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

[Serving]

He could also be a secular humanist.  They actually believe humans will become gods one day.  If someone is so arrogant that they believe they are a god, and history is full of people like that, wouldn't this person acknowledge that he is the Jewish messiah if it that is what the world wants to recognize him as?  It would make no difference to him what god he is recognized as, so long as the world sees him as a god.

 

Hi Justin,

 

Agreed, good stuff bro,  this seems the most plausible and does not undo "he shall regard no god" .. he wouldn't have to even define "who he is", he'd just let the world categorize him for themselves (let them think what they want as long as it serves his purpose) which will work in his favour .. that is until he sits in the temple and proclaims himself God which proclamation appears to occur right near the very-very-very end .. and therein is his public re-manoeuvring

 

And I think you'll find that this scripture below (that I have been holding back for now), will also back this assumption:

 

Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

 

See?

 

His first mission is to get people's compliance / loyalty to the beast system .. not to he himself, but to the beast system.

 

So he is not yet promoting himself as some Messiah in his first 3 and half year term, but as a "team player" (sounds like the tried and tested typical political games they play does it not?) .. but that will change when he enters the temple in his last term and demands that he is worshipped as God.

 

And you're right, and I agree, "they" really do believe man will achieve "god hood" .. though they really mean "their lot" will achieve "god hood" and not the rest of the human cattle (in their lofty eyes) which they consider slaves to do with as they please.

 

BTW, I like how you reasoned and adapted to conform your analyses to fit the scriptural dialogue rather than hold on to a concept of convenience that would do the opposite .. exactly what Christ expects us to do, to let go of our own concepts and listen ..  and "that" really is a narrow path we must follow, for our minds can lay down some very wide roads of thought which always makes things harder .. lol .. hence seek .. seek .. seek until we narrow things down through effort which reveals sincerity and are mercifully then rewarded with understanding from on high.

 

God bless.

[Serving]

 

 

William

 

Don't bite, defend yourself with brotherly love.  We have to be patient in the Lord.

 

I thought the same as serving when you wrote this;

 

Now, Rev. 19 tells us that the False Prophet will not be destroyed until the battle of Armageddon, the very last act of the Satan's end time rebellion. But if Jesus comes for his Church before this time, "with power and great glory," Mt. 24:31, "with a shout/lit. voice of command," 1 Thes. 4:16, then THAT is when the Son of Perdition will be destroyed. Ergo, he cannot be the False Prophet.

 

 

 

Now looking at it more closely, you didn't say that Christ comes before the tribulation, but "if" he comes before Armageddon for his church...however, this doesn't line up with scripture..

 

You quoted Rev 19,  the false prophet being destroyed at the battle of Armageddon, I presume you mean these scriptures;

 

 Revelation 19:19   And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

 Revelation 19:20   And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 Revelation 19:21   And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

 

What we must realise is that this chapter is "condensed".  We have the order of the seals, trumpets/vials before this.

The armies only "gather" to fight against Christ at Armageddon on the 6th trumpet/6th vial.

The false prophet and his armies are "preparing" for their attack.  They are gathered there waiting to fire.....this is the second woe.

 

Revelation 11:14   The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

 

 

The 7th trump (3rd woe comes quickly).  This is the coming. 

So the dead in Christ are raised here on the 7th trump, with those alive, and together they meet the Lord in the air.  This would not take long.

Then Christ slays the false prophet with his armies...still here...on the 7th trump, then the rest of Babylon.

 

 

The false prophet is the Son of Perdition....It's the same man who comes and makes himself god.  Only 2 are being thrown into the lake of fire, the false prophet and the beast. This is when it happens, at the coming, and it's all done with a command as you rightly said.

 

This son of Perdition is the same one with all the miracles claiming he is god. He is the false prophet. There will be only one leader coming, a world dictator who comes with a spiritual side, and is a political world leader also.  He says what goes. One man, not two.  The beast is his army....his man power,  and his police to control the masses and carry out the conquerings, executions, and enforce the law.  The beast is his empire and he works alongside with the 10 kings in charge of this empire.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:3   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;

2 Thessalonians 2:4   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.

 

That man of sin is the son of perdition.  Not any man, but that man that is coming is the same.

You need to acknowledge that you were wrong about this, and Serving corrected you.  It doesn't matter if you made a mistake, we are all learning as we go.

 

So we have to compare scripture with scripture William.  Only two are being thrown into the lake of fire.  The false prophet and the 10 horned beast (last ruling kingdom of Babylon)  there is no third man there.

 

 

Thank you Sister..

 

I also see we understand the same things on this .. nice work.

 

God bless.

[ARGOSY]

 

There is no other instance before Assyria's actual attack that Israel "as a people" dwelt (sojourned) in Egypt to be oppressed by Assyria / the Assyrian.

 

So something else is being conveyed by God than plain human history .. this is spiritual history in a mystery that is being revealed.

 

Have a think on it Argosy ..

 

Blessings.

 

To:  Serving and Sister

 

Look I agree that sometimes the Assyrian could be Satan, but to say he always has to be Satan is taking the concept a little too far. Israel was interacting with Assyria for some time, so its likely the word is used in its literal capacity too.  And i did go in depth to show that particularly in Isaiah 52:4 the literal Assyrian fits the context as well, and the NIV version makes some sense from a Hebrew perspective.

 

As I said before, the NIV  states the following:  “At first my people went down to Egypt to live;     lately, Assyria has oppressed them.

 

I checked this out with the Hebrew and it looks correct because of common usage of the "vav" as explained earlier. So Serving, all your caps lock and bold did not make your point because the NIV has different wording and the NIV is faithful to the original Hebrew. History and the bible agree on Isaiah 52:4 that first Israel was in Egypt, then later Assyria oppressed them. This verse is not saying that Assyria oppressed them in Egypt, the verse says that  Israel went down to Egypt to live then later Assyria oppressed them. Yes the ten tribes of Israel were taken into captivity, which fits the verse in itself but Assyria did however oppress Judah as well, Judah becoming a vassal state of Assyria, in subjection to them.

 

But I would like to put that discussion aside now and concentrate on the "king of the North" from Daniel 11:36-45.  This antichrist who dies at the time of the resurrection is defined as the "king of the North" which title was attributed to the king of the Seleucids who was based in the Assyrian/Kurdish territories.  Surely this defines the antichrist as from that region?

[Marilyn C]

Very true, Argosy.

[Sister]

But I would like to put that discussion aside now and concentrate on the "king of the North" from Daniel 11:36-45.  This antichrist who dies at the time of the resurrection is defined as the "king of the North" which title was attributed to the king of the Seleucids who was based in the Assyrian/Kurdish territories.  Surely this defines the antichrist as from that region?

 

Greetings Argosy

 

The King of the North comes from North of Jerusalem.  This part of Daniel is speaking of the latter times.  Where exactly North is what I would like to show you.

 

We have Alexanders Greek kingdom divided by his four generals after his death.

Ptolemy went south into Egypt.

 

Daniel 11:5   And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

 

So Egypt is "the King of the South" agree?

 

  Daniel 11:6   And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

 

The daughter of Ptolomy X11 is Cleopatra who becomes Queen of Egypt after her fathers death.  She joins with Julius Caesar (King of the North).  So North back then is Rome.  Europe area.  NW of Jerusalem.'

This King of the North is Rome (Europe area) ...agree? 

 

Will have to read history to know all the rest.  Just keep following "the King of the North"

fast forward....

 

 Daniel 11:27   And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

The King of the South and King of the North.  Something was brewing back then for both these kings to do mischief whilst telling lies to each other (false promises I presume, and different agenda's)  ...but the end shall be at the time appointed.

Islam and Rome back then making a secret pact perhaps? Guesswork here, but whatever it is,  it's not in God's timing yet.

 

 Daniel 11:28   Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

 

This "King of the North" has something up his sleeve.

 

Here is where it changes to future, for us also;

 Daniel 11:29   At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

 

Not like it was back then.

Rome is not an empire now, but she's one with her brothers in Europe.  She is also one with the British empire, who's brothers are also in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc etc....and called "The West" now by us....  this same empire belongs to the King of the North, but his headquarters is in  the "Europe region." It's a latter day type of Rome, not the same but different (iron mixed with clay)

 

 

Daniel 11:30   For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

Not sure who Chittim is exactly.  You might know?

 

 

Daniel 11:31   And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

This only happens during the end times, so it's all leading to this.

 

 

Daniel 11:36   And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

This same King of the North will do this when he shows himself.

 

 Daniel 11:40   And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

At the time of the End....This King of the North who originated in Rome (Europe area)..NW of Jerusalem, has the King of the South pushing at him, and also another King of the North coming against him (Russia)  King of the NE. 

This will be the build up for all the nations going into Israel to war and retaliate against this King of the North for all the damage he has done. 

 

So the main King of the North was called Rome back then.  We know it's in the Europe area, because it gives his history from beginning of Chapter 11, so follow that line and it will lead us to the region of Europe.

[Serving]

Hi Argosy,

 

 

Look I agree that sometimes the Assyrian could be Satan, but to say he always has to be Satan is taking the concept a little too far. Israel was interacting with Assyria for some time, so its likely the word is used in its literal capacity too.  And i did go in depth to show that particularly in Isaiah 52:4 the literal Assyrian fits the context as well, and the NIV version makes some sense from a Hebrew perspective.

 

Don't get me wrong, not all references to the Assyrian are about Satan, I agree totally. 

 

I agree that the chapter we are discussing does have a duality to the events that literally occurred, yes, but the true king of Assyria in this instance (chapter) is Satan that is truly being addressed of which I am convinced.

 

Just like when God addressed the king of Tyrus, first God addressed the human king, then God addressed the true king behind that man .. Satan.

 

And a strong reason I see this is through Gods lingo .. seeming discrepancies that pop up in His declarations that are no discrepancies, but are instead markers for a hidden mystery being revealed.

 

I will demonstrate by answering this one more time if you bear with me  :

 

 

As I said before, the NIV  states the following:  “At first my people went down to Egypt to live;     lately, Assyria has oppressed them.

 

Even besides the different translation we are working off .. and the completion of the sentence "without cause" missing with the NIV translation you are working off, the above verse is still a seeming discrepancy uttered by God in context with the situation at hand.

 

You see, the verse in question is in reality an accusation by God in its context be it towards a human king or a spirit king, it is a rebuttal.  

 

So even if we worked off the NIV translation in this discussion, there would still be a seeming discrepancy.

 

For besides this:

 

NIV "At first my people went down to Egypt to live" .. Uh, okay Lord .. they went down to Egypt and? ............ ?

 

NIV Lately, Assyria has oppressed them... But what about the Egypt part Lord? Did someone oppress them in Egypt too? O Lord, what happened in Egypt? why mention it if You didn't finish Your sentence O Lord? 

 

Besides that problem, here is the greater problem with God's complaint if we take it literally as against Assyria the nation oppressing Israel : and the problem .. simply .. God is the One who sent Assyria against Israel in the first place !!

 

So literally if this accusation was concerning the human realm as not only you are seeing it, but multitudes of scholars likewise, then in effect, God would be complaining against Himself .. for .. and again, it was God Himself that sent Assyria in the first place .. God sent them to not only totally uproot Israel but to oppress them as well for playing the harlot against God.

 

So do you see the problem Argosy?

 

Remembering, that negative result to the interpretation is evident even after leaving out "without cause" from the discussion, which statement is an even bigger problem again. 

 

This is why I am seeing, and Sister too obviously, that there is more to this chapter than meets the eye, more than mere history being imparted.

 

 

But I would like to put that discussion aside now and concentrate on the "king of the North" from Daniel 11:36-45.  This antichrist who dies at the time of the resurrection is defined as the "king of the North" which title was attributed to the king of the Seleucids who was based in the Assyrian/Kurdish territories.  Surely this defines the antichrist as from that region?

 

Well it seems Sister already addressed this bit .. lol .. and since I agree with what she said, and without having to add even more scripture / points to Sisters excellent answer, I will let her reply stand as speaking for me too if you're okay with that Argosy .. for now anyway ..

 

Look forward to seeing what more you have to say re the king of the north.

 

God bless.

 

 

[Serving]

BTW Argosy,

 

Not forgetting ..

 

It is good that we agree that the man of sin can not be Islamic, which was the main point of this post.

 

God bless.

[Last Daze]

 

I agree that the chapter we are discussing does have a duality to the events that literally occurred, yes, but the true king of Assyria in this instance (chapter) is Satan that is truly being addressed of which I am convinced.

 

Just like when God addressed the king of Tyrus, first God addressed the human king, then God addressed the true king behind that man .. Satan.

 

And a strong reason I see this is through Gods lingo .. seeming discrepancies that pop up in His declarations that are no discrepancies, but are instead markers for a hidden mystery being revealed.

 

 

This is such an important and often overlooked concept that it's worth emphasizing, especially as it pertains to end times prophecy.  The spiritual realm has a very definite influence on the natural realm....the realm we relate to with our senses.  Sometimes we neglect to see beyond the natural to the true source.

 

In addition to the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as mentioned there is also the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and Jesus' rebuke of Satan in response to Peter's comment in Matthew 16.  We also see the prince of Persia, Greece, etc.  So, I see it as likely that the King of Assyria could be a reference to both.

 

The reason I feel this concept is so important to understand is because it helps us identify who's who and what's what concerning the last days.  It explains why there are two prophecies in Daniel about four kingdoms.  One is from a natural perspective and the other from a spiritual.  It shows us that there will be two spiritual entities (the dragon, the beast) and one natural (the false prophet).  Rev 12 shows that "natural Israel" gets attacked as does "spiritual Israel".

 

Duality (natural and spiritual applications) is common in scripture from "being born again" to "what defiles a man" to "a little leaven", et.al.  Jesus often referred to this duality as "understanding".  Consequently, I think the following scripture is worth a serious pondering:

 

But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand)  Mark 13:14a

[WilliamL]

 

 

... Nevertheless, I do see why you can not see it .. it is your belief in "pre trib rapture" .. this is why you can not see that wicked man for who he is in my opinion .. pre trib rapture doctrine really does undo the prophecies on this subject and divides one subject into two .. that is the problem I am discerning.  ...

This is a false witness against me. I do not (never have) believe/d in a pre-trib rapture, as my many posts on this forum have made evident, at least to anyone who cared to take the time to understand them. Bye.

 

 

That's odd, I am certain I read otherwise .. several times now.  

 

I must have mixed you up with someone else or just misunderstood you?

 

If I am mistaken, then I humbly apologise .. no one likes being tagged something they are not, again, sorry for the mix up. 

 

No hard feelings.

 

Thank you for your apology, a rare thing these days. Clearly you misunderstood what I have written. Others have also thought I'm a pre-tribber; yet others claim I'm a preterist.

 

The problem these days is that information is being put out faster than people can grasp it. Too much velocity of communication actually decreases understanding. Just like increased velocity of wind and water actually decreases their pressure; and increasing velocity of money actually decreases its value. (True facts.) So it is better to hear and read less, and concentrate on understanding only a select, limited amount of quality material. It's very hard, however, not to get caught up in the flow of events and info, like on this forum.

 

Pre-wrath = post-trib, which is the eschatology I hold to and teach, is not easy to understand, because it requires a great breadth of knowledge and understanding of the prophetic Scriptures, and likewise history. Few people are willing to put in the time and effort. But for anyone interested, the basics are explained on my website, listed below.

[WilliamL]

William

 

...I thought the same as serving when you wrote this;

 

Now, Rev. 19 tells us that the False Prophet will not be destroyed until the battle of Armageddon, the very last act of the Satan's end time rebellion. But if Jesus comes for his Church before this time, "with power and great glory," Mt. 24:31, "with a shout/lit. voice of command," 1 Thes. 4:16, then THAT is when the Son of Perdition will be destroyed. Ergo, he cannot be the False Prophet.

 

 

Now looking at it more closely, you didn't say that Christ comes before the tribulation, but "if" he comes before Armageddon for his church...however, this doesn't line up with scripture..

William: I of course have a different understanding, which you have failed to study out. I understand your position, but you do not understand mine.

 

At the Exodus, YHWH came first in a pillar of cloud and fire; then in Presence, speaking personally to all the people from Mount Sinai; and much later as a warrior, to fight all the kings assembled together against Joshua and Israel. YHWH did not come three separate times: this was all one continuous coming.

 

The same will occur when the Lord comes in the Latter Days: one continuous coming, manifested over time and in different ways. Those who say that the Lord will only come as a warrior to fight at Armageddon totally misunderstand that, once again, that is only the last manifestation of his coming, which will have already begun much, much earlier.