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

[Diaste]

Serving

The man of sin is the human little horn of Daniel's visions [Daniel 7:7-25; 8:9-25; 9:26-27 [the other prince that shall come]; 11:36-45: 12:7; Joel 2:20; Micah 5:5-6]

This one will be a king of the northern Middle East who will arise in northwestern Mesopotamia [Syria/Iraq today]

And he will consolidate the current factions of the Middle Eastern Muslims into his kingdom [Daniel 2:40-43] ... the kingdom of iron and clay with 10 other kings in the region

 

I agree with your conclusion. The idea that the fourth kingdom is Muslim harmonizes a great deal of scripture concerning the man of sin and the little horn. Great insight! Thank you Father!

[Diaste]

Diaste,

Seeing that I have suffered an unprovoked & non specified personal attack at your hands lately, let me defend myself starting here ...

Serving,

You're right. I didn't specify why I'm opposed to your preaching. So, specifically,  I'm opposed to the things you say concerning the time of the end and those words provoke me to action. 

Sorry you wasted all that effort on defending your position. That sort of thing doesn't help and it's not the real problem. You didn't even find out what position to defend before you launched into more oft recycled end time analysis.

You don't seem to be looking to God for the answers. I can tell because everything you're posting has been said and taught for many years and is generally considered erroneous. Convincing,  but error filled , based on false premises and littered with assumptions. Not to mention the forced and illogical conclusions.  I find all that old teaching to be deceptive at best and at worst, doctrines of devils. 

You also don't consider any other position. For decades I studied several views on the end of the age. Pre, post, a, literal, allegorical.  Read dozens of books on each, hundreds of web pages, etc. You should at least pretend to be interested in another world view, but it could just my message you don't care for.

Cheers

Diaste.

 

[Sister]

Diaste

I remember that conversation you had with Serving and he provided many scriptures with reasoning as to why the fourth Kingdom could not be a Muslim empire.  Your defense did not hold any water.

I also gave you scriptures which showed that the Fourth Kingdom, the same one as the beast rising out of the sea in Rev (the 7th head, with the 10 kings) could not be anyone else but THE WEST.  Why?  because the The Medes will stand up against the False Prophet's kingdom leading to the 3rd WWW.

So according to your reasoning, the fourth kingdom with the 10 horns, which the little horn will spring up from is a Muslem empire, and this Muslem empire will go against a Muslem False Prophet creating a 3rd WWW?  Where does that leave the power of the West?  Do you think the West are so small and insignificant that they can be trampled on by 3rd world Nations?  Who controls the money DIASTE?  because he who controls the money, controls the power.  Are you not aware that "THE WEST" even created all these Muslem factions?  Are you not aware that the 10 kings from the WEST have set the stage to destroy nations using men for hire?  You have not done your homework.

So you see it doesn't matter how many views you have studied, you yourself are not looking to God for the answers.  Your insults on Serving's other post was done in poor taste and revealed your pride.  If you disagree, fair enough, but God does not give grace to the proud, and if there is no grace, then he will not give you wisdom to see truth.  I think you owe him a great big apology for your conduct, and if you disagree with him fair enough, but to take it to the level you did was disgraceful.

 

[Serving]

Serving

The man of sin is the human little horn of Daniel's visions [Daniel 7:7-25; 8:9-25; 9:26-27 [the other prince that shall come]; 11:36-45: 12:7; Joel 2:20; Micah 5:5-6]

This one will be a king of the northern Middle East who will arise in northwestern Mesopotamia [Syria/Iraq today]

And he will consolidate the current factions of the Middle Eastern Muslims into his kingdom [Daniel 2:40-43] ... the kingdom of iron and clay with 10 other kings in the region

 

Hi Daniel,

This king of the north can not be a Muslim confederation.

Firstly, he regards no god nor even regards God Himself .. if he were Muslim he would HAVE to regard Allah full stop .. no getting around that one not even an inch. NO Muslim could EVER be accepted as this coming "Mahdi" if he never acknowledges Allah .. never going to happen, this just can't be reconciled with Daniel 11's "nor regard any god, for he shall magnify himself above all" or "he shall honour the God of forces" so he believes in military might,

Since Muslims demand Allah is worshipped (regarded), even their "coming Mahdi" is said to be coming on Allah's behalf .. well .. since this little horn regards (acknowledges) no god, then HOW can the Muslims accept him as their Mahdi since he will never regard Allah nor any god?  

Find a way around that conundrum and then we can discuss the other problems with that interpretation to do with all the Muslim nations this king is going to overthrow when he comes in to doublecross Israel whom he makes a secret agreement with .. MANY Muslim countries (in the middle east) will be overthrown by this king .. that is .. militarily conquered .. MANY .. ALL Muslim nations at that !! ( do you honestly think that Israel makes an agreement with this Muslim empire to LET THEM come through their country with all their armies whilst on his way to conquer Egypt & co only to have other Muslim countries getting very angry over this attack on Israel?? .. it makes no real world sense at all)

Nevertheless, isn't this coming "Mahdi" meant to be UNITING the Muslims and not conquering them by military force?

You see .. problems are many if we say this king is a Muslim king / federation. 

THEN we'd need discuss the Muslim nations that rise up against this very same king near the very end, .. Iran and ALL the kingdoms of Ararat (Turkey)  etc  and all their ALLIES .. so already we see this so called Muslim federation severely thinned out, first the MANY Muslim nations this king conquers  .. THEN all the Muslim nations that rise up against him near the end.

So WHO is left to be in this so called Muslim federation?

All scripture points to this man being a conqueror of Muslim nations, not a uniter.

Another point .. the Assyrian is just another name for Satan & by extension, whomsoever is Satan's human vessel, in this case, the last days false prophet himself .. this title was given long time ago & has nothing to do with meaning this mans nationality .. it is a spiritual title God gave long time ago .. God even called the Assyrian (Satan in this case) as the one oppressing His people when they were in Egypt before exodus .. which of course we know NO human Assyrian or Assyrians could possibly have fulfilled this back then against the superpower of it's day in Egypt .. so you see, the "Assyrian" is in no way some clue as to this false prophets nationality .. but there is one clue .. that this man doesn't even regard the God of his fathers .. this is speaking of our God whom his fathers worshipped .. again, this too goes against him being of some Muslim federation.

There are just too many scriptures against this confederation being anything other than north as in EUROPE & NOT Muslim. 

regards.

    

 

 

 

 

[Serving]

Diaste

I remember that conversation you had with Serving and he provided many scriptures with reasoning as to why the fourth Kingdom could not be a Muslim empire.  Your defense did not hold any water.

I also gave you scriptures which showed that the Fourth Kingdom, the same one as the beast rising out of the sea in Rev (the 7th head, with the 10 kings) could not be anyone else but THE WEST.  Why?  because the The Medes will stand up against the False Prophet's kingdom leading to the 3rd WWW.

So according to your reasoning, the fourth kingdom with the 10 horns, which the little horn will spring up from is a Muslem empire, and this Muslem empire will go against a Muslem False Prophet creating a 3rd WWW?  Where does that leave the power of the West?  Do you think the West are so small and insignificant that they can be trampled on by 3rd world Nations?  Who controls the money DIASTE?  because he who controls the money, controls the power.  Are you not aware that "THE WEST" even created all these Muslem factions?  Are you not aware that the 10 kings from the WEST have set the stage to destroy nations using men for hire?  You have not done your homework.

So you see it doesn't matter how many views you have studied, you yourself are not looking to God for the answers.  Your insults on Serving's other post was done in poor taste and revealed your pride.  If you disagree, fair enough, but God does not give grace to the proud, and if there is no grace, then he will not give you wisdom to see truth.  I think you owe him a great big apology for your conduct, and if you disagree with him fair enough, but to take it to the level you did was disgraceful.

 

Why thank you Sister,

Oh, and you just reminded me WHEN I spoke to Diaste .. that post .. I forgot where / when we spoke .. now it makes sense for his nasty & unprovoked / unsubstantiated attack .. he never could counter the arguments with scripture, but chose the other path instead !!

Nevertheless, I'm sure he was just having a bad day and was just taking it out on me, hopefully he will refrain from such tactics of character assassination & false accusations unsubstantiated and see that we are not enemies but fellow seekers of truth.

God bless Sister.

 

 

[Serving]

Hi Diaste,

 

You're right. I didn't specify why I'm opposed to your preaching. So, specifically,  I'm opposed to the things you say concerning the time of the end and those words provoke me to action.

 

It's okay to disagree, but do it with taste .. bring forth your scriptures you believe I am abusing & allow me to defend them .. you still haven't brought forth anything substantial but merely engage in "Elephant hurling".

Sorry you wasted all that effort on defending your position. That sort of thing doesn't help and it's not the real problem. You didn't even find out what position to defend before you launched into more oft recycled end time analysis.

Don't be "sorry" .. it only took me a minute to whip up seeing I know the subject well, it was very simple & quickly & easily rebutted .. all one needs is PERSONAL understanding, it took no time at all, the answers were already withn me .. I have been feeding on His flesh after all .. you should try it someday.

Anyway, considering you accused me of no understanding biblical concepts in any way shape or form, the ONLY post I could think of where to defend myself was in the example I answered .. so I didn't need to "find out what position to defend" as you say, merely showing how wrong your interpretation was just by using the scriptures did that for me .. other words, I proved that what you used as representing "your understanding of biblical concepts" was glaringly WRONG against the correct use of them of which I, who am meant to be scripturally blind, actually had to point out to you.

So no .. I made my point quite well I believe.

Unless of course you wish to defend that rebuttal and try and prove me otherwise.

  You don't seem to be looking to God for the answers.

WHY? Because I disagree with you in arguments you have not once been able to refute scripturally?

How presumptuous .. you don't know a thing about me & my many sacrifices for my Lord.

I can tell because everything you're posting has been said and taught for many years and is generally considered erroneous.

Again, no evidences provided, just personal presumption.

And secondly, NOTHING I have read ANYWHERE totally agrees with my interpretations, ALL interpretations have similarities to some extent simply because we all source our interpretations from the SAME BOOK.

Of course things seem like this or that doctrine ON THE SURFACE, but I assure you, NOT ONE doctrine "out there" fits with what I am speaking .. so no, you have no substantiation to your claim STILL.

Bring forth your evidences as to WHAT doctrines I am speaking that are "generally considered erroneous" and exactly WHO these are doing the considering .. who .. YOUR church?

Now that would make sense.

Convincing,  but error filled , based on false premises and littered with assumptions. Not to mention the forced and illogical conclusions.  I find all that old teaching to be deceptive at best and at worst, doctrines of devils.

And yet I have already used scripture on more than one occasion (thanks for reminding me Sister) to rebut you, and it was THOSE SCRIPTURES I used that exposed your errors, errors you are teaching .. yet I am the holder of doctrines of devils am I?

Isn't the one who teaches error more likely to be the holder of such doctrines?

Hmm .. your accusations are baseless.

You also don't consider any other position.

What? Erroneous ones I have already long ago considered and TESTED and rejected !!

Or do you really mean it is because I disagree with your interpretation?

Hmm

For decades I studied several views on the end of the age. Pre, post, a, literal, allegorical.  Read dozens of books on each, hundreds of web pages, etc.

There Is your problem .. feeding on the flesh of man .. no wonder you are so confused.

WHY didn't you just read the scriptures themselves? WHY rely on others to do the work for you? That kind of laziness is never rewarded with true understanding from on high, but only earthly understanding from on low.

The key is to live the gospels in sincerity, just YOU and the Source .. not these worthless books of men that only serve to confuse .. LIVE the gospel & SUBMIT to the Lord in your daily walk & only then will wisdom come .. trying to do it any other way is trying to sneak in through the back door ..

You should at least pretend to be interested in another world view, but it could just my message you don't care for.

Another baseless judgment.

I consistently pretend to be interested in every world view put forth

Cheers

Why say cheers to a man who promotes "doctrines of devils"?

I am no noob that needs others opinions to teach me Diaste .. how about you bring forth your churches doctrines and let me dismantle them piece by piece with the TRUTH .. I certainly won't need to feign interest then let me assure you.

Serving.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Serving

[Serving]

Oh Diaste,

One more thing ..

Convincing,  but error filled , based on false premises and littered with assumptions. Not to mention the forced and illogical conclusions.  I find all that old teaching to be deceptive at best and at worst, doctrines of devils.

You either found it convincing or error filled .. you can't have both friend.

Did you find it convincing .. buuuuut .. when you realized it contradicted your interpretation TOO much .. all of a sudden it became "error filled"?

IF so, it's not a very honest way to weigh up evidences, finding something convincing yet dismissing it with insults instead of scriptures, personal attacks instead of reasoning !!

Like evolutionists say .. "things may indeed appear to be designed, but they aren't really, they just look that way"

Just like "Convincing arguments, but, error filled" !!

Yes I am being picky now  .. you've provoked me after all to defend myself  

 

It's okay btw .. I don't mind that you dislike me, I got no problem with you personally, and can still hold civil conversations with you hereafter, after I grill you a bit first  and no need to apologize (as Sister suggested) okay?

Just debate me with evidence and not insults unbacked & we should get along fine enough.

Regards.

 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Serving

[Serving]

Oh, and one more .. er .. last thing

You should at least pretend to be interested in another world view, but it could just my message you don't care for.

I've only ever disagreed with you ONCE and on ONE subject ALONE !!

We've only SPOKEN a small handful of times and quite a bit back too !!

So is this what this is about?

You think that I'm not interested in what you're saying?

I listen to what everybody is saying .. I only ever "jump in" randomly when I feel inspired to share or question.

I don't have a clue what your "message" even is to "not care for" !! 

Since we have only ever established one conversation in regards to ONE subject?? (honestly hun  .. LOL)

Disagreeing on ONE subject doesn't mean I reject everything you might say, just on that ONE subject so far is all

Get over it, don't take it personal, debate it instead, what if you are wrong? And I help you to see it?

Now that would be nice.

 

[Sister]

Serving

If I could give some good advice, don't get drawn into this any further brother.  You don't need to justify yourself or prove anything, just let it go, or it will turn into a circus.

Proverbs 16:19   Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

 

Ecclesiastes 4:6   Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.

 

Ecclesiastes 7:8   Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

 

[Serving]

Serving

If I could give some good advice, don't get drawn into this any further brother.  You don't need to justify yourself or prove anything, just let it go, or it will turn into a circus.

 

Proverbs 16:19   Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

 

Ecclesiastes 4:6   Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.

 

Ecclesiastes 7:8   Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

 

Aw, I was just having a little fun is all .. I liked the emoticons and just wanted to do a "presentation" with them, LOL, but no , no, you're right, I'll be serious now I promise

Serving.