Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 395

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

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Hm. The way I understand it is that the first beast (where it says "was given a mouth speaking...") is the man of sin (2Th2), the one where also Dan7:20-21 says "whose look is more stout than his fellows" (i.e. an individual), the "whose COMING/advent/arrival/presence" (2Th2:9a) is the same as the "prince THAT SHALL COME" doing the "for ONE WEEK [7-yr]" thing (Dan9:27a[26]), which is the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" (2Th5:2-3) OF "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]," which is the equivalent to the SEALS (Seal #1 in particular) the rider of the white horse, with a crown and a bow (at the START of the "DOTL"/trib aspect)... So in Matt24:4 and Mark13:5 I believe is a singular individual (the one I've been referring to, in the above ^ )

    ... but later in the passages (still early) it shows, in Matt24:11,24 and Mark13:22 (if I'm recalling the verses correctly), plural individuals doing the "shew[-ing of ]great/signs and wonders"...and further "deceiving"... What say you?
    I will answer this according to my understanding of events, namely, a post trib, prewrath rapture viewpoint. A pretrib rebuttal would be a senseless exchange of words. I am primarily going to explain verse 24. The earlier reference(v.11?) Occurs before the great tribulation. But most likely an enhanced state of erratic times (sea & waves roaring, etc.)
    Verse 24 is in the very midst of the great tribulation, before the trumpets, before the rise of the false prophet. And just a little bit before the stars fall from heaven, via the 6th seal, and Matt 24:29. (Rapture in verse 30). Imagine a full scale escalation of world war 3 going on in the middle east, with Israel right in the middle. Kind of like 9-11 but on a much higher scale. Everyone thought the world was ending, or going to end, right then and there. Maybe not the end of the world on 9-11, but thinking that it was just around the corner. Any way, a greatly magnified state of the world at that time. False prophets and Christs, will literally come out of the woodwork in those days. Does that answer your question?
    Blessings
    The PuP

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Blasphemy

    Original:*βλασφημία

    Transliteration:*blasphēmia

    Phonetic:*blas-fay-me'-ah

    Thayer Definition:

    slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good nameimpious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

    Origin: from*G989

    TDNT entry: 11:21,1

    Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine

    Strong's Definition: From*G989;*vilification*(especially against God): - blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.

    <<PrevTop

    In no particular way does it mean to claim to be God. That is a way to blasphemy, but one of many ways.
    Blessings
    The PuP

  3. #168

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

    Okay, thanks.

    I see the Rev6:2 "a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer" (with those "conquer" words being the same Greek word as we see [him doing] LATER in the chronology in 11:7 and 13:7) to be this "certain one/someone [ http://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm ]" that both Matt24:4 and Mark13:5 speak of (as well as those other references), in the INITIAL "birth PANG" of "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]".

    I didn't figure we'd agree on pre-trib.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Okay, thanks.

    I see the Rev6:2 "a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer" (with those "conquer" words being the same Greek word as we see [him doing] LATER in the chronology in 11:7 and 13:7) to be this "certain one/someone [ http://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm ]" that both Matt24:4 and Mark13:5 speak of (as well as those other references), in the INITIAL "birth PANG" of "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]".

    I didn't figure we'd agree on pre-trib.
    I didnt mean to appear callous off narrow minded. If we use the rapture argument to refute somebody's point, what have w gained? We spend to little time evaluating others point in light of our views rather than scripturally relevant texts. If we can't look thru their glasses, we have gained very little. I guess it was Fenris ' Jewish perspective that got me to look at from their "moccasins". Understanding that Jews are not (now, not ever) going to accept anyone as their messiah, who claims to be God!... That says something. Whether he be Jesus or not. They didn't accept him then. Why should we expect them to do any differently?

    Blessings
    The PuP

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Okay, thanks.

    I see the Rev6:2 "a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer" (with those "conquer" words being the same Greek word as we see [him doing] LATER in the chronology in 11:7 and 13:7) to be this "certain one/someone [ http://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm ]" that both Matt24:4 and Mark13:5 speak of (as well as those other references), in the INITIAL "birth PANG" of "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]".

    I didn't figure we'd agree on pre-trib.
    If the strong delusion, the objective fraudulence, of 2 Thess 2 is referring to the mark of the beast, and I absolutely do, the fact that it
    Is God that sends the delusion, then this is a direct expression of God's wrath. Here is the kicker. The church is not appointed to wrath. But it is for those who "received not the love of the truth", i.e., they rejected a presentation of the gospel, (in favor of the pleasures of unrighteousness). They are the ones targeted for the delusion. Meaning that the church will not be here. And unless the mark only lasts for a very, very short period of time, the rapture and advent can not be a simultaneous, or even near simultaneous event. That is why i ask the question, do you see the strong delusion and the mark of the beast as referring to the same thing?
    Blessings
    The PuP

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,010
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Sorry, there are no kingdom's that can be cast alive into the bottomless pit.
    Then there is no lamb that is slain or a giant dragon either...OR, we think in metaphorical terms. Kingdoms can be alive and can die, like Rome and so many others.

    The kingdom of the 10 horns, is defeated at the time of the desolation of Jerusalem at the time of the great tribulation. He is resurrected after his death and given authority to Continue for another 42 months.
    This character doesn't exist.

    A beast is clearly a king (granted of a kingdom) but is not the kingdom.
    According to Rev 17 it is a kingdom made of ten smaller kingdoms spanning 7 mountains...that isn't a man.


    *[[Dan 7:17]] KJV* These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

    In your understanding, maybe you see them as kingdoms, but i don't.
    Well it is written, “the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.”


    Barnes:

    Daniel 7:17

    These great beasts, which are four, are four kings - Four kings or four dynasties. There is no reason for supposing that they refer to individual kings, but the obvious meaning is, that they refer to four dominions or empires that would succeed one another on the earth. So the whole representation leads us to suppose, and so the passage has been always interpreted. The Latin Vulgate renders it regna; the Septuagint βασιλεῖαι basileiai; Luther, Reiche; Lengerke, Konigreiche. This interpretation is confirmed, also, by Dan_7:23, where it is expressly said that “the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.” See also Dan_7:24.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  7. #172

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I didnt mean to appear callous off narrow minded. If we use the rapture argument to refute somebody's point, what have w gained?
    Great.

    I hadn't brought up the rapture (or its timing) in my post. Everything I wrote (per my view) comes after that point in time. So in your view, just pretend it didn't happen, coz I didn't mention it whatsoever in my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    We spend to little time evaluating others point in light of our views rather than scripturally relevant texts. If we can't look thru their glasses, we have gained very little.
    Very true.

    I do, however, feel as though I considered your viewpoint carefully, and of course responded with what I believed were relevant Scriptures that I believed address the subject at hand (without having to elaborate on "rapture timing" in that post)... however, I did touch on the "START/BEGINNING" point of the trib (which I believe to be the full 7 years, whereas perhaps you see only 3.5 years) so maybe that's what you're conflating, in your mentioning "rapture," I'm not sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I guess it was Fenris ' Jewish perspective that got me to look at from their "moccasins". Understanding that Jews are not (now, not ever) going to accept anyone as their messiah, who claims to be God!... That says something. Whether he be Jesus or not. They didn't accept him then. Why should we expect them to do any differently?
    Right.

    For one, like I said, I see the trib lasting 7 years (per Dan9:27a[26] and how that corresponds to other passages), so that I see the entire seven years being referred to in 2Th2 (including your reference to the delusion that will be sent).

    I see the "man of sin BE REVEALED" parts to be occurring at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, where something more like this happens [not yet "the mark"]: "43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him [THAT ONE] ye will receive." ("whose coming/advent/arrival/presence is after the working of Satan..." ["he,he,he"="who,who,who"=7-yrs / Dan9:27[26]&2Th2:9a,4,8]). He's not proclaiming himself God, at this early [BEGINNING] point [2Th2:9a / Dan9:27a(26)], but at the LATER MID-point [2Th2:4].

    I don't think the John 5:43 verse (if indeed a kind of prophecy) is referring to "receiving the mark / his mark," but just receiving/welcoming his "coming/arrival/advent/presence" (2Th2:9a, which I'm saying is at the BEGINNING of the 7 years, i.e. Seal #1, where we see [about him] "a crown was given unto him," which, at the very least, seems to indicate somewhat of a position of some prominence (recall also, the "for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]" thing, at the BEGINNING... It sure seems others are involved in this, at least to some extent.)

    I think the later MID-POINT will be when "the mark" will be implemented, not at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, and so the mid-point would be more of the point of decision (we do see the "FLEE" occur at mid-trib), and thereafter (or at least until the Vials, which I see commencing at the 3/4 point). This is when the "And for this cause God SHALL SEND them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie/the false...," as I see it, because (as you may recall), I see 2Th2:10-12 to be set in contradistinction to 2Th1:10b (ALSO "IN THAT DAY" [time period; BOTH of these IN THAT FUTURE TIME PERIOD (the DOTL)]) where it says (by contrast) that OTHERS (not the UNbelieving ones as in 2:10-12) INSTEAD "in all those BELIEVING (because 'the testimony of us to you' was BELIEVED [i.e. by those in the trib]) IN THAT DAY" (meaning, in that SAME FUTURE TIME PERIOD [which is following our Rapture/Departure]--SOME will BELIEVE that "what just happened" is exactly what Paul SAID would happen [1:10b], whereas OTHERS will NOT BELIEVE that "what just happened" is what Paul said would happen, because they will disregard God's Word via Paul altogether [along with the rest of the Scriptures], just as in Noah's day, when "they" also disregarded God's Word via Noah [and so "the flood took them all away" in judgment]).

    I realize you see the Rapture in v.30. I disagree, in that I don't believe "Rapture" was the Subject in the Olivet Discourse... but I don't really see that to be as relevant to our present discussion as I do the idea concerning the length of the trib (i.e. the length of time "the man of sin" will be PRESENT and doing ALL he will do, IN HIS TIME. I see 7 yrs total [BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END--in both Dan9:27[26] AND 2Th2:9a,4,8,10-12], whereas you [likely, if I'm not mistaken] see only the 3.5 yrs total.) THIS, I see, is the crux of our differences (or one of a few), and perhaps why you might have been thinking my post was covering "the Rapture [/timing]" when it wasn't... like this post happened to mention. lol )


    So, I see a difference between "THAT ONE ye will receive" (occurring well before he "sheweth himself that he is God" [and the implementing of "the mark"]) and the [difference of] EMBRACING him as he will then be shewing himself to be (which, as it says, "the woman" FLEES). Get it?


    [just for clarity to the readers, I see: "the GREAT tribulation" to be the Second Half/3.5 yrs/1260d, which begins pretty much at the "5th Trumpet/1st WOE ('unto the earth' [Rev12:12, etc]), which is when the AOD happens, and the 2Th2:4 thing happens, and "the woman" FLEES happens, and "the mark" begins to be implemented... What'd I forget? lol]

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Great.

    I hadn't brought up the rapture (or its timing) in my post. Everything I wrote (per my view) comes after that point in time. So in your view, just pretend it didn't happen, coz I didn't mention it whatsoever in my post.



    Very true.

    I do, however, feel as though I considered your viewpoint carefully, and of course responded with what I believed were relevant Scriptures that I believed address the subject at hand (without having to elaborate on "rapture timing" in that post)... however, I did touch on the "START/BEGINNING" point of the trib (which I believe to be the full 7 years, whereas perhaps you see only 3.5 years) so maybe that's what you're conflating, in your mentioning "rapture," I'm not sure.



    Right.

    For one, like I said, I see the trib lasting 7 years (per Dan9:27a[26] and how that corresponds to other passages), so that I see the entire seven years being referred to in 2Th2 (including your reference to the delusion that will be sent).

    I see the "man of sin BE REVEALED" parts to be occurring at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, where something more like this happens [not yet "the mark"]: "43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him [THAT ONE] ye will receive." ("whose coming/advent/arrival/presence is after the working of Satan..." ["he,he,he"="who,who,who"=7-yrs / Dan9:27[26]&2Th2:9a,4,8]). He's not proclaiming himself God, at this early [BEGINNING] point [2Th2:9a / Dan9:27a(26)], but at the LATER MID-point [2Th2:4].

    I don't think the John 5:43 verse (if indeed a kind of prophecy) is referring to "receiving the mark / his mark," but just receiving/welcoming his "coming/arrival/advent/presence" (2Th2:9a, which I'm saying is at the BEGINNING of the 7 years, i.e. Seal #1, where we see [about him] "a crown was given unto him," which, at the very least, seems to indicate somewhat of a position of some prominence (recall also, the "for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]" thing, at the BEGINNING... It sure seems others are involved in this, at least to some extent.)

    I think the later MID-POINT will be when "the mark" will be implemented, not at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, and so the mid-point would be more of the point of decision (we do see the "FLEE" occur at mid-trib), and thereafter (or at least until the Vials, which I see commencing at the 3/4 point). This is when the "And for this cause God SHALL SEND them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie/the false...," as I see it, because (as you may recall), I see 2Th2:10-12 to be set in contradistinction to 2Th1:10b (ALSO "IN THAT DAY" [time period; BOTH of these IN THAT FUTURE TIME PERIOD (the DOTL)]) where it says (by contrast) that OTHERS (not the UNbelieving ones as in 2:10-12) INSTEAD "in all those BELIEVING (because 'the testimony of us to you' was BELIEVED [i.e. by them]) IN THAT DAY" (meaning, in that SAME FUTURE TIME PERIOD [which is following our Rapture/Departure]--SOME will BELIEVE that "what just happened" is exactly what Paul SAID would happen [1:10b], whereas OTHERS will NOT BELIEVE that "what just happened" is what Paul said would happen, because they will disregard God's Word via Paul altogether [along with the rest of the Scriptures], just as in Noah's day, when "they" also disregarded God's Word via Noah [and so "the flood took them all away" in judgment]).

    I realize you see the Rapture in v.30. I disagree, in that I don't believe "Rapture" was the Subject in the Olivet Discourse... but I don't really see that to be as relevant to our present discussion as I do the idea concerning the length of the trib (i.e. the length of time "the man of sin" will be PRESENT and doing ALL he will do, IN HIS TIME. I see 7 yrs total [BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END--in both Dan9:27[26] AND 2Th2:9a,4,8,10-12], whereas you [likely, if I'm not mistaken] see only the 3.5 yrs total.) THIS, I see, is the crux of our differences (or one of a few), and perhaps why you might have been thinking my post was covering "the Rapture [/timing]" when it wasn't... like this post happened to mention. lol )


    So, I see a difference between "THAT ONE ye will receive" (occurring well before he "sheweth himself that he is God" [and the implementing of "the mark"]) and the [difference of] EMBRACING him as he will then be shewing himself to be (which, as it says, "the woman" FLEES). Get it?
    Thank you for your reply. I enjoy conversing with you, even tho all of the inserts and brackets can be difficult to get thru. I know that you are just trying to clarify things. Your points would be better understood if you would put your clarifications in separate sentences, even if it is a whole sentence contained within the parentheses. Our differences are relatively small.

    Seeing the FP a the man of sin, and the resulting mark that he brings, and that it is the doings of God [in essence according to
    Rev. 16, the vial judgments], confirms that it is the impending wrath of God. This shows that the post - trib position, is a totally untenable position. It does not matter whether one sees the seals, trumpets and vials as happening sequentially or concurrently, the church will not be here for the mark of the beast. It is the wrath of God! Even if it only means having to reject it, it is the wrath of God:

    *[[Rev 16:1]] KJV* And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the WRATH OF GOD upon the earth.
    Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

    If only I could get you to see that the seals are the great tribulational judgments upon Jerusalem, you might become a Pre-wrather, lol. Not to mention, ... [lol]. Just kidding.

    Too often I see the timing of the rapture as a barrier to discussing the scripture. Its not an unimportant issue. If we have to rely on when the rapture takes place to defend the scriptures, our point is probably weak in the first place.
    You haven't been anywhere, if you haven't walked a mile in another man's moccasins.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Last edited by Pesachpup; May 24th 2018 at 06:55 AM. Reason: Spelling mistakes, run on sentence

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,979

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    ANY stance which says ANY tradition of Man is above scripture is wrong. This is simple and clear.
    Your view is that because it is a tradition, so it is can be allowed to be correct, but if that tradition doesn't exist then it can't be correct.
    How long did it take for the church to go against slavery? The TRUTH is that scripture is more than tradition, and tradition is to be a help but not a be all.
    I'm starting to think you're just not going to understand. I've told you this at least a couple times, and I'll try once more. We are *not* talking about Tradition vs. Scripture, which was a major Protestant platform! No, we are talking about different Scriptural interpretations--not extra-biblical traditions! Do you understand the difference? So far you haven't! Mother Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" is extra-biblical Catholic tradition. It is not Scriptural interpretation.

    So going back to the original point. Historical depth is important when determining the likelihood of Scriptural doctrine. The closer the interpretation to the original source, the more likely we have a possible interpretation that is correct.

    I'm not at all saying that all historical interpretations of Scripture are correct, simply because they are an old interpretation. No, I'm saying that modern interpretations of Scripture that have little historical precedent are unlikely to be true. It would mean that the original message did not get communicated to the more immediate recipients of that message. And that is unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You obviously do NOT understand as you are STILL claiming the same kindergarten nonsense.
    If we draw a circle, like a target - the Holy of holies is the center black (bull's eye). The Holy place is the circle around it. The Temple is around that, the city of Jerusalem is around that and the holy Land is around that. You are claiming that because the Roman Army is inside the first circle that this is the SAME as being INSIDE the center circle, and just outside the bull's eye.
    Absolutely everyone can see this is nonsense.
    No, you set the argument up to appear as nonsense. But the argument is defined by *you!* I did not argue that way at all. I did not draw a circle around the temple. What I did was suggest, as the Scriptures do, that the destruction of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem go together. So to stand in Jerusalem is to stand in the holy place.

    You make a big deal about whether one must actually be inside the city walls to be in the city. But I would suggest that language is more flexible than that. As I said before, it really depends on where you draw the circle of Jerusalem--at the city walls, or around the city environment. I would suggest that being in the vicinity of Jerusalem is being *in* Jerusalem.

    In the modern world a city has boundaries, and in the ancient world, cities often had walls. But I would suggest to you that being anywhere near Jerusalem would constitute being *in Jerusalem.* My wife is from the northern part of London. Often I hear people say that she is from London. In reality, she is from a town that is slightly north of London proper.

    Language is like that. What determines what being "in Jerusalem" means depends on the context. I would suggest that an invading Roman Army was actually "in Jerusalem," or "in the Holy Place." They were there! They were knocking at the walls of Jerusalem. And in reality they were already claiming authority over Jerusalem that they already had! They had already been "in Jerusalem," and were simply claiming authority they already had.

    And this is what Jesus was warning his disciples about, that the Roman Army would come and become an abominable presence in Jerusalem to desolate it. For Jesus that was "standing in the Holy Place." It was a *Roman Army,* just as he indicated in Luke 21.

    And this is the major element that you ignore, while trying to determine whether "out" cannot be "in." You are so busy with prepositions, and what they mean in this instance that you miss the big picture, namely that Jesus said Jerusalem in his generation would be surrounded by an Army. This would be the "abomination that causes desolation." You would give up this truth for your confusion over a preposition. But I would rather try to understand the preposition in the context of what Jesus said would happen, namely a Roman Army would come to destroy both Jerusalem and the temple.

    Psalm 122.1 I rejoiced with those who said to me,
    “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”
    2 Our feet are standing
    in your gates, Jerusalem.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,010
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Thank you for your reply. I enjoy conversing with you, even tho all of the inserts and brackets can be difficult to get thru.
    THIS!

    It is too hard to read...I skip most of the time
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  11. #176

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    If we have to rely on when the rapture takes place to defend the scriptures, our point is probably weak in the first place.
    Yuh. That's why I said: "but I don't really see that [the rapture/rapture-timing] to be as relevant to our present discussion as I do the idea concerning the length of the trib (i.e. the length of time "the man of sin" will be PRESENT and doing ALL he will do, IN HIS TIME. [...]"

    Maybe you skipped that line?


    Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed considering your point, and which Scriptures might be relevant to it. Thanks.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    THIS!

    It is too hard to read...I skip most of the time
    I edited it for some clarity. Sorry, I do most all my posting from my phone. Its impossible to view more than about 3 partial lines when reviewing.

    The PuP

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,010
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I edited it for some clarity. Sorry, I do most all my posting from my phone. Its impossible to view more than about 3 partial lines when reviewing.

    The PuP
    I am literally amazed that all that was done on a phone!

    IMO, less is more
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Great.

    I hadn't brought up the rapture (or its timing) in my post. Everything I wrote (per my view) comes after that point in time. So in your view, just pretend it didn't happen, coz I didn't mention it whatsoever in my post.



    Very true.

    I do, however, feel as though I considered your viewpoint carefully, and of course responded with what I believed were relevant Scriptures that I believed address the subject at hand (without having to elaborate on "rapture timing" in that post)... however, I did touch on the "START/BEGINNING" point of the trib (which I believe to be the full 7 years, whereas perhaps you see only 3.5 years) so maybe that's what you're conflating, in your mentioning "rapture," I'm not sure.



    Right.

    For one, like I said, I see the trib lasting 7 years (per Dan9:27a[26] and how that corresponds to other passages), so that I see the entire seven years being referred to in 2Th2 (including your reference to the delusion that will be sent).

    I see the "man of sin BE REVEALED" parts to be occurring at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, where something more like this happens [not yet "the mark"]: "43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him [THAT ONE] ye will receive." ("whose coming/advent/arrival/presence is after the working of Satan..." ["he,he,he"="who,who,who"=7-yrs / Dan9:27[26]&2Th2:9a,4,8]). He's not proclaiming himself God, at this early [BEGINNING] point [2Th2:9a / Dan9:27a(26)], but at the LATER MID-point [2Th2:4].

    I don't think the John 5:43 verse (if indeed a kind of prophecy) is referring to "receiving the mark / his mark," but just receiving/welcoming his "coming/arrival/advent/presence" (2Th2:9a, which I'm saying is at the BEGINNING of the 7 years, i.e. Seal #1, where we see [about him] "a crown was given unto him," which, at the very least, seems to indicate somewhat of a position of some prominence (recall also, the "for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]" thing, at the BEGINNING... It sure seems others are involved in this, at least to some extent.)

    I think the later MID-POINT will be when "the mark" will be implemented, not at the BEGINNING of the 7 yrs, and so the mid-point would be more of the point of decision (we do see the "FLEE" occur at mid-trib), and thereafter (or at least until the Vials, which I see commencing at the 3/4 point). This is when the "And for this cause God SHALL SEND them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie/the false...," as I see it, because (as you may recall), I see 2Th2:10-12 to be set in contradistinction to 2Th1:10b (ALSO "IN THAT DAY" [time period; BOTH of these IN THAT FUTURE TIME PERIOD (the DOTL)]) where it says (by contrast) that OTHERS (not the UNbelieving ones as in 2:10-12) INSTEAD "in all those BELIEVING (because 'the testimony of us to you' was BELIEVED [i.e. by those in the trib]) IN THAT DAY" (meaning, in that SAME FUTURE TIME PERIOD [which is following our Rapture/Departure]--SOME will BELIEVE that "what just happened" is exactly what Paul SAID would happen [1:10b], whereas OTHERS will NOT BELIEVE that "what just happened" is what Paul said would happen, because they will disregard God's Word via Paul altogether [along with the rest of the Scriptures], just as in Noah's day, when "they" also disregarded God's Word via Noah [and so "the flood took them all away" in judgment]).

    I realize you see the Rapture in v.30. I disagree, in that I don't believe "Rapture" was the Subject in the Olivet Discourse... but I don't really see that to be as relevant to our present discussion as I do the idea concerning the length of the trib (i.e. the length of time "the man of sin" will be PRESENT and doing ALL he will do, IN HIS TIME. I see 7 yrs total [BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END--in both Dan9:27[26] AND 2Th2:9a,4,8,10-12], whereas you [likely, if I'm not mistaken] see only the 3.5 yrs total.) THIS, I see, is the crux of our differences (or one of a few), and perhaps why you might have been thinking my post was covering "the Rapture [/timing]" when it wasn't... like this post happened to mention. lol )


    So, I see a difference between "THAT ONE ye will receive" (occurring well before he "sheweth himself that he is God" [and the implementing of "the mark"]) and the [difference of] EMBRACING him as he will then be shewing himself to be (which, as it says, "the woman" FLEES). Get it?


    [just for clarity to the readers, I see: "the GREAT tribulation" to be the Second Half/3.5 yrs/1260d, which begins pretty much at the "5th Trumpet/1st WOE ('unto the earth' [Rev12:12, etc]), which is when the AOD happens, and the 2Th2:4 thing happens, and "the woman" FLEES happens, and "the mark" begins to be implemented... What'd I forget? lol]
    I do believe that there is a final 7 year period in which God confirms the Abrahamic covenant for the children of Israel to dwell in that land. I don't believe that a peace agreement of some sort will be the basis of that 7 year period. Confirming means to honor the terms of that covenant. But i do believe that the king of the north will make an agreement with ???? according to Daniel 11:

    *[[Dan 11:23]] KJV* And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

    I personally believe that this will involve the revival of the kingdom of Media, AND/ OR the nation of Syria. If I thought that it would help with your understanding, I would tell you that the covenant confirmation will be the restarting of sacrifices on temple mount on XXXember XX, 20XX. But if not, you can ignore that last remark.
    Blessings
    The PuP

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,010
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I do believe that there is a final 7 year period in which God confirms the Abrahamic covenant for the children of Israel to dwell in that land.
    Can you show scripture for this 7 year concept?
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

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
  •