False prophet ... "anti" christ?

David777 · Jan 2, 2013

canada said:
 Eric,

How can you deny a biblical truth when it is presented to you?
You cling to your presuppositions, and can not even concede that “it”
has merit for the interpretation of a prophecy.

Four Bible versions render the False Prophet as “he”.

Eight Bible versions render the False Prophet as “it”.

Plus an additional two Greek/English interlinears as “it” also.

With such a closed mind, I believe you are limiting your research as an effective student of prophecy.

Lets examine Revelations 19:20 for the occurrence
of "him" or "he" and "it".

NIV
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf.

NLT
And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast

ESV
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he

NASB
And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence,

HCSB
But the beast was taken prisoner, and along with him the false prophet, who had performed the signs in his presence.

ISV
The beast was captured, along with the false prophet who had performed signs on its behalf.sulfur.

KJB
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him,

ARAMIC BIBLE
And The Beast was captured and The False Prophet with it, who did signs

GOD'S WORD
The beast and the false prophet who had done miracles for the beast were captured. By these miracles the false prophet

KING JAMES 2000
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that worked miracles before him,

AKJV
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that worked miracles before him,

ASV
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought the signs in his sight,

Douay Rheims
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him,

DBT
And the beast was taken, and the false prophet that was with him, who wrought the signs before him

ESV
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought the signs in his sight,

WBT
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him,

WNT
who had done the miracles in his presence with which he .

WEB
The beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who worked the signs in his sight,

YLT
and the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him,

Only three translations use "it", nearly all choose
"him" or "he". Canada you may need to think again
about the use of personal pronouns.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 2, 2013

David,

I only need the right version to understand prophecy. The king James is a transliteration or word for word. Most of the other bibles are interpretation of thoughts. If the men don't understand the prophecy they can't interpret the prophecy correctly.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 2, 2013

Canada,

I only need the right version to understand prophecy. The king James is a transliteration or word for word. Most of the other bibles are interpretation of thoughts. If the men don't understand the prophecy they can't interpret the prophecy correctly.

David777 · Jan 2, 2013

Hello Eric.

Over five thousand manuscripts, including several from as early as the third century,
are available to textual critics today. Some of these include virtually the entire Bible,
while others contain only certain books, or groups of books of the Bible.

Some are mere fragments. Such extensive manuscript evidence contributes to the ability
of modern textual critics to present us with a reliable text of God's word. However, such
extensive and ancient manuscript evidence was not available at the time the King James Version
was translated. Even such manuscript evidence as was available was not used as effectively
as it could have been in attempting to determine the original text.

You really should consult other translations, no one translation
is perfect Eric.

canada · Jan 3, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> David777
You have now added “him” to “he and it” by reference to Rev 19:20.

The first mention of the False Prophet is found in Rev 13:11.
Expositors stress the importance of the “first mention” regarding the exposition of a subject.

The subject of this discussion is “he or it” of Rev 13:11.

I try to stay on a specific subject before going down multiple rabbit trails.
That is also why I abhor the use of that fuzzy all encompassing term “antichrist”.

That term can involve a host of references and for me, it only confuses the issue. As you know that term is not found in Daniel or Revelation, and if one is to discuss prophecy, I think it wise to clearly state … little horn … son of perdition ….the subject of 2 Thess 2 sitting in the temple claiming to be God … the first beast … the second beast (or FP) etc..

Not wishing to get side tracked, but you brought up Rev 19:20 and said I should be careful about personal pronouns.

I will only use your first example of the NIV:

But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf …

After reading your example and a Greek/English interlinear, I believe your “him” and “his” are referring to the first beast … not to the FP.

Am I correct in this, or am I in error?

David777 · Jan 3, 2013

canada said:
 David777
You have now added “him” to “he and it” by reference to Rev 19:20.

The first mention of the False Prophet is found in Rev 13:11.
Expositors stress the importance of the “first mention” regarding the exposition of a subject.

The subject of this discussion is “he or it” of Rev 13:11.

I try to stay on a specific subject before going down multiple rabbit trails.
That is also why I abhor the use of that fuzzy all encompassing term “antichrist”.

That term can involve a host of references and for me, it only confuses the issue. As you know that term is not found in Daniel or Revelation, and if one is to discuss prophecy, I think it wise to clearly state … little horn … son of perdition ….the subject of 2 Thess 2 sitting in the temple claiming to be God … the first beast … the second beast (or FP) etc..

Not wishing to get side tracked, but you brought up Rev 19:20 and said I should be careful about personal pronouns.

I will only use your first example of the NIV:

But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf …

After reading your example and a Greek/English interlinear, I believe your “him” and “his” are referring to the first beast … not to the FP.

Am I correct in this, or am I in error?

Hello Canada.

Discussion regarding the false prophet is fruitless
due to negligible information within the scripture.

Discussion on the beast has more information
available. What is interesting for you especially
is the reference by Paul in his letter to the
Thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB)
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come
unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness
is revealed, the son of destruction,

Notice canada that Paul states "the man of lawlessness".
This is most definitely an individual, a man. I know that
your theology denies this but the simple reading of this
passage permits no error. It is literal and clear "the son
of destruction".

The quotation I used from Rev 19 is certainly not a rabbit
trail by any extent. It is simply another reference to the
beast and the false prophet. Translators are not entirely
sure whether the subjects are referenced in the personal
sense, or referenced by words such as "it". This false prophet
is profoundly evil, beyond that which a person is capable of.

In fact he seems devoid of human will, a pure manifestation
of the dragon himself, with only one purpose to deceive.
So do we translate references to this individual as "it"?
Do we refer to the beast as "it" or "he"?

You are neither correct or incorrect as I do not believe
any translator would know what pronoun if any to use.
Hence, different translations employ alternative terms.

David777 · Jan 3, 2013

canada said:
 David777
You have now added “him” to “he and it” by reference to Rev 19:20.

The first mention of the False Prophet is found in Rev 13:11.
Expositors stress the importance of the “first mention” regarding the exposition of a subject.

The subject of this discussion is “he or it” of Rev 13:11.

I try to stay on a specific subject before going down multiple rabbit trails.
That is also why I abhor the use of that fuzzy all encompassing term “antichrist”.

That term can involve a host of references and for me, it only confuses the issue. As you know that term is not found in Daniel or Revelation, and if one is to discuss prophecy, I think it wise to clearly state … little horn … son of perdition ….the subject of 2 Thess 2 sitting in the temple claiming to be God … the first beast … the second beast (or FP) etc..

Not wishing to get side tracked, but you brought up Rev 19:20 and said I should be careful about personal pronouns.

I will only use your first example of the NIV:

But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf …

After reading your example and a Greek/English interlinear, I believe your “him” and “his” are referring to the first beast … not to the FP.

Am I correct in this, or am I in error?

Hello Canada.

Discussion regarding the false prophet is fruitless
due to negligible information within the scripture.

Discussion on the beast has more information
available. What is interesting for you especially
is the reference by Paul in his letter to the
Thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB)
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come
unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness
is revealed, the son of destruction,

Notice canada that Paul states "the man of lawlessness".
This is most definitely an individual, a man. I know that
your theology denies this but the simple reading of this
passage permits no error. It is literal and clear "the son
of destruction".

The quotation I used from Rev 19 is certainly not a rabbit
trail by any extent. It is simply another reference to the
beast and the false prophet. Translators are not entirely
sure whether the subjects are referenced in the personal
sense, or referenced by words such as "it". This false prophet
is profoundly evil, beyond that which a person is capable of.

In fact he seems devoid of human will, a pure manifestation
of the dragon himself, with only one purpose to deceive.
So do we translate references to this individual as "it"?
Do we refer to the beast as "it" or "he"?

You are neither correct or incorrect as I do not believe
any translator would know what pronoun if any to use.
Hence, different translations employ alternative terms.

jari · Jan 3, 2013

the thing i learned in english classes was that for animals you use word "it" and for humans "he" or "she".
but you can of course call animals he or she like pets are often called. but for this reason i wouldn't try to determine whether the beast is animal, human , nation , etc just by the word "it". as you can use either one for animal and although the beast probably isn't "real" animal the translators could have simply (without trying to figure out what the beast actually is) used "it" for animal because that's what beast is , an animal.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 3, 2013

The beast (antichrist) and the false prophet are men who will be judged by Jesus and cast alive into the lake of fire.

Revelation 19:11–21 KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

canada · Jan 3, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> David … in this thread (post 46 pg 5) you referred to the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition.

You noted that this is most definitely an individual, a man.

You then went on to say that my theology denies this.

For starters, you know little about my eschatology other than a few points. I have never denied that the man of lawlessness nor the first beast is other than a man, an individual.

You assumed this just as you assumed I was SDA.

ALL futurists do not agree on all points.
ALL preterists do not agree on all points.
ALL historicists do not agree on all points.

The man of sin sitting in the temple claiming to be as God could possibly be Ceasar Nero as believed by the preterists. Other theories are the Roman Empire under the ceasars and others believe this man of sin to be a pope or the papal line.

There are times when I lean toward the preterist theory, in that Revelation 1 speaks about things that are to happen … soon … at hand. I definitely do not discount the historicist view that the first beast would be the papacy, and perhaps even a specific pope, as I believe the image, mark and number have already come to pass.

And no, I do not believe 666 will be on his forehead, or that his followers will have a bar code on their hand or a computer chip implanted into their right hand! The interpretations of sensationalism.

Who do you say the man of sin is … or would your response be that of the typical futurist … he is “going to appear very soon”?

If the preterist is correct about the events of Rev 1 being soon or at hand, a large number of years has surely gone by hasn’t it.

Warped Warriors · Jan 16, 2013

Canada,

The Vatican hierarchy is a religious organization. Congress is a political organization.

It would appear that it cannot make up it's mind regarding their fiscal cliff.

Lol. So true.

Revelation 13:11

He:

21st Century king james version,
American Standard Version,
Amplifies Bible,
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition,
Easy to Read Version,
1599 Geneva Bible,
Holman Christian Standard Bible,
King James Version,
Lexham English Bible,
Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament,
New American Standard Bible,
New English Translation,
New International Reader's Version,
New International Version 1984,
New King James Version,
New Life Version,
New Living Translation,
Williams,
Beck

It:

Common English,
Complete Jewish Bible,
Contemporary English Version,
English Standard Version Anglicised,
Darby Translation,
English Standard Version,
God's WORD Translation,
Good News Translation,
J.B. Phillips New Testament,
Knox Bible,
The Message,
New Century Version,
New International Version,
New International Version - UK,
New Revised Standard Version,
New Revised Standard Version - Anglicised,
New Revised Standard Version,
Anglicised Catholic Edition,
New Revised Standard Version,
Anglicised Catholic Edition,
Orthodox Jewish Bible,
Revised Standard Version,
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition,
Today's New International Version,
Worldwide English (New Testament),
Young's Literal Translation

He / It:

Expanded Bible,
Wycliffe Bible

He = 19
It = 26
He/It = 2

"He" does speak for an "it". The U.S. President speaks for America.

David777,

You really should consult other translations, no one translation is perfect

So true.

Canada,

Expositors stress the importance of the “first mention” regarding the exposition of a subject.

Actually, the "first mention" of the word "false prophet" is in Acts 13:6, "a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:"

The subject of this discussion is “he or it” of Rev 13:11.

The word is actually "he/it had" - (echo - 2192 - THIS IS A VERB, NOT A PROPER PERSONAL PRONOUN),
not "he/it" - (autos - 846 - THIS IS A REFLEXIVE PRONOUN SELF - PROPER PERSONAL PRONOUN, THIS IS NOT A VERB).

After reading your example and a Greek/English interlinear, I believe your “him” and “his” are referring to the first beast … not to the FP.
Am I correct in this, or am I in error?

You are correct.

David777,

In fact he seems devoid of human will, a pure manifestation of the dragon himself

Very good point as to why the differences in interpretation of "he/it had".

Canada,

Who do you say the man of sin is … or would your response be that of the typical futurist … he is “going to appear very soon”?

We are pre-trib, pre-millennial, dispensationalists (futurists) who believes in the orthodox (non-traditional) teaching of the unholy trinity:

father - Prince Charles - The False Prophet - (The Beast out of the Earth) - Isa
son - Prince William - The Antichrist - (The Beast out of the Sea) - Mahdi
spirit - The Dragon - (Satan)

canada · Jan 16, 2013

Thank you Warped Warriors ... especially for staying on topic.

Your thorough research regarding the various Bible translations has shown that "he" AND "it" are common regarding the False Prophet of Revelation 13:11.

In that I believe the FP to be the Vatican hierarchy (that being it) headed by a pope (that being he) I am comfortable with both.

I am not comfortable with those that limit the FP to being only ... "he" ... do you understand my point?

I recall several years ago the claim that Prince Charles was the FP, but William as the AC is new to me.

In that I am a serious student of prophecy, can you provide any concrete biblical evidence to support your claim that Charles and William are FP and AC?

If so, how do they fulfill the "mark" of their followers, and how might they fulfill the image that dies and yet has life and performs miracles in the sight of men?

PS ... I too "was" premill, pretrib, dispensational futurist.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 16, 2013

Eric E Stahl said:
The beast (antichrist) and the false prophet are men who will be judged by Jesus and cast alive into the lake of fire.

Revelation 19:11–21 KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Jesus will not be judging any organization to cast it into hell! Only individuals are judged and cast into hell. Canada I know this dose not fit with your opinion but think about it.

Warped Warriors · Jan 16, 2013

Canada,

I am not comfortable with those that limit the FP to being only ... "he" ... do you understand my point?

Absolutely. As a serious student of prophecy myself (especially eschatology and regarding the unholy trinity), we are
here to learn from each other. I have a good idea, you have a good idea, others have good ideas, we put them together
and we get more good ideas (basically an online think-tank). Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

I recall several years ago the claim that Prince Charles was the FP

I remember the claim he was the Antichrist - Monte Judah - Prince Charles = 666, Tim Cohen - The Antichrist and a Cup
of Tea

In that I am a serious student of prophecy, can you provide any concrete biblical evidence to support your claim that
Charles and William are FP and AC?

The major premise that we teach is that:

For Satan to be "like" God, he MUST imitate the Father, Son, and Spirit Godhead. (Isaiah 14:14)

The word "like" in this passage, is the Hebrew word (damah - H1819) which means:
"To compare, to resemble, to liken, to be like, to use similitudes."

Jehovah is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (1 John 5:7)

The False Prophet will be the earthly father of the Antichrist. In (Hebrews 1:6) Jehovah tells all of His angels to worship
His firstborn Son Jesus; likewise the False Prophet will demand everyone to worship his firstborn son, the Antichrist or
be killed. (Revelation 13:12, 15) Since the Antichrist is a prince who becomes king, then his father is either a prince or a
king also.

Growing up, I heard and still hear that Satan represents the unholy father, the Antichrist represents the unholy son and
the False Prophet represents the unholy spirit. Really? If you logically think about this, you would then be looking for a
man (the Antichrist) and a spirit (the False Prophet) - even though normally we can't see the spirit world.

As Sir Robert Anderson tell us in his book, The Coming Prince: "The mystery of the Godhead will thus be parodied by
the mystery of iniquity, and the Father, the Son, and the Spirit will have their counterpart in the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet" (pg. 137).

This teaching is thoroughly taught throughout the Church.

However, ONLY Satan out of these three is a spirit. Satan himself does not have a body. ONLY the Antichrist and the
False Prophet have a body. By the process of elimination we can create a clearer and more complete concept. Since
Satan is a spirit, he properly represents the unholy spirit, the Antichrist represents the unholy son and the False Prophet
represents the unholy father.

This is where the Church has misinterpreted the "proper relationship" for their "functional equivalent". We MUST
differentiate between the two in order to gain a concise comprehension.

This is the main reason why no one can tell you who these two Beasts are, because no one understands the correct
relationship between them.

"They, therefore, have a very close relation to each other: having the same object; possessing the same general
characteristics; and accomplishing substantially the same thing on the earth." - (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament -
Albert Barnes)

For further study, visit: theunholygodhead.com

If so, how do they fulfill the "mark" of their followers

The "mark" can be found in Prince Charles book: Harmony

People often confuse the actual "mark" with the "technology" that will be used to implement that mark. The "mark" must be visible as to distinguish between the followers of Satan and the followers of God. Taking this "mark" is a requirement for the followers of Satan to enter into the end-time economic establishment of the False Prophet.

We teach that the "mark of the beast" is the final formation found on Prince William's forehead after he receives his deadly head wound. - (he currently has half of the final "mark")

For further study, visit: theunholygodhead.com/Pages/TheAntichrist.aspx

and how might they fulfill the image that dies and yet has life and performs miracles in the sight of men?

Prince Charles hand wrote the first two verses of The People's Bible (a new digital project celebrating the 400th
anniversary of the King James Bible) - which can be found at: thepeoplesbible.org/view-a-verse/browse-the-
bible/kjv/genesis/1/1/

It is the way in which Charles wrote the word "God" that gives a clue to the "image of the beast".

For further study, visit: theunholygodhead.com/Pages/ImageoftheBeast.aspx

Here is our testimony: theunholygodhead.com/Pages/AboutUs.aspx

Eric,

Jesus will not be judging any organization to cast it into hell! Only individuals are judged and cast into hell.

True. Only individuals have souls.

canada · Jan 16, 2013

Hello Warped Warriors,

I went to your website and was surprised to see the amount of material you have accumulated regarding the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, world events and your unusual conclusions and predictions.

I say unusual, in that I do not think most futurist writers associate Islam and Christianity as being together under your future "antichrist".

During my ten years as a futurist, I too believed that Daniel 9:27 was referring to "antichrist" ... not Jesus Christ.

Regardless of who is "right" on this specific issue, the one who is wrong will never never come to a proper understanding of the last days . as this passage is that critical.

I hope you are aware that prior to John Darby (he of the "secret rapture" fame) conservative Christian expositors did not share his view. But, it did tickle ears, as many many jumped onto his bandwagon.

As you may know, my personal study follows more closely with the original Protestant interpretations regarding the Church of Rome and the papacy as the beast and harlot church of Revelation.

I will look further into your site and may contact you.

Eric, you said: "Jesus will not be judging any organization to cast it into hell! Only individuals are judged and cast into hell. Canada I know this does not fit with your opinion but think about it."

I have considered it and rejected it. When God destroys Mystery, Babylon that is, that great city and organization that reigns over kings of the earth ... Vatican City and its religious organization will be cast into hell and will be an everlasting witness to the world of the power of God.

As an historicist (now) this may be my only prediction, for we recognize events after they come to pass. Sir Isaac Newton

I have come to the conclusion that we (preterists, historicists and futurists) will not fully understand Revelation until this event comes to pass. Then and then only may the prophecy "experts" finally put the pieces together. Rev 17 & 18.

Warped Warriors · Jan 16, 2013

canada said:
Hello Warped Warriors,

I went to your website and was surprised to see the amount of material you have accumulated regarding the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, world events and your unusual conclusions and predictions.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much.

I say unusual, in that I do not think most fururist writers associate Islam and Christianity as being together under your future "antichrist".

Click to expand...

We are accquiring more and more conservative prophecy teachers along this line. I remember as a child listening to pastors saying that the "gallows" would come back into use as a reference as to Revelation 20:4. However, Islam's beheading by the sword fits this description much better.

Regardless of who is "right" on this specific issue, the one who is wrong will never never come to a proper understanding of the last days . as this passage is that critical.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is that critical.

I hope you are aware that prior to John Darby (he of the "secret rapture" fame) conservative Christian expositors did not share his view. But, it did tickle ears, as many many jumped onto his bandwagon.

Click to expand...

"It should be noted that dispensationalists have neither said that the early church was clearly pretribulational nor that there are even clear individual statements of pretribulationism in the fathers. As Walvoord says, “the historical fact is that the early church fathers’ view on prophecy did not correspond to what is advanced by pretribulationists today except for the one important point that both subscribe to the imminency of the rapture.”" - (Dr. Thomas Ice - pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-AHistoryofPreDarbyRa.pdf)

As you may know, my persoanl study follows more closely with the original Protestant interpretations regarding the Church of Rome and the papacy as the beast and harlot church of Revelation.

Click to expand...

We do believe that the Church of Rome plays a preeminent, prominent and integral part regarding the unifying of religions and "mystery babylon".

I will look further into your site and may contact you.

Click to expand...

We would love to discuss any questions or concerns.

I have come to the conclusion that we (preterists, historicists and futurists) will not fully understand Revelation until this comes to pass. Then and then only may the prophecy "experts" finally put the pieces together.

Click to expand...

Hallelujah, Amen. Even so come Lord Jesus.

David777 · Jan 16, 2013

Hello all.

Agree with much of what canada wrote.

When the man of lawlessness proclaims that
he is God, does it have to be the Christian God?

When 2 Thess refers to the temple of God is
that a rebuilt Jewish temple. A Christian church
perhaps, or even a muslim temple which sits
on the former site of the Jewish temple.

There is so little information to work with and so
much speculation.

I try to remain somewhat flexible in eschatology and
consider all views.

canada · Jan 17, 2013

Warped Warriors,

Just to clear a point I made about John Darby.
I was not referring to his view of the rapture, but rather that prior to him, conservative scholars considered Daniel 9:27 to be about Jesus Christ, who in the midst of the week ... that is, after 3 1/2 years of His ministry, He caused the need for the sacrificing of animals to cease because of His one time sacrifice for our sins.

You noted dispensationalism and pretribulation in your reply so I thought you might have been responding to the rapture comment rather than He being Jesus Christ.

It was this teaching (not the rapture) that others jumped onto Darby's bandwagon of "antichrist" rather than Jesus Christ.

As a result of Darby's twist, the Scofield Reference Bible and the Dallas School of Interpretation bought fully into it ... along with the Jesuits, as it served their purpose of a future "antichrist" rather than the Reformation claim that the papacy was and is the beast.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 17, 2013

David777 said:
Hello all.

Agree with much of what canada wrote.

When the man of lawlessness proclaims that
he is God, does it have to be the Christian God?

When 2 Thess refers to the temple of God is
that a rebuilt Jewish temple. A Christian church
perhaps, or even a muslim temple which sits
on the former site of the Jewish temple.

There is so little information to work with and so
much speculation.

I try to remain somewhat flexible in eschatology and
consider all views.

David,

Revelation 11:1–2 KJV
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

This passage explains that John is told to measure the temple, but what temple is that? The temple in Jerusalem is going to be rebuilt! Verse two points out that the courtyard of the temple is given to the Gentiles. What does that tell you?
The Jews will have only part of the temple mount to rebuild the tribulation temple. Presently, they don’t have the use of any of the temple mount. The last half of verse two states that the Gentiles (anyone not Jewish) will have control of Jerusalem for forty-two months, or half of the tribulation period. That means the Jews will lose control of the temple and Jerusalem for the last half of the tribulation period.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 17, 2013

This was double posted by mistake.

Welcome!

False prophet ... "anti" christ?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Members Online

Trending content

Newest members

Stay Connected