Serving Posted March 28, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 905 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/05/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/14/1969 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 Hi Serving, Well dear bro, we wont have long to find out. Marilyn. I second that sister .. not long at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted March 28, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.31 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2015 Hi Wingnut, Yes I too believe he must have Jewish blood in him definitely .. whether German / Israeli, French / Israeli etc whatever .. he will definitely have that Israeli bloodline in him. I say German / Israeli etc for a reason .. this man rises to power in the European sphere (modern Roman empire) and eventually attacks Israel, therefore, to attack Israel, one must be ruling a country other than Israel. Be that as it may, we do agree on his heritage.. Blessings. Hello serving, Yes, I also agree that he will come out of one of the nations of the former Roman Empire, just that his heritage will include being a Jew. I should have been more clear about that, God bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Posted March 28, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.49 Reputation: 1,292 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2015 The man of sin, by it's own name means transgressor of the law, or lawless one. That law we all know is none other than the law of God. So in contrast we have the saints who "keep the commandments of God" and have the faith of Jesus. The wish to take the place of God on earth etc, indicates an envied position - particularly over the Christian world. It involves a false Christ as Jesus warned. So there is no point in looking for the man of sin as an obvious Antichrist/dragon or from another religion which does not represent Christ. Satan has always wanted to supplant Christ the Son of God, and no other god which he has already instigated and assumed to be anyway. To bring about this deception he has to become Christ-like. Since he cannot do that without lying, he has to make the world a darker place by contrast first, to prepare the way for the new christian revolution. This is done through blatant Satan worship and a bedlam of violence within society and religions. The call for peace will become global through the people moving on governments to instill the laws of God, and making them civil. This is designed "if possible to deceive the very elect." An obvious demonic Antichrist or another religion cannot deceive the very elect - Christians. It has to resemble God - "Having a form of godliness but denying the power of it." The fact that he is called the man of sin gives away his intentions - to cause the world to disobey God on some level or on one point. "He that offends in one point of the law is guilty of breaking them all." James 2:8-10. It seems to me that the one point in which the world will reject God is in the single mark of the beast. I cannot see how Islam or Allah are a deception to the very elect, or how they can be accused of taking the place of Christ on earth. They just consider Christ to be a prophet. What Christian is fooled by Islam? But Satan knows that there is only one name under heaven by which the world can be saved, and it is this position of God that he wants to eclipse by his own shadows of deception. If he can convince the world of the one universal christ - adjustable to all beliefs, then he has it. But we know that the saints will not be fooled by anything which contravenes the law of God. On this basis the world is clearly divided into two camps, the majority and the minority, the disloyal and the loyal, and God then terminates the battle between good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamL Posted March 29, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 99 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 5,117 Content Per Day: 1.48 Reputation: 2,554 Days Won: 4 Joined: 11/06/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/01/1950 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Hi Serving, Just a couple of points. 1. The false prophet is not the Anti-Christ... Marilyn. ...There is only one son of perdition .. the false prophet whom the world mistakenly calls the "anti-Christ" (which is a state of being and not an individual as explained 4 times in the scriptures) There is the first beast, the 10 king empire .. then from amongst them rises up their poster boy .. the false prophet & coming world dictator who takes control over the 1st beast and rules the show. I picked these two posts, because they illustrate a common problem/presumption in the Church about "the Antichrist," and other End Time foes of Christ. The Bible does not teach that there is a "the Antichrist." John is the only author who ever used the term, and he said "there are many antichrists," 1 John 2:18, and one spirit of antichrist, 4:3. So when people use the term "man of sin [the son of perdition]," and then start talking about him as if he is the same person as "the Antichrist," or as the False Prophet, the Beast, Gog, and so on -- without ever having attempted to prove any of this -- then all they do is sow confusion. And we get speculation upon speculation, without anyone bothering to establish their teachings on sound biblical exegesis. So please do all of us a service, and give us sound scriptural evidence for how you support what you teach. See quote below... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted March 29, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,117 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,851 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2015 I don't see a quote below... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted March 29, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Hi Serving, Just a couple of points. 1. The false prophet is not the Anti-Christ... Marilyn. ...There is only one son of perdition .. the false prophet whom the world mistakenly calls the "anti-Christ" (which is a state of being and not an individual as explained 4 times in the scriptures) There is the first beast, the 10 king empire .. then from amongst them rises up their poster boy .. the false prophet & coming world dictator who takes control over the 1st beast and rules the show. I picked these two posts, because they illustrate a common problem/presumption in the Church about "the Antichrist," and other End Time foes of Christ. The Bible does not teach that there is a "the Antichrist." John is the only author who ever used the term, and he said "there are many antichrists," 1 John 2:18, and one spirit of antichrist, 4:3. So when people use the term "man of sin [the son of perdition]," and then start talking about him as if he is the same person as "the Antichrist," or as the False Prophet, the Beast, Gog, and so on -- without ever having attempted to prove any of this -- then all they do is sow confusion. And we get speculation upon speculation, without anyone bothering to establish their teachings on sound biblical exegesis. So please do all of us a service, and give us sound scriptural evidence for how you support what you teach. See quote below... The Bible doesn't use the word 'rapture' either but it's still an accepted term. The word 'trinity' is not used either. The anti-Christ is an expression we use to describe the final antagonist of the End Times tribulation. If you're talking about John's reference to 'many anti-Christs' then we distinguish between them by saying 'an anti-Christ' as opposed to 'the anti-Christ'. It's the difference between the word 'the' and the word 'an'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serving Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 905 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/05/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/14/1969 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hi William, I picked these two posts, because they illustrate a common problem/presumption in the Church about "the Antichrist," and other End Time foes of Christ. The Bible does not teach that there is a "the Antichrist." John is the only author who ever used the term, and he said "there are many antichrists," 1 John 2:18, and one spirit of antichrist, 4:3. Yes, correct, this is what I am pointing out .. because it is important for a particular reason which I will get to. So when people use the term "man of sin [the son of perdition]," and then start talking about him as if he is the same person as "the Antichrist," or as the False Prophet, the Beast, Gog, and so on -- without ever having attempted to prove any of this -- then all they do is sow confusion. And we get speculation upon speculation, without anyone bothering to establish their teachings on sound biblical exegesis. I am assuming those answering on this thread have read the prophecies and understand where I am coming from without needing large posts with scripture they likely already know re the subject at hand. Of course I am happy to offer up scriptures to back up my argument since you have asked .. So when people use the term "man of sin [the son of perdition]," and then start talking about him as if he is the same person as "the Antichrist," or as the False Prophet, the Beast, Gog, and so on -- then all they do is sow confusion No I'm just speaking of the false prophet being the man of sin / son of perdition to come (I'm aware Judas was called son of perdition too but I'm not speaking of the past, but of the near future) Anyway, the below is speaking of the false prophet, here he is called both man of sin & son of perdition in the same verse : 2 Thessalonians 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; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. So please do all of us a service, and give us sound scriptural evidence for how you support what you teach. William, I wouldn't say I am teaching, but have started a topic of interest with fellow brethren .. nevertheless I have supplied a little scripture as requested. The reason I think Anti-Christ shouldn't be used for this coming man is because God doesn't use it .. and there is good reason too .. conflicting doctrines come out of it !! It's like building a wall .. it all may look flush at the beginning but if the line is not precise, the end result is always going to be way out .. "smash it down & start again boys".. people will get distracted looking places they needn't look, and then all sorts of interpretations & doctrines will pop up like weeds serving to muddy the waters unnecessarily .. there is a danger of some ignoring the one that comes till the "other" comes too .. except the other one never does come simply because there is no other one to come .. and many will think, "well this can't be the one because the other one hasn't come yet .. this must be a forerunner or something" (they will gladly convince themselves to save their lives .. but whosoever will save their life, will lose their life instead) .. and that is serious. In the uncertain times ahead, that may be just the very straw that breaks the Camel's back and cause the weaker ones to stumble .. there are many scenarios that could play out .. When God's two witnesses come .. guess who they will probably get called? Yep .. the false prophet & the anti-Christ .. and these two happen to come in the false prophet's 2nd 3 1/2 year term where the mark is made compulsory .. and many who have heard that two wicked men must come will think the two holy witnesses are "them" because they are hurting the people .. all because of those erroneous doctrines stemming from not calling that wicked man by his correct title .. the false prophet. Sure, many of us know what to expect and will know regardless of that doctrine .. but the problem isn't identifying the correct doctrine when it happens .. but identifying it now so others can prepare their spirit & those they love for what is to come .. children especially .. right now .. need to be gently told what is coming, they need to be supported and strengthened and to know that the end result will be taken care of by God Himself, I know of children being prepared by being told the truth, they are scared, sure .. we all are .. but when told of their reward, becoming like angels, all the imaginings a child will entertain in that simple beautiful truth .. well .. that strengthens them plenty .. that excites them .. Anyway .. now I'm starting to ramble .. you get the point I'm sure .. Thanks William. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serving Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 905 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/05/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/14/1969 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hi Wingnut, Yes I too believe he must have Jewish blood in him definitely .. whether German / Israeli, French / Israeli etc whatever .. he will definitely have that Israeli bloodline in him. I say German / Israeli etc for a reason .. this man rises to power in the European sphere (modern Roman empire) and eventually attacks Israel, therefore, to attack Israel, one must be ruling a country other than Israel. Be that as it may, we do agree on his heritage.. Blessings. Hello serving, Yes, I also agree that he will come out of one of the nations of the former Roman Empire, just that his heritage will include being a Jew. I should have been more clear about that, God bless you. Hi Wingnut, I hear you brother .. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serving Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 905 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/05/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/14/1969 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 The man of sin, by it's own name means transgressor of the law, or lawless one. That law we all know is none other than the law of God. So in contrast we have the saints who "keep the commandments of God" and have the faith of Jesus. The wish to take the place of God on earth etc, indicates an envied position - particularly over the Christian world. It involves a false Christ as Jesus warned. So there is no point in looking for the man of sin as an obvious Antichrist/dragon or from another religion which does not represent Christ. Satan has always wanted to supplant Christ the Son of God, and no other god which he has already instigated and assumed to be anyway. To bring about this deception he has to become Christ-like. Since he cannot do that without lying, he has to make the world a darker place by contrast first, to prepare the way for the new christian revolution. This is done through blatant Satan worship and a bedlam of violence within society and religions. The call for peace will become global through the people moving on governments to instill the laws of God, and making them civil. This is designed "if possible to deceive the very elect." An obvious demonic Antichrist or another religion cannot deceive the very elect - Christians. It has to resemble God - "Having a form of godliness but denying the power of it." The fact that he is called the man of sin gives away his intentions - to cause the world to disobey God on some level or on one point. "He that offends in one point of the law is guilty of breaking them all." James 2:8-10. It seems to me that the one point in which the world will reject God is in the single mark of the beast. I cannot see how Islam or Allah are a deception to the very elect, or how they can be accused of taking the place of Christ on earth. They just consider Christ to be a prophet. What Christian is fooled by Islam? But Satan knows that there is only one name under heaven by which the world can be saved, and it is this position of God that he wants to eclipse by his own shadows of deception. If he can convince the world of the one universal christ - adjustable to all beliefs, then he has it. But we know that the saints will not be fooled by anything which contravenes the law of God. On this basis the world is clearly divided into two camps, the majority and the minority, the disloyal and the loyal, and God then terminates the battle between good and evil. Hi Kan, Well said brother .. you made good points that I too agree with .. all except one point .. this wicked one to come does not need to use Christianity as a cloak to imitate Jesus our Lord .. this man regards no God .. not one, Jesus included. To regard is to "point to" .. "to mention" .. to "pay due respect to" .. etc etc .. to pretend to be a Christian Messiah would mean giving glory to the Father as a given .. but this one doesn't even regard the God of his father's .according to scripture .. and that pretty much cancels out him pretending to be a Christian Messiah .. he may be acting Christlike .. that is, acting righteous .. but many act & claim righteousness without ever invoking Christianity .. they can act Christlike whilst promoting Buddhism for example .. "Christlike" is just a moniker for pure intentions to many these days, it doesn't necessarily mean "a Christian person" as I am sure you know. Nevertheless, It is his wonderful words mixed with the strong delusion sent from God that convinces the people. As a counter argument to one point .. why show himself as Christian at all when it is Christians themselves that he will be targeting for the chopping block? (And Christians will know it too !! .. kind of seems detrimental) "Take this mark or else" doesn't seem a very probable way to deceive the elect either I'd say. (not to mention that billions of non believers know that Christians will be against this coming mark which also causes problems to him pretending to be Christ) That being said, Daniel offers up some interesting info .. Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. That is the false prophet trashing heavenly things and mocking certain angels that God sent with messages no doubt (so trashing the word really) .. this wouldn't help his pretending to be Christian either in my opinion. See what you think after some consideration perhaps? Thanks Kan .. blessings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Daze Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,011 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 2,519 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/17/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2015 When God's two witnesses come .. guess who they will probably get called? Yep .. the false prophet & the anti-Christ .. and these two happen to come in the false prophet's 2nd 3 1/2 year term where the mark is made compulsory .. and many who have heard that two wicked men must come will think the two holy witnesses are "them" because they are hurting the people .. all because of those erroneous doctrines stemming from not calling that wicked man by his correct title .. the false prophet. I agree Serving. There will be one man of sin, the son of perdition. The trio of evil, as I see it, are two fallen angels and a human. In Revelation they're known as the dragon, the beast and the false prophet and are mentioned together as such a couple of times. It is dangerous and confusing to make up terms that reflect one's interpretation, such as "seal judgments" as well as others. No I'm just speaking of the false prophet being the man of sin / son of perdition to come (I'm aware Judas was called son of perdition too but I'm not speaking of the past, but of the near future) What if the past were to make a future appearance? I've been kicking around the idea of the false prophet being Judas raised from the dead and possessed by Satan again. I'm not dogmatic about it but the reasons I consider it are: how many people can be referred to as "the man of sin", emphasis on the definite article? the false prophet comes up out of the earth....an indication that he sleeps in the dust of the earth? the false prophet speaks as a dragon.... an indication that Satan (the red dragon) possesses him? why would Satan give his power, throne, and great authority to anyone, ever?? A limitation of being incarnate? If you know of anything that would preclude that, I'd be interested in hearing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts