Planet Preterist - Prophecy fulfilled in AD 70

^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF - Subscribe - Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 28 comments

Threshold

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:

Password:

[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]

Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? (Score: 1)
by Paige on Wednesday, November 26 @ 09:28:49 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
A well put together article that makes alot of sense to me. Some observations: John Bray identifies the Man of Sin in 2 Thess. as John of Gischala. His view when that was written was that the Beast, the Man of Sin, and possibly even the Antichrist were not the same entities. In reading Rev.13,it certainly looks to me that Judaism is indeed the Beast. As I read vs.1-10, the mortal wound looks like the blow from the crucifixion of Christ which served to ultimately destroy it. 42 months could certainly represent the number of years Judaism was granted to remain in power and persecute the church. Thanks for the article. In Christ, Paige

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 09:39:00 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by BigD on Wednesday, November 26 @ 11:36:26 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by JL on Wednesday, November 26 @ 14:56:48 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by large-hammer on Wednesday, November 26 @ 19:09:45 PST
Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? (Score: 1)
by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 09:52:28 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
One possible problem I see with the Jewish beast view is with Revelation 17:16.

Rev 17:16 "And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.

I believe the beast that destroys the harlot (Old Covenant Israel; Gal 4:24) was the Roman armies. Could there be 2 different beasts?

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by large-hammer on Wednesday, November 26 @ 10:05:43 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by Paige on Wednesday, November 26 @ 10:22:33 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by Paige on Wednesday, November 26 @ 10:34:12 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 10:42:35 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by BigD on Wednesday, November 26 @ 11:43:51 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by RevelationMan on Tuesday, December 02 @ 13:14:36 PST
Re: Is there a Jewish and Roman beast? by preteristdave on Tuesday, December 02 @ 16:47:45 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? (Score: 1)
by large-hammer on Wednesday, November 26 @ 09:54:28 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
YES!!!!!

Finally some discussion on this topic.

The beast is NOT Roman, as many has surmised or assumed. This view needs serious consideration by preterists. I am convinced that, in time, it will become the predominant view.

I've even written articles on this site on this topic:

Galatians and Revelation: Short Summaries

Israel and Judah: Chief Subject of Daniel's Visions

The Beast as Israel

I'm a Full Preterist, but is the beast really Rome?

KEEP IT UP!

There are many problems that cause the [false] Roman interpretation, typically false assumptions. Sometimes false ideas concerning Daniel also affect the interpretation. Sometimes, it's the symbolic use of the number seven (not taken into account)--the seven hills. Sometimes, it's ideas about Rome (rather than Jews) as chief persecutor of early Christians. Sometimes its insane Protestant [so-called] historicism which sees the beast as the papacy. These are all anti-historical. The anti-grammatical, anti-historical method leads to the Roman interpretation. Both the grammar and the history point to the Jewish opposition.

Marcus Booker

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 11:06:55 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by BigD on Wednesday, November 26 @ 17:51:44 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by large-hammer on Wednesday, November 26 @ 18:43:56 PST
serious consideration by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 15:34:40 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? (Score: 1)
by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, November 26 @ 11:47:56 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
This is an interesting article, but if I interpret it correctly, it was written in 1985. There is no mention there of Ken Gentry and Before Jerusalem Fell. In that book, Gentry argues very persuasively, in my opinion, that the answer to the Nero Redivivus problem is not the return to life of Nero but the revival of the Roman Empire under Vespasian. I completely agree. That does not explain Rev 19, but I think it does explain Rev 17. I go with Rome as the beast with seven horns and ten heads.

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by Paige on Wednesday, November 26 @ 12:41:34 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by preteristdave on Wednesday, November 26 @ 12:53:15 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by JL on Wednesday, November 26 @ 15:03:08 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, November 26 @ 16:32:03 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by RevelationMan on Tuesday, December 02 @ 13:13:19 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? (Score: 1)
by large-hammer on Wednesday, November 26 @ 19:06:55 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Another thought:

Revelation 17:18 "The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Many who in past centuries took a Roman interpretation of Revelation, identified the great city as Rome. They say that it was this great city that reigned over the kings of the earth. Historicism [misnomer] says that the Romanist Papacy ruled over the kings and civil magistrates.

Yet most Preterists at least acknowledge that the great city is Jerusalem [Some might (arbitrarily) distinguish two great cities]. So, how is that Jerusalem reigned over the kings of the earth (assuming an interpretation that identifies these kings with the Roman world)? Now, to be clear, I don't think these kings refer to the Romans at all. But, are some suggesting that Jerusalem ruled over the Roman world?

Moreover, some cling to a form of Roman interpretation because of the "seven hills" that supposedly can only refer to Rome. There are many problems here, but I will only mention one. Exegetes of the past have identified the Harlot as Rome based upon this idea. Indeed, the text says that "the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is sitting; also they are seven kings." If the seven hills designate Rome, then the Harlot would seem to be Rome, being situated upon the seven hills. Of course, most preterists [correctly] identify the harlot as unfaithful/murderous Jerusalem. This identification presents them with a problem when they try to use the "seven hills" to identify the beast as Roman. The insistence that the seven hills refers to Rome also neglects the symbolical use of the number seven elsewhere in the text.

Also, the text speaks of the beast being "on its way to destruction." The beast was cast into the lake of fire along with the false prophet. Was Rome thus destroyed (within the acceptable timeframe of Revelation's imminency language)?

Marcus Booker

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by davo on Wednesday, November 26 @ 20:53:16 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? by large-hammer on Thursday, November 27 @ 09:51:44 PST
Re: The Beast: Jewish or Roman? (Score: 1)
by Jer2329 on Thursday, November 27 @ 03:05:07 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Q&A #78:

http://www.strato.net/~dagreen/question5.html#note78

Dave
http://www.preteristcosmos.com

[ To reply to this, please login or register ]