nero the antichrist?

[TheNewMan]

Nero died way before Revelation was written.

That's true. Well, not WAY before. Nero committed suicide in 68 AD (I think July... 9th? 8th? I don't remember). Revelation was probably written in 70 AD.

[Joshua-777]

Nero died way before Revelation was written.

That's true. Well, not WAY before. Nero committed suicide in 68 AD (I think July... 9th? 8th? I don't remember). Revelation was probably written in 70 AD.

70-96 AD Theres good evidence for both. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD though. I hold more to the 96 AD along with John/ 1st John written in 90 AD. The 70 Ad view is more the Preterist theory that the events described in Revelation took place some 25 years earlier in 70 AD.

[TheNewMan]

Yeah. I lean toward 70 AD, but either way, the prophecy he is talking about couldn't be about Nero.

[Joshua-777]

Yeah. I lean toward 70 AD, but either way, the prophecy he is talking about couldn't be about Nero.

I agree

[Bold Believer]

i know many people have diffrent viewpoints on the subject of the antichrist and i have come across some teachings that say nero is the antichrist that was talked about in the book of revelation because his name is the greek numerical equvilant of 666. i havn't made up my mind on this issue yet but im leaning towards the beliefe that he isnt the antichrist. opinions and scripturel support welcome

Nero is 666, but he's NOT 'the antichrist'. Antichrists had not even come along when Nero was living. Antichrists were the Gnostic teachers who denied that Jesus was truly human. The word antichrist is never used ANYWHERE in Scripture except in the letters of John. Interestingly enough, John also wrote Revelation, but never once used the term there. This is highly significant. There is no "the antichrist". There were antichrists (plural).

Nero was the personification of the evil behind the Roman Empire. In Revelation, the beast is both the nation of Rome, and Nero and the other emperors who follow him. Nero is also an archetype of the man of sin, because Nero believed himself to BE God. he demanded worship as God. By burning a pinch of incense to the genus of the emperor, people were taking the mark of the beast. Do note carefully that in the text, the mark of the beast is not 666; 666 is the number of his name. The mark of the beast is worshiping the emperors as a god. Nero was really into the concept. He also fits into the Rev 13 text as well. It was Nero who attempted suicide by stabbing himself in the throat with a sword (the head wound). His secretary had to finish him off because he botched the job. After Nero died, his competitors for the emperorship plunged Rome into civil war, and there was question as to whether the empire would survive. But along came Galba (the 7th) who lasted a little while (mentioned elsewhere in the Revelation) and eventually Vespasian became emperor and his son Titus was the general who destroyed the city and temple (Daniel 9, Luke 21).

[Bold Believer]

Nero died way before Revelation was written.

That's true. Well, not WAY before. Nero committed suicide in 68 AD (I think July... 9th? 8th? I don't remember). Revelation was probably written in 70 AD.

70-96 AD Theres good evidence for both. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD though. I hold more to the 96 AD along with John/ 1st John written in 90 AD. The 70 Ad view is more the Preterist theory that the events described in Revelation took place some 25 years earlier in 70 AD.

I recommend Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book on the fall of Jerusalem with the AD 69/70 writing. And yes, Nero died just before Revelation. That's why John mentions his demise cryptically in Ch 13.

Nero does fit the Revelation. The antichrist dictator doesn't, and therein lies the problem. If you understand that antichrists were Gnostic teachers denying Jesus' humanity with their teachings, THEN Nero makes all the sense in the world.

[other one]

Bold Believer, you must have a different Bible than any of mine to get that our of Rev. 13. While worship of the beast is manditory, it isn't the mark. And you can have the 666 or his mark or his name put on you, but the word itself denotes a scratch, not an action such as worship.

[j102]

Nero died way before Revelation was written.

That's true. Well, not WAY before. Nero committed suicide in 68 AD (I think July... 9th? 8th? I don't remember). Revelation was probably written in 70 AD.

70-96 AD Theres good evidence for both. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD though. I hold more to the 96 AD along with John/ 1st John written in 90 AD. The 70 Ad view is more the Preterist theory that the events described in Revelation took place some 25 years earlier in 70 AD.

I recommend Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book on the fall of Jerusalem with the AD 69/70 writing. And yes, Nero died just before Revelation. That's why John mentions his demise cryptically in Ch 13.

Nero does fit the Revelation. The antichrist dictator doesn't, and therein lies the problem. If you understand that antichrists were Gnostic teachers denying Jesus' humanity with their teachings, THEN Nero makes all the sense in the world.

i thought gnostics taught that jesus was the christ but still just a mere man and not god

[j102]

i know many people have diffrent viewpoints on the subject of the antichrist and i have come across some teachings that say nero is the antichrist that was talked about in the book of revelation because his name is the greek numerical equvilant of 666. i havn't made up my mind on this issue yet but im leaning towards the beliefe that he isnt the antichrist. opinions and scripturel support welcome

Let me ask you this, do you think that you could ever allow yourself to receive the mark of the BEAST in your hand or forehead? Are you sure? Cain was given a mark upon him, because he was of the beast, the dog eat dog mentality that the devil tempts us with to desire to be on top by what ever means necassary by knocking the competion out of the way. Even if you have to kill those you love. Do you carry the mark of the beast in your works of your hand? Do you have the thinking in your mind(forehead) to do evil to your fellow man? Are you against the Word of God reigning in your life as Lord, lining up with the Word? Could you really be Anti(Against)- Christ(The Word)? Please do not think I am accusing, but for thought purposes and edifying the body.

I am aware of the symbolism of the mark on the hand and forehead , it represents peoples actions and thoughts. But the rest of the scripture goes on to say that those who dont take it can't buy or sell and that part is literal.

thanks everyone for you thoughts and input.

[other one]

i know many people have diffrent viewpoints on the subject of the antichrist and i have come across some teachings that say nero is the antichrist that was talked about in the book of revelation because his name is the greek numerical equvilant of 666. i havn't made up my mind on this issue yet but im leaning towards the beliefe that he isnt the antichrist. opinions and scripturel support welcome

Let me ask you this, do you think that you could ever allow yourself to receive the mark of the BEAST in your hand or forehead? Are you sure? Cain was given a mark upon him, because he was of the beast, the dog eat dog mentality that the devil tempts us with to desire to be on top by what ever means necassary by knocking the competion out of the way. Even if you have to kill those you love. Do you carry the mark of the beast in your works of your hand? Do you have the thinking in your mind(forehead) to do evil to your fellow man? Are you against the Word of God reigning in your life as Lord, lining up with the Word? Could you really be Anti(Against)- Christ(The Word)? Please do not think I am accusing, but for thought purposes and edifying the body.

I am aware of the symbolism of the mark on the hand and forehead , it represents peoples actions and thoughts. But the rest of the scripture goes on to say that those who dont take it can't buy or sell and that part is literal.

thanks everyone for you thoughts and input.

Why should one be symbolism and the other not..... The word is very clear that the "Mark" is a scratch, etching or stamp of servitude.... does it really make sense to split a sentence up and hake half symbolism and the other half not.