 2nd century and views vary. Some I've read, sound like those of futurists, others like anti-Catholic rhetoric and still others like anti-Protestant rhetoric. My interpretation indeed.

Nero suffered no mortal wounds? I'd say a sword to the throat was pretty mortal. He even botched the job to the extent that his servant had to finish him off. But...Nero was only one head of the beast. (Yes, the early church of that time called Nero 'the beast', and he is the personification of the Empire for this passage, but the whole of the passage is referring to the nation of Rome itself.) Nero was seen by John having been 'slaughtered to death'. A sacrifice had its throat cut, and this is how Nero tried to do himself in. It is however the events AFTER this which are being considered. After the death of Nero, the Empire went into chaos. Nero had no appointed successor. Suddenly, there were four men claiming the throne of Caesar. These four emperors were Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. For a time, it appeared as though the Empire would collapse under the weight of civil war. This would be the equivalent of a civil war between four US contenders to the Presidency. People would be saying things like: "Can America survive this?" And so it was with the conditions of the Roman Empire at the time. The Empire was in a civil war for its very existence, plus, the Jewish Rebellion was going on as well. Understandably, people were wondering if Rome would survive. and when did this happen? and did he survive from it? from your own words, if the servant had to finish him off. Which means he did not recover. If nero was the anti-christ not only would he have recovered, he wouldnt have been finished off, and everyone would have marveled. And your still ignoring the fact, the verse that says all the world literally means all the world-not just the roman empire. he was not even a head of the beast, he was not part of the beast at all, nor where any of the other roman emperors, they were just evil men doing evil things. Nero killed himself on June 9, 68 AD. No, which is what I wrote. He DIDN'T survive. He was the head of the Beast who had a fatal wound, the Beast being Rome proper and Nero secondarily. And who said Nero was the antichrist? I certainly didn't. Revelation doesn't even mention 'antichrist'. In fact, the term is never used in Revelation or any other book of Scripture but the first two letters of John. It is conspicuous by its absence. NERO IS NOT 'THE ANTICHRIST'. THERE IS NO SINGULAR ANTICHRIST. ANTICHRISTS ARE REFERRED TO AS PLURAL BY JOHN IN EVERY CASE EXCEPT ONE, AND THAT IS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. Finally, the whole world WAS TO THE READERS the Roman Empire. The term eikoumene refers to the KNOWN WORLD OF ITS TIME, not the entire planet. It means nothing to us, because it was not meant for us. It was meant for its original readers. Only Chapters 20-21 have meaning to us, or if Christ remains in heaven, to our descendants.

Quick note: it's REVELATION, not Revelations. (Yeah, it sounds like I'm being picky, but there is a reason for that. There is only ONE Revelation (unveiling) in the book, and it is from Jesus to John.) Nero is a head of the Roman Beast. He is the Beast by personfication. Rulers often become synonymous with their nations. A modern example: America. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy were all at one time, personfications of America. One couldn't really think of the USA without one of these men coming to mind during the time of their rule. And so it was with Nero. Nero persecuted the fledgling church for 42 months. God gave him permission to do it, ostensibly to fulfill the Danielic prophecy. He (Nero) spoke blasphemous things (bringing accusations against) the God of heaven, and his Tabernacle (believers). Nevertheless, it's not Nero who came back to life, but the EMPIRE. Nero's death nearly tore the Empire apart, but it survived. So then, it is not necessary for Nero to have died and then come back to life.

Nero suffered no mortal wounds? I'd say a sword to the throat was pretty mortal. He even botched the job to the extent that his servant had to finish him off. But...Nero was only one head of the beast. (Yes, the early church of that time called Nero 'the beast', and he is the personification of the Empire for this passage, but the whole of the passage is referring to the nation of Rome itself.) Nero was seen by John having been 'slaughtered to death'. A sacrifice had its throat cut, and this is how Nero tried to do himself in. It is however the events AFTER this which are being considered. After the death of Nero, the Empire went into chaos. Nero had no appointed successor. Suddenly, there were four men claiming the throne of Caesar. These four emperors were Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. For a time, it appeared as though the Empire would collapse under the weight of civil war. This would be the equivalent of a civil war between four US contenders to the Presidency. People would be saying things like: "Can America survive this?" And so it was with the conditions of the Roman Empire at the time. The Empire was in a civil war for its very existence, plus, the Jewish Rebellion was going on as well. Understandably, people were wondering if Rome would survive.

Specifically, FAITHFUL Israel, as opposed to apostate Israel.