A Biblical Response to Evil and the Man of Sin.

[iamlamad]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 5:51 AM, Diaste said:

The idea of Rome as the Iron Kingdom is built out the misuse of Rev 17:10-11. It's impossible in my mind to think this is a prophecy of the past when Jesus tells John, “Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after these things.” and stay in context, in peace, and truth, in the Spirit; This will advance the cause of Christ.

Your still putting God in a box, stating boldly that God could not add some history to a book of prophecy. That is just not wise. God could and God DID insert some history in this book. The most glaring example is when the Dragon took 1/3 of the angels with him. In the same passage John talks of the birth of Christ.

[Diaste]

6 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Your still putting God in a box, stating boldly that God could not add some history to a book of prophecy. That is just not wise. God could and God DID insert some history in this book. The most glaring example is when the Dragon took 1/3 of the angels with him. In the same passage John talks of the birth of Christ.

Yes, as a statement of fact, a list of attributes and actions. But not as prophecy. History is not prophecy and this is the point of contention.

You are saying the 1 st seal is the gospel gone forth in the 1st century before Jesus even gave the prophecy to John in 95 AD. There is no evidence for that occurrence.

Rev 12 begins with a vision.

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and crying out in the pain and agony of giving birth.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky, tossing them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her child as soon as He was born.

5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place for her to be nourished for 1,260 days. (This is going to happen)

This is going to happen:

Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Based on this:

For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down—he who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. And they did not love their lives so as to shy away from death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.”

And the woman flees as noted above:

13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle to fly from the presence of the serpent to her place in the wilderness, where she was nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.

So while there is historical recording contained within the Revelation it's for identification but certainly cannot be prophetic.  From Rev 22 the word for prophecy is:

394 prophēteía

 (from 4396 /prophḗtēs, "prophet," which is derived from 4253 /pró, "before" and 5346 /phēmí, "make clear, assert as a priority") – properly, what is clarified beforehand; prophecy which involves divinely-empowered forthtelling (asserting the mind of God) or foretelling(prediction).

So unless it's clearly identifying characteristics such as the worthiness of the Lamb or the preexistent dragon then it's divinely empowered foretelling. I'm not convinced that this:

His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky, tossing them to the earth.

Is history, based on this:

and the dragon and his angels fought back. 

the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.

I'm not putting God in a box. I have always found that to be a spurious accusation, one I have heard for many years and one which only seeks to shame others; as if to say they have little insight or an inability to see what God is doing. Yes, I may be simple and literal but the whole of the Word and the profound acts of the Lord our God are so remarkably magnificent I find myself struggling just to keep up with what I can understand, which is little enough, I grant you.

 

 

 

[Robert.A]

intersting reading, one day it will be revealed.

1 John 2:18-19 (KJV)
¹⁸  Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
¹⁹  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

John seems to infer that anti-christs come from within the church. not from ISlam , not from roman catholic church. appearing as  part of the body of christ. 

 

With so much unbiblical preaching nowadays it will not be surprising to see some "Chrisitan" leader fall and be raised back up again.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

But you're missing my point. You are taking an OT type and woodenly forcing all its particulars onto its correspebeing anti-type (in this case, the Antichrist.)

If I am doing that it's inadvertent. 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Jesus stayed a short period in Egypt, but he was not Egyptian. Was Moses a type of Christ? Yes. Was Moses a murderer? Yes. Do this mean the Jews should have been looking for a murderer as their Messiah? No.

I didn't say the beast had to come from a region or a country. I said I didn't know if it was regional or bloodline. 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

People that assume that every detail of a type must be found in the anti-type frankly do not understand biblical typology. That's not how it works.

I don't put much stock in typology; 'shadows' and 'through a glass darkly'. Nothing that's on the way has happened before, there is no precedent.

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Scripture nowhere states that the AC must be a native born citizen of those ancient territories. Show me the verse. You are making assumptions.

Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven. 

From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land.- Dan 8

From one of the notable horns cometh the little horn. We have agreed this is the beast. Therefore it must come from one of the Diadochi as these were ones who rose to power, 4 of Alexander's Generals, after the king of Greece died.

21 The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power. - Dan 8

Here we have the interpretation of the prophecy stating the goat is Greece. From history we know that Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Seleucus were the leaders of those four kingdoms that rose from the Grecian Empire after the fall of Alexander. That's the only four that rose after the consolidation of the empires 1000's of satrapies. 

So the only conclusion is that the little horn is coming from one of these areas or from one of the bloodlines, maybe both. 

Then indeed scripture states the beast must arise from one of these areas, not native born, that's not a criteria; this is the criteria:

"...four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven. From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land."

None of Alexander's Generals, the Diadochi, were blood relatives, Alexander had no blood successors. The important part in this is the region. Consider, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece all ruled from the city of Babylon. Seleucus also reigned from Babylon and that rule continued until the city was abandoned in 275 BC, according to reports.

 

 

Interestingly, Dan 11 follows Antiochus IV and by all reports he did the thing with the A of D that's a type of action of the coming beast.(The beast's A of D is self exaltation above all god's, imo.) That's circumstantial evidence for the origin of the beast in the region of Mesopotamia. But it remains that the beast is the little horn and must come from one of the four notable horns that arose from the Grecian empire, the Diadochi. Now whether that person is native born, an expatriate, immigrant, warlord, radical, or descendant remains to be seen.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

I do believe that the last beast kingdom will be a revived kingdom based on ancient Rome. Daniel 9 proves it and Daniel 2 and 7 support it. Do you seriously think that Daniel just skipped over the great Roman power that put Christ on the cross? That Daniel said, "Okay, Babylon, Persia, Greece, skip over Rome to arrive at Islam." Hardly.

The 'skipping' is done by those who assume Rome. Most blow right past the fact the Diadochi held the power in that area while Rome was still mud hut villages fighting for their lives against Gauls and embroiled in the Punic Wars till about 145 BC, only after the 3rd Punic war did Rome finally rule the Italian peninsula. I'm following the actual history of the region and the word for word interpretation of the prophecy of Dan 8.

Rome did not put Christ on the cross. Jews did. They demanded the death of Jesus even after the Roman governor found Jesus innocent. 

Daniel 9 does not prove Rome. Nothing in scripture names Rome specifically as the beast empire nor one of the 10 nations. Daniel 2 only records a succession of Kingdoms which we ascertain from history and Dan 8. Daniel 7, "After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. " only records a dreadful beast. Maybe this is Rome, but I don't see it. Look into the 700 years of Islamic terror and you'll see the Muslim scourge fits this passage more horrifyingly than any other empire.

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

That said, does the Greek kingdom play into the last beast. Yes. Revelation says he has a body of a leopard. And The "man of the hour" has ties into all those places. This is true if we look at his ancestry or even the history and influence of the country in which he rules.

The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion.  -Rev 13 is an amalgamation of what we see in Daniel, to wit;

4 The first beast was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and given the mind of a man.

5 Suddenly another beast appeared, 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. So it was told, ‘Get up and gorge yourself on flesh!’

6 Next, as I watched, another beast appeared. It was like a leopard, and on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

Interesting the leopard had four heads, equivalent to the four notable horns and four kingdoms of Dan 8, or the Diadochi. Then the idea of the beast like a leopard in Rev 13 is a clear reference to the Grecian kingdom of the prophecies of Daniel; again we are back to the Diadochi and the Mideast.

 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Bear in mind this also, the AC has yet to step into his end-time role. Before that happens, there will be a tremendous restructuring territory and power. At that time, the Antichrist will likely no longer be a president of a country.

You have no idea how many time I have heard similar statements offered with no proof. We don't know how exactly this come about except for this;

"3 One of the heads of the beast appeared to be mortally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed, and the whole world marveled and followed the beast. 4 They worshiped the dragon who had given authority to the beast," - Rev 13

Looks to me like the dragon makes an entrance on the world stage from the beginning and gives the beast power and authority under supernatural auspices. Only after resurrection from the dead does the world worship the beast. The world knows where the beast got his authority because they worship the dragon as well. This is when the power balance shifts and not before. I speculate the beast is going to be 'antichrist' in more ways than one. My belief is that the beast will first undergo a manhunt, capture, trial, conviction and then execution before being raised and empowered by Satan through Apollyon.

The beast's rise to world wide worship won't occur by political means, it will come with terrifying supernatural power.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

The boasting against the most high God will happen when he sits the temple proclaiming HIMSELF to be GOD. Islam does not teach that its adherents are themselves gods. It is simply another false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. 

Could I see Mr. T doing that in the future? Absolutely. Not one doubt in my mind. That day is coming.

You are no doubt a smart guy and genuine believer. I just believe your system is blinding you to the giant orangutan in the room. If Islamic End-time Theory is correct, then my conclusions are wrong. But is Islamic End-time theory correct? I do not believe so. Some of my wife's and my best friend hold that view. In order to make that system fly, the biblical puzzle pieces are twisted and stretched beyond credulity to fit. Do I believe Islam is a factor in the end times? Absolutely. But the end-time system is as false as the religion itself, in my most humble opinion. I think we should let this rest for now. I cannot dismantle the entire system in this format. Neither do I desire to.

But no proof. One cannot say unequivocally, "This." or "That." as fact when the evidence is not there. We can speculate all we want and we should make that qualification when we do. It's not necessarily true about the boasting of the beast that it only occurs in the Temple;

"Then the king will do as he pleases and will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and he will speak monstrous things against the God of gods." - Dan 11

"...and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can wage war against it?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for forty-two months. 6 And the beast opened its mouth to speak blasphemies against God and to slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven." - Rev 13

The beast could indeed boast well beforehand.

"He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

When he sits in the Temple he proclaims himself to be God. The opposition and boasting and self exaltation could be going on well before that especially if one considers that the beast more than likely rises at the 1st seal, well before the A of D and GT.

Seems like this is the forum for 'dismantling' of the topic. 

But allow me to bring up a thing many do not know about. The beast is identified thus:

"The beast that was, and now is not, is an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven and is going into destruction. " It's one of the main identifiers along with the mark, though I think the mark as an identifier will only be relevant after the fact. The wisdom we need is to see the mark for what it is when we are confronted by the test. I don't think we will know who he is by the mark beforehand as we should all realize  it's the beast when he's healed of the deadly head wound. 

The important part of the above verse is, "an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven". Relate that to this:

"But the supply of caliphs is not infinite, according to some Baghdadi-aligned Islamic scholars studied by Bunzel. One of those scholars, the Bahraini cleric Turki al-Bin’ali, cites a saying attributed to Muhammad that predicts a total of twelve caliphs before the end of the world. Bin’ali considers only seven of the caliphs of history legitimate. That makes Baghdadi the eighth out of twelve—"[emp. mine]

https://newrepublic.com/article/119259/isis-history-islamic-states-new-caliphate-syria-and-iraq

So the 'eighth out of 12' would also be the 'eighth and of the seven'. Other quotes from the article:

"He (always he) must be Muslim, fully grown, devout, sane, and physically whole. Because he is theoretically meant to lead Muslims in battle, missing limbs or a sickly disposition will automatically disqualify him. He must also hail from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabian peninsula, a requirement that turns out to matter a great deal in the case of the current caliph." [emp. mine]

"Baghdadi’s Mosul sermon demonstrated command of the florid rhetoric of classical Arabic, so his religious chops are confirmed. And his Qurayshi lineage is beyond public dispute. " [emp. mine]

Clearly this guy is of the previous seven, all from the Quraysh, and is considered the eighth. When have you heard another described this way in exactly the language used in Rev 17:11? It's rhetorical. The answer is, "Never."

Is this proof positive? I give it a lot of weight as the description fits with scripture. Along with all I have previously said and the scriptural offerings presented it's certainly stunning.

 

 

[Diaste]

23 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi JD,

If we look at the Roman Legions at the time of Titus, they were a mix of ethnic composition. Because Rome had spread out so far, they could no longer fill the military with Italians only. So they recruited locally. The auxiliary armies under General Titus were a mix of soldiers......Arabians, Celts, Egyptians, Syrians, Moesians..... but mostly Arabian and Syrian. 

According to the historian Josephus, two unidentified soldiers wearing the uniform of the Roman legions, started the fire that ultimately consumed the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus also writes that Titus didn't want the Temple damaged, as Titus was in awe by the grandeur of it......(Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, The War of the Jews)

The "people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary"...... It was either Arabian or Syrian soldiers who actually torched the temple. They had such a hate for the Jews that they could not resist burning it down, against the wishes/orders of Titus.

Micah tells us this:

And He will arise and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord. In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God and they will remain (Heb. meaning “live in safety”),  Because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth. This One (Jesus) will be our peace when the Assyrian invades our land, when he tramples on our citadels. (Micah 5:4-5)

This is the reference to the Antichrist who Jesus defeats at His coming.

Isaiah also refers to the Antichrist in this passage:

And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not of man, and a sword not of man will devour him. So he will not escape the sword, and his young men will become forced laborers.  His rock will pass away because of panic, and his princes will be terrified at the standard,” Declares the Lord, whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem. Behold, a king will reign righteously and princes will rule justly. Each will be like a refuge from the wind and a shelter from the storm, like ^[a]streams of water in a dry country, like the shade of a huge rock in a parched land. Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears of those who hear will listen.  (Isa. 31: 8 – Isa. 32:3)

A second passage from Isaiah:

Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel.  A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.  For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord God of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land. Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts, “O My people who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian who strikes you with the rod and lifts up his staff against you, the way Egypt did. For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent and My anger will be directed to their destruction.” (Isa. 10:21-25)

This passage is very obviously about the end-times and not about ancient times. The phrase "a complete destruction, one that is decreed" is a direct quote from Daniel 9:27, which is the primary verse about Daniels 70th week.

I don't see the Antichrist be head over a revived Roman Empire at all. 

 

It's interesting that at the height of the Assyrian empire they ruled a large territory in the Mideast.

" At its peak, the Neo-Assyrian Empire of 911 to 609 BC stretched from Cyprus and the East Mediterranean to Iran, and from present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus to the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and eastern Libya."

This covers nearly the same region as that of the Diadochi, except for Greece. The Assyrian could be a person of any number of people groups.

"A largely Semitic-speaking realm, Assyria was centered on the Tigris in Upper Mesopotamia (modern northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and the northwestern fringes of Iran). The Assyrians came to rule powerful empires in several periods. Making up a substantial part of the greater Mesopotamian "cradle of civilization", which included Sumer, the Akkadian Empire, and Babylonia,"

An unequivocal position on the identity of the beast is quite elusive.

[iamlamad]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, as a statement of fact, a list of attributes and actions. But not as prophecy. History is not prophecy and this is the point of contention.

You are saying the 1 st seal is the gospel gone forth in the 1st century before Jesus even gave the prophecy to John in 95 AD. There is no evidence for that occurrence.

Rev 12 begins with a vision.

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and crying out in the pain and agony of giving birth.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky, tossing them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her child as soon as He was born.

5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place for her to be nourished for 1,260 days. (This is going to happen)

This is going to happen:

Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Based on this:

For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down—he who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. And they did not love their lives so as to shy away from death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.”

And the woman flees as noted above:

13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle to fly from the presence of the serpent to her place in the wilderness, where she was nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.

So while there is historical recording contained within the Revelation it's for identification but certainly cannot be prophetic.  From Rev 22 the word for prophecy is:

394 prophēteía

 (from 4396 /prophḗtēs, "prophet," which is derived from 4253 /pró, "before" and 5346 /phēmí, "make clear, assert as a priority") – properly, what is clarified beforehand; prophecy which involves divinely-empowered forthtelling (asserting the mind of God) or foretelling(prediction).

So unless it's clearly identifying characteristics such as the worthiness of the Lamb or the preexistent dragon then it's divinely empowered foretelling. I'm not convinced that this:

His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky, tossing them to the earth.

Is history, based on this:

and the dragon and his angels fought back. 

the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.

I'm not putting God in a box. I have always found that to be a spurious accusation, one I have heard for many years and one which only seeks to shame others; as if to say they have little insight or an inability to see what God is doing. Yes, I may be simple and literal but the whole of the Word and the profound acts of the Lord our God are so remarkably magnificent I find myself struggling just to keep up with what I can understand, which is little enough, I grant you.

Your point of contention is noted but dismissed: NO WHERE is it written anywhere that any writer cannot include some history into prophecy.  That notion is just human reasoning.  I freely admit that "history" is not prophecy - as in foretelling the future. But so what? Are you still trying to insert an "only?"

You are saying the 1 st seal is the gospel gone forth in the 1st century before Jesus even gave the prophecy to John in 95 AD. There is no evidence for that occurrence.  That is only your opinion. I will take God's word over your opinion. For example, the 1/3 of the angels that went with Satan when He was cast out. CLEARLY a bit of history.  There is evidence in chapters 4 & 5, but at this time you are not believing that. One day you will.  God is looking back....that is not a sin. God wanted to introduce John to the book. What could God do? part of the story of the book was history.

I disagree with you: if you state boldly that God cannot include History in Revelation, then I say you are putting God in a box, so to speak.  Now, perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you think God CAN put history into a book of prophecy but just didn't. If so, I repent of saying you put God in a box.

Perhaps your only beef is that you don't think the first 5 seals are history. If that is so, there is little I can do to convince you. All I can say is, one day you will know it is history - simply because it is.

[iamlamad]

9 hours ago, Diaste said:

But no proof. One cannot say unequivocally, "This." or "That." as fact when the evidence is not there. We can speculate all we want and we should make that qualification when we do. It's not necessarily true about the boasting of the beast that it only occurs in the Temple;

"Then the king will do as he pleases and will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and he will speak monstrous things against the God of gods." - Dan 11

"...and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can wage war against it?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for forty-two months. 6 And the beast opened its mouth to speak blasphemies against God and to slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven." - Rev 13

The beast could indeed boast well beforehand.

"He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

When he sits in the Temple he proclaims himself to be God. The opposition and boasting and self exaltation could be going on well before that especially if one considers that the beast more than likely rises at the 1st seal, well before the A of D and GT.

Seems like this is the forum for 'dismantling' of the topic. 

But allow me to bring up a thing many do not know about. The beast is identified thus:

"The beast that was, and now is not, is an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven and is going into destruction. " It's one of the main identifiers along with the mark, though I think the mark as an identifier will only be relevant after the fact. The wisdom we need is to see the mark for what it is when we are confronted by the test. I don't think we will know who he is by the mark beforehand as we should all realize  it's the beast when he's healed of the deadly head wound. 

The important part of the above verse is, "an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven". Relate that to this:

"But the supply of caliphs is not infinite, according to some Baghdadi-aligned Islamic scholars studied by Bunzel. One of those scholars, the Bahraini cleric Turki al-Bin’ali, cites a saying attributed to Muhammad that predicts a total of twelve caliphs before the end of the world. Bin’ali considers only seven of the caliphs of history legitimate. That makes Baghdadi the eighth out of twelve—"[emp. mine]

https://newrepublic.com/article/119259/isis-history-islamic-states-new-caliphate-syria-and-iraq

So the 'eighth out of 12' would also be the 'eighth and of the seven'. Other quotes from the article:

"He (always he) must be Muslim, fully grown, devout, sane, and physically whole. Because he is theoretically meant to lead Muslims in battle, missing limbs or a sickly disposition will automatically disqualify him. He must also hail from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabian peninsula, a requirement that turns out to matter a great deal in the case of the current caliph." [emp. mine]

"Baghdadi’s Mosul sermon demonstrated command of the florid rhetoric of classical Arabic, so his religious chops are confirmed. And his Qurayshi lineage is beyond public dispute. " [emp. mine]

Clearly this guy is of the previous seven, all from the Quraysh, and is considered the eighth. When have you heard another described this way in exactly the language used in Rev 17:11? It's rhetorical. The answer is, "Never."

Is this proof positive? I give it a lot of weight as the description fits with scripture. Along with all I have previously said and the scriptural offerings presented it's certainly stunning.

All very good points. I add this: consider the image of Daniel 2: Babylon today is Muslim. MedoPersia today is mostly Muslim. Much of the area of the Middle East that Greece conquered is Muslim today.  Much of the Eastern leg of Rome today is Muslim. In fact, there are so many Muslims in the Western leg of Rome that i liked it to the clay and iron that won't mix. The I consider there are how many "stan" nations EAst of the Euphrates River?

[Jonathan Dane]

On 6/30/2019 at 7:16 AM, Diaste said:

If I am doing that it's inadvertent. 

I didn't say the beast had to come from a region or a country. I said I didn't know if it was regional or bloodline. 

I don't put much stock in typology; 'shadows' and 'through a glass darkly'. Nothing that's on the way has happened before, there is no precedent.

Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven. 

From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land.- Dan 8

From one of the notable horns cometh the little horn. We have agreed this is the beast. Therefore it must come from one of the Diadochi as these were ones who rose to power, 4 of Alexander's Generals, after the king of Greece died.

21 The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power. - Dan 8

Here we have the interpretation of the prophecy stating the goat is Greece. From history we know that Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Seleucus were the leaders of those four kingdoms that rose from the Grecian Empire after the fall of Alexander. That's the only four that rose after the consolidation of the empires 1000's of satrapies. 

So the only conclusion is that the little horn is coming from one of these areas or from one of the bloodlines, maybe both. 

Then indeed scripture states the beast must arise from one of these areas, not native born, that's not a criteria; this is the criteria:

"...four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven. From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land."

None of Alexander's Generals, the Diadochi, were blood relatives, Alexander had no blood successors. The important part in this is the region. Consider, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece all ruled from the city of Babylon. Seleucus also reigned from Babylon and that rule continued until the city was abandoned in 275 BC, according to reports.

 

 

Interestingly, Dan 11 follows Antiochus IV and by all reports he did the thing with the A of D that's a type of action of the coming beast.(The beast's A of D is self exaltation above all god's, imo.) That's circumstantial evidence for the origin of the beast in the region of Mesopotamia. But it remains that the beast is the little horn and must come from one of the four notable horns that arose from the Grecian empire, the Diadochi. Now whether that person is native born, an expatriate, immigrant, warlord, radical, or descendant remains to be seen.

 

 

 

The 'skipping' is done by those who assume Rome. Most blow right past the fact the Diadochi held the power in that area while Rome was still mud hut villages fighting for their lives against Gauls and embroiled in the Punic Wars till about 145 BC, only after the 3rd Punic war did Rome finally rule the Italian peninsula. I'm following the actual history of the region and the word for word interpretation of the prophecy of Dan 8.

Rome did not put Christ on the cross. Jews did. They demanded the death of Jesus even after the Roman governor found Jesus innocent. 

Daniel 9 does not prove Rome. Nothing in scripture names Rome specifically as the beast empire nor one of the 10 nations. Daniel 2 only records a succession of Kingdoms which we ascertain from history and Dan 8. Daniel 7, "After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. " only records a dreadful beast. Maybe this is Rome, but I don't see it. Look into the 700 years of Islamic terror and you'll see the Muslim scourge fits this passage more horrifyingly than any other empire.

The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion.  -Rev 13 is an amalgamation of what we see in Daniel, to wit;

4 The first beast was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and given the mind of a man.

5 Suddenly another beast appeared, 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. So it was told, ‘Get up and gorge yourself on flesh!’

6 Next, as I watched, another beast appeared. It was like a leopard, and on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

Interesting the leopard had four heads, equivalent to the four notable horns and four kingdoms of Dan 8, or the Diadochi. Then the idea of the beast like a leopard in Rev 13 is a clear reference to the Grecian kingdom of the prophecies of Daniel; again we are back to the Diadochi and the Mideast.

 

You have no idea how many time I have heard similar statements offered with no proof. We don't know how exactly this come about except for this;

"3 One of the heads of the beast appeared to be mortally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed, and the whole world marveled and followed the beast. 4 They worshiped the dragon who had given authority to the beast," - Rev 13

Looks to me like the dragon makes an entrance on the world stage from the beginning and gives the beast power and authority under supernatural auspices. Only after resurrection from the dead does the world worship the beast. The world knows where the beast got his authority because they worship the dragon as well. This is when the power balance shifts and not before. I speculate the beast is going to be 'antichrist' in more ways than one. My belief is that the beast will first undergo a manhunt, capture, trial, conviction and then execution before being raised and empowered by Satan through Apollyon.

The beast's rise to world wide worship won't occur by political means, it will come with terrifying supernatural power.

This is the problem with this format. Dear brother, I know you have a very elaborate and detailed study of how you believe this geopolitical stuff will work out. I think that's marvelous. 

Because you and others like you have this so tightly wired and settled, is it possible that you may be putting the cuffs on God to insure the AC pass your schematic smell test? I'm just throwing question out there. I suspect this may be happening.

There is no way I can go tit-for-tat with you on each of your peculiar ideas of how this will all turn out. My thing is much more simple. I see an eerily familiar man in power.

This analogy has its limitations but will hopefully get my point across. Imagine you're a cop and an APB goes out to look for a particular suspect. It's detailed. They have him on camera. His clothing, height, weight, nationality, tattoo, and a weird limp are given. Then you see a guy matching all those things. You take him in and run an investigation. More and more incriminating evidence piles up. Eventually, there are an abundance of ties that convince his accusers of his guilt. They have their guy-- they are certain of it.

That's all I'm doing. Bottom line: There's too much stuff. It is not statistically possible the AC could be anyone else. It cannot "not" be him.

Does he fit your scheme? He didn't fit mine either. Even so, I can say that my basic understanding of Daniel and Revelation is still in line with the majority of evangelical scholars who subscribe to a futurists understanding of Revelation. My views regarding the AC and the 4th beast are in line with a large percentage of conservative biblical scholarship. Does that make my understanding correct? No. But neither does it make it out of the mainstream - the norm.

Where I part with the mainstream is the idea of a presently known American Antichrist. Those who believe that are still few in number, but it's growing every day. It's safe to say that there are thousands of us. If I had to guess, that number increases another 3-5% every month. 

But my point is this: My basic understanding of eschatology is in line with the evangelical mainstream. Why do bring this up? Because I don't have to defend my understanding of a Roman 4th beast. That has been hashed over for decades. If those previous scholars don't convince you, neither will I. Fact is, I have no desire to get into the eschatological weeds. A MAN -- A PROFILE. That's my focus.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[Diaste]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

This is the problem with this format. Dear brother, I know you have a very elaborate and detailed study of how you believe this geopolitical stuff will work out. I think that's marvelous. 

Because you and others like you have this so tightly wired and settled, is it possible that you may be putting the cuffs on God to insure the AC pass your schematic smell test? I'm just throwing question out there. I suspect this may be happening.

There is no way I can go tit-for-tat with you on each of your peculiar ideas of how this will all turn out. My thing is much more simple. I see an eerily familiar man in power.

This analogy has its limitations but will hopefully get my point across. Imagine you're a cop and an APB goes out to look for a particular suspect. It's detailed. They have him on camera. His clothing, height, weight, nationality, tattoo, and a weird limp are given. Then you see a guy matching all those things. You take him in and run an investigation. More and more incriminating evidence piles up. Eventually, there are an abundance of ties that convince his accusers of his guilt. They have their guy-- they are certain of it.

That's all I'm doing. Bottom line: There's too much stuff. It is not statistically possible the AC could be anyone else. It cannot "not" be him.

Does he fit your scheme? He didn't fit mine either. Even so, I can say that my basic understanding of Daniel and Revelation is still in line with the majority of evangelical scholars who subscribe to a futurists understanding of Revelation. My views regarding the AC and the 4th beast are in line with a large percentage of conservative biblical scholarship. Does that make my understanding correct? No. But neither does it make it out of the mainstream - the norm.

Where I part with the mainstream is the idea of a presently known American Antichrist. Those who believe that are still few in number, but it's growing every day. It's safe to say that there are thousands of us. If I had to guess, that number increases another 3-5% every month. 

But my point is this: My basic understanding of eschatology is in line with the evangelical mainstream. Why do bring this up? Because I don't have to defend my understanding of a Roman 4th beast. That has been hashed over for decades. If those previous scholars don't convince you, neither will I. Fact is, I have no desire to get into the eschatological weeds. A MAN -- A PROFILE. That's my focus.

What's the problem? It's a discussion format, not a talk show.

There is no 'smell test'. The beast has to fulfill all the prophecy to the letter, 'come to pass as spoken', or it's not prophecy. Therefore, the beast must fit every  prophetic utterance; "

Thus the goat (Alexander) became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns (The Diadochi) came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven. From one of these horns a little horn (The beast) emerged..." - Dan 8

So the beast must come from Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, or the Mideast. That's not a 'smell test', that's God breathed foretelling; and we must wait to see it come to pass.

" It is not statistically possible the AC could be anyone else." As was said about every high profile leader of countries and religious organizations since Nero. That alone is enough to dismiss the claim it's a world leader presently on the grand stage. 

Appealing to the majority is logical nonsense. The majority does not have unassailable veracity because of consensus. In most cases the majority has an agenda using only facts that suit and the consensus is frequently wrong. Witness the 2016 Presidential election...

One could have 1000 scholars write 10,000 books that all agree on religion and prophecy and I would dismiss each out of hand. Each of us has all the information about prophecy we need, straight from the originator of prophecy. Jesus Christ is the Teacher, 'who gives liberally and does not upbraid', not religion or it's propaganda arm. What I see here is a reduction in the set of facts to a subset supporting a preconception. Not saying Trump could never be the 'antichrist', but all the facts must be considered. When one ignores Dan 8 speaking to origin of the beast as coming from either the lineage or the region of the Old Grecian Empire in general, and from one of the Diadochi in particular, then that one is missing critical fact.

In that case it is yet to be seen if Trump fits this portion of the complete profile.