PDA

View Full Version : Questions about "The Antichrist"



markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 02:44 AM
I'm sure this thread is likely to attract plenty of attention & responses;
I also know that my questions will ruffle some feathers, make a few people upset, and cause quite a stir....
BUT... That's NOT my intention. I'm not setting out to make anyone mad. So please keep that in mind & understand that I'm just asking valid questions. I'm trying to get to the truth & the guts of this..... Because TRUTH MATTERS.

Now, on with the questions....

What I'm wondering & asking is, How and where is the "popular" definition of "The Antichrist" supported in scripture?
What I mean by that is, WHERE in the Bible is "The Antichrist" described as "a man who seemingly brings peace at first, as a world leader / politician, (possessed by Satan) that enacts a peace-treaty with Israel / the middle-east, pretending to be God himself, tricking the jews (and the entire world) into believing HE is the Messiah, and uniting all the world religions.
Somewhere along the line, he dies & actually comes back to life... thus enabeling himself to further deceive people (who are "left behind" after the "church" mysteriously vanishes) and half-way through this seven year period impose a "mandatory mark" to buy or sell."

***If the "Great Tribulation" is SEVEN years, how can the first 3 1/2 years be peaceful & everyone thinks it's all hunky-dory? I mean SEVEN years of tribulation should be JUST THAT! ....Seven years! Because, so far with this scenario, the "Seven year Great Tribulation" is reduced to 3 1/2.
Do the math....***

You get the idea.....
Now then,
I know all the scriptures that say "antichrist"... (All FOUR of them.... with none being in "Revelation")
I also know where John talks about "the mark of the beast". etc.....

I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?
OR......
....Does it come solely from the "Left-Behind" series?

I know this is the description Tim Lahaye, Jerry Jenkins, & Hal Lindsey give.... but are they the origin????

Or is it TRULY in Scripture???

Again, I know some of you are probably fuming right now...
"How DARE he question Left-Behind!".... "Of COURSE the Bible says that!!"...

I honestly have NEVER found that description or scenario in the Bible...
That's why I'm asking.

Mograce2U
Mar 7th 2008, 03:58 AM
Markdrums: what have you no respect for tradition? ;) How many traditions do we follow that have anything to do with scriptural facts? If men did not have the ability to surmise what they think God has said, we would all be in perfect agreement would we not? It really matters not whether the AC can be proven from scripture because it is what people believe. And if they believe it, then it is true for them, and so their minds are captured by it.

Personally, I delight in hearing that some are willing to investigate these things we have been taught for themselves. Because even if we still do not agree, at least we have a hope of getting our blinders off. But if the blind are leading the blind - where is there any hope to be found?

Only Jesus can open our eyes to see His truth. But as long as speculation is leading us, we will never discover it. And this thread will die in the fires of controversy and confusion as do all the others.

If you have found a good eyesalve, will you send me some?

ServantoftheKing
Mar 7th 2008, 04:46 AM
I'm sure this thread is likely to attract plenty of attention & responses;
I also know that my questions will ruffle some feathers, make a few people upset, and cause quite a stir....
BUT... That's NOT my intention. I'm not setting out to make anyone mad. So please keep that in mind & understand that I'm just asking valid questions. I'm trying to get to the truth & the guts of this..... Because TRUTH MATTERS.

Now, on with the questions....

What I'm wondering & asking is, How and where is the "popular" definition of "The Antichrist" supported in scripture?
What I mean by that is, WHERE in the Bible is "The Antichrist" described as "a man who seemingly brings peace at first, as a world leader / politician, (possessed by Satan) that enacts a peace-treaty with Israel / the middle-east, pretending to be God himself, tricking the jews (and the entire world) into believing HE is the Messiah, and uniting all the world religions.
Somewhere along the line, he dies & actually comes back to life... thus enabeling himself to further deceive people (who are "left behind" after the "church" mysteriously vanishes) and half-way through this seven year period impose a "mandatory mark" to buy or sell."

***If the "Great Tribulation" is SEVEN years, how can the first 3 1/2 years be peaceful & everyone thinks it's all hunky-dory? I mean SEVEN years of tribulation should be JUST THAT! ....Seven years! Because, so far with this scenario, the "Seven year Great Tribulation" is reduced to 3 1/2.
Do the math....***

You get the idea.....
Now then,
I know all the scriptures that say "antichrist"... (All FOUR of them.... with none being in "Revelation")
I also know where John talks about "the mark of the beast". etc.....

I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?
OR......
....Does it come solely from the "Left-Behind" series?

I know this is the description Tim Lahaye, Jerry Jenkins, & Hal Lindsey give.... but are they the origin????

Or is it TRULY in Scripture???

Again, I know some of you are probably fuming right now...
"How DARE he question Left-Behind!".... "Of COURSE the Bible says that!!"...

I honestly have NEVER found that description or scenario in the Bible...
That's why I'm asking.

markdrums,

Good questions.

I don't know where Lindsey, Lahaye, and Jenkins get the idea that the Tribulation is supposed to be 7 years in duration. Rev 13:5 says that the beast is supposed to have power to make war against the saints and speak great things and blasphemies for forty-two months (3 1/2 years). The two witnesses in Rev 11 are on the scene testifying for 1260 days (3 1/2 years). Daniel 7:25 says that he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall be able to do so for a time, times, and the dividing of time (3 1/2 years).

The only place a 7-year period is mentioned is in Daniel 9:27, but that verse does not state that the tribulation is a full 7 years.

Also, according to the Left Behind series, once the tribulation starts, the Seals, Trumpets, and Vials occur. The Vials do occur after the mark of the beast is implemented according to Rev 16:2. But there is no verse in Scripture that I know of that specifically confines the Seals and Trumpets to the Tribulation timeframe.

The idea of him being peaceful at first may have come from Daniel 8:25, which says, "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many". Although when we read this verse, are we reading it correctly?

1. Are we sure it refers to the Antichrist? Possibly, but I don't know for sure.

2. Are we sure it says that he will be peaceful? Could it mean that he is waging war all in the name of "peace"?

ServantoftheKing

ServantoftheKing
Mar 7th 2008, 04:53 AM
Markdrums: what have you no respect for tradition? ;) How many traditions do we follow that have anything to do with scriptural facts? If men did not have the ability to surmise what they think God has said, we would all be in perfect agreement would we not? It really matters not whether the AC can be proven from scripture because it is what people believe. And if they believe it, then it is true for them, and so their minds are captured by it.

Personally, I delight in hearing that some are willing to investigate these things we have been taught for themselves. Because even if we still do not agree, at least we have a hope of getting our blinders off. But if the blind are leading the blind - where is there any hope to be found?

Only Jesus can open our eyes to see His truth. But as long as speculation is leading us, we will never discover it. And this thread will die in the fires of controversy and confusion as do all the others.

If you have found a good eyesalve, will you send me some?

"If they believe it, it is true for them, and so there minds are captured by it."

This is a sad but true statement about how people can be blinded, but convinced they are correct. I'm not simply talking about a believer's end times viewpoint here, but rather there are people out there who will say that, "You believe in God and that works for you. I don't and that's what works for me." This is the whole argument that truth is just a relative concept. Truth however, by definition, is absolute.

What's true is true regardless of our beliefs. If I believe that a piece of steel is actually a piece of wood, it does not mean that it is a piece of wood. It means that I am ignorant of the truth. Mograce, you are correct that only Jesus can open our eyes to see His truth.

I'm not saying I know everything, but we would be remiss to take what we've always heard without carefully searching to see if it actually does match up with God's Word.

ServantoftheKing

fellowservant
Mar 7th 2008, 06:49 AM
I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?
OR......

....Does it come solely from the "Left-Behind" series?

I know this is the description Tim Lahaye, Jerry Jenkins, & Hal Lindsey give.... but are they the origin????

Or is it TRULY in Scripture???





Are you refering to this?

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.



Yes its there, Paul gives a better discription of him below...


2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

John also mentions this man in revelation, Christ speaks of this and Daniel as well.

Or are you just looking for a certain sentence, or figure of speach?

God bless

markedward
Mar 7th 2008, 07:41 AM
Antichrist
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The word "antichrist" is only found in the epistles of John. The initial description of "antichrist" is ambiguous, and it is unclear whether he is a man or a group of people. However, later references to "antichrist" make it abundantly clear that it is not a singular person, but a spiritual attitude of many people. John never explicitly refers to a specific (re: the word "the" preceding the word "antichrist") individual being "antichrist." Anyone who is against Christ is "antichrist." If Joe Schmo denies Jesus is the Christ, than Joe Schmo is the antichrist. If Joe Schmo's brother denies Jesus is the Christ, then both Joe Schmo and his brother are the antichrist. There is no singular "antichrist," but rather, anyone who denies Jesus as the Christ is an antichrist, and together they are the antichrist.

Man of Lawlessness
This is slightly ambiguous as well. It leans toward being a specific individual when read by itself, but if (I repeat, if) he is connected to John's description of "antichrist," than it would better be interpreted as describing many people rather than a singular person. If I say "When the man of false faith comes," it can arguably be intepreted to refer to any "man of false faith," a type of man, meaning, multiple people who are "of false faith," rather than a single man "of false faith."

Nowhere is this man identified as being the one and only antichrist. He may be an antichrist as other people are antichrists, but nothing says he is "the" antichrist. The description given to us about this "man of lawlessness" only links us over to the beast of Revelation (both chapter 13, and chapter 17). The beast will, of course, be considered antichrist, but we see no depiction of it as "the" antichrist.

The Prince Who Is To Come
This individual is seen in the latter section of Daniel 9. In the context of the whole passage, only one individual is being discussed. This individual is explicitly called "the Messiah" (or "Anointed One" or "Christ") and "the Prince" (or "Ruler" or "Leader") in verse 9:25, and He is prophesied to come in the future. This individual is referred to being in the future. "Messiah" is mentioned in the future tense in verse 9:26, so we directly refer back to the individual of verse 9:25. "The Prince" is mentioned in the future tense, so in context with verse 9:25, this "Prince who is to come" can be seen to be the same individual as the one mentioned in verses 9:25 and 9:26. This covenant-maker is "the Messiah, the Prince" (9:25).

Daniel 9 never says that the covenant being made was to be brought to an end. All it says is that the "Prince" was to make a "covenant with many" during the week (i.e., the final "week" of the 70 weeks), and halfway through that week/seven years He would put an end to offering and sacrifice. Jesus explicitly arrived at the end of the 69th week (and thusly, at the start of the 70th week). He began His ministry, preaching the New Covenant with mankind. Three-and-one-half years later (i.e., halfway through the final "week," the final seven years) He was crucified, and He became the final, one and only sacrifice/sin-offering. He put an end to sacrifices and sin-offerings with His one and only sacrifice. And, as Daniel 9 stated, "desolations were decreed" (9:26) and the events following Jesus' sacrifice "consummated" (9:27) in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Daniel 9:26-27, Luke 21:6,20-24) in the lifetime of Jesus' generation (Luke 21:32) by means of armies/war (Daniel 9:26, Luke 21:20).

The covenant-maker of Daniel 9 is not "the antichrist," and neither is he the "man of lawlessness." Again, in the context of the whole passage, only one individual is being discussed, explicitly called "the Messiah, the Prince." The covenant-maker is the Messiah.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2008, 09:56 AM
I'm sure this thread is likely to attract plenty of attention & responses;
I also know that my questions will ruffle some feathers, make a few people upset, and cause quite a stir....
BUT... That's NOT my intention. I'm not setting out to make anyone mad. So please keep that in mind & understand that I'm just asking valid questions. I'm trying to get to the truth & the guts of this..... Because TRUTH MATTERS.

Now, on with the questions....

What I'm wondering & asking is, How and where is the "popular" definition of "The Antichrist" supported in scripture?
What I mean by that is, WHERE in the Bible is "The Antichrist" described as "a man who seemingly brings peace at first, as a world leader / politician, (possessed by Satan) that enacts a peace-treaty with Israel / the middle-east, pretending to be God himself, tricking the jews (and the entire world) into believing HE is the Messiah, and uniting all the world religions.
Somewhere along the line, he dies & actually comes back to life... thus enabeling himself to further deceive people (who are "left behind" after the "church" mysteriously vanishes) and half-way through this seven year period impose a "mandatory mark" to buy or sell."

***If the "Great Tribulation" is SEVEN years, how can the first 3 1/2 years be peaceful & everyone thinks it's all hunky-dory? I mean SEVEN years of tribulation should be JUST THAT! ....Seven years! Because, so far with this scenario, the "Seven year Great Tribulation" is reduced to 3 1/2.
Do the math....***

You get the idea.....
Now then,
I know all the scriptures that say "antichrist"... (All FOUR of them.... with none being in "Revelation")
I also know where John talks about "the mark of the beast". etc.....

I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?
OR......
....Does it come solely from the "Left-Behind" series?

I know this is the description Tim Lahaye, Jerry Jenkins, & Hal Lindsey give.... but are they the origin????

Or is it TRULY in Scripture???

Again, I know some of you are probably fuming right now...
"How DARE he question Left-Behind!".... "Of COURSE the Bible says that!!"...

I honestly have NEVER found that description or scenario in the Bible...
That's why I'm asking.

I do not know if you already have these scriptures concerning the antichrist but here you are.

1 Jn 2:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 Jn 2:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 Jn 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 Jn 1:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=63&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

These are all descriptions of the antichrist which is how Jesus said he will be.

Mt 24:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mt 24:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mt 24:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

2 Thess 2:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, And shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2 Thess 2:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2 Thess 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Hope these are helpful.

Dont forget all that is written in Revelation.

markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 11:26 AM
Markdrums: what have you no respect for tradition? ;) How many traditions do we follow that have anything to do with scriptural facts? If men did not have the ability to surmise what they think God has said, we would all be in perfect agreement would we not? It really matters not whether the AC can be proven from scripture because it is what people believe. And if they believe it, then it is true for them, and so their minds are captured by it.

Personally, I delight in hearing that some are willing to investigate these things we have been taught for themselves. Because even if we still do not agree, at least we have a hope of getting our blinders off. But if the blind are leading the blind - where is there any hope to be found?

Only Jesus can open our eyes to see His truth. But as long as speculation is leading us, we will never discover it. And this thread will die in the fires of controversy and confusion as do all the others.

If you have found a good eyesalve, will you send me some?

;)
Absolutely.

I also know many people view this topic the way they do, only because they take someone's word for it, without ever digging in & reading the BIBLE to make sure it's correct.

I've been digging for years looking for that description in the Bible...but haven't seen it yet.

I'm just curious to see if anyone can help me find it in scripture.
???

markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 11:44 AM
Are you refering to this?

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.



Yes its there, Paul gives a better discription of him below...


2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

John also mentions this man in revelation, Christ speaks of this and Daniel as well.

Or are you just looking for a certain sentence, or figure of speach?

God bless


I know what you're saying here, but it seems that the "modern day" description has become much more "sensationalized".
I'm trying to understand the origin of the "Politician / leader / who sneaks in peacefully, etc........"
Nothing in any of the scriptures fit that populist definition.

I appreciate your help though!! :)

Roelof
Mar 7th 2008, 11:55 AM
The final Antichrist will have total political, religious and economic power over the world:


· Revelation 13:4 (21st Century King James Version)
And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” (political power)

· Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (religious power), whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb,

· Revelation 13:17 that no man might buy or sell (economical power), save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.

From the KJV Bible Commentary, I would like to give:

Rev 13:1. In Rev 19:20 the two beasts of this chapter are designated as the beast and the false prophet. With the dragon (vs. 2), they form a horrendous trio of evil. The beasts are the chief wicked instruments of Satan. Here is the culmination of the world’s desire for the amalgamation and merger of political and religious power, a combination of church and state.

The Roman Beast and the Antichrist (man of sin of II Thess 2:3) will fulfill the longing of the ungodly.


Rev 13:11 He (the Antichrist) is stationed in Jerusalem (cf. II Thess 2:4); but he owes his position and power to the first beast, who resides in Rome (cf. Dan 11:38–39, especially the words “god of forces” and “strange god”).


Rev 13:12. As stated, the first beast is willing to sponsor the Antichrist (he is also the false prophet, cf. 19:20),

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2008, 12:01 PM
I know what you're saying here, but it seems that the "modern day" description has become much more "sensationalized".
I'm trying to understand the origin of the "Politician / leader / who sneaks in peacefully, etc........"
Nothing in any of the scriptures fit that populist definition.

I appreciate your help though!! :)

How about these scriptures?
Dan 11:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

Dan 11:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=27&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 04:26 PM
I appreciate all your input!

The couple things I want to point out would be,
Daniel's prophecy / vision was not about the same "Beast / Antichrist" in revelation.
Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 11 was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would come & desecrate the FIRST temple... which happened around 167 BC.

And when he describes the "70 weeks", this was the time it would take before Messiah brought Salvation, & conquered death & sin.
This was fulfilled DURING the 70th week, when Jesus was crucified.
Jesus "Caused Sacrifices to cease", by becoming THE sacrifice for all of us.

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".


Again, I appreciate all your input with this.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2008, 04:32 PM
I appreciate all your input!

The couple things I want to point out would be,
Daniel's prophecy / vision was not about the same "Beast / Antichrist" in revelation.
Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 11 was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would come & desecrate the FIRST temple... which happened around 167 BC.

And when he describes the "70 weeks", this was the time it would take before Messiah brought Salvation, & conquered death & sin.
This was fulfilled DURING the 70th week, when Jesus was crucified.
Jesus "Caused Sacrifices to cease", by becoming THE sacrifice for all of us.

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".


Again, I appreciate all your input with this.

Who may I ask was Jesus talking about in the following?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

markedward
Mar 7th 2008, 05:46 PM
Who may I ask was Jesus talking about in the following?

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Mk 13:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:There were multiple "abominations of desolation" mentioned in Daniel. One in chapter 9:27, another in 11:31, another in 12:11.

Chapter 11's descriptions of the Kings of the North and of the South are exact matches to events that happened between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties that emerged from the Greek Empire, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches up perfectly with the figure from 11:31. Verse 9:27's abomination, however, could not possibly be the same abomination as verse 11:31's, because 9:27's was to come after the 70 weeks, and Antiochus IV didn't live even near the end of them. It seems best to say, there were at least two abomination of desolations being spoken of in Daniel's prophecies. Jesus (in Matthew 24 and Mark 13) explicitly stated that the events He described (including the abomination of desolation, which the book of Luke equates to be armies surrounding Jerusalem) would happen in His generation's lifetime. Sure enough, forty years later, Jerusalem was surrounded by Gentile armies (as Jesus said in Luke 21), and the temple was destroyed as He said it would be.

Sidenote: As I see it, there is no way for there to be an "abomination of desolation" in our future. The first and second temples was only ever built because God had sanctified them to be built. His presence dwelled in those temples. The temples were used for sacrifices and sin-offerings. Jesus became the one and only sacrifice/sin-offering for all time, so if a third temple is ever built in our future, there is no way it could be "desolated" by an "abomination." Why? Because the very temple itself would be the abomination; it would be blaspheming Jesus, defying His one-and-only sacrifice. The first two temples were only built when God gave approval, so a third temple would be defying God, since He has absolutely no need for a third temple. So if a third temple is built, God won't dwell in it, and if God doesn't dwell in it, it can't be desecrated.

markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 06:17 PM
There were multiple "abominations of desolation" mentioned in Daniel. One in chapter 9:27, another in 11:31, another in 12:11.

Chapter 11's descriptions of the Kings of the North and of the South are exact matches to events that happened between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties that emerged from the Greek Empire, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches up perfectly with the figure from 11:31. Verse 9:27's abomination, however, could not possibly be the same abomination as verse 11:31's, because 9:27's was to come after the 70 weeks, and Antiochus IV didn't live even near the end of them. It seems best to say, there were at least two abomination of desolations being spoken of in Daniel's prophecies. Jesus (in Matthew 24 and Mark 13) explicitly stated that the events He described (including the abomination of desolation, which the book of Luke equates to be armies surrounding Jerusalem) would happen in His generation's lifetime. Sure enough, forty years later, Jerusalem was surrounded by Gentile armies (as Jesus said in Luke 21), and the temple was destroyed as He said it would be.

Sidenote: As I see it, there is no way for there to be an "abomination of desolation" in our future. The first and second temples was only ever built because God had sanctified them to be built. His presence dwelled in those temples. The temples were used for sacrifices and sin-offerings. Jesus became the one and only sacrifice/sin-offering for all time, so if a third temple is ever built in our future, there is no way it could be "desolated" by an "abomination." Why? Because the very temple itself would be the abomination; it would be blaspheming Jesus, defying His one-and-only sacrifice. The first two temples were only built when God gave approval, so a third temple would be defying God, since He has absolutely no need for a third temple. So if a third temple is built, God won't dwell in it, and if God doesn't dwell in it, it can't be desecrated.


That's how I see it as well.
Jesus referred back to Daniel's original prophecy as a reminder, & as a warning that it would happen again... in THEIR lifetime.
He says, "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand),......

The disciples would have understood when Jesus used the word "YOU" it meant They Themselves.
Jesus was referring to the near future destruction of the 2nd temple which occurred in 70 AD.

To assume there will be a 3rd temple in the future makes no sense for a couple reasons.
#1. Jesus said "HE" is the temple. True believers will no longer worship in a temple, but rather in SPIRIT.
#2. If the temple were built, and the Antichrist desecrated it by an abominable act causing it to be desolate, why would Jesus reign from that temple? It would be "unclean" so to speak.
A Holy God would not reign in a temple where an UNholy man performed his evil actions.
So, this would actually require a FOURTH, "clean" temple to be built... (because according to dispensationalism, when Jesus is "supposed to reign on Earth for a literal 1000 years," this would be AFTER the Antichrist... right?)
Neither of these ideas has any biblical credibility.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2008, 06:50 PM
There were multiple "abominations of desolation" mentioned in Daniel. One in chapter 9:27, another in 11:31, another in 12:11.

Chapter 11's descriptions of the Kings of the North and of the South are exact matches to events that happened between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties that emerged from the Greek Empire, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches up perfectly with the figure from 11:31. Verse 9:27's abomination, however, could not possibly be the same abomination as verse 11:31's, because 9:27's was to come after the 70 weeks, and Antiochus IV didn't live even near the end of them. It seems best to say, there were at least two abomination of desolations being spoken of in Daniel's prophecies. Jesus (in Matthew 24 and Mark 13) explicitly stated that the events He described (including the abomination of desolation, which the book of Luke equates to be armies surrounding Jerusalem) would happen in His generation's lifetime. Sure enough, forty years later, Jerusalem was surrounded by Gentile armies (as Jesus said in Luke 21), and the temple was destroyed as He said it would be.

Sidenote: As I see it, there is no way for there to be an "abomination of desolation" in our future. The first and second temples was only ever built because God had sanctified them to be built. His presence dwelled in those temples. The temples were used for sacrifices and sin-offerings. Jesus became the one and only sacrifice/sin-offering for all time, so if a third temple is ever built in our future, there is no way it could be "desolated" by an "abomination." Why? Because the very temple itself would be the abomination; it would be blaspheming Jesus, defying His one-and-only sacrifice. The first two temples were only built when God gave approval, so a third temple would be defying God, since He has absolutely no need for a third temple. So if a third temple is built, God won't dwell in it, and if God doesn't dwell in it, it can't be desecrated.

Where may I ask does the Beast and the false prophet fit in since they are here at the return of Jesus after the gathering at Armageddon, when they are then cast into the lake of fire?

divaD
Mar 7th 2008, 06:52 PM
He says, "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the
holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand),......

The disciples would have understood when Jesus used the word "YOU" it meant They Themselves.
Jesus was referring to the near future destruction of the 2nd temple which occurred in 70 AD.


If that is the case, then why insert this: (whoever reads, let him understand)

If Jesus was referring to the near future destruction of the 2nd temple which occurred in 70 AD, why insert that with His warning? What would there be to understand about it if it had already occurred by the time the New Testament was finished?

(whoso readeth, let him understand), were these Jesus' words, or were these added by the author? Either way, that statement alone would be pretty much meaningless to insert, if this had already occurred before anyone read of it in the NT.

markdrums
Mar 7th 2008, 07:05 PM
If that is the case, then why insert this: (whoever reads, let him understand)

If Jesus was referring to the near future destruction of the 2nd temple which occurred in 70 AD, why insert that with His warning? What would there be to understand about it if it had already occurred by the time the New Testament was finished?

(whoso readeth, let him understand), were these Jesus' words, or were these added by the author? Either way, that statement alone would be pretty much meaningless to insert, if this had already occurred before anyone read of it in the NT.

A couple things to think about...
First of all, it was about 40 years after Jesus was crucified that the temple was destroyed,. (40 is an interesting nuber in the Bible too....)
But the Gospels were written within those 40 years, so people alive at that time would have been able to "read" them.
Secondly, I believe "whoso readeth, let him understand" was added by the author for emphasis... Because it would be a little odd if while speaking Jesus said, "whoso readeth, let him understand".

Jesus spoke of Daniels vision because the Jews would immediately remember when Antiochus slaughtered pigs on the altar of the 1st temple, & built an abominable monument to Zeus Olympus....

Jesus prophesied another event, LIKE the one Daniel spoke of, that would take place while the disciples were still alive.

markedward
Mar 7th 2008, 07:46 PM
If Jesus was referring to the near future destruction of the 2nd temple which occurred in 70 AD, why insert that with His warning?It was added by the author of the Gospel as a parenthetical note; the author was telling his first-century readers to take note of Jesus' words, because it applied them.


What would there be to understand about it if it had already occurred by the time the New Testament was finished?The "New Testament" canon was not compiled together until a couple of centuries later. Aside from that, many scholars believe that the Gospels and many of the epistles were written before 70 AD, before the destruction of the temple. If they were written before 70 AD, it has nothing to do with when they were compiled together.

Specifically take note that Jesus directly prophesied that those events would happen in the lifetime of His disciples' generation. I would most definitely say that the temple's destruction in 70 AD (40 years later) was within their generation's lifetime as He said.


Where may I ask does the Beast and the false prophet fit in since they are here at the return of Jesus after the gathering at Armageddon, when they are then cast into the lake of fire?That's a matter of interpretation.

What I described in relation to the "abomination of desolation" is a matter of timing, and the timing of the "abomination" is explained in the Bible directly. Daniel shows that it would happen after the cutting off of the Messiah, after sacrifices were put to an end. Jesus states that it would happen within His generation's lifetime.

fellowservant
Mar 7th 2008, 07:57 PM
Paul mentions this man of sin as future, at the return of Christ. You would have to believe that Christ second coming, took place in 70 AD. And that Titus, or one of his men, was the man of sin that Paul mentions, and Christ came and destroyed him with the brightness of his comeing. And not only that, the first resurrection has already taken place, and we are in trouble as Paul says.

2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


We must be carefull how we interpret this, as we will give people the impression that the resurrection of the body is already past.



2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


I myself don't see your interpretations in scripture, this is a great contradiction of both Paul, John, and Christ. And makes them all false witnesses of these events.

And as you can see, that is not an exceptable interpretation, no matter how you put it. Best to look somewhere else, or the 70AD return of Christ is going to severly contradict scripture.

God bless

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2008, 08:07 PM
It was added by the author of the Gospel as a parenthetical note; the author was telling his first-century readers to take note of Jesus' words, because it applied them.

The "New Testament" canon was not compiled together until a couple of centuries later. Aside from that, many scholars believe that the Gospels and many of the epistles were written before 70 AD, before the destruction of the temple. If they were written before 70 AD, it has nothing to do with when they were compiled together.

Specifically take note that Jesus directly prophesied that those events would happen in the lifetime of His disciples' generation. I would most definitely say that the temple's destruction in 70 AD (40 years later) was within their generation's lifetime as He said.

That's a matter of interpretation.

What I described in relation to the "abomination of desolation" is a matter of timing, and the timing of the "abomination" is explained in the Bible directly. Daniel shows that it would happen after the cutting off of the Messiah, after sacrifices were put to an end. Jesus states that it would happen within His generation's lifetime.

How would you interpret this scripture, or would you accept it?

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Do you believe this will happen as Jesus revealed it?

markedward
Mar 7th 2008, 08:12 PM
Paul mentions this man of sin as future, at the return of Christ. You would have to believe that Christ second coming, took place in 70 AD.Paul mentions no "return," he only mentions Jesus' "coming" (unless you have a particular translation that intentionally changes the word "comes" to "returns," which do not mean the same thing). This "coming" is detailed in Daniel 7:13-14. Read that passage. The Son of Man "comes" on the clouds to heaven, not to earth. Jesus was being depicted as "coming" to God's throne in heaven, not "returning" to earth.


2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.This was in response to particular errant teachings spreading at the time, that the resurrection had already occurred. If this epistle was written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, then "future" could equally apply to the near future, especially since in his other epistles, Paul says as much.


And as you can see, that is not an exceptable interpretation, no matter how you put it. Best to look somewhere else, or the 70AD return of Christ is going to severly contradict scripture.Not so: there are numerous instances in the epistles in which their authors look to Jesus' "coming" as nigh. Romans 13:11-12, Romans 16:20, 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Philippians 4:5, Hebrews 10:37, James 5:8, 1 Peter 4:7. These were all written in the first century, so why would they all continually say Jesus' coming was soon/near/in a very little while if it was still thousands of years off? Again, the word "coming" refers back to the passage from Daniel 7, where the Son of Man "comes" to heaven, not to earth.

markedward
Mar 7th 2008, 08:22 PM
How would you interpret this scripture, or would you accept it?

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Do you believe this will happen as Jesus revealed it?Acts 4:23-27 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.' Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed."

Peter and John quote a psalm of David against Herod and Pilate. Did Herod and Pilate and the kings of the earth and rulers all gather together to make a stand against God and Jesus? In a literalistic sense, no, they did not physically go out and stand in front of Jesus and defy Him, but they did "conspire against" Him.

I see Revelation 19 alluding back to this psalm as well, so I do believe it would happen as depicted, but that doesn't mean it would happen in the most literalistic sense, just as Herod and Pilate didn't literally gather the kings of the earth to stand in front of Jesus to defy Him.

divaD
Mar 8th 2008, 12:08 AM
But the Gospels were written within those 40 years, so people alive at that time would have been able to "read" them.

That at least answers the next question I was going to ask.



Secondly, I believe "whoso readeth, let him understand" was added by the author for emphasis... Because it would be a little
odd if while speaking Jesus said, "whoso readeth, let him understand".

Actually, I didn't really suspect Jesus said that either, since it wouldn't make sense to talk like that unless it was being written as He spoke, I assumed they were from the author also.:)

markdrums
Mar 8th 2008, 12:47 AM
That at least answers the next question I was going to ask.




Actually, I didn't really suspect Jesus said that either, since it wouldn't make sense to talk like that unless it was being written as He spoke, I assumed they were from the author also.:)

LOL!!

Actually.... I just recently had the realization that Jesus didn't say that. (within the past year... and I'm 37!!!) :)

I never gave a lot of thought to those words, until a few months ago. I actually didn't begin STUDYING the scriptures until about a year ago, although I had heard thousands of sermons, & thought I "knew" the Bible... (silly me!! hahaha!)

After thinking about how the Gospels came about, (The disciples recording the events after Jesus had lived & was crucified) and the fact that someone speaking probably wouldn't say anything about "readers", it hit me.

So funny how we grow in the Lord!!!

:):spin::hug:

quiet dove
Mar 8th 2008, 01:12 AM
Even if Jesus didn't say it, it was still inspired by the Holy Spirit to be said, yes?

divaD
Mar 8th 2008, 01:23 AM
Even if Jesus didn't say it, it was still inspired by the Holy Spirit to be said, yes?

Exactly! Very true.:)

markdrums
Mar 8th 2008, 01:26 AM
Even if Jesus didn't say it, it was still inspired by the Holy Spirit to be said, yes?

That's a BIG 10-4!!! :pp

EVERY word of the scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit!
Even if things weren't "spoken" by God, they were written the way they were for a reason! And the reason being, The Bible is DIVINE in origin, not human in origin.
Plain & simple.

;)

Mograce2U
Mar 8th 2008, 05:32 AM
That at least answers the next question I was going to ask.
...
Actually, I didn't really suspect Jesus said that either, since it wouldn't make sense to talk like that unless it was being written as He spoke, I assumed they were from the author also.:)
(Mat 24:15 KJV) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Could it be that Jesus expected those listening to Him to actually read the scripture He was referring to? Whenever the scripture is referred to in the NT (until Peter mentions Paul's epistles), the OT is what is meant. That would certainly have been the case in the gospels before the epistles had been written. It is Daniel who they are being instructed to read - not Matthew.

divaD
Mar 8th 2008, 02:17 PM
(Mat 24:15 KJV) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Could it be that Jesus expected those listening to Him to actually read the scripture He was referring to? Whenever the scripture is referred to in the NT (until Peter mentions Paul's epistles), the OT is what is meant. That would certainly have been the case in the gospels before the epistles had been written. It is Daniel who they are being instructed to read - not Matthew.



You know what? I never considered it from that perspective. But a question does arise. Matthew 24:3 tells us that the disciples came unto Him privately. So at the time who would Jesus be referring to but the disciples? With that in mind, I'm back to thinking the author added it for emphasis, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of course. But either way, whether Jesus spoke those words, or whether the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those words, we can know those words are there for a reason.

Firstfruits
Mar 8th 2008, 04:06 PM
Acts 4:23-27 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.' Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed."

Peter and John quote a psalm of David against Herod and Pilate. Did Herod and Pilate and the kings of the earth and rulers all gather together to make a stand against God and Jesus? In a literalistic sense, no, they did not physically go out and stand in front of Jesus and defy Him, but they did "conspire against" Him.

I see Revelation 19 alluding back to this psalm as well, so I do believe it would happen as depicted, but that doesn't mean it would happen in the most literalistic sense, just as Herod and Pilate didn't literally gather the kings of the earth to stand in front of Jesus to defy Him.

Do you agree that the beast and the false prophet will be here at Jesus's return and at that time they will be destroyed/cast into the lake of fire?

divaD
Mar 8th 2008, 04:49 PM
Paul mentions no "return," he only mentions Jesus' "coming" (unless you have a particular translation that intentionally changes
the word "comes" to "returns," which do not mean the same thing). This "coming" is detailed in Daniel 7:13-14. Read that
passage. The Son of Man "comes" on the clouds to heaven, not to earth. Jesus was being depicted as "coming" to God's
throne in heaven, not "returning" to earth.



Daniel 7:2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.


This verse, besides others in this ch, establishes a location. If we do a phrase search for 'great sea', we can pretty much determine that the location is earth.


Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.



Where were the thrones cast down to? The same place that these visions takes place...the earth.

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom


This once again establishes the location of the Ancient of days..the earth. And since the location of he Ancient of days is upon the earth, then that can only mean one like the Son of man that came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, came to the same location as the Ancient of days...which would be the earth. The saints possess the kingdom on earth, not the kingdom in heaven. They would have to overthrow God to take possession of the kingdom in heaven, so it only stands to reason that this kingdom spoken of is on earth. And since the Ancient of days came there(Daniel 7:22), then the one like the Son of man came there also, since He came to where the Ancient of days came to.

Mograce2U
Mar 8th 2008, 07:05 PM
Hi DivaD,
The tense of the aramaic word remah [H7412] translated "cast down" also means to establish. It is in the imperfect and active voice which means it is part of an action not yet accomplished by the subject. There is nothing in the text to tell us this is happening in the earth, and since Daniel's vision is a heavenly one, the heavenly realm ought to be assumed instead. The little horn beast who comes up out of the sea (ungodly humanity) is apparently in the earth. But God who is in heaven and received the Son of Man there, is not.

markedward
Mar 8th 2008, 07:10 PM
Do you agree that the beast and the false prophet will be here at Jesus's return and at that time they will be destroyed/cast into the lake of fire?Did I say I didn't? It's very plain in the Revelation. So yes, I believe the beasts of the sea and of the earth would be there at Jesus' coming (re: Daniel 7:13-14).

Mograce2U
Mar 8th 2008, 07:14 PM
You know what? I never considered it from that perspective. But a question does arise. Matthew 24:3 tells us that the disciples came unto Him privately. So at the time who would Jesus be referring to but the disciples? With that in mind, I'm back to thinking the author added it for emphasis, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of course. But either way, whether Jesus spoke those words, or whether the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those words, we can know those words are there for a reason.The other phrase we hear Jesus use often when He was speaking was "he that has ears to hear..". That phrase never seems to be used for any reference to OT scripture, but to new revelation Jesus was giving.

Merton
Mar 8th 2008, 08:18 PM
The other phrase we hear Jesus use often when He was speaking was "he that has ears to hear..". That phrase never seems to be used for any reference to OT scripture, but to new revelation Jesus was giving.




Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

markedward
Mar 8th 2008, 08:25 PM
Neither do I see Jesus speaking, nor do I see the phrase "He that has ears to hear" used by the one speaking (Paul).

yoSAMite
Mar 8th 2008, 10:52 PM
***If the "Great Tribulation" is SEVEN years, how can the first 3 1/2 years be peaceful & everyone thinks it's all hunky-dory? I mean SEVEN years of tribulation should be JUST THAT! ....Seven years! Because, so far with this scenario, the "Seven year Great Tribulation" is reduced to 3 1/2.
Do the math....***In reading this remember it comes from a pre-trib view, that is the context.

There is no Scripture that states a seven year great tribulation. Those who believe in a pre-trib rapture believe that the final 3 1/2 years of Daniel's coming 70th week are the great tribulation (Matt 24:21).

Nowhere in Scripture does it even say that the seven year period is a tribulation. So why do so many call that seven year period the tribulation? First I think it's a lazy interpretation of Matt 24:21. Secondly and more importantly the term "tribulation" used for Daniel's 70th week I think would be best described as an idiom for that time period. Though technically wrong, it is still used.

I guess it would similar to using the term "jello" for the gelatin desert or the term "gay" used for homosexuals. Both not technically correct but both also accepted.

Here's a list of names of that time period known as the tribulation I nabbed from somewhere.

Names of the Tribulation in OT
The Time of Jacob’s Trouble – Jeremiah 30:7
The Seventieth Week of Daniel – Daniel 9:27
Jehovah’s Strange Work – Isaiah 28:21
Jehovah’s Strange Act – Isaiah 28:21
The Day of Israel’s Calamity – Deuteronomy 32:35, Obadiah 1:13-14
The Tribulation – Deuteronomy 4:30
The Indignation – Isaiah 26:20, Daniel 11:36
The Overflowing Scourge – Isaiah 28:15, 18
The Day of Vengeance – Isaiah 34:8, 35:4, 61:2
The Year of Trouble – Daniel 12:1, Zephaniah 1:15
The Day of Wrath – Zephaniah 1:15
The Day of Distress – Zephaniah 1:15
The Day of Wasteness – Zephaniah 1:15
The Day of Desolation – Zephaniah 1:15
The Day of Darkness – Zephaniah 1:15, Amos 5:18, 20; Joel 2:2
The Day of Gloominess – Zephaniah 1:15, Joel 2:2
The Day of Thick Darkensss – Zephaniah 1:15, Joel 2:2
The Day of the Trumpet – Zephaniah 1:16
The Day of Alarm – Zephaniah 1:16

Names of the Tribulation in NT
The Day of the Lord – 1 Thessalonians 5:2
The Wrath of God – Revelation 15:1, 7; 14:10, 19; 16:1
The Hour of Trial – Revelation 3:10
The Great Day of the Wrath of the Lamb of God – Revelation 6:16-17
The Wrath to Come – 1 Thessalonians 1:10
The Wrath – 1 Thessalonians 5:9, Revelation 11:18
The Great Tribulation – Matthew 24:21, Revelation 2:22, 7:14
The Tribulation Matthew - 24:29
The Hour of Judgment – Revelation 14:7

yoSAMite
Mar 8th 2008, 11:14 PM
I know all the scriptures that say "antichrist"... (All FOUR of them.... with none being in "Revelation")
I also know where John talks about "the mark of the beast". etc.....

I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?

As in my previous post about the term "tribulation" I think the same applies to the term "antichrist" or pseudo-christ if you will. It's a catch all phrase used for the final world ruler before Christs' second coming.

Concerning the list below, A.W. Pink in his book, "The Antichrist" says many [terms], when used connotatively, speak of evil in general; when viewed denotatively allude to a specific evil person with an eschatological role.

Old Testament
Adversary Ps 74:8-10; Isa 59:19; Lam 4:11, 12; Amos 3:11
Assyrian Isa 10:5,12
Belial Nahum 1:15
Bloody and Deceitful Man Ps 5:6
Branch of the Terrible Ones Isa 25:5; (cf. Isa 14:19)
Chief Prince Ezek 38:2
Crooked Serpent Job 26:13; Isa 27:1
Cruel One Jer 30:14,23
Destroyer of the Gentiles Jer 4:7
Enemy Ps 55:3; Jer 30:14, 23
Evil Man Ps 140:1
Head over many countries Ps 110:6
Head of Northern Army Joel 2:20
Idol Shepherd Zech 11:16, 17
King of Princes Hos 8:10
King of Babylon Isa 14:11-20; (cf. 30:31-33)
Little Horn Dan 7:8-11, 21-26; 8:9-12, 23-25
Man of the Earth Ps 10:18
Merchant, of deceit with balances Hos 12:7
Mighty Man Ps 52:1
Nail Isa 22:25
Prince that shall come Daniel 9:26
Prince of Tyre Ezek 28:2-10
Profane Wicked Prince of Israel Ezek 21:25-27
Proud Man Hab 2:5
Rod of God’s anger Isa 10:5
Seed of the Serpent Gen 3:15
Son of the Morning Isa 14:12
Spoiler, Destroyer Isa 16:4,5
Vile Person Dan 11:21
Violent Man Ps 140:1, 10, 11
Wicked, Wicked One Ps 9:17; 10:2,4; Isa 11:4; Jer 30:14, 23
Willful King Dan 11:36

New Testament:
Angel of the Bottomless Pit Rev 9:11
Antichrist, Pseudo-Christ 1 Jn 2:22
Beast Rev 11:7; 13
False Prophet Rev 13
Father of the lie Jn 8:44; 2 Thess 2:11
Lawless One 2 Thess 2:8
Man of Sin 2 Thess 2:3
One come in his own name Jn 5:43
Prince of Darkness 1 Thess 5
Son of Perdition 2 Thess 2:3
Star Rev 8:10; 9:1
Unclean Spirit Mt 12:43
Vine of the earth Rev 14:18

fellowservant
Mar 8th 2008, 11:45 PM
Paul mentions no "return," he only mentions Jesus' "coming" (unless you have a particular translation that intentionally changes the word "comes" to "returns," which do not mean the same thing). This "coming" is detailed in Daniel 7:13-14. Read that passage. The Son of Man "comes" on the clouds to heaven, not to earth. Jesus was being depicted as "coming" to God's throne in heaven, not "returning" to earth.


Don't be silly;)

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

What goes up must come down?:bounce:lol

What manner did he go into heaven? in a cloud? He will return in one as well.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The second comeing of Christ is to the earth, not heaven, as the tribes of the earth (ie nations) mourn when they see this.

Daniels vision is not fully understood in that context, but one thing is sure Christ returns to earth, not heaven, at his second comeing. Even angels say so. Acts 1:10-11 So what should i believe, your interpretation or theirs?

And Christ leaving the earth in a cloud happend at his ascension, not in 70AD.

This is good enough for me, i see this is turning into people fussin over words to no avail.

God bless

markedward
Mar 9th 2008, 12:14 AM
Don't be silly;)

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

What goes up must come down?:bounce:lol

What manner did he go into heaven? in a cloud? He will return in one as well.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This second coming of Christ is to the earth, not heaven, as the tribes of the earth (ie nations) mourn when they see this.

Daniels vision is not fully understood in that context, but one thing is sure Christ returns to earth, not heaven, at his second coming. Even angels say so. Acts 1:10 So who should i believe, your interpretation or theirs?


And Christ leaving the earth in a cloud happend at his ascension, not in 70AD as you suppose.I didn't say this. Please don't "put words in my mouth."

Revelation 12 depicts Christ's ascension, as a recap. Yet, in Revelation 5:6, we see Jesus (the lamb who had just been slain) is in heaven. While Christ's work for the atonement for our sins was finished, He still had things to do in heaven. We see that at least some of this was the opening of the seven seals, and the sounding of the seven trumpets. The seventh trumpet (Revelation 11) announced that Christ, who had already ascended to heaven sometime prior, had been given His kingdom, as seen in Daniel. So the best chronological order, I think, is: Christ ascends, is led into God's presence to His right hand, opens the seals, trumpets are sounded, bowls are poured, and then Christ is given His kingdom. This whole process, it seems best to say, is the "coming in His kingdom," the "coming on the clouds," the "coming in power and glory."

Hence the apostles in the first century claiming Jesus' coming was soon to happen in their own time. Hence, Jesus claiming it would happen in His generation. Hence, Jesus stating that people standing right in from of Him would not die before His kingdom came.

White Spider
Mar 9th 2008, 01:43 AM
Back to the "Original Post" to answer your question, it always puzzled me too, but I found a site that explained/interpreted Revelation 17 and it seemed to answer where the idea comes from a little bit.

Whether the Anti-Christ will make peace treaties in the middle east I don't know, but the site does show that He will come back in somewhat peaceful ways, but really it will only be peace for those who obey him.

I can't give you the site because the board will not allow me to post it because in it's interpretation of Revelation 17 it picks out who will be the Anti-Christ.

There choice is well explained and logical, but who knows if it's the real Anti-Christ or not. No amount of evidence could ever convince me someone will be the Anti-Christ, but the board is apparently worried suggestions will have some form of negative impact.

If you would be interested in the site let me know and I'll send you a PM with the URL.

Mograce2U
Mar 9th 2008, 04:00 AM
Don't be silly;)

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

What goes up must come down?:bounce:lol

What manner did he go into heaven? in a cloud? He will return in one as well.Then why do the angels tell the disciples to quit looking up at the clouds? The "manner" in which He was taken to heaven is the same manner in which He will return. That it is not about physical clouds seems clear. The manner is that He was taken up - is by what? the power of God. That is the manner in which He will come as well which will bring Him glory = makes Him known.


Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The second coming of Christ is to the earth, not heaven, as the tribes of the earth (ie nations) mourn when they see this.
But is the sign which appears to the earth a visible appearance of Jesus or an understanding that He is present and at work? The sign mentioned in v27-28 is like a flash of lightning to the world which physical evidence is dead bodies everywhere. Power and great glory is what is to be revealed that the world would see and recognize that Jesus is ruling in the kingdoms of men at the right hand of God.


Daniels vision is not fully understood in that context, but one thing is sure Christ returns to earth, not heaven, at his second comeing. Even angels say so. Acts 1:10-11 So what should i believe, your interpretation or theirs? Yet Jesus spoke of coming to His own in a continuous ongoing fashion. I will never leave you nor forsake you. My Father and I will come to make our abode with you and sup with you (John 14). The letters to the 7 churches mentions Jesus coming quickly and even as a thief to them to bring correction, chastening, judgment and even death. So which coming do you mean? If He is dwelling in our midst then He has never left us alone at all.


And Christ leaving the earth in a cloud happend at his ascension, not in 70AD.From the point of view of the earth that is true, but Daniel's point of view is heavenly which concerns His arrival there. Jesus was given the rule of the kingdom at that point. Rev shows that He is standing in the midst of the 7 churches to whom He has John write. He is with us now as He was with them then. Did they physically see Him? Yet He promised to visit each of them. And Ephesus did have their candlestick removed...


This is good enough for me, i see this is turning into people fussin over words to no avail.

God blessIt is not to no avail if it is our understanding that needs correction.

fellowservant
Mar 9th 2008, 04:03 AM
I didn't say this. Please don't "put words in my mouth."

Christ ascends, is led into God's presence to His right hand, opens the seals, trumpets are sounded, bowls are poured, and then Christ is given His kingdom. This whole process, it seems best to say, is the "coming in His kingdom," the "coming on the clouds," the "coming in power and glory."


Sorry but i must of edited my post while you were posting a reply. Either way i see you basicly saying in the above quote, that the ascension is takeing place at or near his second comeing? Is that what you mean by saying this whole process, is the coming in the clouds of heaven?

Thats way over my head brother, ive never seen an interpretation like this, ever. Preterist? well i see part of the problem, but thats up to you to believe this interpretation. I myself strongly disagree with the Preterist view, or interpretation of these events.

God bless

Mark F
Mar 9th 2008, 04:42 AM
markdrums wrote:
What I'm wondering & asking is, How and where is the "popular" definition of "The Antichrist" supported in scripture?
What I mean by that is, WHERE in the Bible is "The Antichrist" described as "a man who seemingly brings peace at first, as a world leader / politician, (possessed by Satan) that enacts a peace-treaty with Israel / the middle-east, pretending to be God himself, tricking the jews (and the entire world) into believing HE is the Messiah, and uniting all the world religions.
Somewhere along the line, he dies & actually comes back to life... thus enabeling himself to further deceive people (who are "left behind" after the "church" mysteriously vanishes) and half-way through this seven year period impose a "mandatory mark" to buy or sell."



I do think there will be a "man" who will deceive many and will be a violent and wicked man, not coming and saying "I am Jesus believe in Me" he will hate all that is of Jesus Christ and will not hide that fact.

Isaiah 14:12-17;
12 “ How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:

‘ I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16 “ Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:

‘ Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?"

As for the the beast tricking the Jews into believing he is the Messiah, I don't recall The Left Behind books doing that, although I read alot of them probably 10 years ago. He obviously somehow has something to do with Islam, as they are exclusively the people who hold the Temple mount and surround them. This killing him and him coming back to life is obviously an error of interpretation as Satan cannot give life right?

Revelation 13:1-5;
The Beast from the Sea
1 "Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. 2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”
5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months."

Rev. 17:9-11;
“Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition."


What's a mountain?

Dan. 2:31-35;
“You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. 32 This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

Verse 44;
44 "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."

In Revelation we see that a head is a mountain, in Daniel we see that a mountain is a KINGDOM, so the wounding will not be to a person but to a KINGDOM.

Is there a kingdom that has been wounded near Israel that has been trying to raise itself back up again declaring it's power under a blasphemous name? Can you spell I-s-l-a-m?

finewine
Mar 9th 2008, 05:00 AM
I appreciate all your input!

The couple things I want to point out would be,
Daniel's prophecy / vision was not about the same "Beast / Antichrist" in revelation.
Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 11 was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would come & desecrate the FIRST temple... which happened around 167 BC.

And when he describes the "70 weeks", this was the time it would take before Messiah brought Salvation, & conquered death & sin.
This was fulfilled DURING the 70th week, when Jesus was crucified.
Jesus "Caused Sacrifices to cease", by becoming THE sacrifice for all of us.

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".


Again, I appreciate all your input with this.


In my studies, Jesus did not come back as the Messiah at Calvary.

Daniel's prophecies are indeed related to Revelation.
Two major events have to take place after the 69th week and before the 70th week.
One: cutting off of the Messiah (his crucifiction and resurrection)
Two: The destruction of the city and the temple in Jerusalem which did not happen until A.D. 70.

There is a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.
If Jesus had fulfilled the prophesy then the Jews would have set up the kingdom since the promised blessing are associated with the second coming of Christ which clearly has not happened, I think you will agree with me on that.
and Jesus would have returned by now to fulfill the promises.



Nowhere in Scripture does it even say that the seven year period is a tribulation. So why do so many call that seven year period the tribulation? First I think it's a lazy interpretation of Matt 24:21. Secondly and more importantly the term "tribulation" used for Daniel's 70th week I think would be best described as an idiom for that time period. Though technically wrong, it is still used.I will beg to differ with you Koolaid.

It can be an idiom for the time period... the one in the future coming.


The covenant-maker of Daniel 9 is not "the antichrist," and neither is he the "man of lawlessness." Again, in the context of the whole passage, only one individual is being discussed, explicitly called "the Messiah, the Prince." The covenant-maker is the Messiah.I will disagree with you.
The Messiah cannot be the prince simply because it is "the people of the prince that shall come" wo are to destroy Jerusalem after the death of Messiah. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D.70 by the roman people, not by the Jewish people so the prince will arise out of the Roman Empire and is not the Messiah.

The Messiah returns AFTER the tribulation not before it.

That 3.5 years comes from the literal interpretation of the prophesy of the 70 weeks in Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27
week = seven in Hebrew "shabua"
70 sevens

The 70th week begins with a convenant between a great prince that rises out of the Roman empire and Israel.

This covenant guarantees Israel the possession of their land and the restoration of their religious and political autonomy, is to be viewed as a false fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. This causes many to believe that the "man of sin" is God. II Thess. 2:3.

The 70th week chronology:

1. seven years which lies prophetically between the translation of the church and the return of Christ.

2. provides exact chronological framework fo rthe great events in Rev 6-19.

3. firm covenant between prince and Jewish people.

4. In the middle of the week (3.5 years) the prince will reverse his friendly attitude towards Israel and break the covenant with period of "desolations" for the Jewish people.

5. End of week will usher in the blessings promised to Israel in Daniel 9:24.
and the return of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium kingdom.


The tribulation has 2 purposes:
One: God's judgment on unbelieving man and nations.
Two: Prepare the nation Israel for her Messiah and to populate the millennium with a multitude of saved Gentiles who are redeemed through the preaching of the believing remnant.

Here is a time line for you

Daniel 2 and 7 The federation of states into a Roman Empire.
Daniel 9:27: Rev. 13:1-10 a political ruler of this empire, who makes a covenant with Israel
Revelation 13:11-18 the formulation of a false religious system under a false prophet
Revelation 6 The pouring out of the judgments under the seals
Revelation 7 The separation of the 144,000 witnesses
Revelation 8-11 The trumpet judgments
Revelation 11 The rise of God's witnesses
Revelation 12 The persecution of Israel

Roelof
Mar 9th 2008, 05:06 AM
Here is a time line for you

Daniel 2 and 7 The federation of states into a Roman Empire.
Daniel 9:27: Rev. 13:1-10 a political ruler of this empire, who makes a covenant with Israel


finewine

Could this be the European Union?

finewine
Mar 9th 2008, 05:13 AM
:)
It is an interesting speculation isn't it.
:)

markedward
Mar 9th 2008, 05:32 AM
Sorry but i must of edited my post while you were posting a reply. Either way i see you basicly saying in the above quote, that the ascension is takeing place at or near his second comeing? Is that what you mean by saying this whole process, is the coming in the clouds of heaven?Well, I was trying to say the "coming on the clouds of heaven" or "coming in power" was a sort of process. Daniel depicts the Son of Man "coming on the clouds of heaven" and being given a kingdom. Jesus ascended to heaven but was only declared as the King after the seventh trumpet had sounded (Revelation 11). So the "coming on the clouds of heaven" seems to be everything Jesus did between His ascension to God's right hand and the actual victory cry seen in Revelation 11.

A sidenote: Neither Jesus nor His apostles refer to this event as the "second coming." Only the "coming." No "second" attribute is ever applied by them. In Scriptural terms, it is the Coming.


Thats way over my head brother, ive never seen an interpretation like this, ever. Preterist? well i see part of the problem, but thats up to you to believe this interpretation. I myself strongly disagree with the Preterist view, or interpretation of these events.Mind if I ask you a few questions?

Do you believe Jesus is our king right now?
Do you believe Jesus is our high priest right now?
Do you believe Jesus is our temple right now?
Do you believe Jesus judges us upon physical death?

How do you interpret these verses: Matthew 10:23, Romans 13:11-12, Romans 16:20, 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Philippians 4:5, Hebrews 10:37, James 5:8, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 Peter 4:17, 1 John 2:18?

Read Revelation 12.

I'll recap it in short: A woman (Israel: compare Rev. 12:1 with Gen. 37:9) is about to give birth. A dragon is seen in heaven, and he throws a third of the stars of heaven to the earth, so that they can devour the child about to be born. The Son is born, and He is caught up to heaven. The woman is taken away to safety. The dragon and his angels return to heaven, and a war takes place. The dragon and his angels are cast to the earth. "Rejoice heavens! The accuser has been thrown down! Woe to the earth, because the dragon knows his time is short!"

It was after the Son ascended to heaven that Satan was thrown to the earth. And when Satan was thrown to the earth, it was said "Woe to the earth, because the dragon knows his time is short." Has there been a war in heaven for two-thousand years or has Satan's time been short for two-thousand years? I doubt either, since Paul promised the first-century Romans "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." If the war in heaven hasn't taken place yet, then God didn't "soon crush" Satan. If Satan's time has been "short" for two-thousand years, then God didn't "soon crush" Satan.

I respect that you disagree with the "Preterist" view. I did too for a long time. But honestly and personally, I don't know how anyone can get around the numerous "soon" and "near" and "short while" statements in the NT. I can count at least seven verses from the epistles stating that the first-century people were living in the "last days."

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

"Some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

"And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ... This generation shall not pass from the scene until all these things take place."

"You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Too undeniable to me.

finewine
Mar 9th 2008, 06:55 AM
I respect that you disagree with the "Preterist" view. I did too for a long time. But honestly and personally, I don't know how anyone can get around the numerous "soon" and "near" and "short while" statements in the NT. I can count at least seven verses from the epistles stating that the first-century people were living in the "last days."

I get around them quite easily because Christ should be literally ruling Israel right now, not the church, but Israel.
Clearly I do not see Christ ruling Israel unless you think that Ulmert is Christ.

Those NT verses in context all are prophetic if you study the whole of prophecy in OT and NT.

Matthew23:37-39 states that Israel has been set aside until the restitution of God's dealing with them.
If there is no gap in time then the 6 promised blessings must likewise be fulfilled to Israel. None of these have been experienced by the nation. Since the church is not Israel, the church can not now be fulfilling them. God fulfills his promises literally. Since these promises are associated with the second coming of Christ then if there is no gap of time Christ would have returned 3.5 to 7 years after his death to fulfill the promises.
His anticipation is still anticipated is it not?

Matthew 24:29-30 and Acts 1:6-8 places the 70th week at the end of the age immediately before his coming and that a whole age of undetermined duration is to intervene between the 69th and 70th week.

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2008, 07:33 AM
How do you interpret these verses: Matthew 10:23

Well, taking only verse 23. . .

Mt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 10:23, as I understand it, covers the same period of time as the Olivet discourse in Matthew chapter 24. Of particular note is Matthew 24:2, "And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." I think everyone agrees that the second coming, would have had to be after (or during) the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the hands of the Roman empire. Which naturally leads us into a discussion of the tribulation period of Daniels 70th week (I don't think anyone here would say it's happened yet?). The son of Man, coming, of course, at the end of the 70th week . . . Which hasn't happened. . . Referring also to Matthew 24.

Specifically regarding Matthew 24:30 (Christ will be seen by every eye upon his return)--did not happen in 70 A.D. Matthew 24:31 (all Jews will be regathered)--did not happen in 70 A.D. When Christ returns, no wars on earth (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)--did not happen in 70 A.D.

So where as it may be difficult to reconcile the seemingly immediate context of the verses listed. I believe it's impossible to reconcile a Preterist view in regards to the totality of scripture.

Firstfruits
Mar 9th 2008, 11:57 AM
Did I say I didn't? It's very plain in the Revelation. So yes, I believe the beasts of the sea and of the earth would be there at Jesus' coming (re: Daniel 7:13-14).

I know you did not say it didn't, just double checking, thank you.

When Jesus spoke of the abomination spoken of by Daniel he therefore also spoke of a future event concerning his return/coming.

Has what you said previously now changed?

The couple things I want to point out would be,
Daniel's prophecy / vision was not about the same "Beast / Antichrist" in revelation.
Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 11 was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would come & desecrate the FIRST temple... which happened around 167 BC.

And when he describes the "70 weeks", this was the time it would take before Messiah brought Salvation, & conquered death & sin.
This was fulfilled DURING the 70th week, when Jesus was crucified.
Jesus "Caused Sacrifices to cease", by becoming THE sacrifice for all of us.

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".

markedward
Mar 9th 2008, 08:04 PM
When Jesus spoke of the abomination spoken of by Daniel he therefore also spoke of a future event concerning his return/coming.

Has what you said previously now changed?What was it that would have changed? The "abomination of desolation" that Jesus was speaking about was from Daniel 9, and I've said this before.


The couple things I want to point out would be,
Daniel's prophecy / vision was not about the same "Beast / Antichrist" in revelation.That's difficult to conclude. The imagery presented in Revelation 13 immediately takes us back to Daniel 7. Daniel 7 prophecies that the Kingdom of God would be established during the time of the fourth beast/kingdom (1-Babylon, 2-Media-Persia, 3-Greece, 4-Rome). Daniel 7 presents images of the "little horn" of the beast, that wages war on the saints of God. Revelation 13 tells of how the beast wages war on the saints of God. The entirety of the Revelation is about the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Daniel's prophecies and John's revelation do speak of the same events, and thus the same "beast."


Daniel's prophecy in Chapter 11 was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would come & desecrate the FIRST temple... which happened around 167 BC.Right: Daniel 11's "abomination of desolation" was of Antiochus IV. Daniel 9's (and the Olivet Discourse's) "abomination of desolation" could not have been the same one as from Daniel 11.


And when he describes the "70 weeks", this was the time it would take before Messiah brought Salvation, & conquered death & sin.
This was fulfilled DURING the 70th week, when Jesus was crucified.
Jesus "Caused Sacrifices to cease", by becoming THE sacrifice for all of us.I did state this earlier in the thread, I think.


We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".I didn't say anything about a "modern version."

markedward
Mar 9th 2008, 08:21 PM
Well, taking only verse 23. . .

Mt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 10:23, as I understand it, covers the same period of time as the Olivet discourse in Matthew chapter 24. Of particular note is Matthew 24:2, "And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." I think everyone agrees that the second coming, would have had to be after (or during) the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the hands of the Roman empire.

[QUOTE]Which naturally leads us into a discussion of the tribulation period of Daniels 70th week (I don't think anyone here would say it's happened yet?).Well, Daniel 9 says that "desolations were determined" and that they "consummated" in the "abomination of desolation." Consummation means a finalization; to finalize something, you have to lead up to that finale. Jesus said "When you see the abomination of desolation, flee Judea." According to Luke, Jesus said "When you see armies surrounding Jerusalem, flee Judea." Then all three Synoptic Gospels state Jesus said His generation would not pass away until all those things took place.

So:

Did armies surround Jerusalem and destroy the city and the temple within the lifetime of Jesus' generation?

If anyone answers no, they either don't know or they are intentionally covering up historical fact. If anyone answers yes, they must admit that what Jesus prophesied came to pass. If they admit that, then they admit that when Jesus said all He meant all. "All these things" does not mean "some of these things." If "all these things" didn't happen within Jesus' generation, then that would make Jesus a false prophet, period.

Did the disciples finish going through all the cities of Judea before the Son of Man came? If the answer is no, then Matthew 10:23 is a false prophecy.

Did people standing right in from of Jesus not taste death before the Son of Man came? If the answer is no, then Matthew 16:28 is a false prophecy.

Did Jesus' generation not pass away until all of the Olivet Discourse took place? If the answer is no, then Matthew 24:34 is a false prophecy.

But we trust in the words of Jesus. We trust that He was the Messiah and the Son of God and that He spoke in Truth. If we believe that, then we must believe the above prophecies as having actually happened, period. Otherwise, we're ignoring or changing the words of Christ in order to appeal to what we think should happen rather than what He actually said.


The son of Man, coming, of course, at the end of the 70th week . . . Which hasn't happened. . . Referring also to Matthew 24.We count consecutively do we not? How can the "70th week" rightly be called as such if it didn't come immediately after the 69th week?

divaD
Mar 9th 2008, 09:43 PM
So:

Did armies surround Jerusalem and destroy the city and the temple within the lifetime of Jesus' generation?

If anyone answers no, they either don't know or they are intentionally covering up historical fact. If anyone answers yes, they
must admit that what Jesus prophesied came to pass. If they admit that, then they admit that when Jesus said all He meant
all. "All these things" does not mean "some of these things." If "all these things" didn't happen within Jesus' generation, then
that would make Jesus a false prophet, period.



Woa here. I've been in other forums where some members used these very same tactics. I didn't realize they were happening in here.
It doesn't matter if a person answers yes or no, at no time, period, ever, would that make Jesus a false prophet. So why even say that? I find that statement truly offensive, as I'm sure the Lord does also. The point is, since I'm certain you don't really think Jesus to be a false prophet, and surely you don't think anyone disagreeing with you would think Jesus to be a false prophet, then why even suggest it in the first place? What does it have to do with anything? If anything is in error, it's the interpretation of Jesus' words, not Jesus' words. And no...no matter if one agrees or disagrees with your conclusions, that still doesn't make Jesus a false prophet, period. It simply means that their interpretation in incorrect, or yours is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus making false claims, so why bring Him into the picture? Basically what you're trying to do is to trick some into your belief system. Fortunately it doesn't work on all of us.

fellowservant
Mar 9th 2008, 09:47 PM
A sidenote: Neither Jesus nor His apostles refer to this event as the "second coming." Only the "coming." No "second" attribute is ever applied by them. In Scriptural terms, it is the Coming.




Like i said im not going to fuss over words;) Christ came then he left, when he comes again, it will be his second coming.





Mind if I ask you a few questions?


Do you believe Jesus is our king right now?
Do you believe Jesus is our high priest right now?
Do you believe Jesus is our temple right now?
Do you believe Jesus judges us upon physical death?




Yes i agree with most of these, except the last one. We can be judged while we are alive. Its called chastisment, so we won't be condemed with the world. 1Co 11:32






Read Revelation 12.


I'll recap it in short: A woman (Israel: compare Rev. 12:1 with Gen. 37:9) is about to give birth. A dragon is seen in heaven, and he throws a third of the stars of heaven to the earth, so that they can devour the child about to be born. The Son is born, and He is caught up to heaven. The woman is taken away to safety. The dragon and his angels return to heaven, and a war takes place. The dragon and his angels are cast to the earth. "Rejoice heavens! The accuser has been thrown down! Woe to the earth, because the dragon knows his time is short!"




This is not proven to be Christ, that man child could be something else. Read Isaiah 66.







I respect that you disagree with the "Preterist" view. I did too for a long time. But honestly and personally, I don't know how anyone can get around the numerous "soon" and "near" and "short while" statements in the NT. I can count at least seven verses from the epistles stating that the first-century people were living in the "last days."



Peter says one day with the lord is as a thousand years. And he is being patient not willing that anyone should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.






"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."



The above quote is in possible error, Christ is not refering to his coming in power here, but is refering to his meeting his deciples later. Because he sent them out to preach.

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.





"Some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."



Here he could be refering to the Holy spirit, as he says to the Jews that the kingdom of God is within you. And he tells his deciples that when they preach to say the kingdom of God is near. (Ie within us) as of now. Or something happend at the transfigeration, because Peter says he seen the power of his coming.


Jesus also said to Philip you will see greater things than these, he would see angels ascending and decending upon Christ. When did Philip see this? There is no answer for that.


So some standing here? his deciples where standing there as well.





"And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ... This generation shall not pass from the scene until all these things take place."



Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?



This generation will not pass? what generation? the one that these things take place with. This is a quote from Matthew 24, the events in Matthew 24 are far from being fullfiled, as it is speaking of the end of this age or the end of the world. It also says the coming of Christ is at the end of this world. As you can see, this has definitly not happend yet. Unless you believe the end of the world has already happend.





Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.




Even Christ himself said he didnt know when he would return. So how could he pinpoint it too his generation? He couldnt, he was telling them that some things had to take place first, before he could return. Do you see?




Paul also mentions this when he says let no man decieve you by any means, for that day will not come untill....



2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;





"You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."



Here Christ is speaking to Pilot, the book of revelation says all eyes will see his coming. Even the ones that pierced him.


Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.





Too undeniable to me



Not to me




We are derailing this tread:) So im done for now, its a matter of interpretation. I disagree with Preterist for the above reasons.


God bless

yoSAMite
Mar 9th 2008, 09:58 PM
Markward said:

According to Luke, Jesus said "When you see armies surrounding Jerusalem, flee Judea." Then all three Synoptic Gospels state Jesus said His generation would not pass away until all those things took place.I don't believe that your assertion that all 3 synopitc Gospels say what you state.

I think that by taking another look one might find that the Matthew and the Luke passages are talking about something completely different.

Luke 21:5-6
And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, [As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

This is the same as Matthew 24:1-2, and this did happen in 70AD.

Luke 21:7
And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign [will there be] when these things shall come to pass?

Similar to Matt 24:3, but in Matthew they also ask about His second coming, not here.

Luke 21:8-11
The “beginnings of sorrows” similar to Matthew 24:4-8, with an exhortation that no man deceive them.

It’s here that Matthew and Luke take different directions.
Luke 21:12-13
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute [you], delivering [you] up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

Matthew 24:9
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Luke says that before the beginnings of sorrows we’ll be persecuted and such and we will be able to turn it into a testimony. Then verses 14-19 expound on the testimony part of the verse 13.

Matthew says that after the beginning of sorrows they’ll be killed and hated. More false prophets, a cold heart and then the gospel of the Kingdom will be preached to all the world. My conjecture on verse 14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” is that it is a reference to the 2 witnesses of Revelation.

Luke 21:20
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This talks about the desolation of Jerusalem, not the abomination of desolation mentioned in Matthew 24:15. The destruction of temple in Jerusalem happened in 70AD. The abomination of desolation talked about in Daniel happened in 167 BC and led to the Maccabeen revolt and ultimately to it’s celebration, Hanukkah. Two very different events.

Luke 21:21-24
Similar to Matthew 24:16-24 with very subtle but important differences. Notice that in Luke, there is no mention of the Sabbath as there is in Matthew. In Matthew there is added urgency. The surrounding of Jerusalem did not happen as an instantaneous event, it took time to surround the city, six months from what I can surmise. The abomination of desolation is a sudden event and the people are told to drop whatever and get out.

Not only are the events different, they also have different consequences. In the Luke account the people who don’t heed Jesus advice will be led away or killed and Jerusalem will run by the Gentiles. No mention of any tribulation period. In Matthew the result is the “great tribulation”. What makes this a time of great tribulation is that it’s God’s tribulation against those who pay homage to the image of the beast in the holy of holies.

Luke 21:25-28
Jesus jumps to the signs of His second coming, similar to Matthew 24:25-31.

Just a different interpretation for you to look at.

markedward
Mar 10th 2008, 02:56 AM
It doesn't matter if a person answers yes or no, at no time, period, ever, would that make Jesus a false prophet. So why even say that? I find that statement truly offensive, as I'm sure the Lord does also.My apologies, I meant no offense, and I'm sorry for coming off that way.

May I ask then, how you interpret these statements?


When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


Some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.


And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ... This generation shall not pass from the scene until all these things take place.


Just a different interpretation for you to look at.Understood. Why would Jesus start off speaking of the same event then diverge in two directions?

Matthew - Luke
"This temple will be thrown down." - "This temple will be thrown down."
"What will be the signs of this and Your coming?" - "What will be the signs of this and Your coming?"
"Do not be deceived." - "Do not be deceived."
"Nations against nations." - "Nations against nations."
"Famines." - "Famines."
"Earthquakes." - "Earthquakes."
"You will be handed over for persecution." - "You will be handed over for persecution."
"Love of most will grow cold." - "All men will hate you because of Me."
"He who stands firm to the end will be saved." - "By standing firm you gain life."
"When you see standing in the holy place the abomination of desolation." - "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies you will know its desolation is near."
"Flee to the mountains." - "Flee to the mountains."
"Woe to nursing and pregnant mothers." - "Woe to nursing and pregnant mothers."
"There will be great distress." - "There will be great distress."
"The sun and moon will darken. The stars will fall." - "There will be signs in the sun and the moon and stars."
"The heavenly bodies will be shaken." - "The heavenly bodies will be shaken."
"They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds." - "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds."
"This generation will not pass away before all these things take place." - "This generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

Everything else corresponds directly between the two, both before and after the statements of the "abomination" of Matthew and the "armies" of Luke, so we must conclude they were speaking of the same thing. And, regardless, they both fall under the "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" statement.


This talks about the desolation of Jerusalem, not the abomination of desolation mentioned in Matthew 24:15. The destruction of temple in Jerusalem happened in 70AD. The abomination of desolation talked about in Daniel happened in 167 BC and led to the Maccabeen revolt and ultimately to it’s celebration, Hanukkah. Two very different events.So... Jesus was speaking about a past event as being in the future? That doesn't make any sense. It's been pointed out that there were two different "abominations of desolation" in Daniel, that of Daniel 11, and that of Daniel 9. Because of the chronology presented within Daniel, we can know for certain they were not the same "abominations." Daniel 11 is where we find Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabeen revolt. Daniel 9 speaks of something else; this is the abomination that Jesus referred to as being future, yet within the lifetime of His generation.

finewine
Mar 10th 2008, 03:38 AM
We count consecutively do we not? How can the "70th week" rightly be called as such if it didn't come immediately after the 69th week? http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1566893)

There is a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.
That gap is the church
That gap is Christ coming as the Savior not the Messiah.
That gap ends at the rapture of the church right before the beginning of the 70th week.

Such gaps are seen in many passages of Scripture, one being:

Acts 15:13-21 speaks of the apostles understanding that during the present age the OT prophecies would not be fulfilled, but would have fulfillment "after this" when God "will build again the tabernacle of David"

The Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 is the prediction by the Lord of how the Jewish age will end.
The discourse is easily understood and is intelligible if the present age is considered a parenthesis between Daniel 9:26
and 9:27.

I think the fallacy of the consecutive view is that you must spiritualize the prophesy in Daniel 9:24 to be fulfilled.
The nation has not to this date experienced a single one of the prophesied benefits of Messiah's coming therefore such a consecutive view is difficult for me to entertain.

The 69 weeks began with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and temrinated at Christ's entry into Jerusalam.
Here are the numbers for it:
1st Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (edict to rebuild Jerusalem) 14th March, B.C. 445
10th Nisan in Passion Week ( Christ's entry) 6th April, A.D. 32
intervening period was 476 years and 24 days
476X365 = 173,740 days
add 14th march to 6th April 24 days
add for leap years 116 days
total 173,880 days

69 weeks of prophetic years of 360 days (69X7X360) = 173,880 days.

"If thou also hadst known, even on this day, the things which belong to they peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes!" Luke 19:42
"After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off" Dan.9:26
The accuracy of Daniel's prophecy is observed.

quiet dove
Mar 10th 2008, 04:17 AM
I'm sure this thread is likely to attract plenty of attention & responses;
I also know that my questions will ruffle some feathers, make a few people upset, and cause quite a stir....
BUT... That's NOT my intention. I'm not setting out to make anyone mad. So please keep that in mind & understand that I'm just asking valid questions. I'm trying to get to the truth & the guts of this..... Because TRUTH MATTERS.

Now, on with the questions....

What I'm wondering & asking is, How and where is the "popular" definition of "The Antichrist" supported in scripture?
What I mean by that is, WHERE in the Bible is "The Antichrist" described as "a man who seemingly brings peace at first, as a world leader / politician, (possessed by Satan) that enacts a peace-treaty with Israel / the middle-east, pretending to be God himself, tricking the jews (and the entire world) into believing HE is the Messiah, and uniting all the world religions.
Somewhere along the line, he dies & actually comes back to life... thus enabeling himself to further deceive people (who are "left behind" after the "church" mysteriously vanishes) and half-way through this seven year period impose a "mandatory mark" to buy or sell."

***If the "Great Tribulation" is SEVEN years, how can the first 3 1/2 years be peaceful & everyone thinks it's all hunky-dory? I mean SEVEN years of tribulation should be JUST THAT! ....Seven years! Because, so far with this scenario, the "Seven year Great Tribulation" is reduced to 3 1/2.
Do the math....***

You get the idea.....
Now then,
I know all the scriptures that say "antichrist"... (All FOUR of them.... with none being in "Revelation")
I also know where John talks about "the mark of the beast". etc.....

I'm trying to understand, and asking; where does the above description of "The Antichrist" come from? Is that actually written in scripture?

Reason I ask is, I've searched & searched for this description in the Bible... & I have yet to find it. Is it really there?
OR......
....Does it come solely from the "Left-Behind" series?

I know this is the description Tim Lahaye, Jerry Jenkins, & Hal Lindsey give.... but are they the origin????

Or is it TRULY in Scripture???

Again, I know some of you are probably fuming right now...
"How DARE he question Left-Behind!".... "Of COURSE the Bible says that!!"...

I honestly have NEVER found that description or scenario in the Bible...
That's why I'm asking.

Lets get this back on track. I think all of us here believe the Bible is 100% accurate and so is all the prophecy it contains. Whether we believe certain prophecies are past or future, we still believe them. Disagreement of interpretation does not equate to denial!

Now, back to the Antichrist.

White Spider
Mar 10th 2008, 04:23 AM
Well I am replying to no one specifically, but more generally.

On whether or not it's Jesus returns pre-trib, post-trib, if the 70th week happened or did not, if it's even a tribulation who cares, at least in this post, it seems to me it was suppose to be focused on the Anti-Christ . . .

Someone mentioned "the prince will arise out of the Roman Empire" and the prince he was mentioning is the "Anti-Christ" so to speak.

:idea: Which made me think of Revelation 17. There's a christian based site that interpreted Revelation 17 and makes a lot of sense. I believe it would clear up a lot of questions for a lot of you. You are all stuck in Daniel and Matthew . . . If you'd like to visit the site and just read what is said about Revelation 17 and the Anti-Christ let me know. The board won't let me post it, but if you want it I can get it to you.

It's really helpful. :spin:

yoSAMite
Mar 10th 2008, 04:36 AM
Markward asked:

Understood. Why would Jesus start off speaking of the same event then diverge in two directions?
May I suggest Matthew 24 and Luke 21 were not the same teachings.

In Matthew 24:3 you have the disciples coming to him in private. Mark 13:3 tells us these are Peter, James, John and Andrew. You don't find this information Luke. I suggest that the Luke event and is the teaching to a crowd after coming out of the temple and the Matthew/Mark event is a private teaching after that.


And, regardless, they both fall under the "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" statement.
That is correct. But if one (Luke) is speaking of the destruction of the temple then the generation did not pass away. And if Matthew/Mark are speaking of time future then the generation that is living at that time will also not pass away before all the things spoken of take place.


Jesus was speaking about a past event as being in the future? That doesn't make any sense. It's been pointed out that there were two different "abominations of desolation" in Daniel, that of Daniel 11, and that of Daniel 9. Because of the chronology presented within Daniel, we can know for certain they were not the same "abominations." Daniel 11 is where we find Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabeen revolt. Daniel 9 speaks of something else; this is the abomination that Jesus referred to as being future, yet within the lifetime of His generation.
With all due respect, that is not correct. 2 examples of prophecies occurring more than once are Israel becoming a nation and the antichrists around since the time of John.

There is only one abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. It's a specific event that happened in the past and Jesus did speak of it as a future event also. If the destruction of the temple is an abomination of desolation as you presume, then that's happened more than once also, in the past and in the future of Matt 24. That being the case why didn't Jesus point the disciples the destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE rather than Daniel.

markedward
Mar 10th 2008, 04:37 AM
There is a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.Where does Scripture provide evidence of this "gap?"

That gap is the churchScriptural support, please?

That gap is Christ coming as the Savior not the Messiah.Messiah is Hebrew for "anointed one." Jesus explicitly stated during His ministry that He was the Messiah.

That gap ends at the rapture of the church right before the beginning of the 70th week.Where does Daniel 9 mention any of this?


The Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 is the prediction by the Lord of how the Jewish age will end.Is the Jewish age still around? No, the temple fell, we live under grace, not the Law.


I think the fallacy of the consecutive view is that you must spiritualize the prophesy in Daniel 9:24 to be fulfilled.I spiritualize them? Here's what Daniel 9:24 says:
1 - Finish transgression
2 - Put an end to sin
3 - Atone for wickedness
4 - Bring everlasting righteousness
5 - Seal up vision and prophecy
6 - Anoint the Most Holy

NT Scripture:
1 - Romans 4:15, Hebrews 9:15
2 - Romans 8:1, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 3:5
3 - 2 Corinthians 5:19, Hebrews 2:17
4 - Matthew 3:15, Romans 5:21, Hebrews 1:8
5 - Matthew 26:56, Luke 18:31, Luke 24:44
6 - Acts 4:27, Acts 10:38

It's not "spiritualized" if Scripture states it all happened through Jesus.

markedward
Mar 10th 2008, 05:06 AM
Markward asked:

May I suggest Matthew 24 and Luke 21 were not the same teachings.

In Matthew 24:3 you have the disciples coming to him in private. Mark 13:3 tells us these are Peter, James, John and Andrew. You don't find this information Luke. I suggest that the Luke event and is the teaching to a crowd after coming out of the temple and the Matthew/Mark event is a private teaching after that.Yet, I've already shown that in every main point of the two sermons that only one point is in difference, yet they both refer to a "desolation" in the differing segment.



That is correct. But if one (Luke) is speaking of the destruction of the temple then the generation did not pass away.That the temple they had just left was then destroyed in 70 AD, before that generation passed away.


And if Matthew/Mark are speaking of time future then the generation that is living at that time will also not pass away before all the things spoken of take place."Future" does not necessarily mean "distant future." 70 AD was in their future, and it was within their generation's lifetimes. It fits both criteria.


There is only one abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. It's a specific event that happened in the past and Jesus did speak of it as a future event also.Chronologically speaking, Daniel 11 relates to us the following: Kings of Persia. Then a king of Persia who will stir the people against Greece (Xerxes). Then a king of Greece (Alexander). This king will die, and his kindom will split into four. Eventually, these four became just two, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. The chapter then details events between the two dynasties' kings. Eventually, we see Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his abomination of desolation.

Daniel 9 gives us a different abomination of desolation. Chronologically, it happens after the 70 weeks (or, according to you, after the 69 and during the 70th). Either way, Daniel outright prophecies this abomination of desolation to take place nearly two hundred years after Antiochus IV was even alive, so there's simply no way Daniel was speaking of just one abomination when the numbers he gives us outright point to two different time periods.


If the destruction of the temple is an abomination of desolation as you presume, then that's happened more than once also, in the past and in the future of Matt 24. That being the case why didn't Jesus point the disciples the destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE rather than Daniel.... I've already stated: the Daniel 9 was prophecying the temple's destruction of 70 AD. Jesus was prophecying the temple's destruction of 70 AD. Jesus was prophecying the same thing, which is why I referred to Daniel. The reason He didn't refer to the Babylonian destruction is because it was done and over. The reason He didn't refer to the abomination of Daniel 11 was because it was done and over. The reason He referred to Daniel 9 was because it hadn't happened yet. Jesus wasn't saying "Something like the abomination of Daniel will happen again." He was saying "The abomination of Daniel hasn't happened yet." But He was referring to an entirely different abomination than Daniel 11.

I honestly don't know how to say this anymore clearly. Am I just twisting my tongue or something? Can someone else jump in real quick and tell me whether they understand what I'm trying to say?

- Daniel's prophecies written. He prophecies Daniel 9 and Daniel 11.
- The countdown of Daniel 9 begins.
- The kings of Persia come and go from Daniel 11.
- The king of Greece of Daniel 11.
- The kings of the north and south of Daniel 11.
- The abomination of desolation of Daniel 11.
- The Messiah of Daniel 9 comes.
- The countdown of Daniel 9 ends.
- The abomination of desolation of Daniel 9.

Chronologically speaking, because of the timing Daniel gives us regarding when the "abomination of desolation" of Daniel 9 happens and when the "abomination of desolation" of Daniel 11 happens, they simply can't be the same event, because the "abomination" of Daniel 11 happens over a hundred years before the 70 weeks even come to an end, and the "abomination" of Daniel 9 is stated to happen during or after the 70th week. Chronologically speaking, there's simply no way they refer to the same "abomination of desolation" because the math doesn't allow for it to be as such.

It'd be like this. Say at midnight I say "after 18 hours I will eat a meal." And then, at dawn I say "after six hours I will eat a meal." Chronologically speaking, the meal that takes place six hours after dawn can't be the same meal as the one 18 hours after midnight. They're both meals, but they aren't the same meal. Eighteen hours after midnight is dusk. Six hours after dawn is noon. Noon is before dusk. So one meal takes place at noon, and another one takes place at dusk. Just because the meal "after six hours" happened at noon doesn't mean the meal "after eighteen hours" was the same meal.

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 07:01 AM
In my studies, Jesus did not come back as the Messiah at Calvary.

Daniel's prophecies are indeed related to Revelation.
Two major events have to take place after the 69th week and before the 70th week.
One: cutting off of the Messiah (his crucifiction and resurrection)
Two: The destruction of the city and the temple in Jerusalem which did not happen until A.D. 70.

There is a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.
If Jesus had fulfilled the prophesy then the Jews would have set up the kingdom since the promised blessing are associated with the second coming of Christ which clearly has not happened, I think you will agree with me on that.
and Jesus would have returned by now to fulfill the promises.


I will beg to differ with you Koolaid.

It can be an idiom for the time period... the one in the future coming.

I will disagree with you.
The Messiah cannot be the prince simply because it is "the people of the prince that shall come" wo are to destroy Jerusalem after the death of Messiah. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D.70 by the roman people, not by the Jewish people so the prince will arise out of the Roman Empire and is not the Messiah.

The Messiah returns AFTER the tribulation not before it.

That 3.5 years comes from the literal interpretation of the prophesy of the 70 weeks in Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27
week = seven in Hebrew "shabua"
70 sevens

The 70th week begins with a convenant between a great prince that rises out of the Roman empire and Israel.

This covenant guarantees Israel the possession of their land and the restoration of their religious and political autonomy, is to be viewed as a false fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. This causes many to believe that the "man of sin" is God. II Thess. 2:3.

The 70th week chronology:

1. seven years which lies prophetically between the translation of the church and the return of Christ.

2. provides exact chronological framework fo rthe great events in Rev 6-19.

3. firm covenant between prince and Jewish people.

4. In the middle of the week (3.5 years) the prince will reverse his friendly attitude towards Israel and break the covenant with period of "desolations" for the Jewish people.

5. End of week will usher in the blessings promised to Israel in Daniel 9:24.
and the return of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium kingdom.


The tribulation has 2 purposes:
One: God's judgment on unbelieving man and nations.
Two: Prepare the nation Israel for her Messiah and to populate the millennium with a multitude of saved Gentiles who are redeemed through the preaching of the believing remnant.

Here is a time line for you

Daniel 2 and 7 The federation of states into a Roman Empire.
Daniel 9:27: Rev. 13:1-10 a political ruler of this empire, who makes a covenant with Israel
Revelation 13:11-18 the formulation of a false religious system under a false prophet
Revelation 6 The pouring out of the judgments under the seals
Revelation 7 The separation of the 144,000 witnesses
Revelation 8-11 The trumpet judgments
Revelation 11 The rise of God's witnesses
Revelation 12 The persecution of Israel


I think you misinterpreted my explanation of the 70 weeks.
I didn't say it had anyting to do with Messiah "COMING BACK".... Daniel's prophecy was about the BIRTH of messiah, and being cut of "In the midst" of the 70th week. Which DID happen... without gaps.

To place a parenthetical 2000 year gap betweek week 69 & week 70, is to say, "God was caught off-guard" & needed to pause / amend his original plan..."

Where does this whole 3rd temple / kingdom fit into scripture anyway?? If people are waiting for a 3rd temple to be rebuilt to finish the 70 weeks, then there are other questions & problems to deal with.

Consider the following: (I've asked this a couple times & nobody has been able to provide an answer.)
Which temple is Jesus supposed to dwell in & reign from? The 3rd temple?
That cannot be.
If the 1000 years is supposed to come AFTER the Antichrist has soiled the 3rd temple with "The abomination of desolation", And Jesus is going to reign in a temple, there's NO-WAY he would reign in an "Unclean" temple.
(** Look at what happened to Solomon's temple when Antiochus IV Epiphanes commited an abomination in 167 BC.... the Spirit of God no longer entered the temple, which left it desolate... it was Unclean & unholy...)
So, if the 3rd temple is built, & left "desolate".... & Jesus is supposed to reign "in a temple"... this would require a CLEAN FOURTH Temple.

(** By the way, Daniel's prophecy in chapter 11 was fulfilled in 167 BC... THAT was the original Abomination.... )

All in all, Jesus won't dwell IN a temple.... he IS the Temple.

But I'm curious to find out how the 3rd temple has anything to do with scripture.... Because,..... If it were to be built, it would be FOR the "Antichrist", and NOT for Jesus.

Jesus doesn't need, nor does he WANT a temple rebuilt by human hands.
ESPECIALLY an UNCLEAN 3rd temple, which would be nothing more than an "Unrighteous, Unholy hand-me-down".

Firstfruits
Mar 10th 2008, 09:06 AM
What was it that would have changed? The "abomination of desolation" that Jesus was speaking about was from Daniel 9, and I've said this before.

That's difficult to conclude. The imagery presented in Revelation 13 immediately takes us back to Daniel 7. Daniel 7 prophecies that the Kingdom of God would be established during the time of the fourth beast/kingdom (1-Babylon, 2-Media-Persia, 3-Greece, 4-Rome). Daniel 7 presents images of the "little horn" of the beast, that wages war on the saints of God. Revelation 13 tells of how the beast wages war on the saints of God. The entirety of the Revelation is about the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Daniel's prophecies and John's revelation do speak of the same events, and thus the same "beast."

Right: Daniel 11's "abomination of desolation" was of Antiochus IV. Daniel 9's (and the Olivet Discourse's) "abomination of desolation" could not have been the same one as from Daniel 11.

I did state this earlier in the thread, I think.

I didn't say anything about a "modern version."

These are your words are they not?

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 11:56 AM
These are your words are they not?

We can't look at Daniel's prophecies as related to Revelation, or to describe the "modern version" of "The Antichrist".

Hey FF,
You're confusing MY post with Markedward's / Vice-versa.

I was the one who said Daniel's prophecy is not related to Revelation, & we can't use it to describe the "modern Version" of "The Antichrist."

;)

The reason being, Daniel's chapter 11 prophecy was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and was fulfilled.

Firstfruits
Mar 10th 2008, 01:59 PM
Hey FF,
You're confusing MY post with Markedward's / Vice-versa.

I was the one who said Daniel's prophecy is not related to Revelation, & we can't use it to describe the "modern Version" of "The Antichrist."

;)

The reason being, Daniel's chapter 11 prophecy was about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and was fulfilled.

Thanks markdrums, for clearing that up. Are you saying then that Jesus was talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he mentioned about Daniels prophecy?

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 02:19 PM
Thanks markdrums, for clearing that up. Are you saying then that Jesus was talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he mentioned about Daniels prophecy?

Yes, in a sense of "remembering".
It was a major catastrophic event for the Jews, which caused their temple to be left "desolate". After slaughterping unclean pigs on the altar, he (Antiochus) erected a monument in honor of Zeus Olympus, which was an "abomination" standing in "The Holy Place".... God would no longer dwell or enter into that temple again.

So the Jews would understand the significance of Jesus referring back to that event, & understand it would again take place in their lifetime with another person committing an abomination. (which turned out to be Nero Caesar, when he slaughtered the Pharisees on the altar).

Firstfruits
Mar 10th 2008, 03:11 PM
Yes, in a sense of "remembering".
It was a major catastrophic event for the Jews, which caused their temple to be left "desolate". After slaughterping unclean pigs on the altar, he (Antiochus) erected a monument in honor of Zeus Olympus, which was an "abomination" standing in "The Holy Place".... God would no longer dwell or enter into that temple again.

So the Jews would understand the significance of Jesus referring back to that event, & understand it would again take place in their lifetime with another person committing an abomination. (which turned out to be Nero Caesar, when he slaughtered the Pharisees on the altar).

With regards to the beast and the false prophet that are here at the return of Jesus, knowing that he will establish himself above all that is called God, as though he himself is God, and that he shall sit in the temple of God, was Jesus not also refering to that future event?

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 03:37 PM
With regards to the beast and the false prophet that are here at the return of Jesus, knowing that he will establish himself above all that is called God, as though he himself is God, and that he shall sit in the temple of God, was Jesus not also refering to that future event?

2 Thess 2:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Remember, Nero Ceasar demanded to be worshiped. He exalted himself above God. You either worshiped Ceasar, or you were killed.

Remember at the crucifixion, when asked "...What do you think of your king....?" the priests proclaimed "We have no king but Caesar" .. thus choosing Ceasar "Instead of" Christ. (or to put it another way, "Anti-Christ")

Jesus also mentions Caesar during the Olivet Discourse....
The pharisees ask him about paying tribute....
Jesus asks to see the "money". Then asks them, "whose IMAGE is on the money? Whose Superscription (or NAME) is on it?"
".... render to Caesar what is Caesar's & render to GOD what is GOD's"

So put it all together:
Choosing Ceasar instead of Christ.
Ceasar's Money (buying / selling)
Ceasar's NAME
Ceasar's IMAGE

It starts to become evident.

That would have been a future event at the time.

And, all this combined with Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple & the "abomination" (where Nero would end up slaughtering the pharisees on the altar.... )

We can understand how the disciples "saw" the fulfillment of Jesus' words... in THEIR lifetime.

;)

Firstfruits
Mar 10th 2008, 03:58 PM
Remember, Nero Ceasar demanded to be worshiped. He exalted himself above God. You either worshiped Ceasar, or you were killed.

Remember at the crucifixion, when asked "...What do you think of your king....?" the priests proclaimed "We have no king but Caesar" .. thus choosing Ceasar "Instead of" Christ. (or to put it another way, "Anti-Christ")

Jesus also mentions Caesar during the Olivet Discourse....
The pharisees ask him about paying tribute....
Jesus asks to see the "money". Then asks them, "whose IMAGE is on the money? Whose Superscription (or NAME) is on it?"
".... render to Caesar what is Caesar's & render to GOD what is GOD's"

So put it all together:
Choosing Ceasar instead of Christ.
Ceasar's Money (buying / selling)
Ceasar's NAME
Ceasar's IMAGE

It starts to become evident.

That would have been a future event at the time.

And, all this combined with Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple & the "abomination" (where Nero would end up slaughtering the pharisees on the altar.... )

We can understand how the disciples "saw" the fulfillment of Jesus' words... in THEIR lifetime.

;)

None of those mentioned are alive today and therefore cannot be here when Jesus returns, when they will be destroyed, so he must have spoken about a future event beyond their generation.

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 05:07 PM
None of those mentioned are alive today and therefore cannot be here when Jesus returns, when they will be destroyed, so he must have sopken about a future event beyond their generation.

Remember Jesus is only "Returning" one time. On the LAST day.
That's the day he casts Satan into the Lake of Fire... correct?

Keeping that in mind, Let's look at this:

Rev 20:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=20&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Beast & False prophet are not here at Christ's "RETURN".... They're already in the lake of fire. They've already been dealt with by this time, when Jesus RETURNS to finalize Satan's defeat, and castim HIM into the Lake of Fire. (Where the Beast & False Prophet already are)

fellowservant
Mar 10th 2008, 05:34 PM
(** By the way, Daniel's prophecy in chapter 11 was fulfilled in 167 BC... THAT was the original Abomination.... )



Did the dead raise to life in 167 BC? Daniel must be read in its context. Chapter 12 is the same vision, or prophecy as chapter 11. There was no chapter and verse back then.

God bless

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 05:55 PM
Did the dead raise to life in 167 BC? Daniel must be read in its context. Chapter 12 is the same vision, or prophecy as chapter 11. There was no chapter and verse back then.

God bless

The vision was given hundreds of years before the event.
The 1st abomination took place in 167 BC.
The Messiah being "cut-off" took place in the midst of the 70th week with the crucifixion. (just as prophesied.)

Let's look at the events in Matthew 27, to see what took place at the crucifixion:
50 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&translation=nkjvp&x=16&y=8#)And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&translation=nkjvp&x=16&y=8#)Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&translation=nkjvp&x=16&y=8#)and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&translation=nkjvp&x=16&y=8#) and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
54 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&translation=nkjvp&x=16&y=8#)So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

So, No... not in 167 BC, when the abomination took place, but at the "cutting off" of Messiah... in the midst of the 70th week, at the crucifixion / resurrection.... just a written.

Fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

Mograce2U
Mar 10th 2008, 06:02 PM
Did the dead raise to life in 167 BC? Daniel must be read in its context. Chapter 12 is the same vision, or prophecy as chapter 11. There was no chapter and verse back then.

God blessThere is both a natural as well as a spiritual aspect to be discerned in prophecy. The earthly king in view is also being guided by Satan - and it is Satan who continues until his end - thru many kings. That is the time when Daniel's people are to be raised up. In the time of Messiah which is the central prophecy to the other visions.

(Dan 11:45 KJV) And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

yoSAMite
Mar 10th 2008, 06:03 PM
Markward said:

Daniel 9 gives us a different abomination of desolation.

I'd say it is a different abomination of desolation, but the same type of event. For instance in your meal analogy you are still having two meals, not a meal and some other activity. I find nowhere where the destruction of the first temple is described as a abomination of desolation. When Jesus mentions the abomination spoken of by the prophet Daniel, I think each and every person hearing that knew exactly what he was speaking of. And again Jesus speaks of that event hapening again in the future. When Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem each and every person knew exactly what He was talking about. They would not confuse the events.


Daniel 9 gives us a different abomination of desolation. Chronologically, it happens after the 70 weeks (or, according to you, after the 69 and during the 70th). Either way...

How do you place the abomination of desolation outside of the 70 week prophecy? It seems to me that everything in the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy must happen inside the 70 weeks. No matter what starting point one has with the 70 week prophecy the 70AD destruction didn't fall within that time period.


Yet, I've already shown that in every main point of the two sermons that only one point is in difference, yet they both refer to a "desolation" in the differing segment.

Yet that point is very important. Luke the physician would not miss out on the technical term abomination of desolation and lazily insert or confuse it with a propechy concering the desolation of Jerusalem. We agree on the like aspects of the two teachings, you seem to dismiss the differences.

divaD
Mar 10th 2008, 06:36 PM
Remember Jesus is only "Returning" one time. On the LAST day.
That's the day he casts Satan into the Lake of Fire... correct?



How do you get that Jesus only returns one time(which is true), but that day being when He casts satan into the LOF? Christ would have already been here way before that event happens.




The Beast & False prophet are not here at Christ's "RETURN".... They're already in the lake of fire. They've already been
dealt with by this time, when Jesus RETURNS to finalize Satan's defeat, and castim HIM into the Lake of Fire. (Where the
Beast & False Prophet already are)



But how do you think they ended up in the LOF? Have you not read Rev ch 19?


Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.


If this is not Christ, then I don't know who it is.



Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.


Don't you think verse 19 might be a little impossibe if Christ weren't physically present?



Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.



Clearly the Word proves you wrong. Christ had already returned way before the time satan is cast into the LOF.

markdrums
Mar 10th 2008, 07:31 PM
How do you get that Jesus only returns one time(which is true), but that day being when He casts satan into the LOF? Christ would have already been here way before that event happens.







But how do you think they ended up in the LOF? Have you not read Rev ch 19?


Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.


If this is not Christ, then I don't know who it is.



Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.


Don't you think verse 19 might be a little impossibe if Christ weren't physically present?



Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.



Clearly the Word proves you wrong. Christ had already returned way before the time satan is cast into the LOF.


That IS a good point!!

:hmm:

I'll have to do some studying on this one. ;)


The only thing I can think of at the moment is, They're "here" again after the resurrection of everyone. (John 5:28-29) when ALL are judged to either eternal life, or eternal condemnation

And there are several (or even MANY) events that take place during the same "day"... (not necessarily one of our 24 hour days... but as a day with the Lord.... because once Jesus does return, the measurement of "time" that we use now will change & everything will be "present tense"....)
That may not be exactly the best description of what I'm trying to say concerning "time" but it's on that track.
Just as God's existence is described as "I AM" tells us he exists in all times -past-present-and future, simeltaneously....

I'm sure there's a better way to explain what I'm trying to say... but at the moment I'm unable to put it together...
LOL!!!

markedward
Mar 10th 2008, 07:46 PM
Did the dead raise to life in 167 BC? Daniel must be read in its context.It's context is the two kingdoms that arose out of the four kingdoms that came out of Alexander the Great's empire. Are you saying that there need to be three kings of Persia followed by another king who attacks the Greeks followed by a Greek king followed by four kingdoms followed by two kingdoms all over again?


Chapter 12 is the same vision, or prophecy as chapter 11."Chapter 12" continues where "chapter 11" ends. Chapter 11 did not end with the abomination of desolation of Antiochus IV. It shows that other events would happen after that abomination, and then after those events there would be the "distress" and the "rising of the dead."


I'd say it is a different abomination of desolation, but the same type of event. For instance in your meal analogy you are still having two meals, not a meal and some other activity. I find nowhere where the destruction of the first temple is described as a abomination of desolation. When Jesus mentions the abomination spoken of by the prophet Daniel, I think each and every person hearing that knew exactly what he was speaking of. And again Jesus speaks of that event hapening again in the future. When Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem each and every person knew exactly what He was talking about. They would not confuse the events.Well, right; they're the same type of event, but they weren't the same actual event. The two meals are the same type of event, but they aren't the same actual events. So, of course, when Jesus referred to "abomination of desolation" that people thought of the events surrounding Antiochus IV, but that doesn't mean Jesus was saying the exact same thing was going to happen again, only something along those lines. They knew what would happen, but that doesn't mean they were expecting the specific Daniel 11 prophecy of Persian kings and a Greek king and northern and southern kings happening all over again.


How do you place the abomination of desolation outside of the 70 week prophecy? It seems to me that everything in the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy must happen inside the 70 weeks. No matter what starting point one has with the 70 week prophecy the 70AD destruction didn't fall within that time period.It's a matter of interpretation of the words used in Daniel 9, but this was irrelevant; it would be like me pointing out that there is no proof that "Luke the physician" was the actual author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts. The point was that the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9 happens at a point in time far after the abomination of desolation of Daniel 11 happens; they simply don't coincide chronologically. So it's best to say that when Jesus refers to the "abomination of desolation" mentioned by Daniel that He was referring to Daniel 9, but that when people heard it, they remembered the "abomination of desolation" that took place under Antiochus, so that they were remembering Daniel 11.

Let's say that in 1900 Joe wrote a book making prophecies, and that at two points they mentioned a "great war." World War I comes and goes, and people think it's all done and over, but they forget the context of the two mentionings of "great war." The timing given for one comes out to be at a later date than the other. So say in the year 1930 Bob comes along and says "Beware the great war." People would remember the "great war" that had already happened, but Bob was referring to the other "great war." They would be similar, but they weren't the same actual events. Bob wasn't saying the "great war" was a single event mentioned twice, and that it would repeat; he was saying the "great war" was two different, but similar, events that would happen at two different times. But, because one had, obviously, come first so the people would look back and remember it and say "Oh, so the second 'great war' will turn out like the first 'great war.'" So, likewise, the "abominations of desolation" mentioned in Daniel 9 and 11 aren't one event mentioned twiced, but two events mentioned as being similar. I suppose, in that context, I could say, "Abomination 2 was prophecied about before Abomination 1." People saw Abomination 1 happen and possibly assumed it was both mentionings as one event, but Jesus came about and say "Hey, Abomination 2 is still in the future." As a result, people looked back and said "Oh. So it'll be like Abomination 1, but it's not the same event."


Yet that point is very important. Luke the physician would not miss out on the technical term abomination of desolation and lazily insert or confuse it with a propechy concering the desolation of Jerusalem. We agree on the like aspects of the two teachings, you seem to dismiss the differences.The entire context of Matthew 24 is the question "What will be the signs of the end of the age [apparently they associated the temple's destruction with the end of the age] and of Your coming," and Jesus answers thusly. The entire context of Luke 21 is the question "What will be the signs of the end of the age and of Your coming," and Jesus answers thusly. The entire context of either passage is the "end of the age" and of Jesus' coming, so we can only conclude that they are speaking of the same events. Saying they're different simply because they use different wording is like saying Judas hanging himself and Judas splitting his stomach open are two different deaths.


Don't you think verse 19 might be a little impossibe if Christ weren't physically present?I responded to this earlier; what are your thoughts on what I wrote? http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1564777&postcount=23



I brought up a point previously that I haven't seen anyone respond to yet: Many of you suppose a third temple in our future.

Scripture shows that the first temple was only built when God gave approval, and that the temple was for taking care of the priestly duties, including sacrifices and sin-offerings.

Scripture shows that when the people become wicked and fell out of favor with God, He had the temple destroyed.

Scripture shows that the second temple was only built when God gave His approval, and that the temple was for taking care of the priestly duties, including sacrifices and sin-offerings.

In consistency with Scripture, we can reasonably conclude that the second temple was destroyed for the same reason that the first one was; that the people had become wicked (specifically, denying Jesus as the Messiah and persecuting His followers) and they fell out of favor with God.

However, Scripture explicitly states that Jesus is now our high priest, our sacrifice, and our sin-offering, and Scripture directly calls us His temple (and the Revelation calls Him our temple).

If God has no need for a third earthly temple because of Jesus' account, why would He allow a third one to be built? If God has no need for a third earthly temple (because Jesus is our temple) how can it be desecrated?

redeemedbyhim
Mar 10th 2008, 09:06 PM
Revelation 12 depicts Christ's ascension, as a recap. Yet, in Revelation 5:6, we see Jesus (the lamb who had just been slain) is in heaven. While Christ's work for the atonement for our sins was finished, He still had things to do in heaven. We see that at least some of this was the opening of the seven seals, and the sounding of the seven trumpets. The seventh trumpet (Revelation 11) announced that Christ, who had already ascended to heaven sometime prior, had been given His kingdom, as seen in Daniel. So the best chronological order, I think, is: Christ ascends, is led into God's presence to His right hand, opens the seals, trumpets are sounded, bowls are poured, and then Christ is given His kingdom. This whole process, it seems best to say, is the "coming in His kingdom," the "coming on the clouds," the "coming in power and glory."

Hence the apostles in the first century claiming Jesus' coming was soon to happen in their own time. Hence, Jesus claiming it would happen in His generation. Hence, Jesus stating that people standing right in from of Him would not die before His kingdom came.

This makes a whole load of sense!
I'm no Book of Revelation scholar and I tend to trust that God knows this!

Would God allow His Word to be written that only scholars could understand. I admit I'm lost as a goose in a fog when it comes to most all this end time talk, even though I've tried to understand.

I hope you don't mind me asking you a question, but what would you say that the most important thing to know is concerning the end times?
I try to remember that God said His people perish because of the lack of understanding/knowledge and I don't want to fall subject to that truth.
Thanks.

White Spider
Mar 11th 2008, 12:28 AM
"And there came one of the seven angels... saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, The mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." Revelation 17:1-18.

A woman symbolizes a church in the Bible, in this case the whore – an impure church.

And a beast has signified a kingdom or state that persecutes God's people.

“And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” Revelation 17:10-11.

Significantly, the vision was viewed during the reign of the sixth king. He was to be followed by the seventh king, who will rule for a short time. However, the eighth king is going to be one of the previous seven kings, but that when he appears from the bottomless pit (v. 8), he will not only merely be a king (ruling power) but a beast (a persecuting power).

When one of the seven kings reappears from the bottomless pit as the eighth king but in the form of a beast, the ten kings of the earth (v. 12) (ten is an all-inclusive, universal number indicating that this includes all earthly rulers; cf. parable of ten virgins) will be greatly awed by the beast, and will willingly surrender their power to the beast for a short time (v. 12, 13). Both the beast and the ten kings will rule and war against Christ in the person of His followers for a short time, but will not overcome them (v. 14).

Just before the end of all things, the ten kings will discover that they have been ensnared and deceived by the beast (the eighth king from the bottomless pit) and they will turn with vengeance against the beast system, and destroy it (v. 16). For they will this time, though belatedly, be doing God's will (v. 17).

To understand what will happen to the world when she (the woman or the church) comes out of her wilderness experience, we need to understand how the she entered this wilderness experience.

In the Book of Revelation we have another instance of a church that went into the wilderness. It was God's true church during the Middle Ages, when the church was subject to papal persecution: “And the woman (church) fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand and two hundred and threescore days.” Revelation 12:6. We know that this church was pure, for it is God who led her to the wilderness, away from the papal persecution that raged for 1260 years from 538 A.D. until 1798 A.D. The dragon (Satan) was warring against the church during this period, using his earthly instrument, the Roman Catholic Church: "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." Revelation 12:14. The wilderness then, in Bible prophecy, is a figure of speech picturing the harsh conditions facing a church in a particular period in her history.

When did God's true church come out of (her) wilderness experience?

The logical answer to this question would be, when the papal persecution ceased. This officially happened in 1798, when Napoleon Bonaparte sent to Rome where he exiled Pope Pius VI to Valence in France. At the same time Berthier declared an end to the temporal power over much of Europe that the Catholic Church had enjoyed up to that time. It was a most humiliating and abrupt end to a long rule of power that lasted 1260 years. Shortly after, Christian Bible Societies spread all over the world, with their work unhampered or threatened by papal constrictions. Thus, 1798 marks the date when God's church ended her wilderness experience. Now God's church was totally free to focus her energies on translating and printing the Bible in as many languages as possible and to conduct missionary activities all over the world.


This is when the woman on the beast in Revelation 17 entered her wilderness experience. In 1798 the Catholic Church not only lost her temporal power over the kings, dukes, and princes of much of Europe, but was in fact no longer free to carry her own ecclesiastical privileges, such as selecting a pope to succeed Pius VI. Her representatives needed the permission of Napoleon Bonaparte before they could appoint Pius VII in 1800 to succeed the pope who died in exile, a year earlier.

Furthermore, the wilderness experience for the Catholic Church came to bear on her in a most profound way from an entirely unexpected direction – from her own backyard, Italy. Here is the background for the harsh and arid realities of life that faced the Catholic Church in Italy in the nineteenth century.

After the second and final defeat of Napoleon in 1815, Italians found their peninsula divided into states, duchies, and Papal States. Metternich, the strong Austrian leader at the time, used to refer to Italy as a mere 'geographical expression', reflecting the absence of united country. This odd situation gave rise to nationalistic attempts to unify Italy into one country. However, these attempts were met with great suspicion and resistance from the Catholic Church. Over time, the conviction grew in the minds of these nationalistic leaders that the Catholic Church was indeed a serious obstacle to the fulfillment of their national aspirations.

However, the move to unite Italy and form a united nation passed an important milestone when the Papal States were usurped in 1860 by force. There remained one major obstacle, however, for the creation of one Italian nation. The Italians wanted Rome, the seat of the Roman Catholic Church and the last piece of property left for the Church, to serve as the capital of their united country. This Italian dream came about when Italian troops occupied Rome on September 20, 1870, during the reign of Pope Pius IX. Shortly after, the Kingdom of Italy was declared.

Understandably, the pope refused to recognize the new kingdom and went into voluntary captivity in protest. This unprecedented situation came to be known historically as the Roman Question. It remained unresolved for 59 years, during which time all succeeding popes confined themselves to movement within the few buildings in the Vatican in Rome, refusing to leave Rome. Indeed, the Catholic Church in the nineteenth century was engulfed in a very hostile wilderness setting.

In summary: we have seen thus far that from 1798 (when Pope Pius VI was banished to Valence by the French general) up to 1870 (when Rome was usurped by the Italian army), the Roman Catholic Church was entrenched in her wilderness experience – a far cry from the dominating beast status she had enjoyed during her 1260 years of supremacy when she was a global persecuting power which directly, or through her over-powering influence over European rulers, caused the martyrdom of close to one hundred million of God's faithful followers.


The 70th week begins with a convenant between a great prince that rises out of the Roman empire and Israel.

This covenant guarantees Israel the possession of their land and the restoration of their religious and political autonomy, is to be viewed as a false fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. This causes many to believe that the "man of sin" is God. II Thess. 2:3.

The 70th week chronology:

1. seven years which lies prophetically between the translation of the church and the return of Christ.

2. provides exact chronological framework fo rthe great events in Rev 6-19.

3. firm covenant between prince and Jewish people.

4. In the middle of the week (3.5 years) the prince will reverse his friendly attitude towards Israel and break the covenant with period of "desolations" for the Jewish people.

5. End of week will usher in the blessings promised to Israel in Daniel 9:24.
and the return of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium kingdom.


The tribulation has 2 purposes:
One: God's judgment on unbelieving man and nations.
Two: Prepare the nation Israel for her Messiah and to populate the millennium with a multitude of saved Gentiles who are redeemed through the preaching of the believing remnant.

Here is a time line for you

Daniel 2 and 7 The federation of states into a Roman Empire.
Daniel 9:27: Rev. 13:1-10 a political ruler of this empire, who makes a covenant with Israel
Revelation 13:11-18 the formulation of a false religious system under a false prophet
Revelation 6 The pouring out of the judgments under the seals
Revelation 7 The separation of the 144,000 witnesses
Revelation 8-11 The trumpet judgments
Revelation 11 The rise of God's witnesses
Revelation 12 The persecution of Israel

“The beast that thou sawest was [the Catholic Church was once a beast until 1798] and is not [during her wilderness experience], and shall ascend [after the fall of Benedict XVI, the eighth will restore her beast status] out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition.” Revelation 17:8.

Make of all that what you can, I can't get much more detailed without suggesting who the Anti-Christ may be which the board does not allow.

Jerome1
Mar 11th 2008, 01:12 AM
In summary: we have seen thus far that from 1798 (when Pope Pius VI was banished to Valence by the French general) up to 1870 (when Rome was usurped by the Italian army), the Roman Catholic Church was entrenched in her wilderness experience – a far cry from the dominating beast status she had enjoyed during her 1260 years of supremacy when she was a global persecuting power which directly, or through her over-powering influence over European rulers, caused the martyrdom of close to one hundred million of God's faithful followers.

One hundred million.

Could you break this down to events and numbers for me with sources.

White Spider
Mar 11th 2008, 05:51 AM
One hundred million.

Could you break this down to events and numbers for me with sources.

No, sorry I can't, not my words :dunno: . . . They come from a christian web site the board won't allow me to post a link to because it suggests a possible real person as becoming the Anti-Christ.

I posted what I could from the site to make it as clear as possible without losing the interpretation the said site gives of Revelation 17 since the interpretation was on topic.

Though I can say with the power the church had and the way it went about securing it's power I personally don't find that number hard to believe over a period of 1260 years.

. . . a far cry from the dominating beast status she had enjoyed during her 1260 years of supremacy when she was a global persecuting power which directly, or through her over-powering influence over European rulers, caused the martyrdom of close to one hundred million of God's faithful followers.

It's not entirely provable by those words anyways . . .

Firstfruits
Mar 11th 2008, 08:58 AM
Remember Jesus is only "Returning" one time. On the LAST day.
That's the day he casts Satan into the Lake of Fire... correct?

Keeping that in mind, Let's look at this:

Rev 20:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=20&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Beast & False prophet are not here at Christ's "RETURN".... They're already in the lake of fire. They've already been dealt with by this time, when Jesus RETURNS to finalize Satan's defeat, and castim HIM into the Lake of Fire. (Where the Beast & False Prophet already are)

According to the following when are the beast and the false prophet cast into the lake of fire?

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

White Spider
Mar 11th 2008, 11:07 PM
Saw some thing on CNN about business in Baghdad and the fact you have to have a government badge to sell goods there.

Interesting as you have to have the mark of the beast to sell goods in the end of times . . .
:bounce: :spin: :bounce: :spin: :bounce: :spin: :bounce: :spin: :bounce:

Jerome1
Mar 12th 2008, 09:04 AM
No, sorry I can't, not my words :dunno: . . . They come from a christian web site the board won't allow me to post a link to because it suggests a possible real person as becoming the Anti-Christ.

I posted what I could from the site to make it as clear as possible without losing the interpretation the said site gives of Revelation 17 since the interpretation was on topic.

Though I can say with the power the church had and the way it went about securing it's power I personally don't find that number hard to believe over a period of 1260 years.

. . . a far cry from the dominating beast status she had enjoyed during her 1260 years of supremacy when she was a global persecuting power which directly, or through her over-powering influence over European rulers, caused the martyrdom of close to one hundred million of God's faithful followers.

It's not entirely provable by those words anyways . . .

Does the website itself not give the events and numbers to substantiate its claims?

Did you double check these claims with unbiased sources if they did?

Firstfruits
Mar 12th 2008, 07:39 PM
Remember Jesus is only "Returning" one time. On the LAST day.
That's the day he casts Satan into the Lake of Fire... correct?

Keeping that in mind, Let's look at this:

Rev 20:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=20&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Beast & False prophet are not here at Christ's "RETURN".... They're already in the lake of fire. They've already been dealt with by this time, when Jesus RETURNS to finalize Satan's defeat, and castim HIM into the Lake of Fire. (Where the Beast & False Prophet already are)

According to the following when are the beast and the false prophet cast into the lake of fire?

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

fellowservant
Mar 12th 2008, 07:47 PM
It's context is the two kingdoms that arose out of the four kingdoms that came out of Alexander the Great's empire. Are you saying that there need to be three kings of Persia followed by another king who attacks the Greeks followed by a Greek king followed by four kingdoms followed by two kingdoms all over again?

"Chapter 12" continues where "chapter 11" ends. Chapter 11 did not end with the abomination of desolation of Antiochus IV. It shows that other events would happen after that abomination, and then after those events there would be the "distress" and the "rising of the dead."

Well, right; they're the same type of event, but they weren't the same actual event. The two meals are the same type of event, but they aren't the same actual events. So, of course, when Jesus referred to "abomination of desolation" that people thought of the events surrounding Antiochus IV, but that doesn't mean Jesus was saying the exact same thing was going to happen again, only something along those lines. They knew what would happen, but that doesn't mean they were expecting the specific Daniel 11 prophecy of Persian kings and a Greek king and northern and southern kings happening all over again.

It's a matter of interpretation of the words used in Daniel 9, but this was irrelevant; it would be like me pointing out that there is no proof that "Luke the physician" was the actual author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts. The point was that the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9 happens at a point in time far after the abomination of desolation of Daniel 11 happens; they simply don't coincide chronologically. So it's best to say that when Jesus refers to the "abomination of desolation" mentioned by Daniel that He was referring to Daniel 9, but that when people heard it, they remembered the "abomination of desolation" that took place under Antiochus, so that they were remembering Daniel 11.

Let's say that in 1900 Joe wrote a book making prophecies, and that at two points they mentioned a "great war." World War I comes and goes, and people think it's all done and over, but they forget the context of the two mentionings of "great war." The timing given for one comes out to be at a later date than the other. So say in the year 1930 Bob comes along and says "Beware the great war." People would remember the "great war" that had already happened, but Bob was referring to the other "great war." They would be similar, but they weren't the same actual events. Bob wasn't saying the "great war" was a single event mentioned twice, and that it would repeat; he was saying the "great war" was two different, but similar, events that would happen at two different times. But, because one had, obviously, come first so the people would look back and remember it and say "Oh, so the second 'great war' will turn out like the first 'great war.'" So, likewise, the "abominations of desolation" mentioned in Daniel 9 and 11 aren't one event mentioned twiced, but two events mentioned as being similar. I suppose, in that context, I could say, "Abomination 2 was prophecied about before Abomination 1." People saw Abomination 1 happen and possibly assumed it was both mentionings as one event, but Jesus came about and say "Hey, Abomination 2 is still in the future." As a result, people looked back and said "Oh. So it'll be like Abomination 1, but it's not the same event."

The entire context of Matthew 24 is the question "What will be the signs of the end of the age [apparently they associated the temple's destruction with the end of the age] and of Your coming," and Jesus answers thusly. The entire context of Luke 21 is the question "What will be the signs of the end of the age and of Your coming," and Jesus answers thusly. The entire context of either passage is the "end of the age" and of Jesus' coming, so we can only conclude that they are speaking of the same events. Saying they're different simply because they use different wording is like saying Judas hanging himself and Judas splitting his stomach open are two different deaths.

I responded to this earlier; what are your thoughts on what I wrote? http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1564777&postcount=23



I brought up a point previously that I haven't seen anyone respond to yet: Many of you suppose a third temple in our future.

Scripture shows that the first temple was only built when God gave approval, and that the temple was for taking care of the priestly duties, including sacrifices and sin-offerings.

Scripture shows that when the people become wicked and fell out of favor with God, He had the temple destroyed.

Scripture shows that the second temple was only built when God gave His approval, and that the temple was for taking care of the priestly duties, including sacrifices and sin-offerings.

In consistency with Scripture, we can reasonably conclude that the second temple was destroyed for the same reason that the first one was; that the people had become wicked (specifically, denying Jesus as the Messiah and persecuting His followers) and they fell out of favor with God.

However, Scripture explicitly states that Jesus is now our high priest, our sacrifice, and our sin-offering, and Scripture directly calls us His temple (and the Revelation calls Him our temple).

If God has no need for a third earthly temple because of Jesus' account, why would He allow a third one to be built? If God has no need for a third earthly temple (because Jesus is our temple) how can it be desecrated?


You don't believe God can have the Jews build another temple? why not? The book of revelation says God will put things in mens hearts to fullfill his will, this must also include prophecy. Hes God, its not that hard to believe, its not over yet is it? And to the unbelieving Jew, the temple of God is not the saints or Christ, so leave some room for that.


So we`ll have to wait and see, because i see some of what your saying, but i also see contradictions as well. (ie Paul and John on this subject) Paul mentions a coming man of sin, before the glorious appearing of Christ. John mentions a coming antichrist, (ie beast) and also mentions a false prophet to come, and decieve many in the last days, book of revelation.


Paul says

2Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?




And if you believe the above scripture is fullfilled already, we will have to agree to disagree, i don't see it your way. As i don't believe Christ has returned in power to rebuke many nations, or to destroy the beast of revelation and his armys, and gather the saints unto him.


This is still future, or we make at least two of Christ apostles false witnesses of these events. And im not going that route, ill wait and see.


As far as the coming of Christ, im haveing a hard enough time trying to convince people he came once, let alone convince them he came twice already.


God bless

White Spider
Mar 14th 2008, 11:42 PM
Does the website itself not give the events and numbers to substantiate its claims?

Did you double check these claims with unbiased sources if they did?

No I did not look into it with great detail because 1260 years of Catholicism from about 500 to about 1800 A.D. includes the Crusades, the rise of the British Empire and them sending missionaries around the world, which influenced genocide of non-believers, most of the Europeans were Catholics when they came over to America and wiped out Central and South America. So to me it did not seem like it needed to be checked out in great detail because it seemed like common sense.

If you need to check it out though do it yourself . . .

Edit: Sorry if that came off a bit rude sounding, don't mean any disrespect. I understand things should be checked out and clarified. I just feel that's not something that does because it seems to me at least that it's common knowledge.

Let me elaborate a little, the reason Spain, Italy, France, etc. sent explorers to the Americas was to obtain gold and they did it in "The Catholic Churches" name, they "killed" for God and wiped out plenty. The Brits also did the same thing in Africa and Asia while they were a Catholic State. I mean the amount of killing in the name of the church that went on between those years ( 1-thousand, 2-hundred, sixty years) 100 million dead from it seems modest if you ask me. One hundred million would be less than one percent of all living people in those 1260 years.

markdrums
Mar 15th 2008, 12:33 AM
According to the following when are the beast and the false prophet cast into the lake of fire?

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Actually, That's what I'm wondering..
What do YOU think?

Firstfruits
Mar 15th 2008, 10:04 AM
Actually, That's what I'm wondering..
What do YOU think?

The beast and the false prophet are here at the great battle/gathering at Armageddon which is why they are seen gathered to make war against Jesus;

Rev 17:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Rev 19:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Rev 19:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Since Jesus does not come until the day of the Lord, then that is when he will destroy the beast and the false prophet, and the earth and the inhabitants.

What do you believe?

Jerome1
Mar 16th 2008, 09:45 PM
No I did not look into it with great detail because 1260 years of Catholicism from about 500 to about 1800 A.D. includes the Crusades, the rise of the British Empire and them sending missionaries around the world, which influenced genocide of non-believers, most of the Europeans were Catholics when they came over to America and wiped out Central and South America. So to me it did not seem like it needed to be checked out in great detail because it seemed like common sense.

If you need to check it out though do it yourself . . .

Edit: Sorry if that came off a bit rude sounding, don't mean any disrespect. I understand things should be checked out and clarified. I just feel that's not something that does because it seems to me at least that it's common knowledge.

Let me elaborate a little, the reason Spain, Italy, France, etc. sent explorers to the Americas was to obtain gold and they did it in "The Catholic Churches" name, they "killed" for God and wiped out plenty. The Brits also did the same thing in Africa and Asia while they were a Catholic State. I mean the amount of killing in the name of the church that went on between those years ( 1-thousand, 2-hundred, sixty years) 100 million dead from it seems modest if you ask me. One hundred million would be less than one percent of all living people in those 1260 years.

Why from 500 to 1800 if the Catholic Church started during the reign of Constantine?

Most of the Europeans were Catholic when they came over to America?

I think you will find the vast majority of Europeans who settled in America were protestants.

The British Empire which controlled a quarter of the Worlds population was after the reformation and was not a Catholic State.

The crusades were in response to Muslim invaders who were killing chrisitans.

Prophecy Countdown
Mar 18th 2008, 06:47 AM
markdrums,

The idea of him being peaceful at first may have come from Daniel 8:25, which says, "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many". Although when we read this verse, are we reading it correctly?

1. Are we sure it refers to the Antichrist? Possibly, but I don't know for sure.

2. Are we sure it says that he will be peaceful? Could it mean that he is waging war all in the name of "peace"?

ServantoftheKing

Hello servantoftheking, I was reading through your posts and I thought
I may be of some assistance to you.

7962shalvah { shal-vaw’}

from 7951; TWOT - 2392d; n f

AV - prosperity 3, peaceably 2, quietness 1, abundance 1, peace 1; 8

GK - 8932 { hw:l]v'
1) quietness, ease, prosperity

The word ‘peace’ is numbered 7962 in the following verse and means ‘prosperity.’

Daniel 8: 13. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by prosperity shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
That’s all to do with the buying and selling.

Rev 13: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There is a heavy price for being able to buy or sell

I hope this has been of at least some little help to you.

PC :bounce:

Firstfruits
Mar 19th 2008, 10:56 AM
Hello servantoftheking, I was reading through your posts and I thought
I may be of some assistance to you.

7962shalvah { shal-vaw’}

from 7951; TWOT - 2392d; n f

AV - prosperity 3, peaceably 2, quietness 1, abundance 1, peace 1; 8

GK - 8932 { hw:l]v'
1) quietness, ease, prosperity

The word ‘peace’ is numbered 7962 in the following verse and means ‘prosperity.’

Daniel 8: 13. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by prosperity shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
That’s all to do with the buying and selling.

Rev 13: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There is a heavy price for being able to buy or sell

I hope this has been of at least some little help to you.

PC :bounce:

Just to add to what you said concerning being able to buy and sell.

Rev 6:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Rev 13:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Prophecy Countdown
Mar 19th 2008, 02:28 PM
Just to add to what you said concerning being able to buy and sell.

Rev 6:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Rev 13:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Thank you Firstfruits. Revelation 6: 11 and 13: 15 are very sobering verses.

There is a chance that many will survive the tribulation of 1335 days.

Daniel 12: 12. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
The blessing.
Rev 19: 9. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

I should have mentioned in Daniel 8: 13. about quote, ‘he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;’ Unquote.

The word ‘craft’ is an old English word meaning witchcraft.:eek:

Maranatha, PC.

Firstfruits
Mar 19th 2008, 02:43 PM
Thank you Firstfruits. Revelation 6: 11 and 13: 15 are very sobering verses.

There is a chance that many will survive the tribulation of 1335 days.

Daniel 12: 12. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
The blessing.
Rev 19: 9. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

I should have mentioned in Daniel 8: 13. about quote, ‘he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;’ Unquote.

The word ‘craft’ is an old English word meaning witchcraft.:eek:

Maranatha, PC.

Here's another for you list.

Rev 14:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Prophecy Countdown
Mar 20th 2008, 05:49 AM
I can’t agree with some of the time table scenario nor the suggestion that it is supposedly the Messiah that is the covenant maker in Daniel 9: for the following reasons.

Capitals used for emphasis purposes only.

We are told that the chezev/vision/s is a 2300 ereb/evening boqer/morning TIME SPAN which means limited to six and a part years from start to finish.

So that cannot include the crucifixion of 33AD which is thus far nearly 2000 years ago and does not fit within the 2300 ereb boqer time span of the vision of Daniel 8 or the explanation of it within Daniel 9 both at ‘the time of the end’ and ‘last end’ which was NOT 33AD.

It should be noted that in Dan 8: 13. the word Sacrifice was added by the translators that’s why it is in italics in the King James Version Bible.

After the Ancient Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 the word ‘sacrifice’ was not included in Dan 8: 11, 12 and 13. So I have taken that added word out to get it back to the original biblical intent.

It should read the ‘place of the daily’ also called ‘the outer court’ see Rev 11: 2.
There is a 2300 day TIME span limit for the vision. This time period is set to ‘the time of the end’ and ‘last end’

Daniel 8: 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Daniel 8: 12. And an host was given against the daily by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it PRACTISED, and PROSPERED.

Daniel 8: 13. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain which spake, How long the vision the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Daniel 8: 14. And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
The time of the vision is clear.
Gabriel came very close to Daniel to make that very point twice, about the specific TIME concerning the vision and Gabriel frightened the living daylights out of poor Daniel, doing it.
Nothing outside that specific time of 2300 days placed at the time of the end from start to its finish is acceptable as being biblical.

Dan 8: 17. So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: FOR AT THE TIME OF THE END shall be THE VISION.

Dam 8: 19. “And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in THE LAST END of the indignation: for at THE TIME APPOINTED THE END shall be.”

At the end of the vision of Daniel 8: Daniel makes it clear that he did not understand any of it.

Daniel 8: 27. “And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, BUT NONE UNDERSTOOD it.”

So far we have a vision concerned with “the time of the end’ and ‘last end’ along with the Prophet Daniel that did not understand a word of it.

Please note that it is the angel Gabriel, that appeared in Daniel 9: for the sole reason of explaining and giving Daniel understanding of the vision in Daniel 8:

Daniel 9: 22. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to GIVE THEE SKILL AND UNDERSTANDING.

Daniel 9: 23. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore UNDERSTAND THE MATTER, and CONSIDER THE VISION.

Note the next event and at which time it is to be completed within, which is to be determined at the end of week seventy within the explanation of the vision that Daniel didn’t understand.
This is about THE TIME OF THE END and LAST END. so.
The vision is only 2300 days long so it does not concern the Lord’s crucifixion because that is outside the allotted time span of the vision and did not occur either at THE TIME OF THE END or LAST END.

Prophecy Countdown
Mar 20th 2008, 05:53 AM
It is about someone that PRACTISED, and PROSPERED
Daniel 9: 24.
SEVENTY WEEKS ARE DETERMINED upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION, and to make an END OF SINS, and to MAKE RECONCILIATION for INIQUITY, and to bring in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS, and to SEAL UP THE VISION and prophecy, AND TO ANNOINT THE MOST HOLY.

Are the seventy weeks concerned with 33AD or is the vision concerned with the time of the end and last end? The word sacrifice was added to Daniel 8: 11, 12, 13 by the translators.
Was the transgression finished at the cross? No it was not, it continues today.
Was there an end of sin at the cross in 33AD? I don’t think so.
Did God’s people make reconciliation for iniquity in 33AD?
Was everlasting righteousness brought in at 33AD
Was the vision and prophecy sealed up at that time of 33AD or is it to be at the time of the end and last end?
Was the Most Holy anointed at the cross?

It is AFTER 62 weeks of the seventy that the Messiah is to be cut off and whilst he is cut off a prince comes on the scene.
Daniel 9: 26. And AFTER THREESCORE and TWO WEEKS SHALL MESSIAH BE CUT OFF, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined

So we are only 62 weeks into the 70 and we have 6 weeks to go where the Messiah is cut off until Messiah returns at the end of week 70.
The prince that comes cannot be Jesus because Jesus, is cut off until week seventy.
Please look at what this fellow does, he is responsible for the ‘overspreading of abominations’ Jesus does not or would not do that.
This prince is the counterfeit so he comes close to what the Messiah has promised knows he only has one week of the seventy left so the promise can only last for one lousy week, it does NOT say ‘years.’ See Matthew 24: 24.

Daniel 9: 27. And he shall CONFIRM THE COVENANT with many FOR ONE WEEK: and IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the OVERSPREADING OF ABOMINATIONS he shall make it desolate, even UNTIL the CONSUMATION, and that DETERMENED shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now lets look closely at the SAME LAST WEEK and from the MIDST OF THE SAME LAST WEEK and see the patterns and parallels within the TIME that fits into the second part of the 2300 ereb boqer as specified by Gabriel in Dan 8: 14.
We are still concerned with the place of the daily or outer court as it is sometimes called.
Revelation 11: 2. But THE COURT which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot FORTY TWO MONTHS.

The two witnesses are given 1260 days to prophesy so that is all there is left, before the God says ‘time no longer.’ See Revelation 10: 6 – 7.

Rev 11: 3. And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
That’s 3 and a part years.
At the end of their prophesying they are to be killed by Satan.

Revelation 11: 7. And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
They are killed IN THE MIDST OF THE SAME LAST WEEK, and left lying dead in Jerusalem for 3 ½ days.
How do I know that it is the same last week mentioned in Daniel 9. 27?
Because the LAST trumpet 7 is sounded 3 ½ days later at their resurrection when Jesus appears in the clouds. See Matthew 24: 30, 31. Where His angels lift the very elect, including the two witnesses.

Revelation 11: 8. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Rev 11. 9. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and NATIONS SHALL SEE THEIR DEAD BODIES THREE DAYS AND AN HALF, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

These people think that they are blessed and start celebrating the death of the two witnesses.
Rev 11. 10. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Prophecy Countdown
Mar 20th 2008, 05:54 AM
Please note the TIMING.
Jesus appears sounding the seventh trumpet, He does NOT return until the last week is finished which is 3 ½ days after the two witnesses are killed.
Rev 11. 11. And AFTER THREE DAYS AND AN HALF the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

Rev 11. 12. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Rev 11. 14. The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

Rev 11. 15. And THE SEVENTH ANGEL SOUNDED; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

It is at trumpet seven that the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Jesus at the completion of that last week of the seventy when He returns. Jesus does not return before the last week.
1 Cor 15: 52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, AT THE LAST TRUMP: for THE TRUMPET shall sound, and THE DEAD SHALL BE RAISED INCORUPTABLE, and WE SHALL BE CHANGED.

1 Cor 15: 53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1 Cor 15: 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1 Cor 15: 55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1 Cor 15: 56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

1 Cor 15: 57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 15: 58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

I haven’t explained Daniel 8: yet concerning the ram and rough goat. That is a real biblical spin out but not from the traditional historic viewpoint, maybe if Daniel 8 were known then what I have just said would be clearer.

Maranatha, your servant in Jesus, PC.

White Spider
Mar 21st 2008, 03:04 AM
Why from 500 to 1800 if the Catholic Church started during the reign of Constantine?

Most of the Europeans were Catholic when they came over to America?

I think you will find the vast majority of Europeans who settled in America were protestants.

The British Empire which controlled a quarter of the Worlds population was after the reformation and was not a Catholic State.

The crusades were in response to Muslim invaders who were killing chrisitans.

Most of the Europeans were Catholic when they came over to America?
You seem to be confusing America with the United States . . . America in my terms is North and South America. Sorry if I confused you, my wording was not very clear. And in talking about Central and South America and parts of north America before the "protestants" as you say spread across North America it was mainly Catholics which you can see in almost all countries south of our border to this day.

The crusades were in response to Muslim invaders who were killing chrisitans.
An overboard response which killed everyone that didn't swear allegiance to the Church or pay enough money to buy their lives. It was an all out genocidal attack much like Hitler's . . . you have heard the G rated edited version apparently. (No offense)

The British Empire which controlled a quarter of the Worlds population was after the reformation and was not a Catholic State.
True, but during the majority of it's uprising and through it's most destructive days it was Catholic.

Why from 500 to 1800 if the Catholic Church started during the reign of Constantine?
Roughly those years, because that's when it was in it's beast status . . . When it was started it was not in it's beast status. Or more simply it did not reach a super powerful domineering status til around 500

Hope that answers your questions, sorry it took so long . . .

Jerome1
Mar 22nd 2008, 09:20 PM
Most of the Europeans were Catholic when they came over to America?
You seem to be confusing America with the United States . . . America in my terms is North and South America. Sorry if I confused you, my wording was not very clear. And in talking about Central and South America and parts of north America before the "protestants" as you say spread across North America it was mainly Catholics which you can see in almost all countries south of our border to this day.

The crusades were in response to Muslim invaders who were killing chrisitans.
An overboard response which killed everyone that didn't swear allegiance to the Church or pay enough money to buy their lives. It was an all out genocidal attack much like Hitler's . . . you have heard the G rated edited version apparently. (No offense)

The British Empire which controlled a quarter of the Worlds population was after the reformation and was not a Catholic State.
True, but during the majority of it's uprising and through it's most destructive days it was Catholic.

Why from 500 to 1800 if the Catholic Church started during the reign of Constantine?
Roughly those years, because that's when it was in it's beast status . . . When it was started it was not in it's beast status. Or more simply it did not reach a super powerful domineering status til around 500

Hope that answers your questions, sorry it took so long . . .

I don't get the comparison with Hitler, Hitler started an offensive war and tried to conquer Europe. The crusades were instigated because Muslims were attacking and killing christians, and like any war innocent people get killed.

Could you provide me with some statistics showing that Britain was a more destructive empire pre reformation?

GODS PROPERTY
Mar 28th 2008, 08:04 PM
i have heard that the temple is to be rebuilt again. that the anti christ will rule from there. i am gonna find some info on it and let you know more. but think of it this way Jesus return will be like a lion taking back that which was stolen from his people.

White Spider
Mar 29th 2008, 12:30 AM
I don't get the comparison with Hitler, Hitler started an offensive war and tried to conquer Europe. The crusades were instigated because Muslims were attacking and killing christians, and like any war innocent people get killed.

Could you provide me with some statistics showing that Britain was a more destructive empire pre reformation?

The comparison to Hitler is because just like Hitler's war the crusades were a war for power, nothing else, whatever the reason is said that it started for it was really for the simple reason to gain power. It didn't matter who was killed in either war the ultimate goal was to get power, power, power . . .

I'm sure I could get you evidence, but I have a feeling nothing I give you would satisfy you. It's not to hard to find the facts yourself so if you are so interested why don't you look it up yourself . . . send me a P.M. and I'll reply with the link to the site if you'd like to see what they said and who knows, maybe you can find they did provide evidence to their argument, but I didn't look and don't feel like looking for what should be common knowledge.

(No offense intended)

Jerome1
Mar 29th 2008, 10:22 PM
The comparison to Hitler is because just like Hitler's war the crusades were a war for power, nothing else, whatever the reason is said that it started for it was really for the simple reason to gain power. It didn't matter who was killed in either war the ultimate goal was to get power, power, power . . .

I'm sure I could get you evidence, but I have a feeling nothing I give you would satisfy you. It's not to hard to find the facts yourself so if you are so interested why don't you look it up yourself . . . send me a P.M. and I'll reply with the link to the site if you'd like to see what they said and who knows, maybe you can find they did provide evidence to their argument, but I didn't look and don't feel like looking for what should be common knowledge.

(No offense intended)

First off there were several crusades, christians fought against Muslims, each other, and people the Church regarded as heretics.

The crusades were primarily to gain back control of Jerusalem and Constantinople from Muslims who had captured control of these areas from christians.

So far you havn't given any evidence for any of the assertions you have made. I have read a lot about the crusades and just recently refreshed my memory on some of the historical information surrounding it.

I really don't know where you are getting your information, but it sounds like historical revisionism to me, far removed from the facts.

You must have the PM's switched off on your profile, PM me the link you are talking about when you change it.

White Spider
Mar 31st 2008, 11:51 PM
I really don't know where you are getting your information, but it sounds like historical revisionism to me, far removed from the facts.

Historical revisionism?

A fact is not truth, so I try my best to remove myself from facts.

And you should take into account when reading about the crusades that the history of them is largely influenced by the Church as they were the winners. The winners write history.

Imagine if Hitler had won his war and the world was a Nazi unified dictatorship . . . Do you think that they would have written the holocaust into what they did or perceived themselves as evil?

I think you should question more of the facts and popular theories regarding what you believe and accept as "truths" for the majority of history is altered by those who wrote it.

Jerome1
Apr 2nd 2008, 11:16 AM
Historical revisionism?

A fact is not truth, so I try my best to remove myself from facts.

And you should take into account when reading about the crusades that the history of them is largely influenced by the Church as they were the winners. The winners write history.

Imagine if Hitler had won his war and the world was a Nazi unified dictatorship . . . Do you think that they would have written the holocaust into what they did or perceived themselves as evil?

I think you should question more of the facts and popular theories regarding what you believe and accept as "truths" for the majority of history is altered by those who wrote it.

I think you should look up what the definition of fact means.

1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

By this logic we should disregard any historical information from countries who have ever been victorious.

The crusades were defensive wars, Muslims took control of Asia Minor(Modern Day Turkey) and large parts of Europe and the Middle East. If anything it was the Muslims who gained more during the crusades.

Read this article.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzhhODM1MDhkYWMxNTRiYmRjMzg2NmY2YjM3ZTRiZDQ=

White Spider
Apr 3rd 2008, 05:00 PM
I think you should look up what the definition of fact means.

1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

By this logic we should disregard any historical information from countries who have ever been victorious.

The crusades were defensive wars, Muslims took control of Asia Minor(Modern Day Turkey) and large parts of Europe and the Middle East. If anything it was the Muslims who gained more during the crusades.

Read this article.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzhhODM1MDhkYWMxNTRiYmRjMzg2NmY2YjM3ZTRiZDQ=

I will read the article a little later today . . .

It was a fact the world was flat for centuries . . . It was also a fact the earth was the center of the universe . . . And depending on who you ask you can get different facts on any subject.

A fact is merely something backed by popular opinion and current evidence.

Several people have sat on death row because of the "fact" they killed someone. Several years later the "truth" is revealed and they get released.

Truth is a fact, but facts are not true in the same way a square is a rectangle, but rectangles are not squares.

Jerome1
Apr 3rd 2008, 05:45 PM
I will read the article a little later today . . .

It was a fact the world was flat for centuries . . . It was also a fact the earth was the center of the universe . . . And depending on who you ask you can get different facts on any subject.

A fact is merely something backed by popular opinion and current evidence.

Several people have sat on death row because of the "fact" they killed someone. Several years later the "truth" is revealed and they get released.

Truth is a fact, but facts are not true in the same way a square is a rectangle, but rectangles are not squares.

Your last statement is paradoxical.

Some things that people regard as facts are disputable. There are other things that are definite facts because they have been observed or experienced.

White Spider
Apr 6th 2008, 04:06 PM
Your last statement is paradoxical.

Some things that people regard as facts are disputable. There are other things that are definite facts because they have been observed or experienced.

Is that a fact, or your opinion? ;)