Debunking Revelation

reply to post by Good Wolf
Never did the Christians, at any one time in history, ascribe any powers sufficient to annihilate the planet itself to anyone (including nero); except to God. 666 et al is capable of doing this. During the 1st century, how could anyone dream a group of people could do this? If that wasn't prophetic, I don't know what is.

Consider this debunk debunked.

Revelation 11:18

And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth.

Sounds more like the ramblings of crazy old hermit, scared into hiding by a horrid and evil tyrant.

Until you show that the "biblical prophesy" is any different to a fanatic's predictions and that John despite the state he was in, was able to put together an actual prophesy, you should be a bit more critical.

Otherwise, it's hardly a debunked debunk.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by Good Wolf]

What is this "in hiding" stuff?

John was in PRISON, awaiting execution, on the island of Patmos when he wrote Revelation.

Not only is the idea that Nero was "The" antichrist laughable i light of prerequisite unfulfilled prophecies..

It's also IMPOSSIBLE. Nero was ruling Rome BEFORE John wrote Revelation.

The second imperial persecution of Christians began in A.D. 81 when the savage and wicked Domitian ascended to the Roman throne. Domitian saw Christianity as an unlicensed religion and ordered its persecution in A.D. 91. He issued an order stating, “No Christian, once brought before the tribunal, should be exempt from punishment.” According to many, his hatred and persecution exceeded that of Nero. Christians were brutally massacred. It is said that there spies in every house and an executioner at every door. Domitian took possession of the properties of Christians and cast them into prison. Hundreds upon hundreds were marched into the Roman Coliseum where they killed by the swords and spears of the Gladiators with the cheers of crowds in the backgrounds. It was during this time that Timothy was beaten to death.



It was during the time of Domitian’s reign that John was writing. It was an era of tribulation and persecution for Christians.

The Patmos Prisoner

[edit on 1-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]

According to wikipedia the written date was at the end of Nero's reign as he died in 68 CE. This is particularly convenient as that the writer keeps say "Soon/upon us/about to be" etc, you've heard all this before. that makes Nero's fall incredibly imminent.

Combine that with the whole 666/616 = Nero's name and you have a sure fire bet that Nero was the antichrist.

But I'm betting this discussion thread is about to get very circular.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
According to wikipedia the written date was at the end of Nero's reign as he died in 68 CE. This is particularly convenient as that the writer keeps say "Soon/upon us/about to be" etc, you've heard all this before. that makes Nero's fall incredibly imminent.

Combine that with the whole 666/616 = Nero's name and you have a sure fire bet that Nero was the antichrist.

But I'm betting this discussion thread is about to get very circular.

John was sent to Patmos and wrote revelation in 95 AD. That was after Nero's death.

IMPOSSIBLE for "THE" antichrist to have been Nero. You forget or refuse to acknowledge that Jesus Christ said that the "generation to see Israel become a nation will be the generation that sees the end of days".

WE are the last generation. Israel became a nation in 1948, and it was complete in 1967 with the capture of Jerusalem.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
According to wikipedia the written date was at the end of Nero's reign as he died in 68 CE. This is particularly convenient as that the writer keeps say "Soon/upon us/about to be" etc, you've heard all this before. that makes Nero's fall incredibly imminent.

Combine that with the whole 666/616 = Nero's name and you have a sure fire bet that Nero was the antichrist.

But I'm betting this discussion thread is about to get very circular.

you´ve entered into the late date early date debate. (sounded funny)

theres a few pieces of evidence that point to revelation being written after 70c.e.

all the arguements of it being written before seem to come from people hell bent on making nero fit the ¨beast¨

on a separate point, revelation is prophecy about finality. ultimate redemption and salvation, if the prophecy was fulfilled in nero, then where is the millenial reign?

reply to post by Good Wolf


it starts with daniel's statue that outlines the empires of the world from his time till sometime in the future.

it started with the babylonian empire
then the media persian
then the grecian
then the roman
and finally, the roman+something else (the very next one in succession, the holy roman).

the holy roman is the fifth empire.
this is where the trail is picked up in revelation.
you have the five kings (the five empires)
then you have a repeat of the fifth one. again (6th empire). again (7th empire). and finally, again. (8th empire)

this takes you up to modern times. the fifth empire fell (but didn't really fall) during the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, when temporal and political power was supposedly wrested from the hands of the papacy.

the arguments are flinging fast and heavy over who the next 3 empires are. perhaps british (6th empire) and then american (7th empire) and then what? we don't know.
whatever the case may be, the beast that was, is not, and yet is, is the holy roman empire incognito. the pope still rules most of the world via various orgs. and political ties. richest and most powerful man on the planet, bar none.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by undo]

Well if thats the case then its just a self fulfilling prophecy.

so whats the deal with 616/666=nero? just a coincidence (i'm willing to bet that the probabilities are astronomical)

and the "its about to happen" statements that can't have meant what they say according to you.

How do you get around the problem that for the most part, Nero is the best bet?

the seven horns being a good symbol of the seven hills of rome, the seven headed beast being a parallel of the caesers, the whore in purple synonymous of the cumulative sin of the roman empire.

reply to post by Good Wolf


you'll be interested to know that the word "LATEINOS" (which means "roman") is 666 in numerology in both biblical languages (hebrew and greek).

i had the same problem you did when i was reading it. i was like....wait, the abomination that maketh desolate...that already happened when this roman emperor set up a pagan statue in the holy of holies in jerusalem. etc etc. i realized that all these events were describing events that would transpire along the way and the real problem was the way it had been interpreted by eschatologists (people who do nothing but study biblical prophecy).

the text itself explains that many of these things would only be understood when the time for each fulfillment neared.

let's take the iron portion of daniel's statue.

it's the roman (pagan) empire portion of the statue.
so what's the very next thing? iron mixed with something, indicating it's the roman empire mixed with somethig that doesn't naturally combine with it -- clay, was the example.

had they known when they were compiling the books that would go into the bible, that the revelation of jesus christ was talking about them in a bad way, they would've thrown it out as heretical. afterall, those popes were just casear repackaged.

Originally posted by undo
it starts with daniel's statue that outlines the empires of the world from his time till sometime in the future.

it started with the babylonian empire
then the media persian
then the grecian
then the roman
and finally, the roman+something else (the very next one in succession, the holy roman).

wow i forgot about daniel, thank you

the holy roman is the fifth empire.
this is where the trail is picked up in revelation.
you have the five kings (the five empires)
then you have a repeat of the fifth one. again (6th empire). again (7th empire). and finally, again. (8th empire)

actually, some scholars include egypt and assyria because of their interaction with gods people.

that would make 6

- egypt
- assyria
- babylon
- medo persia
- greece
- roman

as for the 7th, i think its the US and britain.

the feet of the statue are depicted as clay and iron, and its mentioned that they dont mix. so the 7th king has qualities of roman iron (strong, direct, powrful) and qualities of clay (commonly used to describe man, so democracy?). as we know democracy and iron like totalitarianism doesnt quite mix.

also, the beast in revelation has ten horns. that means 3 heads with 2 horns.

medo persia is one
roman is a second (emporer and senate who were always fighting for power)
and america/britain.

8th king... no idea

i always suspected it may be the UN, but they dont strike me as that powerful

reply to post by miriam0566


aye but one problem arises over the use of animals in depicting the beasts, as well. none of those have been identiied as egypt. i always wondered that....what about egypt?! so can you point me to the egyptian beast?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by miriam0566

 

aye but one problem arises over the use of animals in depicting the beasts, as well. none of those have been identiied as egypt. i always wondered that....what about egypt?! so can you point me to the egyptian beast?

well the theory i have on that is when was the prophecy made?

daniel lived during the babylonian empire, so being his vision was abuot the future, he only saw beasts from babylon on. even the statue is from babylon on.

and again im speculating so i could be wrong. but egypt and assryia werent small fish either, its more than likely they were the first 2 heads of the beast in revelation.

reply to post by miriam0566


well read daniel again, and do some comparative analysis.
the catholic people are great. it's the guys at the very top, that have lived however they wanted and done whatever they wanted, while demanding so much holiness from everyone else, that has been the problem all along. my dad use to say, "don't do what i do, do what i say..." and although that's actually pretty good advice, in the case of the papacy, they took it to the extreme.

i'm also not your typical bible believer as i have a few problems with
paul. i think too many christians follow him instead of jesus. i think he's got some great messages but some of his thoughts were just the thoughts of a man that were elevated to the level of jesus' words.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by undo]

reply to post by Good Wolf

Most Christian's hold this belief because they have a deep seeded desire to see non-believers die/disappear/be left behind. This desire is a product of Christianity so its not surprising.

Whoa whoa whoa .!!! Stop the train right there!!!! Since when can you speak for the entire Christian community!! So you've basically interview EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN, and they've all said the same thing... we want everyone that isn't a christian to go to hell" ..

You say you were once a Christian well, I sincerely HOPE you didn't think or even believe that when you were walking in the faith!

Don't bring your guns to bear just because you got burned and start ASSUMING that the ENTIRE Christian community is basically thinking the same as Islam!!!! In fact, it's actually the opposite!!! Why, because their is little time left to perhaps help convince those that are seeking.

I'm not sure if you trying to just get posts on here by saying that kinda crap, but it surely don't fly here! I'm not sure what type of 'Christianity" you were taught but, that SURELY isn't what it is, has been or ever will be!!!

Originally posted by undo
well read daniel again, and do some comparative analysis.

i have, thats why i feel the way i do.

i just cant see the ¨beast¨ being anything other than a political entity seeing as that illustration seems to be used alot.

but as for how many and which are which, i dont think you can ignore egypt and assyria. they were major world powers.

if you look at the beast, it has seven heads. looking back, there have been 7 major world powers. (i dont count spain, because while it was formidable and big, it was fragile and only supported by the armada, unlike the other world powers who were actually strong.)

even using ¨occam´s razor¨, this makes sense since it is a simple solution.

a beast with the seven heads on one body simply represents the worlds governments as a whole.

the catholic people are great. it's the guys at the very top, that have lived however they wanted and done whatever they wanted, while demanding so much holiness from everyone else, that has been the problem all along. my dad use to say, "don't do what i do, do what i say..." and although that's actually pretty good advice, in the case of the papacy, they took it to the extreme.

i'm also not your typical bible believer as i have a few problems with
paul. i think too many christians follow him instead of jesus. i think he's got some great messages but some of his thoughts were just the thoughts of a man that were elevated to the level of jesus' words.

not entirely sure why you mentioned this...

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Well if thats the case then its just a self fulfilling prophecy.

so whats the deal with 616/666=nero? just a coincidence (i'm willing to bet that the probabilities are astronomical)

and the "its about to happen" statements that can't have meant what they say according to you.

How do you get around the problem that for the most part, Nero is the best bet?

the seven horns being a good symbol of the seven hills of rome, the seven headed beast being a parallel of the caesers, the whore in purple synonymous of the cumulative sin of the roman empire.

Becasue there are MANY antichrists, the scriptures say this as well. But there will only be ONE "THE" antichrist. You have to understand Greek, and when they put the word "The" in front of something, it signified one set apart.

Many men throughout history have been antichrists, anyone today working or acting against Jesus is an antichrist.

There is a difference in Greek between "an" antichrist and "THE" antichrist. Marilyn Manson is an antichrist. And many men have had their names add up to 666.

I'll give you a hint: ""The antichrist is "Lord Maitreya", Google the guy. Also be sure to read about his "Day of Declaration" and then contrast the "Day of Declaration" with what has been leaked to us about "Project Blue Beam".

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Well if thats the case then its just a self fulfilling prophecy.

so whats the deal with 616/666=nero? just a coincidence (i'm willing to bet that the probabilities are astronomical)

and the "its about to happen" statements that can't have meant what they say according to you.

How do you get around the problem that for the most part, Nero is the best bet?

the seven horns being a good symbol of the seven hills of rome, the seven headed beast being a parallel of the caesers, the whore in purple synonymous of the cumulative sin of the roman empire.

The "whore of Babylon" is the Roman Catholic Church. Her colors are "scarlet and red" the colors of the RCC. it says she "rides the beast", the Theospohy Society affirms the Pope will head the one world religion (false Prophet), the vatican is in Rome, the city "on the 7 hills".

Nero was a terrible man, and "an" antichrist yes. "THE" antichrist will be possessed by Satan himself and be exponentially worse.

reply to post by miriam0566
"Horns" are identified with nations or kingdoms.

It's interesting to not that the maps of the NWO have the world split into 10 regions.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by miriam0566

 

"Horns" are identified with nations or kingdoms.

It's interesting to not that the maps of the NWO have the world split into 10 regions.

i agree actually... it naver made sense to me that the beast was a person.

well historians have added to the mix, that the egyptian dynasty was started by africans. it wasn't. their interpretation has actually befuddled data regarding the beasts or empires of history. they've assumed egypt was an empire in its own right, it actually wasnt. dynastiic egypt rose in tandem with the akkadian and babylonian empires. a little known factoid is that nimrod started the egyptian dynasties, and he was an akkadian. his mother was an egyptian, his dad an akkadian, his great grandfather, survived the flood. he was "king scorpion", narmer, enmerkar and osiris. there's alot of confusion on this and that's the reason. he started the egyptian dynasty at abydos, egypt. the seat of osiris.

so technically speaking, the babylonian empire is the same as the egyptian because its founder and royal lineage was from shinar (the lands of the sumerians/akkadians/babylonians, et.al, iraq). the royal line mingled with the peoples of africa. eventually egypt became a force in its own right but it was never an empire in its own right. it was a dynastic offshoot of babylon. therefore, it's my belief that when he says history looks like a statue, and starts it with nebuchadnezzar's golden head on the statue, that it included in that example, all the lands that babylon was in control of (this included by heritage, the line of nimrod, who was osiris (asar) after death and narmer, enmerkar, before death) dynastic egypt.





[edit on 2-9-2008 by undo]