Deadly Head Wound...

The Antichrist is a person as indicated by the Greek in 2 thess. 2:3-10. This is consistent with the Little Horn of Daniel. The early church regarded him as a person as well, written about in the Didache.

Jesus clearly discussed a kingdom that was in our midst, when we live godly (Luke 17:21. He also discussed a future fully complete kingdom. Jesus didn't return in AD 70 or every eye would've seen him. John didn't write Revelation until about AD 95 and he definitely didn't write it before AD 70, which eliminates the preterist view immediately. When I was first a Christian i was a Preterist until someone kindly corrected me and I allowed myself to be taught.

I ruled out Nero due to his single minded persecution of the church. He was never "anti" Christ, or one who sat in the Temple of God claiming to be in place of Christ (Vicar of Christ). For a better explanation of the idea of "Vicar" or "in place of Christ" see here.

Calvin on 2 Thess. 2:3, “It was no better than an old wife’s fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God’s temple–which we see accomplished in Popery.”

Gill on 2 Thess. 2:3, “yet the man of sin is here distinguished from Satan, 2Ti_2:9 nor is any particular emperor of Rome intended, as Caius Caligula, or Nero, for though these were monsters of iniquity, and set up themselves as gods, yet they sat not in the temple of God”

Polemics against the idea that Nero was antichrist:
Francis Turretin’s 7th Disputation
18 Sermons on 2 Thessalonians
The Papacy is the Antichrist
Westminster and London Baptist Confessions

John Gill notes; “if to this we add 1,260 the expiration of his reigns will fall in the year 1866, so that he may have upwards of a hundred and twenty years yet to continue; but of this we cannot be certain; however, the conjecture is not improbable.”

Gill might have it correct. Napoleon gave the death blow to political Rome but Rome took some time to fade away. The Pope lost secular authority in 1866.

Wikipedia: “After defeating the papal army on 18 September 1860 at the Battle of Castelfidardo, and on 30 September at Ancona, Victor Emmanuel took all the Papal territories except Latium with Rome. In 1866 he granted Pius IX the Law of Guarantees (13 May 1871) which gave the Pope the use of the Vatican but denied him sovereignty over this territory, nevertheless granting him the right to send and receive ambassadors and a budget of 3.25 million liras annually. Pius IX officially rejected this offer (encyclical Ubi nos, 15 May 1871), retaining his claim to all the conquered territory.” Interesting. Gill seems to have used the book of Revelation to actually predict the last battle Papal Rome would have resulting in it’s loss of political power.

Quote:

The Incredible Predications of Robert Fleming which were published in 1701

I have quoted the comments of Albert Barnes about Robert Fleming in my book "A Panorama of the Gospel Age," in Chapter 9 "The Fall of the Papacy." An excerpt appears below. Please read beyond this excerpt: I recently obtained a complete copy of Robert Fleming's works originally called "Apocalyptical Key" and reprinted under the title of "The Rise and Fall of the Papacy." The former historical interpreters have quoted Fleming's predictions relating to the remarkable coincidence of the events of 1848. But even more remarkable are his predictions of events in 1900 and 2000. Read on.

In the quotation Albert Barnes, wrote (1851) at the beginning of the last days of the Papal States.1848 to 1870. during which the States of the Church were taken from the Papal dominion. In 1701 (approximately 150 years previously) Fleming predicted the blow on the Papal States would begin in 1848. Incredibly Garibaldi removed the first portion of the States from the Papacy in 1848, and then a piece at a time, the rest of the territory was lost to Papal dominion culminating in the complete loss of the States under Victor Emmanuel in 1870. Thus 20 years accomplished the predicted event after the stated date of beginning. Read on in Barnes!

"'In this connection I may insert here the remarkable calculation of Robert Fleming, in his work entitled "Apocalyptical Key, or the pouring out of the Vials," first published in 1701. It is in the following words: The 5th Vial which is poured out on the seat of the beast, or the dominions which more immediately belong to and depend on the Roman See; that, I say, this judgment will probably begin about the year 1794 and expire about A.D. 1848; or that the duration of it upon this supposition will be the space of 54 years. For I do suppose that seeing the Pope received the title of Supreme Bishop no sooner than A.D. 606, he cannot be supposed to have any vial poured upon his seat immediately (so as to ruin his authority so signally as this judgment must be supposed to do) until the year 1848, which is the date of the 1260 years in prophetical account when they are reckoned from A.D. 606. But yet we are not to imagine that this will totally destroy the Papacy, (though it will exceedingly weaken it,) for we find that still in being and alive when the next vial is poured out.' Now Barnes': comment: [pp 125, 126 Cobbin's edition] It is a circumstance [says Barnes] remarkably in accordance with this calculation, that in the year 1848 the Pope was actually driven away to Gaeta, [imprisoned] and that at present time (1851) he is restored though evidently with diminished power."

1870 completed the loss of power. It was not until 1929: Well, read another excerpt from my book here quoting me.

The fifth bowl began to be poured on the Papal dominions in 1848 when Garibaldi actually imprisoned the Pope and divested him of his temporal lands. Barnes therefore wrote at the time that this bowl began and did not see the completion of it in 1870 when those dominions were taken by Victor Emmanuel and the Papacy was left with nothing at all in the sense of an earthly state. Sixty or so years after 1870, in 1929, the Papacy would be given sovereign power over the one hundred acre Vatican. In an agreement made with Mussolini in 1929, Vatican city was recognized as a sovereign state and the Pope recognized the kingdom of Italy. The Pope formally accepted one billion, seven hundred fifty million lire for the territory which was taken from him in 1870. He had begun his return to political and temporal authority. They had not repented!

I apologize for taking so long to set the stage but what follows is remarkable indeed. Because Robert Fleming did not stop there in his interpretive predictions. He extended them to the year 2,700 ! What he had to say about the next two periods however is astounding indeed.

Before I describe them I want to remind you that in my book I had predicted the imminent fall of Communism and the Soviet Union which indeed is now in the past. I also predicted that the fall of the Papacy and Islamic nations opening to religious and political freedom are near future events and in fact they are "imminent." What did Robert Fleming think would follow the blow on the "seat of the beast" which he said would begin in 1848 which indeed did happen and was accomplished within 20 years.

Fleming predicted that among the events of the period from 1848 to 1900 would be the decline and extinction of the Turkish Empire! He predicted the events and the dates! in the late 1600's (1692) and published it in 1701! What is even more remarkable is that the decline of the Turkish Empire did occupy the major events of the last half of the 19th century and within less than 20 years after 1900 the Turkish Empire was no more. Its historical lamp was extinguished in 1917. Mr Fleming is truly extraordinary! But that does not end his predictions. What did he think of the next period of history beyond 1917.

Fleming saw the gradual but complete disappearance of the Roman Papacy. But immediately after the fall of The Turkish Empire he sees a spiritual war attempting the complete destruction of the church of Christ as occupying events that lead up to the last part of the 20th century He then predicted that the last half of the 20th century would see the development of events that would be completed by the year 2000 and that the demise of the Papacy would follow shortly as a result! Fleming names 2000 as the terminal point.

Let me sum up Robert Fleming's "historical interpretations" of prophecy.

1. In 1692 he predicted that the 5th vial which would fall on the seat of authority of the Papal system would take place in 1848. It actually did and was completed in 20 years.
2. He predicted that the decline of the Turkish Empire would occupy the last half of the 19th century; the events would be complete by 1900. This indeed is what happened and The Turkish Empire joined the dust bin of history within less than 20 years after1900.
3. Fleming predicted (in 1692) the last half of the 20th century would see the completion of events by the year 2000 that will end the Papacy! Does that mean that within 20 years we should see the complete end of the Papacy? That has been my own conclusion predicted and recorded on tape recordings before 1970 but not in print until 1990. Thus seeing Fleming's complete printed works only recently has amazed me with his insight reaching far beyond his oft quoted analysis of the 5th vial beginning in 1848!

Further, incredibly he concluded the same thing that I had arrived at, that is, that the end of the Papacy will be associated with a resurgence of the power of the Christian religion. He so states on page 81 that coincident with the fall of the Papacy will be a parousia similar to the power of Christ in historical time at the destruction of Jerusalem or the end of paganism in 325. Fleming in 1692 concluded that the church of Christ will enjoy a period where opposition to the Gospel will be relatively slight and an unprecedented ingathering of the faithful. Many have heard the same conclusion that I had arrived at independently in the late 1960's. So let it be "even so come Lord Jesus."

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Poor Beggar said:

Yeah, no serious scholars I've read believe that

Click to expand...

You mean "serious scholars"like Lindsey, LaHaye, Hagee, and others of the usual DF suspects? Sorry, they aren't. They're tub-thumpers for Dispensational Futurism, and they're going to thump that tub whether reasonable exegesis supports iot or not.

unless there's a conspiracy and they're all God-haters, which seems a bit contrived.

Click to expand...

Two reasons for their cheer-leading for DF: 1)they believe it in spite of the utter dearth of Biblical support, and 2) it's their rice bowl; they make tons of money grinding out dreck about Blood Moons and global calamities (that we conveniently don't have to worry about).

Jipsah said:

You mean "serious scholars"like Lindsey, LaHaye, Hagee, and others of the usual DF suspects? Sorry, they aren't. They're tub-thumpers for Dispensational Futurism, and they're going to thump that tub whether reasonable exegesis supports iot or not.

Two reasons for their cheer-leading for DF: 1)they believe it in spite of the utter dearth of Biblical support, and 2) it's their rice bowl; they make tons of money grinding out dreck about Blood Moons and global calamities (that we conveniently don't have to worry about).

Click to expand...

I don't believe in darbyism.

Jipsah said:

You mean "serious scholars"like Lindsey, LaHaye, Hagee, and others of the usual DF suspects? Sorry, they aren't. They're tub-thumpers for Dispensational Futurism, and they're going to thump that tub whether reasonable exegesis supports iot or not.

Two reasons for their cheer-leading for DF: 1)they believe it in spite of the utter dearth of Biblical support, and 2) it's their rice bowl; they make tons of money grinding out dreck about Blood Moons and global calamities (that we conveniently don't have to worry about).

Click to expand...

The Darbyists have so taken over dispensationalism that most people don't even realize you can be a dispensationalist without buying into it.

People of Israelites at the times of Jesus used to call the Roman as Babel /Babylon cause it reminded them of that opressor.
Apostle John mentioned about harlot of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.

Jesus bless u all HalleluYAH

Preterists say that the old covenant waxed and waned until it was completely dissolved in 70AD, where Jesus's second coming was not literal but from a spiritual judgement point of view.

The fact remains that the resurrection of Christ would signal the end of the old covenant, because he said so.

Matthew 12:39-41
39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Click to expand...

The condition and ultimatum to say blessed is he who came in the name of the Lord as far as the nation of Israel is concerned was the three day sign that was given to them pointing to his resurrection and also as was also given to the Men of Nineveh, if they were to avert destruction. So at Christ's resurrection the Old Covenant was already dissolved and replaced by the new covenant.

In fact Jesus wants them of the only sign they would be given twice on two different occasions and when the last occurred in the verse below, he made a point of it by abruptly leaving them. So when the vail was twain into two down the middle this signalled the separation from the old to the new, so it was in with the new and out with the old.

Matthew 16:4
4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

Click to expand...

BABerean2 said:

In the image from the Book of Daniel, the part of the statue that is in place just before Christ grinds it to powder, is the part made of Iron and clay, which many understand to be Rome.


Dan_2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Dan_2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Dan_2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

Dan_2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

Dan_2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

Dan_2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Dan_2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.



During the time of Christ's earthly ministry Rome controlled most of the known world through the leadership of the Caesars. Later after the reign of Constantine, Rome came to rule the world again through the Papacy.
Some have viewed this as a healing of a deadly head wound.

The Reformers identified the Papacy to be the antichrist system of scripture.
The pope was a man who sat in the Church and allowed Christians to bow down to him and claimed to speak for God.

A number of years ago author Dave Hunt wrote a book titled "A Woman Rides the Beast" in which he proposed the same idea.

At the Council of Trent the Papacy initiated the Counter Reformation in an attempt to take the focus away from the Papacy.

Two new systems of interpretation came out of the Council of Trent.

The Jesuit Riberra came up with a Futurist system that has evolved into modern Dispensational Futurism, which has overtaken the evangelical Church in America.
It claims there are Two Peoples of God with Two separate Plans.
Some even claim that Grace will end at a pretrib removal of the Church and propose that the Jews will go back to keeping the Law in a rebuilt temple with renewed animal sacrifices.

The Jesuit Alcazar came up the a Preterist system that has now evolved into Full-Preterism, which denies the future Second Coming of Christ and a future resurrection of the body. It is considered heretical by many Christians.

The current pope is attempting to heal the wound of the Reformation and reclaim the Papacy's lost daughters...



This videoclip comes from an SDA website.
This post is not meant to advocate for that organization.

Click to expand...

The 2nd beast that comes out of the earth is vastly different to the 1st beast of the 1st century who came forth from the sea, which symbolises the cradle of civilisation is the Middle East. The 2nd beast originates from outside of the Middle Eastern continent. The 1st beast went down in 70AD, however the 2nd beast resurrects the image of the 1st beast according to the ecclesiastical top down structure. The clue is that he is lamb like, meaning he is Christ like, that is posing as Christianity.

Now this 2nd beast rallies behind 10 patriarchal denominational kingly heads who have yet to recieve a literal Kingdom, but side with the 2nd Christ like beast for one hour (short period). Then once the 10 kingly heads discover that they have been duped, then they turn their anger on the 2nd beast, the harlot that summoned all her daughters to the final rally.

The way the devil operates is that he creates two fronts, one that he funds to create the conflict, say for example Isis and then on the other front he proclaims peace and unity as an incentive while he is using his tool at the other end to do the pushing to leave people no choice but to come to the table by hook or by crook.

It is basically setting up the least resistant path that rationale people would take, but they are none the wiser that the person making the peace is also creating the conflict to coercively encourage people to see his ways in the face of circumstances that he created, but hey they who come on board were not to know he is the other hand behind Isis.

So the 10 patriarchal kings when they find out, they will not be impressed that they have been duped.

Berean777 said:

Preterists say that the old covenant waxed and waned until it was completely dissolved in 70AD, where Jesus's second coming was not literal but from a spiritual judgement point of view.

The fact remains that the resurrection of Christ would signal the end of the old covenant, because he said so.



The condition and ultimatum to say blessed is he who came in the name of the Lord as far as the nation of Israel is concerned was the three day sign that was given to them pointing to his resurrection and also as was also given to the Men of Nineveh, if they were to avert destruction. So at Christ's resurrection the Old Covenant was already dissolved and replaced by the new covenant.

In fact Jesus wants them of the only sign they would be given twice on two different occasions and when the last occurred in the verse below, he made a point of it by abruptly leaving them. So when the vail was twain into two down the middle this signalled the separation from the old to the new, so it was in with the new and out with the old.

Click to expand...

Not one jot or tittle would fail of the Law UNTIL all was fulfilled.

At Christ's resurrection, all of Israel's promises were not ALL fulfilled yet including the Resurrection, the hope of Israel, that Paul was bound, chained to, and (because of) persecuted to preach. Neither was the Destruction of Jerusalem aka Heaven and Earth (Daniel 12:1-2, Daniel 12:6-7 & Matthew 5:17-18) fulfilled at the cross.

Revelation 6:12-14
12 Then I watched while the Lamb opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black as sackcloth. The full moon became red like blood. 13 The stars in the sky fell to the earth like a fig tree dropping its figs when the wind blows. 14 The sky was split in the middle and both sides rolled up like a scroll. And every mountain and island was moved from its place.

Hehehe Hollywood at its finest hour. I guess they won't need their clothes where they are going.

random person said:

Every promise to Israel had to be fulfilled before the Law and Mosaic Covenant passed away INCLUDING THE RESURRECTION.

My eschatology imposed a generation between the crucifixation and the resurrection precisely at the passing of the Old Covenant.

Your eschatology has imposed 2,000 (and growing) years between the crucifixation and the resurrection well beyond the passing of the Old Covenant. I guess Israel was left out one of its promises in the Law.

But we both agree on one point, the resurrection occurs at the second coming.

Click to expand...

But the resurrection that you imply happened in 70AD was a spiritual one that was a mere state of mind, not one that is a literal one post death, in a body that is like our Lord's. Having said that you even believe that the Lord has now reverted to being a spirit, which flies in the face of scripture and not to mention that the great harvest is not a one off reaping in the 1st century nor is it a 2000 years in the making venture. The great harvest has been happening for the last 2000 years from when the graves were opened after Christ's resurrection as declared in Matthew 27:52-53 even until now.

The Hebrews writer states that no one can recieve their eternal inheritance until the witness first dies (literally) because the context is blood covenant which applies to drinking from the bitter cup of Christ, which is physical death and not some Christian Scientist state of mind regarding death, that isn't real because there is no reality of it.

Full Preterists embrace a state of mind concept similar to the Christian Scientists who believe that death doesn't exist and is only an error in one's mind and Preterists alike say we are victorious with Christ and so death doesn't apply to us. So Preterists version of death is denying the reality that continues to happen with much mourning and sorrow around the world. Preterists have realised the same mind set as the Christian Scientists.