Then how can he be the beast in 70AD?
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, and I thought the beast was to be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming? (Allegedly 70ad)
I didn't say he was the beast in 70AD
Read Rev 13, there are two beasts.
(Rev 13:11) Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
Vespasian was the emperor in 70AD
I don't see any that explain that Nero can be the only one that is the "one is".
Sometimes the beast represents a kingdom, sometimes a particular person, sometimes it is seven kings with seven heads. The beast is said to have a number that can be calculated that is that of a man.
And then there's Rev 17:11
(Rev 17:11) The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
So, at times, the beast is described in detail, and at other times very generically.
Sometimes the beast is a kingdom, sometimes it's one specific king.
(Rev 17:10) They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.
Five have fallen (those would be the first 5 Caesars)
Nero was the 6th Caesar.
So, that would make Nero the king who is described as "one is"
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Still waiting for you to:
-identify this "everyone" that saw this "un physical" Saviour return in AD 70, who never "touched planet earth," and how the Roman army was the second coming
"Jesus never physically returned, and never will physically return to planet earth after He ascended to Heaven"-Preterist deceiver Tet.
vs.
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
"Everyone" that saw Him, according to Craigie, was Josephus, and Wikipedia. Wait....According to Craigie the Clown, he did not return physically, but all of Jerusalem saw him.. And, according to Craigie the Clown, signs are invisible...
Wait...
Vs.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD viathe Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Hebrews 9:28 KJV
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Craigie the Clown: The Roman army was looking for him-that is the "them" above. My infallible AD 70/Pteterist "teachers" taught me,like Hank Hanegraaf, from whom I copy'npaste/spam.
-identify these infallible teachers that you claim teach you.
-answer whether you said this, lying:
"You're denying that your belief system (Dispensationalism) was invented by John Nelson Darby, and that it didn't exist before Darby invented it in 1830."-Tellalie
Vs.
"That's not my argument.
I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tet.
“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.
-explain why you assert that you follow Paul, but are unemployed, and thus, are an infidel, and do not follow Paul
-explain why you, on record, assert that everyone is saved
-explain why you propositioned me, and attempted to set me up with your wife
-explain why you plagiarize Gentry, Russell, Hanegraaf......
-explain why you assert that everyone is saved
"sit on a man made throne...man made temple"-Craigie the Clown
Tell us, Preterist con "man"- was the cross "man made?" Was the tabernacle, in the wilderness, "man made?" The Lord God did dwell in the tabernacle-you did know that, did you not, sweetie(rhetorical q)? Was the temple, in the OT, "man made?" Was the temple, in early Acts, "man made?" From what "man made" church were you kicked out?
Define "God made" cross/temple/tabernacle............
He won't touch that question, or any of the above..
I predict you will do the same thing as you have done for 5 years, and as all devil boys do, is deny, be quiet, punt, as your daddy the devil told you, and that is not give an answer because you don't like your only option for an answer.
Not a peep, from the weasel.
whitestone
Well-known member
Great, we both agree that the apostles taught the 1st century church that they were to give honor to the Governor,authorities,kings ect. as set over them by God.
And where I'm getting the group a,b, thing from is that you are telling us that in ad66-70 one set of people received the mark,worshiped the image ect. and that by ad70 they received the wrath of God and were destroyed by God via Titus because of it(Revelation 13). And you saying that the other group did not receive the wrath of God because they didn't. So two groups A and B either way we look at it if your saying these scriptures were fulfilled in ad70 then one of them had to have received it while the other did not.
I do agree though that the Apostles did (not) tell their disciples to worship Caesar as God nor forbid them to use their money to buy and sell with. This though should be a huge clue to you though because if they had thought that any of the Caesars of Rome were the beast that was, was not yet is then they would have been causing them to receive the mark and so then cause them(the Christians)to have the wrath of God poured on them also.
Again if Titus himself is said to have said "There is no merit in vanquishing a people forsaken by their own God" then Titus his own self did not think that the Jews inside or involved in the Jewish revolt worshiped Caesar(Vespasian at that time) nor Rome as "God" Titus himself had to have believed that they worshiped "the God of Israel" instead.
So,so far you have said that they were destroyed in ad70 and that ended/fulfilled these scriptures in Revelation. Now if so then they had to have had the mark of the beast but the words "Jewish revolt" prove that if Caesar was the beast they didn't give him honor,nor wish to obey him.
So even if they did receive his money/mark before they decided to revolt then God is destroying/judging a nation who are "repenting" that is they had by then turned and stopped using his money/mark and were not bowing down to him. See how ad70osm has this all backward?
The beast (Nero) was given 42 months
(Rev 13:5-6) The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
This warfare began in 64AD. It wasn't just against the unbelieving Jews, it marked the beginning of when Rome began persecuting Christians. This is when Peter and Paul were killed by Nero.
Nero then died right after the 42 months in 68AD
See above, the persecutions of Christians began at this time.
(Rev 13:7) It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them....
The Christ rejecting Jews in Jerusalem were NOT God's Holy people.
As I tried to explain earlier, the Jews were worshipping money.
This money worship (idolatry) is what led the Jews to reject Jesus and kill Him.
John saw a vision into the future. What he saw was the image of Caesar being worshipped at the temple in 70Ad
For some reason you have it in your head that the Jews were supposed to have been worshipping Caesar. That's not the case.
No, Luke 19:44 makes it clear the Jews and Jerusalem suffered God's wrath because they rejected their Messiah.
Why do you think the Jews and Pharisees rejected their Messiah?
| Victorinus [d. c. A.D. 304], who wrote the first commentary on Revelation . . . at Revelation 10:11 notes: “He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God. |
| Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23). Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” |
| 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 who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. |
|
| In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse Jerome - Lives of Illustrious Men 9 |
Domitian wasn't emperor till 81, and died in 96.
Since the historical narratives taught that John was banished to Patmos by Domitian, and he wrote Revelation during his banishment on Patmos, he couldn't have written it before AD81 and certainly not before AD70.
I warned you to stop plagiarizing, little Wimpy. And I also warned you to stop "following man made inventions."
So you don't believe Nero is the beast with the number 666?
Make up your mind.
ClimateSanity
New member
Didn't the toy model kits manufacturers quit making glue you could get high on? I'm sure when you're not on TOL you're building one of those. It's just seems you've been sniffing the glue.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You need to take a deep breath, hum a few verses of Santa Lucia, and crack open a Huckleberry Smash.
Am I getting through to you , fella?
ClimateSanity
New member
. Why not a nectarine crush?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I think Nectarine Crush keeps him calm when he is already calm.
But Huckleberry Smash will simmer him down when he is running hot.