WilliamL

Which would amount to Trump unilaterally declaring war on Iran, a sovereign nation. Talk about creating a constitutional crisis -- that would cause a big one. Constitutionally, such a war must be an act of Congress.

...and provided a link to a writing of Hippolytus about Antichrist, which included this: The nature of Antichrist 5.1. But since now the moment is pressing for these propositions, and what has been said in the introduction for God’s glory suffices on its own, it is right for me, taking hold of the divine Scriptures themselves, to show through them: These are apparently the "propositions" (prokeimena [προκείμενα]) Hippolytus has agreed to take up for Theophilus. What and of what sort is the coming of Antichrist? On what sort of occasion and in what time will the Lawless one be revealed? From where and from what tribe, and what is his name, which is declared through the number in Scripture? 666 (Rev 13:18), which Hippolytus discusses in chapter 50 How will he engender error in the people, assembling them from the corners of the world, and rouse up tribulation and persecution against the saints? And how will he glorify himself as God? What is his consummation? How will the manifestation of the Lord be revealed from the heavens? And what is the conflagration of the universe? What is the glorious and celestial kingdom of the saints who will reign together with Christ? And what is the eternal punishment through fire of the lawless ones? Christ and Antichrist in parallel 6.1. Now insofar as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Here Hippolytus uses the more common tou hiou tou theou (τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ) formulation.was proclaimed beforehand as a lion (Gen 49:9) because he is regal and glorious, in the same way also the Scriptures have prophesied Antichrist similarly as a lion because he is tyrannical and brutal. In every way the Deceiver wants to become like the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is a lion. Christ is a King, so Antichrist is an earthly King. The Savior was shown to be a lamb, so also similarly he will appear like a lamb while being a wolf inside. The Savior came into the world circumcised, so he will come similarly. 2. The Lord sent the apostles into all the nations, so he will similarly send false apostles. The Savior assembled the sheep which had been scattered, so he similarly will gather up the scattered people. The Lord granted a seal to those who believe in him, so he will grant similarly. The Lord was manifest in the form of a human, so he will come in the form of a human. The Savior rose and demonstrated his own flesh as a temple, so he will raise up in Jerusalem a temple in stone. And we shall clarify these deceitful tricks of his later on; let us turn to the proposition at hand.

True. However, in English, the participle form, normally used as an adjective, can also be used as a gerund, which acts as a noun, such as "the coming of the Lord." In those cases when the gerund is being singled-out, a definite article is often added to show its nature as a gerund "כְּנַף is a noun here; this spelling is never a verb participle." There is no "participle form" of this noun, so you seem to be missing the point. Or are making your own different point, which has no specific bearing on what I wrote. Incorrect. The mem on " מְשֹׁמֵם/one who destroys/a destroyer" is part of the form of the active participle: it is NOT a prepositional prefix, as you claim. Check your grammar. Again, incorrect. Jesus quoted this very verse of Daniel 12:11 in Matt. 24:15 -- " Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” " -- to be the event to signal the Great Tribulation. Daniel 12:11 is End Times, not historical. Also, the 1290 and 1335 days do not fit into the timetable of the Antiochus desecration.

I would say that both definitions apply. Certainly the large knife and the machete is a weapon used by Jihadists and others. But the internecine warfare of the Great Tribulation will manifest differently in different places. Gang warfare and rioting in the US and other more affluent lands will more often not be seeing large knives as weapons of choice, per the old saying, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight!"

Yes, it is an invasion. " Mexico Is Complicit In The L.A. Riots " The appearance of Mexican flags in the L.A. riots is exactly what it appears to be: a declaration of war by a foreign power. Just as the Chinese Communist Party regards every ethnic Chinese person living inside the United States as a subject of the PRC, regardless of their citizenship status in the U.S., the MORENA government in Mexico sees the presence of large numbers of Mexican nationals living in the U.S. as a strategic asset that can be, if needed, mobilized to advance its own interests. " As mentioned above, MORENA has long partnered with major cartels and drug-trafficking organizations inside Mexico that are directly implicated in the migrant crisis that unfolded during the Biden years. As I’ve written previously, if the cartels are terrorist organizations, Mexico is their state sponsor. What this means is that the cartel-state partnership in Mexico has a vested interest in ensuring the Trump administration is unable to carry out its plans to secure the border. " https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/10/mexico-is-complicit-in-the-l-a-riots-and-there-should-be-consequences/

Thus saith Keras. Wrongly so on a number of the above points. As will be proven in due time, probably within well under 7 years.

1. Men who are able to live according to the level of the flesh. Noachide laws. 2. Men who are able to live according to the level of the soul. Law of Moses. 3. Men who are able to live according to the level of the spirit. Gospel.

The machaira sword was a short sword used for close-in combat, as compared to the romphaia sword (Rev. 19:15), the main battle sword. These correspond in our day to handguns as compared to rifles. Street weapons as compared to war weapons.

" Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist Translation by Andrew S. Jacobs This early third-century treatise is among the earliest explorations of the Christian end-times focused on the figure of Antichrist. The term "Antichrist" first appeared in the letters ascribed to John (1 John 2:18, 2:22; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7) where it refers to people who deny that Jesus is Christ. By the late second century "Antichrist" was understood as a false messiah who was expected to come at the consummation of the world, before Christ's second coming. ... In addition to relying heavily on and harmonizing the prophetic book of Daniel and the New Testament Revelation to John, Hippolytus draws from Irenaeus's second-century Against Heresies 5, which also comprises a discussion of the end and Antichrist. " https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/hippolytus.html

Complete nonsense. Clearly you have never read any of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, such as Hippolytus.

In other words, your opinion about what biblical texts mean is based upon your understanding about what they SHOULD mean. (Whew!) Then show which ones were in error, not just claim it to be so. This looks like a computer-generated interpretation, which does not (is unable to) take into account the grammatical relationship between the words. For example: …וְעַל/And upon/over כְּנַף/a wing/corner/border, שִׁקּוּצִים/abominable things/idols of מְשֹׁמֵם/one who destroys/a destroyer [Polel verb stem (like Piel: intensive) Active Participle ms]… “… And upon/over a wing/corner shall be abominations/idols of a destroyer…” Comment: All kinds of presumptions have been imposed by different translators upon this phrase. For example, עַל means “upon, over,” never “for” or “by.” (Compare what your Bible says.) כְּנַף is a noun here; this spelling is never a verb participle, as the KJV mistranslates it (“overspreading”). It has no prefix ה/the. שִׁקּוּצִים is plural, not singular. Although many people presume that this phraseשִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם/shiqqutzim məshomame is equivalent to the similar-sounding phrase שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם/shiqqutz shomame of Daniel 12:11, they are significantly different. Only the latter phrase fulfills the prophecy by Jesus about “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” Matt. 24:15 Both shiqqutz and shomame are singular and lack the prefix ה, so shomame can act as an attributive participle, thus as a modifier of shiqqutz: “a desolating abomination” = “an abomination of desolation.” In contrast, 9:27ʼs shiqqutzim is plural, while məshomame is singular, so cannot be its modifier: it has to be a noun, “destroyer.” (Attributive participles must agree in number – both being singular or plural; in gender – both being masculine or feminine; and in definiteness – both having or not having the definite articleה . See Part 4 for the three kinds of participles.) The NIVʼs “an abomination that causes desolation” utterly corrupts the meaning of the Hebrew text. The NIV rejects the Hebrew, following the Greek Septuagint, which grossly varies from the Hebrew text of the Book of Daniel. Contrary to the understanding of many people, the original Septuagint scholars did not translate anything beyond the Torah, the five books of Moses. Translations of the other Old Testament books were added later by unknown translators at unknown times. Those translations significantly varied in quality. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1598-daniel-924-27-examined-part-5-verse-27/ If find anything grammatically in error in the above, please explain your reasons for believing so.

Ukrainian Pit Bull Terrier fights Russian Bear. Getting more than a few nips in.

Your argument was clearly stated in the subject heading, implied in the first post, and then confirmed in the post above, where you say "Both schemes were crafted by jesuits to protect the pope..." So you clearly state that neither 'false crafted scheme' has any theological merit -- without ever actually examining whether or not one or the other might in fact have some merit. Attack the logic of an argument, not the one who says it: always the better plan. (Ad hominem means "against the man.")

This is an example of an ad hominem argument.

So you claim. By means of researching out all of the biblical and historical evidence. Not merely a small part of it. Explained in a 8-part series of blog posts, the first four being these: 68. The Beast Is Not a (Seven-Headed!) Man, Part 1 Explains why the Beast of Revelation 13 cannot be a man, and reveals who and what it really is. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2778-the-beast-is-not-a-seven-headed-man-part-1/ 69. The Beast, Part 2: Its Seven Heads https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2779-the-beast-part-2-its-seven-heads/ 70. The Beast, Part 3: Who IS the Beast? https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2780-the-beast-part-3-who-is-the-beast/ 71. The Beast, Part 4: Azazel and the Abyss https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2786-the-beast-part-4-azazel-and-the-abyss/