kevinsball

but there are some who claim to receive revelations from God nowadays.

True. My wife and I are two who claim this, yet we do not claim to be "prophets".

In my opinion, the best way to do this is to cross-check modern prophecies and revelations with the Bible to see if they fall within the parameters found therein.

Please do. The major premise that we teach is the doctrinal adjustment of the ordering of the unholy trinity. We do not understand why God has chose to reveal this to us. We are both the least in our father's house. We are not by any means the "best example" of Christians. We know of ONLY One: Yeshua our LORD and God.

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."

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son Of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” ─2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

At least three events must occur before he makes his appearance on earth: “he who now letteth” must be removed (2:7).

If you are one who has been taught that no one can know the identity of the Antichrist because it is the Holy Spirit who restrains the knowledge of such information, just remember what the Holy Spirit through Daniel said: "knowledge shall be increased." (Daniel 12:4)

That is, the return of Christ to gather the overcomers of His churches unto Himself and to deliver them from the coming wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10) will occur before the beginning of the day of the Lord and at the time when the man of sin is revealed.

I believe our God discloses such secrets to his children before they happen. God always has His witnesses to tell the Word and be a watchmen on the tower sounding the trumpet. Before the flood, He took Enoch and gave the witnessing Word through Noah and his family. He sent two witnesses to Jericho unto Rahab and her family to warn them of impending destruction. God gave Israel Moses and the prophets to tell them the Word from the Lord. He told a gentile king what his dream was and the interpretation of it without the king telling anyone. He gave the exact day when Jesus would allow Himself to be hailed as King.

Why would God change His plan of telling His creation the specific future and who to avoid?

His true identification will be confirmed three and one-half years later as he breaks his covenant with Israel, becomes the world ruler, declares himself to be God, desecrates the temple in Jerusalem, forbids the worship of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9), and devastates the Land of Israel (Daniel 9:27; 11:36-45).

So true. "Confirmed" is the correct word since we already know him and the False Prophet.

Gotta watch my 666 Park Avenue now.

God bless.

I found this program to be very interesting

Yes it was. However, even if the Jews do "take" Mecca as Avi proclaims, accroding to the Shia Hadith's the Mahdi will destroy it:

القائم يهدم المسجد الحرام حتى يرده إلى أساسسه ومسجد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وإله إلى أساسه

بحار الأنوار 52/338 , الغيبة ص 282

“Al-Qaim (Shia’s Mahdi) will demolish Haram Mosque (in Mecca) down to its foundation and the Messenger’s Mosque (Prophet Mohammad’s s.a.w. Mosque in Medina) downto its foundation.” (Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 338, and Al-Tusi, Al-Ghaibah, p. 282)

… إذا قام المهدي هدم المسجد الحرام

الغيبة للطوسي ص282 , الإرشاد للمفيد ص411

“When Imam Mahdi rises up, he will demolish Al-Haram Mosque( in Mecca) …'” (Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad. p. 411 and At-Tusi, Kitab al Ghaibah, p. 282)

أول ما يبدأ به يخرج هذين هل تدري أول ما يبدأ به القائم

ويكسر المسجد رطبين غضين فيحرقهما ويذريهما في الريح

بحار الأنوار 52/386

“Do you know what the Qa’im (Shia’s Mahdi) will start with? What he will start with is that he will dig up/out the graves of these two (Abu Bakr al-Siddiq r.a. and Umar bin al-Khattab r.a., Prophet Mohammad’s companions and successors as Caliphs) while they are still wet and fresh and burn/cremate them and throw them (their ashes) into the wind. And he will break/destroy the Mosque (meaning the holy Al-Haram Mosque of Mecca).” (Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 386)

Could this be a reference to (Revelation 17:9, 18) "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city"

Mecca, comprising of:

1.) Jabal abu Siba

2.) Jabal Safa

3.) Jabal Marwah

4.) Jabal abu Milhah

5.) Jabal abu Ma'aya

6.) Jabal abu Hulayah

7.) Jabal abu Ghuzlan

2015 looks more interesting than 2012.

I agree. However, if anything does happen, there will be an increase in cosmic activity from the alignment.

The False Prophet has already said that mid-summer 2017 is when these "climate catastrophes" will take place.

This fits in line with the 10th Jubilee Mystery:

1517 - 1917 Ottoman Turkish Empire controls Palestine (1517 starts the 10 Jubilees).

1.) 1567 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

2.) 1617 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

3.) 1667 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

4.) 1717 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

5.) 1767 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

6.) 1817 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

7.) 1867 - Ottoman Turkish Empire control of Palestine.

8.) 1917 - British Mandate over Palestine (1917-1948).

9.) 1967 - On June 5, 1967 Israel began their six day war, (The War of Liberation - 1967) which resulted in them gaining control of the Western Wailing Wall of the Temple Mount.

10.) Feast of Trumpets 2017 - could possibly be the pre-tribulation Rapture (catching away) and the starting point for the re-building of the 3rd Temple next to the Dome of the Rock.

The following study is based on the chronology of Edwin R. Thiele in his book: The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which is considered by many scholars to have established the date of the division of the Israelite kingdom in 931 B.C. after Solomon reigned for 40 years.

Most conservative scholars agree that Solomon began to build the Temple in 966 - 967 B.C. in his fourth year as king of Israel. (1 Kings 6:1) So he became king in 970 - 971 B.C. Forty years earlier his father David became king in 1010 - 1011 B.C. (2 Samuel 5:4-5) and forty years earlier, Saul became Israel's first king in 1050 - 1051 B.C. (Acts 13:21)

In (Acts 13:20) Scripture records that 450 years earlier, God gave Israel judges. Moses is no doubt the first judge of Israel. And his first act as judge was delivering his brethren out of the hands of the Egyptian slave master. (Exodus 2:14)

I've always heard and believed the anti-christ was from the old roman empire, and the king of the north in those verses,

He is from the old Roman Empire.

Just to show that the "king of the north" is the "king of Syria" is not only my interpretation, top Phd. Bible Prophecy teachers conclude:

Dr. Thomas Ice recounts this matter: "The final use of King of the North is found in the future context of verse 40. John MacArthur says, "Here is the last great battle with the final army from the N retaliating against the attack of the final southern African power. Antichrist will not allow this without striking back and winning, defeating both as recorded in v. 41ff. Thus, the King of the North is not likely the Gog led invasion of Israel from Ezekiel 38 and 39. The "king of the North" is just not the same expression as "from the remote parts of the north" (Ezek. 38:6), especially since the other six uses of "king of the North" clearly refer to Syria." - http://www.pre-trib....rt-27#_ednref10

Arnold Fruchtenbaum says: "...it is wrong to identify the king of the north of Daniel 11:40 with Gog of Ezekiel 38:1–39:16. Throughout the Book of Daniel references are made to the king of the south and the king of the north. Consistently, the former is applied to Egypt, including the reference in verse 40. The latter is consistently applied to Syria...context and consistency would demand that the reference apply to Syria." - http://www.pre-trib....rt-27#_ednref11

Dr. David Reagan states: "The nations in the Middle East will be led by the "king of the North" (most likely Syria) and the "king of the South" (Egypt). The Antichrist responds by invading "the Beautiful Land" and subduing all the area except Jordan." - http://www.lamblion....ribulation1.php

It makes things 100 times easier when you understand the "doctrine of the unholy godhead".

Jesus bless.

it keeps calling him the King of the North. How does that fit in with what you have said here?

The Antichrist is not the "king of the north".

"And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind," (Daniel 11:40)

"But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many." (Daniel 11:44)

If he is the "king of the north", then why does the "king of the north" come against him?

If he is the "king of the north", then why do tidings "from the north" trouble him?

The "king of the north" is the ruler of Syria.

Even the Islamic Hadith's corroborates this:

Abu Hurayrah has narrated that the Prophet said:

The term "Sufyani" is a term referring to his descent from the progeny of Abu Sufyan. He will be one of many Muslim tyrants that the Mahdi will have to face in the Middle East. The Sufyani is not the Dajjal. The Ahadith regarding the Sufyani specify that he is a tyrant who will spread corruption and mischief on the earth before the Mahdi. He will be such a tyrant that he will kill the children and rip out the bellies of women. The Sufyani will murder those from the household of the Prophet and will rule over Syria. When he hears about the Mahdi, he will send an army to seize and kill him. However the earth will swallow this army before it even reaches the Mahdi. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufyani

I don't know who the "we" is that you are refering to in response to my "be historians first...never prognosticators" but I was refering to the spokeperson for the Gospel today being as much like the apostles as possible, along the lines of 2 Cor. 5, "envoys" for the Gospel.

Me too. Ambassadors for Christ, proclaiming the truth.

The Gospel of Christ is the same yesterday, today, forever.

Amen.

In the verses below are where people get that the anti-christ has to come from the old roman empire. In the first set of verses it states that, the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Now history tells us very clearly that the romans did this in 70 AD. but who is this prince it speaks about. well thats why I posted the other verses, they are talking about what is briefly described in daniel 9:27. It shows his charcter, that he is vile and evil. I firmly believe it is clearly talking about the Anti-christ. So the people of the prince to come that destroyed the temple and the city are the people of the anti-christ. Since the people who destroyed the temple and city were the romans, then the Anti-christ has to come from the Old roman empire.

Top Bible Prophecy teachers conclude that the Antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire.

Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat are 2 of the main proponents for the Antichrist coming from a revived Islamic (Turkish) Empire.

Neither are 100% correct. A major problem with the "Roman End-Time Paradigm" is:

• they deny the Islamic connections.
  
  Dr. David Reagan states in the above link: "Richardson wraps up his arguments with the observation that the Antichrist must be a Muslim because Islam is the most perfect incarnation of the antichrist spirit.³⁷ He makes this assertion because Islam denies the Trinity, rejects Jesus as the Son of God, and repudiates the crucifixion of Jesus, arguing that someone else was killed in His place. I do not agree with this observation. To me, the most perfect incarnation of the antichrist spirit is, and always has been, Humanism in all its various forms. Islam points people toward a god, even though he is a false god. Humanism encourages people to worship Man. God is denied. Man is exalted. And I believe the rejection of God, together with the exaltation of self, is the ultimate antichrist spirit."
  
  Where in the Bible does Satan ever deny that God exists? Nowhere. In fact, Scripture records that the Antichrist will honor a god which his fathers knew not: "But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory:" (Daniel 11:38-39)
  
  Dr. David Reagan continues: "The first is the fact that the Bible states that in the middle of the Tribulation, when the Antichrist goes to Jerusalem and desecrates the Temple, he will declare himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Richardson says this is possibly the strongest argument that can be made against his thesis since it is inconceivable that any Muslim would ever claim to be God. Nonetheless, he argues that the Muslim Antichrist will become so self-absorbed that he will do so, and he claims that when it happens, the Muslims will be too embarrassed to confess that they have been deceived!³⁸ I'm sorry, but I find this very hard to believe. To me, that is like saying that the Muslims would be willing to agree that night is day and day is night. There is a limit to deception. A person would have to cease being a Muslim in order to believe that any man could be God.I believe the bizarre behavior of the Antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, where it states that he will proclaim himself to be God, rules out any possibility that the Antichrist might prove to be a Muslim. "
  
  There are sects of Sunni Muslims which teach that Allah has a body, and this body is represented as Muhammad and the Mahdi (they teach that the Mahdi is the physical manifestation of the spirit of Muhammad - The Most Glorious One who is the perfect Adam who pre-existed before Adam). - Ibn Taymiyah
  
  Even Iran's Shite leader Ahmadinejad has claimed that the Mahdi is God. - youtube/ watch?v=SgsaSCkcqF4
  
  So to say that the Muslims would reject the incarnation of Allah in the physical form of the Mahdi is not true in some sects of either Sunni or Shite theology.
  • ()
    
    A major problem with the "Islamic End-Time Paradigm" is:
    • they deny the historical biblical interpretation of the Roman connections.
      

    Dr. David Reagan continues: "Joel Richardson came out with a new explanation of Daniel 9:26, undoubtedly in response to the withering criticism that the previous explanation had received.⁴⁹He begins his new interpretation by pointing out that the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD did not fall within the first 483 years of Daniel's 490 year prophecy. Rather, it occurred 40 years after the close of that period. Thus, he surmises that the prophecy concerning the Temple's destruction most likely points to the last seven years of Daniel's prophecy — the period of the Tribulation when he believes the Temple will be destroyed by the Mahdi. He admits that the Scriptures do not specifically state that the Temple will be destroyed during the Tribulation, but he says the destruction is implied in Revelation 11:1-2 where it states that the Gentiles "will trample on the holy city for 42 months." He also points to Luke 21:20 where it is stated that Jerusalem will experience "desolation," but that verse clearly applies to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.⁵⁰ So Richardson has gone from completely ignoring Daniel 9:26 to arguing that it was not the Romans who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD to now stating that the prophecy probably relates to a future destruction that is yet to occur during the Tribulation." - (Richardson's rebuttal)

    [*]they use inferior maps of the Roman Empire to prove their thesis.

    http://bp3.blogger.c.../Roman Parthian

    "If we take the time to study these maps, we can very clearly see that the Roman Empire never conquered more than half of any of the three empires and never even reached the primary geographic stronghold of the Persian Empire. While the ancient city of Babylon, (the actual location that the dream was given), in A.D. 116 under Emperor Trajan was taken by the Roman troops, within months Trajan died and the troops withdrew. All things considered, the Roman Empire, at the time of its greatest eastward expansion, was only able to conquer the western portions of all three of these empires. However, if we look to the Scriptural criteria given to us to identify the fourth empire, we can clearly see that only the Islamic Empire conquered all three of the previous empires. Today, Babylon (Iraq), Medo-Persia (Iran) and Greece (Turkey) are all Islamic territories. The evidence is staring us in the face, yet most have missed this obvious reality. The Islamic Empire meets the Biblically defined geographic description of Daniel 2:40 but the Roman Empire does not."

    They should use more inclusive maps of the Roman Empire such as:

    

    Whatever "End-Time Paradigm" is used, it MUST include both EAST and WEST - ISLAMIC and ROMAN.

    Do you think I have misinterputed the verse?

    No. However, we must finalize the complete the thought of Scripture (that the Antichrist will come from the western part of the Roman Empire to the eastern part of the Islamic Empire).

    Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country , and from the west country; (Zechariah 8:7)

    In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. (Zechariah 12:6)

    That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. (Ecclesiastes 3:15)

    Where will the Anti-christ come from?

    He comes from the west to the east.

I

The bible doesn't say Cyrus conquered Babylon. There are several verses that quote Darius and the Medes as the one who took Babylon. Here's one.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

I know all the stories on how the Medo-Persian Empire fits the inferior kingdom theory and I don't believe a one of them.

Yes but you leave out Daniel 5:28: Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Even the current great proponents of the "Revived Islamic End-Time Paradigm" do not exclude Rome from Revelation 17:10-11, nor do they separate the Medes and Persians in Daniel 2 and 7.

Joel Richardson includes Rome

Walid Shoebat includes Rome (Prophecy 101: Islam and Satan 7 of 10 - video - @ 5:00)

AtSpace.com includes Rome

However, Joel only excludes Rome from the Daniel 2 and 7.

His interpretation of Daniel 2 is:

Babylon

Medo-Persian

Greece

Islamic Caliphate

Walid's interpretation is: (Why Islam is the Antichrist 10 of 22 -video - @ 8:44 - 9:49) (Why Islam is the Antichrist 11 of 22 - video - @ 0:00 - 0:07)

Babylon

Medo-Persian

Greece

(possibly Rome and definitely Islam)

I can tell you that Catholicism will never merge with Islam in any way. Islam won't allow it

Islam extends its offer to any and all people and religions. All you have to say is: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.

Plus, the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate following the lead of the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, stipulated that “the Catholic Church, while affirming the specific originality of Christianity, does not reject anything that is true and holy in non-Christian religions.”

What is the most holy in Islam?

There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.

God is one, not three.

Jesus did not die on the cross.

The Catholic Church has already prepared the way for Islam to enter into its pulpits, and it will.

The text about the Lawless one is about situations in the 1st century. It is not about any of this clay and statues and Islam and how to find Rome today etc.

This is true for a preterist view, but is false if interpreting from a premillennial, dispensational view.

Be historians first, then theologians, and never be a prognosticator.

Why not?

The definition of a prognosticator is: - someone who makes predictions of the future (usually on the basis of special knowledge)

Daniel was a prognosticator. He found special knowledge (Daniel 9:2) in the Book of Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10. He then prognosticates about this revelation in Daniel 9:24-27.

If we find special knowledge about the future in the scriptures ((Bible = truth, (Qu'ran, Hadith's = deception)), then why shouldn't we be like the people of God and tell others?

For the Islamic teachings record history, theology and prognastications in this prophecy from Muhammed:

Jabir bin Samurah narrated, "Nafi' bin 'Utbah said, 'We were accompanying the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) to a battle.' Then, he (Nafi') said, 'Then, some people from the west (of Madinah) came to the Prophet wearing clothes made of wool and they met him next to a mound. They were standing while the Messenger of Allah was sitting.' He (Nafi') then said, 'So I told myself, "Let me come closer to them and stand between them and him so that they will not assassinate him." He (Nafi') then said, '(Then, I said to myself) "They may be having a conversation with him." However, I came close by and stood between them and him.' He (Nafi') then said, 'And then I memorized four sentences from him, and I can count them with my hand. He said,

"You will invade the Arabian Peninsula and Allah will grant it (to you). Then (you will conquer) Persia and Allah will grant it (to you). Then, you will invade Ar-Rum and Allah will grant it (to you). Then, you will invade The Dajjal and Allah will grant him (to you)." Nafi' said to Jabir, "O Jabir! We do not believe that the Dajjal will appear until Ar-Rum is conquered." (Ibid., no. 2028)

The land of Ar-Rum is Europe and Rome is its heart. The Messenger of Allah gave us the good tidings that we will conquer Rome, the capital of Christendom today, after the Muslims conquered the first capital of Christendom, Constantinople.

Imam Ahmad narrated that Abdullah Bin Amr Bin Al-Aas said, "While we were around the Messenger of Allah) writing (the Hadith) the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) was asked/ 'Which of these two cities will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyah (Rome)?' He said, 'The city of Heracles will first be conquered.' He meant Constantinople.'' (Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 508. Also, see As-Silsilah as-Sahihah, vol. 1)

It is so simple to see that Rome is definitely in the eschatological roadmap of the Muslim's. To get a clearer image, you must include the delusions, for they give us understanding how the decieved, will be decieved.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; Zechariah 8:7

Whatever "End-Time Paradigm" is used, it MUST include both EAST and WEST - ISLAMIC and ROMAN.

NO! The prince that shall come is more likely to be an Assyrian/Babylonian! (Like Antiochus or Nebuchadnezzar)!

I do not deny this. For Scripture says about this lawless one, that he is:

Pharoh king of Egypt - Ezekiel 29:3, Isaiah 19:4

The Assyrian - Isaiah 10:5-6, Micah 5:5-6

King of Babylon - Isaiah 14:4, 16

Prince of Tyre - Ezekiel 28:2

This does not conflict with him being the current prince of the western territory of the Roman Empire (England). For he must come from the west. Everything must match.

Rome would be contradictory to the word mixed, which is an Arab

Not if Rome is the iron, but you exclude Rome.

The word for iron is (parzel - 6523) which corresponds to (barzel - 1270) from the root of (Birzowth - 1269) which means: to pierce.

Who pierced Jesus? The Romans.

Where does Daniel Daniel 8 and 11 say the lawless one or 'king of fierce countenance' the 'little horn' or the 'king of the north' originate?

Greece.

Every country mentioned in all OT prophecies are of Arab and Islamic origin. Not Roman!

True. Every nation that Jesus fights in His second coming are Islamic.

How do you come up with the idea that the lawless one would be a Christian Catholic? There's not one verse that supports that idea!

I just gave you one, but you designate it as misapplied.

That's a shameful accusation.

I didn't choose who the royal "father" and "firstborn son" is. I'm just proclaiming the truth. Tell God He shouldn't have the False Prophet and the Antichrist within the congregation of the Church of England.

Daniel 11:37-39 must be understood in it's entirety before you can jump to conclusions on it and say the man of sin cannot be Islamic

No - No - No, I said he will be Islamic, but he is not yet.

So a thourough unbiased 'personal' study', not the beliefs of others, is necessary to get some understanding of this passage. It must also be in accord with all the other verses of prophecy about the man of sin.

I say that attributing the man of sin to christianity or the church in any way is completely unscriptural.

I try to have an open mind if everything matches. But the last man of sin (Judas - son of perdition - John 17:12) was hand picked by Jesus, taught by God Himself in His close congregation of 12. And there in lies another verse to support the Christian background of the lawless one.

Was it shameful for Jesus to do this?

Is this unscriptural?

The lawless one will support a counterfeit religion (Islam) with a counterfeit God (Allah), a counterfeit prophet (Muhammad), and a counterfeit book, (koran) a counterfeit returning messiah, (Mahdi), and a counterfeit anti-christ, (dajjal). The harlot (Islam) that occupies (sits upon) the beast...is Islam....the religion of... the ten horned beast which is... the coming 10 nation Arab/Islamic Empire. The harlot also offers it's jihadist that commit the abominations of the earth which fill the harlots cup, 72 virgins in paradise. Can you see a clue here?

So true. Amen.

How do you explain the 'inferior kingdom' having two arms of silver and you saying it's Persia?

I don't say its Persia. I say its Medes and Persians.

In 553 BC, Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, rebelled against his grandfather, the Mede King, Astyages son of Cyaxares; he finally won a decisive victory in 550 BC resulting in Astyages' capture by his own dissatisfied nobles, who promptly turned him over to the triumphant Cyrus.^[54]After Cyrus's victory against Astyages, the Medes were subjected to their close kin, the Persians.^[55] In the new empire they retained a prominent position; in honor and war, they stood next to the Persians; their court ceremony was adopted by the new sovereigns, who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana; and many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals. Interestingly, at the beginning the Greek historians referred to the Achaemenid Empire as a Median empire. - Wikipedia

So the Persian Empire of Iran is just an extension and change of the family dynasty.

Despite its success and rapid expansion, Achaemenid empire was not the first Iranian empire, as by sixth century BCE another group of ancient Iranians had already established the Median Empire.^[17] The term Achaemenid is in fact the Latinized version of the Old Persian name Haxāmaniš (a bahuvrihi compound translating to "having a friend's mind"^[18]), meaning in Greek "of the family of the Achaemenis." Despite the derivation of the name, Achaemenes was himself a minor seventh century ruler of the Anshan (Ansham or Anšān) located in southwestern Iran.^[17] It was not until the time of Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II of Persia) a descendant of Achaemenes, that the Achaemenid empire developed the prestige of an empire, and set out to incorporate the existing empires of the ancient east, to become the vast Persian empire of which the ancient texts speak. At some point in 550 BCE, Cyrus the Great rose in rebellion against the Median empire (most likely due to the Medes' mismanagement of Persis), eventually conquering the Medes and creating the first Persian empire. Achaemenes could well have been a significiant Anshan leader and an ancestor of Cyrus the Great. Regardless, both Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great were related, prominent kings of Persia, under whose rule the empire expanded to include much of the ancient world. - Wikipedia

And just because there are 'two' arms and legs' doesn't mean those empires have 'broken off!'

You affirm that the 10 toes are 10 nations, why shouldn't the rest of the image mean something?

To understand the statue as a unified structure which actually describes the empires, you do.

We shouldn't use Daniel 9 to interpret Daniel 2 because there are too many beliefs and too many ways to interpret it.

If you interpret it the way I mentioned, then it does match.

However, it does not match within your theory of excluding Rome as an Empire of iron in Daniel 2.

There are a host of theories and misunderstandings about Daniel 9,2,7,11 and we would have to confront them all before we can use it to interpret Daniel 2.

So what would your interpretation of the seven/eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 be?

Accepted interpretation is:

________

Egypt ]

Assyria ]

Babylon ] _____ ('five are fallen')

Media/Persia ]

Greece _____]

Rome (6th kingdom - 'and one is')

A future global coalition to rule the first 42 months of the tribulation

(7th kingdom - 'the other is not yet come')

The Antichrist's Empire to rule the last 42 months of the tribulation

(8th kingdom - 'the beast that was and is not') (Revelation 17:11)

Actually there's not one verse that implicates Rome in the last days. If you can post one you would be the first.

Borderline,

This is only partly true. There is a difference between saying the legs of iron is Rome and that the Lawless one comes from the Roman Empire.

The head,

chest and arms,

belly and thighs,

and legs are history.

The feet and toes are future.

Are you saying that Rome was never an Empire?

Do you deny that from the ancient city of Rome came the Roman Empire?

You have accepted a flawed interpretation of Daniel 2.

You maybe right. However... as we get closer to the end, we see a clearer image as knowledge is increased. (Daniel 12:4)

One of the greatest eschatological blunders I know of is to associate Rome with Babylon!

I agree to a point. However, could there be a dual reference to both cities?

Greece is the legs of iron and toes 'mixed' with iron and clay.

I do agree that Greece will be one of the nations in the toes of the feet, However, how do you reconcile Greece breaking off into two legs?

Iron and clay better describes the Arabs than the Italians!

I agree that clay better represents Arabs. However, how do you connect iron describing Greecians?

Also, we know for a fact that the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem city and Temple in 70 AD.

If the prophet Daniel told you that the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, (Daniel 9:26) then we should be safe in assigning the Romans as the people.

So this prince that shall come is the Lawless one, and he is the prince of the people of the Roman Empire.

The lawless one will come from the most lawless land and religion in the world... The Arab/Islamic world!

The Lawless one IS MOST DEFINITELY Muslim.

With that being said, I must ask a "Jesus styled question":

If the Lawless one (Mahdi) comes from the Islamic (eastern) nations as you presuppose, then what is the purpose of the Islamic hadiths about the sun rising from the west - Abdullah-bin-Umar said, "I memorized a Hadith of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم which I have not forgotten. I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say, 'The first of the Signs that will come is the rising of the sun from the place of its setting and the emergence of the Daabba to people in Duha (later portion of the morning before noon). Whichever of these two (signs) occurs before the other, then the other one will occur immediately after it." (Sahih Muslim)

and the Qu'ranic interpretation of: " No good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good (by performing deeds of righteousness) through his faith." (Surah Al-An'aam 6:158)

This verse is referring to the rising of the sun from the West, according to the opinion of the majority of Quran commentators such as Tabari and Ibn Kathir.

Imam Tabari, after mentioning the different opinions of the commentators writes, "The most correct opinion in regards to the meaning of this verse is that what is apparent from the reports narrated from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said, "Becoming a Believer will be of no benefit after the sun rises from the West." (Tabari) --------------- ?

We know that the total literal reversal of the earth to produce this "rising of the sun from the west" is an allegory. The sun is either the Mahdi himself or a symbol that the mahdi will have such as the luminous (glowing) leaf, pearl or star scar on his forehead as Muslims teach in their hadiths (the same as the wound in the head of the Antichrist).

This is how it is:

According to many Islamic hadiths, the Mahdi will appear in the east (Karbala or Samarra, Iraq) from the west. He comes from the west to the east.

The Lawless one is raised in a Christian (Catholic) Church. He then denies the tenets of his religion and becomes Muslim (probably at that time he will realize he is the Mahdi - Lawless one - Antichrist - Little horn).

Regarding this matter, according to the Bible, Daniel recounts this as he declares: "Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women" Daniel 11:37.

Barnes notes examines this, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers - The God that his fathers or ancestors had worshipped: That is, he would not be bound or restrained by the religion of his own land. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers - The God that his fathers or ancestors had worshipped: That is, he would not be bound or restrained by the religion of his own land."

If the Mahdi is Muslim (which he is), and comes from the (east), then how shall he not regard his fathers gods?

To put it a different way:

If the Mahdi comes from the east where Allah is the god/gods of his fathers, and the Mahdi "honors a god whom his fathers knew not" then he would not honor Allah but a different god - thereby denying the Muslim god.

Do you see the contradiction? The presupposition that the Mahdi is Muslim is correct, but to say he is brought up in the east does NOT match with the Bible, nor with the Qu'ran, nor with Mohammed's sayings, nor with logic. (For we know that the Islamic teachings are a main source of the deception in 2 Thessalonians 2:11)

He must be brought up in a different religion and region such as Christian (IN A LAND TO THE WEST) then converts to Islam and appears to the Muslims in the east at Karbala or Samarra, Iraq.

The next part of the sentence in this verse answers this matter, "nor the desire of women". This is rightly interpreted as the Messiah. His fathers gods/God are: Mary the Mother of God and her Christ child (Jesus).

However...

"nor the desire of women" also refers to the lawless one not caring for the desires of women - (which is promoted by Islam)

The Lawless one is a "Christian" prince in the western part of the Roman Empire and becomes Muslim.

I think the climate change thing will help shape the end times stage.

Yes it will.

Matter of fact, the Scriptures support such stage shaping senario science as recorded in Ezekiel 38-39 and the seal, trumpet, thunder and bowl judgments of Revelation. Even the most prolific protagonist Prince Charles proclaims that the "climatic events" of Ezekiel 38-39 will occur in mid-summer of 2017, which is interestingly the jubilee year after Israel gained controlled of the Western Wailing Wall in the War of Liberation 1967.

Prince Charles in his book: "Harmony" he shows by ice core data, that we are living in a warming period which will self correct itself by an eventual ice age (pg. 33-37).

Does Revelation ever use the term "Anti-Christ"? Or is it just "the Beast"?

No. Just "the Beast" or "the Beast out of the Sea" or "the first Beast".

If one is looking for some major political figure who embraces evil, that is certainly possible as well.

Yes it is.

I suppose those who follow truth will know that person's identity when the time arrives.

Yes we do. That time has arrived.

I guess you see yourself as a Prophet?

No. But if your definition of a prophet is: one who proclaims 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy' (Revelation 19:10). Then yes. I can only claim that which is proclaimed.

I am afraid you are misusing scripture also.

It is about the required number of witnesses to testify about something. That's why the religous Jews needed two witnesses to testify against Jesus.

Can you provide facts instead of platitudes?

The Scriptural facts are located at: The Beast's relationship

I was questioning how you came to the conclusion what these two were the False Prophet and the Antichrist. Your reply is that your wife, at age 6, was told by God that Prince William was the Antichrist. Is that you answer?

That is part of the answer. Even before she told me, I was already studying about the two Beasts. To understand such a mystery, God MUST speak to His children to let them understand His plan. God told Adam/Eve and Satan about the plan of salvation. God told Noah about the Flood. God told Israel through Moses and the Prophets about the captivity of Jerusalem by Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem. :sherlock:

God MUST have a witness. :anv20181:

The Scripture says: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)

We are twice born children of the Most High. :angel:

Jesus quoting the Old Testament: 'that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established'. (Matthew 18:16)

My wife is one witness. And through my over 10 year study, I am the second witness. (WE ARE NOT THE TWO WINESSES OF REVELATION)

Through my literal Scripture studies, God revealed to me the Doctrine of the unholy godhead, which proclaims this Biblical relationship between the False Prophet and the Antichrist. That of a "father" and firstborn "son".

That is our witness.

I suppose England is Israel?

No. Israel is Israel and is real.

What ever caused you to believe these two are the False Prophet and the Antichrist?

By reading the Bible literally, while allowing for figures of speech and allegories, but applying the allegories in a literal application. I've read and listened to every Book of the Bible well over 20 times. I've read and listened to Daniel and Revelation well over 100 times.

This has been my main Bible study for over 10 years.

To find the Biblical profile of the members of the unholy godhead. This includes a profile of Satan as recorded in the Word of God.

My wife of 20 years told me in 2004, that when she was 6 years old, God spoke to her and told her that Prince William was the Antichrist. Through my studies, God revealed to me the Doctrine of the unholy godhead.

To understand the Biblical relationship between the False Prophet and the Antichrist.

The current teaching of the Church is:

Satan = unholy father

Antichrist = unholy son

False Prophet = unholy spirit

If you rearrange these to their proper order, a clearer picture emerges:

False Prophet = unholy father

Antichrist = unholy son

Satan = unholy spirit

My conclusion and answer to my over 10 year question: What is the Biblical relationship between the False Prophet and the Antichrist?

This royal relationship is reserved for a gentile "father" and firstborn "son" that rise from within the boundaries of the ancient "Roman Empire". At the appointed time, this Sea Beast will rise "out of" the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The Antichrist will have a special scar on his forehead and will rule for 7 years (3 1/2 years as a prince - 3 1/2 years as a king). Both Beasts will have the "likeness" of a "body of a leopard, feet of a bear, and a mouth of a lion". The False Prophet's name will equal 666 according to the Greek/Hebrew gematria. He will unite the world through his pantheistic religious philosophy and economic establishment.

Here is a full frame photo of Isa (False Prophet) and the Mahdi (Antichrist) of Islam.

If you click on my Warped Warriors signature it will take you to the homepage of our website.

The pre-millennial understanding is not the only eschatology, NOR IS IT NECESSARILY THE CORRECT ONE.

Two of the main questions posed at the beginning of this thread was:

What Does The Bible Tell Us About The AntiChrist?

How will we know who he is?

Notice: "The Antichrist?", not "An Antichrist?", not "The spirit of Antichrist?"

She is asking what the Bible says about this specific human being, and how to understand WHO HE IS.

I have the answer and the doctrine to prove it.

Can you give her the name of the False Prophet? *against ToS*

Can you give her the name of the Antichrist? *against ToS*

BTW...Kevin, are you TRYING to bring a curse on yourself? Rev 17:10 says KINGS, not kingdoms. Seven kings. Changing the words of Revelation to meet your understanding is not recommended.

Kings are over their kingdoms.

God knows my intent. I wouldn't lead anyone astray from proper Biblical interpretation.

Rome is the beast.

Rome is not the beast. Rome is the 6th king/kingdom of the beast.

Seven kingdoms (kings) (Revelation 17:10)

Egypt __________|

Assyria _________|

Babylon _________| _____ ('five are fallen')

Media/Persia _____|

Greece _________|

Rome (6th kingdom - 'and one is')

A future global coalition to rule the first 42 months of the tribulation (7th kingdom - 'the other is not yet come')

The Antichrist's Empire to rule the last 42 months of the tribulation (8th kingdom - 'the beast that was and is not') (Revelation 17:11)

Nero is the personification of the beast.

Nero was a type of an antichrist but not "The endtime Antichrist"

It is NERO, not Rome, which went into the Lake of Fire.

No one is in the Lake of Fire. The False Prophet and The Antichrist are the first 2 people to enter the Lake of Fire. And they are still very much alive.

What Does The Bible Tell Us About The AntiChrist?

It is not just the Antichrist that you need to identify, you also have the False Prophet. You must understand the mind of Satan. You do this by looking at where Satan appears in Scripture and profile his character by what he says and does.

'Being worshiped as God is Satan’s No. 1 objective to the exclusion of all else'

How will we know who he is?

The reason people don't understand who the Antichrist is, is because they don't know what they are looking for.

This is because of the current teaching of the Church regarding the order of the unholy godhead.

The current Church teaching is:

Satan = unholy father

Antichrist = unholy son

False Prophet = unholy spirit

If you rearrange these to their proper order, you would see a different picture emerge. :halo:

False Prophet = unholy father

Antichrist = unholy son

Satan = unholy spirit

So now we understand that we are looking for a "father" and "son". :grin:

Then you go through the rest of Scripture and find more identifying marks like: the region they come out of, the race of the two beasts, or the fact that the Bible calls the Antichrist a "prince" who will become "king".

Here is my personal Bible study for the last 10 years: The Unholy Godhead (the beast's relationship)

If you want to see a full size picture of Isa and the Mahdi.

Here is a link to a very interesting video on the antichrist.

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/130/217-the-crime-of-all-ages/

The information they spew sounds good, but it is actually way out in left field.

Amen.