Which Generation?

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Nero fails to meet quite a few Scriptural criteria for the beast:

1. He was never in Jerusalem in his life.
2. He had no miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick.
3. He was appointed as Caesar & confirmed by the Senate; he did NOT overthrow 3 other rulers to gain power.
4. He did not issue any mark of the beast that was implanted in the right hand or forehead.
5. He did not rule most of the world.
6. The RCC didn't then exist, so it didn't try to control him.
7. He was not cast alive into hell; he was stabbed by his scribe Ephphroditus, at his own command.

Yes, Nero was a bad boy, but he was NOT the beast. The TRUE beast must fulfill EVERY Scriptural criterion for the beast, TO THE LETTER.

As for your article, it's pure bunk. I've seen all that garbage before. Nero was no more the beast than Hitler was; the TRUE beast hasn't yet come to power, if he's even been born yet.

Your first error is that Revelation uses Beast interchangeably. Context often decides. The Beast could be referring to Nero. Other times it is referring to Rome...
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Your first error is that Revelation uses Beast interchangeably. Context often decides. The Beast could be referring to Nero. Other times it is referring to Rome...
Nero was not the beast, as I proved. And 'beast' refers to the antichrist or his empire, neither of which have yet come.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Nero was not the beast, as I proved. And 'beast' refers to the antichrist or his empire, neither of which have yet come.

You have only proven what you already believe. And you have proven it only to yourself...

For starters:
1. He was never in Jerusalem in his life. (Fulfilled by the Roman Army)
2. He had no miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (Fulfilled in Rome)
 

robycop3

Well-known member
You have only proven what you already believe. And you have proven it only to yourself...

For starters:
1. He was never in Jerusalem in his life. (Fulfilled by the Roman Army)
2. He had no miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (Fulfilled in Rome)
1. How silly! Nero was not the Roman army.
2. Who was that miracle-working false prophet?
3. When was Nero's statue set up in the temple?
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
1. How silly! Nero was not the Roman army.
2. Who was that miracle-working false prophet?
3. When was Nero's statue set up in the temple?

The Beast is both Rome and also Nero...
I don't need to know that... Scripture doesn't have to answer every question...
The Roman Army entered the Temple...
 

robycop3

Well-known member
The Beast is both Rome and also Nero...
I don't need to know that... Scripture doesn't have to answer every question...
The Roman Army entered the Temple...
No; you're simply wrong.
Nero never entered Jerusalem in his life.
Neither he nor the Roman army had a miracle-working false prophet who could make a statue talk.
The Roman army did not set up a statue in the temple.
Again... you're simply WRONG.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
No; you're simply wrong.
Nero never entered Jerusalem in his life.
Neither he nor the Roman army had a miracle-working false prophet who could make a statue talk.
The Roman army did not set up a statue in the temple.
Again... you're simply WRONG.


Okay, I decided to do some research and pose your questions to some friends of mine... Here is the Collective response...

I assume you (robycop3) are bringing your own interpretations to these texts, which is why you are confused by the postmill preterist interpretation. A complete study of our interpretation would allow you to understand thoroughly, but this is not what that is. I am providing direct answers to questions regarding presumed passages. If you want a solid understanding of the postmill preterist perspective then I can recommend some books and videos for your further education. Please be ready to set aside your presuppositions and be open to learning what we believe. This will prevent you from the error of the straw-man fallacy.

1. Nero was never in Jerusalem in his life.
(Matt. 24:15 or 2 Thess. 2:4) if Matt 24:15 the "abomination of desolation" being spoken of is the Roman armies, not the Emperor himself. It is an abomination that causes desolation, which is exactly what happened. Luke's gospel makes it much clearer (Luke 21:20). If 2 Thess 2:4 then you should know that in the first century, emperor worship was quite popular and especially promoted by the Emperor himself. Nero, and certainly those prior and after him, could all be seen as one who will exalt himself above all so-called gods and so seats himself in the place, or temple, of God. It's specifically Nero because at the time of Paul's righting this letter (believed to be AD 52) Nero is being raised by his mother, so he is not yet revealed. Agrippina, Nero's mother, is also plotting the death of Claudius so that Nero can usurp him. This plot takes time which explains the restraint.

2. He had no miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (Revelation 13:11-15) the text never mentions the beast from the sea recruiting or advocating the beast from the land, though the reverse is mentioned. What is happening in this passage is that the beast from the land is apostate Israel. Remember what the Jews said at Jesus' trial? "We have no king but Caeser." And in Acts 17:6-7 "These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, named Jesus!” The Jews were the greatest threat to the early church and this is evidenced throughout the New Testament. Jesus calls them the children of Satan, their synagogues are called synagogues of Satan, they deny that Jesus is the Christ which is the definition of an antichrist. They are beasts from the land which is a Jewish reference to the holy land. This is a poetic/apocalyptic linguistic term used in the Old Testament and that is fitting with the context of Revelation because the book uses OT references very heavily. Some call Revelation a plagiarism because of the constant OT themes and references. So to answer the question, yes, Nero and the other emperors did have the Jews as a sort of sidekick, at least in the fight against Christians.

3. He was appointed as Caeser & confirmed by the Senate; he did NOT overthrow 3 other rulers to gain power (Daniel 7) this is a difficult passage to be sure. But I have found the interpretation of the little horn being Nero to be the most consistent. Specifically verse 8 "I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots." So the verse says that the three kings before the little horn were plucked up by the roots. This is symbolic for an unnatural demise. The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius claimed Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius all died unnatural deaths and they were the emperors before Nero. The verse does not claim that Nero killed them, just that they were uprooted before him.

4. He did not issue any mark of the beast that was implanted in the right hand or forehead. (Revelation 13:16-18) This passage, more than others, has been the cause of so much hysteria and rightful criticism of the Christian faith. Newspaper exegesis has led to so many different ideas of what the mark could mean and it's very sad. Even non-christians are superstitious of the number 666 (six hundred sixty six). The context of the passage should be noted, it is worship of the beast. The beast from the land is inciting the people to worship the beast from the sea. Their sign of worship is a mark on their right hand and forehead. Where else do you hear of a mark on the right hand and forehead? Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. This is the greatest commandment, you shall love the LORD with your whole being. To show you love him you will worship Him in your actions (the mark on your hand) and worship Him in your thoughts (the mark on your forehead). It has already been established that emperors wanted to be worshipped as gods so it's not a stretch to say Nero demanded people to worship him instead of God. He demanded acts of obedience and thoughts of adoration.

5. He did not rule most of the world. (Revelation 13:3) Ya know what, you're right. Nero didn't rule most of the world. What's being employed here is hyperbolic language. Like how Luke says the emperor sent out a decree to tax the whole world (Luke 2:1) or when the Pharisees say that Jesus is leading the whole world after Him (John 12:19) or how Paul says that the gospel had already gone out to all the world (Colossians 1:6) and to every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23) in his day. So this is not an uncommon phrase for the bible, the NT or even Revelation. Revelation is full of hyperbolic language and that doesn't make any of it less true.

6. He was not cast alive into hell; he was stabbed by his scribe Ephphroditus, at his own command. (Revelation 19:20) It seems there is another misunderstanding here. In chapter 20:4-6 the saints are described as having been resurrected from the dead, the first resurrection, referring to regeneration. The second death mentioned in verse 14 is the end of the line, the lake of fire. Those in hell are dead (without regeneration) but still waiting to be thrown into the lake of fire which is described as the second death. Its really not complicated and very easy to understand. Nero was certainly not regenerated and the bible describes him as being thrown into the lake of fire when he dies. There is nothing wrong with this exception.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Okay, I decided to do some research and pose your questions to some friends of mine... Here is the Collective response...

I assume you (robycop3) are bringing your own interpretations to these texts, which is why you are confused by the postmill preterist interpretation. A complete study of our interpretation would allow you to understand thoroughly, but this is not what that is. I am providing direct answers to questions regarding presumed passages. If you want a solid understanding of the postmill preterist perspective then I can recommend some books and videos for your further education. Please be ready to set aside your presuppositions and be open to learning what we believe. This will prevent you from the error of the straw-man fallacy.
The error is pret guesswork, manufacturing history, & reducing literal Scripture to "figurative/symbolic' status to try to cover the fact that the prophesied events haven't yet happened. Evidently, the friends you consulted are all prets.
1. Nero was never in Jerusalem in his life.
(Matt. 24:15 or 2 Thess. 2:4) if Matt 24:15 the "abomination of desolation" being spoken of is the Roman armies, not the Emperor himself. It is an abomination that causes desolation, which is exactly what happened. Luke's gospel makes it much clearer (Luke 21:20). If 2 Thess 2:4 then you should know that in the first century, emperor worship was quite popular and especially promoted by the Emperor himself. Nero, and certainly those prior and after him, could all be seen as one who will exalt himself above all so-called gods and so seats himself in the place, or temple, of God. It's specifically Nero because at the time of Paul's righting this letter (believed to be AD 52) Nero is being raised by his mother, so he is not yet revealed. Agrippina, Nero's mother, is also plotting the death of Claudius so that Nero can usurp him. This plot takes time which explains the restraint.
No, the abomination of desolation will be similar to that which was committed by Antiochus Epiphanes in the 160s BC where he entered the temple, set up a statue of Zeus in it, & sacrificed a pig upon the altar. The only thing he didn't do that the antichrist will do is declare himself God. (The AC likely won't sacrifice a pig; he'll simply stop the sacrifices altogether.)
2. He had no miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (Revelation 13:11-15) the text never mentions the beast from the sea recruiting or advocating the beast from the land, though the reverse is mentioned. What is happening in this passage is that the beast from the land is apostate Israel. Remember what the Jews said at Jesus' trial? "We have no king but Caeser." And in Acts 17:6-7 "These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, named Jesus!” The Jews were the greatest threat to the early church and this is evidenced throughout the New Testament. Jesus calls them the children of Satan, their synagogues are called synagogues of Satan, they deny that Jesus is the Christ which is the definition of an antichrist. They are beasts from the land which is a Jewish reference to the holy land. This is a poetic/apocalyptic linguistic term used in the Old Testament and that is fitting with the context of Revelation because the book uses OT references very heavily. Some call Revelation a plagiarism because of the constant OT themes and references. So to answer the question, yes, Nero and the other emperors did have the Jews as a sort of sidekick, at least in the fight against Christians.
Nupe! the beast from the land will be a man who will be a false prophet, able to do certain miracles by Satan's power, such as call down lightning & make his boss' statue speak when his boss is present. And apostate israel won't be cast alive into the LOF. You & your friends sure did stretch & distort those Scriptures ! !
3. He was appointed as Caeser & confirmed by the Senate; he did NOT overthrow 3 other rulers to gain power (Daniel 7) this is a difficult passage to be sure. But I have found the interpretation of the little horn being Nero to be the most consistent. Specifically verse 8 "I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots." So the verse says that the three kings before the little horn were plucked up by the roots. This is symbolic for an unnatural demise. The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius claimed Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius all died unnatural deaths and they were the emperors before Nero. The verse does not claim that Nero killed them, just that they were uprooted before him.
By clear implication, the 10 horns were all there at once in Daniel 7. This is confirmed in Rev. 17. While rev doesn't mention it, evidently, 3 of those kings, when they do receive power, won't want to give it to the beast, so he overthrows them. Obviously, there weren't 10 Caesars at once!
4. He did not issue any mark of the beast that was implanted in the right hand or forehead. (Revelation 13:16-18) This passage, more than others, has been the cause of so much hysteria and rightful criticism of the Christian faith. Newspaper exegesis has led to so many different ideas of what the mark could mean and it's very sad. Even non-christians are superstitious of the number 666 (six hundred sixty six). The context of the passage should be noted, it is worship of the beast. The beast from the land is inciting the people to worship the beast from the sea. Their sign of worship is a mark on their right hand and forehead. Where else do you hear of a mark on the right hand and forehead? Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. This is the greatest commandment, you shall love the LORD with your whole being. To show you love him you will worship Him in your actions (the mark on your hand) and worship Him in your thoughts (the mark on your forehead). It has already been established that emperors wanted to be worshipped as gods so it's not a stretch to say Nero demanded people to worship him instead of God. He demanded acts of obedience and thoughts of adoration.
Again, ANOTHER GREAT STRETCH & GOOFY INTERP OF A SCRIPTURE ! ! There'll simply be some kind of "mark" on the right hand or forehead, most likely some sorta implanted microchip.(That tech exists now, & will only be improved.) Yes, the FP will order the people to worship the antichrist, who declared himself God in the temple & who will sit as God in it. And all who take the mark will do just that !
5. He did not rule most of the world. (Revelation 13:3) Ya know what, you're right. Nero didn't rule most of the world. What's being employed here is hyperbolic language. Like how Luke says the emperor sent out a decree to tax the whole world (Luke 2:1) or when the Pharisees say that Jesus is leading the whole world after Him (John 12:19) or how Paul says that the gospel had already gone out to all the world (Colossians 1:6) and to every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23) in his day. So this is not an uncommon phrase for the bible, the NT or even Revelation. Revelation is full of hyperbolic language and that doesn't make any of it less true.
So "all' doesn't mean "ALL"? Who does "ALL peoples, nations, & tongues" leave out?
6. He was not cast alive into hell; he was stabbed by his scribe Ephphroditus, at his own command. (Revelation 19:20) It seems there is another misunderstanding here. In chapter 20:4-6 the saints are described as having been resurrected from the dead, the first resurrection, referring to regeneration. The second death mentioned in verse 14 is the end of the line, the lake of fire. Those in hell are dead (without regeneration) but still waiting to be thrown into the lake of fire which is described as the second death. Its really not complicated and very easy to understand. Nero was certainly not regenerated and the bible describes him as being thrown into the lake of fire when he dies. There is nothing wrong with this exception.
PLENTY wrong with it! Those who will be cast into hell at the GWT judgment will have already died, while Rev is careful to note that the beast & FP will be cast ALIVE into hell, and are still there when the rest of the wicked are also cast in.
No, Nero was NOT the beast. While he was a bad boy, there have been many worse. Hitler came much-closer to being the beast than Nero. He overthrew 3 rulers, (Schuschnigg of Austria, Hacha of Czechoslovakia, & Schleicher in Germany itself) was boosted to full power by the RCC members of the reichstag, who vainly hoped to control him for their doing him a favor & passing the "Enabling Act", & was unbeatable in battle for awhile-and, of course, godless & totally evil. There was Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Stalin, & Pol Pot, among others who were more-evil than Nero, or who ruled larger empires. And once more, the TRUE beast/antichrist MUST fulfill EVERY Scriptural prophecy about him TO THE LETTER, & Nero failed this standard on many counts.

Once, again, you pulled a "Casey At The Bat". The false pret doctrine strikes out again.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
The pastor of the church my wife and I are attending preached a sermon from Deuteronomy 10:12-14. I read the following verse and that verse should be apt here…


Yet on your fathers did the Lord set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day.[Deut. 10:15]

Now, is “this day” as in today, or is “this day” referencing the time when Deuteronomy was written? Obviously it was referencing that day and time and not a future day. The reason I say this is because the usage of “this generation” is used the same exact way. “This generation” was referencing the time it was written and not a future “this generation”.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
The pastor of the church my wife and I are attending preached a sermon from Deuteronomy 10:12-14. I read the following verse and that verse should be apt here…


Yet on your fathers did the Lord set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day.[Deut. 10:15]

Now, is “this day” as in today, or is “this day” referencing the time when Deuteronomy was written? Obviously it was referencing that day and time and not a future day. The reason I say this is because the usage of “this generation” is used the same exact way. “This generation” was referencing the time it was written and not a future “this generation”.
However, THE PROPHESIED ESCHATOLOGICAL EVENTS DID NOT OCCUR in that generation, as is quite-obvious from the fact that the world is basically the same as it was in 65 AD and 71 AD. What DID occur was the "days of vengeance" upon that generation of Jews, as Jesus prophesied.

Just no getting by the FACT that the eschatological events have NOT yet occurred.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
And yet further proof of futurism straightjacketing someone.
No straitjacket at all-If those events haven't occurred, just saying they have doesn't change reality.
I have asked you repeatedly to show us from history when/where those events have occurred, and no real answers yet, only some stuff that you or some other pret made up.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
JESUS SAID IN REV. 19 THAT WHEN HE RETURNS, HE WILL DEAL WITH THE BEAST, FALSE PROPHET, & THEIR ARMY, THEN RULE THE WORLD WITH A ROD OF IRON. IF THE BEAST HAS ALREADY COME & GONE, WHY ISN'T JESUS NOW HERE, RULING THE WORLD ?????????????????
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
JESUS SAID IN REV. 19 THAT WHEN HE RETURNS, HE WILL DEAL WITH THE BEAST, FALSE PROPHET, & THEIR ARMY, THEN RULE THE WORLD WITH A ROD OF IRON. IF THE BEAST HAS ALREADY COME & GONE, WHY ISN'T JESUS NOW HERE, RULING THE WORLD ?????????????????

Jesus is ruling... Your view of Jesus is anemic...
 
Top