Page 10 of 25 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 374

Thread: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,300
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    We know each King of the North and King f the South now because they are HISTORY. You are not telling me people knew who Antiochus Epiphanes was 100 years before he was born are you? So yes we know because the have come and gone. I know where the Anti-Christ is born, that HE is the King of the North, but most don't have a clue who he is, I have a good idea who the Anti-Christ is, but since hes not supposed to be Revealed until later, after the Rapture, I just leave it alone. Its conjecture, not Revelation. So your whole thesis about knowing the LOTN and the KOTS leaves a lot to be desired seeing as we have known them for 2000 years, they are HISTORIC FIGURES, of course we know who they were. We are not living in the future yet, I suspect we will know who the KOTS and the KOTN is in 1000 years !! You are mixing apples and oranges.

    The War in vs. 40 is obvious, its when the Anti-Christ CONQUERS THE MANY in the Middle of the Week. I have already stated what the tidings in vs. 44 means might want to go back and read it. Nothing is East and North, its two Countries. Common sense tells you what? When Europe becomes a World Power Militarily, there will be three major players on that side of the world, I suspect after the Rapture the USA to fall from within, the kooks will be left. So you have the E.U. and Russia to the North and China to the East. The Kings of the East is no China however, its Iran/Iraq/Maybe the King of Syria.
    Your wild conjectures may intrigue the uninformed. But to me, it tells me you're a fantastic story-teller

    We are told in (Rev 12 & 13) that power is given to the AC to make war against the SAINTS and of course, those in Jerusalem. The AC is the aggressor, no one else dare stand up to him because power has been given to him. A rhetoric question is even asked, "who is like unto the Beast? Who is able to make war with him?".

    Yet despite scripture, you have the king of the south initiating a full-scale war against the Beast in v40? Perhaps, God forgot he has already told Daniel that the king of the south will fight Beast? He must have contradicted himself asking Apostle John "who is able to make war with the Beast"?

    To interpret prophecy, you must pay attention to every detail. But you constantly ignore the clues staring at you because you don't understand them but instead go off into fables.


    The 2300 is not days, it tells you that in the Hebrew Text. Its 2300 Evening and Mornings, referring to Oblations. Thus it would be 1150 days. At the end of the Chapter where the SAME TEXT is used it says this is the Vision of the EVENING & MORNING.

    The same word is translated EVENING and MORNING here but Days in verse 14 !! Its TWO WORDS not one, there are 2 Numbers behind Days.

    26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

    I can show you better than I can tell you, but I probably have showed it to you before. The Hebrew Masoretic BELOW:

    8:26 And the vision 4758 of the evening 6153 and the morning 1242 which x834 was told 559 z8738 [is] true: 571 wherefore shut thou up 5640 z8798 x859 the vision; 2377 for x3588 it [shall be] for many 7227 days. 3117

    Notice the TWO NUMBERS in the Red above? WATCH !! Same words translated DIFFERENTLY = I am left Dumbfounded.

    8:14 And he said 559 z8799 unto x413 me, Unto x5704 two thousand 505 and three 7969 hundred 3967 days; 6153 1242 then shall the sanctuary 6944 be cleansed. 6663 z8738

    SAME TWO NUMBERS now translated as Days instead of EVENING and MORNING !! Which is right? Well lets have a look see.

    6153 - Hebrew word = EREB meaning DUSK
    1242 - Hebrew word = BOREQ meaning DAWN

    So its 2300 Evening and Mornings which = 1150 Days. So there are 1150 Oblations that are missed. That falls inside the 1260 days the Anti-Christ rules over Jerusalem for 42 Months, thus DEFILING the Temple. To understand what this EVENING OBLATION is, lets look at Daniel 9:21 where Gabriel showed up at the EVENING OBLATION !!

    Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

    Am I just wasting my effort here or do you follow these facts here? The EVENING OBLATION is a TRIBUTE/Prayer unto God. 2300 Evening and Morning Oblations = 1150 DAYS !! The same TWO WORDS are translated Evening and Morning in verse 26. We have the English Translators conflating and confusing people here, the Jews must be laughing at us for calling this 2300 Days !! COME ON !!

    So you get the number of days wrong, and I know I have went over this here at least 2 or 3 times. People just tune out what they don't want to hear. Facts be gone, I will not hear thee !! The Daniel 8:9-14 verses is also the same thing Gabriel interprets in verses 23-35. It is the Anti-Christ. Its Obviously the Little Horn Anti-Christ. You have t be able to get the number of days right or you have no chance, its 1150 Days, anyone saying 2300 gas NO SHOT at understanding the Prophecy IMHO.
    It never ceases to amaze me how some are willing to go to lengths to distort scripture because it throws a spanner into their works. To tell your readers that a historical fact on record is NO longer what it is is pretty laughable. Brother, I won't indulge in your pointless conjecture that denies what the Bible says.

    I don't suppose you bothered to read 1 Maccabees 4:36-59?? People like you never read anything that shows how wrong they are.

    Let me spell it out to you in a way a 10 year old will understand; whether it is 2300 mornings and nights or 1150 days, it doesn't change the fact that the desolation has ALREADY OCCURRED and the temple cleansed and rededicated as prophecied. IT THEREFORE HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE FUTURE AC!

    You are on the 2300 Days. Its just not going to work at all via what is written my friend, not for me.
    Research Hanukkah and tell me what it's all about!

    Well you kinda conflated a few things here. The AC shows up at the 1260, the False Prophet places the AoD in the Temple at the 1290 which is 30 days before the 1260 and the 1335 is the Two-witnesses showing up 75 days before the AC Conquers Jerusalem to turn Israel back unto God (Malachi 4:5-6).
    My point is that only Dan 12:11 is the AC's AoD - and nowhere else in Daniel.

    You are going to have to look at this 2300 brother. Its not what it seems. Here's the thing, there are many, many write ups about this online besides my point here. Its a well know fact in Christian Circles in the know that this is actually 1150 days. Research it brother.

    When you research this 2300 days and finally get it you are going to say, WOW, I was duped by English Translators on this for years !! That's what I said, because its SO OBVIOUS, the translate the same two words DIFFERENTLY within 12 verses !! Verse 14 and 26 are translated different for NO REASON AT ALL, and they even say its the VISION of the Evening and Morning !!!!! (LOL) I do not to this day know what in the world they could have been thinking about or how that got by their bosses !!
    Whether it is 2300 minutes, mornings or nights, it has been fulfilled. You are clutching at straws. See above.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,888

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That is, I believe, a new theological position. The Great Trib started in Ad 70 and continues until it's ending in the unknown future. (I don't agree just trying to understand and explain) Any confusion should be blamed on that.
    I said that the Great Tribulation is the "beginning of sorrows," which took place in "this generation." And that is the "abomination that causes desolation" It is simple to understand my position, then, that the AoD initiates the Great Tribulation.

    That the Great Tribulation continues until the "times of the Gentiles" comes to an end, and that the Great Tribulation therefore is the equivalent of the *Jewish Diaspora* of the NT age, is also a simple position to understand. The fact it is *not* usually understood as such I cannot owe to stupidity, since nobody here is stupid. It *must be* that the normal response to my position is a conflation of my position with Partial Preterism, since I share with PP the belief that the Great Tribulation, in some sense, took place in 66-70 AD.

    I do not believe that equating the Great Tribulation with the NT Diaspora of the Jewish People is a novel idea at all. Just look at a variety of commentaries on Luke 21. Many Christians have viewed this as such, including people here. No, it is not novel at all. It only *appears* to be novel to you because in modern times, particularly in America, where Dispensationalism is popular, any other view may seem out of place. Futurism often wants to view the AoD as the Antichrist. This belief also is not novel, and has a long history.

    Some people divide up Luke 21 from Matthew 24 and Mark 13, because Luke 21 so obviously refers to the encirclement of Jerusalem by the Roman Army, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the resulting Jewish Dispersion. The fact this Dispersion ends at the termination of the "times of the Gentiles" clearly identifies this Great Tribulation with the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age!

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,888

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Completely novel is wrong IS wrong.
    Every explanation should be supportable by scripture means it isn't novel, yet the pulling together of that explanation may be one you have not heard or read and therefore is novel.
    Your own mix is novel as you state above it is not fitting to any particular previous presentation. Does that automatically make you wrong?
    I don't think so.
    Every view I propose is novel for me, and then I find others who have parts of what I suggest.
    One reason why much End Times is still debated is because a lot of the OLD proposed solutions don't quite fit. So we need what is new.
    God is a God of new things.
    It is true that in the realm of biblical prophecy some "novelty" must appear, since we are not given to know some details about the future until the time nears. But doctrine itself should not be novel, no.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,216
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is true that in the realm of biblical prophecy some "novelty" must appear, since we are not given to know some details about the future until the time nears. But doctrine itself should not be novel, no.
    When you say doctrine are you not meaning understanding?
    A simple fact is that the 70 weeks of Dan 9 are split into 3, but how to understand it requires something which tradition has not given us.
    Tradition itself does NOT mean correct thinking, only that we understand why the tradition exists. When the Reformation started they were moving away from tradition back to scripture. Hence my point that any view proposed needs to agree with scripture and NOT necessarily tradition.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,888

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    When you say doctrine are you not meaning understanding?
    A simple fact is that the 70 weeks of Dan 9 are split into 3, but how to understand it requires something which tradition has not given us.
    Tradition itself does NOT mean correct thinking, only that we understand why the tradition exists. When the Reformation started they were moving away from tradition back to scripture. Hence my point that any view proposed needs to agree with scripture and NOT necessarily tradition.
    True, Catholic Tradition grew until it ceased to resemble Christian orthodoxy in many ways. But my argument is simply to say, historical belief is a strong argument, and must be addressed. Novel doctrines, and unique ways of solving puzzles, are going to fall flat--no matter how brilliant! Personally, I always look to the major historical arguments. Within each school there are a variety of positions to choose from. That's why my own position on the Olivet Discourse looks weird to you, because I borrow from a number of elements, not restricted to a single school of thought. But each individual idea has historical precedent, as well as historical depth.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,216
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    True, Catholic Tradition grew until it ceased to resemble Christian orthodoxy in many ways. But my argument is simply to say, historical belief is a strong argument, and must be addressed. Novel doctrines, and unique ways of solving puzzles, are going to fall flat--no matter how brilliant! Personally, I always look to the major historical arguments. Within each school there are a variety of positions to choose from. That's why my own position on the Olivet Discourse looks weird to you, because I borrow from a number of elements, not restricted to a single school of thought. But each individual idea has historical precedent, as well as historical depth.
    I disagree, simply because people have held a view in the past does NOT make it right. This is what tradition means. The SOLE arbiter is NOT the tradition of Man, no matter how long, but the Scriptures themselves.
    You know I have presented many "novel" ideas, and I am yet to have one of them shown to not match with scripture. You may have your alternative view, or traditional idea, but in each of these I can show scriptural and historical problems with them.
    I have no problem with "borrowing" from various elements, or utiising such an approach, which shows that no "traditional"" approach actually has an answer which is sufficient.
    Your position on the Olivet Discourse does not look weird to me because of your borrowing of such elements,. It looks weird to me because you change the basic meaning of words, claiming that OUTSIDE means INSIDE, and that ALL does NOT mean ALL. If you reconciled those issues, then I would be able to accept certain of your positions regardless of the borrowing.
    However the INHERENT problem of those positions, such as partial preterism, means that you will not be able to square the circle.
    You also do have ideas which do NOT have historical precedent and so you can't claim they have depth.
    I, meanwhile am often surprised when the position I am taking, such as Artaxerxes being Cambyses, which I have understood SOLELY from scripture, is then found to have historical precendent or support, such as found in Josephus.

    IOW we should ALWAYS look to the ORIGIN of TRUTH, which is scripture, and AFTERWARDS support it with the ECFs and other historical support. This is the CORRECT way to interpret scripture, CONTEXT first and then the broader position.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,888

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I disagree, simply because people have held a view in the past does NOT make it right. This is what tradition means. The SOLE arbiter is NOT the tradition of Man, no matter how long, but the Scriptures themselves.
    You know I have presented many "novel" ideas, and I am yet to have one of them shown to not match with scripture. You may have your alternative view, or traditional idea, but in each of these I can show scriptural and historical problems with them.
    I have no problem with "borrowing" from various elements, or utiising such an approach, which shows that no "traditional"" approach actually has an answer which is sufficient.
    Your position on the Olivet Discourse does not look weird to me because of your borrowing of such elements,. It looks weird to me because you change the basic meaning of words, claiming that OUTSIDE means INSIDE, and that ALL does NOT mean ALL. If you reconciled those issues, then I would be able to accept certain of your positions regardless of the borrowing.
    However the INHERENT problem of those positions, such as partial preterism, means that you will not be able to square the circle.
    You also do have ideas which do NOT have historical precedent and so you can't claim they have depth.
    I, meanwhile am often surprised when the position I am taking, such as Artaxerxes being Cambyses, which I have understood SOLELY from scripture, is then found to have historical precendent or support, such as found in Josephus.

    IOW we should ALWAYS look to the ORIGIN of TRUTH, which is scripture, and AFTERWARDS support it with the ECFs and other historical support. This is the CORRECT way to interpret scripture, CONTEXT first and then the broader position.
    You have many wrong things about what you're saying.
    1) The argument for historical depth in Scriptural interpretation is not the same as Tradition vs. Scripture. Historical interpretations of Scripture are about Scripture, and not Tradition over Scripture.
    2) Your view that my position on the Olivet Discourse indicates "outside means inside" and "all does not mean all" does not accurately reflect my view. To use truisms against my position seems true, but it's actually a misrepresentation. We would, of course, agree that "outside means outside," and "inside means inside." Again, it depends on the circle you draw around the "holy place." If the circle is drawn around Jerusalem and its environs, calling the entire area the "holy place," then even being at the gate of Jerusalem constitutes being *inside* the holy place.

    Of course, your *interpretation* of the holy place requires that the circle be drawn only around the temple itself. How convenient! That is how you want to interpret it. But it has nothing to do with what the Scriptures actually say! When the Scriptures talk about the "holy place" you have to determine what the "holy place" is! It can be the temple, and it can be Jerusalem. It can even incorporate the gates of Jerusalem. So you do a disservice to yourself by imposing limitations on the words of Scriptures, purely to serve an interest in your own preferred interpretation. It's much better to remain open-minded, particularly when your position requires you to deny that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are in agreement on what the AoD was--namely the Roman Army. It was the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem by the Roman Army. And in this case, the temple and Jerusalem are seen as a collective "holy place!" That is, they are viewed as one.

    And we would, of course, agree on the truism that "all means all." But again, you do yourself a disservice by requiring adherence only to your own standards in the interest of preserving your own interpretation. As I've already shown you, and it's absolutely true, "all" can be qualified by the set of things to which it refers. It does not refer to everything in the universe!

    Again, if I asked you two questions, and you gave two sets of answers, one set for each question, each set of answers would stand alone. In this case, one set of answers could be viewed as "all" things applied to a single question, completely ignoring the other set of answers.

    This is precisely what happened on the Mt. of Olives. Jesus was asked two questions basically--when would the temple be destroyed, and when would he come again? Jesus gave 2 sets of answers, one for each question. When would he destroy the temple? It would be after false prophets arise, earthquakes take place, and rumors of wars are heard. Then the temple would be destroyed. This is one set of answers for one question. "All these things" would take place in "this generation." That's the answer to *when* the temple would be destroyed!

    As to the other question and its set of answers, Jesus said there would not be given a specific time. So he could not say precisely *when* he is coming again. Clearly, this set of answers falls outside the pale of the 1st question, which does have a set time. "All these things" therefore applies strictly to the 1st question. These are "all the things" that have to do with the destruction of the temple. They clearly exclude the things that do *not* have to do with the destruction of the temple.

    I told you I'm not a Partial Preterist, but you just continue to double down. You're a proud man, and I'm beginning to like you less and less. You *know* I have views uncharacteristic of PPs, and yet you want to insult me by associating me with a belief system which I do not fully adhere to. If you want to be brotherly about it, quit associating me directly with PP. Admit that my view of the Great Tribulation is *different* from PP. Admit that most PPs are Amil, and I am Premil. Admit that I see a future restoration for Israel, where many PPs might prefer Replacement Theology. Admit that PPs see most future prophecy, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation included, as fulfilled in the generation of Christ, whereas I see Revelation as future, and some elements in the Olivet Discourse as future too.

    But you're one of the most stubborn people here on this forum. I see little evidence of your willingness to be flexible, or to be corrected. And unless you do, God Himself won't be able to correct you. How then will you ever improve? I'm not asking you to accept my views. I'm just asking you to be fair with the positions of others?

  8. #143

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Let me present things from a different perspective. I don't know if Fenris' participation has caused me to "put on his moccasins " or not, but this will be somewhat from the perspective. Being a Jew, he will probably have the best seat in the house for what i am about to present. For everybody else, we may need some "supercalifragilistic expialidocious" to help make the medicine go down. (Probably few will be able to leep it down, but that is okay. But for the simpleton, it's time to think outside of the box.
    First, as probably everyone is aware, the word antichrist is not found in the book of revelation. But we do find two principal, (some might say 3) principal characters who would bee considered to be working against Christ, aka antichrist figures. So, in reality, there is not just one, even tho that is how we view things. What I am saying is this, thru the course of time, we have tended to equate the man of sin with "THE antichrist", even tho that is not explicitly stated. With that being said, I will refer to them as, The beast [from the sea], The false prophet [aka, the beast from the earth], and of course, the dragon/ serpent/ Satan. I will be principally focused on the first two. But while studying this, I found something peculiar about why(?) Satan is not cast into the lake of fire, until AFTER the millennium, and (if this doesn't get too long), I may get back to that point.

    So, we have the beast and the false prophet. If the endtimes are all about the "antichrist", why do we have these TWO wicked characters, rather than just one? By in large, the false prophet is viewed as a secondary character, with extended discussions about "the beast" and/ or the antichrist. The reason that this is a bitter pill is because we have come to refer to them synonymously. When we talk about the "man of sin", our attention is always brought back to 2 Thess 2. An interesting side point here:
    *[[2Th 2:3]] KJV* Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    Is that he is also called the son of perdition here. The same rotor was used of only one other man, Judas Iscariot. As we all know, Judas was never a ruler [aka, beast/ king], but he was given that title. Somewhat of a mystery. But let's look at 2 Thess 2 for a moment.

    *[[2Th 2:8]] KJV* And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
    [[2Th 2:9]] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
    [[2Th 2:10]] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    [[2Th 2:11]] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
    [[2Th 2:12]] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    Here we see that the man of sin is called "the Wicked one". And what is his principal identifier [for the moment, don't think of this in a "time oriented" revelation of who he is]? His principal identifier is "with power, signs, and lying winners", bringing delusion, BEING SENT BY GOD - God shall send them strong delusion] upon all those who "did not hear the gospel"? NO! But to those who did not believe the gospel. Being that this is ordained by God, it is the expression of God's wrath. What we are soon to see, is that this is exactly the purpose of the mark. To deceive or being delusion. Look at the word used as delusion in 2 trees 2:11,
    Strong's Definition: Feminine of*G4108*(as abstraction); objectively*fraudulence*; subjectively a*straying*from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

    Besides saying "deceit, to deceive", we see the words "objectively fraudulent". Think about that for a minute. We all know what subjectively means. But "objectively" means to be that there [should be] is no doubt about the matter. One more time... objectively fraudulent. Unquestionable deceit!

    Now look at this verse:

    *[[Rev 19:20]] KJV* And the beast was taken, and with him the FALSE PROPHET THAT WROUGHT MIRACLES before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

    Do you see it? The false prophet is the worker of miracles, for the purpose of deceiving people into receiving the mark of the beast. It's not the beast who is labeled as the miracle worker, but the false prophet. Granted, the beast odds given his power by the dragon, but that is not said about the false prophet. The false prophet is unquestionably wicked. But his power to do miracles, is expressly given to him to deceive the world. To put forth "objective deceit". I think i said enough, so that i can plainly say that the false prophet IS the man of sin. Not the beast, whom we so easily label as "THE ANTICHRIST". Yes, his purposes are ANTI - Christ, but he is not THE antichrist. The beast is NOT the man of sin.

    Can you taste the bitterness right now? It's not easy to digest having believed otherwise for an extended period of time. Let me make it even harder for you to swallow. It is not the beast that goes into the temple, showing himself to be God, but it is the false prophet. I don't want to belabor this very long, but that would mean that it is not the beast who goes into the temple "claiming to be God ", meaning that, the beast could be the "Jewish messiah" WITHOUT claiming to be God, or even worshipped as God. So you [Fenris] see how this works? As a [false] messiah, so you see how that this is an attempt to deceive the Jewish people?
    Blessings
    The PuP

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,216
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You have many wrong things about what you're saying.
    1) The argument for historical depth in Scriptural interpretation is not the same as Tradition vs. Scripture. Historical interpretations of Scripture are about Scripture, and not Tradition over Scripture.
    2) Your view that my position on the Olivet Discourse indicates "outside means inside" and "all does not mean all" does not accurately reflect my view. To use truisms against my position seems true, but it's actually a misrepresentation. We would, of course, agree that "outside means outside," and "inside means inside." Again, it depends on the circle you draw around the "holy place." If the circle is drawn around Jerusalem and its environs, calling the entire area the "holy place," then even being at the gate of Jerusalem constitutes being *inside* the holy place.
    Actually no.
    1) You are saying there is THIS tradition which was once taught, therefore due to it having historically been stated, so it has more value than something which I can not find having been historically stated. IOW you are placing a TRADITIONAL or HISTORICAL view as triumphing over scripture itself.
    2) It does accurately reflect your view as can be seen in multiple posts of yours. You claim an army which is OUTSIDE a city is somehow INSIDE the Holy place, which is INSIDE the city, which the army is OUTSIDE of. You also claim ALL does not mean ALL, but only part.
    It does NOT matter how large a circle you draw. Everything may be INSIDE the circle but NOT everything INSIDE the large circle is INSIDE a smaller circle. This is a FALLACY in your reasoning.
    What you are trying to do is ENLARGE the Holy place from being INSIDE a certain space to being OUTSIDE that place and stretching it until you have what was OUTSIDE now INSIDE that enlarged circle. So you are changing the definition of what INSIDE means, by placing things OUTSIDE as IN.

    Of course, your *interpretation* of the holy place requires that the circle be drawn only around the temple itself. How convenient!
    It isn't a question of convenience. It is a question of HOW the phrase is used throughout scripture.
    I am taking what is used over and over, which references INSIDE the temple area, and applying it as stated.
    You instead find that your view is NOT supported by the ACTUAL meaning of the text, nor how it is used throughout scripture and so CONVENIENTLY change the meaning to something which will then allow your preconceived idea fit.
    Sorry, but doing such a thing is dishonest.

    I am COMPLETELY flexible, IF you present ANY evidence which actually shows these things not to be correct. However I am not so flexible that I will say, yes you are right, when you are not.
    I had someone question the timing of Ezra and Nehemiah. I had ALWAYS assumed Ezra and Nehemiah were at one point in time in Jerusalem together.
    Yet my view is flexible enough to consider something novel.
    You are the one who refuses novel things, arguing that because it is novel it is wrong.
    My view is that if it is novel then it needs careful thought and challenge.
    So I am the one who is FAR MORE flexible.
    I am stubborn over what is certain and flexible on what is up for clarification.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    41,458

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Now look at this verse:

    *[[Rev 19:20]] KJV* And the beast was taken, and with him the FALSE PROPHET THAT WROUGHT MIRACLES before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

    Do you see it? The false prophet is the worker of miracles, for the purpose of deceiving people into receiving the mark of the beast. It's not the beast who is labeled as the miracle worker, but the false prophet. Granted, the beast odds given his power by the dragon, but that is not said about the false prophet. The false prophet is unquestionably wicked. But his power to do miracles, is expressly given to him to deceive the world. To put forth "objective deceit". I think i said enough, so that i can plainly say that the false prophet IS the man of sin. Not the beast, whom we so easily label as "THE ANTICHRIST". Yes, his purposes are ANTI - Christ, but he is not THE antichrist. The beast is NOT the man of sin.

    Can you taste the bitterness right now? It's not easy to digest having believed otherwise for an extended period of time. Let me make it even harder for you to swallow. It is not the beast that goes into the temple, showing himself to be God, but it is the false prophet. I don't want to belabor this very long, but that would mean that it is not the beast who goes into the temple "claiming to be God ", meaning that, the beast could be the "Jewish messiah" WITHOUT claiming to be God, or even worshipped as God. So you [Fenris] see how this works? As a [false] messiah, so you see how that this is an attempt to deceive the Jewish people?
    If someone claimed to be God, that would discredit them immediately as being the messiah, from the Jewish perspective. The messiah is a person. Now, miracles are all fine and good. But we don't follow people because they perform miracles. We follow them in the framework of understood beliefs. So, if a person makes the claim of being the messiah and then fulfills prophecy (gathering exiles, strengthening observance of the law, rebuilding the temple, etc) then such a person might be acknowledged as the messiah. Does this fit in with what you're saying?
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,439

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    If someone claimed to be God, that would discredit them immediately as being the messiah, from the Jewish perspective. The messiah is a person. Now, miracles are all fine and good. But we don't follow people because they perform miracles. We follow them in the framework of understood beliefs. So, if a person makes the claim of being the messiah and then fulfills prophecy (gathering exiles, strengthening observance of the law, rebuilding the temple, etc) then such a person might be acknowledged as the messiah. Does this fit in with what you're saying?
    What your post seems to somewhat prove then, which is also my position, that these things involving miracles in the endtimes have zero to do with Jews in particular, but that it involves mainly the church instead. In the Discourse it says this....For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


    The elect in this context can't be meaning ethnic Jews. It is meaning the church. Ethnic Jews, such as yourself, don't even believe in the real Christ, so how then would false christs be able to deceive you if it were possible? It doesn't fit with reality in this day and age. Obviously the elect meant are not already deceived. Obviously the elect meant here recognize the real Christ from the false christs.

  12. #147

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    If someone claimed to be God, that would discredit them immediately as being the messiah, from the Jewish perspective. The messiah is a person. Now, miracles are all fine and good. But we don't follow people because they perform miracles. We follow them in the framework of understood beliefs. So, if a person makes the claim of being the messiah and then fulfills prophecy (gathering exiles, strengthening observance of the law, rebuilding the temple, etc) then such a person might be acknowledged as the messiah. Does this fit in with what you're saying?
    Yes thank you. I think you get the jixt of what I am saying. There will not be one, but two "anti/ against Christ" figures. One with signs, the other with political authority, aka messiah. I suppose this false prophet could (might(?), by the Jewish people who are deceived) be viewed as the Elijah, who must come first.
    Blessings
    The PuP

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,216
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    *[[Rev 19:20]] KJV* And the beast was taken, and with him the FALSE PROPHET THAT WROUGHT MIRACLES before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

    Do you see it? The false prophet is the worker of miracles, for the purpose of deceiving people into receiving the mark of the beast. It's not the beast who is labeled as the miracle worker, but the false prophet. Granted, the beast odds given his power by the dragon, but that is not said about the false prophet. The false prophet is unquestionably wicked. But his power to do miracles, is expressly given to him to deceive the world. To put forth "objective deceit". I think i said enough, so that i can plainly say that the false prophet IS the man of sin. Not the beast, whom we so easily label as "THE ANTICHRIST". Yes, his purposes are ANTI - Christ, but he is not THE antichrist. The beast is NOT the man of sin.

    Can you taste the bitterness right now? It's not easy to digest having believed otherwise for an extended period of time. Let me make it even harder for you to swallow. It is not the beast that goes into the temple, showing himself to be God, but it is the false prophet. I don't want to belabor this very long, but that would mean that it is not the beast who goes into the temple "claiming to be God ", meaning that, the beast could be the "Jewish messiah" WITHOUT claiming to be God, or even worshipped as God. So you [Fenris] see how this works? As a [false] messiah, so you see how that this is an attempt to deceive the Jewish people?
    Blessings
    The PuP
    I always believed the False Prophet to be the worker of miracles. I also have seen him as a False Elijah / John the Baptist.
    However this doesn't make him the antichrist.

    The question is who slays the Two Witnesses and proclaims himself to be god?
    The answer is NOT the false prophet, but the 1st beast.
    It is the 1st beast who fulfills 2 Thess 2:4 who sits in the temple.
    It is the 1st beast who is worshipped.

    The false prophet is his supporting act, who therefore is an antichrist and who is a man of sin, yet NOT THE Man of Sin.
    Notice 13:12 states the false prophet exercise authority of the 1st beast (even as the 1st beast exercises authority of the dragon.)

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    12,753
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I think i said enough, so that i can plainly say that the false prophet IS the man of sin. Not the beast, whom we so easily label as "THE ANTICHRIST". Yes, his purposes are ANTI - Christ, but he is not THE antichrist. The beast is NOT the man of sin.
    Yes, pretty rare to hear this view but you are correct. Also, the first beast is not a man as per Rev 17...it is an organization or government composed of ten kingdoms with ten kings, spanning 7 mountains. The false prophet is the king over all of these smaller kingdoms and is indeed the antichrist.

    Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
    Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


    Jesus was a true Christ and a true prophet so one person can be both Christ and prophet. The Antichrist will also claim to be Christ but be a false Christ, and he will be a false prophet as well. Here Jesus warns that in the end times there will be "great signs and wonders". Compare that to what is said about the false prophet of Rev 13:

    Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


    "he doeth great wonders" "miracles which he had power to do"


    In the end times, during the tribulation Jesus said "shall shew great signs and wonders" and Revelation says about the false prophet, "he doeth great wonders" "miracles which he had power to do".

    Jesus was speaking of the false prophet of Revelation.


    ********************************




    The individual called the Antichrist by John in one writing is the same exact individual In Revelation that is called the false prophet. There is no such thing as the FP and the AC being two different individuals that are working together. It's one being called two names. He is also called other names such as "that Wicked" and "the Son of Perdition" and the man of sin by Paul. These aren't all different persons but all names and terms for the one most commonly known as the Antichrist.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,216
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Yes, pretty rare to hear this view but you are correct. Also, the first beast is not a man as per Rev 17...it is an organization or government composed of ten kingdoms with ten kings, spanning 7 mountains. The false prophet is the king over all of these smaller kingdoms and is indeed the antichrist.
    Nope.

    Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
    Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
    Notice that BOTH false Christs AND false prophets are mentioned. Jesus is NOT saying the false christ IS a false prophet.

    Jesus was a true Christ and a true prophet so one person can be both Christ and prophet. The Antichrist will also claim to be Christ but be a false Christ, and he will be a false prophet as well. Here Jesus warns that in the end times there will be "great signs and wonders". Compare that to what is said about the false prophet of Rev 13:
    Jesus had John the Baptist. Jesus was NOT John.
    The AC will have power, and he will give power to the FP.

    Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

    "he doeth great wonders" "miracles which he had power to do"
    Notice TWO things,
    The FP exercises power of the 1st beast BEFORE him. So clearly TWO beasts.
    The FP directs worship of people towards the 1st beast NOT for himself.

    The individual called the Antichrist by John in one writing is the same exact individual In Revelation that is called the false prophet. There is no such thing as the FP and the AC being two different individuals that are working together. It's one being called two names. He is also called other names such as "that Wicked" and "the Son of Perdition" and the man of sin by Paul. These aren't all different persons but all names and terms for the one most commonly known as the Antichrist.
    Incorrect as your scriptures clearly show there are TWO individuals. 1st beast (AC) and 2nd beast (FP). The AC gets power from another beast (the dragon). So we have a total of 3. This is confirmed in Rev 16:13.
    Anyone who denies the REALITY of three DISTINCT beings is playing with words.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. kgnilla

Similar Threads

  1. Nehemiah's character a striking resemblance of Christ?
    By breadfirst in forum Bible Study
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec 18th 2017, 12:44 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Nov 25th 2011, 08:38 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Oct 18th 2011, 01:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •