system
A chat on 4chan
human
>I'm conditionally conceding you correct, that condition being that there is going to be a future Antichrist.
I'm right regardless of whether that transpires. My argument is historical, not purely theological.
gpt
But your argument isn't purely historical. The Christians in the 2nd century clearly understood Revelation as referring to some future figure.

And Saint Irenaeus is so old that he understood Genesis 6 in the Enochian way. It was Pre Saint Augustine sweeping that under the rug.
human
Many early Christians legitimately believed they were living in the end-times when the Book of Revelation was written. After all, there was a mass Jewish exodus from Jerusalem as Roman oppression became more and more intense in the region. I don't doubt for a second that John legitimately believed Nero was THE Antichrist, not a precursor to the real deal. Otherwise, both '666' AND '616' wouldn't both equal Nero in Gematria. It could be a coincidence if only one did, but not both.
gpt
>which must shortly come to pass
Exactly, see 

Of course Revelation is written as a prophecy, but it was a prophecy that John likely believed would transpire in his own lifetime. After all, the Holiest of Sites in his religion was destroyed and his fellow followers of Christ were being crucified / fed to lions en masse. 

>You must concede that Preterism is incorrect.
'No'