Could the antichrist be a Muslim

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 

I think everyone disagree with you brother. And the Facts are the Romans did have many wars with the Macedonians. 

Yes, of course. 'Everyone' disagrees with me. All 7 billion. 

In any case you miss the reality. Alexander's Greece was gone. It died with him. Then his generals took over, not Rome. This is well documented history and fulfillment of bible prophecy. More than a century later Rome fought against the realms of the generals, Cassander in Greece, Seleucus in the Mideast,  Ptolemy in Egypt, and Antigonus in Asia Minor. But Rome did not war against the Grecian juggernaut of Alexander, only the kingdom's of the generals that divided Alexander's Greece. So yes, the commentaries are incorrect and so are you.

[fixerupper]

You've fallen for the old theory of the RRE.  The sequence of kingdoms I believe in goes back before Josephus.  It's pretty much the reformers who have mis-interpreted this.

Daniel 2...

Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
Most people believe that Medo-Persia is the arms of silver or the, 'inferior kingdom.'

The only thing said about the second kingdom is that it's inferior to Babylon.  Medo-Persia wasn't "land inferior" to Babylon.  The Median Empire was not only much smaller it was also short lived.

The word inferior is "arah" which means earth, world, and ground.  Strong's #H772 'inferior' is only used once in the OT.  It is the only place the word inferior is used and translated as, 'ara' or 'GROUND!  The word inferior corresponds to the word 'erets' which means LAND.  Gesenius says, "the ground, and adverb below, inferior.  The interlinear uses the word, 'earthward'.  So if inferior means land, that rules out the Medo-Persian empire as the second empire since it was about three times the size of Babylon.  It wasn't 'land inferior' to Babylon.  The Median Empire was not only short-lived but it was also much smaller making it the inferior kingdom. 

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes.  NOT THE PERSIANS!

Daniel 5:31 
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old." 

Isaiah 13:17 
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon) 

Jeremiah 51:11  Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance 
of his temple.

I've also said that Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom. The ram developed from the Medes, the smaller horn that CAME UP FIRST,  And Persians, the taller horn that came up AFTERWARDS!

So that makes the sequesnce thus far as,

1 Babylon.

2.  Medes.

3. Persia.

The fourth kingdom, symbolized by the legs of iron, (Greece) and it's end-time offspring, "the toes mingled with iron and clay," doesn't come from Rome but from the Grecian Empire.  That's in accord with Daniel 8's little horn which is said to come from the realm of GRECIA, and Daniel 11:2.  That Empire didn't cover Rome or Europe as it was a Mid-East Empire just like the others depicted in the statue.  Rome was a European Empire and is excluded as the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7. Rome cannot be the origin of the two and ten horned beast. (anti-Christ and false prophet).

The word mixed used to describe the toes mingled with iron and clay is the Aramaic word "arab."  It means mixed and it denotes an Arabian or Arabia. (Gesenius) I would like to know how people associate this word with ROME, ITALY.  The iron and clay aren't Italians or Europeans.  The description of it jsu doen't fit them.  The iron and clay describe the Arabs and Musims.

Interpreters who say Daniel 7's fourth beast is Rome don't have a shred of evidence to make such a claim.  They do so by claiming Daniel 2 and 7 are repeat prophecies.

Edited June 30, 2017 by fixerupper

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

You see what you want to see that way it fits your predetermined belief even though the fact don't.

 

My belief system was fully pretrib, premillennialism, Rome as the final empire with a revived Nero as the beast, once upon a time. Upon actual study and application of the things I learned pretrib and any Roman connection was unsupported BY SCRIPTURE, and therefore incorrect. My preconceptions have been eradicated in this area. But i do appreciate your dogged determination, it helps to affirm the truth of scripture. 

[Revelation Man]

19 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, of course. 'Everyone' disagrees with me. All 7 billion. 

In any case you miss the reality. Alexander's Greece was gone. It died with him. Then his generals took over, not Rome. This is well documented history and fulfillment of bible prophecy. More than a century later Rome fought against the realms of the generals, Cassander in Greece, Seleucus in the Mideast,  Ptolemy in Egypt, and Antigonus in Asia Minor. But Rome did not war against the Grecian juggernaut of Alexander, only the kingdom's of the generals that divided Alexander's Greece. So yes, the commentaries are incorrect and so are you.

No it did not, he was not the Leader of Greece but about 10-12 years, he died young, the very reason the story is given of the Four Generals Horns coming up is they were a part of the Beast Kingdom, in other words the Kingdom he created continued ruling over Israel. There were Four Successive Kingdoms. Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Was Babylon not a Kingdom when Nebuchadnezzar died? Was Rome not still a Beast/Kingdom when their first leader passed away? 

The Commentaries are not Wrong, I am not wrong, and the 90 percent of Christendom, which would by 90 percent of 2 Billion which would equal 1.8 Billion, not 7 Billion, are not wrong.

You are out on a limb with a very few people. On the limb, written in big bold letters "Limb is about to Fall", the name of the limb is WRONG TURN. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Revelation Man

[Revelation Man]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

My belief system was fully pretrib, premillennialism, Rome as the final empire with a revived Nero as the beast, once upon a time. Upon actual study and application of the things I learned pretrib and any Roman connection was unsupported BY SCRIPTURE, and therefore incorrect. My preconceptions have been eradicated in this area. But i do appreciate your dogged determination, it helps to affirm the truth of scripture. 

I don't see Nero as anything but a Dead man. Upon your studies you followed a few men who set forth things that seemingly made sense. But they are not facts. And I am not trying to do anything except spread the true gospel. Each man has to choose his own path.

 

Just as before, if you believed the other way, you let men take you there and not God or you wouldn't have LEFT THOSE POSITIONS. Thus that's your problem, I don't let men take me anywhere, I trust in the Holy Spirit to take me unto the truth. 

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

I don't see Nero as anything but a Dead man. Upon your studies you followed a few men who set forth things that seemingly made sense. But they are not facts. And I am not trying to do anything except spread the true gospel. Each man has to choose his own path.

 

Just as before, if you believed the other way, you let men take you there and not God or you wouldn't have LEFT THOSE POSITIONS. Thus that's your problem, I don't let men take me anywhere, I trust in the Holy Spirit to take me unto the truth. 

Yes, you're a paragon of virtue, in the pantheon of sainthood, the singular vanguard of truth; but you listen like your ears are incapacitated. Or you're deliberately obtuse.  I really can't decide. You either ignore every point or you seem to not understand.  To belabor the earlier post please reread the following:

 

12 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

  17 hours ago, Diaste said:

My belief system was fully pretrib, premillennialism, Rome as the final empire with a revived Nero as the beast, once upon a time. Upon actual study and application of the things I learned pretrib and any Roman connection was unsupported BY SCRIPTURE, and therefore incorrect. My preconceptions have been eradicated in this area. But i do appreciate your dogged determination, it helps to affirm the truth of scripture. 

Since you are Pretrib and believe Rome is the fourth beast, just like I used to, I guess you have, "...followed a few men who set forth things that seemingly made sense." as well.

And again, since you say, "...you let men take you there..." and you believe the way I used to, you then have let men take you there, and not God.

I don't know if you can hear yourself or not but you are agreeing that Pretrib and Rome is of the doctrines of men and not of the Lord Jesus. 

Bravo!

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

No it did not, he was not the Leader of Greece but about 10-12 years, he died young, the very reason the story is given of the Four Generals Horns coming up is they were a part of the Beast Kingdom, in other words the Kingdom he created continued ruling over Israel. There were Four Successive Kingdoms. Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Was Babylon not a Kingdom when Nebuchadnezzar died? Was Rome not still a Beast/Kingdom when their first leader passed away? 

The Commentaries are not Wrong, I am not wrong, and the 90 percent of Christendom, which would by 90 percent of 2 Billion which would equal 1.8 Billion, not 7 Billion, are not wrong.

You are out on a limb with a very few people. On the limb, written in big bold letters "Limb is about to Fall", the name of the limb is WRONG TURN. 

You are reaching deep, aren't you?  Drowning men reach up for help usually but you just keep swimming  deeper into crushing black oblivion.  When Belshazzar lost Babylon the Medes assumed power and Babylon was no more. When Daruis ll fell to Alexander the Medes were no more and the Grecian empire assumed power. This means power changed hands from Babylonians, to Medes and Persians, and then to the Greeks. This should sufficiently refute your argument, "Was Babylon not a Kingdom when Nebuchadnezzar died? Was Rome not still a Beast/Kingdom when their first leader passed away?" as we are not looking at heirs but conquering leaders and armies supplanting the previous ruler and people. So I agree that Babylon passed from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar but when Cyrus defeated the Chaldeans Babylon was no more and the Persians reigned, and so on from Darius to Alexander to the Generals. Rome did not supplant Alexander, the Diadochi did.

When Alexander died the vast Grecian empire ended and eventually four strong generals rose to power in their own right and in their own lands. After the death of Alexander three separate entities emerged that had nothing to the Greece: Asia Minor, Egypt and the Seleucid empire. Cassander and the remnants of the empire melted back  into the borders of the country of Greece while Ptolemy, Antigonus and Seleucus split up and ruled the lions share of the now defunct empire of Alexander.

You say that the Grecian empire continued ruling over Israel but this isn't true. Cassander ruled only within the borders of Greece, Ptolemy ruled in Egypt, Antigonus stayed in Asia Minor with none of these have the power in the Levant. But Seleucus did rule in the Mideast and the Levant.  By your own beliefs then the Seleucid empire is a beast empire, and a far better candidate for the 4th beast than Rome, as Seleucus ruled over Israel immediately after Alexander, where Rome came more than a century later. By your own admission then, since Seleucus directly followed Alexander, with Seleucus ruling the Levant the succession of kingdoms is: Babylon(head of gold), Medes and Persians(arms of silver), Greece(belly and thighs of bronze) and then Seleucus(legs of iron, feet of iron and clay). 

With this succession of kingdoms there is the smooth flow of the dream and it's interpretation, one directly follows the other, as scripture says. Since your criteria is, "Conquered, enslaved or ruled Israel" for the identity of a beast kingdom, the Seleucid empire is a beast kingdom as it did exactly what you demand characterizes a beast kingdom and it's leader. Adding to this is the fact the Chaldeans, Medes and Persians, Alexander and Seleucus all ruled from the city of Babylon, and each supplanted the previous kingdom, while Rome did not. Neither was Rome in the direct succession of Babylon to Medo-Persia to Greece and then Seleucus.

From out of this Seleucid empire the religion of Islam rose. I know you don't realize this but Islam was stronger than Rome. When Islam rose from the desert they pushed Rome out of the Mideast, northern Africa, Spain, parts of Italy and a good share of Asia Minor, while the mighty Roman legions retreated to it's fortified cities in what was left of Turkey. Again according to your criteria, "Conquered, enslaved or ruled Israel" for the identity of a beast kingdom, then Islam is also a beast kingdom. The Islamic Arabs conquered, enslaved and then ruled Israel for 400 years + until the Crusades began to take back Jerusalem. 

Now you have to rethink your position as by this, "Conquered, enslaved or ruled Israel", means the Seleucid empire and Islamic empire are both beast kingdoms. I know you'll disagree that Islam can be a beast kingdom as you'll argue that Islam came after the Diaspora. Fine. I'll give you that. But Seleucus is different. The Jews were in the Land of Israel when Seleucus, "Conquered, enslaved or ruled Israel" well before Rome did so.  So then Rome cannot be the Iron Kingdom nor the fourth beast as Rome did not supplant Alexander in the region in question, namely Babylon and the Levant, only Seleucus did. 

So then the legs of Iron in the Dan 2 statue can be correctly identified as the Seleucid Empire. Since Islam rose from the same region and became the great destroyer as depicted in the fourth beast and recorded in history, Islam must then be the feet of iron and clay. The direct succession is the only way we can determine the identity of the fourth beast and the Iron Kingdom. Since Seleucus is the General supplanting Alexander in the Levant we can only conclude that either Seleucus is the fourth beast and the Iron kingdom, or the fourth beast and the Iron Kingdom arises from the Seleucid realm. I prefer the latter according to Dan 8. Here Alexander is shown defeating the great Medo-Persian empire, then losing the kingdom and being replaced by not heirs, but ambitious Generals. Only one of these ruled in the Levant, Seleucus. From one of the four notable horns comes the little horn that eventually magnifies himself above the Most High God. 

Now that we see the direct line from Alexander to Seleucus in the region it's conclusive that the little horn rises from Seleucus and the Mideast. Cassander did not rule the Levant. Antigonus or Lysimachus did not rule the Levant. Ptolemy did not rule the Levant. Only Seleucus did directly after Alexander. However, according to the vision in Dan 2 the iron kingdom must supplant all the others. Seleucus did not do this. Islam did. The other three generals are out of consideration as the origin of the little horn as they did not, "Conquer, enslaved or ruled Israel", nor did they rule the Levant and Rome is not one of the four notable horns rising after Alexanders death, only Seleucus did and is, but since Seleucus did not, "...crush and break all the others." Dan 2:40, this Iron kingdom has to be other than the Seleucid Empire. 

From the facts only Islam fits the biblical criteria. 

[Diaste]

The Fourth Beast.

Dan 7

⁴ “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it.

⁵ “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’

⁶ “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

This vision is analogous to Dan 2 and Dan 8. We see Babylon here as the Lion, indeed that was the ensign of Babylon. Further this, "I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it." is what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4, "Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him live with the animals among the plants of the earth. ¹⁶ Let his mind be changed from that of a man and let him be given the mind of an animal, till seven times^[d] pass by for him." then we see, "his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird." then, " At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored." It's no doubt that verse 4 above is referring to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar. Meaning the next verse is analogous to Medo-Persia.

The 6th verse is clearly Greece and Alexander depicting swift and deadly conquest, 10 years and he took the mighty Persians down and expanded! The four heads are the four generals that were to rise after.

Now the 4th beast.

"⁷ “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns."

This kingdom has to be different in some way from the first three. It's not in the conquest. Not in the terrible, frightening power. Not in the crushing devouring and trampling. That's not all that  different from Rome or Babylon, the Persians, Mongols, the Japanese, or any number of world powers that were terrifying, powerful and devoured and crushed and trampled. It's another difference we have to look for. All the above attributes were listed and then a conspicuous statement  "It was different from all the former beasts,". Well, in what way? It's apparent the difference is not in the terrifying, devouring, trampling, crushing power. 

I see the difference in government. Babylon, Persia, the Medes, and Greece were civil, polytheistic governments promoting individual economic and religious freedom. The 4th beast will be a rigid, monotheistic government. That is a huge difference. Rome was just like Babylon, Persia and Greece in their approach to administration of their realms. The 4th beast will differ greatly. Islam again fits this perfectly.

[Revelation Man]

10 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, you're a paragon of virtue, in the pantheon of sainthood, the singular vanguard of truth; but you listen like your ears are incapacitated. Or you're deliberately obtuse.  I really can't decide. You either ignore every point or you seem to not understand.  To belabor the earlier post please reread the following:

 

You dodged what I stated with zig zag elegance. But it doesn't work in reality. If God had led you unto the truth instead of men you wouldn't have left. To this you have no reply. The facts are you can't follow men's understandings and ever get unto the deep truths of God. You will just change back and forth between the best hucksters of the day. But instead of answering the question, which you can's answer, you come up with names. The question again, did men lead you to your former understanding or God? If God led you you wouldn't have Changed, that was my point.

10 hours ago, Diaste said:

Since you are Pretrib and believe Rome is the fourth beast, just like I used to, I guess you have, "...followed a few men who set forth things that seemingly made sense." as well.

And again, since you say, "...you let men take you there..." and you believe the way I used to, you then have let men take you there, and not God.

I don't know if you can hear yourself or not but you are agreeing that Pretrib and Rome is of the doctrines of men and not of the Lord Jesus. 

No, I followed God and the Bible, I dug it all out myself. I went 25 years and didn't care one way or another. Then I saw how the pre-trib and post trib camps were causing division and their Gospel messages were vastly different and thus it needed to be addressed. So I went on  Biblical Journey to find the truth. Revelation 19 was VERY CLEAR, it can not happen without a Rapture. Then I proceeded to find out why Post Tribbers became deceived, and it was clear, they believed half truths and spread them, like IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation, as if that is an important scripture, when the Truth is in Rev. 19, we the Church COME BACK with Jesus IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation. Satan uses HALF TRUTHS. And every point they make is basically a half truth.

And I didn't agree that Pre-trib or Rome being the Fourth Beast were Doctrines of men, I stated that God didn't bring you to that understanding, else you wouldn't have left those understandings. Another HALF TRUTH.

I don't follow men. I follow the Holy Spirit.

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Revelation Man

[Revelation Man]

On 7/1/2017 at 9:02 AM, Diaste said:

This kingdom has to be different in some way from the first three. It's not in the conquest. Not in the terrible, frightening power. Not in the crushing devouring and trampling. That's not all that  different from Rome or Babylon, the Persians, Mongols, the Japanese, or any number of world powers that were terrifying, powerful and devoured and crushed and trampled. It's another difference we have to look for. All the above attributes were listed and then a conspicuous statement  "It was different from all the former beasts,". Well, in what way? It's apparent the difference is not in the terrifying, devouring, trampling, crushing power. 

Daniel 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. {{}} They were ALL FOUR Different from one another, his whole the Fourth Beast was different is not anything of great consequence. However, you miss what is in front of your eyes because you have ISLAM....ON YOUR MIND....Men's traditions passed from others, not from the bible.

The part you miss is that the Fourth Beast is two Beasts in one. THE ANGEL INTERPRETS IT THIS WAY........

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from ALL kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them (LITTLE HORN); AND HE (LITTLE HORN/ANTI-CHRIST) shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

I don't see how these two verses can not bee seen clearly as TWO DIFFERENT BEASTS......Verse 23 says the Fourth Beast was DIVERSE from all the Beasts before it meaning MULTIPLE......Verse 24 says the LITTLE HORN was different from the FIRST [OF THAT KINGDOM]. Not all.................

The "CIVIL" mention is beyond comprehension. None of them were Civil, of course that sounds good with your Islam theory, but its just not a fact. They were ALL DIFFERENT, VERSE 3 tells us that. Rome was different in that it was the Kingdom of Iron, of course it was far more vicious. It lasted longer, it built roads and viaducts, it had a common language throughout its Kingdom, Greek Koine, etc. etc. It was not ISLAM nor could it be, Israel was not a Nation again until 1948, but that doesn't fit your preconceived notions does it?

 

The Fourth Beast is DEAD..........Rome is not a Beast anymore. The Little Horn out of Europe will soon be a Beast however. He will destroy ALL RELIGIONS, including Islam.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Revelation Man