The top reasons why the Anti-Christ can not rule the Whole World

[Big Boy Stan Murf]

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

*The phrase ”Gathering together”
Strongs 1997 = from 1996; a complete collection; especially a Christian meeting (for worship): -- assembling (gathering) together.
Strongs 1996 = from 1909 and 4863; to collect upon the same place: KJV -- gather (together).

*The phrase ”Falling Away”
Strongs 646 = feminine of the same as 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"): KJV -- falling away, forsake.
Strongs 647 = neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce: KJV -- (writing of) divorcement.
Strongs 868 = from 575 and 2476; to remove, i.e. (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: KJV -- depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.

*Same word is translated “forsake” in Acts 21:21 - so this is what the word means: many will forsake the Lord (speaking of those that were Christians but fall away)

Definitions point to the rapture not happening until many who claim to be Christians fall away from the faith, and the anti-christ is revealed

This would mean the traditional pre-trib rapture view could not be correct
where Christians are taken out before the anti-christ is revealed, but instead Christians will be here leading up to the start of the anti-christ coming to power

Some claim the word translated “falling away” really means rapture… if that were true, then 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 would say the rapture won't happen until the rapture happens and the anti-christ be revealed which it does NOT say.

[Shilohsfoal]

4 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Well, I'm not sure about millions being prepositioned, could be true.  But when the man of sin deceives the masses with his whizbangery, he will have a rabid following.

The man of sin doesn't try to decieved the masses.Only them in Israel who violate the covenant.From what I've seen he is already quite popular in Israel .

 

Daniel 11:32

With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.
 

[Shilohsfoal]

15 minutes ago, Stan Murff said:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

*The phrase ”Gathering together”
Strongs 1997 = from 1996; a complete collection; especially a Christian meeting (for worship): -- assembling (gathering) together.
Strongs 1996 = from 1909 and 4863; to collect upon the same place: KJV -- gather (together).

*The phrase ”Falling Away”
Strongs 646 = feminine of the same as 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"): KJV -- falling away, forsake.
Strongs 647 = neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce: KJV -- (writing of) divorcement.
Strongs 868 = from 575 and 2476; to remove, i.e. (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: KJV -- depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.

*Same word is translated “forsake” in Acts 21:21 - so this is what the word means: many will forsake the Lord (speaking of those that were Christians but fall away)

Definitions point to the rapture not happening until many who claim to be Christians fall away from the faith, and the anti-christ is revealed

This would mean the traditional pre-trib rapture view could not be correct
where Christians are taken out before the anti-christ is revealed, but instead Christians will be here leading up to the start of the anti-christ coming to power

Some claim the word translated “falling away” really means rapture… if that were true, then 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 would say the rapture won't happen until the rapture happens and the anti-christ be revealed which it does NOT say.

Daniel shows the man of sin coming to his end at the same time that Daniels people(those whos names are written )are delivered and the dead raised.

 

Daniel 11:45-12:2

And he shall pitch the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the holy mountain of beauty: but he shall come to his portion, and there is none to deliver him.

And at that time Michael the great prince shall stand up, that stands over the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of tribulation, such tribulation as has not been from the time that there was a nation on the earth until that time: at that time thy people shall be delivered, even every one that is written in the book.

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

 

 

 

 

Now if anyone was actually paying attention to Daniel 11 then they would have seen him come to power years before this in Daniel 11:21.

 

Daniel 11:21

“The next to come to power will be a despicable man who is not in line for royal succession. He will slip in when least expected and take over the kingdom by flattery and intrigue.

 

 

But that's only if anyone was paying attention.And no one likes a despicable narcissist,I don't care how much he exalts himself.So don't expect anyone loves him.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Shilohsfoal

[Revelation Man]

3 hours ago, Stan Murff said:

Funny... that's what the enemy always says as He tries to get people to not believe what God's Word says... like he did with Adam and eve in the garden of eden.

There's a bunch of other scriptures speaking of the falling away in the ends times that agree with so unfortunately it is you that has the problem of denying the truthfulness of God's Word.

I recommend you help yourself to some repentance... but that seems to be an unlikely event.

I will wipe the dust off my feet. I only been preaching with a calling to prophecy for nigh 40 years and I do not understand these passages all because you cant grasp the facts. Lets put it this way, yo will see soon that you were in error. I could care less what you think, you came into a thread I created and basically have not even discussed the pointed thesis of the thread at all. 

Here is what you should do, the thread has a topic, look at the reasons I named why there can't be a OWG and try to rebut those points with reasonable facts. The first 7 English bibles had DEPARTURE, you have yet to be able to rebut that, because you can't, 2 Thess. 2 never mention FAITH, you can't rebut that. I destroy all your talking points and you neve rebut, which means Its a dodge, which means you AUTO LOSE THE DEBATE. But of course it means what you first learned because that's what you first learned. Which is not how a real thinker thinks. Which is probably why only certain people are called unto a Prophecy bent. 

The Anti-Christ is going to be a regional leader, and the Rapture will be Pre Trib, nothing you say or do is going to change those factoids.

[Revelation Man]

13 hours ago, Stan Murff said:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

*The phrase ”Gathering together”
Strongs 1997 = from 1996; a complete collection; especially a Christian meeting (for worship): -- assembling (gathering) together.
Strongs 1996 = from 1909 and 4863; to collect upon the same place: KJV -- gather (together).

*The phrase ”Falling Away”
Strongs 646 = feminine of the same as 647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"): KJV -- falling away, forsake.
Strongs 647 = neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly, something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce: KJV -- (writing of) divorcement.
Strongs 868 = from 575 and 2476; to remove, i.e. (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: KJV -- depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.

*Same word is translated “forsake” in Acts 21:21 - so this is what the word means: many will forsake the Lord (speaking of those that were Christians but fall away)

Definitions point to the rapture not happening until many who claim to be Christians fall away from the faith, and the anti-christ is revealed

This would mean the traditional pre-trib rapture view could not be correct
where Christians are taken out before the anti-christ is revealed, but instead Christians will be here leading up to the start of the anti-christ coming to power

Some claim the word translated “falling away” really means rapture… if that were true, then 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 would say the rapture won't happen until the rapture happens and the anti-christ be revealed which it does NOT say.

Reread my blog, it destroys this, I was amused at HOW HARD you are trying to justify this bad understanding, all because you were first taught this, all because the KJV translators were taking a pot shot at the RCC. You know when both the Church of England and the RCC were torturing people etc. etc. They hated each other but were "Christians". They each committed dirty tricks all the time, it got so bad the IRA of Ireland (RCC group) were bombing Protestants for years. Of course the FALLING AWAY translation was one evil church taking a pot shot at another evil church ( back in those times, they have both reformed somewhat, they don't burn people a the stake and force repentance etc.  )

Its the DEPARTURE (Gathering unto Christ Jesus). Its not even that hard. I can decode the whole book of Revelation in one post, now that's much harder. Understanding the Rapture is pre trib is very easy.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Revelation Man

[Big Boy Stan Murf]

19 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

I only been preaching with a calling to prophecy for nigh 40 years and I do not understand these passages

OK, I guess some just don't understand.

 

9 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

Reread my blog

Thanks, but no thanks!  I have God's Word!

Same word is translated “forsake” in Acts 21:21 - so this is what the word means: many will forsake the Lord (speaking of those that were Christians but fall away)

Some claim the word translated “falling away” really means rapture… if that were true, then 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 would say the rapture won't happen until the rapture happens which it does NOT say.

So in the end... my scholars can beat up your scholars!

Edited September 25, 2023 by Stan Murff

[Diaste]

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

I wouldn't say its a retelling per se,

The part I quoted surely is.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 

but a more in depth understanding was given unto Daniel in a dream that spans from Dan. 10 through Dan. 12, its one dream where Daniel is shown that spiritual powers in the heavens will try to resist this change in Dan. 10, but t no avail in the end as Michael overcomes the 21 day resistance.  Then we get the whole Greek Kingdoms from Alexander the Great to Antiochus the type Anti-Christ in verses 21-33/34ish, and a transition in vs. 35 which shows us many get saved (in Jesus we know know) all the way to the very end, then we get the End Time A.C./Beast in verses 36-45. This is what the vision is all about, this end time A.C./Beast has a man named Antiochus who will be a type A.C. therefore by looking at him closely we can get clues to what the Anti-Christ/Little Horn will be like. We also get his military plans in Daniel 11:40-43. 

AE IV is Seleucid, ruled Syria, and is the grandson of Seleucus I. This dude is straight out of Mesopotamia. Not of the Grecian empire, the Grecian empire is gone. There is yet Macedonia but AE didn't come from there and is not of that lineage.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 So, they have to show up before the Beast does because both have 1260 day ordained by God offices on earth.

Interesting you understand this. Not convinced of the method but the conclusion is sound.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

How do you always manage to find and use a bible that CHANGES the Scriptures? This is a really  bad thing tbh. I will show why in a bit. Now to the point.

Changes nothing. I haven't found the BSB to be a problem. In fact, I have access to just about every version there is none make changes. 

You're fretting about nothing. A rewording to contemporary speech doesn't destroy concepts.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

-------------------------

All true, but you MISS IT, and thus fail to understand the whole point in God giving us the entire Greek King Lineage, verses 21-33/34 is God giving us the ARCHETYPE of the Anti-Christ to come in verses 36-45. A plain reading of these verses above tell you this, if one can grasp in full what it is saying. 

No. It's Seleucid lineage. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

At the "appointed time" he will invade the south (Egypt) "AGAIN" but the scriptures you put forth do not say this, did you on purpose search for a passage that says this? Because this is a very important part of the verse and thus the whole passage. Lets use the trusted KJV instead.

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

{{{ So, you managed to find a version that leaves out "OR AS THE LATTER", and either you do not understand why this is important, or you do and searched for this to "try" and overcome that which is a lost cause for you. I don't know. }}}

Oh here we go, gonna build a prophetic house of cards on a non issue. 

All that portion of the verse is saying is that this time when AE IV invades it's not not going to turn out like former times or the last time he invaded. 

'As the latter' just points out the time that came after the previous times, meaning the last time AE IV warred against Egypt. Indeed, that turned out to the case. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

30 For the ships of Chittim(peoples in Cypress, at this time it was Rome) shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved(The Roman Senate forbid is return to Egypt), and return(to Israel), and have indignation against the holy covenant(forbid Judaism, mandated Hellenism): so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant(Jewish pro Hellenist she feed him information on the pro Judaism crowd).

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries(these are the  pro Hellenist Jews): but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits(These are the Maccabeans).

So, by leaving off "OR AS THE LATTER" that changes the meaning of the whole passage. Here is why, this whole chapter is giving us every Greek born king that is a part of the Beast system, from Alexander the Great, to Antiochus and then the End Time Anti-Christ in these verses in this whole chapter. It ends in vs. 45 with the Little Horn/A.C. being killed. Then Daniel 12 gives us clues which unlock three things, the 1335 Two-witnesses, the 1290 False Prophet and the 1260 Anti-Christ. 

Not Greek kings. Where in an apple orchard did you manage to find an avocado?

In other words, with all the facts right in front of you, why do you pick that which isn't there?

There is no lineage from Alexander to AE IV. He is a grandson of Seleucus I and the ruler of Syria. If AE IV was the grandson of Cassander and ruled in Macedonia then I would say you have something, but he isn't, he didn't, and you don't. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

So, what is the LATTER INVASION of Egypt in Daniel 11? The Dan. 11:40-43 invasion, which is successful, thus Antiochus attempt in vs. 29 to go back in and take control of Egypt again was NOT ALLOWED this time by the Roman Senate so it his attempt at regaining power over Egypt will not be as THE FORMER time where he ruled over Egypt nor will it be as THE LATTER where the Anti-Christ will conquer and rule over Egypt. In other words via this passage there is three attempts to conquer Egypt from Antiochus time until the end times 2200 some odd years later, and only two are successful, the first attempt by Antiochus and the last attempt by the end time Anti-Christ. The middle attempt is thwarted by Roman Senate !! Why is this so hard to grasp? I do not get it.

It's impossible to grasp because it's wild speculation that has no scriptural basis.

I don't think you even read the text.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

This is just not correct brother, that happened in verses 29-33/34. It states the AoD happened at that time, and that caused the Maccabean Revolt. You trying to say its the same events as verses 36-45 is just incorrect, in verses 36-43 we see Egypt GETS CONQUERED, that will not happen again until the END TIMES, how is it you can not see this is two different points in time? In one he is forbidden from going into Egypt again, in the later (verses 36-43) that person conquers Egypt. In the later verses he is forbidden from conquering Moab, Ammon and Edom, and that just so happens to be where the end time Jews who repent flee unto. If you put the facts on front street instead of the "Thesis or Idea" on front street it would be much easier to solve these prophetic utterances.

Again this feels a bit out of control and speculative to support a narrative. One should never look for facts to support a conclusion but rather a conclusion supported by facts. 

You aren't far off, but you aren't there yet. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

If you change bibles just to dodge the POINT that verse 29 shows a man who will not be able to conquer Egypt again, as he formerly did, AND that then shows the end time Anti-Christ will conquer Egypt at a later time, which proves your thesis wrong, then that's like fishing with illegal bait brother. You should know better than to seek out bibles that change the meaning just to "try" and prove a point. That kind of thinking is never fruitful in the long run.

I guess that really bothers you.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Dan. 11 follows the Greek inter-kingdom battle called the Syrian Wars.

By the time of the Diadochi there is no longer a Greek empire.

Do you call the Medo-Persian Empire Babylon because the Medo-Persians ruled from Babylon?

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

And he's is speaking about the Dan. 12:11-13 prophesy of the 1290 AoD, not the one Antiochus committed, that was a TYPE AoD to come by the ARCHETYPE Anti-Christ to come.

I can agree with this.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Jason (real name Yeshua) the High Priest, welcomed Antiochus into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus on Gods Altar. He also mandated that all Jews become Hellenized leading unto the Maccabean Revolt. The end time False Prophet will likewise be a Jewish High Priest who throws in with the coming Anti-Christ. So, of course the Archetype Anti-Christ had at his side an ARCHETYPE False Prophet. So, he who places the AoD will be a Jewish High Priest, just like Jason was.

Perhaps. The beast will set up camp in Israel so that makes sense to me as well.

 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

You just do not add it all up brother. You take bits and pieces and try to force it to fit something you already believe in.

Pure projection. You clearly never really read anything I post, do you? 

Interacting with you is always the same. It feels defensive and closeted. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 

 God gave us the entire inter-kingdom battles of the Four Generals, the we ZOOM to the vey end times and this last king (A.C.)

Agree.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

 

Conquers from the Northwest area of this Four Kingdom battle zone,

This is speculation and forces the text. Rejected.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

and thus him being born in Greece makes him an E.U. Citizen (he comes up amongst the 10.........he's born in the E.U.) which then fulfills Dan. 7:8-9. H also has to have Assyrian blood, which means his family somewhere down the line migrated from Old Assyria (Turk/Iraqi or Syria) through Turkey to Greece, where, like I stated, he has to be born. 

Based on false premises only. 

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

You are looking at a bogus idea of the 2 Legs which was never a real thing. He has to be born in Greece, and to arise from the Fourth Beasts Head which was Rome, not some Eastern Leg. My understanding fits. He's Assyrian (Turk) by blood, born in Greece via the direction he conquers from, and lastly we know Greece is in the E.U.

See? You don't ever read anything I post, do you?

I reject Rome as a possibility and I always have. I also reject the EU as the power base of the beast. The beast will come out of Mesopotamia and will have as his capitol Babylon just as the scripture points out. 

It's the Assyrian, not a Greek born Arab ruling the EU. 

That's so far out of the realm of logic and normal sense of the text it can be safely ignored.

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

He's killed in Israel, he's based in Belgium because that is where the E.U. Parliament is based at. 

The word used for world here is "GE"

1) arable land 2) the ground, the earth as a standing place 3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water

a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

—Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)

Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):—country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

—Strong's (Greek Dictionary of the New Testament)

Including occupants

9 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

So, once again you do not grasp this is referring unto the whole region being spoken about. Let me say this for the 100th time, there will never be a OWG, it is not going to happen. You guys allow single verses and not great translations to reel you into the unbelievable. Satan wants the Jews killed, he will have a real plan, all this OWG stuff is nor reality, its fiction.

All evidence to the contrary.

It won't be the popular notion of a ubiquitous rule, it will be the scriptural prophetic mandated rule of the coming beast.

[Shilohsfoal]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

The part I quoted surely is.

AE IV is Seleucid, ruled Syria, and is the grandson of Seleucus I. This dude is straight out of Mesopotamia. Not of the Grecian empire, the Grecian empire is gone. There is yet Macedonia but AE didn't come from there and is not of that lineage.

Interesting you understand this. Not convinced of the method but the conclusion is sound.

Changes nothing. I haven't found the BSB to be a problem. In fact, I have access to just about every version there is none make changes. 

You're fretting about nothing. A rewording to contemporary speech doesn't destroy concepts.

No. It's Seleucid lineage. 

Oh here we go, gonna build a prophetic house of cards on a non issue. 

All that portion of the verse is saying is that this time when AE IV invades it's not not going to turn out like former times or the last time he invaded. 

'As the latter' just points out the time that came after the previous times, meaning the last time AE IV warred against Egypt. Indeed, that turned out to the case. 

Not Greek kings. Where in an apple orchard did you manage to find an avocado?

In other words, with all the facts right in front of you, why do you pick that which isn't there?

There is no lineage from Alexander to AE IV. He is a grandson of Seleucus I and the ruler of Syria. If AE IV was the grandson of Cassander and ruled in Macedonia then I would say you have something, but he isn't, he didn't, and you don't. 

It's impossible to grasp because it's wild speculation that has no scriptural basis.

I don't think you even read the text.

Again this feels a bit out of control and speculative to support a narrative. One should never look for facts to support a conclusion but rather a conclusion supported by facts. 

You aren't far off, but you aren't there yet. 

I guess that really bothers you.

By the time of the Diadochi there is no longer a Greek empire.

Do you call the Medo-Persian Empire Babylon because the Medo-Persians ruled from Babylon?

I can agree with this.

Perhaps. The beast will set up camp in Israel so that makes sense to me as well.

 

Pure projection. You clearly never really read anything I post, do you? 

Interacting with you is always the same. It feels defensive and closeted. 

Agree.

This is speculation and forces the text. Rejected.

Based on false premises only. 

See? You don't ever read anything I post, do you?

I reject Rome as a possibility and I always have. I also reject the EU as the power base of the beast. The beast will come out of Mesopotamia and will have as his capitol Babylon just as the scripture points out. 

It's the Assyrian, not a Greek born Arab ruling the EU. 

That's so far out of the realm of logic and normal sense of the text it can be safely ignored.

Including occupants

All evidence to the contrary.

It won't be the popular notion of a ubiquitous rule, it will be the scriptural prophetic mandated rule of the coming beast.

All evidence does not point to a one world government,almost all scripture points to many goverments and many nations just as it is today.

Ten nations forming an alliance such as psalms 83 is not a one world government.Its simply a ten nation alliance.

Psalms 83

With one mind they plot together;
    they form an alliance against you—
⁶ the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
    of Moab and the Hagrites,
⁷ Byblos, Ammon and Amalek,
    Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
⁸ Even Assyria has joined them
    to reinforce Lot’s descendants.

 

Revelation 17:13

These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[Desopixi Seilynam]

On 9/23/2023 at 3:40 PM, Revelation Man said:

then we get Rome in two phases, the Rome who had the Mortal Wound that caused this 7 Headed 10 Horned Beast to go away for the duration of the church age, then the wound was "healed" is referring unto the beast coming alive again, and that is why it is shown arising out of the sea again.

That does not fit with what the scripture declares.

It's one of the heads of the beast that gets wounded and healed,
not the beast as a whole.  [Rev 13:3]

The beast as a whole is a kingdom,
and one of its heads is a king, a person.

Revelation 17:8-12, 19:20 give us this information.

Therefore it is clear that some king will seem to die and be healed from death.

As of today the fact that he is a king is largely hidden.
But in the past his kingship was not very secret, in the past
he openly waged wars and made laws, laws that are still followed,
world wide, today, like Sunday observance and January as the start of the year.
When Revelation was written 5 people in his office had come and gone already.

One day, the person in that office will seem to be killed, and then seem to be healed from death in a spectacular world changing way. Then he will speak much blaspheme about what is beyond the sky. [Rev 13:6] And he will be saying that 'Jesus' will arrive soon, and then 'Jesus' will arrive.

[Shilohsfoal]

29 minutes ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

That does not fit with what the scripture declares.

It's one of the heads of the beast that gets wounded and healed,
not the beast as a whole.  [Rev 13:3]

The beast as a whole is a kingdom,
and one of its heads is a king, a person.

Revelation 17:8-12, 19:20 give us this information.

Therefore it is clear that some king will seem to die and be healed from death.

As of today the fact that he is a king is largely hidden.
But in the past his kingship was not very secret, in the past
he openly waged wars and made laws, laws that are still followed,
world wide, today, like Sunday observance and January as the start of the year.
When Revelation was written 5 people in his office had come and gone already.

One day, the person in that office will seem to be killed, and then seem to be healed from death in a spectacular world changing way. Then he will speak much blaspheme about what is beyond the sky. [Rev 13:6] And he will be saying that 'Jesus' will arrive soon, and then 'Jesus' will arrive.

I know of a goverment that appeared to have been killed but has been healed.Would that count?

I also know of a hill(one of seven)that appeared to have received a deadly wound as well.It too has been healed.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Shilohsfoal