What is the Religion of the Beast

I don't have to read it. I know Nero cannot be the anti-Christ.

 

That's what I'm saying. I'm not promoting Preterism, I'm against it!

 

24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15

Everything He said should first be viewed through that lens. You know, audience relevance? The first rule?:

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. Charles Hodge

“I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; as a priest, or as a Saviour and Redeemer, he was sent to make satisfaction and atonement for the sins of all God's elect, and to obtain eternal redemption and salvation for all of them, whether Jews or Gentiles; but as a prophet, in the discharge of his own personal ministry, he was sent by his Father only to the Jews; he was the "minister of the circumcision", Romans 15:8 that is, a minister to the circumcised Jews…..” Gill

Excerpt from 'The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation' by Phillip Mauro:

“SELF-INFLICTED SUFFERINGS

In the light, therefore, of this comparison of scripture with scripture, we think it plain that the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:14 was that unparalleled calamity, with its unspeakable sufferings, which befell the city and people in A.D. 70.

In the history of "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus we have a detailed account, written by an eye witness, of the almost unbelievable sufferings of the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem. To this account we will refer later on; but we wish to state at this point that the distresses of those who were hemmed in by the sudden appearance of the Roman armies were peculiar in this respect, namely, that what they endured was mainly self-inflicted. That is to say, they suffered far more from cruelties and tortures inflicted upon one another, than from the common enemy outside the walls. In this strange feature of the case it was surely "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time" (#Da 12:1).

What went on within the distressed city calls to mind the words of Isaiah:

"Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel (the food) of the fire. No man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand and shall be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand and not be satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm. Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh. For all this His anger is not turned away, but His wrath is poured out still" (#Isa 9:19-21).” Mauro, Chap 13, 70 Wks.

This madness that set in on the people was foretold in other places:

For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith Jehovah; but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbor`s hand, and into the hand of his king; and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them. Zech 11:6

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from Jehovah shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. Zech 14:13

I came to cast fire upon the earth [i.e. 'the land']; and what do I desire, if it is already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Think ye that I am come to give peace in the earth [the land]? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. Lu 12:49-52

But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation. Mt 12:43-45

Excerpts from Josephus, 'Wars of the Jews':

“.....I Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].....”

“WHEREAS the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; ..........” Preface; sec.1

“.....Yet shall I suit my language to the passions I am under, as to the affairs I describe, and must be allowed to indulge some lamentations upon the miseries undergone by my own country. For that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it, and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple, Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have opportunity for repentance. But if any one makes an unjust accusation against us, when we speak so passionately about the tyrants, or the robbers, or sorely bewail the misfortunes of our country, let him indulge my affections herein, though it be contrary to the rules for writing history; because it had so come to pass, that our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. Accordingly, it appears to me that the misfortunes of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews (3) are not so considerable as they were; while the authors of them were not foreigners neither. This makes it impossible for me to contain my lamentations. But if any one be inflexible in his censures of me, let him attribute the facts themselves to the historical part, and the lamentations to the writer himself only.....” Preface, sec. 4

When reading the Wars of the Jews you're getting a front row seat view of the fulfillment of such prophecies (there's several others). Josephus covers in detail (and laments) the ever progressive infighting and civil war that set upon the Jews of 'that generation'. More Jews were killed by Jews than by the Romans.

 

A wonderful copy and paste reply that barely addresses the issue.

Irenaeus lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).

So get this, or THAT in your mind...Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus!

In Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…

“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 [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.

Irenaeus, (AD 120-202) believed that the “Antichrist” had still not been revealed. Well, that throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint. Why? Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff, believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist. That’s not what Irenaeus thought.

“...For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.

Here’s what is so fascinating about Irenaeus’s statement. Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.

Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus destroys the preterist position.

 

Preterism is pure heresy and an abomination and I'm tired of defending futurism on this or any eschatology thread. On the forums that haven't banned Preterism, Preterist destroy eschatology threads. So please, take the heresy of Preterism over onto the other Preterist threads. I prefer to debunk it there. I should have known that whenever I start a thread to label it "futurist only."

 

Remember, Josephus was a rebel leader captured by Vespasian. Had J written one word displeasing to the Romans, V woulda amputated J's head in a trice. Thus, he embellished his accounts with some fiction he knew his patron would like.

 

Good!
These prets think the quax who wrote their hooey(Preston, Gentry, DelMar, Sproul, etc.) know more history than the men who wrote Encyclopaedia Britannica. Doing a REALITH CHECK should reveal the error of the pret doctrine to them.

But, we have people like a certain gent here who, when shown by Scripture & history that Nero could NOT POSSIBLY have been the beast, STILLE BELIEVE HE WAS, ANYWAY! I don't like to poke fun at anyone, but that's completely irrational to me ! !

 

Not to mention the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:29-30.

 

Yes, preterism cheapens the coming most-glorious event there'll be in the history of mortal man - the return of Jesus in His full power & glory!

 

Absolutely! NOT ONE of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.

By "church fathers" I am referring to those leaders in the church of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples (Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp).

 

As for the religion of the beast...
Daniel 11:37 He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.
(I believe the "desire of women" is the worship of & the weeping for Tammuz, Nimrod & Semiramis' son,which many Jewish women of that time were doing.)

I believe those verses from Daniel 11 settle the question of the beast's "religion" once & for all.

 

Lol, the same Irenaeus that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Right.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how simple it is to predict how a Preterist would reply! I've been through several of these debates and it's always the same. Of course, I don't expect you'll change your mind.

This is an uncopyrighted page from Mark J. Bonocore
How Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics,

How Old is Jesus According to St. Irenaeus?

Mr. James White says ...

Such a challenge reminds me of this wonderful passage in Irenaeus, Ad Her. II:22:5:

"For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"
Here Irenaeus claims an "apostolic tradition", barely a century after the ministry of the apostles (and less, in the case of John), that claims that Jesus was more than 50 years of age at His death.

Well, you're proving that you are not infallible more and more, Mr. White. Not only do you read the Scriptures incorrectly because you wrench them out of context, you also do the same with the Fathers. Why didn't you present ALL of what St. Irenaeus has to say? Then you might understand his point IN CONTEXT. ;-)

First of all, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus' humanity identifies with human beings of every age:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

So, is Irenaeus saying that Jesus became an "old man"???? Nope. But, first he continues...

"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and ****robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable .... "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism; and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age."

So far, Irenaeus' point is that some say that Jesus died at age 30 (as a "young man," as opposed to an "elder"), that He was NO OLDER than 30.

And, he continues...
"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (i.e. age 1 to age 30), and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year (31-40), every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (i.e. 40 plus) year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify..."

Ah! Now what is Irenaeus' point???? It's that Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e. 33 years old, to be precise --"EVEN AS THE GOSPEL ...TESTIFIES" ...that is, the Gospel of John ;-). His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into "old age" (as they saw it in Roman times). In this, Jesus was qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a "elder" in order to be a true teacher.

Think about it. Irenaeus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50??? Of course not! Rather, John's Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Irenaeus' point.

And, Irenaeus continues,
"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, Thou art not yet forty years old. "

Notice how Irenaeus is counting in 10's here. Jesus is 33, so the Jews do not use "forty," but "fifty." Why? Because the Jews would only say "forty" if Jesus was 30-years-old or younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life -- the period between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30.

And Irenaeus then sums up his point, saying:
"He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year*** can never be regarded as one year ...."

So, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.

So, you misinterpret Irenaeus, Mr. White, BECAUSE you did not read his statement IN CONTEXT, and because you did not read it with the cultural sensibilities of a 2nd century Greco-Roman Christian, but with your own, narrow, modernist sensibilities. For a scholar, that is DISGRACEFUL!

Mark J. Bonocore
How Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

 

That cannot be. Daniel say's, "and a god which his fathers did not know."
That would eliminate the God of Abraham. To NOT regard the desire of women is exactly what it means. He won't care about women and what they want. John Hagee uses that verse to say the man of sin is gay!

 

Jim Gunter concerning Irenaeus:
“Those who support the “late” date of its writing (92-96 A.D.) seem to base their belief on the grounds of a solitary quote of Irenaeus who lived from 125-202 A.D. The late Foy E. Wallace Jr. (who supported the “early” date of its writing), in his book titled, “The Book of Revelation,” quotes that statement by Irenaeus. It reads as follows:

“If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he-emphasis by FEW) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3, quoted in, The Book of Revelation, Foy E. Wallace Jr., p. 25).

As we can see here, the key phrase in Irenaeus’ statement is, “that was seen!” The question then becomes: Was it 'he' (John?) or 'it' (Revelation?) that was seen? In the English,it could be either one!

Then there other scholars who comment on both Irenaeus and also his statement:

D. Ragan Ewing writes:
“The difficulty arises in Irenaeus’ statement, as translated, “… that was seen …” The Greek text simply reads eJwravqh. The subject of the statement is simply subsumed in the verb, and there is therefore no grammatical indicator as to the referent; it could be the Apocalypse, or it could be John himself. In other words, the English could just as easily be, “… he was seen …”

Ewing further writes:
“Nevertheless, there remains another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claims… In one place he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord, and in another, he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old! Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,” as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.” Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have?”

Kenneth Gentry quoting Irenaeus:
Irenaeus said of the age of Jesus, “but the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…” (Quoted in Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, p. 63) Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!

Burton Coffman writes:
“His (Eusebius’) quotation (of Irenaeus’ statement) does not even mention “the writing” of Revelation, but refers solely to the time when certain unnamed persons are alleged to have seen either the apostle or the prophecy, nobody knows which. This proves nothing. Besides that: If he meant the Apocalypse was seen, and if it had been originally composed in quotation, could have reference to the Greek translation, if indeed it referred to the Revelation at all. There goes the whole case for the latter date,” (Commentary on Revelation, Burton Coffman, p 4).

William Bell writes:
“Concerning the above statement (Irenaeus’ statement), scholars have long recognized that it is not possible to determine whether Irenaeus meant to say John was seen by Irenaeus’ tutor, Polycarp, or that “the Apocalypse” was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Such ambiguity destroys this argument as evidence. Even Eusebius, who recorded this statement, doubted that John, the apostle, even wrote the book of Revelation. The point here is this, if the statement was not strong enough to convince Eusebius that John even wrote Revelation, why do so many think today that it is strong enough to convince one that the apostle saw it (the Apocalypse) during Domitian’s reign (A.D. 95)? It is weak to say the least.”

Finally, is support of the “early” day of the Apocalypse, are the words of Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical concordance of the New Testament,” and “Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.” In his remarks, you will see that he contends that a mistake has been made on the part of other early writers who quote Irenaeus’ statement. As you will see, it is his belief that the other early writers actually (mis)quote Irenaeus as to the name of the Roman Emperor who was ruling at the time of his statement, and succeeding writers simply followed their lead!“

JFB commentary then refers to [the extremely shaky evidence of (which actually is no evidence at all) Clement of Alexandria who simply said:
“....the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”

That's all he says. The question is WHICH TYRANT is he referring to? Nero or Domitian?

JFB commentary then refers to EUSEBIUS as a 'best authority' and then admits in the same intro that “Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero.” Again, no evidence at all. Also, the problem with this source is that his 'pro late dat statement' quotes Irenaeus.

JFB commentary then refers to Victorinus, who again relies on Irenaeus, which again is no evidence at all.​

 

Not as bad as preterists relying on Josephus. Strange that Josephus saw/heard chariots in the sky over Jerusalem while sever other hundred thousand people then present missed them!

 

I believe he will come out of Islam but his religion will be only about worship of himself once he comes into power.

 

Hey Dayle, welcome to the forum. I'm new here too.
I also believe he will come out of Islam.

 

Like politicians, instead of confronting the issue head on, you and your kronie Preterist false teachers do nothing to add to the discussion. Like so many politicians, all they do is make the other guys look worse than themselves.

Rather than look at this objectively, you prefer to accept the discreditation of 21st century Preterist false teachers like Gentry, Gunter, Ewing, Coffman, Bell, Sproul, Hanagraaf, DeMar, and dismiss and the documented teachings of John, and of ancient church Father's like Polycarp - who was a student of John, Ireneaus - who was a student of Polycarp, and Hyppolytus - who was a student of Ireneaus. You prefer to believe these church fathers are the liars and the deceivers. You dismiss other historians etc. like Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and even Jerome. And believe your contemporary Preterist deceivers.

Before Jesus replied to the disciples questions, "when shall these things be, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? His answer to them was,

"Take heed that no man deceive you."

You've fallen into a trap. You would rather believe the disparages of 21st century swindlers over 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Historian's.

 

Do we now have Frick & Frack?