[circlecity]

"thus the Nero theory again gets blown out ot the water. -- as I said in post 48 in fact, even if it was written after 95 AD, it still talks about Nero’s fall and the time up to Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus"

That wouldn't make Nero the beast of Revelation though. I would, however, support a historicist interpretation of Revelation.

[Cronos]

“That wouldn’t make Nero the beast of Revelation though.” — hmmm... well I don’t think it would affect that — Nero, the beast would still be the beast.