The Lawless One

[Guest borderline]

r

Edited July 15, 2012 by borderline

[kevinsball]

Actually there's not one verse that implicates Rome in the last days. If you can post one you would be the first.

Borderline,

This is only partly true. There is a difference between saying the legs of iron is Rome and that the Lawless one comes from the Roman Empire.

The head,

chest and arms,

belly and thighs,

and legs are history.

The feet and toes are future.

Are you saying that Rome was never an Empire?

Do you deny that from the ancient city of Rome came the Roman Empire?

You have accepted a flawed interpretation of Daniel 2.

You maybe right. However... as we get closer to the end, we see a clearer image as knowledge is increased. (Daniel 12:4)

One of the greatest eschatological blunders I know of is to associate Rome with Babylon!

I agree to a point. However, could there be a dual reference to both cities?

Greece is the legs of iron and toes 'mixed' with iron and clay.

I do agree that Greece will be one of the nations in the toes of the feet, However, how do you reconcile Greece breaking off into two legs?

Iron and clay better describes the Arabs than the Italians!

I agree that clay better represents Arabs. However, how do you connect iron describing Greecians?

Also, we know for a fact that the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem city and Temple in 70 AD.

If the prophet Daniel told you that the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, (Daniel 9:26) then we should be safe in assigning the Romans as the people.

So this prince that shall come is the Lawless one, and he is the prince of the people of the Roman Empire.

The lawless one will come from the most lawless land and religion in the world... The Arab/Islamic world!

The Lawless one IS MOST DEFINITELY Muslim.

With that being said, I must ask a "Jesus styled question":

If the Lawless one (Mahdi) comes from the Islamic (eastern) nations as you presuppose, then what is the purpose of the Islamic hadiths about the sun rising from the west - Abdullah-bin-Umar said, "I memorized a Hadith of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم which I have not forgotten. I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say, 'The first of the Signs that will come is the rising of the sun from the place of its setting and the emergence of the Daabba to people in Duha (later portion of the morning before noon). Whichever of these two (signs) occurs before the other, then the other one will occur immediately after it." (Sahih Muslim)

and the Qu'ranic interpretation of: " No good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good (by performing deeds of righteousness) through his faith." (Surah Al-An'aam 6:158)

This verse is referring to the rising of the sun from the West, according to the opinion of the majority of Quran commentators such as Tabari and Ibn Kathir.

Imam Tabari, after mentioning the different opinions of the commentators writes, "The most correct opinion in regards to the meaning of this verse is that what is apparent from the reports narrated from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said, "Becoming a Believer will be of no benefit after the sun rises from the West." (Tabari) --------------- ?

We know that the total literal reversal of the earth to produce this "rising of the sun from the west" is an allegory. The sun is either the Mahdi himself or a symbol that the mahdi will have such as the luminous (glowing) leaf, pearl or star scar on his forehead as Muslims teach in their hadiths (the same as the wound in the head of the Antichrist).

This is how it is:

According to many Islamic hadiths, the Mahdi will appear in the east (Karbala or Samarra, Iraq) from the west. He comes from the west to the east.

The Lawless one is raised in a Christian (Catholic) Church. He then denies the tenets of his religion and becomes Muslim (probably at that time he will realize he is the Mahdi - Lawless one - Antichrist - Little horn).

Regarding this matter, according to the Bible, Daniel recounts this as he declares: "Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women" Daniel 11:37.

Barnes notes examines this, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers - The God that his fathers or ancestors had worshipped: That is, he would not be bound or restrained by the religion of his own land. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers - The God that his fathers or ancestors had worshipped: That is, he would not be bound or restrained by the religion of his own land."

If the Mahdi is Muslim (which he is), and comes from the (east), then how shall he not regard his fathers gods?

To put it a different way:

If the Mahdi comes from the east where Allah is the god/gods of his fathers, and the Mahdi "honors a god whom his fathers knew not" then he would not honor Allah but a different god - thereby denying the Muslim god.

Do you see the contradiction? The presupposition that the Mahdi is Muslim is correct, but to say he is brought up in the east does NOT match with the Bible, nor with the Qu'ran, nor with Mohammed's sayings, nor with logic. (For we know that the Islamic teachings are a main source of the deception in 2 Thessalonians 2:11)

He must be brought up in a different religion and region such as Christian (IN A LAND TO THE WEST) then converts to Islam and appears to the Muslims in the east at Karbala or Samarra, Iraq.

The next part of the sentence in this verse answers this matter, "nor the desire of women". This is rightly interpreted as the Messiah. His fathers gods/God are: Mary the Mother of God and her Christ child (Jesus).

However...

"nor the desire of women" also refers to the lawless one not caring for the desires of women - (which is promoted by Islam)

The Lawless one is a "Christian" prince in the western part of the Roman Empire and becomes Muslim.

Edited June 3, 2012 by kevinsball

[Guest borderline]

hyu

Edited July 15, 2012 by borderline

[kevinsball]

How do you explain the 'inferior kingdom' having two arms of silver and you saying it's Persia?

I don't say its Persia. I say its Medes and Persians.

In 553 BC, Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, rebelled against his grandfather, the Mede King, Astyages son of Cyaxares; he finally won a decisive victory in 550 BC resulting in Astyages' capture by his own dissatisfied nobles, who promptly turned him over to the triumphant Cyrus.^[54]After Cyrus's victory against Astyages, the Medes were subjected to their close kin, the Persians.^[55] In the new empire they retained a prominent position; in honor and war, they stood next to the Persians; their court ceremony was adopted by the new sovereigns, who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana; and many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals. Interestingly, at the beginning the Greek historians referred to the Achaemenid Empire as a Median empire. - Wikipedia

So the Persian Empire of Iran is just an extension and change of the family dynasty.

Despite its success and rapid expansion, Achaemenid empire was not the first Iranian empire, as by sixth century BCE another group of ancient Iranians had already established the Median Empire.^[17] The term Achaemenid is in fact the Latinized version of the Old Persian name Haxāmaniš (a bahuvrihi compound translating to "having a friend's mind"^[18]), meaning in Greek "of the family of the Achaemenis." Despite the derivation of the name, Achaemenes was himself a minor seventh century ruler of the Anshan (Ansham or Anšān) located in southwestern Iran.^[17] It was not until the time of Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II of Persia) a descendant of Achaemenes, that the Achaemenid empire developed the prestige of an empire, and set out to incorporate the existing empires of the ancient east, to become the vast Persian empire of which the ancient texts speak. At some point in 550 BCE, Cyrus the Great rose in rebellion against the Median empire (most likely due to the Medes' mismanagement of Persis), eventually conquering the Medes and creating the first Persian empire. Achaemenes could well have been a significiant Anshan leader and an ancestor of Cyrus the Great. Regardless, both Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great were related, prominent kings of Persia, under whose rule the empire expanded to include much of the ancient world. - Wikipedia

And just because there are 'two' arms and legs' doesn't mean those empires have 'broken off!'

You affirm that the 10 toes are 10 nations, why shouldn't the rest of the image mean something?

To understand the statue as a unified structure which actually describes the empires, you do.

We shouldn't use Daniel 9 to interpret Daniel 2 because there are too many beliefs and too many ways to interpret it.

If you interpret it the way I mentioned, then it does match.

However, it does not match within your theory of excluding Rome as an Empire of iron in Daniel 2.

There are a host of theories and misunderstandings about Daniel 9,2,7,11 and we would have to confront them all before we can use it to interpret Daniel 2.

So what would your interpretation of the seven/eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 be?

Accepted interpretation is:

________

Egypt ]

Assyria ]

Babylon ] _____ ('five are fallen')

Media/Persia ]

Greece _____]

Rome (6th kingdom - 'and one is')

A future global coalition to rule the first 42 months of the tribulation

(7th kingdom - 'the other is not yet come')

The Antichrist's Empire to rule the last 42 months of the tribulation

(8th kingdom - 'the beast that was and is not') (Revelation 17:11)

[kevinsball]

NO! The prince that shall come is more likely to be an Assyrian/Babylonian! (Like Antiochus or Nebuchadnezzar)!

I do not deny this. For Scripture says about this lawless one, that he is:

Pharoh king of Egypt - Ezekiel 29:3, Isaiah 19:4

The Assyrian - Isaiah 10:5-6, Micah 5:5-6

King of Babylon - Isaiah 14:4, 16

Prince of Tyre - Ezekiel 28:2

This does not conflict with him being the current prince of the western territory of the Roman Empire (England). For he must come from the west. Everything must match.

Rome would be contradictory to the word mixed, which is an Arab

Not if Rome is the iron, but you exclude Rome.

The word for iron is (parzel - 6523) which corresponds to (barzel - 1270) from the root of (Birzowth - 1269) which means: to pierce.

Who pierced Jesus? The Romans.

Where does Daniel Daniel 8 and 11 say the lawless one or 'king of fierce countenance' the 'little horn' or the 'king of the north' originate?

Greece.

Every country mentioned in all OT prophecies are of Arab and Islamic origin. Not Roman!

True. Every nation that Jesus fights in His second coming are Islamic.

How do you come up with the idea that the lawless one would be a Christian Catholic? There's not one verse that supports that idea!

I just gave you one, but you designate it as misapplied.

That's a shameful accusation.

I didn't choose who the royal "father" and "firstborn son" is. I'm just proclaiming the truth. Tell God He shouldn't have the False Prophet and the Antichrist within the congregation of the Church of England.

Daniel 11:37-39 must be understood in it's entirety before you can jump to conclusions on it and say the man of sin cannot be Islamic

No - No - No, I said he will be Islamic, but he is not yet.

So a thourough unbiased 'personal' study', not the beliefs of others, is necessary to get some understanding of this passage. It must also be in accord with all the other verses of prophecy about the man of sin.

I say that attributing the man of sin to christianity or the church in any way is completely unscriptural.

I try to have an open mind if everything matches. But the last man of sin (Judas - son of perdition - John 17:12) was hand picked by Jesus, taught by God Himself in His close congregation of 12. And there in lies another verse to support the Christian background of the lawless one.

Was it shameful for Jesus to do this?

Is this unscriptural?

The lawless one will support a counterfeit religion (Islam) with a counterfeit God (Allah), a counterfeit prophet (Muhammad), and a counterfeit book, (koran) a counterfeit returning messiah, (Mahdi), and a counterfeit anti-christ, (dajjal). The harlot (Islam) that occupies (sits upon) the beast...is Islam....the religion of... the ten horned beast which is... the coming 10 nation Arab/Islamic Empire. The harlot also offers it's jihadist that commit the abominations of the earth which fill the harlots cup, 72 virgins in paradise. Can you see a clue here?

So true. Amen.

Edited June 4, 2012 by kevinsball

[kevinsball]

The text about the Lawless one is about situations in the 1st century. It is not about any of this clay and statues and Islam and how to find Rome today etc.

This is true for a preterist view, but is false if interpreting from a premillennial, dispensational view.

Be historians first, then theologians, and never be a prognosticator.

Why not?

The definition of a prognosticator is: - someone who makes predictions of the future (usually on the basis of special knowledge)

Daniel was a prognosticator. He found special knowledge (Daniel 9:2) in the Book of Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10. He then prognosticates about this revelation in Daniel 9:24-27.

If we find special knowledge about the future in the scriptures ((Bible = truth, (Qu'ran, Hadith's = deception)), then why shouldn't we be like the people of God and tell others?

For the Islamic teachings record history, theology and prognastications in this prophecy from Muhammed:

Jabir bin Samurah narrated, "Nafi' bin 'Utbah said, 'We were accompanying the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) to a battle.' Then, he (Nafi') said, 'Then, some people from the west (of Madinah) came to the Prophet wearing clothes made of wool and they met him next to a mound. They were standing while the Messenger of Allah was sitting.' He (Nafi') then said, 'So I told myself, "Let me come closer to them and stand between them and him so that they will not assassinate him." He (Nafi') then said, '(Then, I said to myself) "They may be having a conversation with him." However, I came close by and stood between them and him.' He (Nafi') then said, 'And then I memorized four sentences from him, and I can count them with my hand. He said,

"You will invade the Arabian Peninsula and Allah will grant it (to you). Then (you will conquer) Persia and Allah will grant it (to you). Then, you will invade Ar-Rum and Allah will grant it (to you). Then, you will invade The Dajjal and Allah will grant him (to you)." Nafi' said to Jabir, "O Jabir! We do not believe that the Dajjal will appear until Ar-Rum is conquered." (Ibid., no. 2028)

The land of Ar-Rum is Europe and Rome is its heart. The Messenger of Allah gave us the good tidings that we will conquer Rome, the capital of Christendom today, after the Muslims conquered the first capital of Christendom, Constantinople.

Imam Ahmad narrated that Abdullah Bin Amr Bin Al-Aas said, "While we were around the Messenger of Allah) writing (the Hadith) the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) was asked/ 'Which of these two cities will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyah (Rome)?' He said, 'The city of Heracles will first be conquered.' He meant Constantinople.'' (Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 508. Also, see As-Silsilah as-Sahihah, vol. 1)

It is so simple to see that Rome is definitely in the eschatological roadmap of the Muslim's. To get a clearer image, you must include the delusions, for they give us understanding how the decieved, will be decieved.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; Zechariah 8:7

Whatever "End-Time Paradigm" is used, it MUST include both EAST and WEST - ISLAMIC and ROMAN.

Edited June 5, 2012 by kevinsball

[Guest borderline]

g

Edited July 15, 2012 by borderline

[kevinsball]

I

The bible doesn't say Cyrus conquered Babylon. There are several verses that quote Darius and the Medes as the one who took Babylon. Here's one.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

I know all the stories on how the Medo-Persian Empire fits the inferior kingdom theory and I don't believe a one of them.

Yes but you leave out Daniel 5:28: Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Even the current great proponents of the "Revived Islamic End-Time Paradigm" do not exclude Rome from Revelation 17:10-11, nor do they separate the Medes and Persians in Daniel 2 and 7.

Joel Richardson includes Rome

Walid Shoebat includes Rome (Prophecy 101: Islam and Satan 7 of 10 - video - @ 5:00)

AtSpace.com includes Rome

However, Joel only excludes Rome from the Daniel 2 and 7.

His interpretation of Daniel 2 is:

Babylon

Medo-Persian

Greece

Islamic Caliphate

Walid's interpretation is: (Why Islam is the Antichrist 10 of 22 -video - @ 8:44 - 9:49) (Why Islam is the Antichrist 11 of 22 - video - @ 0:00 - 0:07)

Babylon

Medo-Persian

Greece

(possibly Rome and definitely Islam)

I can tell you that Catholicism will never merge with Islam in any way. Islam won't allow it

Islam extends its offer to any and all people and religions. All you have to say is: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.

Plus, the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate following the lead of the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, stipulated that “the Catholic Church, while affirming the specific originality of Christianity, does not reject anything that is true and holy in non-Christian religions.”

What is the most holy in Islam?

There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.

God is one, not three.

Jesus did not die on the cross.

The Catholic Church has already prepared the way for Islam to enter into its pulpits, and it will.

Edited June 9, 2012 by kevinsball

[kevinsball]

I don't know who the "we" is that you are refering to in response to my "be historians first...never prognosticators" but I was refering to the spokeperson for the Gospel today being as much like the apostles as possible, along the lines of 2 Cor. 5, "envoys" for the Gospel.

Me too. Ambassadors for Christ, proclaiming the truth.

The Gospel of Christ is the same yesterday, today, forever.

Amen.

[Guest borderline]

rt

Edited July 15, 2012 by borderline