Does the man of sin meet the requirements to be Islamic?

[JustinM]

I've been working to spread the word that the beast of Revelation will not be Islamic.  Ever since the book the "Islamic antichrist" came out this theory has circulated.  But, the author gives too much credibility to the predictions in the kuran/hadiths.  Since those "prophecies" were manmade and not inspired by the one and only Holy Spirit, they are nothing more than lies.

 

Most likely muhamed tried to convince the Jews and Christians that he was a prophet of their god and may have quoted/paraphrased parts of the bible (written or verbal, who knows), to convince them he was a prophet.  They didn't buy it, for obvious reasons to them, and he went on a rampage to force them to believe in him, and began supplanting the bible with his own teachings, such as that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son Esau instead of Isaac in Medina, instead of Jerusalem, to allah, and other parts of the bible.

 

This beast will be as a lamb and will convince the world He is the long awaited Jewish Messiah.  In order for this to work, he will have to say that Christ wasn't the Messiah but only a prophet, just like his disciples.

 

John 5: 43, says, and I paraphrase" and if another should come in his own name, him you will receive."

 

So, we know the Jews will accept this person as their messiah, until he defiles the Holy Temple by claiming to be their god.

 

The Jews will not accept a muslim as a prophet, messiah or god and that is why I believe that the antichrist (beast) will not be Islamic.

 

I think the islamists play a major role in setting up the end times, but their chaos and belligerence against the world will make them unwelcome guests here.  They are outnumbered 3-1 in the world right now and it will not tolerate their atrocities against us much longer.  Until we learn to set our own interests aside and unite against them, then we will have to suffer the indignity of living in constant fear of them.

[Sister]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Hi Serving

 

 Nahum 1:11   There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counsellor.

  Nahum 1:12   Thus saith the LORD; Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more.

  Nahum 1:13   For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.

[wingnut-]

 

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.

 

 

 

Hello lastdaze,

 

I've been considering this since you brought it up in a previous thread, and I had a few thoughts I would like to add to it.  Serving already mentioned that Judas was specifically referred to as the son of perdition, which already to me would be a strange coincidence.  Then, when you take into account something Jesus said Himself, it supports this line of thought.

 

 

John 6:70  Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”

 

 

What stands out to me most is that Jesus did not say one of you is like a devil, He said, one of you is a devil.  We know of course that the one He spoke of was Judas.  So, I don't think he would need to be possessed, which is why we see the trio of evil spoken of as separate while being together.  One example being Revelation 16:13.  Considering that he is a devil would also explain why he speaks as a dragon, but not the dragon himself.

 

If I am understanding you right, you also identify the false prophet as the beast out of the earth from Revelation 13.  The emergence of this beast appears to coincide with the opening of the Abyss, which would also explain the reasoning behind him coming out of the earth.  What I am thinking here, is that the Abyss is a symbolic reference to Hades, which is where it seems to me that Judas would have went following his death.

 

The other question that has really been gnawing at me is this.  Is there a scriptural reason for us to think that the beast out of the sea is speaking about an individual?  And by that, I mean other than the reference to this beast as being a him in the chapter.  When we look at the description we are given, it seems to me that it may be possible this beast is referencing a collection of specific nations.

 

 

Revelation 13  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore.

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. ² And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.

 

 

I am assuming it is the details of this description which lead you to believe this beast may be a fallen angel.  I am just wondering, because you didn't say specifically why you felt that way.  At any rate, I thought I would throw my thought out there on it possibly being a collection of nations, because I find it hard to picture an individual man with seven heads.

 

I am not dogmatic about any of this either, but they are things that I have been mulling over since you first brought this idea up.  There seems to be a lot of smoke there, so it seemed this would be a good time to bring it up for discussion.  I look forward to everyone's input, God bless.

[wingnut-]

I don't see a quote below...

 

 

I believe William is referencing his signature line, James 3:1.

[other one]

 

I don't see a quote below...

 

 

I believe William is referencing his signature line, James 3:1.

 

 

Oh,   I find signatures to be annoying and take up way too much room so I have worthy set to not show them....   It's been so many years, I don't even know if I have one...

[Kan]

 

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.  

 

 

Thanks for that, your comment has warmed me, I follow what you are saying. The devil must have different approaches to suit any situation and mindset, so we can expect all kinds of elements of deceit employed - sometimes a religious tone and other times openly destructive.

[ARGOSY]

 

Feel free to comment.

 

God bless.

 

I just quoted the "comment" part because my comments come from a different angle:

 

Daniel 2 speaks of the four great consecutive powers in the Middle East.  A student of history would likely see them as Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. 

The Roman part of the timeline divides into two parts which exist at the time of the second coming (the rock breaks all the other kingdoms)

History says the two parts of Rome were when Rome divided into two capital cities, Rome and Istanbul. Through time these two cities became not just the capitals of their respective regions, but also two great religious capitals.  Rome - capital of catholicism,   Istanbul - capital of Islam (the most succesful Islamic caliphate was based there , and plans are affoot to re-establish it there)

 

Revelation 13 also speaks of this beast (bull) , with little two horns, with religious influence over the world at the end.  Unless there are four religious powers, surely the "prophet" beast of Rev 13 is the same two parts of Rome as per the two feet of Daniel 2??

 

Knowing that Papal Europe (Western Rome) and Turkey (eastern Rome) are the two big end-time players, who then is the antichrist that these two powers set up as described in Rev 13??   We have the following clues:

 

A) He is a little horn of Rome (Dan 7) which means he is from a small province of the Roman Empire

B) This country disappeared by 90AD when Rev was written (Rev 17) but would re-appear to amaze the world

C) The antichrist comes with deceiving signs and wonders, yet Jesus warned us in Matthew 24 to watch out for false MESSIAHS coming with great deceiving signs and wonders (the implication is that the antichrist would appear to be an anointed Jewish conqueror - that is what a Messiah is)

D) He is declared god in Jerusalem, normally a crowning ceremony occurs in one's capital city

E) In Daniel 9 we see he already controls Israel at the end, which implies he is not from one of the countries that attack Israel at the end (not Russian/Turkey/Iranian)

F) He controls Israel, but not Jordan or Saudi according to Daniel 11

 

All this points to Israel, a small province of the Roman Empire which re-arose in 1948 to shock the world. The antichrist will take over Israel, appear to be a conquering anointed Jewish leader from the line of David,  and be declared god of this world in Jerusalem.

 

The 3 players are Rome/Istanbul/Jerusalem. The 3 centres of "western" friendly "NATO" friendly regions that will control the military power and the 3 Torah based religions on earth. 

 

Islamic?  YES.    The "Jewish" leader will be so compromised with Islam he will use Islamic law to behead his enemies, his enemies are true Christians who will be the only religion who still opposes him.

[other one]

I got an email yesterday telling me I should check out the new president of Greece.

[Last Daze]

 

Hello lastdaze,

 

I've been considering this since you brought it up in a previous thread, and I had a few thoughts I would like to add to it.  Serving already mentioned that Judas was specifically referred to as the son of perdition, which already to me would be a strange coincidence.  Then, when you take into account something Jesus said Himself, it supports this line of thought.

 

 

John 6:70  Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”

 

 

What stands out to me most is that Jesus did not say one of you is like a devil, He said, one of you is a devil.  We know of course that the one He spoke of was Judas.  So, I don't think he would need to be possessed, which is why we see the trio of evil spoken of as separate while being together.  One example being Revelation 16:13.  Considering that he is a devil would also explain why he speaks as a dragon, but not the dragon himself.

 

If I am understanding you right, you also identify the false prophet as the beast out of the earth from Revelation 13.  The emergence of this beast appears to coincide with the opening of the Abyss, which would also explain the reasoning behind him coming out of the earth.  What I am thinking here, is that the Abyss is a symbolic reference to Hades, which is where it seems to me that Judas would have went following his death.

 

The other question that has really been gnawing at me is this.  Is there a scriptural reason for us to think that the beast out of the sea is speaking about an individual?  And by that, I mean other than the reference to this beast as being a him in the chapter.  When we look at the description we are given, it seems to me that it may be possible this beast is referencing a collection of specific nations.

 

 

Revelation 13  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore.

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. ² And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.

 

 

I am assuming it is the details of this description which lead you to believe this beast may be a fallen angel.  I am just wondering, because you didn't say specifically why you felt that way.  At any rate, I thought I would throw my thought out there on it possibly being a collection of nations, because I find it hard to picture an individual man with seven heads.

 

I am not dogmatic about any of this either, but they are things that I have been mulling over since you first brought this idea up.  There seems to be a lot of smoke there, so it seemed this would be a good time to bring it up for discussion.  I look forward to everyone's input, God bless.

 

 

Hi wingnut,

 

I agree that there seems to be "something" there generating smoke.

 

I think the beast from the sea (or abyss per Rev 17) is a fallen angel because the abyss is described as a holding place or prison of evil spirit beings per Luke 8:31 and Rev 20:3.  I agree that given his description, compared to the Daniel 7 description of beasts, is striking.  We also know from Daniel 10 that fallen angels or "princes" are associated with these kingdoms.  It's worth mentioning that in Daniel 7 that there is no mention of seven heads.  The reason for that I believe is because they symbolically reference Satan's power, throne, and great authority....which he gave to this beast.  I think this is also indicated in where the crowns are located, i.e. Satan's are on his heads and the beasts are on his horns.  While there is a definite association between fallen angel "princes" and the nations they influence, I think the beast from the sea (abyss) is more a reference to that prince (or those princes) than the resulting geopolitical entities they spawn.  That's why I see the beast as a fallen angel.

 

Do you think it's possible that Judas, like Pharaoh, might have been made for a specific purpose per Romans 9?  I've been considering that as well.

[WilliamL]

 

 

...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.

 

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'.

Sort of missing the point. Which is, that different people call different End Time evil ones The Antichrist, which leads to confusion.

 

Satan is an antichrist, as are/will be the Beast, the False Prophet, the Son of Perdition, Gog, and the King of the North. Why not just use those specific terms, and avoid the confusion which is caused because of varied understandings of which of these will be, in your words, "the final antagonist of the End Times tribulation"?