Last Daze

I like the visual.  It would be interesting to see others post theirs too.

 

Yet, I find it interesting that none of you objected to being labeled an "Xtian".

 

And sometimes hoping that those who disagree with you about a pre-trib rapture theory to suffer God's wrath is not going to be a welcome thought by our Lord Jesus when He comes.

@Salty - I agree.

@ Parker1 - I think the OP put an extra "t" in it.  Should probably read Xian.  Like Xmas.  The "X" comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός which comes into English as "Christ" as I see it, compliments of Wikipedia.  Also part of the IXOYE thing...for what its worth.

 

 

Hi Salty,

 

I think you misunderstood my reply.  I don't believe that at all.  My fault, I was just answering last Daze's next question re “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?"  I gave my explanation, which is my own personal opinion why I think it's refering to Babel.  Nothing to do with Rome.

 

 

If you didn't mean it, then why did you think it and say it? ...

 

"I agree.  Do you then think that it's reasonable that there was also a "prince of Babylon" and a "prince of Rome" since those kingdoms are also part of the four beasts of Daniel 7?  If so, do you think its possible that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss sometime in the first century or before to be held until his release in the last days fulfilling  “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?"

 

Please read post 119.  I wrote that.  Not Sister.  Please quit being obnoxious.

Edit: Here's a link to it to make it easy for you.

 

 

 

I don't see where anyone even remotely suggested that.  Is it your purpose to sew discord, Salty?

 

 

You evidently didn't read everything sister said...

 

"I agree.  Do you then think that it's reasonable that there was also a "prince of Babylon" and a "prince of Rome" since those kingdoms are also part of the four beasts of Daniel 7?  If so, do you think its possible that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss sometime in the first century or before to be held until his release in the last days fulfilling  “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?"

 

A "prince of Rome" cast into the abyss sometime in the first century? and then released in the last days?

 

What about that idea of a resurrection from the dead don't you understand? A few others here have that crazy kind of idea about the Antichrist, so sister is not alone.

 

As for what I come here to sew... it is God's Truth per His Holy Writ, not whatever wild idea that seems to pop into one's mind that don't know God's Word.

 

I'm the one who posted that, not Sister.  We were discussing Daniel 10 and the possibility of fallen angels, like the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece overseeing other kingdoms.  The "prince of Rome" reference is to a probable fallen angel that oversaw the Roman Empire.  Its not a reference to a human.  The text above that I highlighted in bold, is it really necessary?

How about sewing God's Truth in love?

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, "

I came to this forum to have open, meaningful discussions about prophecy.  I did not come here to an object of someone's arrogance.

I say this in all seriousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Who do you think the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece refer to in Daniel 10:13,20?

Hi

 

These a Satans angels.  It shows he has high ranking angels appointed over nations, I think it was the angel Gabriel who was speaking to Daniel.

 

 

I agree.  Do you then think that it's reasonable that there was also a "prince of Babylon" and a "prince of Rome" since those kingdoms are also part of the four beasts of Daniel 7?  If so, do you think its possible that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss sometime in the first century or before to be held until his release in the last days fulfilling  “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?

 

 

Hi Last Daze

Most definately, because all the kingdoms of the world since the beginning have been run by Satan.  Satan cannot run all his kingdoms by himself, he needs his chiefs.  The "Prince of Persia", and the "Prince of Greece" is showing us that all nations have an evil prince overseeing them.. 

We have to realise that God is in charge though, and nothing can be done unless he allows it.  God will use his angels to "police" the spirit world, especially when it involves nations.  This needs to happen, because everything has to be fulfilled at "God's timing", or else Satan will have us all destroyed sooner rather than later.  Israel has a prince also, but this one mentioned, is God's holy angel.  Could it be a clue, that even though Satan is running the kingdoms with his angels, God has his angels there also to keep an eye on things. 

 

 Daniel 10:21   But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

 

I strongly disagree that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss, because of what I explained, that these princes are fallen angels, and although they have been condemned already, have not received judgement as yet.

 

 

Rev 17:8   The beast that thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

This is such a tricky scripture.  If we read on;

 

Rev 17:11   And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven and goeth into perdition.

 

It's tricky, because this beast in the end times, was existing before Rome, ...did not exist during Roman rule (Johns day).... and yet is (will come)

That will only lead us to the kingdoms before Rome.  Is it Eypt? or Assyria? or Babylon? or Medo-Persia? or Greece?  I think it's highly unlikely, although some would disagree with me.  I rule out Babylon, because Babylon is around the Iraq area, and it seems like they are controled by the West now.  Squashed.

 

This beast is the 8th, and is of the 7.  So I am concentrating on the 8th.  When this 7th kingdom transforms into the 8th, it will be under the rule of the False Prophet.  His mark will be on all people.  The world will be one again, ...one people, one leader, one law, one worship, just like it was in Babel.  I think God is trying to tell us something here, that Satan will do it again.  There will be no free will, there will be no "rights", or freedom of religion , the world will be under a dictatorship, and forced to serve him only or else.

 

So to wrap it up, I think that the 8th kingdom turns into Babel all over again, and this was Satan's plan from the beginning, (coming up out of the abyss, his idea) only he was hindered by God until the gospel will be spread thoughout the earth, which I think is coming to a close soon.  It will be a real kingdom, but just like how Babel was run.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

 

 

Ah... the resurrection of a Roman emperor that died in past history coming alive for the tribulation! Now that's a new one.

 

I don't see where anyone even remotely suggested that.  Is it your purpose to sew discord, Salty?

 

 

Also the 6th trumpet is descibing Armageddon, the gathering armies, and we get raptured before this war, and so the rest of mankind could also be referring to those left behind, earlier on the day of the Lord.

 

 

I thought you didn't believe in a pre-tribulational gathering of The Church by our Lord Jesus?

 

The Armageddon event is not on the 6th Trumpet - 2nd Woe. It's on the final 7th Trumpet - 3rd Woe of Rev.11.

 

The time of God's two witnesses that prophecy in Jerusalem is for the last 1260 days of the Book of Daniel's symbolic "one week" (Dan.9:27). We are told specifically they will prophesy in Jerusalem for 1260 days before they are killed by the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit (Rev.11). The Gentiles are given to tread the holy city for 42 months, the same time of reign the dragon of Rev.13 is given to have power. Those are tribulation events. Armageddon happens at the end of the tribulation per Rev.16.

 

So, if Christ's Church is not here anymore during that 1260 days of those two witnesses prophesying, then it means to believe in a pre-tribulational or mid-trib rapture of the Church, which idea is not written in God's Word.

 

 

You are correct, I am post-trib. I believe in 3.5 future years only. Therefore I overlap all mentions of 3.5 years instead of splitting them into 2 x 3.5 year periods. You would be surprised how well everything fits. 

 

Regarding the 2 witnesses in Rev 11, this means they start their ministry near the start of the beast's 42 month  reign. They seem to have a Jewish connection (two olive trees) and their period of protection for 3.5 years then overlaps the 3.5 years of protection for Israel (the woman in Rev 12). They get resurrected at the end of the final 3.5 years which is the same time as the resurrection of the church (post-trib)

 

They preach during the 2nd woe, which precedes the third woe which is the actual second coming. This means their preaching occurs just before the second coming. The timing of chapter 11 (the two witnesses) is around the 6th trumpet which is the gathering of the armies just before the 7th trumpet. I associate this gathering of armies with Armageddon (6th trumpet) which occurs just before the seventh trumpet (the second coming)

 

And so everything fits.

 

I'm inclined to agree about the 42 months.  I don't divide the seven year agreement into two equal halves with all 42 month references falling in one or the other.  Each stands on its own, which may, or may not, coincide.

 

 

 

 

Who do you think the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece refer to in Daniel 10:13,20?

Hi

 

These a Satans angels.  It shows he has high ranking angels appointed over nations, I think it was the angel Gabriel who was speaking to Daniel.

 

 

I agree.  Do you then think that it's reasonable that there was also a "prince of Babylon" and a "prince of Rome" since those kingdoms are also part of the four beasts of Daniel 7?  If so, do you think its possible that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss sometime in the first century or before to be held until his release in the last days fulfilling  “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?

 

 

Hi Last Daze

Most definately, because all the kingdoms of the world since the beginning have been run by Satan.  Satan cannot run all his kingdoms by himself, he needs his chiefs.  The "Prince of Persia", and the "Prince of Greece" is showing us that all nations have an evil prince overseeing them.. 

We have to realise that God is in charge though, and nothing can be done unless he allows it.  God will use his angels to "police" the spirit world, especially when it involves nations.  This needs to happen, because everything has to be fulfilled at "God's timing", or else Satan will have us all destroyed sooner rather than later.  Israel has a prince also, but this one mentioned, is God's holy angel.  Could it be a clue, that even though Satan is running the kingdoms with his angels, God has his angels there also to keep an eye on things. 

 

 Daniel 10:21   But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

 

I strongly disagree that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss, because of what I explained, that these princes are fallen angels, and although they have been condemned already, have not received judgement as yet.

 

 

Rev 17:8   The beast that thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

This is such a tricky scripture.  If we read on;

 

Rev 17:11   And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven and goeth into perdition.

 

It's tricky, because this beast in the end times, was existing before Rome, ...did not exist during Roman rule (Johns day).... and yet is (will come)

That will only lead us to the kingdoms before Rome.  Is it Eypt? or Assyria? or Babylon? or Medo-Persia? or Greece?  I think it's highly unlikely, although some would disagree with me.  I rule out Babylon, because Babylon is around the Iraq area, and it seems like they are controled by the West now.  Squashed.

 

This beast is the 8th, and is of the 7.  So I am concentrating on the 8th.  When this 7th kingdom transforms into the 8th, it will be under the rule of the False Prophet.  His mark will be on all people.  The world will be one again, ...one people, one leader, one law, one worship, just like it was in Babel.  I think God is trying to tell us something here, that Satan will do it again.  There will be no free will, there will be no "rights", or freedom of religion , the world will be under a dictatorship, and forced to serve him only or else.

 

So to wrap it up, I think that the 8th kingdom turns into Babel all over again, and this was Satan's plan from the beginning, (coming up out of the abyss, his idea) only he was hindered by God until the gospel will be spread thoughout the earth, which I think is coming to a close soon.  It will be a real kingdom, but just like how Babel was run.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Sister.

One distinction I'd like to make is that the abyss is more of a prison for evil spirits, not a judgment, like being cast into the lake of fire.  I think its entirely possible for a fallen angel to be held in the abyss, like Satan will be for 1000 years.

Another distinction that I believe is important is distinguishing between a kingdom (represented by a beast) and the fallen angel that oversees it.  Daniel 7:12 says that  "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time."  I understand this to mean that the fallen angel (dominion) was removed from a position of influence (cast into the abyss) however the natural kingdom continued on for a while.

Just some things to consider.

Salty

 

Christ Cannot change the 70 Sevens length of time.  Or else one assumes that Christ made a mistake in the first place in establishing the 70 - Sevens.

 

Again you must look in a different direction for your view of Matt 24:22.  Some say the time of wrath is shortened, but not the 70 Weeks.  I say the amount of daylight is shortened so the scorching heat will not kill all.  Very high heat index.  Longer nighttime cooling.

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

I don't see how the 70 7s duration can change either.  Maybe its in how the terms are defined, a semantics issue?  There seems to be no shortage of definitions for the word "tribulation" as applied to the end times.  I see the tribulation ending at the sixth seal and the seventh seal commencing God's wrath.  I don't think the tribulation is a seven year thing.  Maybe it starts when the false prophet (antichrist) issues his "worship or die" ultimatum.  Maybe what gets cut short is the time that believers are persecuted...a sixth seal rapture?

 

 

You won't take the opportunity, in a discussion forum setting, to explain the evidence as you see it in simple terms?  I find that a little more than odd.

 

If you don't know, or can't, that's fine.  Just say so.  I'm trying to understand your position, however, I'm not interested in "hide and go seek".

 

 

You won't take the time to recognize the very Scriptures our Lord Jesus gave us that explains your questions? That's what is truly odd!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

I'm not changing the meaning of beasts, just getting to the root of their existence.  I agree that the beasts in Daniel 7 are described as kings / kingdoms.  Daniel 10 shows us that there are demons behind the scenes, associated with these kingdoms.  Demon is released from the abyss and causes a kingdom (beast) to exercise dominion.  I'm not sure what it is that you want me to reconcile.  What are the two differences?

 

 

That's all good, thanks for explaining, I just wanted to understand your position, and I feel what you have said is an option. My explanation of how a kingdom can arise from the abyss is similar but more symbolic, yours a little more literal which is a good thing.

 

I had a feeling that we were close to saying the same thing.

As [other one] pointed out, "fallen angel" may be a better description of the evil spirit beings behind the kingdoms than "demon".  I still need to dig into that, but either way, the point's the same.

 

 

Who do you think the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece refer to in Daniel 10:13,20?

Hi

 

These a Satans angels.  It shows he has high ranking angels appointed over nations, I think it was the angel Gabriel who was speaking to Daniel.

 

I agree.  Do you then think that it's reasonable that there was also a "prince of Babylon" and a "prince of Rome" since those kingdoms are also part of the four beasts of Daniel 7?  If so, do you think its possible that the "prince of Rome" was cast into the abyss sometime in the first century or before to be held until his release in the last days fulfilling  “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction."?

I think that is a fallen angel and not a demon.......    for what it's worth.

I've heard that distinction before, and how some people define the difference, but it still seems ambiguous to me.  I just don't think we know enough about evil spirit beings to clearly delineate.  If "fallen angels" fits your understanding better then that's fine.  I see it as an evil spirit being of the same type as the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece, whatever they are.

I've heard that demons are disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim which were the offspring of fallen angels and women, but what I've heard isn't terribly convincing.  Do you have a link you can post?  I might be erroneously calling fallen angels, demons.

 

 

a possession of the dragon? - Rev 13:2 "...And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority."  That's a whole lot different from "took possession of".  Giving is the transfer of <whatever is given> from <the giver> to <the receiver>.

 

 

This is basic grammar 101 in that Rev. Scripture. It's not difficult to realize the possessive pronouns in it.

 

² And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

 

That "his" and "him" are simply being used as possessive pronouns, to show ownership. It does not mean that 1st beast is a person. The KJV translators could have just as well translated those as "its" per the Greek, but they didn't clearly, showing they most likely didn't yet grasp its meaning.

 

Back in Rev.12:3-4 with the red dragon, it's about the time of Satan's original rebellion; we are shown a beast kingdom with ten horns, seven heads, and seven crowns, and it's timing is given when he drew a third of the stars (angels) to earth with his tail. In Rev.13:2 the 1st beast is being compared to the beast kingdoms of Dan.7. In Rev.17 Jesus said the "seven heads" are "seven mountains", and He was... describing details about both beasts in that Rev.17, so I disagree with your false assumption that Rev.17 has nothing to do with Rev.13.

 

³ And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

 

 

Does a person have "seven heads" that are "seven mountains"? Of course not. Does a person have "ten horns" that represent ten kings per Daniel and Rev.17? Of course not. But a beast kingdom does.

 

 

The 2nd Beast:

¹¹ And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

¹² And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

 

Why would the deceived worship the 1st beast if that is about a kingdom, right? Because that's what they are in love with, even today, the one world system idea. When that 2nd beast comes to that power, that's what he will setup over all the earth, as one of its "seven heads" will have suffered a deadly wound. Does a person with seven heads suffer a wound? No, of course not. But a system can. And since Jesus told us IN REV.17 the "seven heads" ARE "seven mountains", which 'mountain' head would that be that suffers a deadly wound for that 2nd beast to come and heal it?

 

So in reality, when you guys should be much farther in your understanding of this matter our Lord Jesus revealed, it seems you want to go backwards. The time is too short to be doing that backwards pedaling.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your grammar lesson.  I think you misunderstood what I said.  The dragon is Satan.  The beast from the sea is a demon that influences governments, first, the feet of iron and clay (multinational), second, through the 10 kings briefly, lastly, through the false prophet (antichrist).

Revelation 13 shows the demon coming up out of the sea (abyss) because that's where he comes from according to Rev 17.  The Rev 17 waters are related to the harlot...completely different contexts.  Not related.

When the false prophet takes authority away from the 10 horns, three of them turn against him.  This is the apparent death of his fledgling kingdom (seventh mountain, head).  However, in a miraculous display of supernatural power, he rips those three horns out by the roots and his kingdom comes back to life.  Seventh one...its the seventh one.

Yes, we probably should be much further along, but when simple explanations aren't forthcoming, it impedes progress.

 

 

 

I missed your definition of a "beast kingdom".  In general terms, without referring to any specific scripture, will you describe your understanding of what a beast kingdom is?

 

 

No, I will not do that. Because God's Word only is how we truthfully know what it is. He gave us the evidence in those Scriptures I quoted. It's up to you to want to follow them as written or not.

 

You won't take the opportunity, in a discussion forum setting, to explain the evidence as you see it in simple terms?  I find that a little more than odd.

If you don't know, or can't, that's fine.  Just say so.  I'm trying to understand your position, however, I'm not interested in "hide and go seek".

 

 

An animal is just used as a symbol for a country. Its as simple as that. There is no implication of demonic influence although all empires outside of Israel had less of a Godly intervention, and so would have been under the influence of ungodly religions. Because the bible focusses on the Middle East, these "animal"  countries are normally huge empires that controlled the entire region for hundreds of years. The precedent for this is set in Daniel 7. The word "beast" has evil connotations in the English language, but in Greek it just meant something like a wild bull, or aurochs.  

 

I believe the abyss is just symbolism for coming out of a dark/barren place.  The beast disappeared for a while (Rev 17: the beast was and is not), and in this way the kingdom comes back from a dark and barren place (comes out of the abyss). Yes it could also be seen as coming from a dark and evil place because the country is set up for evil purposes. 

 

 

Who do you think the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece refer to in Daniel 10:13,20?

 

You don't think the abyss is a literal place? 

 

³⁰ And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered him. ³¹ They were imploring Him not to command them to go away into the abyss.  Luke 8:30-31

 

Where exactly did the demons not want to go?

 

How do you see the false prophet fitting into this kingdom?

 

 

Ok so you have precedent for your view that the abyss is related to demons

I have precedent that a beast is a kingdom.

 

How would you reconcile the two differences. I have tried. Have you got some precedent that would cause you to change the obvious meaning of beasts to something else.

 

I'm not changing the meaning of beasts, just getting to the root of their existence.  I agree that the beasts in Daniel 7 are described as kings / kingdoms.  Daniel 10 shows us that there are demons behind the scenes, associated with these kingdoms.  Demon is released from the abyss and causes a kingdom (beast) to exercise dominion.  I'm not sure what it is that you want me to reconcile.  What are the two differences?

 

 

 

Could you (or Salty) please define a "beast kingdom"?  Is it a kingdom that's come into power through the influence of a demon (demons)?  If not, can you explain how a kingdom comes up out of the abyss as the beast from the sea does?  Where does the false prophet fit into this kingdom?

 

 

I really don't understand how you guys can get off track so easily from what those Revelation Scriptures are pointing directly to, especially since I know you all are at least somewhat familiar with the Book of Daniel.

 

The Rev.13:2 verse goes with the description of the 1st beast in Rev.13:1, showing that it is a kingdom, a possession of the dragon. At Rev.13:11 forward we are shown a 2nd beast ("another beast") and he causes the 'deadly wound' that is upon the 1st beast to be healed, clearly marking a distinction between him and that 1st beast as a kingdom.

 

In Rev.17 our Lord Jesus explained what the "sea" of Rev.13:1 is, it's the "waters" symbol He used to represent peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.

 

But with the 2nd beast coming up out of the earth, He also explained that in Rev.17 about the beast king that ascends from the bottomless pit and goes into perdition, pointing directly to the dragon.

 

I missed your definition of a "beast kingdom".  In general terms, without referring to any specific scripture, will you describe your understanding of what a beast kingdom is?

a possession of the dragon? - Rev 13:2 "...And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority."  That's a whole lot different from "took possession of".  Giving is the transfer of <whatever is given> from <the giver> to <the receiver>.

Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 are two completely different contexts referring to the "sea" and the "water".  Not the same.

The "beast king" that comes up out of the abyss is Satan?  When did (will) he get thrown in there?

An animal is just used as a symbol for a country. Its as simple as that. There is no implication of demonic influence although all empires outside of Israel had less of a Godly intervention, and so would have been under the influence of ungodly religions. Because the bible focusses on the Middle East, these "animal"  countries are normally huge empires that controlled the entire region for hundreds of years. The precedent for this is set in Daniel 7. The word "beast" has evil connotations in the English language, but in Greek it just meant something like a wild bull, or aurochs.  

 

I believe the abyss is just symbolism for coming out of a dark/barren place.  The beast disappeared for a while (Rev 17: the beast was and is not), and in this way the kingdom comes back from a dark and barren place (comes out of the abyss). Yes it could also be seen as coming from a dark and evil place because the country is set up for evil purposes. 

 

Who do you think the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece refer to in Daniel 10:13,20?

You don't think the abyss is a literal place? 

³⁰ And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered him. ³¹ They were imploring Him not to command them to go away into the abyss.  Luke 8:30-31

Where exactly did the demons not want to go?

How do you see the false prophet fitting into this kingdom?

 

 

Was wondering if you could clarify that a little bit please.  Is the "mouth" the false prophet?  Is the beast from the sea a human?  Could you elaborate?

 

 

When human characteristics are given to a beast kingdom, the bible is then referring to the leader of that kingdom. The beast of Rev 13 is a kingdom, but later also the antichrist.

 

Could you (or Salty) please define a "beast kingdom"?  Is it a kingdom that's come into power through the influence of a demon (demons)?  If not, can you explain how a kingdom comes up out of the abyss as the beast from the sea does?  Where does the false prophet fit into this kingdom?

Right, so the covenant of animal sacrifices that he hates so much he will help establish it at the start of the week? He will help set up something he hates so much....mmmmmm? No I dont think so..

I don't see it as something he hates so much as something that's not necessary anymore.  After all, the false prophet (antichrist) claims go be God.

With that as background, in Rev 13 we see the beast rise up from the sea, was given a mouth. At this point a human characteristic is given to the beast, and I believe it then refers to the leader of the final beast empire... the antichrist.

 

So I believe the antichrist is mentioned in Revelation 13 as the beast from the sea, who is given a mouth, and speaks boastfully and rules for 42 months.

 

Was wondering if you could clarify that a little bit please.  Is the "mouth" the false prophet?  Is the beast from the sea a human?  Could you elaborate?

I agree salty.......   keep in mind though that Jesus said that no one can snatch us out of the hands of the Father...   I take that to mean that we can't be tricked or fooled into the mark and/or worship of the beast.....

 

I think it will be a simple decision for most all of us.  Worship the beast and go to hell......    or die.....

And I do wish that day were hastened.

Yes, they will be hated so much that when they are killed, the world will celebrate and give gifts to one another.

They are hated because they stopped the rain and changed water into blood.

And caused as many plagues as they will.

I could see where the two witnesses could be viewed as the "Moses and Aaron" of the end times.  By that I mean they could, in addition to shutting the sky, call out the false prophet and pronounce the plagues on his kingdom.  The conditions before they are killed will be so oppressive.  I imagine that things start to return to normal after their death, which is reason enough for gift-giving.

And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

But you can't really do the buy sell thing until we do away with hard money

I think the mark has a dual purpose.  Its required to buy and sell, and its used to identify those who resist the false prophet's rule...for beheading purposes.  I could see separatist groups bartering or establishing their own currency but not having the mark will flag them for death.

Hard money could still exist but rendered worthless unless you exchange it for "electronic credits".

 

 

I am just asking a simple question.....    what in the book of revelation is that single entity that we would call "the" antichrist.   I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I just wondered what in the book of Revelation you would consider "the" antichrist......   if anything.  People seem to be looking for an individual they would call  "The" Antichrist.

Actually that question is not just to you, I'd like for everyone to answer it....

 

 

I think its no secret that I see the false prophet as the Antichrist.  I prefer to call him the false prophet since that's how he's referred to in Revelation.  I usually put (antichrist) after false prophet for clarification.   I think he's a man (coming up out of the earth) that is empowered by the demonic prince (beast that comes out of the sea) to display wonders and call fire down from heaven and deceive all those who dwell on the earth, except for the saints.

 

being a man, the coming up out of the earth part I can't get a grasp on.....

 

I just see it as a reference to man...Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground...in contrast to a demon.

I am just asking a simple question.....    what in the book of revelation is that single entity that we would call "the" antichrist.   I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I just wondered what in the book of Revelation you would consider "the" antichrist......   if anything.  People seem to be looking for an individual they would call  "The" Antichrist.

Actually that question is not just to you, I'd like for everyone to answer it....

 

I think its no secret that I see the false prophet as the Antichrist.  I prefer to call him the false prophet since that's how he's referred to in Revelation.  I usually put (antichrist) after false prophet for clarification.   I think he's a man (coming up out of the earth) that is empowered by the demonic prince (beast that comes out of the sea) to display wonders and call fire down from heaven and deceive all those who dwell on the earth, except for the saints.