Daniel, Revelation & World History Reveal The Antichrist

1. It was to arise among the ten divisions of the Roman Empire (Dan 7:8).

2. It would destroy three of the ten kingdoms (Dan 7:8). The Roman power destroyed the Heruli in A.D. 493, (2) the Vandals in A.D. 534, (3) the Ostrogoths around A.D. 538. The other seven are, still, with us today under the names of Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Switzerland.

3. It would speak great words against the Most High (Dan 7:25; Rev 13:6). "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted, that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." - P.F.L. Ferraris, Ecclesiastical Dictionary, art. On The Pope. "For thou art another God on earth." - History of The Councils, vol X1V, pg. 109

4. It would wear out the saints (Dan 7:25; Rev 13:7). "That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood, than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history..." - William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol.2 (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1904). P.32.

5. It would be guilty of blasphemy (Rev 13:6; Dan 7:25). The church has claimed that the Pope is God and has the power to forgive sin. When Jesus made these claims, the Jews accused Him of blasphemy. The church, also claims that, Mary is co-Mediator and co-Redeemer, that the priests, "Create God" in The Eucharist, etc.

6. It would attempt to change times and divine law (Dan 7:25). The Ten Commandments were written with the very finger of God, yet, the Catholic church claimed the authority to delete the 2nd (graven images) and split the last to come up with ten. - The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine. It, also, "changed" the fourth - changing the day of rest/worship from the seventh day (instituted by God at Creation) to the first day of the week (officially, at the Council of Laodicea, 364 A.D.) - no man/institution can over-rule God and change His law.

7. It would exercise power over all kindreds, tongues and nations (Rev 13:7). The nations of the world, send ambassadors to this Roman church/state!

8. The dragon would give his power, seat and great authority to this beast (Rev 13:2). The Caesars of the Roman Empire gave their power, seat and authority to the Bishop of Rome in 538 A.D. The official title of the Papacy - Vicarius Filii Dei, which means, Vicar of the Son of God, adds up to 666 in Latin, Greek and Hebrew (remember, it's "the number of his name").

9. It was to continue in world domination for 1260 years (Rev 13:5; Dan 7:25). 42 months X 30 days to the Bible month = 1260 days or years (Ezek 4:6). After defeating the Ostrogoths, she arose and reigned until 1798 A.D.

10. It would receive a mortal wound (Rev 13:3). On February 10, 1798, Napoleon's general, Berthier entered Rome and took Pope Pius V1 captive (Rev 13:10). Napoleon decreed, that at the death of the Pope (in August, 1799), the Papacy would end. "Half Europe thought...that without the Pope, the Papacy was dead."

11. It would amaze the whole world, for it's deadly wound would be healed (Rev 13:3). In August, 1929, in a letter written by the Pope in Current History magazine, the Pope said, "...EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO HEAL THE WOUND." - p.847.

From the very beginning of Mussolini's dictatorship, both the church and state determined to settle the Roman question. On February 11, 1929, a concordat was signed, thus restoring the place of the Papacy, and as The S.F. Chronicle Newspaper reported, the wound was healed.

The Bible tells us who The Antichrist will work through. The Reformers: Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Knox, King James, Melanchthon and Zwingli, studied the Scripture, came to this same conclusion, and were pesecuted by the church. The time is short. It is essential, that our doctrine come from the Word of God, alone (sola scritura), for it is the only sure foundation and we are headed for difficult times.

herald ------------------------------------------------------------------You,d make a good Bishop .

You are correct. The pope, in rome, is the antichrist. If you trace the current pope’s role in the sexual abuse scandal you will know this to be true. He speaks with a forked tongue, and has confused the minds of the people to believe one thing when the exact opposite is true.

You have to take the text and meaning behind the bible as in the time they were written, by whom, and for what purpose.

When the old testament was written on the surface it is a selective story of god’s chosen people. According to the book, the Jewish slaves from Egypt. If you are not of this blood line you are doomed. So the rest of the people right there are inconsequential.

When the new testament was written, the writers were under roman rule. The influences are very clear in the persecution of jesus the christ. He was set free by Pilot, a roman ruler of the area. This is the writer skirting the truth as not to get himself in trouble with the current ruling power. The blame is shifted to the jewish community because they were rebeling against rome at the time of the writing. The jewish community did not, under any circumstances “crucify” people. This a roman torture. It is accepted because people figure, well rome was ruling at the time and crucifixion sounds about right. This keeps everything nice and easy for the acceptance of the works, it coincides with the thoughts of the time.

The “One” that rises up and begins to defeat all the other rulers is rome. Carefully worded to seem that the “One” is the perpetuator of such a glorious being, Daniel 7:13 “Looking like the son of man. Coming on clouds of heaven. When he reached the One (rome) and was presented before him (rome). He received dominion, glory and kingship.” Meaning only through the roman empire the true king would gain power. This is a big ass kissing job to empower the empire on the surface. What they did not understand was that the writer was saying the romans were the one who truly killed jesus. The only way jesus was to be rightfully in his kingdom was through his death and return to heaven. Thus it is saying the “One” gave him kingship, or killed jesus which only fulfilled the ancient prophecy of the resurrection sequence.

As far as having any relevance in today’s..., anything can be traced back to some teaching. I am certain if people gave, “green Eggs and Ham” enough thought you could get something else out of it.

Welcome...

I suugest that you don't forget the Spirit in your teaching, for the Bible is full of the solutions to our present problems....

Again, welcome..

Graham.

Yes ........ Green eggs and ham , god I am

Are you now???

you dare eat green eggs and survive you might aswell say its devine intervention or that your god.
Its probably as bad as magic mushrooms with a wilder trip.

no-one could be bothered to write about this back a year ago either

Graham, you might want to heed post dates before replying. Dragging up a whole bunch of old posts means that a lot of the time, you're replying to members who have been inactive for ages.

Thanks Karrie, note taken; but its interesting this stuff comes up again at this time...

I'm trying to engage people interested in discussing not end times, because the "accepted doctrine" is not my understanding, but rather the nature, organization and implimentation of the establishment of God's Kingdom...After all, isn't that what the Christians' walk on Earth is all about??

Green eggs??

I do not wish to regurgitate this conversation.

lol.

Do you honestly believe the rubbish postulated in this thread? Oh wait, God more and likely whispered in your ear that is is so, and of course you think it to be truth.

Anti-Christ!
Jesus Himself said that the antichrist was here already, and the pope was not yet in power. So square that?

Here is the verse: 1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Not one but many. So the question is: what constitute an antichrist, answer: 1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

In defense of the Pope, He, denies not that Jesus come in the flesh.

Peace>>>AJ

I..oh never mind,,ramble away...

Hey brother, I was defending the pope and the Catholic church because the church does not deny Jesus came in the flesh.

Peace>>>AJ

I don't think it any better than any other doctrine, however its well presented and, depending upon its fruit, may have some merit in God's overall plan.

Just like yours.

The good Father shows admirable self-restraint, especially given that he so obviously knows better than any of these literalists what it's really about.

Anyone who thinks the apocalyptic passages in Daniel and Revelation have anything literal to say about modern times is abysmally ignorant of history and the Bible's historical context. Unthinking Biblical literalism is one of the biggest impediments to really understanding Christianity and the modern world, and a boon to intolerance, ignorance, and stupidity.

Well said. Now if only I could find a way to convince fundamentalist nutbars to find out exactly what the genre of apocalyptic literature actually meant in historical context.

Anyone who thinks the apocalyptic passages in Daniel and Revelation have anything literal to say about modern times is abysmally ignorant of history and the Bible's historical context. Unthinking Biblical literalism is one of the biggest impediments to really understanding Christianity and the modern world, and a boon to intolerance, ignorance, and stupidity>>>Dexter

Based on"history and Bible's historical context", can you kindly tell me just when these events took place? Since it is not about modern times?

Peace>>>AJ

Find out exactly what the genre of apocalyptic literature actually meant in historical context.That will supply your answer.

The events took place around the time those documents were composed. For centuries there have been people who believed those apocalyptic passages referred to their own times and the imminent end of the world. They've all been wrong. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Sanctus, I know what I want to believe about it. What I wanted was Dexters answer to that question.

Thank you kindly for yours.

Peace>>>AJ

Okay Look, in a little more detail:

The men who wrote the books of Daniel and Revelation were writing about the current events of their time. Daniel, for instance, supposedly is about events during the Babylonian exile, but it contains so many anachronisms about the period of the exile it's impossible to believe it was written at that time. The writer's real purpose was to denounce the Seleucid Empire, which in the 2nd century BCE was fiercely persecuting Judaism, but he couldn't attack the Seleucids directly or he'd have faced charges of treason and rebellion. So he fictionalized it, set the tale in the far past and made Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar proxy villains for Syria and the Seleucids, and used mystic signs and symbols that his readers would have understood but the overlords would not have. The vision of the four beasts described in chapter 7, for example, works out this way:

-the winged lion = the Chaldean Empire
-the bear = the Median Empire
-the Leopard = the Persian Empire
(the leopard's four heads are the four Persian monarchs mentioned later in the book)
-the fourth beast, unnamed but described as uniquely dreadful and terrible and strong, is Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire. The portion of that which came under the leadership of Alexander's general Seleucus and his descendants is the important part; it's the source of the savage persecution the Jews were suffering at the time the book was written.

Similar explanations apply to Revelation. It too was written during a time of persecution, most likely during Domitian's time as Roman Emperor, around the year 95, and the writer resorted to many of the same dodges the writer of Daniel used, for the same kinds of reasons: deniability to the Roman civil authorities while using signs and symbols from the apocalyptic passages of the Old Testament that his audience--the seven churches of Asia Minor the book is addressed to--would have understood. The famous Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, for instance, are the evils predicted to fall upon the Roman Empire, ensuring its fall and the beginning of the Messianic era.

Beyond that, you can do your own research. A good place to start is Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which is where I got the information in this post. It's long out of print, unfortunately, but you should be able to find it in a library. It's also available from Amazon.com.

I read about the some of symbol isms of the new testaments. Never read about the old. Sounds like an incredible read. It was asked why Alexander the great was never mentioned in the bible , know why now.
But my feeling Dex is that this is a futile effort towards this Look 3467. The insanity will continue but on the other hand will have grasped the interest of the others curious minds

This look?...............Insignificant gnat that I am. Just swat me out!

Hey......... Mr. EL Barto, If I can love who you are, God can too! And He is greater than this little gnat!

Peace>>>AJ

Well Dexter, that is rather interesting to say the least.

But because I believe in God, I accept the bible version of it as written in the very first verse: Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

After that, everything else fits perfectly into the picture that God has painted for us.

But, I’ll let that be as it may.
Thanks for your reply.

Peace>>>AJ

Believing in God doesn't necessarily require you to accept a literal understanding of what the Bible says, that's quite a separate leap of faith. Revelation is so thickly mystical no literal understanding is possible anyway. Interpretations that claim it's about modern times are fully metaphorical in assigning various roles to modern states that didn't exist at the time Revelation was written.

Doesn't the phrase "must shortly come to pass" mean anything to you? No rational person would say that and mean 2000 years later, nor does it make sense that god in communicating with us would say 'shortly' and mean 2000 years later. Presumably he knows how we would understand that word. It's not about modern times, it's about the persecution of early Christians by the Romans and an exhortation to the faithful to stand fast, though it's sharply critical of several of the churches it's addressed to, on the assumption that god's plan will soon work out in their favour. And that's all it's about.

More to the point, and one of the reasons I keep responding to nonsense like this, is the alarming thought that surveys indicate large numbers of people (150 million in the USA alone) believe Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead within the next 50 years. He will appear only after things have gone horribly wrong all over the planet, which means such believers will understand every great disaster as another sign that the most glorious possible event in history is getting closer. Beliefs like that aren't going to help us create a sustainable future for ourselves, and may in fact be self-fulfilling. I'm sure it's no exaggeration to claim that many American Christians, possibly including many powerful people in the current administration, view the U.S. involvement in Iraq with a fatalistic "this is how it begins" kind of attitude, which can only lead them deeper into it and make things worse.

Believing you're doing god's work can be a dangerous and destructive delusion. If the world ends with a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East some time in the next 50 years, it won't be god that does it. It'll be us, led down the path to self-destruction by religious dogma and stupidity.

Thanks again for responding to my nonsense stuff. And to your surprise, you will find I agree with you on the on the “literal” and the “most shortly” words.

But belief in God allows me to understand what the meanings are of those things written.

Most Christians though they mean well, are in effect innocent of that knowledge as I dare say the non-believers as well.

That knowledge if not understood is not held against us. So whether you believe it or not, it is my understanding that you are safe as well as all the rest.

But, of course, that is nonsense anyways.

Yes, “Most shortly” is key in understanding what the book is all about. Though the words most shortly are there, they are over looked as if they weren’t there.
That is what has been the misunderstanding all these years.

It is I believe a relative few of the many Christians that have actually discovered it and have begun to see things in a different light, such as myself.

The whole book is about God in Jesus re-creating the world back unto Himself.

Why? Because the first creation was marred by death (Separation) the second creation is perfect giving life (Reconciliation) to the marred creature.

That is it in a nut shell sort of speak.

Shortly come to pass is Jesus telling His Apostles at the last supper what things were about to happen to Him, and that the end (End not understood) was about to come for the first creation.

Verse:Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

And that the new creation was going to be ushered in at His resurrection.

The carrot before the horse will keep the horse moving on track. Many folk will not move if they took hold of the carrot.
Because of mankind’s weakness hope in the carrot is a must in order to keep them motivated.
I’m not making excuses for us, meaning them and I, because I diligently sought after what I now believe.
I don’t need a carrot to keep me going because my love for God is matured.

I believe I am a vessel used by God for “good” works, and not for destruction of anything.
If the world wants to destroy itself, than I have no issue with that. I just have to survive the best way I know how without participating in its destruction.

But, if I can enlighten some to see God with their hearts rather than with their minds, they too will be able to live life to the fullest as promised.

But to those who don’t, well then, let the world take care of them.

There is this verse which states: “My people are being destroyed because of the lack of knowledge.”

This is the part where the lack of knowledge giving understanding to the “shortly Come to pass”, is causing the heart ache in Christians with hope of the return of Christ when He has already returned to many, yet not understanding so.

Does that make me unique and different from other Christians; only in my understanding?
But I still hold Christ as my foundation and waver not from that.


Peace>>>AJ