Bold Believer

Apollyon is the angel of the bottomless pit. His name means 'destroyer'. He is said to be 'over' the locusts. Since I understand the locusts to be Roman soldiers, I believe Apollyon to be a spirit being leading them to destroy. That is the reason they were there: to destroy, so it makes sense that Apollyon/Abaddon would be their spiritual leader. The idea of the known world (eikoumene) in our time will necessarily be different because we know more of the nations in our world. There are of course, still parts of the world we know little of. To a first century believer, (and that's whom Revelation was written to primarily) the known world was ruled by Rome. Daniel IS the best place to start. Daniel 9:22-30 has been called by some teachers the very key to understanding the rest of eschatology. Trying to make fulfilled prophecies fit into timeframes for which they were never intended muddies the waters. That's why there are so many different understandings. Historical understanding is extremely important. Scripture and history go hand in hand. God is the God of history, and His Word and history agree. That's why I can say with confidence that Nero IS 666. Patriot, Nero is NOT 'the antichrist'. He was the 666 of Revelation 13 however.

Apollyon is the angel of the bottomless pit. His name means 'destroyer'. He is said to be 'over' the locusts. Since I understand the locusts to be Roman soldiers, I believe Apollyon to be a spirit being leading them to destroy. That is the reason they were there: to destroy, so it makes sense that Apollyon/Abaddon would be their spiritual leader.

I wasn't taught by anyone. I picked up the Bible and started reading it, but being 'new' I would appreciated guidance now and again. What you're saying to me sounds as if you're a preterist, a position that I haven't considered. If the final chapters are for us (as you say) then that's fine, but it still does not answer my question, will this be global or not? And if there is no 'anti-Christ' then I apologise for my error. John said that many antichrists have been, and gives the definition of what an anti-christ is. I'm assuming from the definition that the Beast and/or the False Prophet will be anti-Christs. I hardly think that they are going to be pro-Christs. I don't jump to conclusions either - if I did I wouldn't ask questions. The mistake many of us make/made (I know I did) is misunderstand the role of history alongside Scripture. I'm a historical partial preterist. Full preterism says the 2d Coming was 70 AD. Remember, the Beast is ROME. The Roman Empire. The Fourth Beast of Daniel. So then, since Rome is gone, how could Rome affect us today? Answer: It can't. Rome's reach WAS global, in the Biblical sense of eikoumene or known world. The False Prophet and Beast were against Christ, yes, but not in the sense John used in his letters. Actually, the Beast Nero was against Christ only because he threatened his emperorship, since Nero believed he was supreme over every god. The False Prophet is the High Priest and his cronies. THEY hated Jesus, because His presence was antagonistic to them. See Matthew 22 for a clear example. They had authority to call down fire from heaven, that is they could demand worship. They were SUPPOSED to demand worship of the True God, instead, they demanded worship of a false one. They resisted everything Jesus had to say (but for a scant few). They incited the crowd against Christ at His trial. The Fourth Beast DID devour the whole earth. The one of its time. It wasn't your error WW, concerning the whole antichrist thing. It's an error from well before both of us, but one that's still being taught, that there is one single individual antichrist who will force everyone to worship him. Roman emperors did just that, each of them to some extent. Nero was the worst of the lot. He also persecuted the Church 3.5 years (1260 days) until his death. Daniel called him 'the Little Horn'. Fortunately for us, the Beast, Nero and the rest are all gone. We've lived in a greater, better time. Call it the Church age or the Millennium, whichever you like, Christ reigned. But now, Satan is loose again. His army is marching across the world, attacking Christians and the Scripture and righteous values. Some places, we're persecuted, others just ignored. But the time is coming when Satan will dare to use His Magog army (Rev 20) to exterminate the Church totally, and when he does, Christ will reign fire on him and his followers and usher in the final judgment.

*** edited out the insult ***Look...the Beast (nation) was Rome. It was Daniel's Fourth Beast. It ruled the entire KNOWN world. There IS no 'antichrist'. Nero (a Roman emperor, the 6th) was 666. His name adds up to 666 in the alpha numerical system of his time. He died of a head wound, self inflicted. His secretary finished him off. The Roman Empire nearly collapsed because it plunged into civil war over the vacant emperorship. After the death of Nero came what is referred to historically as the year of four emperors. One emerged (Gaius) but was quickly murdered and Vespasian took his place. Vespasian was the father of Titus, the Roman General who took Jerusalem. Much of Revelation refers to these events, and how God delivered the Church. The final chapters (20 & 21) are for US. The last Christians. John tells us that Satan is released after having been bound, and he (Satan) gathers up an army and commences to attack Believers, the Church and all they stand for. Then Christ comes, burning the earth up and destroying the wicked. The word Antichrist is never used in Revelation anywhere. The facts of the matter is that the word is only by John (the writer of Revelation, incidentally) in his letters (1, 2, John) and only 5 times. Antichrists (yes, plural) are defined by John so that there is no question as to what they are. Furthermore, antichrists came out of the Church, they were heretics called Gnostics. Don't be fooled by modern teachings that have no basis in Scripture.

I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, rose again on the 3rd Day according to the Scriptures and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I meant the difference between chilioi and chilios, One Light. If you want proof of the fulfillment of the seals, trumpets and bowls, I suggest you read David Chilton's The Great Tribulation. It explains the relationship in detail. It's far too much to try and type all of it out here. And as for the catching up...that occurs on the Last Day. It's a reference to the resurrection. Dead believers first, then live ones. Then the wicked. Some believers don't know that there are more references to 'like a thief in the night' in Scripture. Yet Peter mentions the same exact phrase in his brief treatise on the Last Day.

From what you wrote, One Light, you're beginning to get the picture. Chilioi and chilios are different; the one denotes an exact thousand, the other at least a thousand, but possibly more, hence it's described in Strongs as a plural of indefinite affinity. Post-millennialists (strict ones) tend to see the millennium as something man "brings in" or establishes. Other post-mils have differing understandings. I understand the millennium as Christ having reigned over the earth, through his people, bringing the message to the unbelievers. Christian societies were established, inventions built, and Christianity became pre-eminent (Isaiah 2) over all the other religions. At the end of Christ's reign, Satan was allowed to again have dominance, for a short time. This is the Gog-Magog war. It's spiritual in nature, but physical in scope. Satan is running the show behind the scenes. And that's where I believe we are now. This took two thousand years (and a little extra), which as I understand the word, fits the concept of chilioi rather than an exact one thousand years (chilios). All we know absolutely about the Gog-Magog war is that it lasts for a brief period of time, "Mikros chronos," a little time (season). that could be 50, 75, 100 years. If it could be established just when the reign of Christ ended over the earth and Satan was released, that would be a lot easier, but God has not deigned to make that plain. My personal opinion is that it occurred about the time mankind harnessed nuclear energy and began to think of itself as godlike in the extreme (II Thess 2). Why do I believe that? The former Christian nations began to wane after WW2, The US, England, France, stopped practicing Christianity, slowly at first, and then as time passed, abandoning it entirely in favor of humanist philosophy which places man in the position of a god. When you've harnessed 'the power of God', it's no wonder that you begin to think of yourself as God. All of Europe has fallen and America has almost completely as well. This is what Rev 20 describes...an ideological war, one side led by Christ, the other by Satan.

So you understand Greek then, One Light? Tell me then what is the difference between chilios and chilioi? Because there IS a difference. Chilioi as used in Rev 20 is not the same as chilios. One means one thousand (the number) and the other is a plural of uncertain affinity, meaning it could be one thousand or more. Since chilioi rather than chilios is used in Rev 20, my assertion that more than exactly 1000 is very possible.

Wrong brother. Dead wrong. It is written: "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:31 The Parousia has nothing to do with our failure to do anything. Man is a sinner and cannot help but fail in spiritual things in one way or another. The Parousia has already been appointed, and the Father knows just when it is. To say that is to say that the first coming of Christ had nothing to do with mans failure. The appointment of the day for the purpose of judgment has everything to do with our failure 'as a whole' not individually. Grace came upon us because of Israels failure, thank God. You may not agree and that is OK. I had to come to understand too. May God give the increase. Blessings unto you. The first coming had nothing to do with man's failure either. It had everything to do with the will of God.

Wrong brother. Dead wrong. It is written: "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:31 The Parousia has nothing to do with our failure to do anything. Man is a sinner and cannot help but fail in spiritual things in one way or another. The Parousia has already been appointed, and the Father knows just when it is.

Basically, a Hogan's Alley of who and who not to shoot. Don't be alarmed. be glad they're getting this training and hope to God they do well. After all, it could be YOU in their sights one day, God forbid.

Two wars: the first physical and the second spiritual in nature, but physical in scope. Historicists believe the first war was the Scythian invasion of Israel. One Light: yes it matters. Revelation 20, like other parts of the Revelation is filled with contrasts. Christ has thousands of years to reign, a very LONG time. When the reign is finished, Satan gets a short time. So short, that it is not even defined in terms of time because the reign of Christ is so superior. There are also differences between the first Gog-Magog war and the second, which I have outlined in other discussions on the matter, the most significant of which is: In the 2nd Gog-Magog war, there are no survivors!

Men need to know how to shop, i.e.: how to find a bargain. Learn which generic item is as good as a brand name, which gasoline is best for their car, which mechanic will fix their properly for the best rate and so forth. Men need to know when to step up for themselves (and others too) and not be afraid of proper confrontation, not necessarily fighting but just when to say "OK, ENOUGH!"

When you tell someone their house is afire and their response is to give you the middle finger (figuratively speaking), I can understand Dry Well's statement. Christians have over the years explained and explained to so many homosexuals that their way leads to death, and by and large, the response has been "Bleep you, bleep your non-existent fairy-tale God, we will do whatever we like." Even Jesus said that their were some people whom we should simply brush the dirt from our sandals and go on our way. (Matt 10:14) So it is with militant homosexuals and others like them. What I want to know is: What 'pain and struggle' was Dry Well referring to? Militant homosexuals (as a prime example) don't struggle. They revel in their evil. They call it progressive and right, like the Sodomites of old, they are content in what they do.

Since it prevents what nature and nature's God intended, it is an abortifacient. It's evil. The state has no business in the matter, making it easier to commit fornication.

Bravo. Also, the five months of scorpions: Roman troops. The War of Gog and Magog is in progress now, and the Last Day Parousia will follow it.

England, Germany, Scotland, Ireland and a small bit of Cherokee.

It's EVIL. Homosexuality and pedophilia are BOTH EVIL.

Man...that is an absolute crock of poo. Homosexuals recruit middle teen aged boys into the lifestyle. Even allowing young men to be around known practicing homosexuals is asking for trouble, Just because a known homosexual doesn't prefer young boys, it doesn't mean that they aren't observing them for signs that they might be susceptible to the lifestyle itself. Some kid maybe glances at another boy too long for some reason, or admires another boy's prowess at a sport, and the next thing you know, Mr. Poofter Scoutmaster may pull said boy aside and "counsel" him that his feelings are normal. Young men of Scouting age are just coming into their manhood and wondering about sexuality in general. Exactly what do you think exposing them to a practicing homo will do? I for one am sick and tired of you defending that lot and their filth. It seems every time the subject comes up, you're right there to defend them. You seriously need to think before you write anything on the subject.

Obama's use of executive orders to circumvent the 2nd Amendment are also unconstitutional, and there is precedent law to declare those orders null and void. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) is that law. Will the court call him on it? Doubtful. Clear glass, dry powder and steady nerves all.

Paul used the term 'man of God' in I Tim 6:11 and again in 2 Tim 3:17. Should we believe that there is only one man of God? Then why would we necessarily believe that there is only one man of sin? The word for man can be either plural OR singular. The 'antichrist' comparison is also out of context. Only John uses the term and he defines just what he means in his letters. Antichrists never declare themselves to be god; what an antichrist declares is that Christ never came in the flesh, that He was only a spirit. The man of sin claims to BE god and relegates all other gods to alleged non-existence. That is the difference.

Actually it says until the times of the restoration of all things....... All things will be restored when he comes. Oops...gomen nasai. (So sorry).

All you have to remember is this: Jesus said He'd be back on the Last Day. If you know when the Last Day is, you're better than Jesus is, because He didn't know; it had not been given to him to know by the Father. He must be held in heaven until the times of the restoration of ALL things. Acts 3:21

And what if he reads the Scripture and sees that Jesus enjoyed alcohol responsibly? Alcohol is permitted in Scripture. Even the very Son of God used it. Alcohol doesn't make every Believer stumble, only some. That should be taken into account when weighing such things out. Drugs on the other hand (illicit drugs) are not mentioned in Scripture. We can reasonably say that they are poison because we see the effects of them. We also see the kinds of people who grow and distribute them. Big difference.

"I dont get your logic- you say that money from illegal drugs funds terrorist, but if we remove them from the black market and make some of the drugs legal that the money will still go to terrorist. please explain this." 1. All the laws of Colorado do is make PERSONAL USE 'legal'. The drugs themselves still come from illegal sources: DRUG CARTELS. Drug cartels are in bed with the Taliban. 2. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was legal also. That didn't make it moral. Drugs are immoral. They poison the body God has given us. 3. Drugs are occultic. They are used in rituals to worship Satan. Do you want that trash in your country? I DON'T.