If you don't want to read Hitchcock's dissertation, you can watch him debate Hank Hanegraaf on the topic. In my opinion, Hank wipes the floor with him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6FOx_4wujg
Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Here is what I have in my notes from my last study on the subject. Beyond this you'll have to do more legwork if you want since I don't have the time right now to revisit this topic extensively:Paidion wrote:Hi Jaydam,
Thank you for your response. Can you provide a reference to the part of Tertullian's writings in which he linked the banishment of John to Patmos to the timing of the persecution of Paul and Peter under Nero?
Tertullian's wording is taken from Prescription Against Heretics Chapter 36. It is not a sure thing, but the timing of John's boiling in oil and exile is mentioned in grouping with Peter and Paul being martyred.
Support for this was found in Jerome's writing until his work was altered:
Jerome's Against Jovinian says that Tertullian tells of John being sent "to Rome" to be put in oil, but older copies of Jerome's work had "by Nero" in place of "to Rome." The "by Nero" was replaced in the 1500's to support a Domitian dating.
While Jerome's unaltered manuscripts quoted Tertullian as placing the exile of John under Nero, I know that Jerome himself also spoke of the boiling and exile of John as happening under Domitian.
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Thanks, Jaydam, for the reference.
I looked up the reference in Volume III of "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" and found these words by Tertullian (145—220 A.D.):
Jerome (340-342—420 A.D.) lived about 200 years later. To base a quote of Tertullian as including the words "by Nero", even if it is an older quote of Jerome quoting Tertullian, seems shaky at best. However, there seems to be no evidence that it is older. It could be a more recent addition to support a Neroic dating.
I think Tertullian's linking of John's suffering and banishment with the suffering of Paul and Peter, is only to indicate that all three apostles brought their teaching to the church, and also all three had to suffer for it. By lumping these three apostles together, it is doubtful that Tertullian was indicating that they all died within the same time frame.
I looked up the reference in Volume III of "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" and found these words by Tertullian (145—220 A.D.):
So Tertullian's own works have merely that he was banished "to his island exile (after surviving the boiling oil)."Tertullian wrote:How happy is [Rome's] church, on which apostles poured forth all their teaching along with their blood! where Peter endures a suffering like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's! where the apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and from there remitted to his island exile!
Jerome (340-342—420 A.D.) lived about 200 years later. To base a quote of Tertullian as including the words "by Nero", even if it is an older quote of Jerome quoting Tertullian, seems shaky at best. However, there seems to be no evidence that it is older. It could be a more recent addition to support a Neroic dating.
I think Tertullian's linking of John's suffering and banishment with the suffering of Paul and Peter, is only to indicate that all three apostles brought their teaching to the church, and also all three had to suffer for it. By lumping these three apostles together, it is doubtful that Tertullian was indicating that they all died within the same time frame.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Though I prefer Duncan's explanation, the following link is to a pro-Nero preterist explanation.
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Man%20of%20Sin.html
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Man%20of%20Sin.html
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Yes, Duncan's books are quite good. Shame on those who know about them and yet have the hubris to have not read them. The fact that the (individual) beast was about to come out of the abyss should tell one that this is referring to something more than just the Roman Empire. Revelation is unveiling the invisible realm of the spirit, not just physical history.
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Revelation 17:8
"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 "Here [is] the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, [and] the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 "And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. (NKJV)
I believe that most preterists understand the beast to be the Roman empire, however, the beast in this verse is described as existing only in the past and future. Since the Roman empire existed continuously throughout the first century, this does not seem be a feasible interpretation. How is the "is not" description of the beast understood by Preterists?
User avatar
thrombomodulin
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
IMHO you can have a Preterist understanding of Revelation and also Historicist and Futurist and Idealist as they all have support. Plus you can have different beasts and different judgments at different times IMO. So my take is that the current players are "Islam" because all the lands that went into the pit in the OT are now muslim lands so I see this as geographic symbolism and possibly the Ottoman empire was the "is not" after WW1 when it receded back into Turkey and became secular. I think It's looking like it's waking up now to try to become the leader in the Sunni muslim world. Also in Daniel the latter description of the last beast sounds more like the Ottoman empire then Rome. The women on the beast may be Mecca as it does sit on 7 hills and the wine that made nations drunk may be oil.
"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 "Here [is] the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, [and] the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 "And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. (NKJV)
I believe that most preterists understand the beast to be the Roman empire, however, the beast in this verse is described as existing only in the past and future. Since the Roman empire existed continuously throughout the first century, this does not seem be a feasible interpretation. How is the "is not" description of the beast understood by Preterists?
User avatar
thrombomodulin
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
IMHO you can have a Preterist understanding of Revelation and also Historicist and Futurist and Idealist as they all have support. Plus you can have different beasts and different judgments at different times IMO. So my take is that the current players are "Islam" because all the lands that went into the pit in the OT are now muslim lands so I see this as geographic symbolism and possibly the Ottoman empire was the "is not" after WW1 when it receded back into Turkey and became secular. I think It's looking like it's waking up now to try to become the leader in the Sunni muslim world. Also in Daniel the latter description of the last beast sounds more like the Ottoman empire then Rome. The women on the beast may be Mecca as it does sit on 7 hills and the wine that made nations drunk may be oil.
Re: Rev 17:8 - The beast who is not
Here's another generic preterist argument for Nero as the Beast:
http://worldrevivalnetwork.blogspot.com ... ly-is.html
http://worldrevivalnetwork.blogspot.com ... ly-is.html