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

[Bold Believer]

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.

[OneLight]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[back2thebible]

to anyone who has perceived the book of Revelations to aready have been fulfilled. I conclude one undeniable scriptural fact surrounding the life and times of the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, they are destroyed at the second coming of Christ, the Rock struck the statue and it was destroyed

If Jesus has not arrived then Revelations has not been fulfilled, because the two events are unequivically tied together

[Montana Marv]

The book of revelations was fulfilled years ago. I don't even think it is a book of the Bible.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[OakWood]

It's not important for salvation to understand Revelation but to claim that it has already happened I think is a dangerous assumption. The events of Revelation will be a test of faith for some. If you're not sure of any of the interpretations then keep an open mind. There may be a false sense of security if you are not expecting anything to happen. Likewise if it doesn't happen exactly as you see it then that may cause you to doubt your faith especially if your faith was weak in the first place.

If you have faith, then you have faith, and that should be enough for everyone, regardless of how it pans out - but for those of you who are genuinely interested in prophecy then keep your eyes open and keep watching. I personally pay attention to events in the Middle East and regularly follow all important news updates.

[back2thebible]

The book of revelations was fulfilled years ago. I don't even think it is a book of the Bible.

In Christ

Montana Marv

well you obviously have a completely different translation of what the bible teaches.

[ENOCH2010]

The book of revelations was fulfilled years ago. I don't even think it is a book of the Bible.

In Christ

Montana Marv

well you obviously have a completely different translation of what the bible teaches.

Marv was snipping the mis-spelling of Revelation. Marv may be a pre-tribber but I'm pretty sure he reads the Bible.

[back2thebible]

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.

Its not even close!

[JustinM]

The discussion always interests me. Without getting into pre or post, or a-millenialism, life has only gotten worse for most of the world since Jesus left, no better. He promised to return and punish the wicked and make the world a better place. Obviously that hasn't happened yet. So, the end is still coming.

I am a millennialist, I think I'm using the term correctly in that I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the Millennial reign of Christ and His Saints.