Neron Kaisar in Hebrew gematria is 666.
Neron Kaisar in Greek (or is it Latin) gematria is 616.
St. John was Jewish. End of story.
Well, I think the story is only partially ended.
Even if st. John was a Jewish, the Beloved Disciple ruled over a vast area of Greek-speaking communities. The seven letters are sent to seven Asian churches; he was himself a leader in the church of Ephesus! Also, the church after 70 AD was being completely freed from its nationalistic Jewish origins and was being completely replaced by the Gentiles. In conclusion, God might have chosen to reveal the Antichrist's name in Greek and not in Jewish.
The fact that many Christians of the time identified 666/616 with Nero is true. That doesn't mean that the character behind this esoteric number
was Nero Caesar.
To be honest, I use to be a chilist before converting to EO, and I only found one or two refernces where the Pre-nicene christians saw Nero related to the anti-christ. They had a list of alot of different names, and most of them didn't even see Nero as thee anti-christ......let alone as the one in whom Saint John was talking about. I know that alot of scholars say this, but when one looks at the primary evidence..........it's just not there. Most of them didn't even see Nero as the man of sin, as seen in Revelations.
Also, we must remember that the Church Fathers condemned Preterism (the idea that the Apocalypse had been fulfilled in the 1st century) and Chiliasm (the idea that the Millennium had begun in 30/33 AD with Christ's resurrection and that it had to last precisely 1000 years). Identifying Nero with Antichrist, also, is reductive, since the Apocalypse identifies "seven kings" of which the final antichrist is an 8th king. Definitely, I wouldn't be so sure that Nero Kaisar is the solution to st. John's enigma, or at least that he isn't THE final antichrist, so the question should be kept open.
In Christ, Alex
The chilists from what I recall didn't believe that the Millennium started at 30/33 A.D. They saw it as something sometime in the future, but it was condemned in 381 A.D. when condemning Apollinarianism by saying
"He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end." As seen from this commentary of the second council:
The link:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P5I.HTM#9J6Quote:
"[41] Led astray by the words in ch. 20 of the Book of Revelation (v. 3 to 7), where it says that Satan was shut up and bound for a thousand years, and that the righteous who participated in the first resurrection reigned together with Christ as kings for a thousand years, many men have imagined that after the second advent and common judgment take place, the righteous are to reign here on the earth as kings for a thousand years together with Christ, and thereafter to ascend to heaven; and on this account they have been called millenarians or millennialists. There have been two battalions of millenarians. For some of them used to say that during those thousand years they are to enjoy every enjoyment, and bodily pleasure; these men were followers of Cerinthus, a pupil of Simon, in the first century, and the Marcionists in the second century of the Christian era. Others said that they were not to enjoy passionate pleasures, but rather intellectual pleasures befitting rational human beings, of whom the leader was Papias the bishop of Hierapolis (in Euseb. Eccl. Hist, book 3, ch. 34) and others. Hence it is evident that Apollinaris became such a millenarian of the first battalion, as is plain from what St. Basil the Great says (letter 332), and from what the Theologian says (Discourse 51), and from what Jerome says (Book 18 on Isaiah). On this account in refutation of this heresy this Council added to the Creed of the Nicene Council that statement, which it borrowed from the sentence which the Archangel Gabriel spoke to the Virgin, viz.: “and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33). As for the thousand years referred to by St. John, they are not to come to pass after the second advent of Christ; and the kingdom of the Lord is not describable in terms of years, nor food and drink, as St. Paul said (Rom. 14:17): but, on the contrary, a thousand years are to be understood, according to those versed in theology, to mean the interval of time extending from the first advent of Christ to the second, during which Satan was bound, according to the words of the Lord, saying, “Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The first resurrection, by contrast, took place for justification of souls through mortification of infidelity and wickedness, concerning which Christ said “He that heareth my words, and believeth in him who sent me, hath life everlasting, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life” (John 5:24); and the Apostle said “If then ye be risen with Christ . . . set your mind on the things that are above” (Col. 3:1-2). And thereafter in this interval of time the reign of the righteous with Christ took place, being their union with Him through (i.e., by means of) the Holy Spirit, and the contemplation and enjoyment of His divine illumination, respecting which the Lord said, “Some of them that stand here shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).
Now I maybe wrong, and this commentary maybe wrong, if so, please feel free to correct where we are off. I use to think this was a canon of the second council......boy was I wrong......it's just a note or commentary. I had to learn that the hard way.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
ICXC NIKA
