Reign of the Beast -genuinely Global or just the Mid-East?

[Bold Believer]

Your still ignoring the fact, that the beast had to recover from the wound. . . in fact, the only way your theory could work, is if you were to ignore that fact. . .just saying.

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.

[The_Patriot21]

your still ignoring the fact that the Beast, had to recover from the wound. . .nero dying did not hurt rome in the least bit, so there was nothing for rome, to recover from.

[OakWood]

Changing the subject ever so slightly but going back to the 'known World' theme. Rome wasn't even the entire known world.

The Persian empire existed and was untouched by the Romans because they couldn't conquer it. The Persian empire wasn't just some obscure entity as it was well known to the Jews, who had some sort of mutual respect with it. Therefore it would have been well known to Christians too. In fact some Christian churches including the Assyrian church of the East (and its ancestral forerunner) existed independently of Rome and was never part of it. The Christian church had even been established in India thanks to St. Thomas the apostle. Thomas died (it is said) about four years after Nero died, so his church would have already been established well outside the influence of Rome probably whilst Nero was still alive.

I don't think Nero can even be seen as the Beast or even connected with the beast of the known world, because Rome, although huge, did not cover even the entire biblical world at the time. Nero may have been an antichrist for sure, in the same way that Adolf Hitler was, but his identity as the beast is becoming sketchier the more that I look into it.

Edited March 28, 2013 by WillowWood

[back2thebible]

I've been thinking about this for some time. Will this directly affect everyone alive or just indirectly?

Not being allowed to buy and sell unless you have the mark, how can this apllied to every single nation and every single person on Earth? Will there be pockets of resistance or pockets of self-sustenance?

I'll give you an example of what I mean:

World War 2 was called World War 2 because it affected the entire World and was a war that spanned the globe. Not every nation was involved however, in fact most were not, but every nation was affected by it in some way or another, either at the time or shortly afterwards. Some nations were hardly affected at all, but nevertheless were acutely aware of what was going on.

Will the reign of the anti-christ be the same? I mean, if it literally does involve submission on the part of every single person on the planet, then who will be there to resist this submission and tell others to resist too? There has to be a resistance movement or free areas that try to fight back.

If the entire World is under submission then how can there be a Mystery Babylon? How can sailors watch her burn from afar (Rev 18:17) and mourn for her? Would the beast allow these sailors to be freely sailing in ships?

If you are of the understanding that Daniel 11:21-45 are speaking about the rise of the antichrist then its apparent that he is in opposition to a King of the south who is also bent on evil, so that it would appear that this antichrist will not rule the whole world in fact Daniel 11:41-42 say Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon will escape from his hand, although it also appears Egypt will not escape..........couldn't pay me to live in Egypt!

[back2thebible]

Your still ignoring the fact, that the beast had to recover from the wound. . . in fact, the only way your theory could work, is if you were to ignore that fact. . .just saying.

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.

Its most important to understand one simple fact, the return of Christ and the fall of the antichrist are unequivocally inseparable incidents

^{Revelations 19:19-21}And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. ²⁰ Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. ²¹ And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

and 2 Thesalonians 2:8

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

there is no way around the fact that the antichrist is destroyed at the second coming.........so if Nero was the antichrist, where is Jesus?

[Bold Believer]

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.

[Montana Marv]

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.

Bold

Rome never fell. They ceased to be a force in about 350 AD. The Lake of Fire is for fallen angels and unbelieving individuals.

You say Nero was the 666 of Rev 13. That is false, becuse this beast (666) was captured and with him the false prophet and the two of them were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire .(Rev 19:20) As historians say, Nero commited suicide, he did not come back to life. He could not be thrown alive into the Lake of Fire.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[OakWood]

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.

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......

[Bold Believer]

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.

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.

[OakWood]

The timeframe is important you

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.

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.

You're right the timeframe is important but it's not relevant in this case.

John coined the phrase anti-christ but specifically and explicitly claims that anti-christs were already there when he coined it. So they could have been there before he coined the phrase. Therefore Nero is NOT excluded from being an anti-christ on the basis of what John said or when he said it.

I never said that Nero was an anti-christ either but I'm not going to say that he wasn't!

How do you know that Nero was or wasn't an antichrist. For all we know he may fit the description of one. Please give scripture that positively excludes Nero from being an antichrist.

The teachings of 1st John does not exclude him from being one. 1st John makes it clear that there were antichrists already around at the time so there could have been antichrists before.

Secondly, let's define the World using both definitions:

The Whole World (literally) - Nero had no influence over South America, African pygmies or China - conclusion Nero can't have been the Beast.

The whole World as known at the time - the Roman Empire was not even the entire known world - conclusion Nero can't have been the Beast.

Now let's examine the bit about being mortally wounded and coming back to life

Claim 1: Nero was mortally wounded, Nero came back to life - False

Claim 2: Nero was mortally wounded - Rome was resurrected as an Empire - False, Rome never collapsed under Nero and therefore had no need to rise again

Claim 3: Rome collapsed as an Empire - Rome rose again - simply False

Your argument fails at these first few hurdles. Sorry, I cannot possibly see how your explanation makes any sense.