Nero the beast poll

Original Happy Camper said:

Revelation 17:3 describes the scarlet beast in terms similar to the sea beast of Revelation chapter 13, which made war with, and overcame, God’s people (Rev. 13:5-7). It was this earlier period of persecution that caused the pure woman to flee into the wilderness during the prophetic period of 1,260 days/years, from A.D. 538-1798 (Rev. 12:13-14). Though living in an age of ecumenism, Protestants would do well to remember the terrible persecution of the past because, according to prophecy, something similar, but only worse, will happen again.

Read Revelation 17:8. Compare the wording of this verse with Revelation 13:8. How does Revelation 13:3 clarify the three phases of the existence and activities of the beast?

Tuesday: The Identification of the Scarlet Beast | Sabbath School Net

Click to expand...

NO, there are too many totally different characteristics of the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast for them to be the same creature, or even the same creature presented at two different times of its existence.

Different origins: The Sea Beast originates from the Sea, or the pagan Gentile nations. The Scarlet Beast was "about to arise from the abyss", and was found in the Wilderness setting, which is typical of Israel's wilderness wanderings and geographical features.

Different regnal status of their 10 horns: The Sea Beast's 10 horns have crowns, and rule one after the other. The Scarlet Beast's 10 horns have no crowns, and rule simultaneously - for only one symbolic "hour" until the Scarlet Beast goes into destruction.

Different accomplishments: The Sea Beast overcomes the saints who are given into its hand for 42 months. The Scarlet Beast's 10 horns are themselves overcome by the Lamb and the faithful saints who are with Him.

Different lifespans: The Sea Beast had a continuous, 666 year-old history as of John's writing. The Scarlet Beast had a fluctuating "WAS, IS NOT, and IS ABOUT TO ARISE" condition of existence during John's days.

Different homage given: The Sea Beast had "all the earth" giving homage to it, courtesy of the Land Beast's support on its behalf. The Scarlet Beast was plagued by internal CIVIL strife waged against the woman riding on its back - a woman which was NOT pictured as riding on the Sea Beast.

No Satanic, Dragon throne in the city of Pergamos was ever given to the Scarlet Beast, as the Sea Beast received from Satan.

No double referent of the Sea Beast's 7 heads being 7 "kings" as well as being 7 mountains, as was the case with the Scarlet Beast.

No "great authority" given to the Scarlet Beast from Satan, as was the case with the Sea Beast.

Dave G. said:

We know this to be in the 90's AD just by simple historic fact.

Click to expand...

This is an assumption, based almost entirely on one italicized word inserted by a translator into Irenaeus' one sentence about the Antichrist's identity. A VERY weak argument to base one's entire eschatological paradigm upon.

3 Resurrections said:

This is an assumption, based almost entirely on one italicized word inserted by a translator into Irenaeus' one sentence about the Antichrist's identity. A VERY weak argument to base one's entire eschatological paradigm upon.

Click to expand...

When did John die?

spiritfilledjm said:

When did John die?

Click to expand...

Back in John 11:43-44 in AD 33.

The beloved disciple John (not the Apostle John, son of Zebedee) who became the author of Revelation was the beloved disciple Lazarus whom Christ raised from the dead back in John 11:43-44. He never died again (not even possible for a resurrected saint). He was one of the "living and remaining" saints Paul spoke of, who left this planet back with all the rest of the AD 70 newly-resurrected saints in that year's "rapture" to heaven with Christ.

(By the way, my older teenaged grandson would be elated if he could grow a beard like yours...if that is a real picture of you).

3 Resurrections said:

(By the way, my older teenaged grandson would be elated if he could grow a beard like yours...if that is a real picture of you).

Click to expand...

It is :-D. Grew it out long a few years ago. He just needs to stay patient. I couldn't grow a good beard until my mid 20's

Douggg said:

I created this poll to see how many here think Nero was the beast of Revelation.

And how many here do not think Nero was the beast of Revelation

Click to expand...

I do believe Nero was the Anti-Christ. I do not believe The Revelation of John is meant for today but is code for first Century Christians to give them hope at that time.

3 Resurrections said:

Back in John 11:43-44 in AD 33.

The beloved disciple John (not the Apostle John, son of Zebedee) who became the author of Revelation was the beloved disciple Lazarus whom Christ raised from the dead back in John 11:43-44. He never died again (not even possible for a resurrected saint). He was one of the "living and remaining" saints Paul spoke of, who left this planet back with all the rest of the AD 70 newly-resurrected saints in that year's "rapture" to heaven with Christ.
.

Click to expand...

As far as that claim, that is a theory I am not familiar with to the point of never even hearing about it before and will have to do research on.

spiritfilledjm said:

I couldn't grow a good beard until my mid 20's

Click to expand...

Ahhh, that's good to know. I'll tell him so he can be encouraged to be patient a little longer.

spiritfilledjm said:

As far as that claim, that is a theory I am not familiar with to the point of never even hearing about it before and will have to do research on.

Click to expand...

Well, I had never heard of it myself either, until about 5 years ago, by reading some excellent scripture proofs from Pastor D. Curtis's bereanbiblechurch website on the subject (although he DOES mistakenly think Lazarus died again, and I don't). Also this is an excellent link using only the KJV to prove the issue: www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com

I wrote back and forth quite a bit about this subject with a gentleman on his website where he also sees Lazarus as being John (as well as a few other aliases that Lazarus adopted to remain anonymous) at this link: Identifying the Rich Young Ruler

You may not agree, but its always good to research the different perspectives, I think.

Dave G. said:

Nero was a form of antichrist

Click to expand...

No, Not by any Descriptor of "antichrist" that can be found in Scripture.

The bible's teaching on antichrist is very simple, and St. John lists the only passages anywhere in scripture on the matter. Everything the bible has to say about "antichrist" can be found as follows:

2 John 1:7
1 John 2:18-19
1 John 4:1-3
1 John 2:22-23

Thats it.

When we closely analyze St. John's comprehensive teaching on the matter we arrive at the following:

(1) Antichrist is one heresy of many adherents (2 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 2:18)

(2) Antichrists were once members of the true apostolic Church, but left to embrace a very particular heresy (1 Jn 2:19; 1Jn 4:1)

(3) The heresy embraced by antichrists denies that the incarnation of Christ was one in real human form or flesh (2 Jn 1:7; 1Jn 4:2-3)

(4) The antichrist heretics proclaim one can have relations with Jehovah without needing Christ (1 Jn 2:22-23 - cf. Jn 15:23-24)

(5) The prophesied antichrists manifested in St. John's latter ministry years, proving to him that the final hour of the last days had come upon Him and his flocks (1 Jn 2:18-19).

There we have it. That's everything the bible teaches on antichrist. It is a solid, unified, and comprehensive teaching on the subject. The bible says nothing else on the matter.

Nero does not fit as he was not once a Member of the One true Church who left to follow the heresey. Which is a BIBLICAL requirement for one to be identified as antichrist.

In Revelation The Antichist's rule ends for a season of 1000 years to eventually rise for a short time and be tossed in the lake of fire stripped of any power. He will no longer be a pest of this world.

Click to expand...

Revelation contains not one single mention of or teaching about antichrist.

Yours is an all too common error, shared by many People who likewise err by adding in The Beast, Daniel's Imperial Kings, or the Man of Sin of 2 Thess 2, but these various men have not one thing at all to do with "antichrist," which was a 1st century Church heresy of the proto-gnostic beliefs concerning the incarnation.

In Revelation, John was to write of future events.

Click to expand...

Rather, he was told to write about what he had ALREADY SEEN, what he was Presently Seeing, and What he would be shown is to come. (Revelation 1:19)

He was told to write about what was already Past, what was then present in His day, and wat was coming in the near Future to HIM (which does not necessitate future to us)

We know he was at this time near the end of his life, He was a prisoner there . We know this to be in the 90's AD just by simple historic fact. Thus he is writing of future evens in the 90's AD well after the time of Nero.

Click to expand...

Rather, The book of Revelation was written by St. John between AD 66-68, in the final years of the Neronic persecution. The internal evidence of the book concretely supports the early date, and the external evidence for this date is firmly attested to by the vast majority of well-known scholars and early Church writings.

Only one slight disagreement with the above comment by parousia70. Revelation was written in the tribulation period that cropped up following the AD 57 Ephesian riot, which ended up launching a Jewish persecution against believers that spread all over Asia and the 7 churches. The Apostle Paul spoke of this tribulation period in I Cor. 1:8, when he said it was so bad in Asia that "We despaired even of life".

John was writing Revelation sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the cataclysmic Laodicean earthquake that decimated the city - and the Laodicean church - which God said He was "ABOUT TO SPUE" out of His mouth.

Original Happy Camper said:

Prophecy is history in advance

History is prophecy fulfilled

Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Click to expand...

Yes and!

History has shown God is not obligated to reveal his secrets to Christians.

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority". Acts 1:7

Douggg said:

I created this poll to see how many here think Nero was the beast of Revelation.

And how many here do not think Nero was the beast of Revelation

Click to expand...

Nero was a type of, IMO.

3 Resurrections said:

Only one slight disagreement with the above comment by parousia70. Revelation was written in the tribulation period that cropped up following the AD 57 Ephesian riot, which ended up launching a Jewish persecution against believers that spread all over Asia and the 7 churches. The Apostle Paul spoke of this tribulation period in I Cor. 1:8, when he said it was so bad in Asia that "We despaired even of life".

John was writing Revelation sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the cataclysmic Laodicean earthquake that decimated the city - and the Laodicean church - which God said He was "ABOUT TO SPUE" out of His mouth.

Click to expand...

I've seen you posit this before, and havent really looked into it yet.
So therefore, I don't have a cogent rebuttal to offer.
On first Blush it seems at least as plausable as the 66-68 theory.

*oops

Norbert L said:

History has shown God is not obligated to reveal his secrets to Christians.

Click to expand...

Fact.
Deuteronomy 29:29

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Nero was a type of, IMO.

Click to expand...

Assuming he was, who was a type for the false prophet then? Revelation 13 records two beasts, not just one, and that they are working hand in hand with each other, so to speak. Who was it at that time, that can be associated with Nero, where they fit the description of someone deceiving those upon the earth with false wonders?

Douggg said:

Why did I make the poll in regards specifically to Nero, and not others?

Because I have heard on occasion some people here expressed their view that Nero was the beast and I want to see how popular that view is to people here - compared to people here who do not believe that the beast is referring to Nero.

Click to expand...

Nero indeed Fulfilled one of the heads of "the Beast" of Revelation.
He was the Man beast.
He was not the Little Horn, nor the Abomination of Desolation, nor the Man of Sin/Son of Perdition, nor antichrist.

These are all unique entities unto themselves.

The Beast in Revelation is the 1st century Roman Empire, and the heads were the individual ceasers, with Nero being the "head" that was mortally wounded, yet the Beast itself did not die with him, but was healed from the mortal wound of one of it's heads, and went on.

The Head of the Beast being wounded is representative of Nero's death as Head of the Corporate beast of The Roman Empire, a Fatal blow that the Nation of Rome recovered from.

When Nero committed suicide on June 8, 68 A.D., two major inter-related historical situations faced the world. Both carried with them catastrophic consequences.

First, with the death of Nero, the Julian-Claudian line of emperors came to an end. In other words, the blood line which had received worship from the Roman Empire had been cut off forever. To the superstitious, pagan world this was most significant. This was no small matter to the subjects of the Roman Empire.

Second, catastrophe upon catastrophe followed the death of Nero and the extinction of the Roman Empire's founding family. The empire found itself engulfed in civil wars, to the extent that eternal Rome was endanger of being reduced to rubble.

Josephus writes concerning these civil wars: I have omitted to give an exact account of them, because they are well known by all, and they are described by a great number of Greek and Roman authors."

Tacitus writes: The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors failed by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars and often both at the same time.... In Rome there was more awful cruelty.... Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell
mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it more fully proved by awful disasters of the Roman people or by indubitable signs that gods care not for our safety, but for our punishment.

Suetonius wrote, concerning the long months following Nero's death, that the empire for a longtime had been unsettled, and as it were, drifting, through the usurpation and violent death of the three emperors, was at last taken in hand and given stability by the Flavian family.

Titus Flavius Vespasianus restored political stability and established a new dynasty of the Roman Empire. Under the rule of Vespasian the empire was revived and the Beast lived once more.

The relevant verses in Revelation regarding the death and revivification of the Beast are most readily understood as prophesying the earth-shaking historical events after the suicide of Nero in 68 A.D. Rome died, as it were, but returned to life once again.

parousia70 said:

Fact.
Deuteronomy 29:29

Click to expand...

Indeed Moses too understood that God had secret things that only belong to Him. "The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; " He acknowledges that God totally owns the secret things period.

However a wonderful "but" occurs when Moses points out that there is also some undetermined amount of those secret things that He will graciously shares with us, "but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.."