Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 395

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

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    133

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

    Yes, but only if you're willing to believe that the AOD is not a man standing in the temple. Otherwise, it's just a meaningless understanding of the 1290/1335 days AND of the 1260 days.
    Blessings
    The PuP

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,408
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    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.
    You seem to forget that the elect at that time will also include Jewish believers whom the two witnesses would have converted (Malachi 4:5-6).? Matter of fact, the Jew who at that time continues to reject Jesus as Messiah will be no different from a Gentile unbeliever. And God will not protect them.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,408
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Again, the man of sin is the one who sits in the temple who IS the false prophet, but is not the beast from the sea. Another mistaken fallacy:
    He does not claim to be God. He shows or proves to himself, that he is God. You will find the "prince" who "sits in the temple" that is reserved only for the Lord, in Eze. 44.

    *[[Eze 44:2]] KJV* Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
    Eze 44:3: It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    It is difficult to follow your logic because you are not presenting your case clearly. The Man of sin, Beast, Antichrist is different from the False Prophet (Rev 13:11).
    Read 2 Thess 2:3-4 again, sloooowly

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,889
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Actually we ARE talking about Tradition vs. Scripture. I don't care whether it is Catholic tradition or Protestant tradition or any other tradition. EVERY tradition MUST be sub-ordinate to scripture. Any time it is NOT then this causes a problem in the Church.
    Every explanation or doctrine is extra-biblical because it isn't written in the Bible. We hope each tradition we follow is BASED upon what IS in the Bible, but most traditions, including Catholic ones have origins from Biblical truths and then logically worked out from there.

    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.
    Historical depth is a support, but the greatess support is scripture itself.

    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.
    I didn't say you said all historical, however you do say that if there is no historical that you know, then it is not true.
    We don't know all the things said, and some things are assumed, and later have to be explained to an audience who didn't hear first hand.
    Modern interpretations are of the SAME value as older ones. the ONLY value that matters is scripture.

    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.
    I am not the one who is writing nonsense.
    I also have not said there is no connection between the destruction of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.
    However note above you said "to stand in Jerusalem is to stand in the holy place." when to stand in Jerusalem is NOT to stand in the Holy place. That is you widening the locality from one place to one which is OUTSIDE. And further what you do is then say, "to stand OUTSIDE Jerusalem, encircling it, is to stand INSIDE the Holy place..."
    So you have a place which is in a larger circle, Jerusalem as being in the smaller circle, the temple, which itself is a larger area than the Holy place, which is INSIDE the temple.
    So I am CORRECTLY representing the NONSENSE you are giving.

    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.
    Language is flexible, but you are BREAKING it.
    If you are NOT INSIDE a city, then very simply in language it means you are NOT INSIDE.

    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.
    If your wife claimed to live IN London, then this is different from being from London. TWO different words used in different ways.
    Further as you noted in ancient times there was a wall. If you were OUTSIDE the wall then you were NOT INSIDE the wall. The wall delineated IN and OUT.
    A modern city does not have as clear boundaries.
    Also if you mention a village or small place which no one has heard of, then people say where? If you say from by London, then everyone thinks they know where that is. yet WHEN you wife is being more specific then she would say (perhaps) - I live in St Albans. Yet to get to the location equivalent of Jesus' statement, she would have to say the street she lives in. So maybe Abbey Road.
    Now if there is an army in London, you would NOT say the army is in St Albans.

    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.
    Rubbish. Language clearly can be SPECIFIC, and Jesus was SPECIFIC i Matt 24.

    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.
    Luke 21 speaks of an ENTIRELY different event, so claiming anything based off that is pointless. You need to demonstrate from Matt 24.

    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.
    I don't ignore anything. I KNOW language very well. I know you can speak in generalities and specificalities.
    I don't miss the picture, but you are making up your own picture because you CHANGE what is stated to something else entirely, something for which there is NO historical precedence. This won't cause me much pause, but it should STOP you in your tracks, based on what you have put above.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,889
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I'll ask it again. Is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2 the same as the mark of the beast?
    Nope. The Mark is taken by those who have accepted the strong delusion.

    Besides that, you can't find where either the beast or the FP claims/ speaks that he is God.
    I did give you places - 2 Thess 2:4 states this, as does Rev 13.

    Paul told us how to identify the man of sin. If, claiming he was God was the marker, and the fact that we have 2 "antichrist" figures in Revelation, John would have confirmed that identifier. He does. It's just not what you say that it is. If you are going to agree that the mark is the strong delusion, then, there should be no question about who is the man of sin. The evidence is clearly pointing to the FP. Show me anywhere in Rev. That the beast is a sign and wonders man. You might have a point IF it had said this of him as well. (Signs & wonders) But he didn't. And you don't.
    Blessings
    The PuP
    There is ONLY one AC in Revelation. We have 3 beings identified i Rev 13, the dragon (Satan), the 1st beast (AC), the 2nd beast (FP).
    There is NO question who the Man of Sin is. It is the AC, who is the 1st beast.
    There is NO evidence pointing to the FP as the AC.
    Everything the FP does is points to the AC. Notice the 1st beast is worshipped BEFORE any mention of the 2nd beast!
    There are signs and wonders about the AC. He kills the Two Witnesses, who themselves had done signs and wonders. Read Rev 11. Get yourself clued up.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    It is difficult to follow your logic because you are not presenting your case clearly. The Man of sin, Beast, Antichrist is different from the False Prophet (Rev 13:11).
    Read 2 Thess 2:3-4 again, sloooowly
    It couldn't have been too hard. You came up with the correct anti-Thesis (beast/ A/C equals the man of sin).
    okay. I read 2 Thess 2:2-12. So Paul tells us how to identify the man of sin.
    Now, you read Rev 13 slowly...
    Show me:
    1. Where any one in that passage claims to be God?
    2. Is called the antichrist?
    3. Commits the abomination of desolation?
    4. Has power to do signs and lying wonders and miracles?
    5. Deceives/ deludes people into believing a lie?

    So what do you find?

    You found your anti - thesis to be correct or incorrect?

    One final question. Is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2, the same as being deceived into taking the mark of the beast?

    *[[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.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually we ARE talking about Tradition vs. Scripture. I don't care whether it is Catholic tradition or Protestant tradition or any other tradition. EVERY tradition MUST be sub-ordinate to scripture. Any time it is NOT then this causes a problem in the Church.
    Every explanation or doctrine is extra-biblical because it isn't written in the Bible. We hope each tradition we follow is BASED upon what IS in the Bible, but most traditions, including Catholic ones have origins from Biblical truths and then logically worked out from there.
    Historical depth is a support, but the greatess support is scripture itself.
    I didn't say you said all historical, however you do say that if there is no historical that you know, then it is not true.
    We don't know all the things said, and some things are assumed, and later have to be explained to an audience who didn't hear first hand.
    Modern interpretations are of the SAME value as older ones. the ONLY value that matters is scripture.
    I give up. You don't seem to understand the difference between *Bible-based beliefs* and *explicit Biblical doctrines.* When you understand this, we can discuss it. Explicit Bible Doctrines that are closer to the original teaching of the apostles are more reliable than modern, original interpretations of the same. Traditions that are "Bible-based" and yet not supported by explicit doctrine can be legitimate, but are not Bible Doctrines!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am not the one who is writing nonsense.
    I also have not said there is no connection between the destruction of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.
    They are *both* together comprising the "Holy Place." That is the point. I'm not going down any other rabbit hole.
    1) Jesus said the temple and the city would be destroyed by encircling armies.
    2) Jesus said the source of this destruction would be the "abomination that causes desolation," which is clearly the encircling armies.
    3) The AoD *inside* the Holy Place is as much a position of authority as a physical standing in the temple. It was a reference back to Antiochus 4, who placed an actual abomination in the temple. Jesus was saying that the same thing would happen again, only this time as an act of complete desolation. Instead of an abomination being placed in the temple, an abominable pagan Army would assume a "stand," or a position to destroy the temple. And in fact the Roman Army did eventually *stand* within the temple and within the city!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However note above you said "to stand in Jerusalem is to stand in the holy place." when to stand in Jerusalem is NOT to stand in the Holy place. That is you widening the locality from one place to one which is OUTSIDE. And further what you do is then say, "to stand OUTSIDE Jerusalem, encircling it, is to stand INSIDE the Holy place..."
    So you have a place which is in a larger circle, Jerusalem as being in the smaller circle, the temple, which itself is a larger area than the Holy place, which is INSIDE the temple.
    So I am CORRECTLY representing the NONSENSE you are giving.
    Language is flexible, but you are BREAKING it.
    If you are NOT INSIDE a city, then very simply in language it means you are NOT INSIDE.
    If your wife claimed to live IN London, then this is different from being from London. TWO different words used in different ways.
    Further as you noted in ancient times there was a wall. If you were OUTSIDE the wall then you were NOT INSIDE the wall. The wall delineated IN and OUT.
    A modern city does not have as clear boundaries.
    Also if you mention a village or small place which no one has heard of, then people say where? If you say from by London, then everyone thinks they know where that is. yet WHEN you wife is being more specific then she would say (perhaps) - I live in St Albans. Yet to get to the location equivalent of Jesus' statement, she would have to say the street she lives in. So maybe Abbey Road.
    Now if there is an army in London, you would NOT say the army is in St Albans.
    Yes, I've been there...St. Albans. Lovely place.

    As I quoted you a Psalm, which says that one can be *in* the gates of Jerusalem, clearly, the Roman Army was *in* the gates of Jerusalem, and thus *in* Jerusalem. As I said, it really depends on how Jesus meant this statement, whether he meant to reflect back on the Antiochus 4 AoD, whether he was referring to the position of Roman authority over the temple and over Jerusalem, which would place them *in* the temple and *in* Jerusalem. It doesn't really matter to me because I'm not going to base my belief on a preposition that can be taken any number of ways.

    The big thing is that Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all agree, and all speak of the AoD, even if different language is used. The "desolation" in "Abomination of Desolation" has to do with the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. The "abomination" was the abominable Roman Army that encircled Jerusalem. To be "in the Holy Place," therefore, is to position one's self inside the field of combat for the city and for the temple.

    Furthermore, even though the message initially got out *before* the Roman Army actually penetrated the city's defenses, there would be people who actually witness the penetration and desolation of the temple. And this message quite literally told anybody in the countryside to *flee immediately.* In other words, those who did not flee in 66 AD certainly had to flee for their lives in 70 AD!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Rubbish. Language clearly can be SPECIFIC, and Jesus was SPECIFIC i Matt 24.
    I'll tell you what's rubbish! What's rubbish is your attempt to distinguish bettween Matthew 24 and Luke 21. They are the *same Discourse!* You are so bent on making the AoD some future Antichrist that you are incapable of seeing the historical, literal application of Jesus' warning *to his own generation!* That is patently absurd, in my thinking. Go ahead and argue over a preposition if you want. You cannot deny that the Roman Army actually did get *into* the temple in the end! I don't care if people saw the AoD inside or outside of the wall. The Jewish believers were warned to run, because this event was coming!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Luke 21 speaks of an ENTIRELY different event, so claiming anything based off that is pointless. You need to demonstrate from Matt 24.
    I've already demonstrated this in great detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I don't ignore anything. I KNOW language very well. I know you can speak in generalities and specificalities.
    I don't miss the picture, but you are making up your own picture because you CHANGE what is stated to something else entirely, something for which there is NO historical precedence. This won't cause me much pause, but it should STOP you in your tracks, based on what you have put above.
    What should cause you to pause is your insistence that Luke 21 is different from Matt 24 and Mar 13! You choose a questionable application of a single preposition over biblical doctrine!

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    It couldn't have been too hard. You came up with the correct anti-Thesis (beast/ A/C equals the man of sin).
    okay. I read 2 Thess 2:2-12. So Paul tells us how to identify the man of sin.
    Now, you read Rev 13 slowly...
    Show me:
    1. Where any one in that passage claims to be God?
    2. Is called the antichrist?
    3. Commits the abomination of desolation?
    4. Has power to do signs and lying wonders and miracles?
    5. Deceives/ deludes people into believing a lie?

    So what do you find?

    You found your anti - thesis to be correct or incorrect?

    One final question. Is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2, the same as being deceived into taking the mark of the beast?

    *[[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.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    If Scripture interprets Scripture, it is not required than anyone in the book of Revelation has to claim to be God if another Scripture already indicates this, and that it is meaning this same someone in the book of Revelation. Would you use the same kind of argument about Christ then? Would you argue that the Messiah is meaning Jesus according to the NT, but where in the OT does it ever call Him Jesus, therefore Jesus being the Messiah can't be found in the OT, because if Jesus could be, the passages allegedly meaning Him would also identify Him by the same name that the NT does, therefore Jesus is not the Messiah meant per the OT? I'm betting you wouldn't make that silly argument. But that is only an example though. I'm sure I could come up with more examples to try and illustrate the point being made.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,717
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    I give up.
    You're a saint lasting as long as you did.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    If Scripture interprets Scripture, it is not required than anyone in the book of Revelation has to claim to be God if another Scripture already indicates this, and that it is meaning this same someone in the book of Revelation. Would you use the same kind of argument about Christ then? Would you argue that the Messiah is meaning Jesus according to the NT, but where in the OT does it ever call Him Jesus, therefore Jesus being the Messiah can't be found in the OT, because if Jesus could be, the passages allegedly meaning Him would also identify Him by the same name that the NT does, therefore Jesus is not the Messiah meant per the OT? I'm betting you wouldn't make that silly argument. But that is only an example though. I'm sure I could come up with more examples to try and illustrate the point being made.
    We have one and only one example of the "man of sin" in the entire bible. 2 Thess 2. And Paul, there tells us how to identify him. Many are just figments of interpretation. Such as "the abomination of desolation 'standing' in the temple"; the antichrist; the beast; the "wicked" one. But he clearly makes known that he will signs, miracles and lying wonders to deceive the people into believing a lie. Can you show me any other character in all of the bible matching up to what Paul said, and not what we think he said about him. A lying spirit (in the mouth of the false prophet) is not beyond the doings of the Lord. God sent a lying spirit unto Ahab, so that he might be killed in battle. It is another figment of interpretation to say that the dragon, or the beast, gave authority to the false prophet.

    I will ask you, (no one seems to want to answer) is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2, which is sent by God, the same as the miracles designed to deceive people into taking the mark?
    Blessings
    The PuP

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope. The Mark is taken by those who have accepted the strong delusion.
    So, you agree that the deceit by the signs and miracles that the false prophet does (in which people then take the mark, Rev. 19:20 states this-it is their intention to deceive people into taking the mark, BY THE SIGNS AND WONDERS) is the same as the strong delusion?. which means that you cannot rule out the FP from being the man of sin. [Because he has the characteristics that Paul gives for the man of sin

    I did give you places - 2 Thess 2:4 states this, as does Rev 13.

    So your using 2 Thess 2 to prove that 2 Thess 2 odds true? Because it is not stated in Rev. 13 that the beast says "I am God"
    There is ONLY one AC in Revelation. We have 3 beings identified i Rev 13, the dragon (Satan), the 1st beast (AC), the 2nd beast (FP).
    Another figment of interpretation. Need I remind you that the word antichrist is never used by John, who I would call "The Professor " when it comes to knowing an antichrist.

    There is NO question who the Man of Sin is. It is the AC, who is the 1st beast.
    There is NO evidence pointing to the FP as the AC.
    I never said that he was. I said that they are both (I hope that you don't believe in this, that there is only one antichrist in the last days?) that both the FP and Beast are antichrist. I also said that if I were to call one of them "THE ANTICHRIST" I I said that it would be the beast.
    Everything the FP does is points to the AC. Notice the 1st beast is worshipped BEFORE any mention of the 2nd beast!
    There are signs and wonders about the AC. He kills the Two Witnesses, who themselves had done signs and wonders.

    After they have been here for 1260 days. You call that miraculous. [You are arguing that their terms are not concurrent. An unsubstantiated belief. Not a good choice to "prove" something.
    Read Rev 11. Get yourself clued up.
    If Rev 13 doesn't prove that that the man of sin is the FP, then it is even less of a proof that it is [not] the beast. Why? Because you are giving a figment of interpretation that he "says that I am God".

    [Adding this:] Men can worship the ground and 10 zillion other things, but you don't here the ground saying "worship me, worship me, I am God. I am God". Being worshipped, and saying "I am God" are more likely to be mutually exclusive of each other than to be complementary to each other.

    Being that there is more doubt working against you here than truth, you need to find another reference (besides Rev. 13) that shows him to match up to the characteristics that Paul have is about the man of sin.

    Blessings
    The PuP

    Sorry. I edited the spelling. I don't know how [on my phone] to make my responses to your many points, be outside of the initial quoted response.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    You're a saint lasting as long as you did.
    You're a saint for encouraging me to not let it get to me! Bless you brother!

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    If Rev 13 doesn't prove that that the man of sin is the FP, then it is even less of a proof that it is [not] the beast. Why? Because you are giving a figment of interpretation that he "says that I am God".

    [Adding this:] Men can worship the ground and 10 zillion other things, but you don't here the ground saying "worship me, worship me, I am God. I am God". Being worshipped, and saying "I am God" are more likely to be mutually exclusive of each other than to be complementary to each other.

    Being that there is more doubt working against you here than truth, you need to find another reference (besides Rev. 13) that shows him to match up to the characteristics that Paul have is about the man of sin.

    Blessings
    The PuP




    Sorry. I edited the spelling. I don't know how [on my phone] to make my responses to your many points, be outside of the initial quoted response.

    2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.



    Let's do some comparing.



    Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
    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.



    Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped(2 Thessalonians 2:4).....shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god(Daniel 11:36).



    Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

    Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
    6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.




    and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods(Daniel 11:36)....And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name(Revelation 13:6)



    so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God(2 Thessalonians 2:4).....for he shall magnify himself above all(Daniel 11:37).


    Obviously then, all of the above equals the following...so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    Except none of that is meaning in the literal sense where it might involve a literal brick and mortar temple. But if you still can't see it, you just can't see it then. That doesn't automatically make me wrong and you right because you're unable to see this.

    So how can all of these connect like this yet not even be referring to the same entity in all of the above passages?

  14. #194
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    827

    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?
    In the beginning was the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:

    Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    Isaiah 44:6 - (God is the Redeemer)
    2 Peter 1:1 (Jesus is the Redeemer) - “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”

    Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Means God with us)

    Jesus or Yeshua in Hebrew means Salvation doesn't it? So n many places in the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible, where we see Salvation spoken of in th form of a PERSON-HOOD its speaking about Jesus or Yeshua.

    Y E S H U A IN THE TANAKH
    (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)
    A chain holding a Menorah scene should appear here..

    Arthur E. Glass

    In dealing with my Jewish brethren for the past many years in Canada, the United States, Argentina and Uruguay. I had one great difficulty, and it was this: My Jewish people would always fling at me this challenging question, "If Jesus is our Messiah, and the whole Old Testament is about Him, how come His name is never mentioned in It even once?"

    I could never answer it satisfactorily to their way of thinking, and I admit I often wondered why His name was not actually written in the Old Bible. Oh, yes, I could show them His divine titles in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 and Jeremiah 23:5,6, and even the word MESSIAH in several places; but the Hebrew name that would be equal to Jesus, that I could not show. Then one day the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, and I just shouted. There was the very NAME, Jesus, found in the Old Testament about 100 times all the way from GENESIS to HABAKKUK! Yes, the very word - the very NAME - that the angel Gabriel used in Luke 1:31 when he told Mary about the Son she was to have. "Where do we find that NAME?" you ask. Here it is, friend: Every time the Old Testament uses the word SALVATION (especially with the Hebrew suffix meaning "my," thy," or "his"), with very few exceptions (when the word is impersonal), it is the very same word, YESHUA (Jesus), used in Matthew 1:21. Let us remember that the angel who spoke to Mary and the angel who spoke to Joseph in his dream did not speak in English, Latin, or Greek, but in Hebrew; and neither were Mary or Joseph slow to grasp the meaning and significance of the NAME of this divine Son and its relation to His character and His work of salvation. For in the Old Testament all great characters were given names with a specific and significant meaning.

    For example, in Genesis 5:29, Lamech called his son Noah [Comfort], saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and tell of our hands. In Genesis 10:25, Eber calls his firstborn son, Peleg [Division]; for in his days was the earth divided. The same is true of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob (changed to Israel-God's Prince), and all of Jacob's sons (see Genesis, chapters 29-32). In Exodus 2:10, Pharaoh's daughter called the baby rescued from the Nile, Moses [Drawn-Forth]: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And so we can go on and on to show the deep significance of Hebrew names.

    Now then, when the angel spoke to Joseph, husband of Mary, the mother of our Lord, this is what he really said and what Joseph actually understood: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus [YESHUA (SALVATION)]: for he shall save [or salvage] his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21). This text was so forcibly brought home to my soul soon after I was converted over 24 years ago, that I saw the whole plan of the Old Testament in that one ineffable and blessed NAME.

    So let us proceed to show clearly the Hebrew name YESHUA
    (Greek = Iesus English = Jesus) in the Old Testament.

    When the great Patriarch Jacob was ready to depart from this world, he by the Holy Spirit was blessing his sons and prophetically foretelling their future experiences in those blessings. In verse 18 of Genesis 49 he exclaims, I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Lord! What he really did say and mean was, "To thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am looking, 0 Lord"; or, "In thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am hoping (trusting), Lord!" That makes much better sense.

    Of course YESHUA (Jesus) was the One in Whom Jacob was trusting to carry him safely over the chilly waters of the river of death. Jacob was a saved man, and did not wait until his dying moments to start trusting in the Lord. He just reminded God that he was at the same time comforting his own soul.

    In Psalms 9:14, David bursts forth, I will rejoice in thy salvation.
    What he actually did say and mean was, "I will rejoice in (with) thy YESHUA (Jesus)."

    In Psalm 91:14-16 God says, Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high [raise him above circumstances], because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honor him. With long life [eternal life] will I satisfy him, and show him my [YESHUA (Jesus)] salvation. Of course. That promise is realized in Revelation 22:3, 4: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it: and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see HIS face.

    In Isaiah 12:2, 3 we have something wonderful. Here SALVATION is mentioned three times. The reader will be much blessed by reading these glorious verses in his Bible, but let me give them as they actually read in the original Hebrew with Jesus as the embodiment and personification of the word SALVATION: Behold, might (or, God the mighty One) is my YESHUA (Jesus-in His pre-incarnation and eternal existence); I will trust and not be afraid:, for JAH-JAHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also is become my YESHUA (Jesus).... And the WORD (Jesus incarnate) became flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1: 14). ... Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of YESHUA [Jesus - waters of salvation flowing forth from Golgotha]."

    Something very interesting occurred one spring in St. Louis: I was visiting in the home of our friends, Brother and Mrs. Charles Siegelman, and another Jew was present there. He claimed Jewish orthodoxy for his creed. Of course the conversation centered around Him Who is the Center of all things -- Jesus. This good Jewish brother opposed the claims of Yeshua in the Old Testament verbally, and in a friendly fashion, most violently. His best offensive weapon, he thought, was to fling at me and at all of us there the well-known challenge: "You can't find the name of 'Jesus' in the Old Testament;" and this he did.

    I did not answer him directly, but asked him to translate for us from my Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 62:11. Being a Hebrew scholar, he did so with utmost ease, rapidly, and correctly; and here is what and how he translated that text verbatim: Behold, Jehovah has proclaimed unto the end of the world. Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy YESHUA[ Jesus] cometh; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him. Just then he crimsoned as he realized what he had done and how he had played into my hands, and he just fairly screamed out, "No! no! You made me read it 'thy YESHUA' Jesus], Mr. Glass! You tricked me!" I said, "No, I did not trick you, I just had you read the Word of God for yourself. Can't you see that here SALVATION is a Person and not a thing or an event? HE Comes, 'HIS reward is with HIM, and His work before him.' Then he rushed at his own Old Testament, talking away frantically saying, "I'm sure mine is different from yours." And when he found the passage, he just dropped like a deflated balloon. His Old Testament was, of course, identical. All he could use as an escape from admitting defeat was to deny the divine inspiration of the book of Isaiah.

    Then skipping on to Habakkuk, we have the greatest demonstration of the NAME "Jesus" in the Old Testament; for here we have both the name as well as the title of the Savior. In Habakkuk 3:13 we read literally from the original Hebrew: Thou wentest forth with the YESHA [variant of ESHUA-Jesus] of [or for] thy people; with YESHUA thy MESSIAH [thine Anointed One: i.e., with Jesus thy Anointed] thou woundest the head of the house of the wicked one [Satan]. Here you have it! The very NAME given to our Lord in the New Testament - JESUS CHRIST! So don't let anyone - Jew or Gentile - tell you that the Name JESUS is not found in the Old Testament. And so when the aged Simeon came to the Temple, led there by the Holy Spirit, and took the baby Yeshua in his arms, he said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation [YESHUA (Jesus)] (Luke 2:29-30). Certainly! Not only did his eyes see God's Salvation - God's YESHUA (Jesus) - but he felt Him and touched Him. His believing heart beat with joy and assurance as he felt the loving heart of God throbbing in the heart of the holy infant YESHUA.

    And thou shalt call his name Jesus (SALVATION = YESHUA);
    for he shall save [salvage] his people from their sins!

    Yesha’yahu – Isaiah 53:1-12

    How about you? Have you received your Redeemer, the Stone whom the builders rejected? In Him is life, light and joy and in His sacrifice is forgiveness of sin.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    133

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

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.



    Let's do some comparing.



    Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
    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.



    Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped(2 Thessalonians 2:4).....shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god(Daniel 11:36).



    Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

    Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
    6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.




    and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods(Daniel 11:36)....And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name(Revelation 13:6)



    so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God(2 Thessalonians 2:4).....for he shall magnify himself above all(Daniel 11:37).


    Obviously then, all of the above equals the following...so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    Except none of that is meaning in the literal sense where it might involve a literal brick and mortar temple. But if you still can't see it, you just can't see it then. That doesn't automatically make me wrong and you right because you're unable to see this.

    So how can all of these connect like this yet not even be referring to the same entity in all of the above passages?
    Dan. 11:36
    ...and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,

    Do you see anybody in that equation, other than he, himself, and God? There is no mention of anybody else worshipping him there. Nobody.

    *[[2Th 2:4]] KJV* Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    I showed you the scripture from Eze. 44. Paul was absolutely not talking about no man standing in the temple when he unequivocally says sitting. It is one of the biggest lies being believe by Christians today to think that he was. Believing that thing that people would see standing in the holy place, is really somebody sitting? Open your eyes. It is your defense of this propagated lie for so long, that I said, would keep people from believing the truth placed right in front of them, because of their traditions are nothing more than just traditions.

    I have read enough of your writings to know that you believe in a tribulation temple. I commend you for being among the few willing to stand with conviction on that belief. And I am pretty sure that you believe that it will be destroyed. And I know that you believe in the restoration of the kingdom to Israel(the land, not just the people). Sitting in a non - existant (destroyed) temple, I know is not a possibility... unless another temple is to be built after that. Take unto yourself the heart of a Jew and know that the coming of messiah and the building of the temple go hand in hand. You can trust Paul when he says that the man of sin, not the antichrist, will sit in the temple of God, and that it won't be the one that is destroyed. Stop holding on to an impossible reality. The man of sin has nothing to do with the AoD. The Jews are NOT going to worship any man claiming to be God. THE BEAST WILL BE THE ANTI - MESSIAH, IF YOU WILL. You can take that to the bank. Just ask Fenris. The man of sin, the false prophet, the false Elijah, can and MAY or MAY NOT do so. So, if everything that you have presented, [by the way Daniel 11 is about the beast, not the man of sin] points to the man of sin claiming to be God, that's fine with me. Just know that the beast/ antichrist is not the man of sin. You are conflating prophecies about the antichrist with the man of sin.

    Trying to see that there will be another temple built AFTER the trib temple is destroyed is like trying to look thru a glass, encased in another glass. But it is there. You have got to get out of the box, if your gonna think out of the box.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Last edited by Pesachpup; May 25th 2018 at 04:14 AM. Reason: Spelling and grammar

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
  •