PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Ethnos of Antichrist



Joyfulparousia
Sep 5th 2008, 12:29 PM
There is much to say about the nationality of Antichrist. I'm interested to hear some different ideas about where he is from. I humbly request that we not speak of current leaders (in America and the countries abroad) as being the Antichrist (and let's not put the Catholic beliefs on the chopping block :)). Let's use scripture to support our ideas.

From what I can see these are the most popular views concerning his ethnicity:

1. ) He is Roman - or part of the revived roman empire (European)

2. ) He is Arab

3. ) He is Jewish - or at least partially

4. ) He is Russian


I believe that there are clues hidden in the bible to his national identity; either the country, but probably the race/people group that he may be from). I find it interesting to examine some of the nations that have persecuted Israel - mainly the ones that are mentioned in Daniel and Revelation.

For the sake of brevity I'm listing the nations, and their general interpreted identities that are mentioned.

Egypt - Assyria - Babylon - Medo Persia - Greece - Rome - the 7th empire mentioned by John, possibly Nazi Germany? - Antichrist empire

I find it interesting to note that after the Babylonian persecution and captivity of the Jews it is mostly European nations that have persecuted the Jewish people (i.e. descendants from Japheth - white people).

Why is this?

Psa 2:2, 3 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

David is shown a future, yet not future event. What does that mean? David is not simply shown a future event, but he is given a dual revelation - 1.) of the future Antichrist empire and confederation of armies, and 2.) a view into the heart of man that is set against the Lord Himself.

The ultimate rebellion of man against God manifests in these 2 ways. The latter is the spirit of the antichrist, while the former being the full manifestation of that spirit - embodied in Antichrist the person.

We can see from the text that the kings of the earth, who represent humanity at large, have set themselves against God's anointed - Jesus. It goes something like this: God has chosen Jesus to be King; man has rejected God's choice. It is through this reality that mankind will bring forth the ripe fruit of rebellion - a man who is their choice over God's.

In Genesis 3:15 God told Satan that through the seed of the woman He would ultimately break his dominion. So we know that God's Anointed would come from mankind. In Genesis 9:18-27 Noah (another of God's anointed) is defamed by his son Ham. Ham, in essence, did not agree with God's choice of Noah. God, through the voice of Noah, curses Ham and then gives the blessing to Shem. Japheth is the odd one out; his portion is to dwell in the tents of Shem, or, to be in submission to God's anointed. Therefore, the chosen Seed that would come from Eve now would come through the lineage of Shem.

Now to refer back to my earlier observation - Japheth then gains strength over his brother Shem and begins to persecute him. We can see this manifest throughout history in many ways.

Is is possible that through the lineage of Japheth the fullness of mankind's rebellion will rise and give birth to their anointed (chosen) - Antichrist?

vinsight4u8
Sep 5th 2008, 12:33 PM
The man of sin will be the vile person of Daniel 11:21 and come back to finish the years that are left for the kings of Babylon.

So -Jeremiah 25:11 can be over.
Right now this prophecy sits as started - but now hangs in limbo till the end days of the final week of Daniel 9:27.
where a he
shall desolate Jerusalem

Iraq

Joyfulparousia
Sep 5th 2008, 12:52 PM
The man of sin will be the vile person of Daniel 11:21 and come back to finish the years that are left for the kings of Babylon.

So -Jeremiah 25:11 can be over.
Right now this prophecy sits as started - but now hangs in limbo till the end days of the final week of Daniel 9:27.
where a he
shall desolate Jerusalem

Iraq

Iraq is the Antichrist? Or AC is Iraqi?

The desolations of Jer. 25:11 were already fulfilled by the 70 years of Jewish captivity in Babylon and subsequent release. Daniel sees the 70 years in captivity coming to end as prophesied by Jeremiah, so he prays that the word would come to pass. It did, and Israel was released at the fall of Babylon to the hands of the Persians, thereby fulfilling the 70 years of desolations prophesied by Jeremiah.

Marc B
Sep 5th 2008, 01:11 PM
Nazi Germany was a type of end time antichrist [Hitler] rule and state worship of the beast [Nazi party] but obviously not THE coming antichrist and worldwide beast power. Hitler created a state religion that all loyal Germans had to follow to prove their allegiance to him. Watch the History channel series on Hitler and how he rose to power and was able to convince a whole nation to hate Jews. It's a real eye opener. I'd like to add another possible candidate to the list, a resurging 4th reich under German rule now that germany is reunited and growing stronger all the time as a leading nation in the EU. If you do a little digging you will find germanic people are indeed descendants of the Assyrians.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 5th 2008, 01:19 PM
Nazi Germany was a type of end time antichrist [Hitler] rule and state worship of the beast [Nazi party] but obviously not THE coming antichrist and worldwide beast power. Hitler created a state religion that all loyal Germans had to follow to prove their allegiance to him. Watch the History channel series on Hitler and how he rose to power and was able to convince a whole nation to hate Jews. It's a real eye opener. I'd like to add another possible candidate to the list, a resurging 4th reich under German rule now that germany is reunited and growing stronger all the time as a leading nation in the EU. If you do a little digging you will find germanic people are indeed descendants of the Assyrians.

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

Indeed. All who seek understanding of Antichrist should do some study into the 3rd Reich.

I think the Assyrians are actually descendant from Shem. I believe that the descendants of Shem make up most of what are now Jews and Arabs. Where can I find more info on Germanic tribes descending from Assyria?

Here's an interesting site that has some info on the table of nations from Gen 10 - http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGham.htm. Please note I do not support or oppose the views expressed on this website.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 03:18 PM
Antichrist’s Hijacking of Islam



First, a word about the Koran (or Q’uran or however you wish to spell it): Please understand that I do not place for one instant any sort of authority in the Koran’s pronouncements such as I would give to the Bible. It is not the Word of God or anything close to it. However, most Christians would agree that Islam is a creation of Satan’s, so perhaps the Koran might offer some insights into the Satanic mindset. In fact, Mohammed’s personal account of how he was given the contents of the Koran is quite remarkable in this regard. History tells us that Mohammed was at least somewhat acquainted with the contents of the Old Testament and at least part of the New Testament, so he knew of Biblical stories of encounters with angels among other things. Invariably whenever an angel appears in the Bible, the first thing they do is to reassure the person they are visiting and to calm any fears they might have. (“Fear not.”) They do not want the person to be alarmed and to consequently miss the message. However, Mohammed’s account describes sleeping in a cave and being violently startled and grabbed harshly by an angelic creature who actually strangled him almost to the point of blacking out. Not surprisingly, Mohammed said he was terrified. This creature introduced himself as “Gabriel”. (Does this sound like the Gabriel who appeared to Daniel and later to Mary?) Rather than attempting to calm Mohammed down, “Gabriel” spoke to him in a very condescending, insulting manner and ordered him to share the contents of what Mohammed was told in this encounter. Mohammed was threatened with dire consequences if he failed to do so. He claimed that words appeared in his mind that he was compelled to pass on. These words supposedly make up a substantial portion of the Koran. For a time afterwards, Mohammed was convinced that he was “demon-possessed”. This hardly seems like the story that a person acquainted with the Old Testament would manufacture. It is so different from the Biblical accounts that it would seem to make Mohammed’s account unlikely if he were simply trying to give added credibility to his teachings. In addition, Muslims try their best to keep this account of Mohammed’s out of public knowledge. Salmon Rushdie’s infamous book, The Satanic Verses, actually discusses this account of Mohammed’s and this is precisely why the ayatollahs sentenced Rushdie to death. The reason that book is called “The Satanic Verses” is because it discusses the possibility of at least part of the Koran coming directly from Satan himself. Why do the Muslims feel so threatened by this story if they don’t believe there is any truth to it? Wouldn’t they simply dismiss it out of hand as being the imagination of “infidels”? If there is any truth to Mohammed’s account, it could be easily argued that he had a direct encounter with a demon, if not with Satan himself. (More details about the “Satanic Verses” can be found at http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm) . So with this information, it is possible that the Koran could be viewed, to a certain extent, as being demonically inspired. That is why the Koran could offer some insight into the Satanic mindset. (More details, including information from actual Islamic teachings regarding this incident, can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm (http://answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm).) So going on from there, I’ll tell you what I have learned about Islamic “prophecy”.

(Please remember my earlier statement that I do not consider Islamic “prophecy” to be genuine. It is not to taken as any kind of divine revelation. For those who understand the Bible to be the only true Word of God, Islamic “prophecy’s” only use is to get insider information about Satan and his mindset.)

The whole purpose behind Iran’s efforts to cause so much trouble around the world is to hasten the appearance of a person from Islamic theology called the “Mahdi” (pronounced “mah-dee´”). (Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has specifically said so publicly many times, including during a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 26, 2007.) The Mahdi is essentially Islam’s Messiah, to borrow the Jewish term. (In fact, if you were speaking to a Muslim and referred to the Mahdi as Islam’s “Messiah” they would usually agree with you that the usage is appropriate and would have no problem with it.) There are a number of prophecies about the Mahdi in the Koran and in another set of Islamic teachings called the “Hadiths”. The Hadiths are a set of oral teachings from Mohammed that were not recorded as early as the writings in the Koran. Therefore, they are not considered to be word-for-word inviolate such as the Koran’s writings, but their substance is considered to be just as “holy” and sacred. The Hadiths have become standardized over the years and for all intents and purposes are studied by faithful Muslims just as diligently as the Koran itself. Between these two different sources we get a fairly detailed set of prophecies about the Mahdi including these highlights: (Please remember, these are not what I say, but rather are what Islamic theology says.)

1. The Mahdi has (supposedly) already been alive once a number of centuries ago, but died prematurely when he “fell down a well”. His appearance would constitute a supposed return from the dead.
2. The Mahdi will appear in a time of great stress in the world (hence Iran’s efforts to deliberately cause great stress in the world – this is why Iran appears to be unresponsive to reason – in their way of thinking, they are behaving entirely logically).
3. The Mahdi will be the “wisest” person who has ever lived.
4. He will be a direct descendant of Mohammed. (There are direct descendants of Mohammed known to be living at this moment, including the King of Jordan among others.)
5. The Mahdi will take over many different nations in the Middle Eastern area.
6. The world will be amazed at the Mahdi’s wisdom, skills at problem solving, and diplomacy.
7. The entire world will give themselves up to the Mahdi.
8. His career will last for somewhere between 7 - 9 years.
9. The Mahdi will make a treaty with the west that will be for exactly seven years and this treaty will be moderated by a Jew of the priestly line of Aaron. (Remember, this is what Islamic theology says. Does this remind you of Daniel 9:27? It is indeed possible today to identify the Aaronic priestly line. There are Jews throughout the world with the surname “Cohen” and other names very similar. This name has been used since the Roman dispersion of 70 AD to identify the priestly line for future use.)
10. Muslims believe the Mahdi is represented in the book of Revelation in a passage that has not been a victim of the rampant corruption and distortions that Muslims say pollute much of the rest of the Bible. This passage is Revelation 6:2 – “I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” (Apparently, it doesn’t seem to bother Muslims that this passage is claimed by Christians to refer to the Antichrist. It is very interesting that the author of the Koran/Hadiths would choose to represent the Mahdi with this passage.)
11. The Mahdi will establish his world capital in Kufa, Iraq (which is about fifty miles north of Babylon and about fifty miles south of Baghdad).
12. He will later move his seat of power to Jerusalem after he conquers the Jews.
13. He will be very successful at convincing Jews and Christians to convert to Islam (not necessarily voluntarily). (Again, remember, this is what Islam teaches, not me.) Curiously, the Islamic prophecies only mention these two particular religions, Christianity and Judaism. Buddhism, Hinduism and other belief systems are completely ignored. This would only make sense in a system that was designed for the express purpose of opposing the true God of Judaism and Christianity, since the other religions would not be considered a threat by Satan.
14. At the end of the seven year treaty, he will defeat the “Dajjal”, Islam’s equivalent of the Antichrist. (Remember this person, he’ll be important in a few minutes.)
15. The Mahdi’s reign will be a time of unparalleled peace, tranquility, and prosperity throughout the world.

Wait, there’s more. There’s another personality in this scenario I need to tell you about. His name is “Isa”. A Muslim speaking to an English-speaking Christian of this person would call him “Jesus”. Muslims are convinced that this person, “Isa”, is the true Jesus that is written about in our New Testament, except that our New Testament is supposedly full of distortions and fantasies that have been added over the years. The prophecies about “Isa” are just as astounding as the ones about the Mahdi.

1. Isa will appear on the world scene shortly after the Mahdi and will recognize the Mahdi as having authority superior to his own.
2. He will (supposedly) be an actual Jew claiming to be the real, actual Jesus, returned from Heaven. (Notice in Revelation 13:11 that the second beast called the False Prophet is seen to rise up out of the “land” as opposed to the first beast who comes from the sea. The sea is representative of the Gentile world and this reference to the second beast coming out of the “land” is usually taken to mean that this beast is Jewish. This would fit perfectly.)
3. He will “refute” the centuries-old belief that he died on a cross for people’s sins. He will claim that, in fact, he didn’t even really die on the cross at all, rather that he was lifted up off the cross, still alive, into heaven where he has been waiting all this time to return to assist the Mahdi and to finish out his normal lifespan.
4. He will insist that everyone in the entire world either follow the Mahdi’s teachings or be killed and will abolish Christianity altogether. He will also be especially vicious in his determination to kill the “infidel” Jews who do not convert. (Nice way to treat the relatives, huh?)

Wait, there’s one last person I need to introduce you to in this Islamic scenario. I mentioned him in the list about the Mahdi: he’s called the “Dajjal” and he is Islam’s equivalent of the Antichrist. See if you can figure out who this is….. The Dajjal will appear at the end of the seven year treaty in the sky over Israel. He will be sent by “Satan” to oppose the “righteous” Mahdi and Isa. He will be accompanied by myriads of “demons” who will be determined to defeat the forces of the “one true god” (Allah), but he will be immediately defeated by the Mahdi through the power of Allah. Hmm, I wonder who that could be?

Now, I ask you: What are the chances of an uneducated Bedouin like Mohammed coming up with stuff like that on his own without any help? Up until his “encounter”, Mohammed had simply been like all the other Arabs of his day, worshiping a polytheistic system in the Arabian peninsula that was centered around a “magic rock” located in the city of Mecca. (Today, this “magic rock” is Islam’s holiest shrine.) People who knew Mohammed described him as being a successful business person and rather charismatic, but certainly nothing of historical importance or any great religious fervor. His family was moderately wealthy, and he was pretty much just running the family business. Then suddenly, he comes up with all this. And how could he possibly have come up with such a perfect opposite of the prophecies in Revelation? Even Christians of that day (ca. 600 AD) were having so much trouble understanding Revelation that it was subsequently doomed to centuries of being misinterpreted as mostly an “allegorical” work that nobody could understand. It seems very plausible that he had help, just as he said in his account of how he came up with the Koran.

So based on this information, here are some general conclusions that seem reasonable –

(to be continued.....)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 03:19 PM
So based on this information, here are some general conclusions that seem reasonable –

1. Islam is not going to “go away”, in fact it’s going to (briefly) rule the world.
2. The “West” will either fall or will go along willingly, including the United States.
3. We won’t have to wait for the antichrist to come along to see people being beheaded – Muslims have already been doing it for centuries, and the beheadings of Revelation will simply be a continuation of an old practice, but far more widespread. (And Muslims don’t use guillotines to make it quick and painless either.)
4. The Antichrist’s changing of the “set times and the laws” mentioned at Daniel 7:25 will be the “Mahdi” imposing Sharia Law on the world along with Islam’s lunar calendar as opposed to our more traditional solar calendar. Islam is the only religion in the world that has the stated goal (among others) of imposing its calendar on conquered peoples. Buddhists and Hindus and all other religious systems have no interest in changing their subjects’ calendars. Islam is unique in this regard. This is further evidence that the true Biblical Antichrist will have an Islamic origin, because it is the only belief system in existence today that explains this prophecy of Daniel’s.
5. The teaching of the Antichrist being “Roman” (based on Daniel 9:26) is no problem for this scenario. The Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, went all the way to today’s eastern boundary of Iraq. In addition, there were three Roman legions that destroyed the temple in 70 AD. The largest legion was the 5th Legion, the “Legio V Macedonica”. This was a conscript army, meaning the soldiers were drawn from a particular region. The legion usually bore the name of the region from which the soldiers were drawn. The Legio V Macedonica had soldiers from all over Syria, Jordan, Arabia, Modern Iraq and Iran, and other parts of the Middle East. The actual people (to use the same word as Daniel 9:26) who destroyed the “city and the sanctuary” (as predicted by Daniel) were indeed working for Rome, but they were from areas that are currently Islamic.

There are a few more things I should explain to answer some inevitable questions that would very appropriately come up. The first is about Mystery Babylon. How is there a connection between Revelation 17’s “Mystery Babylon” and Islam? They seem quite different in our traditional understanding of the two. The old pagan polytheistic system of the tower of Babel would seem, at first, to be quite different from monotheistic Islam and this actually threw me off for quite some time until I did a little reading up. Here are some things I learned: The chief deity in the old Babylonian system was the moon god. The moon was considered to be at its holiest when it was in the crescent stage. (Sound familiar?) One of the most common names given to this moon god was “Al-lah”. So there is indeed a direct connection between today’s Islam and Mystery Babylon. When Mohammed received his “revelation” from “Gabriel”, he concluded that he had received information from the “one true god” and that there could be no other god. So he took the name of the most prominent among the gods he had been familiar with for all of his life, “Al-lah”, and simply crossed the other “gods” off the list. Islam was not at all a totally new religion based on some new wisdom that Mohammed came up with as is often believed, but rather is simply a redressing and refinement of the old polytheism that had been around since before the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The next question that needs answering is what about Revelation 17:16, where the beast and the ten kings destroy Mystery Babylon? How could Islam’s most powerful leader of all time destroy his own religion? This has to do with the nature of Allah, as taught to Muslims. You might already be aware that any good Muslim would consider it to be the worst form of blasphemy to suggest that Allah has any sort of physical form. In fact, this is their biggest problem with Christianity, because we claim that a man (Jesus) is God in the flesh. This is anathema to Muslims. Here is the explanation: Anybody who has studied history knows that any human who rises to a position of incredible power lets it go to his head. (“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”) Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon are only three examples of this. The Antichrist/Mahdi will be no exception. Halfway through the Tribulation, he will present himself to the world and proclaim that “Oh, by the way, I’m Allah in the flesh.” The first questions a lot of people (including me) would have are “But how could he get away with that? Wouldn’t every Muslim in the world turn on him?”

The first point that needs to be remembered is that while the Antichrist accomplishes much in the first half of the seven years of his rule, he does not actually demand to be worshiped until after the middle point of the seven years. It will not be until after the Antichrist has achieved several significant victories and gained a great measure of allegiance that he will establish his position of authority in the Jerusalem temple. It is at this time that Paul explains how Antichrist will “set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) This is also the time that Paul said, “the man of lawlessness is revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3) While many Christians with discernment will already have recognized the Antichrist by this point, it will not be until the middle of the seven years that the Bible says he will be fully “revealed.”

We need to understand that the Antichrist will not demand worship until well after he has been universally acknowledged and accepted by the Islamic world as the “Mahdi”. The Imams, mullahs, sheikhs, and the Ayatollahs, indeed all of the world’s Islamic leadership will have given their allegiance to him. To deny him at this point would be the ultimate shame for Islam. It would come at a time when Islam will universally be experiencing its greatest rush of vindication and fulfillment. In the midst of all of this incredible elation, to suddenly declare and acknowledge that an absolutely evil charlatan has deceived the entire Islamic world would be unthinkable. Once the deception has taken place it will be impossible to undo. The hook will have been set.

There will be other very important factors at play here as well. Throughout this time period, the False Prophet, whom the Islamic world will believe to be Jesus, will be working as the Antichrist’s miracle-working “campaign manager” as it were. As Paul the apostle says:

“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

The followers of the Mahdi/Antichrist will be already in a deep spiritual state of deception. Add on some miracles that the Bible says will accompany the Antichrist’s career and most people will buy it hook, line, and sinker. When he asks the Islamic community to accept him as Allah in the flesh, most of the world’s people will be happy to accept it based on what will appear to them to be incontrovertible evidence.

So this is the fulfillment of Revelation 17:16, because the antichrist will no longer be satisfied with the political power of being Allah’s chief representative on Earth. He will decide that he wants to be acknowledged AS Allah. Anybody who opposes him in this will no doubt be destroyed, even if they had previously been a faithful follower.

(I should pause briefly to clarify something about this statement that I made a few paragraphs ago: “While many Christians with discernment will already have recognized the Antichrist by this point, it will not be until the middle of the seven years that the Bible says he will be fully ‘revealed.’”

There could be some confusion concerning when the Antichrist is “revealed”. When I say that the Antichrist is fully revealed at the middle of the seven years, that does not mean that he is not partially revealed prior to that point. In fact, people who are familiar with Biblical prophecy could possibly even be able to recognize the Antichrist as soon as he appears on the scene, perhaps even prior to the Tribulation. Certainly, with the commencement of the seven year covenant of Daniel 9:27 (which would seem to be parallel with the seven-year treaty predicted for the Mahdi in Islamic theology), anybody familiar with the prophecies of the Tribulation should be able to recognize this individual as the Antichrist at that point. However, many who are not familiar with the Biblical prophecies might not recognize him for who he is until he seats himself in the temple in Jerusalem and proclaims himself as “god” (or as “Allah” in the flesh). It will be at this point that the revealing of who he really is will be completed and he will be fully revealed, even to those who had not already figured it out. It will be at that point that the entire world will have to choose sides and accept or reject his “Mark of the Beast”.

It should also be clarified that the prophecy about the Mahdi being successful at converting Christians and Jews is not what I say, it’s what the Islamic prophecies say. It would seem likely that “Christians” who actually convert to Islam will be those who claimed to be Christian but never had an actual saving experience with the real Jesus. This would be part of Revelation’s exhortations to “patient endurance”.)

This Mahdi-as-Antichrist scenario also explains a passage that most modern prophecy teachers have never been able to really deal with – Daniel 11:37-38.

“And unto the god of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself. And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things.”

In the Mahdi-as-Antichrist scenario this otherwise-confusing passage makes perfect sense: He will reject the traditional worship of Allah that his ancestors have practiced and will instead put himself in Allah’s place. He will in essence “hijack” Islam for his own purposes. The religion that has been most associated with hijacking over the years will, in the end, become the biggest hijacking victim of all time. It will be Antichrist’s Hijacking of Islam.

In addition, it is well known that Muslims’ treatment of women under Sharia Law is inhumanly cruel and barbaric, including the practice of polygamy, hence his ignoring the “desire of women”. As the ruler of the Middle East, he will be in control of the world’s oil supply which will give him a limitless supply of cash and his obsession with power as the world’s leader will lead him to amass incredible military strength to be at his beck and call.

So now you know how Islam and the Mahdi fit into the big picture of Biblical prophecy.

If you would like further information about Islamic prophecies concerning the Mahdi, Isa, and the Dajjal, there is an excellent online book that goes into much greater detail at this web address:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm)

the rookie
Sep 5th 2008, 04:32 PM
Whoa - that's a lot of info to chew on and consider;

For me, the most relevant and prominent passage that nails the "ethnic" identity of the Antichrist is Micah 5:5-7 -

And this One shall be peace.
When the Assyrian comes into our land,
And when he treads in our palaces,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight princely men.
6 They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria,
And the land of Nimrod at its entrances;
Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian,
When he comes into our land
And when he treads within our borders.
7 Then the remnant of Jacob
Shall be in the midst of many peoples,
Like dew from the LORD,
Like showers on the grass,
That tarry for no man
Nor wait for the sons of men.

I included other portions of the passage in case anyone wanted to casually throw in a "Hey! That's been fulfilled!" Point being, the rest of the passage points to a "future Assyrian" leader that will trample Israel and her people; speaking directly to, IMO, the ethnic background of the Antichrist.

Politically, the traditional "Roman" viewpoint doesn't seem to hold water either, as Daniel 9 isn't that clear that the Roman people were even in view in the passage; it is just as likely that the passage could have been speaking of the prince of the Syrian people - or the actual Messiah himself, depending on how you interpret the passage.

I really appreciated the OP, however - very helpful perspective on the Gen. 9 passage.

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 07:48 PM
Psa 2:2, 3 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

David is shown a future, yet not future event. What does that mean? David is not simply shown a future event, but he is given a dual revelation - 1.) of the future Antichrist empire and confederation of armies, and 2.) a view into the heart of man that is set against the Lord Himself.Read Acts 4. Peter quotes this psalm in reference to Herod, Pilate, and the grouping of Gentiles and Jews who had met together to put a stop to Jesus' ministry. Peter interpreted it's fulfillment as having taken place during the time that Jesus was on this earth.

Meaning... Psalm 2:2-3 has already been fulfilled, and it had nothing to do with the antichrist.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 08:14 PM
Read Acts 4. Peter quotes this psalm in reference to Herod, Pilate, and the grouping of Gentiles and Jews who had met together to put a stop to Jesus' ministry. Peter interpreted it's fulfillment as having taken place during the time that Jesus was on this earth.

Meaning... Psalm 2:2-3 has already been fulfilled, and it had nothing to do with the antichrist.Peter never called it a fulfillment - and it's not the fulfillment - that's at the 2nd Coming.

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 08:28 PM
Peter never called it a fulfillment - and it's not the fulfillment - that's at the 2nd Coming.Why do you believe it's referring to the second coming? If Peter specifically quoted that verse in reference to a specific event... that indicates "fulfillment", or at least "correlation." Otherwise, why would he quote it if it had nothing to do with the event he was referring to?

So... why do you believe it's referring to the second coming when Peter used the verse to speak of an event in his past, and not to refer to an event in his future?

David Taylor
Sep 5th 2008, 08:40 PM
Peter never called it a fulfillment - and it's not the fulfillment - that's at the 2nd Coming.

Look at the Acts fulfillment and its wording.

Psalmic quotation in blue:
Notice however, the specific markers Peter uses outside of the Psalms quote; that place the venue in 1st Century A.D. with Jesus' 1st Advent:


Acts 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, (Psalms quote starts) Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. (Psalms quote ends) 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Peter re-quotes the part about the kings and gentiles being gathered together against Christ; and includes by name Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Herod and Pontius Pilate are not going to stand again a second time in the future against Christ, and again gather Israel and the Gentiles against Him.

Peter was pretty dadgum clear on this prophetic fulfillment; because he used very specific 1st century names to point to the fulfillment of the Psalmic prophecy.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 6th 2008, 03:52 AM
Why do you believe it's referring to the second coming? If Peter specifically quoted that verse in reference to a specific event... that indicates "fulfillment", or at least "correlation." Otherwise, why would he quote it if it had nothing to do with the event he was referring to?I would agree completely that there is certainly a correlation - just not fulfillment.
So... why do you believe it's referring to the second coming when Peter used the verse to speak of an event in his past, and not to refer to an event in his future?Because Psalm 2 portrays Christ as ruling the world with a rod of iron - and that ain't happened yet. :)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 6th 2008, 03:54 AM
Look at the Acts fulfillment and its wording.

Psalmic quotation in blue:
Notice however, the specific markers Peter uses outside of the Psalms quote; that place the venue in 1st Century A.D. with Jesus' 1st Advent:


Acts 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, (Psalms quote starts) Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. (Psalms quote ends) 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Peter re-quotes the part about the kings and gentiles being gathered together against Christ; and includes by name Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Herod and Pontius Pilate are not going to stand again a second time in the future against Christ, and again gather Israel and the Gentiles against Him.

Peter was pretty dadgum clear on this prophetic fulfillment; because he used very specific 1st century names to point to the fulfillment of the Psalmic prophecy.He used those names as examples of how the application of Psalm 2 was appropriate at that moment, but that doesn't make this event the final fulfillment of Psalm 2.

markedward
Sep 6th 2008, 06:53 AM
I'm honestly confused right here.

Your signature quote says "When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense." The plain and simple sense of why Peter quoted two verses and then explicitly followed that passage up by referring to events that fit those two verses to the T shows that he was interpreting those two verses as being fulfilled by that event. That is the "plain sense" of what Peter was saying.

Claiming "Peter was just saying their names as examples," despite that Peter never indicated as such, and that "Those verses speak of the second coming," despite that Peter applied them to the first coming, means you're entirely reaching for a meaning other than the "plain sense" of what was being said.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 6th 2008, 07:52 AM
I'm honestly confused right here.

Your signature quote says "When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense." The plain and simple sense of why Peter quoted two verses and then explicitly followed that passage up by referring to events that fit those two verses to the T shows that he was interpreting those two verses as being fulfilled by that event. That is the "plain sense" of what Peter was saying.

Claiming "Peter was just saying their names as examples," despite that Peter never indicated as such, and that "Those verses speak of the second coming," despite that Peter applied them to the first coming, means you're entirely reaching for a meaning other than the "plain sense" of what was being said.I don't see the word "fulfillment" in there. There are several times in the New Testament, especially in Matthew, when something is explicitly said to be the ultimate fulfillment of something. That does not happen here. My "plain sense" of what is happening here is different than yours. I can respect that, but it doesn't mean I'm taking an allegorical approach to the passage.

ananias
Sep 6th 2008, 09:50 AM
There is much to say about the nationality of Antichrist. I'm interested to hear some different ideas about where he is from. I humbly request that we not speak of current leaders (in America and the countries abroad) as being the Antichrist (and let's not put the Catholic beliefs on the chopping block :)). Let's use scripture to support our ideas.

From what I can see these are the most popular views concerning his ethnicity:

1. ) He is Roman - or part of the revived roman empire (European)

2. ) He is Arab

3. ) He is Jewish - or at least partially

4. ) He is Russian

I find it interesting to note that after the Babylonian persecution and captivity of the Jews it is mostly European nations that have persecuted the Jewish people (i.e. descendants from Japheth - white people).

I don't want to diminish Literalist-Luke's excellent article/posts - because his article is an excellent article, IMO. But just to say that Gog (a descendant of Japheth) went and lived in the Caucusus region between the Black and Caspian seas (the word Caucasian is derived from the word Caucusus). From there, their descendants went North and North-West, and East. Quite a few nations seem to have been descended from Gog - Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans, Afghans, Russians and Northern Europeans - or is this incorrect?

I actually think it's good to discuss the possible identity of antichrist in threads like this - the more we know, the more obvious his identification will become to us - or is that statement a trap? Possibly the more we speculate, the less likely we are to recognize AC? I don't know.

ananias

ananias
Sep 6th 2008, 10:29 AM
Antichrist’s Hijacking of Islam


Wait, there’s more. There’s another personality in this scenario I need to tell you about. His name is “Isa”. A Muslim speaking to an English-speaking Christian of this person would call him “Jesus”. Muslims are convinced that this person, “Isa”, is the true Jesus that is written about in our New Testament, except that our New Testament is supposedly full of distortions and fantasies that have been added over the years. The prophecies about “Isa” are just as astounding as the ones about the Mahdi.

1. Isa will appear on the world scene shortly after the Mahdi and will recognize the Mahdi as having authority superior to his own.
2. He will (supposedly) be an actual Jew claiming to be the real, actual Jesus, returned from Heaven. (Notice in Revelation 13:11 that the second beast called the False Prophet is seen to rise up out of the “land” as opposed to the first beast who comes from the sea. The sea is representative of the Gentile world and this reference to the second beast coming out of the “land” is usually taken to mean that this beast is Jewish. This would fit perfectly.)
3. He will “refute” the centuries-old belief that he died on a cross for people’s sins. He will claim that, in fact, he didn’t even really die on the cross at all, rather that he was lifted up off the cross, still alive, into heaven where he has been waiting all this time to return to assist the Mahdi and to finish out his normal lifespan.
4. He will insist that everyone in the entire world either follow the Mahdi’s teachings or be killed and will abolish Christianity altogether. He will also be especially vicious in his determination to kill the “infidel” Jews who do not convert. (Nice way to treat the relatives, huh?)

I've heard that Nicolas Sarcozy, through his mother's family, is of Syrian-Jewish descent, and that Sarcozy maintains a little-reported relationship with a Jewish messianic group that is participating in plans to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem; and that his spiritual adviser is Rabbi Dovid Zaoui, of the Chabad-Lubavitch group in Israel which is planning to rebuild the temple. I don't know how true that is, and I don't know what the source is of this information. I'll try and find out.

ananias

Bethany67
Sep 6th 2008, 10:53 AM
Sarkozy's father was Hungarian, and his mother's father was a Greek Jew born in Thessaloniki; the family were originally French Jews.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

ananias
Sep 6th 2008, 01:13 PM
Sarkozy's father was Hungarian, and his mother's father was a Greek Jew born in Thessaloniki; the family were originally French Jews.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

Thanks, Bethany67 - that was a very informative article.

ananias

SpokenFor
Sep 6th 2008, 01:19 PM
4. He will be a direct descendant of Mohammed. (There are direct descendants of Mohammed known to be living at this moment, including the King of Jordan among others.)

It would be interesting if this guy ended up being the Mahdi (hypothetically speaking...not saying he is or isn't). He is certainly well liked and charismatic. His beautiful wife has lots of social programs to help empower women, children and the poor. King Abdullah likes car racing...that will get him the vote by a lot of Americans.:lol:


Thanks for the great post, LL.

Marc B
Sep 6th 2008, 09:01 PM
http://www.originofnations.org/Great_German_Nation/germany/history_of_germany.htm

Here is some very compelling information on German-Assyrian ancestry.
I see no reason to doubt the information unless someone here can prove otherwise.

pinky
Sep 7th 2008, 02:33 AM
Jhn 5:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn005.html#43) I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.





Eze 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.



Dan 11:37 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.
Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.



Dan 11:45 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.


Isa 14:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa014.html#13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:


Eze 8:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze008.html#3) And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy.



Eze 8:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze008.html#5) Then said he unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry.


Mar 12:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar012.html#7) But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.





2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
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.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:



Jhn 5:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn005.html#43) .......... if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

pinky
Sep 7th 2008, 03:06 AM
1Sa 10:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa010.html#19) And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.

ananias
Sep 7th 2008, 10:49 AM
Sarkozy's father was Hungarian, and his mother's father was a Greek Jew born in Thessaloniki; the family were originally French Jews.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

Here's the website which asserts that Sarkozy maintains a little-reported relationship with a Jewish messianic group that is participating in plans to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem:

http://bob-mitchell.blogspot.com/2008/06/sarkozy-candidate-for-antichrist.html

ananias.

ross3421
Sep 7th 2008, 10:56 AM
There is much to say about the nationality of Antichrist. I'm interested to hear some different ideas about where he is from. I humbly request that we not speak of current leaders (in America and the countries abroad) as being the Antichrist (and let's not put the Catholic beliefs on the chopping block :)). Let's use scripture to support our ideas.

From what I can see these are the most popular views concerning his ethnicity:

1. ) He is Roman - or part of the revived roman empire (European)

2. ) He is Arab

3. ) He is Jewish - or at least partially

4. ) He is Russian


Consider # 5. That this man has no country though he will claim Jerusalem as his city..

5.) Hell

vinsight4u8
Sep 7th 2008, 11:23 AM
Daniel shows that he will be a king of a country and in his own land he will honour others.

v38
"But in his own estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom he shall acknowledge..."


in Iraq

vinsight4u8
Sep 7th 2008, 11:31 AM
Iraq is the Antichrist? Or AC is Iraqi?

The desolations of Jer. 25:11 were already fulfilled by the 70 years of Jewish captivity in Babylon and subsequent release. Daniel sees the 70 years in captivity coming to end as prophesied by Jeremiah, so he prays that the word would come to pass. It did, and Israel was released at the fall of Babylon to the hands of the Persians, thereby fulfilling the 70 years of desolations prophesied by Jeremiah.

The ac will be Chaldean and be the ruler of Iraq. Only Jeremiah 29:10 was fulfilled. The prophecy of 25:11-12 takes a Babylonian king in power at the end of the time of Israel in captivity. Israel was in Babylon for seventy years, but she was for over 3 years under Persian and Median kings.

Jeremiah 25:12
"And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, [that] I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."
//When Cyrus took down the Babylonian king Belshazzar, Israel still had several years left of being held captive in Babylon. Cyrus the Persian's coming and basically taking the land as a liberator (did not destroy the land), stopped the Babylonian Jeremiah 25:11-12 prophecy and left it as must fit into a later time so it can be finished.

DigReal
Sep 8th 2008, 12:06 AM
First, I'd like to say excellent post, Joyfulparousia! My 'vote' was, and still is, #2. But this is a subject I only started considering maybe 10 days ago, so it's something I'm still pondering.

With that in mind... Literalist-Luke... what an impressive piece you've posted for us! It was only recently that I started to consider exactly what you've addressed. And you did it so well that even I could understand. Very well written and thought out... though I still have a few questions. Thank you and bless you for that. If you haven't already, have you considered posting that as another thread? I'd sure like to participate in a discussion, but don't want it to take over Joyfulparousia's thread. And if you have already posted it... where?

Jerome1
Sep 8th 2008, 12:45 AM
Hi Luke, very interesting article, very well written.

Don't Shia and Sunni Muslims have different beliefs regarding the return of the Madhi, and the true successors of Muhammad?

The Shia don't believe that he has died but that he is in hiding, and will return with Jesus near the day of Judgment.

wombat
Sep 8th 2008, 03:50 AM
Hi, everyone! All of these posts are very interesting to me, and I'd like to share my own thoughts on the topic. I am thinking that the antiChrist could be all of these things at once: a leader of the revived Roman Empire (most likely the European portion, as he is depicted as the "king of the north" in the book of Daniel), Greek, Jewish (because Israel will see him as their Messiah), Assyrian, and quite possibly someone who will eventually take over the Baghdad area in Iraq, perhaps setting up a headquarters there in what is the region of Babylon. Thus he could be seen as being part of the Roman, Greek, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires--all tying to Biblical descriptions of the man.

wombat
Sep 8th 2008, 03:54 AM
Sarkozy's father was Hungarian, and his mother's father was a Greek Jew born in Thessaloniki; the family were originally French Jews.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162
Thanks for the article, Bethany67! I've heard that the Hungarian people have links in their ancestry to the Assyrians, including the roots of their language, as do the Romanian people. Is anyone reading this post that would perhaps be able to expound upon that? I'm very interested in the subject!

Joyfulparousia
Sep 8th 2008, 12:24 PM
For me, the most relevant and prominent passage that nails the "ethnic" identity of the Antichrist is Micah 5:5-7 -

Your grammatical arrows are indeed sharper than mine.:lol:



And this One shall be peace.
When the Assyrian comes into our land,
And when he treads in our palaces,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight princely men.
6 They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria,
And the land of Nimrod at its entrances;
Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian,
When he comes into our land
And when he treads within our borders.
7 Then the remnant of Jacob
Shall be in the midst of many peoples,
Like dew from the LORD,
Like showers on the grass,
That tarry for no man
Nor wait for the sons of men.

I included other portions of the passage in case anyone wanted to casually throw in a "Hey! That's been fulfilled!" Point being, the rest of the passage points to a "future Assyrian" leader that will trample Israel and her people; speaking directly to, IMO, the ethnic background of the Antichrist.

Politically, the traditional "Roman" viewpoint doesn't seem to hold water either, as Daniel 9 isn't that clear that the Roman people were even in view in the passage; it is just as likely that the passage could have been speaking of the prince of the Syrian people - or the actual Messiah himself, depending on how you interpret the passage.

I really appreciated the OP, however - very helpful perspective on the Gen. 9 passage.

I'm guessing that you quoted the Micah passage because it was written after Assyria was out of the picture as a world power? I'm not sure as to the timing of Micah; is this assumption correct?

Is 10 and 30 have some interesting things on this one from Assyria also, of course, people would say that this was talking about Assyria from Isiah's day.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 8th 2008, 12:25 PM
Consider # 5. That this man has no country though he will claim Jerusalem as his city..

5.) Hell

He is from hell and has no human ancestry? Wouldn't that simply make him a demon? This doesn't make sense.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 12:00 AM
First, I'd like to say excellent post, Joyfulparousia! My 'vote' was, and still is, #2. But this is a subject I only started considering maybe 10 days ago, so it's something I'm still pondering.

With that in mind... Literalist-Luke... what an impressive piece you've posted for us! It was only recently that I started to consider exactly what you've addressed. And you did it so well that even I could understand. Very well written and thought out... though I still have a few questions. Thank you and bless you for that. If you haven't already, have you considered posting that as another thread? I'd sure like to participate in a discussion, but don't want it to take over Joyfulparousia's thread. And if you have already posted it... where?It was actually the very first thing I posted when I first joined Bible Forums. You can find it here. It's in the Controversial Issues forum, which is not open to everybody, but hopefully you'll be able to access it. :thumbsup:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 12:02 AM
Don't Shia and Sunni Muslims have different beliefs regarding the return of the Madhi, and the true successors of Muhammad?

The Shia don't believe that he has died but that he is in hiding, and will return with Jesus near the day of Judgment.Something like that, yes. :yes: I haven't really dug into the Sunni-Shiite differences, but I do know that there are some minor differences. I would suspect that as soon as the Antichrist shows up and convinces the world that he's the Mahdi, whatever differences have existed up to that moment will be dropped like a hot potato.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 12:03 AM
Hi, everyone! All of these posts are very interesting to me, and I'd like to share my own thoughts on the topic. I am thinking that the antiChrist could be all of these things at once: a leader of the revived Roman Empire (most likely the European portion, as he is depicted as the "king of the north" in the book of Daniel), Greek, Jewish (because Israel will see him as their Messiah), Assyrian, and quite possibly someone who will eventually take over the Baghdad area in Iraq, perhaps setting up a headquarters there in what is the region of Babylon. Thus he could be seen as being part of the Roman, Greek, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires--all tying to Biblical descriptions of the man.The Muslims would reject such a person - they are even more exclusionary than Christians are.

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 12:32 AM
He is from hell and has no human ancestry? Wouldn't that simply make him a demon? This doesn't make sense.

i wonder why it is hard for people to consider the thought that it could posibly be Satan himself that is the Antichrist?

DigReal
Sep 9th 2008, 12:56 AM
It was actually the very first thing I posted when I first joined Bible Forums. You can find it here. It's in the Controversial Issues forum, which is not open to everybody, but hopefully you'll be able to access it. :thumbsup:

So, you came in with a bang! :lol: I like that. As I was telling Roelof in another thread, I'm still too new here to be allowed access to Contro. As with most things Christian, patience is key. Just out of curiosity, how many pages is the thread you mention?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 01:05 AM
i wonder why it is hard for people to consider the thought that it could posibly be Satan himself that is the Antichrist?Because in II Thessalonians 2, Paul specifically uses the word "man" in referring to this person.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 01:08 AM
So, you came in with a bang! :lol: I like that. As I was telling Roelof in another thread, I'm still too new here to be allowed access to Contro. As with most things Christian, patience is key. Just out of curiosity, how many pages is the thread you mention?It currently stands at six pages, although, to be honest, by the time of the most recent post, the discussion had digressed quite a bit. It was getting into speculation about what Muslim might it be.... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/mmph.gif

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 01:42 AM
Because in II Thessalonians 2, Paul specifically uses the word "man" in referring to this person.

but satan is refered to alot of different names throughout the bible, is he not?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 02:41 AM
but satan is refered to alot of different names throughout the bible, is he not?Yes he is, but "man" is not one of them.

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 03:06 AM
Yes he is, but "man" is not one of them.


so do you insist that Jesus is called by his hebrew names instead? Jesus was a very comman name in those days. Acts13:6, colosians4:11.
he was a "man" . But he was not just any man. People knew the messiah will come as a "man" . And He did come as one. Does that amke a lesser God? No it does not.
Point is, Satan can be called a man to.

bennie

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 04:17 AM
so do you insist that Jesus is called by his hebrew names instead? Jesus was a very comman name in those days. Acts13:6, colosians4:11.
he was a "man" . But he was not just any man. People knew the messiah will come as a "man" . And He did come as one. Does that amke a lesser God? No it does not.
Point is, Satan can be called a man to.

bennieJesus was fully man because he was born as one of us. Are you suggesting that Satan is going to duplicate that feat?

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 03:16 PM
Jesus was fully man because he was born as one of us. Are you suggesting that Satan is going to duplicate that feat?

duplicate being born as a man, or duplicate coming as a man??
Satan will come out of heaven looking like a man. He and his troops, all two hundred million of them(Rev9:16)
God raises up a destroyer when ever he needs to get the attention of His people. This is the strong ellusion.
I have one question to people that believe it is a regular man. Who believes it is a political leader or a religious leader.
Think of present day or past ages, can you name one person(human), that can unite all the religions of the world and galvenize them into one religion??? That has or have the power to call down fire from heaven?
No such human has ever lived.

bennie

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 05:25 PM
duplicate being born as a man, or duplicate coming as a man??
Satan will come out of heaven looking like a man. He and his troops, all two hundred million of them(Rev9:16)
God raises up a destroyer when ever he needs to get the attention of His people. This is the strong ellusion.
I have one question to people that believe it is a regular man. Who believes it is a political leader or a religious leader.
Think of present day or past ages, can you name one person(human), that can unite all the religions of the world and galvenize them into one religion??? That has or have the power to call down fire from heaven?
No such human has ever lived.

bennieThat is precisely why this man will be unique - he will be able to do things that nobody has ever done before.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 9th 2008, 05:42 PM
i wonder why it is hard for people to consider the thought that it could posibly be Satan himself that is the Antichrist?

Revelation 13 makes it clear that Satan gives the Antichrist his authority.

Satan can't give his authority to himself.

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon (Satan) which gave power unto the beast (Antichrist): and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? (parenthetical sections added)

No where in scripture is Satan referred to as a "man". However, you might be onto something that I think possible, and that is Satan possessing the Antichrist. We know that Satan can fully possess humans i.e when he possessed Judas the night of Jesus' betrayal. I believe it possible Antichrist might be possessed by Satan.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 07:05 PM
I believe it possible Antichrist might be possessed by Satan.Many Pre-Millennialists would even go so far as to say that is precisely what will indeed happen. :yes:

pinky
Sep 9th 2008, 08:02 PM
I'm just curious if everone here agrees with the following statement....

The unbelieving Jews (generally speaking), will believe the 'man of sin' is the messiah they have been waiting for?


God bless in Christ,
pinky

quiet dove
Sep 9th 2008, 08:25 PM
I'm just curious if everone here agrees with the following statement....

The unbelieving Jews (generally speaking), will believe the 'man of sin' is the messiah they have been waiting for?


God bless in Christ,
pinky

That general statement would need to include everyone, Jew or Gentile who rejects Truth

2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 08:59 PM
That is precisely why this man will be unique - he will be able to do things that nobody has ever done before.


you perfectly evaded the questions. what "man" have that tipe of powers?

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 09:06 PM
Revelation 13 makes it clear that Satan gives the Antichrist his authority.

Satan can't give his authority to himself.

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon (Satan) which gave power unto the beast (Antichrist): and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? (parenthetical sections added)

No where in scripture is Satan referred to as a "man". However, you might be onto something that I think possible, and that is Satan possessing the Antichrist. We know that Satan can fully possess humans i.e when he possessed Judas the night of Jesus' betrayal. I believe it possible Antichrist might be possessed by Satan.


my prophetic understanding has led me to understand that the composite beast in Rev13 is Babylon. rev 17 is a description of the same beast. commentary if you will.

"No where in scripture is Satan referred to as a "man"."
you cant say that, my understanding of2Tess has led me to understand that it is a reverence to Satan.;)
By saying Satan can not be a man is sort of a private interpretation.

bennie

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 09:37 PM
The unbelieving Jews (generally speaking), will believe the 'man of sin' is the messiah they have been waiting for?While I can see the possibility of that happening, I don't see it as a requirement for the Antichrist prophecies to be fulfilled. It could be that the False Prophet could be the one they accept as their Messiah. That would actually fit perfectly with the Islamic "prophecies" of "Isa", the Mahdi's sidekick and with Revelation 13's "beast from the land".

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 09:43 PM
my prophetic understanding has led me to understand that the composite beast in Rev13 is Babylon. rev 17 is a description of the same beast. commentary if you will.

"No where in scripture is Satan referred to as a "man"."
you cant say that, my understanding of2Tess has led me to understand that it is a reverence to Satan.;)
By saying Satan can not be a man is sort of a private interpretation.

bennieIn fact, I would agree that Satan could manifest himself as a man, and have actually even said so in the past right here in River City, er uh, in this forum. However, just as Jesus, being God-in-the-flesh, is said to be God the Son, and not God the Father, neither would the Antichrist be Satan himself. Satan could very well manifest himself in human form, and has most likely even done so, but Paul says quite explicitly that the one who sits in the Temple, showing himself to be "god" will be a "man". And Revelation 19, among other prophecies, goes on to specify that this "man" will be actually killed by Jesus at His return. Satan cannot be killed, he is immortal. He will be tossed into the Lake of Fire in the end, but he cannot be killed. So for this individual to be killed at the 2nd Coming requires him to be some sort of mortal being. Hence, he is a man. Indwelt by Satan? Very possibly. A hybrid being much like the Nephilum of Genesis 6? Again, very possibly. But an actual demon appearing in human form? Not possible, given the prophesied requirements for this person.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 9th 2008, 09:47 PM
you perfectly evaded the questions. what "man" have that tipe of powers?Sorry, I thought I was answering the question. Jesus was fully man. He was born of a woman just like you and me. But he had powers that were at His disposal via the Holy Spirit. It will be similar with the Antichrist. He will be a man, born of a woman like you and me, but he will have powers at his disposal just like Jesus, except that his powers will come from Satan. Same result, but from a different source. Just as a man, Jesus, was able to demonstrate miraculous powers, so will another man, the Antichrist, be able to demonstrate miraculous powers. Those miraculous powers will be just as real as Jesus' powers were, but they will point to a false message. That will be the difference between the two. One's miracles pointed to the Truth, the other's miracles will point to the Lie.

bennie
Sep 9th 2008, 09:56 PM
In fact, I would agree that Satan could manifest himself as a man, and have actually even said so in the past right here in River City, er uh, in this forum. However, just as Jesus, being God-in-the-flesh, is said to be God the Son, and not God the Father, neither would the Antichrist be Satan himself. Satan could very well manifest himself in human form, and has most likely even done so, but Paul says quite explicitly that the one who sits in the Temple, showing himself to be "god" will be a "man". And Revelation 19, among other prophecies, goes on to specify that this "man" will be actually killed by Jesus at His return. Satan cannot be killed, he is immortal. He will be tossed into the Lake of Fire in the end, but he cannot be killed. So for this individual to be killed at the 2nd Coming requires him to be some sort of mortal being. Hence, he is a man. Indwelt by Satan? Very possibly. A hybrid being much like the Nephilum of Genesis 6? Again, very possibly. But an actual demon appearing in human form? Not possible, given the prophesied requirements for this person.


i am sorry. no where in the bible does it teach that satan is immortal. he is a created being just like me and you, not a god or God himself. There is only 3 beings that is immortal. The Father , The Son and The Holy Spirit

DigReal
Sep 10th 2008, 12:05 AM
It currently stands at six pages, although, to be honest, by the time of the most recent post, the discussion had digressed quite a bit. It was getting into speculation about what Muslim might it be.... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/mmph.gif

Sorry to hear that, but certainly not unexpected ( already read that kind of speculation elsewhere). Still , I'll be looking forward to it when the time comes!

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 02:33 AM
i am sorry. no where in the bible does it teach that satan is immortal. he is a created being just like me and you, not a god or God himself. There is only 3 beings that is immortal. The Father , The Son and The Holy SpiritSatan is an angel - a fallen angel. Show me anywhere in the Bible where anything is said about any angel ever dying.............http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/ToeTap.gif

bennie
Sep 10th 2008, 02:56 AM
Satan is an angel - a fallen angel. Show me anywhere in the Bible where anything is said about any angel ever dying.............http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/ToeTap.gif


they were created right?? if they were immortal, they would not have had to be created. Collassians1:15-17"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together"

i know you asked for where does it say that an angel die, but if God created it, He can and will kill it if and when he needs to.

getting back to Satan being called a man, have you recently read Isaiah14:12-17 Satan is clearly described as a man. who is the morning star?

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah14:12-17;&version=31;#fen-NIV-17942a)]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:02 AM
they were created right?? if they were immortal, they would not have had to be created. Collassians1:15-17"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together"

i know you asked for where does it say that an angel die, but if God created it, He can and will kill it if and when he needs to.I will ask again: Do you have any Scriptural indication that any angel ever dies? I don't care if God has the ability to kill them - of course He can. But show me anything in the Bible that indicates that it has ever happened or ever will happen.
getting back to Satan being called a man, have you recently read Isaiah14:12-17 Satan is clearly described as a man. who is the morning star?

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah14:12-17;&version=31;#fen-NIV-17942a)]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"There is more than one place in the Bible where angels are referred to as "sons of God". That does not make them human. Isaiah 14:15-16 is talking about the Antichrist, not Satan. Try again.

faroutinmt
Sep 10th 2008, 03:02 AM
Are there any scriptures which actually link the term "antichrist" used by the apostle John with the beast or any other character in the bible? Everyone always ties the antichrist(s) in 1 John with other characters in the bible, but is there any scriptural basis for doing so?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:06 AM
Are there any scriptures which actually link the term "antichrist" used by the apostle John with the beast or any other character in the bible? Everyone always ties the antichrist(s) in 1 John with other characters in the bible, but is there any scriptural basis for doing so?No, there's not. That has actually been discussed here quite a bit. (Too much if you ask me.) I John's use of the Antichrist does not necessarily have to be equated with the beast of Revelation 13, and it could be argued that to use the word "antichrist" in this fashion is technically unBiblical.

However, since 95% of Christians know exactly who we are talking about with the word "Antichrist", and since it doesn't contribute to any major doctrinal errors by using the word "Antichrist" instead of "beast" or "man of sin", I don't see a problem by continuing to use the word "Antichrist".

bennie
Sep 10th 2008, 03:11 AM
I will ask again: Do you have any Scriptural indication that any angel ever dies? I don't care if God has the ability to kill them - of course He can. But show me anything in the Bible that indicates that it has ever happened or ever will happen.There is more than one place in the Bible where angels are referred to as "sons of God". That does not make them human. Isaiah 14:15-16 is talking about the Antichrist, not Satan. Try again.

so let me understand this right. isaiah is going from talking about the morning star, how he has fallen, to the antichrist?? wow. why one would want to take it apart like that, i dont know. the whole passage describes the fallen angel lucifer. then 2 verses as a fyi about the AC.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:15 AM
so let me understand this right. isaiah is going from talking about the morning star, how he has fallen, to the antichrist?? wow. why one would want to take it apart like that, i dont know. the whole passage describes the fallen angel lucifer. then 2 verses as a fyi about the AC.Are you going to offer anything that shows an angel dying or not?

bennie
Sep 10th 2008, 03:24 AM
Are you going to offer anything that shows an angel dying or not?

i dont. the harmonie of the sum of all the scriptures leads me to that.

answer the the previos post pls

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:28 AM
so let me understand this right. isaiah is going from talking about the morning star, how he has fallen, to the antichrist?? wow. why one would want to take it apart like that, i dont know. the whole passage describes the fallen angel lucifer. then 2 verses as a fyi about the AC.Isaiah 14:4 says the whole passage is addressed to the king of Babylon, a human. So really, none of it applies to Satan.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 10:08 AM
Something like that, yes. :yes: I haven't really dug into the Sunni-Shiite differences, but I do know that there are some minor differences. I would suspect that as soon as the Antichrist shows up and convinces the world that he's the Mahdi, whatever differences have existed up to that moment will be dropped like a hot potato.

From what i remember, there are some major differences in the Sunni and Shia beliefs surrounding the return of the Mahdi.

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 11:59 AM
The difference lies in the Muslim acceptance of hadiths and who are the true imams as successors to Muhammad (which is basically what splits Sunnis and Shia).

When Muhammad died, Abu Bakr who was a close companion and general succeeded with the support of certain Muslims (representing what later would be the Sunni viewpoint) because Muhammad hadn't named a successor. There was a dispute by those Muslims (representing the later Shia view) who believed Muhammad should've instead been succeeded by his cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, the wife of his daughter and father of his grandchildren.

Sunnis believe the first 4 caliphs were the legitimate successors to Muhammad because Abu Bakr was elected by the Muslim community as Muhammad failed to name a successor; Shia instead believe Muhammad named his successor as his relative Ali.

There is further disagreement over why Ali didn't fight Abu Bakr and his two successors Umar and Uthman. Sunnis claim Ali accepted them because he knew he wasn't the rightful successor, Shia believe he didn't fight them to gain control because he didn't have the military strength and didn't want to cause a civil war amongst Muslims. So you have two opposing viewpoints: succession by military right and popular election (Sunni), and succession by blood (Shia).

Sunnis are the largest Muslim denomination and they accept 6 collections of hadiths including 'Bukhari'. Shia on the other hand accept only those hadiths passed down by the Imams, descendants of Muhammad through Fatima, the wife of Ali; they don't accept the collection of 6 hadith because they belief the authors and canonisers were in error for accepting Abu Bakr.

The Mahdi isn't in the Quran or the main hadiths like 'Bukhari' and 'Muslim.' Consequently most orthodox Sunnis question the concept. Although they believe (thanks to the influence of Sufi preaching) he will be a direct human descendant of Muhammad (specifically a descendant of Imam Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad via Ali and Fatima) who will revive Islam, they don't necessarily believe he will be connected to the end of the world, Isa etc.

Shia on the other hand accept the Mahdi as a feature of the end; they refer to him as Al Qa'im, as the 12th and Last Imam in succession, who was born in 868 AD but then hidden by Allah and will eventually be revealed at the same time as Dajjal, an evil one-eyed figure who will gather an army and fight against the Mahdi. The Mahdi will redeem and purify Islam. There's a hadith which states the Dajjal will look like an infidel ie. non-Muslim and interestingly may appear with someone claimed to be Jesus, son of Mary, the Messiah:

The Prophet mentioned the Massiah Ad-Dajjal in front of the people saying, Allah is not one eyed while Messiah, Ad-Dajjal is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a bulging out grape. While sleeping near the Ka'ba last night, I saw in my dream a man of brown color the best one can see amongst brown color and his hair was long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Kaba. I asked, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'This is Jesus, son of Mary.' Behind him I saw a man who had very curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan (i.e. an infidel) in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka'ba. I asked, 'Who is this? 'They replied, 'The Masih, Ad-Dajjal.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9, Book 88, Number 246)

There are some interesting bits in the Shia view of the signs which will accompany the revealing of the Mahdi in Mecca: war, plague, Arabs will have control over their land by rejecting foreigners, conflict in Syria, death and fear in Baghdad and Iraq.

My question is: if Muslims are eventually united in following the hidden-but-now-revealed Mahdi, if he is actually the Antichrist/Beast - "the beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction," Rev 17:8, the one that the Whore of Babylon will ride on (alliance between the Vatican and Islam?) -

who will be the one-eyed Dajjal according to Muslim belief who will arise in the East to oppose the Mahdi and be killed by Isa/Jesus? Could the Dajjal instead be the the beast who looked as if he had been slain, with a damaged eye? Muslims believe he will claim to be Allah, in the way that the Antichrist will set himself up as God. In supporting the Mahdi who opposes the Dajjal, Muslims are inevitably just supporting two false figures because they have been deceived. And how would this affect Jews who believe the Antichrist to be their Messiah? Although I can see a political leader who manages to bring temporary peace to the Middle East, I can't humanly envisage someone who would satisfy the Shia AND Sunni Muslim requirement as a descendant of Muhammad while simultaneously being in the line of David to satisfy Jews.

I'm pretty new to all this; I haven't paid much attention to eschatology before and certainly not with reference to Islam, so I'm just throwing out thoughts. Maybe the Muslim traditions about the Mahdi were deliberately taken from Christian belief and twisted in order to make a political point to create their own end times beliefs with a Muslim slant; a lot of the Quran and Muslim teaching is a corruption of basic Christian ideas, I believe done deliberately as Christians and Jews rejected Muhammad in his 'career' as neutral arbitrator at Medina when he was expecting them to support his message of monotheism. He subsequently waged war against them, and banished one Jewish tribe completely from Medina for maintaining trade links with the pagan Meccans. He made a habit of delivering Quranic verses to allow political action to suit himself. eg. once the Muslims had left his home city Mecca for Medina, Muhammad came up with verses allowing his followers to raid Mecca caravans in the area, hence interrupting the trade routes and providing wealth for the emigrants.

The idea of the Mahdi returning from hiding to redeem his people could well be a basic function of human psychology - it sounds pretty similar to nationalistic ideas like King Arthur, the once and future king, who will return one day to save Britain.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 12:22 PM
Thanks for the information Bethany, did you write this yourself?

faroutinmt
Sep 10th 2008, 12:35 PM
No, there's not. That has actually been discussed here quite a bit. (Too much if you ask me.) I John's use of the Antichrist does not necessarily have to be equated with the beast of Revelation 13, and it could be argued that to use the word "antichrist" in this fashion is technically unBiblical.

However, since 95% of Christians know exactly who we are talking about with the word "Antichrist", and since it doesn't contribute to any major doctrinal errors by using the word "Antichrist" instead of "beast" or "man of sin", I don't see a problem by continuing to use the word "Antichrist".

Oh...I understand. Thanks.

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 01:38 PM
Thanks for the article, Bethany67! I've heard that the Hungarian people have links in their ancestry to the Assyrians, including the roots of their language, as do the Romanian people. Is anyone reading this post that would perhaps be able to expound upon that? I'm very interested in the subject!

Hopefully I can help from a linguistic angle; I'm passionate about the origins of languages and got into it while I trained with Wycliffe Bible Translators and their sister organization SIL following my degree in French and German. To start with, there's the idea of language families:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families

Hungarian is classed as a Finno-Ugric language, along with Finnish and Estonian and others, and it's pretty rare for a 'European' language not to fall into the Indo-European group. Hungarian is a bit of an isolated anomaly. I studied Hungarian for a short while for business purposes, and certainly knowing Latin and Greek were no help!

No-one has accurately pinpointed the exact origin of Finno-Ugric languages; the closest they've got is Central and Northern Russia in the 3rd millennium BC. The putative original language of proto-Finno-Ugric contains certain Iranic loanwords, possibly from the time when the Scythians (the Greek Herodotus wrote about them in the 5th century BC) and later the Sarmatians inhabited the Russian steppes.

The Iranian languages do fall within the Indo-European language group, and contain individual languages such as Persian, Kurdish and Pashto. The term 'Iranic' comes from the Iranian Plateau which includes the Caucusus region whose mountains connect Europe and Asia - Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, southern Russia, north-east Turkey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_plateau

Certainly the Assyrian empire extended along the Tigris to the Carduchian mountain range in Armenia. The language of Assyria was a dialect of Akkadian, a Semitic language and a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language groupe. Middle Assyrian was a lingua franca or trade language in the Late Bronze Age (1300-600 BC) so its use will have been widespread and it will undoubtedly have influenced the languages of the people who came into contact with it (and vice versa).

I wouldn't go as far as to say Hungarian definitely descends from Assyrian, but I do think there is linguistic evidence to suggest a cross-fertilisation through the passage of time. There is an interesting idea called the Kurgan Hypothesis, proposed in the 1950s by Lithuanian-American anthropologist and ancient historian Marija Gimbutas:

that the Scythians (Iranian nomads) and other groups came out of the Caucusus region and spoke the proto-Indo-European language in the Pontic steppe, from Central Ukraine to Kazakhstan. This may be evidence of how the Semitic language of Assyria 'bled through' into Europe via the proto-Indo-European in the Iranian plateau and into the Finno-Ugric group, but I'm no expert on the matter and it's not universally accepted as a hypothesis.

In the period known as the First Scythian Kingdom, the Scythians are believed to have left the area north of the Black Sea to invade the Near East in the 7th century BC and established military and trade links with Syria, Media, Egypt and possibly Assyria, before being driven out and having to re-conquer the Black Sea area 150ish years later. I'd be very surprised if there hadn't been 'linguistic contamination' during that 150 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia

Genetically Hungarians are predominantly European, but there is roughly 13% Uralic (north and south through Western Russia) genetic make-up. Hungary because of its position was kind of a crossroads in the Carpathian basin, and research on 10th - 11th century genetic samples showing an Asian link posits a difference with the modern Hungarian make-up, and state that modern Hungarians are thoroughly European with no Asian input. They explain this by the high social status of the ancient samples tested (evidenced by grave goods) as not indicative of the general population:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797

I probably wouldn't look in this direction for evidence that Sarkozy is of relevant Assyrian descent. However he does use his Hungarian roots as a political tool:

Link (http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2007/06/sarkozy_plays_the_hungarian_ca.cfm)

Romanian however is distinctly Indo-European, a Romance language belonging to the Italic branch - it has similarities to Latin-based languages like French and Italian, and it closest to Italian. Modern Romania largely corresponded to the Roman province of Dacia, and Romanian evolved from amongst other things Vulgar Latin, the merchant and military language of the Roman empire. Conversely it has also been influenced by other non-Italic Balkan languages such as Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek and Serbian. If you know anything of Italian and French, you can probably pick out a portion of Romanian.

The Lord's Prayer from Mt 6:

Latin:



Pater noster qui in caelis es sanctificetur nomen tuum
veniat regnum tuum fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie
et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimisimus debitoribus nostris
et ne inducas nos in temptationem sed libera nos a malo (Missing the last phrase)

French:

Notre Père qui es aux cieux! Que ton nom soit sanctifié; 10que ton règne vienne; que ta volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel.
11Donne-nous aujourd'hui notre pain quotidien;
12pardonne-nous nos offenses, comme nous aussi nous pardonnons à ceux qui nous ont offensés;
13ne nous induis pas en tentation, mais délivre-nous du malin. Car c'est à toi qu'appartiennent, dans tous les siècles, le règne, la puissance et la gloire. Amen!

Italian:

"Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome. 10 Venga il tuo Regno. Sia fatta la tua volontà qui in terra come in cielo.
11 Dacci oggi il cibo necessario,
12 e perdona i nostri peccati, come noi abbiamo perdonato a quelli che ci hanno offesi.
13 Non ci indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal male!(Missing the last phrase)

Romanian:

Tatăl nostru care ești în ceruri,sfințească-se Numele Tău, 10 vie Împărăția Tafacă-se voia Ta,pe pământ ca și în cer.
11 Pâinea noastră cea de toate zilele dă-ne-o nouă astăzi!
12 Și ne iartă păcatele noastre,așa cum le iertăm și noi pe ale celor care greșesc față de noi!
13 Condu-ne, nu în ispită,ci salvează-ne de Cel rău!Că a Ta este Împărățiași puterea și gloria, în veci. Amin."


Contrast that with the Hungarian:

Mi Atyánk, ki vagy a mennyekben, szenteltessék meg a te neved; 10 Jõjjön el a te országod; legyen meg a te akaratod, mint a mennyben, úgy a földön is.
11 A mi mindennapi kenyerünket add meg nékünk ma.
12 És bocsásd meg a mi vétkeinket, miképen mi is megbocsátunk azoknak, a kik ellenünk vétkeztek;
13 És ne vígy minket kísértetbe, de szabadíts meg minket a gonosztól. Mert tiéd az ország és a hatalom és a dicsõség mind örökké. Ámen!

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 01:43 PM
Thanks for the information Bethany, did you write this yourself?

Yep, wrote this and the linguistic one following myself with multiple windows open on the PC and excursions to the bookshelves, and it's taken me about 4 hours what with all the background reading! I didn't have any definite ideas when I started out (apart from the basic difference between Sunni and Shia Islam) but learned as I went along. I've tried to only use info from Wikipedia where accessible sources have been quoted, so people can research further if they wish. I have to say I think Literalist-Luke is onto something with the Islam factor; I hadn't read the whole thread until after I posted, and it seems that we're reaching similar conclusions.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 02:56 PM
Yep, wrote this and the linguistic one following myself with multiple windows open on the PC and excursions to the bookshelves, and it's taken me about 4 hours what with all the background reading! I didn't have any definite ideas when I started out (apart from the basic difference between Sunni and Shia Islam) but learned as I went along. I've tried to only use info from Wikipedia where accessible sources have been quoted, so people can research further if they wish. I have to say I think Literalist-Luke is onto something with the Islam factor; I hadn't read the whole thread until after I posted, and it seems that we're reaching similar conclusions.

It was very informative, thanks for sharing. I have more to add, but i'll do it when i get more time.

quiet dove
Sep 10th 2008, 04:52 PM
Yep, wrote this and the linguistic one following myself with multiple windows open on the PC and excursions to the bookshelves, and it's taken me about 4 hours what with all the background reading! I didn't have any definite ideas when I started out (apart from the basic difference between Sunni and Shia Islam) but learned as I went along. I've tried to only use info from Wikipedia where accessible sources have been quoted, so people can research further if they wish. I have to say I think Literalist-Luke is onto something with the Islam factor; I hadn't read the whole thread until after I posted, and it seems that we're reaching similar conclusions.

You may want to do post like that in MSWord then post, cause I would hate for a computer iffy moment to cause you to loose something you worked so hard on. It's a lesson a many of us have learned the hard way, and if you already are doing it in msword-----never mind :)

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 05:06 PM
You may want to do post like that in MSWord then post, cause I would hate for a computer iffy moment to cause you to loose something you worked so hard on. It's a lesson a many of us have learned the hard way, and if you already are doing it in msword-----never mind :)

Yeah that's a good suggestion, with 6 cats leaping around the house! One of them has just typed dcnjsaoi[g by leaping onto DH's laptop and shutting it down completely (he was very unimpressed), so it's a timely warning ;)

pinky
Sep 10th 2008, 08:41 PM
That general statement would need to include everyone, Jew or Gentile who rejects Truth

2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,


Yes, most people in general are going to worship the beast and his image.

I also fear that most in the churches will too.


However, I asked that because this thread is about the ethnicity of the 'AC', and I think it is highly relevant.


The True Messiah, Jesus Christ was to them first.

Rom 1:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom001.html#16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.




We know that the majority rejected Him and wait upon another messiah.


Luk 19:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk019.html#14) But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.



I believe that the false messiah is also to them first..........but not to them exclusively of course.

Rom 2:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom002.html#9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;


Sadly, because of their oral traditions that make God's Word of none effect to them, Jesus the humble carpenter born in a stable didn't fulfill their vision of the promised Messiah.

I believe that the Lord is soon to give them the king that they have been longing for.

1Sa 10:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa010.html#19) And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.


He will enter peacably and with flatteries.........then....... he will slay many.


Jesus told them that if another messiah comes in his own name, they will recieve him...

Jhn 5:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn005.html#43) I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.


Now, ask any religious Jewish person that you know (Fenris for example as we all know him) if he/she or any religous Jew that they know, would EVER accept a 'gentile' messiah..................or a messiah that is even part gentile.

Then......... ask them if they would ever recieve a messiah that is not a Talmudist.



This will help to understand the ethnicity of the man of sin as well as his religion.



God bless in the Truth,
pinky

wombat
Sep 12th 2008, 03:10 AM
Hopefully I can help from a linguistic angle; I'm passionate about the origins of languages and got into it while I trained with Wycliffe Bible Translators and their sister organization SIL following my degree in French and German.
Hi, Bethany67! After reading this post and your previous post about the Islamic prophecies, all I can say is WOW! Thank you so much for your detailed answers. I have a friend who is teaching in Brazil through Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL, and I think it is an excellent organization. Sorry I didn't get back with a reply to your post sooner, but I am a bit limited on how much time I can use the Internet for awhile. Thanks again, and God bless you!

Jerome1
Sep 12th 2008, 11:42 PM
All very interesting views about the antichrist coming from the Musilm world. How do you assimilate this view with Daniels explanation of King Nebuchadnezzars dream, regarding a revived Roman Empire?

What Arab country has the military capabilites to threaten the West?

If you think Russia joins with this Muslim leader, how do you explain why Russia(a stanchly Orthodox country) would accept such a leader?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 05:05 AM
All very interesting views about the antichrist coming from the Musilm world. How do you assimilate this view with Daniels explanation of King Nebuchadnezzars dream, regarding a revived Roman Empire?The fourth beast is not Rome - it's Islam.
What Arab country has the military capabilites to threaten the West?Today, none of them. That's irrelevant. By the time of the fulfillment, the world situation will fit the Bible perfectly.
If you think Russia joins with this Muslim leader, how do you explain why Russia(a stanchly Orthodox country) would accept such a leader?I totally reject the idea of Russia being involved in Gog/Magog. Gog is the Antichrist, leading an Islamic coalition against Israel at the midpoint of the Tribulation. The subsequent destruction from above takes place 3.5 year later at Armageddon.

lithiumx22
Sep 13th 2008, 09:11 AM
I will ask again: Do you have any Scriptural indication that any angel ever dies? I don't care if God has the ability to kill them - of course He can. But show me anything in the Bible that indicates that it has ever happened or ever will happen.There is more than one place in the Bible where angels are referred to as "sons of God". That does not make them human. Isaiah 14:15-16 is talking about the Antichrist, not Satan. Try again.


I have read this thread non stop, everyone here seems to have alot of knowledge and i look forward to learnign more, just a quick question Luke,wouldnt saying that an Angel is imortal contradict "God has the ability to kill them-of course He can" ?


Sorry, I thought I was answering the question. Jesus was fully man. He was born of a woman just like you and me. But he had powers that were at His disposal via the Holy Spirit. It will be similar with the Antichrist. He will be a man, born of a woman like you and me, but he will have powers at his disposal just like Jesus, except that his powers will come from Satan. Same result, but from a different source. Just as a man, Jesus, was able to demonstrate miraculous powers, so will another man, the Antichrist, be able to demonstrate miraculous powers. Those miraculous powers will be just as real as Jesus' powers were, but they will point to a false message. That will be the difference between the two. One's miracles pointed to the Truth, the other's miracles will point to the Lie.

When you said that Jesus was a man born of a women and so would the AC be...it's like putting both under the same category (both men with powerful abilities)..so if Jesus is Son of God..the AC would be the son of Evil...right? Then that brings me to: Jesus is GOD! John 1:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John 1:1&version=NKJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" 1:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John 1:14&version=NKJV)</B> - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", so if the the AC is Jesus's "yang" wouldn't that make him sort of like the devil himself? Sorry if I'm being ignorant in any way...just had these thoughts in my head! :bounce:

Bethany67
Sep 13th 2008, 11:01 AM
Luke - does the Roman Catholic Church feature anywhere in your eschatology? I tend to see it as the Whore who rides the beast - an alliance between the Church and Islam (I think the Islamic region will shuffle its borders around so it looks different to the nations today). But I don't discount that the Whore may be a catch-all term for fake ecumenical 'Christianity' which includes the prosperity gospel and 'revivals.' In fact I think the false prophet may well emerge from that movement; the second beast, the false prophet, looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon:

Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. Rev 13:11

There are large Muslim communities in the Balkan regions of Eastern Europe, and historically Islam controlled parts of Spain (al-Andalus) for 700 years; I was there last year, and the Moorish influence is still very much apparent even centuries later. Islam also controlled parts of Italy - some of the Lombards converted to Islam in the 7th/8th centuries, and Sicily was invaded by North Africans in 828, before the last Muslim stronghold on mainland Italy of Lucera was overturned in 1300. The Ottoman Empire later invaded Europe after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, reaching Vienna in 1529 before starting to decline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

Southern Hungary fell to the Ottomons after the fall of Belgrade and Szabacs in 1521. The Battle of Mohacs in Hungary in 1526 led to Hungary being partitioned between the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Dynasty of Austria, and the Principality of Transylvania. If they had taken Vienna 3 years later, they would've continued the expansion westwards.

At its height, the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents, controlling much of southern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. It stretched from Strait of Gibraltar in the west to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf in the east, and from Austria, Hungary and Ulraine in the north to Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen and Somalia in the south. Many of these areas under Suleiman the Magnificent corresponded roughly to the Eastern Roman Empire under the Macedonian Justinian the Great 1000 years earlier, so it's legitimate to see it as a revived Roman Empire. We could see a dual explanation encompassing Rome AND Islam here, and it's entirely possible they will control such land again. Harking back to what I said in an earlier post about nationalistic figures re-appearing to lead a country again, there was the legend of Nero Redivivus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus_Legend

I'm passionate about genealogy and am compiling a database going back through history of family lineages (30,000+ entries so far); I just wonder if the beast/AC will contain some former illustrious historical lineages, which was why I was interested in the earlier questions about Sarkozy. Unfortunately in my research I discovered I'm allegedly descended from Muhammad via the Ummayid dynasty of Arabia, the Banu Qasi who ruled the Basque country in the 9th/10th centuries, the Ayala family of Castile, and into the English Blount family in the 14th century. Not one of my better connections!

Only this week there was a talk given where I live of Muslim efforts to gain control of Britain through another 9/11, immigration and bearing large families:

Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Next-9-11-Britain-warn-banned-Muslim-extremists-meeting-exiled-cleric-Bakri.html)

I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Russia; Ahmedinajad in Iran has said he supports strengthened ties with Russia amongst others, and Russia was talking last year about supplying nuclear technology and a defence system to Iran:

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1185.cfm

His intentions to destroy Israel are well-documented. I would hesitate to say that at this stage Islam has a global leader, but what it does have is a general 'spiritual' ethos amongst the extremist section of Islam to create Islamic states. There is a whole section of Islamic jurisprudence aimed at explaining jihad as-sayf, justifiable war against one's enemies (other explanations of jihad is a struggle against one's own nature in an effort to gain self-mastery, but historically jihad was usually seen as military warfare).

Amongst fundamentalists, there is the concept of two opposing houses: the House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam) in which Muslim states rule, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb) the rest of the inhabited world. The struggle for them will continue until the whole world either adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 13th 2008, 11:37 AM
I have read this thread non stop, everyone here seems to have alot of knowledge and i look forward to learnign more, just a quick question Luke,wouldnt saying that an Angel is imortal contradict "God has the ability to kill them-of course He can" ?



When you said that Jesus was a man born of a women and so would the AC be...it's like putting both under the same category (both men with powerful abilities)..so if Jesus is Son of God..the AC would be the son of Evil...right? Then that brings me to: Jesus is GOD! John 1:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John%201:1&version=NKJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" 1:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John%201:14&version=NKJV)</B> - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", so if the the AC is Jesus's "yang" wouldn't that make him sort of like the devil himself? Sorry if I'm being ignorant in any way...just had these thoughts in my head! :bounce:

Sorry to jump in under the guise of Luke (I don't speak for him:)).

Jesus is the only man that has dual natures. His nature as a sinless man has given him the authority of the earth; His divine nature gives him authority to command heaven.

It is may be possible for Satan to actually fertilize the seed of a woman, but it can only go as far as theory since there is not strong scriptural backing to prove that Antichrist has a dual nature.

Bethany67
Sep 13th 2008, 11:42 AM
There are some people who see the Nephilim of Gen 6 as the offspring of fallen angels ("sons of God") and human women (in an effort to pollute the bloodline of the then-future Messiah and leading on to Philistines like Goliath), but personally I think that's stretching it.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 13th 2008, 11:46 AM
There are some people who see the Nephilim of Gen 6 as the offspring of fallen angels ("sons of God") and human women (in an effort to pollute the bloodline of the then-future Messiah and leading on to Philistines like Goliath), but personally I think that's stretching it.

That's a fascinating/scary study. Check out Daniel 2:41-43 ;)

Bethany67
Sep 13th 2008, 11:55 AM
Interesting - I don't think I'd ever noticed the clause about people being a mixture before.

lithiumx22
Sep 13th 2008, 04:16 PM
There are some people who see the Nephilim of Gen 6 as the offspring of fallen angels ("sons of God") and human women (in an effort to pollute the bloodline of the then-future Messiah and leading on to Philistines like Goliath), but personally I think that's stretching it.


For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others" 2 Peter 2:4, 5

:2cents: So if the Angels commited SIN and the world had to be rid of these UNGODLY people wouldnt that back up the theory that the Nephilim were product of Fallen Angels with human women? And if so, then the AC can most definetly be purley evil, the son of Satan himself. Correct me if Im way off please.

Bethany67
Sep 13th 2008, 04:48 PM
Yes, I believe that's one of the passages that was quoted to me (we're talking 20 years ago). Another was Jude 1:6:

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

The corollary of angels going beyond their authority and abandoning their God-ordained positions was a high emphasis on women: that women should cover their heads 1 Cor 11:10 as a form of spiritual warfare after Eve's sin and prophetic witness of obedience in the face of angelic disobedience:

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

And when Jesus died, He went and preached (proclaimed His victory through obedience) to those angels who engendered the Nephilim 1 Pet 3:18-20:

He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

As I said, it's not a view I share; it's like a secret Gnostic subtext to the main message of the Bible, and it came out of one small section of a strange isolationist Plymouth-Brethren-turned-charismatic-Word of Faith church I attended as a baby Christian.

I haven't been able to pinpoint an exact connection, but my gut feeling says there was some William Branham Kabbalistic 'serpent seed' theology mixed up with Scofield/Darby dispensationalism in it somewhere. Strange fruit indeed.

Jerome1
Sep 13th 2008, 06:55 PM
The fourth beast is not Rome - it's Islam.


The bible commentaries i have read regarding the fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Interpret it as the successors of Alexander(ie. the Syrians and Egyptians). Others interpret it as a revived Roman Empire.

The Two legs also fit perfectly with the Eastern and Western Empires of Rome.

Do you think the fourth beast represents Antiochus? Then why do you believe John made a numerical reference to Nero?



Today, none of them. That's irrelevant. By the time of the fulfillment, the world situation will fit the Bible perfectly.


How is it irrelevant, you think an Arab country/countries will have the military capabilities to challenge, Israel, Nato, and the EU?


I totally reject the idea of Russia being involved in Gog/Magog. Gog is the Antichrist, leading an Islamic coalition against Israel at the midpoint of the Tribulation. The subsequent destruction from above takes place 3.5 year later at Armageddon.

There is a lot of problems with this interpretation, what do you think Russia and China will be doing while this confederation of Arab countries are at war with the West?

What northern country fits the description of Magog?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 09:23 PM
Wouldnt saying that an Angel is imortal contradict "God has the ability to kill them-of course He can" ?Not at all. Angels, left to themselves, do not die. God created them, so if He chose to do so, He would also have the ability to wipe them out by the same power. The Bible gives us no indication that He is ever going to do that, however. But unless God were to choose to "un-create" them, they will never die, hence they are immortal.
When you said that Jesus was a man born of a women and so would the AC be...it's like putting both under the same category (both men with powerful abilities)..so if Jesus is Son of God..the AC would be the son of Evil...right? Then that brings me to: Jesus is GOD! John 1:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John 1:1&version=NKJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" 1:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John 1:14&version=NKJV)</B> - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", so if the the AC is Jesus's "yang" wouldn't that make him sort of like the devil himself? Sorry if I'm being ignorant in any way...just had these thoughts in my head! :bounce:Jesus is not God the Father - He is God the Son. He is fully God, but He is also fully man. You can't equate Jesus with Yahweh, God the Father, even though the full measure of divinity still rests on Him. Similarly with the Antichrist, the full measure of evil will rest on him, but he will not be Satan incarnate. Now, many people believe that Satan will indwell this person, and I tend to agree with them, but indwelling is different from actually being somebody. Hope this helps. :)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 09:32 PM
Luke - does the Roman Catholic Church feature anywhere in your eschatology?Not as a the beast. I could see the Roman Catholic Church being assimilated by the Islamic Caliphate, especially when a miracle-working Mahdi shows up and completely eclipses the Catholic Church's ability to impress people.

As for the prosperity gospel and ecumenicism, that all appears to me to be part of Satan's grand scheme to simply discredit true Christianity. It could be considered part of the Laodicean phase of Church history, from Revelation 3. Think of it this way: If you've been taught that being a "good" Christian means that you'll spend your life in prosperity, but then the western economy crashes, like most people believe is inevitable, then you might feel like your faith has been betrayed and you might start questioning the authenticity of your beliefs. After all, suddenly being the victim of the worst depression in history would tend to run counter to the prosperity gospel.

Then, when this miracle-working genius shows up and is suddenly uniting Muslims all over the world in a world-changing movement, and they're also now the world's most populous religious group and only getting bigger everyday, you might tend to think that Christians have been missing the boat all these years and decide to throw in your lot with where the "real" power seems to be - Islam. A Catholic who puts their faith in a sinner with a tall hat as their world leader would be even more susceptible to this deception.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 09:35 PM
There are some people who see the Nephilim of Gen 6 as the offspring of fallen angels ("sons of God") and human women (in an effort to pollute the bloodline of the then-future Messiah and leading on to Philistines like Goliath), but personally I think that's stretching it.Personally, I'm neutral on that theory regarding the Antichrist's origin. It wouldn't surprise me either way.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 13th 2008, 09:40 PM
The bible commentaries i have read regarding the fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Interpret it as the successors of Alexander(ie. the Syrians and Egyptians). Others interpret it as a revived Roman Empire.Commentaries are not Scripture.
The Two legs also fit perfectly with the Eastern and Western Empires of Rome.They also fit perfectly with the Shiites and the Sunnis.
Do you think the fourth beast represents Antiochus?Nope. The fourth beast was the Islamic Caliphate.
Then why do you believe John made a numerical reference to Nero?He didn't - Nero had nothing to do with it.
How is it irrelevant, you think an Arab country/countries will have the military capabilities to challenge, Israel, Nato, and the EU?It's irrelevant, because you are trying to see fulfilled prophecy by looking at the world in front of you today and using our present-day situation to understand prophecy. You're not allowing for the possibility that the Arab nations could become a great world power just as the United States rose from our ashes of the Civil War in less then 100 years to become the most powerful nation in history.
There is a lot of problems with this interpretation, what do you think Russia and China will be doing while this confederation of Arab countries are at war with the West?Who said the Arab nations will be at war with the West? I only see Israel being invaded in the Scriptures.
What northern country fits the description of Magog?Turkey. Let the Bible speak for itself and get outside the box. Remember, 100 years ago, people laughed at Pre-Millennialists who insisted that Israel would be reborn as a nation. Nobody's laughing today.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/GogMagog-TableofNationsMap.jpg

lithiumx22
Sep 13th 2008, 11:36 PM
Jesus is not God the Father - He is God the Son. He is fully God, but He is also fully man. You can't equate Jesus with Yahweh, God the Father, even though the full measure of divinity still rests on Him. Similarly with the Antichrist, the full measure of evil will rest on him, but he will not be Satan incarnate. Now, many people believe that Satan will indwell this person, and I tend to agree with them, but indwelling is different from actually being somebody. Hope this helps. :)

Yes, I see what you are saying, but where do you stand in the theory that Nephilims where product of fallen Angels, and if this were a possibility, would that mean that Satan himself can produce a seed that would ultimately become the AC? Also a question..I'm a little confused..way earlier I was reading about the Koran prophecies and such...So if the AC is Mahdi and another "Jesus like" character shows up called “Isa” would he be like the AC sidekick? And is there a hint in the bible that this might happen?:confused

DigReal
Sep 14th 2008, 12:44 AM
Hi Literalist-Luke (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=26544)

As you may have already noticed, I find your end-time views very interesting. But Turkey as magog? To me, Russia has always sounded like the most likely candidate. It's not that I'm set on it being Russia, but not so sure I understand your pov. Can you enlighten me/us a little further? :hmm:

Jerome1
Sep 14th 2008, 12:49 AM
Commentaries are not Scripture.


True, but i'm wondering who or what specifically you think the fourth beast is. Here is some information from one of the commentaries i have.

That son, Antichous IV (175-164 B.C), would return from Rome to become one of the cruelest rulers of the Seleucid dynasty. He is likely the "king of the North" alluded to in Daniel's prophecy(11:21-45)

After prohibiting any Jewish religious rituals, and forbidding the reading of Scriptures, Antiochus performed a pagan sacrifice to Zeus in the temple, erecting an altar to Zeus over the altar of burnt offering. This desecration is alluded to as the "abomination of desolation"(Dan. 11:31).

Source: So that why bible, New King James Version Pg 1253


He didn't - Nero had nothing to do with it.

Then who do you think the 666 reference is about in the Book of Revelation?


It's irrelevant, because you are trying to see fulfilled prophecy by looking at the world in front of you today and using our present-day situation to understand prophecy. You're not allowing for the possibility that the Arab nations could become a great world power just as the United States rose from our ashes of the Civil War in less then 100 years to become the most powerful nation in history.

I believe China is projected to have the Worlds biggest economy by around 2035. Do you have a particular time line when you believe these events will take place? According to any economic projections i am aware of, it would be next to impossible for a confederation of Islamic countries(excluding India) to match the military strength of Nato and the EU combined.



Who said the Arab nations will be at war with the West? I only see Israel being invaded in the Scriptures.


And why wouldn't America and the West come to Israels aid?



Turkey. Let the Bible speak for itself and get outside the box. Remember, 100 years ago, people laughed at Pre-Millennialists who insisted that Israel would be reborn as a nation. Nobody's laughing today.


From my commentary, it states Magog, Scythia or Tartary, which i believe includes areas of present day Russia.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 14th 2008, 01:06 PM
:2cents: So if the Angels commited SIN and the world had to be rid of these UNGODLY people wouldnt that back up the theory that the Nephilim were product of Fallen Angels with human women? And if so, then the AC can most definetly be purley evil, the son of Satan himself. Correct me if Im way off please.

If the Nephilim were the product of procreating demons and women, the they still wouldn't be purely evil. They would still be half human. Demons cannot reproduce after their own kind like man can.

You could say that Antichrist is evil, the son of evil, the son of perdition, the son of destruction, the beast, pompous etc....but technically you couldn't say, "Antichrist is Satan". He still is man. He still can die. He will still be limited in his scope, influence, knowledge etc compared to Satan himself.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 14th 2008, 01:12 PM
According to any economic projections i am aware of, it would be next to impossible for a confederation of Islamic countries(excluding India) to match the military strength of Nato and the EU combined.

Unless the EU is one of the ten nations.


And why wouldn't America and the West come to Israels aid?

Because every nation turns its back on Israel according to Zech 12:3.

We have to be careful to interpret the future of current events as scripture states, and not interpret scripture according to current events and political/economic projections.


From my commentary, it states Magog, Scythia or Tartary, which i believe includes areas of present day Russia.

Think of Russia as 1 or 2 of the ten nations that are involved in the Antichrist's coalition.

Bethany67
Sep 14th 2008, 02:27 PM
Unless the EU is one of the ten nations.

This is one of the possible views that I'm considering, particularly if they push forward to dissolve national boundaries either functionally or actually (see below on Schengen). After the failure of the European Constitution, scuppered on ratification by France and the Netherlands in 2005, and with the defeat of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by Ireland in June, they're pretty much back to the drawing board in terms of an EU-wide constitution that will satisfy everyone.

I'm watching to see if they make us adopt the Euro; I work in banking so it's a big issue, and 15 of the 27 EU members now use the Euro. We were praying hard for the Irish in June since our own government refused to allow us a referendum, although we had already negotiated an opt-out from the 'Charter of Fundamental Rights,' in effect meaning that the highest court of the EU in Luxembourg will not overrule the UK system. Poland has the same exemption. Sometimes being an island nation is a good thing ;)

Back in the Eighties we were convinced it was the EU as 10 nations and that was it. Now with the expansion of the EU to 27 members, that's no longer possible unless some countries leave or are reorganized into areas. There are further candidates for entry to the EU: Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. If allowed in, they would take it to 34. They would have to meet the Copenhagen criteria though, and there are serious questions about allowing Turkey in - although technically a secular democracy, 99% of the inhabitants are Muslim. So far only one country has withdrawn from the EU - Greenland in 1985.

I believe we'll see a recreation of national borders into regions globally (21 EU members are also members of NATO), and the political map as it stands today will change. I certainly think Russia will be involved, and so will Islam. The Schengen Agreement addresses the issue of passport control on borders, and includes 22 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. These last 3 participate in certain parts of the EU legislation regarding the single market under the EEA, and Switzerland has its own arrangements. European microstates - Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City - also use the Euro. The UK and Ireland are once again (thankfully) opting out to some of the provisions. With the upsurge of terrorism, I wonder if there'll be largescale backtracking on this; who wants to allow terrorists to exploit the freedom of movement that the Agreement provides.

Jerome1
Sep 14th 2008, 06:44 PM
Unless the EU is one of the ten nations.


The EU consists of 27 members states, including Britain which historically has always sided with the US(Israels biggest ally).


Because every nation turns its back on Israel according to Zech 12:3.

I looked at a couple of different translations of this verse, it doesn't say in any of them that every nation turns it's back on Israel. Two could be rendered to have a different meaning.

NKJV Zechariah12:3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut to pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

NVSV Zechariah12:3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it.

In one of my commentaries it states Israel is an analogy of the Church. It also draws parallels between nations coming against Israel during the Maccabean revolt, and Israel(the Church being victorious).

In the commentary it also draws parallels between an old custom of people lifting stones to test their strength, and who often caused themselves an injury. This is used to compare anyone who attacks Israel(lifts the stone) they will pay a heavy price, because Israel(The Church) will ultimately prevail.

The NKJV also uses the word, "though all nations," this could mean hypothetically, that even if all nations came against Israel(the Church). Israel or the Church would still ultimately prevail.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 15th 2008, 11:43 AM
The EU consists of 27 members states, including Britain whichhistorically has always sided with the US(Israels biggest ally).

What about the Revolutionary war from 1775-1783? Historically, I'd say that your synopsis of British American relations is lacking some perspective. Mind you that was only 230 years ago. Times change.:)

I didn't say that the EU consisted of 10 nations, I suggested that the EU would be one nation.


I looked at a couple of different translations of this verse, it doesn't say in any of them that every nation turns it's back on Israel. Two could be rendered to have a different meaning.

NKJV Zechariah12:3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut to pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

NVSV Zechariah12:3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it.

I've bolded all the parts that clearly say "all". All means all.


In one of my commentaries it states Israel is an analogy of the Church. It also draws parallels between nations coming against Israel during the Maccabean revolt, and Israel(the Church being victorious).

This passage was written by Zechariah to the Jews.

Secondly the nations that came against Israel during the Maccabean revolt were the Seleucid empire under the rule of the madman Antiochus. Many peoples may have been involved, but clearly not all the nations as Zechariah defines.


In the commentary it also draws parallels between an old custom of people lifting stones to test their strength, and who often caused themselves an injury. This is used to compare anyone who attacks Israel(lifts the stone) they will pay a heavy price, because Israel(The Church) will ultimately prevail.

The passage says Jersualem. It was written during the time of the rebuilding of the second temple under Joshua and Zerrubabel. It was promise that God would indeed deliever them from their enemies. God is the only one capacable of bringing the promised peace to the nation.

Israel, in the OT, always means Israel the seed of Abraham; Jerusalem here means the city in midst of Israel. Israel never means Greek, just as Greek never means Jew.

This is a hypothetical interpretation that completely nullifies the original intent of the passage. One could apply this passage in this way, but this is not what it meant when it was given.


The NKJV also uses the word, "though all nations," this could mean hypothetically, that even if all nations came against Israel(the Church). Israel or the Church would still ultimately prevail.

That simply means, all the nations will be gathered against it.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 04:37 PM
What about the Revolutionary war from 1775-1783? Historically, I'd say that your synopsis of British American relations is lacking some perspective. Mind you that was only 230 years ago. Times change.:)

I didn't say that the EU consisted of 10 nations, I suggested that the EU would be one nation.


If i remember correctly, the second biggest ethnic group to emigrate to the USA from Europe were the British. America has always had close ties with Britain, yes, they fought them during the war of independence, but they were also allies in in both World Wars, and supported each other in numerous other conflicts.

I know what you meant, but Europe is mostly a christian continent, it's hard to imagine any combined European military force falling under the control of a self proclaimed Muslim Madhi.


Secondly the nations that came against Israel during the Maccabean revolt were the Seleucid empire under the rule of the madman Antiochus. Many peoples may have been involved, but clearly not all the nations as Zechariah defines.

So you think Israel will be alone to face all the nations of Earth? So do you think all apocalyptic literature applies only to events in the future, and is not sometimes prefigured by past events and people?

I mention this because most commentaries i have read, state that the writers of the apocalyptic literature used the people and events of the past, to better describe the events which will take place in the future. For example, Antiochus and Nero were a kind of forerunner of the antichrist. And Israel can also be understood to mean the Church.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 15th 2008, 07:18 PM
I know what you meant, but Europe is mostly a christian continent, it's hard to imagine any combined European military force falling under the control of a self proclaimed Muslim Madhi.

Unless the EU starts accepting nation Islamic nations (like Turkey). If the EU continues to allow the spread of Islam, like they are, Europe will be mostly Islamic in just a short time. Check out the documentary of Islam called "Obsession", it's really an eye opener. I don't know the current numbers but I'd bet that Islam and Catholicism are more affluent than Christianity in Europe. Secondly, I don't think that the Antichrist is Islamic like Literalist Luke believes.


So you think Israel will be alone to face all the nations of Earth?

I don't think that, the bible says it.

Israel, God, and believers who recognize Israel's significance vs everyone else.


So So do you think all apocalyptic literature applies only to events in the future, and is not sometimes prefigured by past events and people?

Not only, but mostly. I go by the near far fulfillment of scripture. There is a near partial fulfillment, then there is far more comprehensive fulfillment.


I mention this because most commentaries i have read, state that the writers of the apocalyptic literature used the people and events of the past, to better describe the events which will take place in the future. For example, Antiochus and Nero were a kind of forerunner of the antichrist. And Israel can also be understood to mean the Church.

Agreed about Antiochus and Nero being "types" of the Antichrist. This does not however make them the Antichrist, simply, they operate in the spirit of the Antichrist.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the understanding of Israel as the church, where the church "replaces" the Jews in the heart of the Lord.

I don't know if you're new here, I myself am, but I've found that quoting commentaries doesn't hold much clout. I'd suggest looking at the passages and asking Holy Spirit to reveal to you what they may mean. Use commentaries as sign posts not destinations. :)

Bethany67
Sep 15th 2008, 09:04 PM
. Interesting fact: there are now more mosques in London England than churches.

I seriously doubt that, as I live in London, specifically the Eastern part which has the largest concentration of Muslims. What's your source for this claim please?

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 09:39 PM
Unless the EU starts accepting nation Islamic nations (like Turkey). If the EU continues to allow the spread of Islam, like they are, Europe will be mostly Islamic in just a short time. Check out the documentary of Islam called "Obsession", it's really an eye opener. I don't know the current numbers but I'd bet that Islam and Catholicism are more affluent than Christianity in Europe. Interesting fact: there are now more mosques in London England than churches. Secondly, I don't think that the Antichrist is Islamic like Literalist Luke believes.


Iv'e looked at the projected demographics of Muslims in Europe, and Islam is a long way from becoming the predominant religion in Europe. I counted catholicism as christianity.



I don't think that, the bible says it.

Israel, God, and believers who recognize Israel's significance vs everyone else.


If you think apocalyptic literature has been partially fulfilled in history, then how do you explain the battle between the king of the north and the king of the south in the book of Daniel? What future prophecy does this show, and how does it show that all nations of the Earth will come against Israel?


I don't know if you're new here, I myself am, but I've found that quoting commentaries doesn't hold much clout. I'd suggest looking at the passages and asking Holy Spirit to reveal to you what they may mean. Use commentaries as sign posts not destinations.

Commentaries usually give the historical context surrounding the apocalyptic literature and other books, which is important to know, when trying to determine future prophecies.

I have more to add about Nero and Antiochus when i have more time.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 07:33 AM
Yes, I see what you are saying, but where do you stand in the theory that Nephilims where product of fallen Angels, and if this were a possibility, would that mean that Satan himself can produce a seed that would ultimately become the AC? Also a question..I'm a little confused..way earlier I was reading about the Koran prophecies and such...So if the AC is Mahdi and another "Jesus like" character shows up called “Isa” would he be like the AC sidekick? And is there a hint in the bible that this might happen?:confusedOn the Antichrist being another Nephilim, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I can see the possibility of him being the last and the greatest of the Nephilim, but I can't say dogmatically.

The Muslim "Jesus", who you correctly named "Isa" will be Revelation 13's False Prophet.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 07:41 AM
Hi Literalist-Luke (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=26544)

As you may have already noticed, I find your end-time views very interesting. But Turkey as magog? To me, Russia has always sounded like the most likely candidate. It's not that I'm set on it being Russia, but not so sure I understand your pov. Can you enlighten me/us a little further? :hmm:Probably the best thing to do would be to refer you here. You'll find a pretty indepth discussion of it there. Holler at me if you need anymore information afterward. :)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 07:48 AM
True, but i'm wondering who or what specifically you think the fourth beast is.Probably the best thing to do would be to refer you here.
Here is some information from one of the commentaries i have.

That son, Antichous IV (175-164 B.C), would return from Rome to become one of the cruelest rulers of the Seleucid dynasty. He is likely the "king of the North" alluded to in Daniel's prophecy(11:21-45)

After prohibiting any Jewish religious rituals, and forbidding the reading of Scriptures, Antiochus performed a pagan sacrifice to Zeus in the temple, erecting an altar to Zeus over the altar of burnt offering. This desecration is alluded to as the "abomination of desolation"(Dan. 11:31).The problem with this theory is that Jesus said in Matthew 24 the Abomination of Desolation was still yet to occur, many years after Antiochus Epiphanes was no longer around.
Then who do you think the 666 reference is about in the Book of Revelation?A person who has not been revealed yet.
I believe China is projected to have the Worlds biggest economy by around 2035. Do you have a particular time line when you believe these events will take place? According to any economic projections i am aware of, it would be next to impossible for a confederation of Islamic countries(excluding India) to match the military strength of Nato and the EU combined.At least 50 years, maybe longer.
And why wouldn't America and the West come to Israels aid?Because Revelation 16 has all of the world's armies gathering together at Armageddon, no exceptions.
From my commentary, it states Magog, Scythia or Tartary, which i believe includes areas of present day Russia.That is one possible theory, but it would be the Islamic southern portions of Russia, not the primary Slavic parts around the Ukraine and Moscow. Islam is the key.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 16th 2008, 11:20 AM
I seriously doubt that, as I live in London, specifically the Eastern part which has the largest concentration of Muslims. What's your source for this claim please?

I did make that claim a little too strongly. I edited out that statement from my post. :)

Joyfulparousia
Sep 16th 2008, 11:36 AM
If you think apocalyptic literature has been partially fulfilled in history, then how do you explain the battle between the king of the north and the king of the south in the book of Daniel? What future prophecy does this show, and how does it show that all nations of the Earth will come against Israel?

Be more specific about the passage in Daniel.

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah and against His Anointed

Isa 34:2 For the wrath of Jehovah is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies. He has utterly destroyed them, He has delivered them to the slaughter.

Joe 3:2, 11-12 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on account of My people and My possession, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and divided up My land...(11) Assemble yourselves and come, all you nations; and gather yourselves together all around. O Jehovah, bring down Your mighty ones. (12) Let the nations be awakened and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. For there I will sit to judge all the nations all around.

Zec 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the peoples all around, and it shall also be against Judah in the siege against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:3 And in that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall be slashed; cut to pieces. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

Zec 12:9 And it shall be in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.


Rev 18:3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual perversities, the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the power of her luxury.



Commentaries usually give the historical context surrounding the apocalyptic literature and other books, which is important to know, when trying to determine future prophecies.


Yep and many of the are wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't study commentaries, they just don't make convincing arguments.

Keep in mind that when many of those commentaries were written, Israel wasn't even a nation again. Therefore, many future-event prophetic passages had to be symbolized and not taken in a literal future way. Thus, we have commentators having to look back for prophetic fulfillment instead of forward for complete fulfillment.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 16th 2008, 12:12 PM
Probably the best thing to do would be to refer you here.The problem with this theory is that Jesus said in Matthew 24 the Abomination of Desolation was still yet to occur, many years after Antiochus Epiphanes was no longer around.A person who has not been revealed yet.At least 50 years, maybe longer.Because Revelation 16 has all of the world's armies gathering together at Armageddon, no exceptions.That is one possible theory, but it would be the Islamic southern portions of Russia, not the primary Slavic parts around the Ukraine and Moscow. Islam is the key.

If AC is Islamic, how do you justify Dan 11:36 "...[Antichrist will]Magnify himself above every god..."

and vrs 37 "he shall regard neither the God of his fathers...he shall exalt himself above them all."

Literalist-Luke
Sep 16th 2008, 02:25 PM
If AC is Islamic, how do you justify Dan 11:36 "...[Antichrist will]Magnify himself above every god..."

and vrs 37 "he shall regard neither the God of his fathers...he shall exalt himself above them all."Because he's going to declare himself Allah in the flesh. My two long posts earlier discuss that in detail. As for the Daniel verses, here is a more accurate rendering of Daniel 11:37-38 -

“And unto the god of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself. And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things.”

In the Mahdi-as-Antichrist scenario this otherwise-confusing passage makes perfect sense: He will reject the traditional worship of Allah that his ancestors have practiced and will instead put himself in Allah’s place. He will in essence “hijack” Islam for his own purposes. The religion that has been most associated with hijacking over the years will, in the end, become the biggest hijacking victim of all time. It will be Antichrist’s Hijacking of Islam.

In addition, it is well known that Muslims’ treatment of women under Sharia Law is inhumanly cruel and barbaric, including the practice of polygamy, hence his ignoring the “desire of women”. As the ruler of the Middle East, he will be in control of the world’s oil supply which will give him a limitless supply of cash and his obsession with power as the world’s leader will lead him to amass incredible military strength to be at his beck and call.

aceinthehouse
Sep 16th 2008, 10:04 PM
Because he's going to declare himself Allah in the flesh. My two long posts earlier discuss that in detail. As for the Daniel verses, here is a more accurate rendering of Daniel 11:37-38 -

“And unto the god of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself. And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things.”

In the Mahdi-as-Antichrist scenario this otherwise-confusing passage makes perfect sense: He will reject the traditional worship of Allah that his ancestors have practiced and will instead put himself in Allah’s place. He will in essence “hijack” Islam for his own purposes. The religion that has been most associated with hijacking over the years will, in the end, become the biggest hijacking victim of all time. It will be Antichrist’s Hijacking of Islam.

In addition, it is well known that Muslims’ treatment of women under Sharia Law is inhumanly cruel and barbaric, including the practice of polygamy, hence his ignoring the “desire of women”. As the ruler of the Middle East, he will be in control of the world’s oil supply which will give him a limitless supply of cash and his obsession with power as the world’s leader will lead him to amass incredible military strength to be at his beck and call.

Hey Literalist-Luke...Do you think that Obama is hiding his Muslim beliefs from the American people?Or am I wrong in this assessment?

And if in fact he is an Islamic Muslim,does that make him a possible candidate to be the Antichrist..?

And if he is was to be the antichrist,would my theory of the U.S.A be valid in being the "Mystery" Babylon, that I have so stated in my threads...

All of these questions of course are Hypothetical....:idea:...In no way do I want to affend anyone here...This is just a hypothetical biblical discussion...

Literalist-Luke
Sep 17th 2008, 03:27 AM
Hey Literalist-Luke...Do you think that Obama is hiding his Muslim beliefs from the American people? Or am I wrong in this assessment?Obama took his Senate oath of office on a Bible. For a true Muslim to do that would be unspeakably blasphemous from their point of view. I don't think he's a true Christian, but I'm even more certain he is not a Muslim.
And if in fact he is an Islamic Muslim,does that make him a possible candidate to be the Antichrist..?The Antichrist will be far more impressive that Obama. He will be so impressive that a large percentage of the world's Christians will question their beliefs because of this man, and many of those will "fall away".
And if he is was to be the antichrist,would my theory of the U.S.A be valid in being the "Mystery" Babylon, that I have so stated in my threads...I just can't understand why people have such a high opinion of the USA's place in prophcey. We are nobody. We're just another nation in the grand scheme of things. All the great empires symbolized in Daniel lasted considerably longer than we have. We're just barely over 200 years old. That's hardly a blink compared to the Islamic Caliphate's duration of over 1200 years.
All of these questions of course are Hypothetical....:idea:...In no way do I want to affend anyone here...This is just a hypothetical biblical discussion...Nothing wrong with that. :yes:

Jerome1
Sep 30th 2008, 03:37 AM
Apologies for bumping this thread but i'd one or two things to add.


Be more specific about the passage in Daniel.

Daniel11:25 He shall stir up his power and determination against the king of the south with a great army, and the king of the south shall wage war with a much greater and stronger army. But he shall not succeed, for plots shall be devised against him

I'm assuming if you believe all the nations of the earth come against Israel they are represented by the king of the north and his army. That means Israel would be represented by the king of the south and his army?

How do you explain Israel having a much greater and stronger army than all the nations of the earth?



The problem with this theory is that Jesus said in Matthew 24 the Abomination of Desolation was still yet to occur, many years after Antiochus Epiphanes was no longer around.


Yes, but the example of Antiochus and Nero were given as examples of what the antichrist would be like.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 30th 2008, 04:40 AM
Yes, but the example of Antiochus and Nero were given as examples of what the antichrist would be like.In some ways, yes. Personally, I've learned more about the Antichrist by studying Hitler than anybody else. Learning about Hitler's rise to power would teach you a tremendous amount about how the Antichrist might go about doing it.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 30th 2008, 10:38 AM
Daniel11:25 He shall stir up his power and determination against the king of the south with a great army, and the king of the south shall wage war with a much greater and stronger army. But he shall not succeed, for plots shall be devised against him

I'm assuming if you believe all the nations of the earth come against Israel they are represented by the king of the north and his army. That means Israel would be represented by the king of the south and his army?

How do you explain Israel having a much greater and stronger army than all the nations of the earth?


Antichrist is in Israel using it as his power base. Note that the area around Israel connects 3 continents.

Dan 11:41 He (Antichrist) shall also enter the Glorious Land (Israel), and many countries shall be overthrown...

Dan 11:45 And he (Antichrist) shall plant his palace tents between the seas (Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea), in the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him. (see also Ez. 38:8-13)


This passage is about Antichrist fighting against nations that resist his political power. The passage has 2 common views:

1.) the 3 nation view - this view puts Antichrist fighting against Syria and Egypt. Always in scripture when northern or southern nations are mentioned they're in relation to Israel.

2.) the 2 nation view - this view puts Antichrist fighting against Egypt.


Antiochus and Nero are helpful "types" of the coming Antichrist. Of the two, Antiochus is the one who makes it into prophetic scripture (Dan. 11:16-31). Both men severely persecuted the people of God.

Jerome1
Oct 8th 2008, 12:17 AM
Apologies again for the delayed response, i have been really busy.


In some ways, yes. Personally, I've learned more about the Antichrist by studying Hitler than anybody else. Learning about Hitler's rise to power would teach you a tremendous amount about how the Antichrist might go about doing it.

Comparisons in scripture are not made by accident.

What two people is Christ compared to, and what did they have in common?


This passage is about Antichrist fighting against nations that resist his political power. The passage has 2 common views:

1.) the 3 nation view - this view puts Antichrist fighting against Syria and Egypt. Always in scripture when northern or southern nations are mentioned they're in relation to Israel.

2.) the 2 nation view - this view puts Antichrist fighting against Egypt.

This doesn't follow your earlier argument that all nations shall turn their back on Israel. Unless that is you believe other nations will fight against the forces of the antichrist, but not in defence of Israel, is that what you mean?



Antiochus and Nero are helpful "types" of the coming Antichrist. Of the two, Antiochus is the one who makes it into prophetic scripture (Dan. 11:16-31). Both men severely persecuted the people of God.


Do you think it is helpful to know what these men shared in common to understand better what the ethos of the antichrist might be?

Joyfulparousia
Oct 8th 2008, 03:15 PM
This doesn't follow your earlier argument that all nations shall turn their back on Israel. Unless that is you believe other nations will fight against the forces of the antichrist, but not in defence of Israel, is that what you mean?

Precisely. Think of how many nations (Russia for example) fought against Hilter but didn't do it for the purpose of protecting the Jews.


Do you think it is helpful to know what these men shared in common to understand better what the ethos of the antichrist might be?

Maybe. I think that Micah 5 makes it clear though as rookie previously mentioned.

Jerome1
Oct 8th 2008, 06:36 PM
Precisely. Think of how many nations (Russia for example) fought against Hilter but didn't do it for the purpose of protecting the Jews.


They were still allies, and cooperated in defeating Nazism. I see your point though. You believe their intensions for fighting the forces of the antichrist will be self preservation, and not primarily for the defence of Israel.

This could be possible, but it would still mean that Israel would have nations fighting on their side, or at least fighting against a common enemy.

Do you know which two people are compared with Christ in the bible and what they had in common?

I think it's an important point, because i'd like to show what Nero and Antiochus had in common. And why they may have been used as an analogous example of the antichrist.