The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Was Nero the Beast of Revelation?

This is the guy… Gary North.

FYI: From David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance, p. 346 & 351 notes 26 & 37, is this…

You’re pretty sure of yourself, when it comes to Preterism, aren’t you?

I want to say that I agree that Metzger is a great Greek scholar. I possess a copy of the Greek New Testament edited by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wigren. I went to the Amazon website and searched for Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” and by doing a search inside, found the quote to which Gentry referred. First of all it is found on page 676, not 752. Secondly, Metzger uses the actual Hebrew characters, and not (nrwn qsr) and (nrw qsr). That would not be greatly significant, except that there are no vowels in Hebrew including “w”, which is not “w” by the way, but represents the “omega” in the Greek name “ΝΕΡΩΝ”, and so I was not wrong to omit it. It is not that Metzger wrote “nrwn”; he didn’t. He wrote the Hebrew characters, (no vowels in Hebrew).

Metzger may not be an expert in Hebrew, and may have been mistaken in thinking the Hebrew added to 666. However, even if he were correct, do you not find it odd that John would use Hebrew to calculate the number of the name, when he used Greek to WRITE the number 666 itself?—that is, he wrote XΞC (chi,xi,stigma) Surely it makes more sense that the name was calculated in Greek as per the three guesses of Irenæus, who, of course, like the rest of the Christians in his day, expected the beast future to their time. In the second century, there were no preterists with regards to the coming of the beast and the second coming of Christ. Both were expected in their future.

Well, with regards to prêterism, given that I’ve been there done that I can be; at least more so than these annoying NON-prêterist… “prêterists believe ___” type fill in the blank with some erroneous statement/position falsely attributed to prêterism; which are rarely ever backed up with an actual prêterist quote proving such to be the case. This really does get beyond a joke. :unamused:

You don’t have to believe me, no problem Paidion… but won’t you in some honesty at least consider the prêterist quotes I have provided detailing some factual rationales behind prêterism? How about you give some “prêterist” references proving what you allege above; will you?

No biggy, I’d had thought that was self-evident. As for “found on page 676, not 752” – possibly a differing edition, or a typo?? And? These are not convincing titbits.

Good, then can I assume you will drop the so-called argument you attribute to prêterism and also AGREE with Metzger as to the identity of Nero as per the 666 / 616 evidence HE gives? Will you??

Just between you and me I thinking he just might have a better idea on the Hebrew than us two and so maybe you can trust his exegesis on the matter at hand.

I don’t “find it odd” at all… John was a Hebrew thinking Jew writing in the language (Greek) of the day.

How is it Paidion that you keep repeating these types of questionable lines and yet as I’ve pointed out previously the likes of Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (AD. 264-339), who didn’t collate his views in a vacuum, says otherwise?

I remember him well, after viewing the Wiki article. Years ago (I don’t remember the circumstances) I was offered a free subscription, to one of his investment newsletters. It was free for a short period. Then if you wished to continue, you paid the expensive, upgrade fee - which I declined. But his newsletter was interesting and well written. :smiley:

I still say that one can present and defend any reasonable position - from scripture alone. That’s why the 2 big churches - Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - shy away from Solo Scriptural. Otherwise, we can run the gambit, like Full Preterism (i.e. which Davo represents excellently) or full metaphysical systems, like Christian Science (where matter doesn’t exist and folks like Mary Baker Eddy, and her band of practitioners and teachers - defend brilliantly) :smiley:

That’s why various churches say that some teaching is Orthodox, because the majority in history agree. But they then ask folks, to add their own denominational spin to things. :exclamation:

From a pure analytical standpoint of solo scriptural, it’s a toss-up between embracing Full Preterism and Christian Science. Can I successfully embrace both :question: :laughing:

But as far as their healing ministry goes, I remember the words from a Buffalo Springfield song:

I just don’t buy the Christian Science explanation. Nor the “fact” you can’t mix it with modern or complimentary medicine. After all, Joel Goldsmith used to be a Christian Science practitioner, before starting the Infinite Way. And he had no problems with folks using modern or complimentary medicine. And he still had spectacular healing results.

Now for a little humor, from sunilbali.com/blog/

Because “the second century” refers to the years from 100 to 199 inclusive.

Yeah ok, like I said Eusebius… “didn’t collate his views in a vacuum.” Eusebius stood on the shoulders of others. And yet here you are, though you choose of convenience to refer to and use “Eusebius” in your OP, NOW all of a sudden because it suits i.e., he’s just beyond YOUR stipulated timeframe (who made you the gatekeeper?) he becomes persona non grata.

How about you furnish us with the quotes from prêterists shuffling the deck where you say prêterists “remove the vowels from “ΚΑΙΣΑΡ” and so one would expect them to get “ΚΣΡ” (“KSR” in Latin characters). But no! Instead of using the latin “K”, they select a somewhat similar sounding Latin character “Q”!

The standard “prêterist position” is that outlined by Metzger, as given above –– which prêterists are you referring to? What are your sources for this allegation Paidion? Please supply…

A quibble:

There was never a year 0. December 31, 1 B. C. was immediately followed by January 1, A. D. 1. Therefore…

January 1, A. D. 1 through December 31, A. D. 100 is the 1st century.

January 1, A. D. 101 through December 31, A. D. 200 is the 2nd century.

Etc.

:slight_smile:

Geoffrey wrote:

January 1, A. D. 1 through December 31, A. D. 100 is the 1st century.

Over a year ago, I somehow missed seeing Geoffrey’s post from which the above quote has been taken.

I just want to express my agreement, Geoffrey. You are right, of course—and I was wrong.

There’s a few good websites for people interested in preterism that have a lot of info.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/2004_embury_fulfilled-grace/

and lots more. Good luck in your research.

You are kind of out of touch with the forum. No offense.

Wow 2004… what a golden oldie, and worth the read again just for the following conversation. That article/discussion was from the early days of stoking the ‘inclusive’ fire within prêterism; at the time being labelled with the pejorative “prêterist universalism”.

No idea why you would say that. The topic was preterism. I referenced the topic. How is that out of touch? Anyway sorry if my comments were unhelpful.

How is preterist universalism pejorative?

No… I meant that back in the day, i.e., 15+yrs ago when I was igniting inclusive fires in the prêterist camp which was very much staunchly anti-universalist — and so “universalist” was a dirty word.

ah now I see. Yes people get really angry at universalists for daring to suggest God could actually be love. I have family member who won’t talk to me because of it.

And I might just clarify for you… I’m a pantelist aka an inclusive prêterist and NOT a universalist prêterist. Although in the paddock next door the major difference is universalism believes in and agrees with the self-same “hell” as infernalism — the only difference being and amount of time either believes someone is believed to be therein, i.e., universalism says it is temporary whereas for infernalism says it is permanent, BUT they BOTH have the SAME post-mortem destiny in view.

Pantelism is (IMO) more prêteristically consistent, i.e., it views Jesus’ “hell” language aka “Gehenna” to be speaking of the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem aka ‘the lake of fire’.

Sounds like just a form of universalism. There are numerous brands of universalism. I don’t know where you came up with the definition you cited above. I am a preterist and I believe in universal restoration. But I don’t believe in the purgatorial hell that some universalists believe in. I believe in reincarnation and temporal woe as the punishment for the lost. I believe there could be post-mortem punishment for some of the lost but that would be retributive not redemptive punishment.

That may be what John had in view when he speaks of the second death and the rest of the dead who did not live again for a thousand years. Maybe.

I believe the gehenna language refers to the judgement day of AD 70 as well. Does that make me a pantelist too?

Pantelism is universalistic in that it acknowledges the full scope of God’s reconciliation as complete… not something still yet to be completed, but done. One can, for example, believe in the virgin birth without that meaning they are thereby a Catholic… etc.

Pantelism also rejects the purgatorial hell of universalism, but more importantly rejects outright the postmortem assumption of hell that all infernalists AND universalists agree 100% on… even you appear, unless you can clarify further, to hold to a postmortem hell in your words here…

Perhaps I’m reading you wrong, but your… “hell is not the end of the story for mankind. It is part of the journey” fits right in with the standard universalist and infernalist notion of postmortem torment… again, the only difference between the two positions being the length of stay and or the degree of said torment — BUT BOTH positions assume, as you appear to agree, as to a postmortem hell reality.

Pantelism knows no reincarnation.

I’m open to the idea of possible postmortem redress BUT THAT is purely from my own sense of justice and NOT based on any available text of scripture indicating such… so it’s not a position I’d die for — so atm a little agnostic on that.

Hmmm, you’ve kind of conflated two ideas? Pantelism understands “the lake of fire” to be the AD70 DoJ… thus “the second deathis one and the same thing — John’s second death description however highlights the covenantal death aspect of this, i.e., Israel’s first death was experienced in her Babylonian death, destruction and deportation aka EXILE; now in AD70 the same occurred at the hands of Rome.

The huge difference however between these two deaths was this… Israel was promised resurrection under the first, whereas there was NO RESURRECTION beyond or relative to the second aka “the lake of fire” — hence Pantelism’s strong rejection of this Universalist notion that the lake of fire somehow equates to God’s fiery love etc — no, the lake of fire—the second death marks the terminus of the old covenant world; thus answering to the disciples’ question of Jesus… “what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the world?” aka the end of the Mosaic age.

Well on that matter as a full prêterist you would be in agreement with the pantelist position.

Now you see.:wink: