wyguy Posted December 3, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted December 3, 2009 The "antichrist" is described in the following scriptures: [Daniel 7:8; 7:20-25; 8:9-12; 8:23-25; 11:36-45; 12:7; Micah 5:5-6 (the "Assyrian"); 2Thessalonians 2:8-9; Revelation 9:11; 11:7; 13:1; 17:8] This entity will first appear in the northern Middle East at the beginning of the Lord's coming hour [time] of trial .... the tribulation period .... he is the Assyrian, the man of lawlessness, the first beast of Revelation Prince Charles is not this entity and this idea is one held by conspiracy theorists ..... not a biblical view at all The verses you quoted DO NOT describe this mythical antichrist at all, Stephen1. These however DO describe the BIBLICAL antichrist. 1Jo 2:18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted December 3, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2009 Tiger Woods and John Wayne? I don't know who made up that list but I suspect they're a few stones shy of a pyramid. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Posted December 3, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted December 3, 2009 So far we have Saddam Hussein the pope Obama Bush Hitler Bob Hope Wayne Gretzki The Iranian Dude The North Korean dude Abbas John Wayne Tiger Woods Mel Blanche and Homer Simpson Perhaps the question is "Who is not the anti-christ?" Prince Charles drinks tea and grows organic cucumbers. I think the opposition is going to be a bit stiffer than that okay you settle down Are we seriously considering prince charles as the antichrist? Perhaps so, perhaps he is not, but i think it is silly to speculate without more than hearsay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,089 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,833 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2009 I think one would have to read that book. It's been a year or so since I last saw it. It's a very interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen1 Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/30/1963 Share Posted December 4, 2009 "The verses you quoted DO NOT describe this mythical antichrist at all, Stephen1. These however DO describe the BIBLICAL antichrist" Sorry .... have to disagree Don't know what you mean by "mythical" antichrist The spirit of antichrist is in the world and has been since the beginning of human creation .... "antichrist" means "against" Jesus Christ But there is one coming who is "the" "antichrist" ..... specifically identified by many different scriptures .... the little horn of Daniel's visions, the man of lawlessness, the Assyrian, satan's beast from the abyss This entity is one who will walk the earth and do satan's bidding during the coming tribulation period [Daniel 7,8,11; Micah 5:5-6; 2Thessalonians 2:8-11; Revelation 9:11; 11:7; 12:12; 17:8] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Share Posted December 4, 2009 "But the beast (Antichrist) was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur." Revelation 19:20 Daniel propecied of the Antichrist: "Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done. And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; but he will magnify himself above them all. But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures...." etc. Notice it never calls the Antichrist "it" or "them" or "they," etc. It's quite clear the Antichrist, whom the Bible also calls the "man of sin" Stephen1, you DO know there is a curse for adding things to Revelation, right? The text does not state antichrist parenthetically and it does not belong there. Please stop adding it in. The beast is Rome, personified by Nero. Likewise, you ASSUME Daniel speaks of this antichrist that you mention, but the fact is that he does not, you (and others) have eisegeted (read in) this into the text. As for the man of sin, there are only two possible candidates. Nero, OR a future line of people who consider themselves to BE God. I believe the latter, because the coming of the Lord is mentioned in connection with them. As you go further into the prophecy, Paul says 'they'. Who is they? The ones who consider themselves God. Unbelieving mankind is on the verge of that as I write; with each passing day he thinks more and more of himself as a god. John calls the 'man of sin' Magog, after the armies which invaded Israel in Ezekiel's prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 333 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/30/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2009 So far we have Saddam Hussein the pope Obama Bush Hitler Bob Hope Wayne Gretzki The Iranian Dude The North Korean dude Abbas John Wayne Tiger Woods Mel Blanche and Homer Simpson Perhaps the question is "Who is not the anti-christ?" Prince Charles drinks tea and grows organic cucumbers. I think the opposition is going to be a bit stiffer than that Yes, BUT does he use milk and sugar, or does he just drink it straight up. THAT will be the indicator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,089 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,833 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2009 So far we have Saddam Hussein the pope Obama Bush Hitler Bob Hope Wayne Gretzki The Iranian Dude The North Korean dude Abbas John Wayne Tiger Woods Mel Blanche and Homer Simpson Perhaps the question is "Who is not the anti-christ?" Prince Charles drinks tea and grows organic cucumbers. I think the opposition is going to be a bit stiffer than that Yes, BUT does he use milk and sugar, or does he just drink it straight up. THAT will be the indicator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen1 Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/30/1963 Share Posted December 4, 2009 "Stephen1, you DO know there is a curse for adding things to Revelation, right? The text does not state antichrist parenthetically and it does not belong there. Please stop adding it in. The beast is Rome, personified by Nero. Likewise, you ASSUME Daniel speaks of this antichrist that you mention, but the fact is that he does not, you (and others) have eisegeted (read in) this into the text." >Sorry, I cannot agree .... will not accommodate your request >I do not believe that the historical/preteristic view is valid and I do not teach it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 4, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2009 >Sorry, I cannot agree .... will not accommodate your request >I do not believe that the historical/preteristic view is valid and I do not teach it Just a friendly pointer; when you don't enclose what you're quoting in quote boxes, as I have above, it's very difficult to tell who is saying what! Go back and look at your last post, Stephen1; it reads as though all of those statements are yours and you're answering yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts