RevelatioN

[Bold Believer]

Well bold,

All I have to say is if you're going to ignore proper hermuenitics and English language rules then I can't help you. But it's been fun and educational. See ya later.

I don't need to use English language rules, we're transliterating Hebrew. The capitals were added in English, in the Hebrew they don't exist. The only prince mentioned in the text is Messiah, therefore it's proper to believe that Messiah is the prince all the way through the text. Remember Messiah doesn't become King Messiah until the resurrection. All through his Mt 22 and 23 teachings and angry dissertation, he refers to the Father as the King.

The covenant is confirmed during the 70th week by Messiah just before his atoning death and subsequent resurrection. No duration for the covenant is ever mentioned, so you're ASSUMING that the covenant is 7 years in length, BUT THE TEXT NEVER SAYS THAT, so you're reading something into the text that is not there. As I told JIME, the covenant is permanent, not seven years long.

Jer 31:33,34 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

The Romans were the instrument which were used to enact the days of vengeance; then they were themselves punished as the Empire crumbled under the weight of the Gospel mountain (Daniel).

Again, as with the covenant, people read in some antichrist figure who is never mentioned in the text. There is no antichrist mentioned, ONLY JESUS CHRIST. Jesus is the covenant maker, not some mythical antichrist dictator who does not exist.

[Bold Believer]

Now to the rest of your questions:

2. when did the anti-Christ Make everyone on planet earth receive a mark in their right hand or forehead; So that those who would not receive the mark couldn't buy or sell

The antichrist doesn't do this, the Land beast (the Jewish leadership did) I explained this in detail in a previous post in this thread. This mythical antichrist figure is not IN the Daniel text, therefore there is no need to read him into it. He does not exist.

3. The anti-christ and his entire army have a fight with Jesus Christ, and lose? ( this is how the anti-christ dies by the way) has anyone in history died this way?

Are you referring to Revelation 19? Again, no antichrist is mentioned. You are adding this into the text and making unwarranted assumptions. It is the BEAST (Rome) whose power is broken by Christ. The Beast (Rome) and the False Prophet (the apostate Jewish leaders) are cast into Gehenna and remain its only occupants until judgment day at the end of the Gog-magog rebellion. The battle in Rev 19 is not literal. It depicts the overthrow of Pagan Rome the Fourth Beast of Daniel and his girlfriend Apostate Israel the Whore. The marriage supper of the Lamb is depicted here as well. It's a depiction of the defeat of the enemies of God by Christ himself. Did that happen? You bet. The Church emerged triumphant through Christ, the Roman empire broke up into 10 toes and they were eventually brought to Christ. It's imagery depicting a literal event. God kicked Rome's butt and destroyed the false kingdom the apostate Jewish leaders set up, just as Daniel said. This also resulted in Satan being bound from deceiving the nations (remember in Greek, there are no chapter divisions) and the Gospel went out to the WHOLE WORLD and it prevailed through the Church.

4. And when did Jesus Christ sit on the throne in Jerusalem for 1,000 years?

Christ began to rule the day he returned into heaven. The Jerusalem he reigns from IS THE ONE FROM ABOVE, not the earthly one. There is no text that demands Messiah literally be present to run his Kingdom. The reign of Christ from heaven extends over the whole earth. He's been reigning for over 1000 years and will continue to reign because as Daniel says, His kingdom will be forever.

5. when did the anti-christ Form a one world alliance where, He is ruler over the entire planet?

No such person in the text, therefore I must gather you've read him into it again. Satan does not, nor has he ever, ruled the entire planet either. ROME ruled the known world but even then, Roman rule was not absolute, there were places where the Empire never reached. The idea that an enemy of God would have complete rule over the whole earth flies in the face of Scripture and IS UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS. It is written: The earth is THE LORD'S and the fulness of it, the world and everyone who dwells in it.

[kross]

No, that isn't a typo in the title. I've noticed that a lot of Believers write or say "Revelations" when they mean the Book of Revelation. Just what is the book revealing? Is it a book about primarily the end of time, or the end of an age? Or about things which will occur soon to its original readers.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated {it} by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Jesus is the Revealer. God gave him the revelation to show to his bondservants the things which must soon take place. Soon. Not 2000+ plus years later, but soon. As in soon to the people to whom it was written. So then, if it was soon to them, why do modern believers insist on trying to make it something meant for us in our day? All Scripture has things to teach and show us, don't get me wrong, but the Revelation was not specifically meant for us, but to the Believers of the day in which it was written.

All of the figures, metaphors and yes, the things that literally happened as well, all have their roots in the Old Testament and early New Testament, not in the newspaper and TV. It has little to say to us, with the exception of the final chapters, and even there, the information given is very sketchy and non-specific. Yet, modern teachers insist on trying to make the revelation fit us here in the future, rather than the Believers of the day in which it was written. In their misguided attempts to do this, the modern teachers twist history and take this things out of context both Scripturally and historically to our detriment.

When reading Revelation, keep the Old Testament handy and look at the words and figures used in Revelation. The book will make a lot more sense when (and if) you do. Also, think about having Josephus' Antiquities Chapter 5: War of the Jews around as well for a historical perspective of 70 AD from someone who was there.

2,000 years is less than a snap of a finger in eternity. Yes, some feel it is things that already happened, some think it is things yet to come, some think a little of both.

Jesus said that the things would come upon THAT GENERATION. I prefer to believe Him rather than the modern teachers who try and make the past fit the future. The resurrection of the Believers, the translation of live Believers (call it the rapture if you like) and the reanimation of the dead unto their judgment in the Lake of Fire with their Daddy the devil are all yet to come. We the righteous will inherit the New Earth and have access to the New Heaven (Rev 21). If I were a FULL preterist, I would believe those things had already taken place, I don't.

Again, what is meant by "That Generation"? Is this the people who will be around for the next 80 years, or is this referring to this generation of mankind. Somewhere in my spirit there has always been a sense that this refers to this time in history. One generation before CHRIST and another after, or one generation before the flood and another after.

I understand your point and am not argueing it. I have always sen something in the phrase that has caused me to ponder it on numerous occassion.

[kross]

Dan 9:25 "So you are to know and discern {that} from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince {there will be} seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end {will come} with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations {will come} one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

OK, so you have 69 weeks, with Messiah being cut off after the 69 weeks (during the 70th week). Daniel continues matter of factly stating that the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and sanctuary. Who is the prince who is to come? Messiah, he is the only prince mentioned. Jesus told the Pharisees what was going to happen, first in parables (Mt 21:42-22:7 with special emphasis on v 22:7...the king is the one who sends forth his armies and destroys the murderers and burns up their city, exactly what occurred in 70 AD), and then plainly in Matthew 23:34-38 he tells them that their house will be left to them desolate. The house is the TEMPLE. What did Daniel say? The city and the sanctuary would be destroyed by the people of the prince who would come (by the authority of the king, his Father). Continuing on to verse 27, and remembering that the only prince mentioned here is Messiah the Prince (v 25), who makes the covenant? MESSIAH THE PRINCE.

Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come...

I do not see how you can consider both these princes the same prince. If Messiah is there and is cut off, HE can not be the prince that is to come. Your statemen is like saying that President Obama will be cut off and have nothing and the president that is to come... Would be President Obama. Regardless of whether we have a name for this second prince, we know it isn't the same PRINCE.

[kross]

Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end {will come} with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

The prince spoken of here is written with a little "p" which is showing that it is not talking about Jesus, it is talking about a man. If it were talking about Jesus it would look like this "Prince". This scripture is talking about a future person that will come from the same people who in 70 a.d. destroyed the city and the temple. That people was Rome led by Titus. This "prince" will be a descendant from them. The prince who is to come is the anti-christ.

Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations {will come} one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Daniel 9:27 does speak of a treaty. The word covenant means treaty. The Hebrew word used here is berith. See definition:

Hebrew NASB Number: 1285

Hebrew Word: ‏בְּרִית‎

Transliterated Word: berith (136b)

Root: from an unused word;

Definition: a covenant:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used

allied (1),

allies* (1),

covenant (275),

covenants (1),

El-berith* (1),

league (2),

treaty (4).

[Bold Believer]

No, that isn't a typo in the title. I've noticed that a lot of Believers write or say "Revelations" when they mean the Book of Revelation. Just what is the book revealing? Is it a book about primarily the end of time, or the end of an age? Or about things which will occur soon to its original readers.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated {it} by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Jesus is the Revealer. God gave him the revelation to show to his bondservants the things which must soon take place. Soon. Not 2000+ plus years later, but soon. As in soon to the people to whom it was written. So then, if it was soon to them, why do modern believers insist on trying to make it something meant for us in our day? All Scripture has things to teach and show us, don't get me wrong, but the Revelation was not specifically meant for us, but to the Believers of the day in which it was written.

All of the figures, metaphors and yes, the things that literally happened as well, all have their roots in the Old Testament and early New Testament, not in the newspaper and TV. It has little to say to us, with the exception of the final chapters, and even there, the information given is very sketchy and non-specific. Yet, modern teachers insist on trying to make the revelation fit us here in the future, rather than the Believers of the day in which it was written. In their misguided attempts to do this, the modern teachers twist history and take this things out of context both Scripturally and historically to our detriment.

When reading Revelation, keep the Old Testament handy and look at the words and figures used in Revelation. The book will make a lot more sense when (and if) you do. Also, think about having Josephus' Antiquities Chapter 5: War of the Jews around as well for a historical perspective of 70 AD from someone who was there.

2,000 years is less than a snap of a finger in eternity. Yes, some feel it is things that already happened, some think it is things yet to come, some think a little of both.

Jesus said that the things would come upon THAT GENERATION. I prefer to believe Him rather than the modern teachers who try and make the past fit the future. The resurrection of the Believers, the translation of live Believers (call it the rapture if you like) and the reanimation of the dead unto their judgment in the Lake of Fire with their Daddy the devil are all yet to come. We the righteous will inherit the New Earth and have access to the New Heaven (Rev 21). If I were a FULL preterist, I would believe those things had already taken place, I don't.

Again, what is meant by "That Generation"? Is this the people who will be around for the next 80 years, or is this referring to this generation of mankind. Somewhere in my spirit there has always been a sense that this refers to this time in history. One generation before CHRIST and another after, or one generation before the flood and another after.

I understand your point and am not argueing it. I have always sen something in the phrase that has caused me to ponder it on numerous occassion.

The word genea means generation, a span of roughly 30-40 years. Historically, we know that 70 AD feel within the generation which Jesus was talking to at the time. Your spirit is correct, it was the generation of that time to which he spoke, not one 2000+ years into the future.

[Bold Believer]

Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end {will come} with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

The prince spoken of here is written with a little "p" which is showing that it is not talking about Jesus, it is talking about a man. If it were talking about Jesus it would look like this "Prince". This scripture is talking about a future person that will come from the same people who in 70 a.d. destroyed the city and the temple. That people was Rome led by Titus. This "prince" will be a descendant from them. The prince who is to come is the anti-christ.

Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations {will come} one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Daniel 9:27 does speak of a treaty. The word covenant means treaty. The Hebrew word used here is berith. See definition:

Hebrew NASB Number: 1285

Hebrew Word: ‏בְּרִית‎

Transliterated Word: berith (136b)

Root: from an unused word;

Definition: a covenant:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used

allied (1),

allies* (1),

covenant (275),

covenants (1),

El-berith* (1),

league (2),

treaty (4).

[JIME]

The thousand years (Gr: chilios, a long period of indefinite time) began at the defeat of Rome. Satan was then bound to keep the nations undeceived, so they could hear the Gospel. The peace is the peace that comes between God and man because of Christ's atonement, not the absence of war. The Messianic age was foretold by Isaiah (11:9) and Habakkuk (2:14) as a time when the knowledge of the Lord would cover the earth as water covered the seas. There are few places on earth where the Gospel has not been taken. There are many however where it has been forgotten, having been taken there many hundreds of years ago and allowed to die out. In some places, it has or is being stamped out or suppressed by the forces of Magog.

Bold,

I think you are being decieved. Satan is still on the earth causing all kinds of trouble. The thousand year reign of Jesus hasn't happened yet. Before the thousand year reign, satan is to be bound for a thousand years and then released again for a little while. It has been 2000 + years since the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. In that 2000+ years there has not been peace on this earth. Read the history of the that 2000+ years. It is filled with war and violence. War and violence which satan is most likely responsible for. And the New Jerusalem is not on this earth. The Jerusalem we have now has constant violence brought upon it. This is not PEACE, which would we would have because Jesus would be on the throne ruling and reigning from there. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not the prince of violence.

[spiritman]

I'm sorry bold, I got a bit frustrated with you. But I believe I should make these points to you. The anti-christ according to scriptures must meet the following criteria:

1. The Anti-Christ must broker in a 7 year peace treaty with Israel, and her enemies, and then break it. Daniel 9:27

2. The anti-Christ Makes everyone on planet earth receive a mark in their right hand or forehead. Rev 13:16-18

3. The anti-christ and his entire army have a fight with Jesus Christ, and lose? ( this is how the anti-christ dies by the way) Rev 19:20-21

4. The anti-christ Form a one world alliance where, He is ruler over the entire planet? daniel 2:42-43; Dan 7:7; Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12

5. The anti-christ will not be revealed until the great apostasy of the church takes place. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9

6. The anti-christ must be of Roman descent. Daniel 9:26

Any man that we tag with the title anti-christ has to meet the above litmus test in order to be the true anti-christ. You picked: Antiochus Epiphanes, and Nero. Let's see how this stacks up with the above litmus test:

Let's first take a look at:Antiochus Epiphanes

1.Question: Did Antiochus Epiphanes broker a 7 year peace treaty with Israel? Answer: NO

2.Question: Did Antiochus Epiphanes make everyone on the planet receive a mark on their right hand or forehead? Answer No

3.Question: Did Antiochus Epiphanes and an entire army fight with Jesus Christ and His saints, and die? Answer No; Antiochus Epiphanes died of disease in 164 B.C

4.Question: Did Antiochus Epiphanes form a one world alliance where, he is the ruler of the entire planet? Answer NO.

As the son and a potential successor of King Antiochus III, Antiochus became a political hostage of the Roman Republic following the Peace of Apamea in 188 BC. When his older brother, Seleucus IV followed his father onto the throne in 187 BC, Antiochus was exchanged for his nephew Demetrius I Soter (the son and heir of Seleucus). After King Seleucus was assassinated by Heliodorus, an usurper, in 175 BC, Antiochus in turn ousted him. Since Seleucus' true heir, Demetrius I Soter, was still a hostage in Rome, Antiochus, with the help of King Eumenes II of Pergamum, seized the throne for himself, proclaiming himself co-regent for another son of Seleucus, an infant named Antiochus (whom he then murdered a few years later).[4]

When the guardians of King Ptolemy VI of Egypt demanded the return of Coele-Syria in 170 BC, Antiochus launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy. To avoid alarming Rome, Antiochus allowed Ptolemy VI to continue ruling as a Puppet-king. Upon Antiochus' withdrawal, the city of Alexandria chose a new King, one of Ptolemy's brothers, also named Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes). Instead of fighting a civil war, the Ptolemy brothers agreed to rule Egypt jointly.

In 168 BC Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before reaching Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single, old Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas, who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus, or consider themselves in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around him and said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" - implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus wisely decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[5]

5. The anti-christ will not be revealed until the Great apostasy of the Church takes place. Has this happened yet? Answer: this is currently happening.

6. I've already mentioned this once but I'll do it again for this reply. Is Antiochus Epiphanes of Roman descent? Answer NO. Antiochus Epiphanes is of Grecian descent.

So I think that solves the mystery of whether or not Antiochus Epiphanes is the Anti-christ. answer No.

Now let's take a look at Nero:

1. Did Nero ever broker in a 7 year peace treaty with Israel or anyone else? Answer No.

2. Did Nero make everyone on the Planet receive a mark on their right hands or foreheads? Answer: NO

3. Did Nero with his entire army go out and make war with Jesus Christ and His saints, and killed doing the same.? answer No; Nero commited Suicide.

4. Did Nero's rule include the entire planet? Answer No Nero's rule was limited to the Roman empire, though large hardly the entire planet.

5. The anti-christ will be revealed after the Great Apostasy of the church, has this happened yet? answer: it is happening now

6. Is Nero of Roman descent: Answer: Yes.

Clearly there are more no answers in the questions concerning, Antiochus Epiphanes, and Nero; Only one no answer was needed to exclude these two rulers as the anti-christ in the book of revelation and the book of Daniel.

[spiritman]

Well bold,

All I have to say is if you're going to ignore proper hermuenitics and English language rules then I can't help you. But it's been fun and educational. See ya later.

I don't need to use English language rules, we're transliterating Hebrew. The capitals were added in English, in the Hebrew they don't exist. The only prince mentioned in the text is Messiah, therefore it's proper to believe that Messiah is the prince all the way through the text. Remember Messiah doesn't become King Messiah until the resurrection. All through his Mt 22 and 23 teachings and angry dissertation, he refers to the Father as the King.

The covenant is confirmed during the 70th week by Messiah just before his atoning death and subsequent resurrection. No duration for the covenant is ever mentioned, so you're ASSUMING that the covenant is 7 years in length, BUT THE TEXT NEVER SAYS THAT, so you're reading something into the text that is not there. As I told JIME, the covenant is permanent, not seven years long.

Jer 31:33,34 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

The Romans were the instrument which were used to enact the days of vengeance; then they were themselves punished as the Empire crumbled under the weight of the Gospel mountain (Daniel).

Again, as with the covenant, people read in some antichrist figure who is never mentioned in the text. There is no antichrist mentioned, ONLY JESUS CHRIST. Jesus is the covenant maker, not some mythical antichrist dictator who does not exist.

I don't need to use English language rules, we're transliterating Hebrew. The capitals were added in English, in the Hebrew they don't exist. The only prince mentioned in the text is Messiah, therefore it's proper to believe that Messiah is the prince all the way through the text. Remember Messiah doesn't become King Messiah until the resurrection. All through his Mt 22 and 23 teachings and angry dissertation, he refers to the Father as the King.

Well we are doing it in the English, and our translators usually place capital letters when referring to members of the Trinity, and as you can see in the text the writer makes a clear large caps, and small cap distinction between the two princes; why would he do that?

The covenant is confirmed during the 70th week by Messiah just before his atoning death and subsequent resurrection. No duration for the covenant is ever mentioned, so you're ASSUMING that the covenant is 7 years in length, BUT THE TEXT NEVER SAYS THAT, so you're reading something into the text that is not there. As I told JIME, the covenant is permanent, not seven years long.

There is more then one covenant with Israel. I'll name these two; The Mosaic Covenant, which is basically keeping the law that was written on tablets of stone by God in Exodus 20, other wise known as the commandments. Then there the New Covenant that God promised to write on the heart and minds of Israel in the last days. Currently most Jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah, but that number is growing today, and this is the new covenant that He was referring to. As you might notice this covenant in Hebrews is practically word for word the covenant in Jeremiah 31:33-34

Heb 8:6-13 (KJV)

6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

I believe you might be confusing the Old Covenant with the new one. I'm going to stop here and since this is getting long post on a new reply area.