Is The Book of Revelation a False Prophecy?
- Thread starter CainHarmbank
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I first studied this some 50 years ago, so it's a little tough to remember all the information. But here is an excerpt that might give you some sources to chase:
Verses 16-17: Selling and buying was limited only to those who bore the mark, i.e. “the name of the beast or the number of its name.” David Clark comments, “This was to boycott or ostracize the Christians, and deprive them of the common rights of citizens, or the common rights of humanity. The pressure of economic distress was to be laid on them to compel them to conform” (Steve Gregg, p. 304). David Chilton adds, “Similarly [the Jewish leaders] organized economic boycotts against those who refused to submit to Caesar as Lord, the leaders of the synagogues ‘forbidding all dealings with the excommunicated,’ and going as far as to put them to death.” [Here Chilton partially quotes from Austin Farrer in his 1964 work entitled The Revelation of St. John the Divine (p. 157).] Richard Anthony (2009) speaks further of the allegiance required by Nero during his lifetime:
All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, “Caesar is Lord”. Upon compliance with this law, the people were given a papyrus document called a “libellus”, which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace, increasing the difficulty of “buying or selling” without this mark (emphasis added).
In the first post for chapter 13 we also saw a quote from C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines Jr., from their 1995 book entitled Doomsday Delusions, in which they said,
Megalomaniac that he was, Nero had coins minted in which he was called “almighty God” and “Savior.” Nero’s portrait also appears on coins as the god Apollo playing a lyre. While earlier emperors were proclaimed deities upon their deaths, Nero abandons all reserve and demanded divine honors while still alive (as did also Caligula before him, AD 37-41). Those who worshipped the emperor received a certificate or mark of approval – charagma, the same word used in Revelation 13:16 [the famed mark of the beast].
Verses 16-17: Selling and buying was limited only to those who bore the mark, i.e. “the name of the beast or the number of its name.” David Clark comments, “This was to boycott or ostracize the Christians, and deprive them of the common rights of citizens, or the common rights of humanity. The pressure of economic distress was to be laid on them to compel them to conform” (Steve Gregg, p. 304). David Chilton adds, “Similarly [the Jewish leaders] organized economic boycotts against those who refused to submit to Caesar as Lord, the leaders of the synagogues ‘forbidding all dealings with the excommunicated,’ and going as far as to put them to death.” [Here Chilton partially quotes from Austin Farrer in his 1964 work entitled The Revelation of St. John the Divine (p. 157).] Richard Anthony (2009) speaks further of the allegiance required by Nero during his lifetime:
All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, “Caesar is Lord”. Upon compliance with this law, the people were given a papyrus document called a “libellus”, which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace, increasing the difficulty of “buying or selling” without this mark (emphasis added).
In the first post for chapter 13 we also saw a quote from C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines Jr., from their 1995 book entitled Doomsday Delusions, in which they said,
Megalomaniac that he was, Nero had coins minted in which he was called “almighty God” and “Savior.” Nero’s portrait also appears on coins as the god Apollo playing a lyre. While earlier emperors were proclaimed deities upon their deaths, Nero abandons all reserve and demanded divine honors while still alive (as did also Caligula before him, AD 37-41). Those who worshipped the emperor received a certificate or mark of approval – charagma, the same word used in Revelation 13:16 [the famed mark of the beast].
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Nowhere in God's, through John, introduction to this book of scripture, do we find any hint that it is false prophecy.
What does good morals have to do with any notion?
Nowhere in God's, through John, introduction to this book of scripture, do we find any hint that it is false prophecy.
What does good morals have to do with any notion?
In 1 Peter 2:13-14 and Romans 13:1-14 there is something interesting about what you ask. Ask your self how it is that the Christians who were being told by both Peter and Paul to obey Rome and to see it as ordained by God. Why is that if they were being told to pay tribute(Romans 13:6-7) then they would have needed to use the Romans money. So if using it to buy and sell was taking the mark,then the apostles themselves were telling them to take it(don’t sound correct right)?
Now if the same Christians were told to pay tribute to Rome and they had to have Libellus to do so. Some things are just a big internet hoax in the modern world. There are many who hear something on the internet and just assume that if it's on youtube or in some internet forum or some book someone wrote "it's gotta be right". The truth is most will either repeat the errors of others without proof or else know fully well it is incorrect and state it to further their position. If it was me I would just do some research on the word "Libellum" and see for my self and doing so would probably find that it wasn’t something that was from Nero's day but was from 200 years later during the days of Decius instead.
Now if the same Christians were told to pay tribute to Rome and they had to have Libellus to do so. Some things are just a big internet hoax in the modern world. There are many who hear something on the internet and just assume that if it's on youtube or in some internet forum or some book someone wrote "it's gotta be right". The truth is most will either repeat the errors of others without proof or else know fully well it is incorrect and state it to further their position. If it was me I would just do some research on the word "Libellum" and see for my self and doing so would probably find that it wasn’t something that was from Nero's day but was from 200 years later during the days of Decius instead.
Which is the whole point Locutus,,,first there are the Christians being told to honour Rome and the "higher powers" as ordained by God(Romans 13:1) And at the same time(in the same time-frame) the Jews were minting their own coins so that they would not need to buy and sell with Rome’s money.
So it's pretty simple in that if using Rome's money to buy and sell with was to "take the mark'" then the Jews did not agree to do so and always had a problem with it that is they ask Jesus if they should should pay tribute to Caesar and Jesus said to render Caesar's unto him and Gods to God. So Jesus,Paul and Peter are all three stating to use the money of Rome. So yes I don’t think they saw it as "receiving the mark of the beast. In fact it it was then the Jews minted their own coins(so didn’t receive the mark) nor did they see Rome as God they revolted against Caesar(Jewish revolt) so it cant be said that they worshipped the beast(Rome) as God nor that they received his mark(if it's buying and selling with his money). The Christians though were being told to see Rome as ordained by God and to use it's money there's the big in that the Christians are buying and selling with it and being subject to Rome without fear of the "mark",,,but you already know this so for the benefit of those who do not "I say it again".
Using scripture as your guide, it doesn't seem very hard at all to win a war of words against God, meaning a debate.
I can't imagine how God could win the war against humanity without resorting to covert violence.
Or maybe humanity can be lead off a cliff, but you know the song right, you can't fool all the people all of the time, just some of the time.
I can't imagine how God could win the war against humanity without resorting to covert violence.
Or maybe humanity can be lead off a cliff, but you know the song right, you can't fool all the people all of the time, just some of the time.
Last edited: