Interesting things about "antichrist"

[nebula]

I am not a replacement theologian.

Again, ou are the first person I have ever heard make the claim that this prophecy tied into the Zechariah prophecy.

I have even heard people calculate the exact date of Jesus' death and resurrection based on this Daniel prophecy.

But if your goal is to show what the language indicates, you really need to go back to the original language and state your case this way. Working the English translation sometimes misrepresents the original point.

[Bold Believer]

The Dallas Cowboys will rise out of the sea and overtake all...

HERETIC!

[nebula]

Now is when you add the word "to" at the end of the quote, more information is upcoming. Such as to 1. go 16-0, or 0-16. 2. Win the Super Bowl. 3. go bankrupt. There is now action put to the quote. But also no date is given for when this is to begin.

But if one of those was "to win the Heisman trophy," that wouldn't be for the team, but only one individual within the team.

[Montana Marv]

Now is when you add the word "to" at the end of the quote, more information is upcoming. Such as to 1. go 16-0, or 0-16. 2. Win the Super Bowl. 3. go bankrupt. There is now action put to the quote. But also no date is given for when this is to begin.

But if one of those was "to win the Heisman trophy," that wouldn't be for the team, but only one individual within the team.

Nebula

I would go with the "Most Valuable Player Award". But some on those teams players may already have Heisman Trophy's.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Montana Marv]

I am not a replacement theologian.

Again, ou are the first person I have ever heard make the claim that this prophecy tied into the Zechariah prophecy.

I have even heard people calculate the exact date of Jesus' death and resurrection based on this Daniel prophecy.

But if your goal is to show what the language indicates, you really need to go back to the original language and state your case this way. Working the English translation sometimes misrepresents the original point.

Nebula

Thanks

Most of the Zechariah prophecies deal the the 1000 year reign of Christ and the Jewish Nation. "On that day"; is mentioned numerous times.

I really don't like people making precise calculations either, to many unknowns involved.

The original language has been translated. For this is a basic one sentence verse, segment of text. It does not bring up Jewish Idioms, Customs or Beliefs. There is not much variation from one translation to another, all seem to convey the same thought throughout.

I am just a stickler for Prophecy being 100 percent accurate all the time. If two similar prophecies conflict a little, maybe two separate prophecies, maybe one fulfilled the other future. Can the verse be split without losing the identity of either side. Is one side left high and dry. This is what I am trying to expose; "Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and holy city", it becomes high and dry without action, if split from the other half. Prophetically, Daniels people are Israel, and Daniels holy city is Jerusalem. Now is this verse one prophecy, or is it two prophecies. These are questions I ask myself.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[nebula]

Now is when you add the word "to" at the end of the quote, more information is upcoming. Such as to 1. go 16-0, or 0-16. 2. Win the Super Bowl. 3. go bankrupt. There is now action put to the quote. But also no date is given for when this is to begin.

But if one of those was "to win the Heisman trophy," that wouldn't be for the team, but only one individual within the team.

Nebula

I would go with the "Most Valuable Player Award". But some on those teams players may already have Heisman Trophy's.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Are you working the example to refute the point?

[JohnD]

Sounds like you are a Preterist, BoldBeliever.

Am I correct?

At any rate, Jesus referred to the antichrist indirectly as one of the many false christs and false prophets that would come. He also spoke of:

John 17:12 (KJV)

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Which Paul later clarified:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

3 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;

He is spoken of with many descriptions throughout scripture as the Assyrian, the worthless shepherd, the beast, the seed of the serpent, the man of sin, the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition... Preterist or not, you have foisted a false interpretative petard in the OP.

[Bold Believer]

Sounds like you are a Preterist, BoldBeliever.

Am I correct?

At any rate, Jesus referred to the antichrist indirectly as one of the many false christs and false prophets that would come. He also spoke of:

John 17:12 (KJV)

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Which Paul later clarified:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

3 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;

He is spoken of with many descriptions throughout scripture as the Assyrian, the worthless shepherd, the beast, the seed of the serpent, the man of sin, the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition... Preterist or not, you have foisted a false interpretative petard in the OP.

NO, you're not.

Jn 17:12 refers to Judas.

Jesus never referred anywhere to 'the antichrist'. Pseudo-christos and antichristos are 2 different words and not related.

The beast was Rome. The last of Daniel's 4 beasts. Nero was the human personification of the beast.

I have already answered the man of sin, man of lawlessness matter. The son of perdition is not 'the antichrist' either. "He" is lost man.

BTW it's HOISTED, not foisted. A petard is a crude bomb. If one blows himself up with his own bomb, he is said to be hoist by his own petard.

You offer no real proof except what I have already dealt with. There is no dictator antichrist, he's made up of whole cloth.

[JohnD]

Sounds like you are a Preterist, BoldBeliever.

Am I correct?

At any rate, Jesus referred to the antichrist indirectly as one of the many false christs and false prophets that would come. He also spoke of:

John 17:12 (KJV)

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Which Paul later clarified:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

3 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;

He is spoken of with many descriptions throughout scripture as the Assyrian, the worthless shepherd, the beast, the seed of the serpent, the man of sin, the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition... Preterist or not, you have foisted a false interpretative petard in the OP.

NO, you're not.

Jn 17:12 refers to Judas.

Jesus never referred anywhere to 'the antichrist'. Pseudo-christos and antichristos are 2 different words and not related.

The beast was Rome. The last of Daniel's 4 beasts. Nero was the human personification of the beast.

I have already answered the man of sin, man of lawlessness matter. The son of perdition is not 'the antichrist' either. "He" is lost man.

BTW it's HOISTED, not foisted. A petard is a crude bomb. If one blows himself up with his own bomb, he is said to be hoist by his own petard.

You offer no real proof except what I have already dealt with. There is no dictator antichrist, he's made up of whole cloth.

Sure he did. He called them false christs.

Which is what the term actually means anti-christ therefore anti-truth masquerading around as the real messiah.

And I said foisted with intent. Maybe you cannot figure the double axiom out but I am certain others here can.

[JohnD]

If you are not Preterist then what pray tell be ye?