Replies

Sorry Cronos.

Per Paul, Jesus destroys the beast, the man of sin, the son of perdition with His breath at His second coming.

That hasn’t happened yet.

Sorry, Petronius, you're conflating different things because you've already assumed them to be descriptions of the same event. That's you, not Paul, doing that. The letters to the Thessalonians were written at least 16 years before the earliest possible date of composition for Revelation (67 or 68AD) and Paul didn't refer to "the man of sin, the son of perdition" as "the beast." Furthermore, it doesn't at all follow that what Paul said cannot be true at the same time that "the beast" in Revelation (the first beast) was referring to the historical Nero. You're assuming it can't be true because of a prior eschatological belief. On the other hand, it was the first beast that had been wounded but it was the second beast that caused the mark of the number of its name to be put on people's hands or foreheads, so that complicates the picture for considering that the mark giver was referring to Nero, since it was the second, non-wounded beast, that did that. If the wounded beast was Nero who died by sword at his own hand and the restored beast (the first one, not the second) was the restoration of the power of Rome through a line of Caesars, then the "second beast" who was subsequent to the "first beast," identified as Nero, and who did the mark of the beast thing, couldn't be referring to Nero, because this would have been after Nero's death and the reestablishment of Rome after the chaos following Nero's death.

Furthermore, "the beast" is not the same being described by Paul as being destroyed by Christ's breath at his coming since Revelation described the beast and the false prophet as being captured alive and then thrown alive into the lake of fire, everyone else being killed "killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse." So, if "the man of sin" is destroyed by Christ's breath and that is referring to "the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse" and "the beast" is tossed alive into the lake of fire, then it would require that the "sword coming out of the mouth" and "the lake of fire" are one and the same if "the beast" is the same as "the man of sin."

Bottom line: there's a good reason why a lot of folks were suspicious of Revelation and why it was the last book to make it into the canon.

Aruanan: Sorry, Petronius, you're conflating different things because you've already assumed them to be descriptions of the same event. That's you, not Paul, doing that. The letters to the Thessalonians were written at least 16 years before the earliest possible date of composition for Revelation (67 or 68AD) and Paul didn't refer to "the man of sin, the son of perdition" as "the beast." Furthermore, it doesn't at all follow that what Paul said cannot be true at the same time that "the beast" in Revelation (the first beast) was referring to the historical Nero

well said, our friends are mixing Thessalonians with Revelation's commentary on Nero with Daniel's commentary on Antiochus IV

Revelation was for the situation AT HAND -- Nero's persecution of Christians. it is over and Nero is dead despite the 3 imposters who came 10, 15 and 20+ years after 68 AD