gasman64 said in post 61:
You and I are the man of sin.
No, because no man has ever sat in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaimed himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4, Daniel 11:36,31, cf. Matthew 24:15), just as no man has ever fulfilled other detailed references to the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) in Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 16:2-16, Revelation 19:19-21, and 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9.
The Antichrist will fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 after he by force takes control of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem, stops the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices (which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have been offering in front of it), and has the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15).
The Antichrist could then make quite a show of his sitting himself in the temple and declaring himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31). And he could make a television and internet broadcast of it which will be seen live by the world (so that the "ye" in Matthew 24:15 could include people all around the world). He could first be shown entering the temple's most holy place in magnificent golden robes. He could then step up to the Ark of the Covenant (which could have been discovered, and placed in the temple by the Jews), and lift the Mercy Seat off of the Ark, showing the Ark to be empty. He could then look into the camera and say: "Where is YHWH? He is not here! He is a distant fraud! His power on this earth is as hollow as this empty Ark!" (The Antichrist will utterly revile YHWH: Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36.)
Then the Antichrist could raise the Mercy Seat high above his head only to suddenly smash it down violently to the ground, breaking it into pieces. The piped-in sound of crowds roaring with approval could then be heard in the background. Then the Antichrist could place his hands on the Ark and stare into the camera: "WE can do better than this". He could then knock over the Ark and stamp it with his foot, bashing in its side. Two of the Antichrist's followers in robes could then quickly come in and clear away the rubble of the Mercy Seat and the Ark, while 4 more men in robes carry into the temple's most holy place a magnificent golden throne and place it right where the Ark had been before. All the men could then bow down and motion with their arms for the Antichrist to sit on the throne. He could then grandly take his seat upon it.
Glorious symphonic music could then swell as the sound of crowds roaring with approval increases. Then the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) (who could be an apostate pope) could enter the temple's most holy place and approach the Antichrist carrying a majestic golden crown encrusted with large diamonds and all kinds of precious stones. The Antichrist could take the crown from the pope's hands, and as the Antichrist is placing the crown on his own head, a camera could zoom in on his face as he says: "I AM THAT I AM. I AM YOUR GOD. Worship me, all ye nations of the earth!"
(cf. Revelation 13:8, Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4)
*******
gasman64 said in post 62:
The apocolyptic style of writing from the 1st century made Nero into the anti-christ.
Any mistaken teaching which claims that the Antichrist has already come and gone could be employed in the future by the real Antichrist to fool some Christians into thinking that he isn't the Antichrist.
Nero didn't fulfill the detailed references to the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) in Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 16:2-16, Revelation 19:19-21, and Revelation 20:4. Also, Nero didn't fulfill other prophecies regarding the Antichrist (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9, Daniel 11:31,36; cf. Matthew 24:15). And John the apostle didn't see the vision of Revelation until decades after the time of Nero. For Irenaeus (born c. 140 AD) said: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision [Revelation]. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c). The end of Domitian's reign was 96 AD. Nero's reign was 54-68 AD. The detailed prophecies regarding the Antichrist, just as the rest of the tribulation prophecies of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, have never been fulfilled.
Regarding the claim (made by some) that Nero's name in Hebrew added up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18), is there an ancient historical source which shows how "Nero Caesar" was usually transliterated into Hebrew at the time that Revelation was written, so we can confirm whether or not the usual Hebrew transliteration of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666 in Hebrew gematria, instead of an intentionally-altered Hebrew spelling? For example, why was an "n" added after "Nero", to make "Neron"; and why was the "ae" of "Caesar" skipped to make "Csar", when, for example, the "ae" in "Israel" gets at least an "aleph" in Hebrew? Could "Neron Csar" in fact be an intentionally-altered, never-actually-used spelling that adds up to 666, just as people today could intentionally mistransliterate into Hebrew the name of someone living today so that the mistransliterated name adds up to 666 in Hebrew gematria? Also, just by chance there could be more than one person in the world whose name adds up to 666. So even if it could be proven that the usual Hebrew spelling of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666, or that the usual spelling of the name of someone living today adds up to 666, this doesn't require that that person is the Antichrist.
Also, should we even assume that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Hebrew for it to add up to 666? For Revelation was originally addressed to Greek-speaking Gentile churches in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) (what's now western Turkey), not to Hebrew-speaking Jewish churches in Judaea. And John the apostle used 3 letters from the Greek alphabet to express the number 666 in Revelation 13:18 (in the original Greek Textus Receptus), not any letters from the Hebrew alphabet. (But this doesn't require that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Greek in order for it to add up to 666, for John used the Greek alphabet only because it was the most common one used by the believers he was addressing at the time Revelation was written.) Also, even when "Nero Caesar" (instead of "Neron Csar") is transliterated into Hebrew, it doesn't have to result in the name adding up to 666:
N - Nun = 50 (cf. the "Ne" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3: Nun for the "N" and nothing for the "e")
E /
R - Reysh = 200
O - Vav = 6 (cf. the "o" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3 being the letter Vav)
C - Qowph = 100 (cf. "Kareah" in the Hebrew of Jer. 40:8, & "Caesar" being "Kaisar" in the Greek of Mt. 22:17)
A - Aleph = 1 (cf. the "ae" in "Israel" in the Hebrew of Gen. 32:28: Aleph for the "a" and nothing for the "e")
E /
S - Samek = 60 (cf. the "sar" in "Ellasar" in the Hebrew of Gen. 14:1: Samek for the "s" & nothing for the "a")
A /
R - Reysh = 200
Total = 617
*******
gasman64 said in post 63:
Revelations chapter 1 verse 1 would disagree with you. Right in the first verse it tells us that the book was symbolic, but that important fact slipped right past you....didn't it.
Revelation 1:1 doesn't mean that Jesus in Revelation chapters 6 to 22 is expressing the events of the future tribulation, and the subsequent 2nd coming, millennium and other events through only symbolic images, instead of indicating these events almost entirely literally. For just as the original Greek word (deiknuo, G1166) translated as "show" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being shown through symbolic images, but can refer to something being shown literally (Matthew 8:4), so also the original Greek word (semaino, G4591) translated as "signified" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being indicated through symbolic images, but can refer to something being indicated literally (Acts 25:27).
