Nero = Beast???

[Beckrl]

"type" of some future "antitype".

Mark, That took me sometime, I would have to admit. I have in the past tryed to reveal a dual fulfillment of prophecy, but have come to the conclusion that those things that I tryed to reveal as dual prophecy were infact types or foreshadows.

[Partaker of Christ]

Why didn't the early Church Fathers think that Nero was the beast?

They were still awaiting the son of perdition to be revealed.

Irenaeus Against Heresies

Chap. XXVIII. — The Distinction to Be Made Between the Righteous and the Wicked. The Future Apostasy in the Time of Anti-Christ, and the End of the World.

1. Inasmuch, then, as in this world (αἰῶνι) some persons betake themselves to the light, and by faith unite themselves with God, but others shun the light, and separate themselves from God, the Word of God comes preparing a fit habitation for both. For those indeed who are in the light, that they may derive enjoyment from it, and from the good things contained in it; but for those in darkness, that they may partake in its calamities. And on this account He says, that those upon the right hand are called into the kingdom of heaven, but that those on the left He will send into eternal fire for they have deprived themselves of all good.
2. And for this reason the apostle 557 says: "Because they received not the love of God, that they might be saved, therefore God shall also send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to unrighteousness." (2Th_2:10-12) For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly "be cast into the lake of fire:" (Rev_19:20) [this will happen according to divine appointment], God by His prescience foreseeing all this, and at the proper time sending such a man, "that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to unrighteousness;" whose coming John has thus described in the Apocalypse: "And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon conferred his own power upon him, and his throne, and great might. And one of his heads was as it were slain unto death; and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon because he gave power to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto this beast, and who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy and power was given to him during forty and two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all who dwell upon the earth worshipped him, [every one] whose name was not written in the book of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any one have ears, let him hear. If any one shall lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity. If any shall slay with the sword, he must be slain with the sword. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints." (Rev_13:2, etc.) After this he likewise describes his armour-bearer, whom he also terms a false prophet: "He spake as a dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast in his sight, and caused the earth, and those that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray." (Rev_13:11, etc.) Let no one imagine that he performs these wonders by divine power, but by the working of magic. And we must not be surprised if, since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray. John says further: "And he shall order an image of the beast to be made, and he shall give breath to the image, so that the image shall speak; and he shall cause those to be slain who will not adore it." He says also: "And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six," (Rev_13:14, etc.) that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.

[markedward]

If Nero,

I should perhaps clarify, to avoid confusion.

The beast, in a generic sense, is the Roman Empire as a whole. The beast, in a specific sense, is the Roman Emperor. Nero is picked out even more specifically, because he was the Roman Emperor that was ruling the Empire and persecuting the Christians at the time that John was writing. But Nero is not the full extent of the beast. He is simply the most specific aspect that John refers to regarding the beast.

What were the seven heads,

Revelation 17 explains that the "seven heads" refer to both "seven hills" and "seven kings".

The "seven hills" are the seven hills of the city of Rome; indeed, Rome was known throughout antiquity as "the city of the seven hills". In alphabetical order: Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, and Viminal.

The "seven kings" were the first seven Emperors of the Roman Empire. In order:

• Five have fallen: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius
• The sixth is: (6) Nero was presently ruling and persecuting the Christians
• The seventh was yet to come, and would reign only a short time: (7) Galba, who was assassinated after ruling for only a matter of seven months

Note: The ancient world considered Julius Caesar, for all practical purposes, the first Emperor of Rome. Modern historians do not, but it is undeniable that the ancients did. Suetonius' book "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" is ample enough evidence, and I will not cite any more sources here, because they are easy enough to find.

ten horns and ten crowns on his heads?

"Horns" represent power in Scripture, as do "crowns". The number 10 (along with 100 and 1000) is used in Scripture to symbolize completeness. (Ten plagues of Egypt; ten commandments; one-tenth was the tithe; etc.) First, the beast is seen as having complete power over the people of the world, which we are explicitly told in chapter 13. Second, the beast's heads and horns and crowns are intentionally likened to those of the dragon (described in chapter 12). This is to show us that the beast derives its power from Satan himself, which we are again directly told in chapter 13.

If the "ten horns" and "ten crowns" are required to be directly associated with anything, it's quite possible to identify them with the ten imperial provinces in the first-century: (1) Italy, (2) Achaea, (3) Asia, (4) Syria, (5) Egypt, (6) Africa, (7) Spain, (8) Gaul, (9) Britain, (10) Germany.

Which one of his heads were wounded?

I do not believe it is necessary to identify the wounding of one of the heads to a specific "hill" or "king", merely to the beast itself. If a specific "one of his heads" is to be identified, I would point you to the death of Nero. Revelation 13 mentions that the "wound" was caused by a sword; Nero, in fact, stabbed himself in the throat with a dagger. Civil war erupted. Three more emperors died in a single year's time.

I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West. There were disturbances in Illyricum; Gaul wavered in its allegiance; Britain was thoroughly subdued and immediately abandoned; the tribes of the Suevi and the Sarmatae rose in concert against us; the Dacians had the glory of inflicting as well as suffering defeat; the armies of Parthia were all but set in motion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero. Now too Italy was prostrated by disasters either entirely novel, or that recurred only after a long succession of ages; cities in Campania's richest plains were swallowed up and overwhelmed; Rome was wasted by conflagrations, its oldest temples consumed, and the Capitol itself fired by the hands of citizens.

The Roman Empire was on the verge of collapse.

So upon this confirmation of Vespasian's entire government, which was now settled, and upon the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin, Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea.

Hence, following Galba, John is told that "an eighth" emperor would rule. The Greek text uses the definite article "the" when referring to "the seven" kings. It refers to "the five" (the first five), "the one" (the sixth), and "the other" (the seventh). But the Greek is completely devoid of the definite article "the" when referring to this "eighth" king. I believe that this is because the symbolism of the number eight is more important than the strict chronological identity of the king himself. Eight is the numerical symbol of new life. (Eight people were in the ark during the flood; Jesus was raised to life on the eighth day; eight specific individuals are mentioned in Scripture as being raised from the dead; the feast of Tabernacles was eight days long, corresponding to the Word who "tabernacled among us"; circumcision took place on the eighth day; etc.) Hence, this "eighth" king would resurrect the Empire, which Vespasian did. Upon the accession of Vespasian to the throne of Emperor and "the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin", all marveled at the Empire's resurrection.

Who was his false prophet, who exercised ALL the authority of Nero?

I answered this question in this post. The beast of the earth was apostate Israel, which allied with the Roman Empire to persecute the followers of Christ. Apostate Israel demanded submission to the Roman Empire and its Emperors. Read the gospels, the Acts, and the letters for proof.

When did he (the FP) bring fire down from heaven on earth? What was the deceptions that he performed on all who dwelt on the earth?

Apostate Israel performed false miracles in order to deny the Christian faith. Specific examples of false miracles can be found in the book of Acts. Further examples of false prophets and false miracles are supplemented in first-century histories, such as Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews, by Josephus. Christ himself said that "false christs and false prophets" would show up and begin to perform "great signs and wonders", which he explicitly said would happen before "this generation" (his own generation) had passed away.

The "fire" coming from heaven is only a masquerade. John shows us that apostate Israel attempts to identify itself with the true prophets of old in order to exercise the authority to oppress the Church. Hence, apostate Israel calls down fire, just as Elijah did. Elijah went on to destroy the false prophets of Baal, and apostate Israel deceives itself into believing that it is doing the same work, by seeking to destroy the Church.

Why would he need to deceive the people?

Apostate Israel denied that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence, they needed to deceive people from following him. And no, this deceit was not beyond first-century apostate Israel. [Matthew 28.12-15]

What was the image of Nero that the people made.

Remember that idols cannot speak, and are not alive. The Scriptures are adamant about this. Whatever this "idol" is that John refers to, he does so in symbolism, not literal fact. What John is telling us is that apostate Israel was guilty of idolizing the beast, that is, the Emperors of Rome. Apostate Israel would never admit it, but it is blatant fact. The gospels and Acts record their organized requirement of absolute submission to the Roman Emperor, and first-century historians record how Jewish leadership provided a unique sacrificial offering in the temple of Jerusalem solely for the Emperor's sake. Apostate Israel was guilty of raising the Roman Emperor above the rest of their values; this is idolatry. And, as I said, they allied with Rome to persecute the Christians who refused to submit to Caesar.

Has the full strength of God's wrath already been poured out, or is there still a 'full strength' wrath of God to come?

God's wrath was poured out upon apostate Israel and her allies in the first-century, in accordance with the fulfillment of his Covenant curses. (Read Leviticus 26.14-43 and Deuteronomy 28.15-68; nearly everything described there is found between the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation, and the exact fulfillments are found in first-century history.) The ultimate fulfillment of his wrath awaits to be poured out at the final judgment.

[ClayInHisHands]

Let me get this straight.... do Preterists believe that Revelation has been ALL fulfilled? And if so, do they suggest that we are in the last part of when Satan is released for a short while REV 20:7.

So Jesus already came back if that's what they say. If this is true, that is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard in my life.

If not, somebody tell me exactly what the preterist view really is.

[newinchrist4now]

There two peterist camps from what I have found in my studies. Partial Preterism:

Partial Preterism holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome, or even the city of Jerusalem.[30] Some adherents of Partial Preterism see the Emperor Diocletian as the fulfillment of the "little horn" prophecy of Daniel 7. But this is a minority view. The great majority of Partial Preterists believe that Jerusalem was a "great harlot" destroyed by God in A.D. 70.

More here

and Full Preterism:

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe that all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia.[31] Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Consistent Preterism, True Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full Preterists), and Pantelism (the term "Pantelism" comes from the Greek and means, "all things having been accomplished").

Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future bodily return, but rather a "return" in glory manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in A.D. 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the Dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead", known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) and that both the living and the dead were raised, changed, caught away and glorified together into one/corporate matured New Covenant Body of Christ. Some versions of Full Preterism teach that the righteous dead obtained an individual spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe that this judgment is ongoing and that it takes effect upon the death of each individual (Heb. 9:27).

Source

[markedward]

Preterism as a whole places many of the New Testament predictions as being fulfilled between 30 and 70 AD. The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) is Jesus' prophecy concerning the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. The book of the Revelation is a prophecy concerning the first-century persecution of the Church by apostate Old Covenant Israel and the Roman Empire, which culminated in God's bringing his divine vengeance against apostate Israel in 70 AD. The Revelation details God's divorce from the apostate Old Covenant Israel (the general grouping of the Israelites who rejected Christ in the first-century), and his marriage to the faithful New Covenant Israel (which is the Church, consisting of all follow Jesus Christ, including Israelite and Gentile).

From here, however, there are two kinds of preterism:

Full preterists believe that absolutely all of Scriptural predictions have been fulfilled, including the second coming of Christ.

Partial preterists believe that most (but not all) of Scriptural predictions have been fulfilled. The second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment are still in our future.

I was formerly a partial preterist, deceived into full preterism, and returned to partial preterism.

[Beckrl]

I should perhaps clarify, to avoid confusion.

That is one of your best post , I think a very insightful post of prophetic language.

[Partaker of Christ]

I should perhaps clarify, to avoid confusion.

The beast, in a generic sense, is the Roman Empire as a whole. The beast, in a specific sense, is the Roman Emperor. Nero is picked out even more specifically, because he was the Roman Emperor that was ruling the Empire and persecuting the Christians at the time that John was writing. But Nero is not the full extent of the beast. He is simply the most specific aspect that John refers to regarding the beast.

Rev 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.
Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.
Rev 17:10 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.
Rev 17:11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.

If you say Nero was the sixth one, then according to verse 8, he was not the beast that John saw

So (as I understand it)
The beast that John saw 'WAS' one of the five that had fallen, and he will also be the eighth that is yet to come.

You cannot date the Revelation before (apart from John) the last Apostle had been killed.

Rev 18:20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!"

I understand that Simon the Zealot was crucified in AD74.
Since Babylon was destroyed with an act of (including) the avenging the holy apostles, then the death of Simon the Zealot must be included.

The beast of Revelation 13, was instrumental in the destruction of Babylon.

Since Nero died in AD68, you have a mighty big stretch, to make him the beast

[markedward]

If you say Nero was the sixth one, then according to verse 8, he was not the beast that John saw

"Nero is not the full extent of the beast. He is simply the most specific aspect that John refers to regarding the beast." How did you miss this? It's in the section of my post that you have in your quote box.

You're ignoring what I said before. I directly said that the beast was the Roman Empire as a whole in the most generic sense, and that it was the Roman Emperors in the specific sense. I also said that Nero was being pointed out as the most specific aspect because he was presently ruling and presently persecuting the Church. That in no way contradicts the fact that chapter 17 says that "an eighth" king was the scarlet beast. If the "eighth" is associated with Vespasian, as I have already pointed out there is ample evidence that it is, the phrase "who was and who is not and who is to come" is not a problem. Vespasian had formerly been part of Nero's closest allies. At the time that John was writing (and this is historical fact), Vespasian fell out of favor with Nero and was exiled from Rome. At a later time, however, Vespasian was summoned back again as one of Nero's closest allies. Hence, Vespasian formerly "was" in Nero's favor. He presently "is not" in Nero's favor, having been exiled. And he eventually "is to come" back into Nero's favor, in order to destroy the royal harlot, Jerusalem, and would later on become Emperor of Rome.

You cannot date the Revelation before (apart from John) the last Apostle had been killed.

Rev 18:20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!"

I understand that Simon the Zealot was crucified in AD74.
Since Babylon was destroyed with an act of (including) the avenging the holy apostles, then the death of Simon the Zealot must be included.

Who said? Just because the royal harlot had killed apostles doesn't necessitate that she was directly responsible for the death of all 11/12 of them. There is no reason to believe that "you holy apostles" equates to "every single apostle". All it means is that the royal harlot was the primary antagonist of the apostles. And guess who that was?

Revelation 17.6: And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly.
Revelation 18.20: "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"
Revelation 18.24: "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth."

This sounds familiar...

Matthew 23.34-38: "Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate."

Since Nero died in AD68, you have a mighty big stretch, to make him the beast

And since you ignored basically half of my previous post, it's obvious you're arguing against a misconception. Ironically, the part you can't seem to grasp is the part you have quoted in your post above. Pay attention this time: "Nero is not the full extent of the beast. He is simply the most specific aspect that John refers to regarding the beast." If I have to repeat myself again, I will know you're not even trying to understand what I've said, and I won't continue the discussion.

[Partaker of Christ]

Hi Mark!

Yes, though I did read it, I did kind of ignor (dismiss) most of it. The beast in Rev 13 only has 3.5 years of authority, so that (IMHO) does not fit with your Roman Empire extention.

Unfortunately, with only having a poor limited education, as soon as I hit a problem, I tend to stop reading and start questioning.

I also wrote in another message (post 47) about the early Church, still looking for a future beast. I don't know if you saw it, or just ignored it.

[markedward]

The beast in Rev 13 only has 3.5 years of authority, so that (IMHO) does not fit with your Roman Empire extention.

The beast of Revelation 13 is, as I said, pointed out to be Nero Caesar (via the gematria of his name, 666). John is not only prophesying the length of Nero's persecution upon the Church (which lasted exactly 42 months, from November 64 AD to June 68 AD), he was prophesying the death of Nero (in June 68 AD).

I also wrote in another message (post 47) about the early Church, still looking for a future beast. I don't know if you saw it, or just ignored it.

I also apologize. I did miss the entire post when I clicked the "reply" button on the previous one.

It is true that certain Christian writers in the early Church believed that "the beast" was still future. It is most definitely not universally true. The non-Biblical, Christianized document "The Ascension of Isaiah" explicitly describes Nero's life and actions as the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2.4. (It doesn't name him because, hey, it's a document that pretends to have been written by Isaiah.) Clement of Alexandria seems to have believed that Nero was the fulfillment of Daniel 8, 9 and 12. Jerome stated of "the Antichrist" that "there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity". Sulpicius Severus does not seem to believe that Nero was "the antichrist" himself, but believes that Nero would reappear in the end of time to persecute the Church a second time. However, at a later point in his writing, Severus does directly associate Nero's death with the head-wound that "the beast" received. A pseudepigraphical book "The Acts of John the Son of Zebedee" is basically a diatribe against Nero, calling him "the unclean and impure and wicked king". Victorinus directly identifies Nero as the "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2, and Tertullian was not far behind. Augustine explicitly says that Nero was "the secret power of lawlessness". Chrysostom does the same. Lactantius says that it was Nero who "sprung to raze the heavenly temple" and calls him a "noxious wild beast".

Certain Jewish documents of the first, second, and third-centuries describe Nero as being a particularly wicked antagonist. (They don't go so far to call him "antichrist", of course, since the authors were not Christian.) Several pagan sources describe the horrible depravities of Nero, some of which even call him a "beast".

Now, all of these aside... just because men of the early Church believed one way or another doesn't mean it's inherently right. Just because Severus associates Nero's death with the beast's head-wound doesn't mean it's true. But equally so, just because Irenaeus (a particular source I don't trust anyway) believe that "the beast" was yet future, it doesn't mean he was inherently right just because he was a member of the early Church. But at the very least, it is undeniable that Nero was universally known for his wickedness (especially among Christian), and he was vilified to the fullest extent possible, called "antichrist" or "beast" or "man of sin" in some cases.

[Firstfruits]

The beast of Revelation 13 is, as I said, pointed out to be Nero Caesar (via the gematria of his name, 666). John is not only prophesying the length of Nero's persecution upon the Church (which lasted exactly 42 months, from November 64 AD to June 68 AD), he was prophesying the death of Nero (in June 68 AD).

I also apologize. I did miss the entire post when I clicked the "reply" button on the previous one.

It is true that certain Christian writers in the early Church believed that "the beast" was still future. It is most definitely not universally true. The non-Biblical, Christianized document "The Ascension of Isaiah" explicitly describes Nero's life and actions as the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2.4. (It doesn't name him because, hey, it's a document that pretends to have been written by Isaiah.) Clement of Alexandria seems to have believed that Nero was the fulfillment of Daniel 8, 9 and 12. Jerome stated of "the Antichrist" that "there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity". Sulpicius Severus does not seem to believe that Nero was "the antichrist" himself, but believes that Nero would reappear in the end of time to persecute the Church a second time. However, at a later point in his writing, Severus does directly associate Nero's death with the head-wound that "the beast" received. A pseudepigraphical book "The Acts of John the Son of Zebedee" is basically a diatribe against Nero, calling him "the unclean and impure and wicked king". Victorinus directly identifies Nero as the "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2, and Tertullian was not far behind. Augustine explicitly says that Nero was "the secret power of lawlessness". Chrysostom does the same. Lactantius says that it was Nero who "sprung to raze the heavenly temple" and calls him a "noxious wild beast".

Certain Jewish documents of the first, second, and third-centuries describe Nero as being a particularly wicked antagonist. (They don't go so far to call him "antichrist", of course, since the authors were not Christian.) Several pagan sources describe the horrible depravities of Nero, some of which even call him a "beast".

Now, all of these aside... just because men of the early Church believed one way or another doesn't mean it's inherently right. Just because Severus associates Nero's death with the beast's head-wound doesn't mean it's true. But equally so, just because Irenaeus (a particular source I don't trust anyway) believe that "the beast" was yet future, it doesn't mean he was inherently right just because he was a member of the early Church. But at the very least, it is undeniable that Nero was universally known for his wickedness (especially among Christian), and he was vilified to the fullest extent possible, called "antichrist" or "beast" or "man of sin" in some cases.

If Nero was the beast, then who was the false prophet, and when did they gather the nations to Armageddon to the battle of the day of the Lord?

Firstfruits

[vinsight4u8]

The saints - some of them that reign for the 1000 years -will be slain - beheaded by the beast of Rev. 19.

So - without the events of Rev. 19 - we can't yet have the start of the reign of Christ on the earth.

[vinsight4u8]

4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. // Rev. 20
"not worshipped the beast"
So doesn't John mean the beast that was in the story already- back in Rev. 19?

[Firstfruits]

The saints - some of them that reign for the 1000 years -will be slain - beheaded by the beast of Rev. 19.

So - without the events of Rev. 19 - we can't yet have the start of the reign of Christ on the earth.

The events of Revelation 19 take place after the millenium is finished, with regared as to those that come out of the tribulation of the saints, killed by the beast of Revelation 19.

Firstfruits