Jared Kushner

[Revelation Man]

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

(Greece dissolved and was divided at this point.)

There was Four Kingdoms, and out of one of the four, in the LATTER TIME, a ferocious king will stand up from their Kingdom. In Daniel 7 this Little Horn arises out of the Fourth Beast 2000 years after the Fourth Beast has ceased being a BEAST/Lost its dominion. So this King of Grecia has to come from the Fourth Beasts borders which is the European Union, only Greece is in the European Union.

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

.(I don't see any of this.)

It is as clear as day. If he arises from the Forth Beast and from one of the Four Generals, then we have to cross reference them.  No Ruler in Syria or Babylon is in the European Union, and according to Daniel 7 that is a requirement. AND NO...Its Not from Land they ruled, that makes no sense. He arises from the Fourth Beast, not from Land the Fourth Beast Conquered or ruled. Basically all of Europe will be the Fourth Beast per a Confederation.

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

 (But there is. Dan 8 demands the beast comes from one of the four notable generals. We have four choices: Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece and the Seleucid Empire. Dan 11 clears the water when the narrative follows the kings of the Seleucid Empire. On this there is no doubt.)

Like I stated above, he also has to arise out of Europe. Fourth Beast.

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

(Again, Rome has no part in these prophecies.)

The Forth Beast was Rome. A Beast is a country that Conquers, Enslaves or Rules Israel. The Seven Heads/Mountains/Kings of Rev 17 and Rev 13 also, are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece (5 that had fallen) and Rome was the one that WAS ALIVE/ or Ruling at Johns writing of the book of Revelation, and the one that is YET TO COME is the Anti-Christ/Little Horn/Beast and his 10 Kings, they will Conquer Israel/Jerusalem. The Little Horn arises out of the HEAD of the Fourth (really the 6th) Beast, along with the 10 Horns. There is no 11 Horns on the Seven Headed Beast, only 10, because the Little Horn is on of the SEVEN HEADS.  Islam is going to be destroyed by the Beast, he will demand to be worshiped as GOD, he will have no place for any Religion, the Harlot is Islam, Buddhism, Witchcraft and all False Religions. This man will be of Assyrian descent, but he is/was born in Greece.  

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

(No difference. Nebuchadnezzar, Darius and Alexander also allowed religious freedom, as well as economic and educational freedoms. Other similarities between the three empires are civil government and loose morality. ISIS, radical Islam, is the exact opposite of this as ISIS is a theocracy and morally stringent with severe penalties for blasphemy, heretics, adultery, homosexuality, theft, and is misogynist and brutal.)

WHAT ? Babylon enslaved Israel, and stole all of the gold chalices out of the Temple, Alexander most certainly did not allow others to serve their own Gods in any manner, he was only ruling a short time also and Darius freed Israel, only because he was foretold as their deliverer. Thats not the ONLY DIFFERENCE, like I said, study the Pax-Ramanus and its effect on the spreading of the Gospel. I am a History buff, and I am a member of Historum, there is no doubt Romes rule was far different that the other three. That is why its rule lasted longer. Whereas Babylon sought to plunder, as did Persia, Rome was more about creating permanent a tax base to the Emperor, and they brought forth their modern ways to these places. Rome was the Fourth Beast, and she was far different from the other Beasts (3 Beasts).

 Islam has nothing to do with it, even the Beast/Little Horn will have nothing to do with Islam, except he is going to destroy Islam. The whole Islam angle, if someone just uses simple LOGIC, is really laughable. All the Muslims together would get their butts kicked in about 10 minutes, SEE Iraq, in the 1990's and 2000's. They will NEVER CONQUER the world, and no one is going to make them the King of the world via peace. Its a joke in reality, it will never happen, I have no clue where this even comes from. And there was NO BEAST and could have been no BEAST after Israel was dispersed the world over. Only in 1948 when Israel was a country again was there a possibility of a Beast again, because like Ezekiel said, CAN THESE BONES LIVE AGAIN, Israel was reborn, so in 1948, after almost 2000 years, the way was paved for the LAST BEAST to arise. The Ottoman Empire could not be a Beast, neither could the British Empire. This is why the USA and Red China are not BEASTS, you have to Conquer or Enslave Israel to be a Beast. (The People not the LAND !! )

16 hours ago, Diaste said:

.(The actual quote, " And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." shows the difference is between the little horn and the ten previous kings represented by the ten horns, not the first three statue empires, Much less Rome as Rome has nothing to do with the beast or the final beast kingdom. We know this is what is meant because the ten horns existed, then the little horn arose after, so the 'first' are the ten previous, or existing, kings.)

These are two different eras. the Four Beasts were Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.....the 10 Horns arise after Israel is REBORN, Israel was dispersed during the Fourth Beasts (Romes Reign) and thus the 10 Horns and Little Horn arise in the Latter Time, just like Daniel 8 says also. 

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

(The difference is between the little horn and the ten horns...)

No, the difference is between the Little Horn (5th Beast really the 7th Beast) and the Fourth Beast (6th Beast). They are 2000 some odd years apart, and very different. One was a succession of Kings, the other will be a ONE MAN SHOW, when he dies, it will be THE END. Jesus will rule, and he will be cast into hell, straightaway.

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

(An untenable contention as no fact supports this idea. I can offer several refutations as to why Rome cannot be considered as part of the prophecies of the beast and the east kingdom. Chief among the refutations is the fact Rev was given to John in 90 AD, not 68 AD. This means Nero cannot be 'one is', and the previous 5 cannot be Roman emperors.)

Nero means nothing to me. Rome was the BEAST not Nero. And the Kings that fell have nothing to do with Rome, the one that WAS is Rome. The 5 That fell are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece. The one that is YET TO COME will be the Anti-Christ.

 

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

,(And yet it's far more scriptural than forcing Rome into prophecy when there is no factual support.)

I have a thread up about Babylon, in it I detail in depth what the Seven Headed Beast is and who it is. The Angel in Revelation 17:7 says COME I will show you the MYSTERY of the Woman and the Beast she rides......There is no Mystery(Secret), the Angel explains it to us, all we have to do is HEAR what he says.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/203449-babylon-the-harlot-and-the-seven-headed-beast-explained/?page=1

 

 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Pre-Trib view is not that the whole 70th week is the wrath of God.   First half is the wrath of the AC.  The 2nd half is God's wrath. And most of the book of Revelation is really about that 2nd half, the wrath of God.

The Church is  not appointed to GOD'S wrath, to be judged by God during the Tribulation.  We have already been judged.  But that will not save Tribulation saints who got saved, post-rapture from undergoing the wrath of the AC.   Many Tribulation believers will die at the hands of the AC.   And many will survive and enter into the Millennium.  God will preserve believers during His wrath, I believe, just as God will preserve Israel from the AC.

If you study the book of Revelation, there is all kinds of preaching going on.   And who said the Holy Spirit is not on the earth during the Tribulation?

That line of argumentation is based on a faulty premise that requires the church to be in the Tribulation for their to be believers during the first 3 1/2 years.    The first 3 1/2 years is the wrath of the AC not the wrath of God.

Excellent. There are many who equate the whole of the 70th week with the wrath of God. Their rationale is; if the 70th week is all God's wrath then believers will not enter the 70th week, ergo, PreTrib rapture. But your reply brings up questions as well. What scriptural evidence do you see proving the beast is in power and persecuting believers and enslaving the earth from the onset of the 70th week? From all the reading it looks as though 'confirming the covenant with many' allows for the rebuilding of the Third Temple, and some of the warring in Dan 11, which has to happen for other prophecies to come to pass. Are you saying the Jews are rebuilding the Temple while being enslaved and killed in the first half of the week? If the A of D occurs at the midpoint, and this is when the beast 'sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is god," and after this he is given to power to continue 42 months, how is it the wrath of God and the wrath of the AC are occurring at the same time? The wrath of God paralyzes the beasts operations and pours out the severest of plagues on all those with the mark. God isn't going to share power or glory. Additionally, it seems that the scenario you propose requires three 'raptures'. One before the 70th week begins, one at the midpoint, and the only real 'gathering of the elect' at the return of Jesus when 'those days are cut short or no flesh would be saved'.

Based on a few scriptures it looks like the beast does appear at the beginning of the 70th week, is the sign the 70th week has begun, or very early on becomes the superman that can 'confirm the covenant with many' for 7 years. He handles the 'peace and safety' for which the Jews clamor by fighting against those who attack Israel, the reason for some of the wars of Dan 11, and allows the Jews to rebuild the Temple and engage in the all the ritual and liturgy required by Jewish law. At the A of D moment the beast is finally revealed for who he is and begins the enslavement of the earth. This continues for the greater share of the second half until Jesus returns to redeem the saints and 'cut short' the days of the beast 'or no flesh would be saved'. The idea of the first half of the week as the wrath of the AC is not backed by scripture. What is backed by scripture is this: "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

This evidence is the underlying logic for everything I defend concerning the coming of Jesus, the gathering, and the reign of the beast. 2 Thess 2:1-4 is a concise and accurate presentation of the most dramatic elements of the end of the age; Jesus return, our gathering and the revealing of the destroyer. Paul lays out a precise timeline and refutes all opposition to the correct order. Jesus return and the gathering are immutably linked in time and space but only occur after the beast invades the Temple and calls himself God.  A previous return of Jesus prior to the A of D is refuted thus;"not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter" meaning; if there is any other position contrary to 2 Thess 2:1-4 it is incorrect. I would extend that to any assertion that a 'gathering of the elect' occurs in the future, but prior to the revealing of the man of sin when he declares himself god in the rebuilt temple.

A great many believe the Holy Spirit is he who is 'taken out of the way' so the beast can be revealed and begin his campaign of horror. The implication is that the Spirit is no longer around to hinder or help. I find that to be illogical and untenable. My point was to refute PreTrib tenets.

Through plain language Jesus and Paul are quite clear on the subject of Jesus return and the gathering of the elect; both occur only after 'great tribulation' and 'the revealing of the man of sin'. Since this is so clear, and Paul and Jesus both made a salient point as to timing of the events, why is there no mention of a great gathering of believers before the 70th week begins? For example, scripture mentions 4 times when a person or group was translated from this plane to the heavenly dimension: Elijah, Enoch, Jesus and the elect at the 2nd coming. If there is a sudden disappearance of over a billion people there would be global panic.  This would be close to 1/6 of the population of the earth. Calling this a dramatic event does not do justice to the reality. Why is there no explicit mention of this earth shattering event in scripture when there is a great deal said about a the real gathering in Rev 7? i.e., "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation;they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. " Shouldn't there be some some mention of such a morally pure and spiritually righteous group a billion strong? Scripture mentions the translation of three individuals that walked with God and were taken alive to heaven from off the earth, I'm sure scripture would mention a vast population of the pure and righteous taken alive from off the earth if it were indeed true.

 The order is thus: The beast is empowered and the 70th week begins, there are great wars in the Mideast as the Jews rebuild the Temple, the beast enters the temple declares himself God, the mark is instituted as the false prophet arises and deceives the earth, for three years believers and unbelievers are severed apart through the mark and the idols that speak, Jesus returns and gathers the elect while he delivers his wrath putting an end to the reign of the beast. 

[Diaste]

16 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

I can actually prove via the scriptures that the Abomination of Desolation is an end times event, not anything that Antiochus 4 did. There are two occurrences. One occurred when when Antiochus IV did this during his reign and is in the historical record. This is how Jesus could give the example to watch for this, otherwise the people would not have know what to look for. This event will be repeated at the end of the age, as you correctly stated.

Daniel 11:45 and Daniel 12:1-2, Matthew 24:14-22 and Revelation chapter 12. the Woman/Dragon/Man-child.  This is so easy to discern I kind of wonder why we have so many that yet remain 70 AD advocates of the AOD. I would never be a 70 AD advocate of the A of D as the Antiochus IV event occurred in the 2nd century BC, while the end of the age A of D is yet to occur.

Daniel 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

{{ As we can see, Dan. 11:45 is the Abomination of Desolation, and Michael Stands up, (just like in Rev. 12) and there is a Time of Trouble like never before (Matthew 24) and look what happens at the time, The Rapture, men awake to everlasting life, or everlasting contempt (death). Lets see if Matthews 24 has any clues. }}

Matthew 24:

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

{{ We have a lot of clues here, first the Gospel has to be preached unto all the world, then the end will come, in the very next verse Jesus speaks about the AoD. Then he quotes Daniel, and just like Daniel Jesus refers to the "Time of Trouble, like never before" that will be happening at this time, then verse 22 is the BIGGEST CLUE....Except those days should be shortened, there would no Flesh Be Saved !!!  Then from Matthew 24:23-31 Jesus speaks about his coming in the Eastern Skies, Immediately after the "Tribulation". I really have no clue how anyone could see this Abomination of Desolation as being anything other than an END TIME EVENT. }} 

I see two. The example of Antiochus IV is historical. "He entered the Temple precincts, not out of curiosity, but to plunder the treasury, and carried away valuable utensils, such as the golden candlestick upon the altar and the showbread table, likewise of gold." "the king's(Antiochus IV) attention was next turned to the destruction of the national religion. A royal decree proclaimed the abolition of the Jewish mode of worship; Sabbaths and festivals were not to be observed; circumcision was not to be performed; the sacred books were to be surrendered and the Jews were compelled to offer sacrifices to the idols that had been erected." 

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-iv-epiphanes

This is the example for the end of the age A of D that Jesus told us all to look for, and is a matter of history confirmed by several credible scholars. 

Then we all know about Rev. 12, the Woman (Israel) the Dragon (Satan) and the Baby/Man-child/Jesus that ascends to Heaven. But lets see how this correlates with Daniel 12, is it the same time-frame ? 

Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

{{ The Abomination of Desolation is an End Time Event. }}

I don't disagree. 

 

[angels4u]

30 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Excellent. There are many who equate the whole of the 70th week with the wrath of God. Their rationale is; if the 70th week is all God's wrath then believers will not enter the 70th week, ergo, PreTrib rapture. But your reply brings up questions as well. What scriptural evidence do you see proving the beast is in power and persecuting believers and enslaving the earth from the onset of the 70th week? From all the reading it looks as though 'confirming the covenant with many' allows for the rebuilding of the Third Temple, and some of the warring in Dan 11, which has to happen for other prophecies to come to pass. Are you saying the Jews are rebuilding the Temple while being enslaved and killed in the first half of the week? If the A of D occurs at the midpoint, and this is when the beast 'sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is god," and after this he is given to power to continue 42 months, how is it the wrath of God and the wrath of the AC are occurring at the same time? The wrath of God paralyzes the beasts operations and pours out the severest of plagues on all those with the mark. God isn't going to share power or glory. Additionally, it seems that the scenario you propose requires three 'raptures'. One before the 70th week begins, one at the midpoint, and the only real 'gathering of the elect' at the return of Jesus when 'those days are cut short or no flesh would be saved'.

Based on a few scriptures it looks like the beast does appear at the beginning of the 70th week, is the sign the 70th week has begun, or very early on becomes the superman that can 'confirm the covenant with many' for 7 years. He handles the 'peace and safety' for which the Jews clamor by fighting against those who attack Israel, the reason for some of the wars of Dan 11, and allows the Jews to rebuild the Temple and engage in the all the ritual and liturgy required by Jewish law. At the A of D moment the beast is finally revealed for who he is and begins the enslavement of the earth. This continues for the greater share of the second half until Jesus returns to redeem the saints and 'cut short' the days of the beast 'or no flesh would be saved'. The idea of the first half of the week as the wrath of the AC is not backed by scripture. What is backed by scripture is this: "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

This evidence is the underlying logic for everything I defend concerning the coming of Jesus, the gathering, and the reign of the beast. 2 Thess 2:1-4 is a concise and accurate presentation of the most dramatic elements of the end of the age; Jesus return, our gathering and the revealing of the destroyer. Paul lays out a precise timeline and refutes all opposition to the correct order. Jesus return and the gathering are immutably linked in time and space but only occur after the beast invades the Temple and calls himself God.  A previous return of Jesus prior to the A of D is refuted thus;"not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter" meaning; if there is any other position contrary to 2 Thess 2:1-4 it is incorrect. I would extend that to any assertion that a 'gathering of the elect' occurs in the future, but prior to the revealing of the man of sin when he declares himself god in the rebuilt temple.

A great many believe the Holy Spirit is he who is 'taken out of the way' so the beast can be revealed and begin his campaign of horror. The implication is that the Spirit is no longer around to hinder or help. I find that to be illogical and untenable. My point was to refute PreTrib tenets.

Through plain language Jesus and Paul are quite clear on the subject of Jesus return and the gathering of the elect; both occur only after 'great tribulation' and 'the revealing of the man of sin'. Since this is so clear, and Paul and Jesus both made a salient point as to timing of the events, why is there no mention of a great gathering of believers before the 70th week begins? For example, scripture mentions 4 times when a person or group was translated from this plane to the heavenly dimension: Elijah, Enoch, Jesus and the elect at the 2nd coming. If there is a sudden disappearance of over a billion people there would be global panic.  This would be close to 1/6 of the population of the earth. Calling this a dramatic event does not do justice to the reality. Why is there no explicit mention of this earth shattering event in scripture when there is a great deal said about a the real gathering in Rev 7? i.e., "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation;they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. " Shouldn't there be some some mention of such a morally pure and spiritually righteous group a billion strong? Scripture mentions the translation of three individuals that walked with God and were taken alive to heaven from off the earth, I'm sure scripture would mention a vast population of the pure and righteous taken alive from off the earth if it were indeed true.

 The order is thus: The beast is empowered and the 70th week begins, there are great wars in the Mideast as the Jews rebuild the Temple, the beast enters the temple declares himself God, the mark is instituted as the false prophet arises and deceives the earth, for three years believers and unbelievers are severed apart through the mark and the idols that speak, Jesus returns and gathers the elect while he delivers his wrath putting an end to the reign of the beast. 

 

Very interesting conversation , Diaste, Jesus comes only back ones ,on the end of the 7 year  Tribulation , during  the rapture we meet Jesus in the air.

[angels4u]

22 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Pre-Trib view is not that the whole 70th week is the wrath of God.   First half is the wrath of the AC.  The 2nd half is God's wrath. And most of the book of Revelation is really about that 2nd half, the wrath of God.

The Church is  not appointed to GOD'S wrath, to be judged by God during the Tribulation.  We have already been judged.  But that will not save Tribulation saints who got saved, post-rapture from undergoing the wrath of the AC.   Many Tribulation believers will die at the hands of the AC.   And many will survive and enter into the Millennium.  God will preserve believers during His wrath, I believe, just as God will preserve Israel from the AC.

If you study the book of Revelation, there is all kinds of preaching going on.   And who said the Holy Spirit is not on the earth during the Tribulation?

That line of argumentation is based on a faulty premise that requires the church to be in the Tribulation for their to be believers during the first 3 1/2 years.    The first 3 1/2 years is the wrath of the AC not the wrath of God.

 

Quote

That line of argumentation is based on a faulty premise that requires the church to be in the Tribulation for their to be believers during the first 3 1/2 years.    The first 3 1/2 years is the wrath of the AC not the wrath of God.

 

 I used to believe in pre -trib rapture but the last years I'm leaning to mid-trib , I'm rethinking this again ,  why don't you think we won't be here for the first part? What  I do read in your posts , the Church will be gone and the people who will come believers the Bible calls them Tribulation saints,so that will explain the the pre -rapture besides other explanations mentioned in the Bible?

Thanks

[Guest shiloh357]

47 minutes ago, Diaste said:

What scriptural evidence do you see proving the beast is in power and persecuting believers and enslaving the earth from the onset of the 70th week?

I don't think that was my argument.  To clarify and word my position better, the first half of the Tribulation  includes the wrath of the AC.  I don't think the wrath of the AC starts at the onset of the Tribulation.

I would also point out that while the first half of the Tribulation isn't the wrath of God like we see in the latter half, God IS pouring out judgments in the first half.    I don't agree with the pre-wrath position that states that God's judgments don't start until 2nd half of the Tribulation.  Most of the book of Revelation is really concerned about the last 42 months. 

Quote

A great many believe the Holy Spirit is he who is 'taken out of the way' so the beast can be revealed and begin his campaign of horror. The implication is that the Spirit is no longer around to hinder or help. I find that to be illogical and untenable. My point was to refute PreTrib tenets.

Taken out of the way, isn't the same as taken out of the earth.
 

Quote

Through plain language Jesus and Paul are quite clear on the subject of Jesus return and the gathering of the elect; both occur only after 'great tribulation' and 'the revealing of the man of sin'. Since this is so clear, and Paul and Jesus both made a salient point as to timing of the events, why is there no mention of a great gathering of believers before the 70th week begins?

  The Second Coming of Jesus is after the Great Tribulation, so I don't really see what the problem is.  The Rapture is a totally different event that has nothing to do with the gathering of the elect.

Quote

If there is a sudden disappearance of over a billion people there would be global panic.  This would be close to 1/6 of the population of the earth. Calling this a dramatic event does not do justice to the reality. Why is there no explicit mention of this earth shattering event in scripture when there is a great deal said about a the real gathering in Rev 7?

Because it wasn't relevant to the point that John was making.
 

Quote

 

"These are they who have come out of the great tribulation;they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. " Shouldn't there be some some mention of such a morally pure and spiritually righteous group a billion strong? Scripture mentions the translation of three individuals that walked with God and were taken alive to heaven from off the earth, I'm sure scripture would mention a vast population of the pure and righteous taken alive from off the earth if it were indeed true.

 

The simplest answer is that God didn't see the need to address it.  He had something else in view that we needed to know about.

 

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

(Greece dissolved and was divided at this point.)

There was Four Kingdoms, and out of one of the four, in the LATTER TIME, a ferocious king will stand up from their Kingdom. In Daniel 7 this Little Horn arises out of the Fourth Beast 2000 years after the Fourth Beast has ceased being a BEAST/Lost its dominion. So this King of Grecia has to come from the Fourth Beasts borders which is the European Union, only Greece is in the European Union.

I don't know for sure what you mean here but it seems like a great deal of speculation. Any biblical evidence to support this? Daniel 7 does not give a 2000 year time period, this is purely a shot in the dark. How do you ascertain the fourth beast is Greece? Daniel 2 says the third kingdom is Greece. For symmetry then the third beast in Dan 7 is the Grecian Empire. The third beast is a perfect representation of Greece; the great leopard that is Greece and Alexander and the four heads representing the four generals which is more than suggestive of the four horns that arose when the great horn was broken, in Dan 8. The fourth beast is an anomaly unlike any before and is not Greece, nor Rome.

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

.(I don't see any of this.)

It is as clear as day. If he arises from the Forth Beast and from one of the Four Generals, then we have to cross reference them.  No Ruler in Syria or Babylon is in the European Union, and according to Daniel 7 that is a requirement. AND NO...Its Not from Land they ruled, that makes no sense. He arises from the Fourth Beast, not from Land the Fourth Beast Conquered or ruled. Basically all of Europe will be the Fourth Beast per a Confederation.

 Nothing rises from the 4th beast as the 4th beast is the end result and the fulfillment. The diadochi rose from Greece which is the third beast and from one of them comes the 4th beast, the Iron kingdom(Not Rome), and the little horn. Dan 7 says nothing about the EU, that's just speculation. You just referenced borders in an above paragraph so I guess geography makes some sense, eh?

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

 (But there is. Dan 8 demands the beast comes from one of the four notable generals. We have four choices: Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece and the Seleucid Empire. Dan 11 clears the water when the narrative follows the kings of the Seleucid Empire. On this there is no doubt.)

Like I stated above, he also has to arise out of Europe. Fourth Beast.

No. The four choices have nothing to do with Europe. The little horn comes directly from the Diadochi and none are in Europe. But to point out the geography again, it sure does seem important, doesn't it?

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

(Again, Rome has no part in these prophecies.)

The Forth Beast was Rome. A Beast is a country that Conquers, Enslaves or Rules Israel. The Seven Heads/Mountains/Kings of Rev 17 and Rev 13 also, are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece (5 that had fallen) and Rome was the one that WAS ALIVE/ or Ruling at Johns writing of the book of Revelation, and the one that is YET TO COME is the Anti-Christ/Little Horn/Beast and his 10 Kings, they will Conquer Israel/Jerusalem. The Little Horn arises out of the HEAD of the Fourth (really the 6th) Beast, along with the 10 Horns. There is no 11 Horns on the Seven Headed Beast, only 10, because the Little Horn is on of the SEVEN HEADS.  Islam is going to be destroyed by the Beast, he will demand to be worshiped as GOD, he will have no place for any Religion, the Harlot is Islam, Buddhism, Witchcraft and all False Religions. This man will be of Assyrian descent, but he is/was born in Greece.  

 There is no proof Rome is the 4th beast or the Iron Kingdom, this is wishful thinking from a century ago and has been regurgitated so many times many simply accept the falsehood.  There is a good deal of evidence that Rome has nothing to do with the Iron Kingdom. If you are looking for the revival of an ancient kingdom look to the revival of Islam in the form of ISIS. Look at the history of Islam from the 6th century AD and compare it to ISIS. Where do you see proof of Egypt and Assyria in scripture? You seem to be referencing a parallel between Rev 17:10 and Dan 2. There isn't one. Adding Egypt and Assyria to the kingdoms of the statue is unbiblical. Putting that aside do you have any biblical proof that the 7 heads are the kingdoms you attest? Like a parallel verse or passage perhaps? You state a lot of things but I see no biblical proof. Not that I'm convinced who the 7 heads are in relation to the kings in question but there is a problem with interpreting any of them as past kings. Rev 4:1 says " “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” So everything that happens from that point is after the time of the giving of the prophetic book, except the case of an identifying vision such as Rev 12:1-7 which is a vision only and differs from Rev 17 as the beast of Rev 17 is clearly future. In that case how can a verse fragment be past, present and future when the context of the book from the 4th chapter is future and the near context is a future event, the beast that has  risen from the dead?

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

(No difference. Nebuchadnezzar, Darius and Alexander also allowed religious freedom, as well as economic and educational freedoms. Other similarities between the three empires are civil government and loose morality. ISIS, radical Islam, is the exact opposite of this as ISIS is a theocracy and morally stringent with severe penalties for blasphemy, heretics, adultery, homosexuality, theft, and is misogynist and brutal.)

WHAT ? Babylon enslaved Israel, and stole all of the gold chalices out of the Temple, Alexander most certainly did not allow others to serve their own Gods in any manner, he was only ruling a short time also and Darius freed Israel, only because he was foretold as their deliverer. Thats not the ONLY DIFFERENCE, like I said, study the Pax-Ramanus and its effect on the spreading of the Gospel. I am a History buff, and I am a member of Historum, there is no doubt Romes rule was far different that the other three. That is why its rule lasted longer. Whereas Babylon sought to plunder, as did Persia, Rome was more about creating permanent a tax base to the Emperor, and they brought forth their modern ways to these places. Rome was the Fourth Beast, and she was far different from the other Beasts (3 Beasts).

 You haven't fully researched the issue.

ALEXANDER THE HEBREW ARCHPRIESTS 
 
Around 70 A.D. the Hebrew historian Josepus Flavious (Hebrew Archeology, Ch. A 329) states that after the conquest of Tyre and the siege of Gaza, Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem, where right at the entrance of the city he was greeted by the Hebrew Archpriest, Simon the Just, accompanied by other Jewish priests and a multitude of people. Alexander descended his horse and went to greet the Jewish Archpriest. Parmenion, Alexander's General, approached him and advised Alexander that his soldiers are displeased that he rushed first to greet the Jewish Priest. Alexander however, answered, "I did not greet the Archpriest, but the God he represents". Following the Archpriest's indication, Alexander carried out a religious sacrifice at the Temple of Solomon and allowed the Hebrews of Jerusalem and other Jewish states to use their paternal religious rites. Alexander's act set an original pattern of respect for religious freedom, in an era that such a behavior was totally unprecedented.

http://www.macedonia.info/Martis_connection.htm

Most ancient societies allowed people to worship whatever gods they liked.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Persia-the-first-nation-to-grant-religious-freedom-under-Cyrus-the-Great

Although, Alexander was ruthless in eliminating rivals to the throne, his treatment of occupied territories was remarkably progressive and tolerant. Alexander forbid his troops from raping and pillaging, but, established new democratic governments, incorporating the local customs of the area. He allowed religious tolerance for the different religious groups.

http://www.biographyonline.net/military/alexander-the-great.html 

A common theme when researching religious tolerance under Alexander. The was the same for Babylon, Persia and Rome. Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar enslaved the Jews and took the vessels at the command of the Most High God. Your comments are prejudicial in this case. Do the actual research on the rule of Babylon from history and from the OT. 

Nebuchadnezzar II created a city which was not only wonderous to behold but also a center for the arts and intellectual pursuits. Women enjoyed equal rights with men under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule (though, certainly, not completely equal in status nor opportunity by any modern-day standard) schools and temples were plentiful and literacy, mathematics and craftsmanship flourished along with a tolerance of, and interest in, other gods of other faiths.

http://www.ancient.eu/Nebuchadnezzar_II

By the end of his life, he had created a city renowned for intellectual and artistic pursuits, and women enjoyed equal rights. The citizens of Babylon were able to learn literacy, mathematics and craftsmanship in the many schools. Temples were also abundant, and the people enjoyed religious tolerance and interest.

https://www.reference.com/history/life-king-nebuchadnezzar-ii-c1801acf52610b1d

Again a common theme of progressive and tolerant rule pervades these ancient kingdoms.

 

 Islam has nothing to do with it, even the Beast/Little Horn will have nothing to do with Islam, except he is going to destroy Islam. The whole Islam angle, if someone just uses simple LOGIC, is really laughable. All the Muslims together would get their butts kicked in about 10 minutes, SEE Iraq, in the 1990's and 2000's. They will NEVER CONQUER the world, and no one is going to make them the King of the world via peace. Its a joke in reality, it will never happen, I have no clue where this even comes from. And there was NO BEAST and could have been no BEAST after Israel was dispersed the world over. Only in 1948 when Israel was a country again was there a possibility of a Beast again, because like Ezekiel said, CAN THESE BONES LIVE AGAIN, Israel was reborn, so in 1948, after almost 2000 years, the way was paved for the LAST BEAST to arise. The Ottoman Empire could not be a Beast, neither could the British Empire. This is why the USA and Red China are not BEASTS, you have to Conquer or Enslave Israel to be a Beast. (The People not the LAND !! )

Islam has nothing to do with it, you are correct. It's ISIS and the fundamental radicals that fulfill the prophecies of the beast by the acts recorded on video and broadcast around the world. They kill infidels, destroy everything and want to impose sharia on the whole world. None of your ancient kingdoms did any of this. And you, and so many others, miss what the beast is and how he comes to power. The bible, not a cadre of quackademics, says the beast comes to power through the healing of the deadly head wound, the spiritual empowering of Satan, the signs and rhetoric of the second beast, all at the permission of the Most High God. What? Did you think ISIS gains a great army and goes all jihadi with swords and shields on a global scale? That's not going to happen. The beast takes control through spiritual power that going to look to us like alien technology, telekinesis, creative power of life. I assure you the beast is not coming to power through any earthly organization, clever speeches, slick rhetoric, military might or any other device of man. The beast is going to be directly empowered by Satan, indirectly by God and by God's permission according to the Father's plan. 

You really need to do the legwork. Are you saying Islam did not conquer or enslave the Jews? Your kidding, right? The Crusades, which lasted 400 years, aimed at wresting Jerusalem from Muslim control. Islam conquered and enslaved Israel, and killed Jews because they were infidels. So by your definition Islam qualifies as a beast kingdom. I don't define it that way because it's illogical to conclude the beast kingdoms or, the kingdoms of the statue, are defined, characterized or interpreted by that one bit of evidence. Why? It's just one piece of evidence. By that logic unicorns exist because I saw one in a book.

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

.(The actual quote, " And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." shows the difference is between the little horn and the ten previous kings represented by the ten horns, not the first three statue empires, Much less Rome as Rome has nothing to do with the beast or the final beast kingdom. We know this is what is meant because the ten horns existed, then the little horn arose after, so the 'first' are the ten previous, or existing, kings.)

These are two different eras. the Four Beasts were Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.....the 10 Horns arise after Israel is REBORN, Israel was dispersed during the Fourth Beasts (Romes Reign) and thus the 10 Horns and Little Horn arise in the Latter Time, just like Daniel 8 says also. 

You missed the point. The context is the the ten horns. The little horn rises after the ten horns, the difference is between the little horn and the ten horns, not the little horn and the first three beasts. 

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

(The difference is between the little horn and the ten horns...)

No, the difference is between the Little Horn (5th Beast really the 7th Beast) and the Fourth Beast (6th Beast). They are 2000 some odd years apart, and very different. One was a succession of Kings, the other will be a ONE MAN SHOW, when he dies, it will be THE END. Jesus will rule, and he will be cast into hell, straightaway.

Absolutely not.

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

(An untenable contention as no fact supports this idea. I can offer several refutations as to why Rome cannot be considered as part of the prophecies of the beast and the east kingdom. Chief among the refutations is the fact Rev was given to John in 90 AD, not 68 AD. This means Nero cannot be 'one is', and the previous 5 cannot be Roman emperors.)

Nero means nothing to me. Rome was the BEAST not Nero. And the Kings that fell have nothing to do with Rome, the one that WAS is Rome. The 5 That fell are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece. The one that is YET TO COME will be the Anti-Christ.

It's a typical argument that PreTrib uses Nero as the 'one is', this makes more sense that what you contend. Scripture says, "...and there are 7 KINGS..." not kingdoms. If the Lord Jesus had meant, "...and there are 7 kingdoms..." he would have said so, but he did not.

 

22 hours ago, Diaste said:

,(And yet it's far more scriptural than forcing Rome into prophecy when there is no factual support.)

I have a thread up about Babylon, in it I detail in depth what the Seven Headed Beast is and who it is. The Angel in Revelation 17:7 says COME I will show you the MYSTERY of the Woman and the Beast she rides......There is no Mystery(Secret), the Angel explains it to us, all we have to do is HEAR what he says.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/203449-babylon-the-harlot-and-the-seven-headed-beast-explained/?page=1

Thanks for the offer but I wont read it. Just from this post I can see your research into the ancient kingdoms is sketchy and the conclusions are prejudicial in hopes of proving your point. Plus the behavior of ignoring all points that refute your claims, and the lack of scriptural evidence is tedious.

 

 

 

 

 

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I don't think that was my argument.  To clarify and word my position better, the first half of the Tribulation  includes the wrath of the AC.  I don't think the wrath of the AC starts at the onset of the Tribulation.

Sure. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I would also point out that while the first half of the Tribulation isn't the wrath of God like we see in the latter half, God IS pouring out judgments in the first half.    I don't agree with the pre-wrath position that states that God's judgments don't start until 2nd half of the Tribulation.  Most of the book of Revelation is really concerned about the last 42 months. 

Ok. But from what I read about the 70th week in Rev, Dan, Joel, etc. It looks like the Father has a passive role at the beginning in that He allows these things to occur. Now there is a lot of evidence to present and detail concerning that conclusion but I'll give an overview: The first half is not about prophesied judgement or wrath. It's about establishing the beast and getting the Temple rebuilt, and the beast conducting war against the opposition to the treaty with Israel and their building the Temple. Lately I am of the mind, but not fully convinced, that the head wound is healed at the onset of the week and this vaults him to prominence and enables him to consolidate power, allow the Temple construction, fight the opposition, and gain the trust of the Jews. It's at the onset that the two witnesses appear as well to oppose the beast and warn the Jews about what they have done, are doing, and the consequences. Once the beast is revealed for who he truly is at the A of D, he kills the witnesses, the earth parties for three days, the false prophet summons the signs and compels the worship of the image and institutes the mark. This is the beginning of 'great tribulation'. This lasts for about three years and Jesus returns, redeems the elect, gathers the armies of earth while executing the wrath of God.

That being said, the seals are just an overview of the entire week. At the beginning of the week the conqueror doesn't immediately bring war, death and economic control, these conditions play out over the whole of the 1st 1/2. 

Taken out of the way, isn't the same as taken out of the earth.

I agree that it's totally different and the one taken out of the way isn't the Holy Ghost. It's a PreTrib position that's problematic.

  The Second Coming of Jesus is after the Great Tribulation, so I don't really see what the problem is.  The Rapture is a totally different event that has nothing to do with the gathering of the elect.

There is no biblical evidence to support this. 2 Thess 2:1-4 shows one gathering only. This is not your fault as all the arguments for PreTrib have been around for a century, are visceral, subjective, fear based, filled with mistrust and logical fallacies. If you wish, post the best PreTrib arguments you can find and I'll post the refutations.

Because it wasn't relevant to the point that John was making.

The simplest answer is that God didn't see the need to address it.  He had something else in view that we needed to know about.

I'm not suggesting that this group should have been mentioned in any particular place in scripture, I'm saying it should have been mentioned somewhere in 1200 pages of 66 books with 1100 chapters and over 3/4 of a million words, even in passing. God makes a very big deal about the overcoming, blood washed, white robed believers in heaven in Rev 7, gives Enoch a verse about being translated, yet not one single mention of a vast group of stringently righteous, morally perfect, spirit filled believers showing up in heaven without having to die first? And what about the 90,000 believers that died under persecution worldwide for the name of Jesus in 2016?  What do we tell the next 90,000 that could die for their faith in God this year? No rapture for you? Too bad? Isn't the whole PreTrib premise escaping persecution as that is considered a judgement by God? 

But the question remains: If the whole idea of PreTrib is to escape the 70th week as it is the wrath or judgement of God, then why are there believers in the wrath and or judgment of God, when pretrib says the rapture is the hope and they 'escape out from' the wrath and judgement, and the scripture, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." demands we not see wrath? Why are there believers in the wrath and or judgment of God?

 

 

[Revelation Man]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

There are two occurrences. One occurred when when Antiochus IV did this during his reign and is in the historical record. This is how Jesus could give the example to watch for this, otherwise the people would not have know what to look for. This event will be repeated at the end of the age, as you correctly stated.

Which means the 70th Week is also an End Time event. I really don't buy Daniel or Jesus speaking about anything Antiochus 4E did, sure he profaned the Temple, but it has nothing to do with Daniels prophecy, nor the things Jesus spoke of.

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

I would never be a 70 AD advocate of the A of D as the Antiochus IV event occurred in the 2nd century BC, while the end of the age A of D is yet to occur.

OK, I see you were speaking of the Lineage of the Little Horn coming from that branch of Grecians. I personally don't think Daniel 11 proves this, but we do know this man will be of Assyrian descent. Many Turks are born in Greece, being of the lineage doesn't mean being born in a certain area, that is, imho, where I think you get off track. Daniel 7 Says he comes out of a Revived Roman Empire, and Daniel 8 says he arises out of one of the Four Generals Kingdoms, this means he has to be within the European Borders and only Greece qualifies.

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

I see two. The example of Antiochus IV is historical. "He entered the Temple precincts, not out of curiosity, but to plunder the treasury, and carried away valuable utensils, such as the golden candlestick upon the altar and the showbread table, likewise of gold." "the king's(Antiochus IV) attention was next turned to the destruction of the national religion. A royal decree proclaimed the abolition of the Jewish mode of worship; Sabbaths and festivals were not to be observed; circumcision was not to be performed; the sacred books were to be surrendered and the Jews were compelled to offer sacrifices to the idols that had been erected." 

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1589-antiochus-iv-epiphanes

This is the example for the end of the age A of D that Jesus told us all to look for, and is a matter of history confirmed by several credible scholars. 

Like I said, I think what Jesus and Daniel prophesied about was an End Time Event.

 

Overall, it seems we agree, this is an End Times Event.

[Revelation Man]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't know for sure what you mean here but it seems like a great deal of speculation. Any biblical evidence to support this? Daniel 7 does not give a 2000 year time period, this is purely a shot in the dark. How do you ascertain the fourth beast is Greece? Daniel 2 says the third kingdom is Greece. For symmetry then the third beast in Dan 7 is the Grecian Empire. The third beast is a perfect representation of Greece; the great leopard that is Greece and Alexander and the four heads representing the four generals which is more than suggestive of the four horns that arose when the great horn was broken, in Dan 8. The fourth beast is an anomaly unlike any before and is not Greece, nor Rome.

On 1/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, Diaste said:

The Fourth Beast is Rome, the Little Horn that ARISES with the 10 Horns happens 2000 years later. You can not have a Beast without Israel in the Land of Israel. The Little Horn is from Greece, which is in the European Union, which is Revived Rome or a Revived Fourth Beast, except its considered a BEAST itself, hence the Anti-Christ is the LAST BEAST himself. He is a Head on the Seven Headed Beast himself, whereas the other six were Empire/Kingdoms. Maybe my explanation got convoluted, but the Little Horn arises out of Greece, not the Fourth Beast. I think you are not understanding my point, the Fourth Beast has TWO BEASTS within ONE......The Fourth Beast is Rome, the Little Horn is another Beast, 2000 years later, after Israel is REBORN, just like Ezekiel spoke of Israel being as Dead Men's Bones, then  it was prophesied they would yet Live Again. 

 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

 Nothing rises from the 4th beast as the 4th beast is the end result and the fulfillment. The diadochi rose from Greece which is the third beast and from one of them comes the 4th beast, the Iron kingdom(Not Rome), and the little horn. Dan 7 says nothing about the EU, that's just speculation. You just referenced borders in an above paragraph so I guess geography makes some sense, eh?

On 1/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, Diaste said:

I explained this above, no use repeating it.....

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

No. The four choices have nothing to do with Europe. The little horn comes directly from the Diadochi and none are in Europe. But to point out the geography again, it sure does seem important, doesn't it?

On 1/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, Diaste said:

You do not seem to understand that Rome was the Fourth Beast for some reason, the BEAST THAT WAS............Who do you think the 7 Kings are in Rev. 17 ? The 5 that have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece), the ONE THAT WAS (Rome) and the one that is YET TO COME (Anti-Christ/Little Horn). BEASTS are Kingdoms/Kings that Conquered, Enslaved or Ruled Israel. This is why the Beast of Rev. 13 & 17 is a Seven Headed Beast.  Without a clear understanding of the Fourth Beast being TWO BEASTS in One, no one is going to understand Daniel chapter 7.

 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

There is no proof Rome is the 4th beast or the Iron Kingdom, this is wishful thinking from a century ago and has been regurgitated so many times many simply accept the falsehood.  There is a good deal of evidence that Rome has nothing to do with the Iron Kingdom. If you are looking for the revival of an ancient kingdom look to the revival of Islam in the form of ISIS. Look at the history of Islam from the 6th century AD and compare it to ISIS. Where do you see proof of Egypt and Assyria in scripture? You seem to be referencing a parallel between Rev 17:10 and Dan 2. There isn't one. Adding Egypt and Assyria to the kingdoms of the statue is unbiblical. Putting that aside do you have any biblical proof that the 7 heads are the kingdoms you attest? Like a parallel verse or passage perhaps? You state a lot of things but I see no biblical proof. Not that I'm convinced who the 7 heads are in relation to the kings in question but there is a problem with interpreting any of them as past kings. Rev 4:1 says " “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” So everything that happens from that point is after the time of the giving of the prophetic book, except the case of an identifying vision such as Rev 12:1-7 which is a vision only and differs from Rev 17 as the beast of Rev 17 is clearly future. In that case how can a verse fragment be past, present and future when the context of the book from the 4th chapter is future and the near context is a future event, the beast that has  risen from the dead?

Islam can not be a Beast, nor can the Ottoman Empire, there was no Jewish Peoples to be conquered at that time. Ezekiel's Prophecy states they (Israel) were as DEAD MEN'S BONES.....Islam has nothing do with any Beast except that it will be Destroyed by the Last Beast or the Man of Sin, better known as the Anti-Christ. Isis is nothing, they will be destroyed very shortly. Daniel was interpreting the Dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, he dreamed of the Kingdoms/Beasts from his time forward. Rev. 17 told what the Seven Headed Beast in Rev. 13 and 17 meant, the Angel explained it in Detail by using the Seven Mountains are Seven Kings, 5 have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come. The Last Beast needed to be seen as a MAN WITH MASSIVE POWERS, and not a Kingdom like the other Beasts with Multiple Rulers, hence the angel REDUCED the Kingdoms to KINGS who had FALLEN. Thus we were to understand the Last BEAST was a mere MAN, just like the Bible in many places calls him, the Man of Sin, the Man of Lawlessness. He is also called the BEAST, this is why, he is the LAST BEAST himself alone. 

No one added anything, God gave us the pattern for a BEAST, then the Angel tells you there was 7 Kings and they Represent the 7 Heads of the Beast. God gives us wisdom to understand the bible, but keeps this wisdom from others, that is why Jesus told the Disciples he spoke to them in parables. What do they all have in common ? They all conquered, enslaved or ruled Israel. That is what a BEAST IS !! So the Seven Headed Beast is reduced to Seven Kings, and so which Seven Kings or Seven Kingdoms Conquered Israel? That is as clear as day. 

Rev. 12 was long ago, but the focal point of Rev. 12 was ISRAEL FLEEING into the Wilderness. Likewise, the Seven Headed Beast is about all the Nations that Conquered Israel, BUT..........The focal point of the Chapter is about the Seventh Beast and the Harlot, who also had the Blood of the Saints and Martyrs on her hands, which many she slayed LONG AGO. So that has no relevance, the Harlot (All False Religion) is Destroyed by the Anti-Christ at a time in the Future. So it is a Future Prophecy, explaining what the Seven Headed Beast and the Harlot is.

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

 You haven't fully researched the issue.

ALEXANDER THE HEBREW ARCHPRIESTS 

I was speaking of Alexanders SHORT RULE being placed above what his Four Generals and their successors did to Israel. The Greeks Rule was Hostile to Israel.  Nebuchadnezzar took Israel to Babylon against their will, that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Rome allowing the subjects to live in their Land. Pax Romanus was like NOTHING BEFORE IT.....You need to Research that, that is how Rome was different. But since you don't think Rome was a Beast of course you have to proffer why Rome wasn't different, even though it was far different.

Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peacefulness and minimal expansion by the Roman military force experienced by the Roman Empire after the end of the Final War of the Roman Republic and before the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. Since it was established by Augustus, it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its span was approximately 206 years (27 BC to 180 AD) according to Encyclopedia Britannica.[1]

The Pax Romana is said to have been a "miracle" because prior to it there had never been peace for so many centuries in a given period of history.

It was an Iron Kingdom that broke people down via force, and crucified people to intimidate them etc. etc., but the PEACE was what was different, they brought forth a PEACE like never before, which meant the Gospel could be spread far easier, so God used them for His own purposes. There was nothing like the PAX-ROMANUS before the Romans ruled.

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Islam has nothing to do with it, you are correct. It's ISIS and the fundamental radicals that fulfill the prophecies of the beast by the acts recorded on video and broadcast around the world. They kill infidels, destroy everything and want to impose sharia on the whole world. None of your ancient kingdoms did any of this.

ISIS Will be destroyed within 2 years....... They are nothing but a creation of Obama's ineptitude. The Beast destroys BY PEACE (Daniel 8), and this means he gains peoples trust and gains power in like manner. Satan is showing you a "ball-fake". 

The Beast gives him his power (DARK POWERS) but evil powers without weapons destroy or subjugates nothing.  Satan is not the Beast, he is just a Demonic force. He has to rule via Humans. 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

You really need to do the legwork. Are you saying Islam did not conquer or enslave the Jews? Your kidding, right? The Crusades, which lasted 400 years, aimed at wresting Jerusalem from Muslim control. Islam conquered and enslaved Israel, and killed Jews because they were infidels. So by your definition Islam qualifies as a beast kingdom. I don't define it that way because it's illogical to conclude the beast kingdoms or, the kingdoms of the statue, are defined, characterized or interpreted by that one bit of evidence. Why? It's just one piece of evidence. By that logic unicorns exist because I saw one in a book.

Read the Prophesy of Ezekiel, Israel was NO MORE, they were as Dead Men's Bones, they did not come alive again until God BREATHED LIFE into them again. Islam has never Conquered the Jewish Nation while she was in her homeland. A few Jews living in Israel, is not Israel, the Nation was Reborn in 1948, and the Jews returned, just like Ezekiel prophesied. ONCE AGAIN, A Beast must Conquer or Enslave Israel, the LAND is not Israel, the People are Israel, just like the Building is not the Church, the people are the Church. Israel was dispersed all over the world because of their backsliding ways. 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

You missed the point. The context is the the ten horns. The little horn rises after the ten horns, the difference is between the little horn and the ten horns, not the little horn and the first three beasts. 

On 1/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, Diaste said:

The Context is the Fourth Beast AND the Ten Horns with a Little Horn that follows......This is why there is not 11 Horns on the Seven Headed Beast in Rev. 13 and 17, the Little Horn is one of the Seven Heads, hence there are only 10 Horns, not 11 on the Seven Headed Beast.

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Absolutely not.

On 1/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, Diaste said:

Absolutely...............The Little Horn is different than the FIRST.........Meaning ONE.............One is not 10 Horns and is not 3 Beasts. But in the verse before, it states the Fourth Beast is DIVERSE FROM ALL THE BEASTS. Which means ALL 3 Beasts.

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

It's a typical argument that PreTrib uses Nero as the 'one is', this makes more sense that what you contend. Scripture says, "...and there are 7 KINGS..." not kingdoms. If the Lord Jesus had meant, "...and there are 7 kingdoms..." he would have said so, but he did not.

 

God is never wrong, of course, so when he REDUCES the Kingdoms/Beasts to Kings, He is still correct, he says there are 5 Kings that have Fallen, thus He is correct, their has to be a "KING" at the helm of every Kingdom when it falls, so FIVE HAVE FALLEN, One IS and one is YET TO COME..........God tells the Angel to inform us this way so we will understand that the LAST KING is not a Kingdom, but is a MERE MAN ruling, and there will be no successors to him, once he arrives on the scene, you have Seven Years Total before God sets up his earthly Kingdom via his son Jesus Christ for 1000 years. And the Angel DID SAY THAT....He said the Seven Heads are Seven Mountains and they are ALSO Seven Kings. 

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Thanks for the offer but I wont read it. Just from this post I can see your research into the ancient kingdoms is sketchy and the conclusions are prejudicial in hopes of proving your point. Plus the behavior of ignoring all points that refute your claims, and the lack of scriptural evidence is tedious.

 

Suite yourself. I thought you might could use some help on the Seven Headed Beast. Until you figure out Rome was a Beast, figuring out who the Seven Headed Beast is is going to be very difficult. The Angel in Rev. 17 explains who the Harlot, and the Seven Headed Beast is, yet we have people who still say its a MYSTERY...........but the Angel explained the MYSTERY perfectly, there is no Mystery. Babylon and the Harlot are Two different entities. One is False Religion (Harlot) the other is False Government (Babylon).