Pilgrim,

I am also a historicist, at least I think I am.

I certainly know better than to debate eschatology with you as I know you are more knowledgeable. But please tell me where I might be wrong here.

The Emperors of Rome were in existence before and during the writing of the Revelation. They called themselves "god" just as the pope does today (Infallible Vicar of Christ on earth). Even though the RCC was not established until about 300AD(?) it is no stretch for me to see (as well as others) that this may certainly be held as historic continuity. Rome and its Caesars ruled the world even at the time of Christ and the pope may be historically considered a successor, because of his claim of deity, with his monarchy at the Vatican City State in Rome.

Quote
I have to ask how the readers living during the Apostle John's day and/or immediately after "Revelation" was written understood these passages and how they were to be legitimately applied.

I believe that the Revelation, and the antichrist of 1 and 2 John, applied to the Emperor of Rome in John's day and is still valid for the "Bishop of Rome" today.

So, because of location and historic succession, for John to call Nero or which ever Ceasar, antichrist in his day may still be laid to the pope's "See" in Rome today. There are still valid arguments as to the date of the Revelation. Some say it may have been written as early as 70 AD.

PS -You're not fooling me, I know you laying in wait like a crouched tiger.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Denny

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]