douggg

Hi niki23, The end times prophecies overall are about the rise and fall of the Antichrist, illicit perceived King of Israel, son of David anointed (messiah). There are promises that God made in the old testament that He would send a special person to be the King of Israel, to sit on King David's throne, and lead the nation into what we would call the messianic age of worldwide peace and restoration. That's what the disciples, and other Jews were thinking Jesus was. He did not fulfill those prophecies on his first coming because he was crucified. He will be received by the Jews at His Second Coming, however, as that great King of Israel, son of David. He is considered the son of David because the messiah (anointed) King is in the prophecies to be descended from King David's lineage. David father was Jesse, which the messiah (anointed) King is also called the righteous branch of Jesse. Jesus told Nicodemus that the Jews would reject him, coming in his Father's name, that is the one God sent to be that King of Israel, and instead would embrace another coming in his own name... it was a prophecy about the Antichrist, an illicit King of Israel. When John the baptist was in prison, he sent word to Jesus if he was actually the one they hoped for to be the messiah, or should they look for another. Because Jesus did not appear to anyone after the resurrection except his followers, the vast majority of Jews don't believe in Jesus the Savior to mankind, using that as an excuse. So they do not believe in the gospel that the messiah had to die for the sins of mankind. They don't connect the promised messiah with anything but being that promised great King of Israel, that will lead them and the world into the messianic age. They are looking for that "another" that Jesus prophesied about to Nicodemus, because they see Jesus as a failed messiah because he never became King of Israel, son of David. That another is the Antichrist - someone in lieu of Jesus, the true messiah, King of Israel, son of David, that God sent. Of course, the Jews (Judaism) are not calling their hoped for King, the Antichrist. To them, the term Antichrist has no relavency in Judaism. So the end times prophecies about the Antichrist are centered on him becoming that illicit King of Israel anointed (messiah) - his rise, then his fall. Most Christians of today, since Christianity began spreading to the gentiles in the first century, are disconnected from what messiah actually means in its original context of the Jewish scriptures, by 2000 years, and therefore do not think in terms of the Antichrist - or Anti-messiah as being the illicit false King of Israel, son of David that the Jews will embrace for a short time. Most Christians, when thinking of the Antichrist, center their thinking around the beast in Revelation 13, 666, and all the events that take place in that last 42 months to go - as being the super bad, worst ever dictator over the world, because that's what captures our attention naturally so ; and thus begin building a scenario of how that person gets into power, as they read and study more and more prophecies about the Antichrist. That is actually starting out on the wrong foot, but nearly all of us do it. Instead, a study about the Antichrist should be centered on him being the illicit King of Israel, son of David. His rise to it, and his fall from it. It is during his fall, after getting rejected by the Jews as their King of Israel messiah, that ultimately he becomes the beast in Revelation. So with that in mind, the Pope, the Mahdi, the President of the United States, none of them can be the Antichrist... because none of them are qualified to be the King of Israel, son of David. In fact, historically, no one could be the Antichrist, because to sit on David's throne, King of Israel - it is the united country - which Israel has not been since Solomon, who was the last king of the united country. It was not until 1948/1967, that God, bringing Jews out from among the nations, and Israel becoming a united, undivided nation again, that it is now possible that the prophecies regarding the Antichrist can be fulfilled. Who is the Antichrist? Right now, no one knows. He will make his appearance as the little horn in Daniel 7, coming up among ten kings of a ten king kingdom of the fourth empire - which appears to be the EU in its final form. We don't have that final form of the EU yet. That is the next step for the emergence of the Antichrist. Once emerged, the prophecies progress as he rises to become that illicit perceived King of Israel, son of David anointed (messiah). Then, his fall. Is Niki "23", your age? I ask because when I first became a Christian, I was about the same age and jumped right into bible prophecy, the Antichrist and all, and I too thought about Kennedy and his wound to his head. But now, at 65, and having studied this particular topic every day for 40 years since, have a much better understanding than when I first started out.

John, blessed are those who remain to the 1335th day. You have the 1335th day in the middle part of the 7 years. Does that make sense to you? The 1335th days is the day that Jesus returns on the last day of the seven years. Put the point of the 1335 day arrow on day 2520. At the tail of the arrow will be day 1185 - which will be the day that the AOD will be setup to be worshiped. Doug You presuppose there is no rapture and that the gathering in will be at the second coming of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 (KJV) 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. This is prophetic of the tribulation Church. Notice I did not say Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation is in the last half of the SWD when Satan reneges on his affirmaton of the Mosaic covenant and the world turns on the Jews the way it turned on the Christians in the first half of the SWD. That will make the one rapture pre-Great Tribulation mid-SWD, and post-believer's tribulation. So... the rapture is all three pre / mid / post once you understand that the SWD is two 3.5 year tribulations and not one 7-year tribulation. Oh, and hat there will be a rapture before the second coming of Christ. Hi John, I do believe that there will be a rapture. I believe it will be pre-70th week rapture. I take it that you are placing the rapture on day 1335. That is highly unlikely because we don't know the day nor hour. Also Daniel 12 addresses the Jews. The rapture is for Christians. As a group, the Jews will not become Christians until the second half. And it is at the end of the 70th week that Jesus returns to save them in Zechariah 14 - which it will not be by a rapture according to the text of Zechariah 14, but by escaping through a valley created when the Lord's foot touches down on the Mt. of Olives. There is not going to be two 3.5 year tribulations because the Antichrist person goes through (four) stages of his career. For most of the first 3.5 years, the Antichrist will be in his false King Messiah stage. The world will be in relative peace at that time because in 1thessalonians5:3 it says when they say peace and safety, sudden destruction will befall them. The sudden destruction will come when the Antichrist enters his man of sin stage, when he goes into the temple and declares that he is God, sometime right before day 1185. The great tribulation is tied to when the AOD is setup to be worshiped, Matthew 24:15-21. So on the timeline, the AOD will be setup to be worshiped on day 1185, leaving the remaining 1335 days of the 7 years to be the great tribulation. Those who survive and don't worship the AOD will be blessed when Jesus returns on day 2520. Doug

John, blessed are those who remain to the 1335th day. You have the 1335th day in the middle part of the 7 years. Does that make sense to you? The 1335th days is the day that Jesus returns on the last day of the seven years. Put the point of the 1335 day arrow on day 2520. At the tail of the arrow will be day 1185 - which will be the day that the AOD will be setup to be worshiped. Doug

Yes, you are correct. I would add in suffering or not in suffering. Jesus Christ suffered and yet He did not sin. The problem is that you are adding to the Word that we should not sin so as to not suffer. Yet we may suffer absent sin. Get it? We should not sin because it is rebellion against God and that alone is the problem. peace, Dave The principle that sin and suffering go together is in the bible. It is because of sin, that Jesus has to suffer and die in our place. He bore our sins and our iniquities. Isaiah 53. We still die and still suffer because of sin, original sin and our own sins, because we are in the flesh of the old body. We do not live in a world absent sin. Creation groans waiting for its redemption. Romans 8:22-23. A person may suffer not because of their own sin, but suffering is part of this life because sin entered the world back in the garden of Eden. I am talking about not adding to our suffering by avoiding sins of our choosing. Our anger should be directed toward Satan. He knew what he was doing. Adam and Eve made a wrong choice. Their choice to disobey was not necessary. Sin brought about unnecessary suffering. Doug Yet, we will suffer as servants of God, as children of His, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. Please explain this paradox that demeans your hypothesis. It has everything to do with sin that we suffer. Suffer from who? Suffer from others who do what they do because of sin. If it weren't for sin, they would not be persecuting anyone. Doug ...... and yet...... satan delivered the blows against Job. No one esle did and God proclaimed Job righteous and innocent. No else but Satan? The Sabeans and Chaldeans took away Job's daughters and sons, killed his servants - acts of sin. Satan is the originator of sin, Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Job 1:15 And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. 16While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. 17While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

You are reading something into what I write that is not there. I have not said a word about God not being worthy of praise. Of course God is worthy of praise. You are talking about a different topic. Also, I am not saying that suffering can be eliminated by not committing acts of sin. I am saying that sin causes suffering. It may or may not be our sin. But it is because of the presence of sin in the world that there is any kind of suffering. I am suggesting that we can avoid adding to our suffering by choosing not to commit acts of sin. We are faced with such choices all the time. An example is Cain. Genesis 4:6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Cain chose to commit the sin, and killed his brother, and suffered for it. That was a particularly acute sin. For those types of sins, the bible indicates that we have control over. I don't think it is possibly to be sinless in this world because we are still in the flesh. Nonetheless, we do not have to give into sin every time. When we avoid a certain sin, we can avoid the suffering that goes with it... like Cain should have done. Doug

Yes, you are correct. I would add in suffering or not in suffering. Jesus Christ suffered and yet He did not sin. The problem is that you are adding to the Word that we should not sin so as to not suffer. Yet we may suffer absent sin. Get it? We should not sin because it is rebellion against God and that alone is the problem. peace, Dave The principle that sin and suffering go together is in the bible. It is because of sin, that Jesus has to suffer and die in our place. He bore our sins and our iniquities. Isaiah 53. We still die and still suffer because of sin, original sin and our own sins, because we are in the flesh of the old body. We do not live in a world absent sin. Creation groans waiting for its redemption. Romans 8:22-23. A person may suffer not because of their own sin, but suffering is part of this life because sin entered the world back in the garden of Eden. I am talking about not adding to our suffering by avoiding sins of our choosing. Our anger should be directed toward Satan. He knew what he was doing. Adam and Eve made a wrong choice. Their choice to disobey was not necessary. Sin brought about unnecessary suffering. Doug Yet, we will suffer as servants of God, as children of His, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. Please explain this paradox that demeans your hypothesis. It has everything to do with sin that we suffer. Suffer from who? Suffer from others who do what they do because of sin. If it weren't for sin, they would not be persecuting anyone. Doug

Yes, you are correct. I would add in suffering or not in suffering. Jesus Christ suffered and yet He did not sin. The problem is that you are adding to the Word that we should not sin so as to not suffer. Yet we may suffer absent sin. Get it? We should not sin because it is rebellion against God and that alone is the problem. peace, Dave The principle that sin and suffering go together is in the bible. It is because of sin, that Jesus has to suffer and die in our place. He bore our sins and our iniquities. Isaiah 53. We still die and still suffer because of sin, original sin and our own sins, because we are in the flesh of the old body. We do not live in a world absent sin. Creation groans waiting for its redemption. Romans 8:22-23. A person may suffer not because of their own sin, but suffering is part of this life because sin entered the world back in the garden of Eden. I am talking about not adding to our suffering by avoiding sins of our choosing. Our anger should be directed toward Satan. He knew what he was doing. Adam and Eve made a wrong choice. Their choice to disobey was not necessary. Sin brought about unnecessary suffering. Doug

The wages of sin is death. Did Adam and Eve suffer before they sinned? Suffering entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned. Doug I don't know, were you there? There is something interesting though; Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. That word sorrow there can be translated as "Pain." As if the woman did indeed have pain or at least the potential of it in childbirth prior to the fall. That will blow your mind now won't it. If the sorrow, whether it be mental anguish or if it were merely physical pain, could be increased. That would leave room for it to have been felt in the first place. However, prior to the fall would it have been really received in the way that you and I would perceive it? Don't know and neither do you. The other interesting thing is that you haven't resolved the paradox of all suffering being the consequence of sin since scripture and the Lord Himself seem to negate that. Were those 18 in Siloam upon whom the tower fell greater sinners than you and I? Wouldn't you agree it is easier to say that God has; "made it clear O' man what it is that he desireth from you. To Love mercy, to do justly, and to walk humbly with God"? Than it is to make a supposition that doesn't agree with the Word. You and I agree. It's a real bad idea to go ahead and just sin. God has made it clear to you that He seeks and desires your highest Good. Therefore we ought heed His Law despite the consequences. It's not our physical circumstances that should dictate how we behave. It's what we know to be True about God. Now, there's the rub. Peace, Dave That we need a Savior is a consequence of sin. In the case of the blind man, it was not for his or his parents' sin that he was blind. But it was certainly because of Adam and Eve's original sin that he was blind, because sin entered the world through Adam. And Jesus healed him as proof that he is the savior from our sins. Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Dave, I am not trying to explain sin and suffering throughout the bible. I am suggesting a motivation not to sin, because to do so causes us to experience "unnecessary" suffering. We have enough troubles in this life without adding to them. Doug Yeah, I get your point. However, you are reading into that scripture your theory which is negated by the Word itself. The Lord Himself explains that the mans sin nor any others was not the issue. The fact that he was born innocent merely left him with the possibility of sinning. In fact the likelihood of our birth in this flesh to sin is complete, as we've said with respect to sin. It is complete through and through. Yet, this mans sin and no others had anything to do with the fact that he was born blind. Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loves he chastens, and scourges every son whom he receives. The verse above from Hebrews appears to indicate that if we are sons of God that we shall suffer. How do you answer this paradox with your assertion then? It naturally follows that we should we not follow God as it will cause us suffering? Following God or not following God should not be predeterminate upon our circumstances. Paul in Phillipians, likely standing in a pit of sewage in a Roman jail, writes, "that He is overjoyed." HUH? Excuse me! He continues to write that the Phillipians ought to take his example which he is taking from Jesus. To deny themselves, even in suffering, even unto death, so that in due time God will exalt them and give them a new name. Hallelujah! My concern is that you misunderstand and even back a departure from basic Biblical Theology. This will leave folks with a situation in which they will not endure. In fact they may fall away and set the man himself up in the Temple of God showing that he himself is in fact God. Extreme, No? Biblical based Christian theology holds that our circumstances have nothing whatsoever to do with our worship or rebellion against God. Adam and Eve were absent suffering in any way shape and form and still trended towards rebellion and sin. They had no cluewhat the consequences would be in light of worship. How do you convey death to someone who hasn't experienced it and has no clue what you are talking about? They didn't even know what death meant in regards to their beloved animals and creation until their sin was complete. Peace, Dave God wants us to not sin. That is basic bible theology. Doug

Well, when we sin, sometimes there are good consequences are there not? People who dont pay taxes dont suffer because they sometimes feel no sense of wrong in doing it. In other words, everyones perception of sim and morality is different. This pretty much answers your question... Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. We know the rest of the story. Save ourselves some unnecessary suffering, when faced with committing an act of sin, by not doing it. Doug

Our motivation is not to avoid our own earthly consequences for sin, but to live a life that gives honour and glory to the Lord God Almighty . What did God tell Adam and Eve as motivation not to eat from the tree? There are consequences for sin in this life as well. Doug Doug, I think we also sin against God: Acts 5 1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s [a]full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control? Why is it that you have [c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. I realise there are earthly consequences for our own sin, and they are unpalatable, and I do wish to avoid them. But my motivation is not that, my motivation is to not sin against God. I hope you see my heart in the matter . I understand what you are saying. I am not trying to diminish it. I am just saying as an addition of why not to sin. Not a replacement to your motivation. I am just making a suggestion for your consideration. Doug

The wages of sin is death. Did Adam and Eve suffer before they sinned? Suffering entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned. Doug I don't know, were you there? There is something interesting though; Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. That word sorrow there can be translated as "Pain." As if the woman did indeed have pain or at least the potential of it in childbirth prior to the fall. That will blow your mind now won't it. If the sorrow, whether it be mental anguish or if it were merely physical pain, could be increased. That would leave room for it to have been felt in the first place. However, prior to the fall would it have been really received in the way that you and I would perceive it? Don't know and neither do you. The other interesting thing is that you haven't resolved the paradox of all suffering being the consequence of sin since scripture and the Lord Himself seem to negate that. Were those 18 in Siloam upon whom the tower fell greater sinners than you and I? Wouldn't you agree it is easier to say that God has; "made it clear O' man what it is that he desireth from you. To Love mercy, to do justly, and to walk humbly with God"? Than it is to make a supposition that doesn't agree with the Word. You and I agree. It's a real bad idea to go ahead and just sin. God has made it clear to you that He seeks and desires your highest Good. Therefore we ought heed His Law despite the consequences. It's not our physical circumstances that should dictate how we behave. It's what we know to be True about God. Now, there's the rub. Peace, Dave That we need a Savior is a consequence of sin. In the case of the blind man, it was not for his or his parents' sin that he was blind. But it was certainly because of Adam and Eve's original sin that he was blind, because sin entered the world through Adam. And Jesus healed him as proof that he is the savior from our sins. Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Dave, I am not trying to explain sin and suffering throughout the bible. I am suggesting a motivation not to sin, because to do so causes us to experience "unnecessary" suffering. We have enough troubles in this life without adding to them. Doug

Our motivation is not to avoid our own earthly consequences for sin, but to live a life that gives honour and glory to the Lord God Almighty . What did God tell Adam and Eve as motivation not to eat from the tree? There are consequences for sin in this life as well. Doug

The wages of sin is death. Did Adam and Eve suffer before they sinned? Suffering entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned. Doug

Deus pro nobis. And we for each other. The NT writers, for example, Peter, Paul, John, endured great suffering. Suffering is part of God's plan for his children. Yes, they did suffer. But it was not for their sins, but for the cause of Christ. I am talking about when we commit acts of sin, we create our own troubles - that are unnecessary. We have enough troubles already in this life without adding to. Doug

Hello, mr fish I am not taking away from anyone's comments regarding sin. I am just suggesting a motivator that we can use in our struggle not to commit acts of sin. Analogy: would I do something that would cause me to have a kidney stone? My point is why we would do something that would makes us suffer - unnecessarily? Satan duped Adam and Eve into sinning - who got hurt? Who suffered? It wasn't necessary that Adam and Eve eat from that tree. I am pinpointing that our acts of sin impact us - as a motivator not to, we can think of sin as unnecessary suffering. Doug Actually, it's not unecessary at all. The object of Jobs suffering was not sin. It was the Glory of God. Regardless, sins suffering isn't unecessary. It's absolutely necessary. It is Grace because if there were no suffering for the choices that we have made there would be no desire for God. Suffering makes us seek God. Suffering also set us Free in an outrageous action of Grace. Peace, Dave Yep, when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Doug Hallelujah! We have a convert. Know what that's called? A Paradox and the Bible is full of them. God is a Holy Terror and no man can see His face and Live, but Jacob wrestles with God and see's Him face to face and lives and we can call Him Abba (Father). In fact God tells us to seek His face. Ps 105:4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore. Avoiding sin is avoiding the unnecessary suffering that goes with it - a motivator not to sin. Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. Doug

Hello, mr fish I am not taking away from anyone's comments regarding sin. I am just suggesting a motivator that we can use in our struggle not to commit acts of sin. Analogy: would I do something that would cause me to have a kidney stone? My point is why we would do something that would makes us suffer - unnecessarily? Satan duped Adam and Eve into sinning - who got hurt? Who suffered? It wasn't necessary that Adam and Eve eat from that tree. I am pinpointing that our acts of sin impact us - as a motivator not to, we can think of sin as unnecessary suffering. Doug Actually, it's not unecessary at all. The object of Jobs suffering was not sin. It was the Glory of God. Regardless, sins suffering isn't unecessary. It's absolutely necessary. It is Grace because if there were no suffering for the choices that we have made there would be no desire for God. Suffering makes us seek God. Suffering also set us Free in an outrageous action of Grace. Peace, Dave Yep, when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Genesis 50:20. Doug

That is not necessarily true. Your sins can bring suffering to others. What if calls a person to be medical missionary to a foreign land and this person disobeys? His/her sin could very well result in bad consequences for those he/she was supposed to minister to. They suffer because this person who could have provided relief from pain/disease, didn't go. You may suffer as a result of sin, but your sin CAN result in suffering for others. But, of course. Jesus said, Sufficient unto today is evil thereof. Do I want to add to my problems, unnecessarily? So my view is avoid sin, avoid unnecessary suffering. I am focusing on the word "unnecessary". Doug I hear you. I just saw your statement that your sin doesn't cause suffering to others and felt it necessary to comment on that. I understood where you were coming from. I am on the same side as all of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not lessening anyone's comments in this thread. Same team. Doug

That is not necessarily true. Your sins can bring suffering to others. What if calls a person to be medical missionary to a foreign land and this person disobeys? His/her sin could very well result in bad consequences for those he/she was supposed to minister to. They suffer because this person who could have provided relief from pain/disease, didn't go. You may suffer as a result of sin, but your sin CAN result in suffering for others. But, of course. Jesus said, Sufficient unto today is evil thereof. Do I want to add to my problems, unnecessarily? So my view is avoid sin, avoid unnecessary suffering. I am focusing on the word "unnecessary". Doug

Deus pro nobis. And we for each other.

Hi candice, whether saved or unsaved, we are going to live with ourselves for every day. I am not trying to take away anything from what you are saying. But we cannot escape ourselves. When I sin, I am doing unneccessary suffering to myself. I am not saying this as an analysis of sin, but as a motivator which we can use in our struggle against sin. Do I want unnecessary suffering in my life? Doug

Sin is defined in the bible as lawlessness. And yes, it does lead to our suffering, but also, our own sin DOES affect others. Other people suffer when I lie, when I'm lazy, when I'm greedy, nasty, hateful etc. We need to realise that our sin hurts others. Hi candice, sin does all those things. Sin also caused God suffering when he came into the world to die for our sins. The point I was trying to make is that we sin by choice. Our acts of sin may or may not affect others, depending upon the sin. But for certain it affects us. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died. Satan did not die. God certainly did not. The point I am making is that Adam and Eve made the choice, and they died - unnecessarily. They died because they sinned. I am saying our choices, the ones we control, like Adam and Eve, focus on what it does to us - unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary because they could have chose not to. Learning from Adam and Eve's bad choice, I do not want any unnecessary suffering in my life. Therefore when struggling against acts of sin, I can ask myself do I want any unnecessary suffering in my life? Doug

Sin = unnecessary suffering. I do not want any unnecessary suffering. Think about it. Who died in the garden of Eden when they sinned? Did God cease to exist? Did Satan die? When we sin, we suffer. Adam and Eve's suffering was unnecessary - and it was only because they sinned that they suffered. This same thing we can apply in our own life's, in our struggle against sin. When we sin, it is us who is going to suffer for sure. Billy Ray Joe Bob on the other side of the world is not going to suffer, I am going to suffer when I sin. Sin comes by choice. Sin = unnecessary suffering. Think about it. Doug

uh, when was the "last" time you were wrong? Was it truly the "last" ? Sure it is metaphoric, but there is also a basis for the 7 day, 7000 year theory. Adam and Eve were told that in they day they ate of the forbidden tree, they would die. Well, Adam died 930 years later, so that could only mean that day is 1000 years long in that particular case. In the 7 day/7000 year theory, there are 4000 years from Adam to Jesus, then 2000 years have passed, leaving the last day as the 1000 year millenium. Nero didn't live after being mortally wounded. And Domitian, neither one was cast alive into the lake of fire. The 42 months of the Antichrist beast in Revelation 13 end when Jesus returns, so that period of time is still future. The little horn is the person who will eventually become the Antichrist, in his first stage of four stages of his career. So, he is not an antichrist, nor the Antichrist, at that time. The persons John was speaking of were antichrists; John was not defining the Antichrist. I don't have any disagreement that the 4th empire is the Roman Empire of the past. But I believe that it is also end-times. Doug

Bold Nero committed suicide. This beast of Rev 13 along with the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20) So Nero ain't this beast you say he is. In Christ Montana Marv Your right the beast in 13 is Domitian. He persecuted the Christians as Nero did.The hint is that he is the reincarnation of Nero. He is the eighth king but really one of the seven whose wound has been healed. Unless it has to do with the ressurrection I will not consider Daniel or Revelation having anything to do with Eschatology. But I am sure that many will continue to believe the tribulation and millenial teachings. Just as I am sure no amount of evidence will sway the Darwiniacs in re-evaluating their lack of science. The bible doesn't support the concept of reincarnation.