What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Anti-Christ Revisited

You are right about me saying it is Nero. There are two ways this is interpreted.

1- Actually Augustus is considered to be the first emperor of Rome and not Julius. Here is the order i have always seen them. These are the five Roman Julian Emperors.

1-Augustus
2-Tiberius
3-Caligula
4-Claudius
5-Nero

2-Some have said that only certain Caesars were actually considered Kings by how they were appointed. I found this very interesting but can't remember where i saw it. If i come across it again i will post it here. And the number of Kings work out there too as i believe Nero is #4 in that theory. I really want to come across that again. Nero supposedly died from a sword wound from the neck under the chin with the sword going into his head.

 
I see where youi are coming from. I understand the first five beast empires to be...

the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks.

That would make Rome number six if I am correct.

:-D
 
Since i have come across the concept that Nero was the antichrist, which i saw back in 1978. I have read quite a bit about him. Another thing is that the early church taught that Nero would come back from the dead in the future and be the antichrist. That can't be a coincidence. So if the early church taught it then it must have been Paul teaching them.
Also 2nd thess hints that it is Nero.

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

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.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

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:

Paul wrote this in AD 54 when Nero was in power.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

He was saying that he was already here but it wasn't his time to be revealed yet.


 
OK, I am willing to entertain this. Both Cameron and Judy, as well as myself, believe ancestry plays an important role in trying to determining the antichrist's identity. What do we know about Nero's bloodine?
 
Vic said:
OK, I am willing to entertain this. Both Cameron and Judy, as well as myself, believe ancestry plays an important role in trying to determining the antichrist's identity. What do we know about Nero's bloodine?
Click to expand...

As far as bloodline i can't find anywhere in the bible that says anything about that being a qualification. I guess it would be interesting to see ,but i never studied anything about it.

The only qualifications i have seen for being the beast are,
1-He must be a Roman and Nero is.
2-He had to be King before AD 96 and Nero was.
3-His name has to add up to 666 ,and in Aramaic and Hebrew Neros name does.
4-He had to have a fatal wound to the head and Nero does.

Nero was considered the most cruel dictator ever ,especially against the Christians. Everything points at him at being the antichrist. Go ahead and do a thorough search on Nero. I did one over 25 years ago, so i have forgotten a lot of it i'm sure. The guy that i first learned this from taught prophecy for over 50 years. He taught pre-trib for the first 40 years until the Lord showed him things he said that didn't add up with the pre-trib theory. He gives a really good case about America being destroyed when Russia attacks Israel.
 
One other thing i forgot to say. You say that you think mentioning seven kings is relevent and you are right. But only because it says the beast is the eighth and is one of the seven. It wouldn't make sense to mention just the five and then say he is the eighth. there would have been a gap to explain. It is just putting them in the order that they are. Remember that in Daniel it says it is the Fourth Kingdom. So what we have is the Fourth Kingdom and the eighth king.
 
As far as bloodline i can't find anywhere in the bible that says anything about that being a qualification. I guess it would be interesting to see ,but i never studied anything about it.
Click to expand...
This is the very reason I wanted to discuss Ezekiel. He presents probably one one the best OT examples of Antichrist (Gog). We learn from scripture that Magog can be traced back to Japheth. I believe from reading some End Times prophecy that antichrist most likely will come from a Japhethic lineage.

It is believed by some ancestry experts that Hitler also comes from the same bloodline. We know he was born in Austria. This is the very region Japheth's sons settled in. We also know he died of a gunshot wound to the head. Cameron pointed out some very interesting things as well in his last post. He was a great military leader, was extremely anti-semitic, even claimed to be Christian, Roman Catholic, to be precise. I'm just about convinced Nazi Germany is the seventh beast empire. I tie this all together and this is how I come up with why and what I believe.

I posted this in the Ezekiel thread. I think it ties in nicely to this post and this topic.

Ezekiel was mentioned in another post. This is where we need to start, since Ezekiel's name for Antichrist is Gog. We read that Gog was prince over the land of Magog. Magog was Japheth’s son; who was the son of Noah. Josephus mentions that this nomadic family set roots in the north, most likely in the areas we now know as eastern Germany and western Russia. They may have migrated to other parts, (including Rome) but this is where they are when the prophesy was revealed
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing what Paul and the early church preached and taught. I also believe in progressive revelation, to a point. Things about End Times were revealed to Paul that were not yet known or fully understood. Jesus did a great job in Matthew of 'priming the pump' so to speak. But when we read what was revealed to John in Revelation, I believe we get a much better picture of End Times. It helps us wrap a lot of things up.

Just my thoughts on things. 8-)

Oh, my thoughts on this... everything in Scripture has its reasons for being there.

It wouldn't make sense to mention just the five and then say he is the eighth.
Click to expand...
It would have been just as easy for the messenger to tell John "a beast with many heads" appeared. An eight beast would never have to be mentioned. There is a good reason why seven heads were mentioned. Seven is a significant number in Scripture. It is a very special number to the Jews (Israel). But I'm about to go off the beaten path here, so I will shut up. LOL :-D
 
Remember that in Daniel it says it is the Fourth Kingdom. So what we have is the Fourth Kingdom and the eighth king.
Click to expand...
Ah, we studied ths a couple of years ago in Bible study. I can't find my notes :crying: . If I remember correctly, didn't Daniel 'skip' the first few beasts in his prophecy? Why was that?
 
Vic said:
Remember that in Daniel it says it is the Fourth Kingdom. So what we have is the Fourth Kingdom and the eighth king.
Click to expand...
Ah, we studied ths a couple of years ago in Bible study. I can't find my notes :crying: . If I remember correctly, didn't Daniel 'skip' the first few beasts in his prophecy? Why was that?
Click to expand...

OK Vic, Lets look at the kingdoms, not the kings for a moment.
Daniel 2
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Here Daniel was shown the four kingdoms of man and then a fifth kingdom of the Lord that lasts forever.

These are the only kingdoms, there are no others between the Romans and the lords. And the Roman is actually a revised Roman kingdom if it is the anichrists kingdom.

The beast kings in revelation are just that , they are kings , not kingdoms.
Rev,17 NIV
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.




 
Ok Cameron, you think it would take "to much" supernatural power for it to be Nero. How much difference would it be to raise somebody from the dead 2000 years old as compared to raising somebody who is say 100 years in the grave. If you look how much supernatural power the antichrist has...fire from heaven and it says no one will be able to make war with him. It says the devil gives him his power and authority. Also it says he is coming out of the bottomless pit so i don't think age will effect it whatsoever. Look at what happened when Jesus died.
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying. Like Vic, I see the references to 5 have fallen... as references to beast empires that have historically controlled Israel's people. I see this as the most natural and customary understanding of the imagery based on the usage of Daniel in similar sequential imagery.

Regarding supernatural power, I have my doubts about Satan's ability. The Hitler option and future option require no "real" resussitation. The Histler option requires extrensive knowledge of DNA science - a realm of the physcial that no doubt an angel could comprehend and manipulate.

The same is true of the future option. So though I may not rule out your Nero option, I have doubts about it.

Regarding what the Early church said, I have not yet read of their mentioning of Nero as the future Antichrist. I've only seen them discuss the Antichrist as still future.
 
The beast kings in revelation are just that , they are kings , not kingdoms.
Rev,17 NIV
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
Click to expand...

Rev 17:1 ESV
...great prostitute who is seated on many waters, ...
Rev 17:15 And the angel said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages

Hence the heads of kings are kings who control kingdoms of peoples, nations, etc.

"great" babylon, like "great" Euphrates" and "great" city refer to more than just anyone of these places. "great" signifies the ultimate fulfillment.
Rev. 16:19 gives us the definition of "great" Babylon.

She is the "cities of the nations"
 
Yes Cameron, but the difference is that the Kings are of one kingdom..Roman.. and are not of other kingdoms. the seven heads represent the seven kings who were once kings over the city of the seven mountains. Seven kings from the same kingdom.

LDR
 
LDR,

Yes, but isn't it assumption to associate the following:

Rome = city of seven mountains through the modern idiom/description of Rome as the city of seven hills?

Where it would be less of an assumption to associate the 7 kings of 7 heads with 7 mountains, each mountain = a kingdom as the Daniel 2:35-45 symbology shows: Christ's kingdom becomes a mountain that covers the earth?

Rev. 17:9 ...the seven heads are seven mountains...

I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, just that there are other possibilities that can also be considered.

In this way if we use the Daniel interpretation of symbols then,

Rev. 17:17 ...and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.

Means the heads (mountains) are kingdoms and

the horns are kings per Dan. 7:7 & 7:24

Each beast is a kingdom with a kings or a head = mountain (Rev. 17:9) and even Daniel combines the two concepts:

Dan 7:23 "Thus he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth...

Dan 7:17 'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth.


So, in my opinion, not that it must be right, is that the mountains refer to kingdoms and peoples and correlate directly to the "waters" of Rev. 17:1.

But I'm willing to be open-ended regarding your perspective, but I can't really say it must be Nero.
 
I understand what you are saying Cameron, but there are a few things that seem clear ( to me anyway ). One is that it says the king is the eighth king and is one of the former seven kings ,whereas in Daniel it says the Fourth kingdom. It would seem to me they would match up.

Here in Daniel the beast it is talking about is definately a Kingdom...the fourth kingdom,
Daniel 7
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Out of this kingdom arises 10 rulers or nations united, but one comes after them which is the antichrist.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

So it seems that the ten horns or nations are coming out of this fourth kingdom.

Rev, 17
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city
, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

So here is how i see it. (right or wrong).

There is a fourth kingdoms as Daniel says

There is an eighth king who was a former king that comes out of this kingdom.

There is a city that is called the city of seven mountains that is believed to be rome.

The seven mountains represent the seven heads and it also represents the seven kings who once ruled over that city.

I have a hard time believing it is talking about seven kingdoms over rome when it does say kings. Whereas in Daniel it does say the fourth kingdom.
To me it seems the bible makes a clear distinction beteen the two. I believe it is seven kings of the Roman empire. I really believe there is no one else it can be but Nero.

LDR
 
A question that just occured to me... do these "Kings" have to be literal Kings? Can't they be symbolic of seven major empires; seven empires who controled and/or conquered Israel... and it's people? They were again, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and... Nazi Germany.

A quick note...

What we studied in the book Babylon is that even in John’s day there were no longer seven prophetic mountains. Five of them had already fallen (Rev 17:10). This left only two. Therefore, this cannot be and is not a reference to Rome. Consequently, the revived Roman empire is not in view. Also, we cannot take our inspiration from secular literature such as the story of Romulus and Remus or the Iliad and the Odyssey, but only the word of God. Nowhere in the Bible is Rome referred to as “the city on seven hills†or any similar thing.

Unfortunately, the King James Version of the Bible (and NKJV) is responsible for much confusion here. This version introduces an extra word in the text which is in no Greek manuscript that I can find, including the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was taken. It is this extra word which produces much error. This is the word “there.†In the NKJV chapter 17:9,10 we read: “The seven heads are seven mountains...There are also seven kings.†Putting the word “there†in this verse disassociates the mountains and the kings grammatically. Now instead of being equal, they are additional. So then when you read: “Five have fallen,†this could refer only to the kings, leaving the seven mountains intact.

But in fact, in the original Greek texts, the word “there†does not appear. All of them read instead: “The seven heads are seven mountains...and are seven kings.†The heads, mountains and kings are all equal. So then when we read that “five have fallen†this not only refers to the kings but to the mountains and heads as well. This then is not a reference to Rome or to the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
http://agrainofwheat.com/antc1.htm

Here are the verses intact...

KJV
Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

LITV (Literal interpretation of the Textus Receptus)
9 Here is the mind having wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains, where the woman sits on them.
10 And the kings are seven. The five fell, and the one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he does come, he must remain a little.
 
I still believe that the bible is clear when it says kings and kingdoms. Anyway i think we have reached an impass here so i'm just gonna stop at this point since you know what i believe and i know what you believe. There comes a point and time when it's time to stop and i think we have reached that point. I'm ready to move on to any other discussion that you want to though.

LDR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top