Spock Posted June 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 Thunder, You said....It seems that many are wondering about the antichrist, as if he will be some great man that has the answers to all of the worlds problems. But antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation. I agree, the word antichrist is not in the book of Revelation, but Many people believe the beast coming out of the sea is the antichrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 But on a less serious note, I think Obama fits the description of the man of lawlessness very well. Cheers Obama is lawless, but I don't think he sports the competence to be the man of lawlessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldust59 Posted June 10, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 108 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 989 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 6 Joined: 01/08/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/13/1959 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I will start. Let's look at verse 3 and verse 14 Verse 3 says "one of the beasts HEAD appears to have been killed, but the lethal wound was healed. ". Vocabulary first. Beast one = antichrist; Beast two = false prophet Spock thinks: this cannot mean the antichrist was shot in the head and killed. Why do I say this? Because unless the antichrist has more than one head, which is unlikely, it is not referencing a physical body with a head. (Spock, I love when you are so logical like this. Any more?) Verse 14: " make an image to the beast who had been wounded by the SWORD...." Spock thinks: hmmmm, this is very interesting. Let's compare this verse with verse 3 above. VERSE 3 says one of the heads was wounded. Here in verse 14, the beast was wounded by the sword. Are they talking about the same thing? I don't think so. You usually don't get a head wound by a sword. Usually you get shot in the head with a bullet, not a sword. So, what do I make of verse 14? I can't be dogmatic here but it appears someone did try to assassinate the antichrist and failed, much like the attempt on Hitler. In this case, someone tried with a sword, or long knife I presume. Conclusion: based on just this chapter alone, I don't think anyone can say the antichrist rose from the dead, like our Savior Lord Jesus. It does appear he was wounded but not killed. just a thought.... have you considered that the "sword" that causes the head wound may be the Word of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted June 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 Gold dust, Wow, nice take. I'm impressed. Clap clap. Have I thought of it? Ahhhhhhh, no. I have to be honest and tell you I still don't feel it, but maybe if you elaborated and persuaded me a bit more....... I'm pretty easy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted June 10, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,197 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,495 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hi other one, I do not want to play with words, so that was a surprise. But if that is how it came over I need to think a bit on what you are saying......... And no I`m not saying this happens after the 1,000 years but before. (Rev. 20: 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted June 10, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,197 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,495 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hi rollinTHUNDER, I see that we agree on so much. Just a few thoughts though - It is God the Father who wrote Revelation (Rev. 1: 1) as He did the rest of the Bible, (as we know) & man has only been a scribe. The Apostle John knew absolutely nothing about most of what he was told to write, so it`s not what he knows, that is the criteria. Also concerning the word `Anti-Christ.` In Daniel 11: 25 it says - `And he will even oppose (stand against) the Prince of Princes.` This king who will arise insolent & skilled in intrigue (v. 23) will stand against Christ. Thus the word `anti,` or `against,` Christ. There are many names & titles for this king - the Beast, the little horn, the lawless one, the King of Babylon, the King of the North, the Assyrian, the anti, against Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,088 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,828 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Online Share Posted June 11, 2014 Hi other one, I do not want to play with words, so that was a surprise. But if that is how it came over I need to think a bit on what you are saying......... And no I`m not saying this happens after the 1,000 years but before. (Rev. 20: 2) I've been trying to deal with this for many years. To me when I decide something is more or less doctrine it has to match up with all scripture.... and it's not a simple thing to do most of the time.. I'm not trying to be difficult like I've got some big idea, just trying to make it all fit together in my own head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldust59 Posted June 12, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 108 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 989 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 6 Joined: 01/08/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/13/1959 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Gold dust, Wow, nice take. I'm impressed. Clap clap. Have I thought of it? Ahhhhhhh, no. I have to be honest and tell you I still don't feel it, but maybe if you elaborated and persuaded me a bit more....... I'm pretty easy..... Hi Spock(like the name, by the way), honestly, I haven't studied it out from that viewpoint yet.... just heard someone mention it the other day on a radio program & it caught my attention,so I have been praying for understanding... after I study on it a bit more, will let you know what comes to me many blessings to you, Deb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollinTHUNDER Posted June 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,985 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 433 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/23/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 13, 2014 Thunder, You said....It seems that many are wondering about the antichrist, as if he will be some great man that has the answers to all of the worlds problems. But antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation. I agree, the word antichrist is not in the book of Revelation, but Many people believe the beast coming out of the sea is the antichrist. Hi Spock, I agree, many do believe that, but the trouble is, most of them probably don't read the scriptures for themselves. If they did, they might change their opinion after reading that this beast has seven heads. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollinTHUNDER Posted June 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,985 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 433 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/23/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 13, 2014 Hi rollinTHUNDER, I see that we agree on so much. Just a few thoughts though - It is God the Father who wrote Revelation (Rev. 1: 1) as He did the rest of the Bible, (as we know) & man has only been a scribe. The Apostle John knew absolutely nothing about most of what he was told to write, so it`s not what he knows, that is the criteria. Also concerning the word `Anti-Christ.` In Daniel 11: 25 it says - `And he will even oppose (stand against) the Prince of Princes.` This king who will arise insolent & skilled in intrigue (v. 23) will stand against Christ. Thus the word `anti,` or `against,` Christ. There are many names & titles for this king - the Beast, the little horn, the lawless one, the King of Babylon, the King of the North, the Assyrian, the anti, against Christ.Hi Marilyn,I'm not so certain that all of those verses you cited fit what John meant about the term antichrist. My point was simply that there are many antichrist's, as John said there were many even as he was writing those words about "antichrist." There's no doubt that believers will always be outnumbered by them while we're in this world and waiting for the Lord.However, I do know what people mean when they use that term. It's just that I don't care to use the term that loosely myself, because I have learned that this is exactly how assumptions and misconceptions are born. So, even though I understand what they are saying, I stop myself short of just going along with the crowd in these situations. I simply prefer to call it what it is, whether it's the little horn, the man of sin and/or the son of perdition. Prophecy is very confusing for many believers already, so I try to stay on the beaten path as much as possible. My hope is that this will help me guard against taking a wrong turn somewhere down the road.I see a similar problem when people mention the term "tribulation." Some call Daniel's 70th week the seven year tribulation. Some call the first 3 1/2 years the tribulation and the second 3 1/2 years the great tribulation, while others only view the final 42 months as the time of tribulation. And while we're at it, lets not forget about God's wrath, but I won't get into this now. I just like to be very clear when discussing these things, otherwise we might be talking about two very different ideas without even realizing it.Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts