antichrist Is the Man of Sin returning to POWER?

[Jonathan Dane]

6 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

That is it? 
 

Care to comment on 7:7-8, or 7:11-12, 7:19-25.

I won’t bother with chapter 8 or any other chapter at this time. 
 

All of those parallel the 10 toes of the statue in Chapter 2. It is the last beast kingdom before the Return of the Lord.

Edited March 31 by Jonathan Dane

[Shilohsfoal]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:29 PM, Jonathan Dane said:

Nearly five years ago, I posted that the Antichrist was a certain "somebody" who was then in office. Well, that person appears to be rising from a political mortal wound of sorts to a position of power never before granted in his country. I testified back then about the book I had written BEFORE he was elected to office in 2016, detailing from the Bible that he was (is) the Antichrist (as in "THE," not "an"). I was mocked, ridiculed, mischaracterized, and "schooled" by countless as to why I was so craazzzzyyy.

AND HERE WE ARE. 

So, what say you now?

One of the things the man of sin does that no one talks about is he moves his embassy to Jerusalem.

Daniel 11:45

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

 

Tabernacle is a movable building and it is of his palace meaning it represents his palace.The modern name for such a building is embassy.Its placed in another countries capital city.I learned that verse in 2003.

You could say I had been waiting a while to see it fulfilled.

 

[Jonathan Dane]

5 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

You’re kidding, right?  I thought the little horn came out of the 4th kingdom. Who WAS (not is) the 4th kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s image?

When did this kingdom come to power? When did this kingdom end? (Because it indeed did end and this is an important statement in Daniel that specifically identifies the timing of the coming of the little horn and limits the identification (along with the 10 attributes in chapter 8) and other comments in chapter 7, that it can ONLY speak to ONE person. 
 

The 4th kingdom has a dual application to the Ancient Roman Empire and the end-time Empire, whose roots come out of that Ancient Empire and those that precede it. This may be what is alluded to in verse twelve, when it says, "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time." Their "dominion" may be gone. But their "lives" live on for the short season at the end of the Age. A "short season" cannot be said of the Ancient Roman Empire that lasted centuries, much longer than its predecessors.

This is also supported by the imagery of the first beast in Revelation, which is said to resemble the same imagery given to those previous kingdoms, "And the beast that I saw was like a leopard (Greece); its feet were like a bear's (Media-Persia), and its mouth was like a lion's mouth (Babylon)." (Rev. 13:2) 

This last kingdom will be "different" than all kingdoms that have preceded it and will devour "the whole earth," something that cannot be said of Ancient Rome. (Daniel 7:23) 

Edited March 31 by Jonathan Dane

[Charlie744]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Dane said:

The 4th kingdom has a dual application both to the Ancient Roman Empire and and end-time Empire whose roots come out of that Ancient Empire as well as those that precede it. This may be what is alluded to in verse twelve, when it says, "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time." There "dominion" may be gone. But their "lives" live on in the short season at the end of the Age. A "short season" cannot be said of the Ancient Roman Empire that lasted centuries, much longer than its predecessors.

This is also supported by the imagery of the first beast in Revelation, which is said to resemble the same imagery given to those previous kingdoms, "And the beast that I saw was like a leopard (Greece); its feet were like a bear’s (Media-Persia), and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth (Babylon)." (Rev. 13:2) 

 

This last kingdom will be "different" than all kingdoms that have preceded it and will devour "the whole earth," something that cannot be said of Ancient Rome. (Daniel 7:23) 

 

Again, your preterism will not fly here, sorry. 

Well, I believe you have given everyone a good accounting of yourself. 
 

Best wishes! 

[Jonathan Dane]

56 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, I believe you have given everyone a good accounting of yourself. 
 

Best wishes! 

I wish you the best as well.

[Jonathan Dane]

1 hour ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, I believe you have given everyone a good accounting of yourself. 
 

Best wishes! 

My understanding of Daniel aligns with the majority view of dispensational premillennialism. There is no variance. You can say that you disagree with that view. But you cannot say my understanding of Daniel is novel theologically. 

[Jonathan Dane]

3 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, I believe you have given everyone a good accounting of yourself. 
 

Best wishes! 

I'm sorry to bother you. I answered many of your questions. I only asked two of you, and unless I missed it, I don't recall you answering. Would you be so kind?

Are you a preterist? Do you believe these Little Horn references were ultimately fulfilled in Caesar Nero?

Edited March 31 by Jonathan Dane

[Jonathan Dane]

14 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Your hatred of Trump makes it difficult to have a good conversation. Your not going by scripture, your going by your own personal feelings of hatred. You seem to care more about bashing Trump ( I honestly don't know why since he did great things ) than about the actual subject. So I will wish you a good day and God Bless.

Oh, so "Mr. 1000% sure" now accuses me of being motivated by "hate, not Scripture." That is fascinating in lieu of your "1000% sure" false claims about what Scripture had to say about the Antichrist, claims that I specifically offered you $1000.00 each if you could back up those claims with "Scripture."

Huh. I am not sure what is more strange:

- me offering money if you can provide a Scripture verse based on pure emotion, not Scripture knowledge 
- or you accusing me of being motivated by hateful emotion when you stood to earn $2000.00 for providing just two verses, and yet you provide nothing.

And I am the hateful one.

Got it. 

Oh, and thank you for that blessing—so sweet of you.
God bless you, too, dear saint.

Edited March 31 by Jonathan Dane

[Michael37]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Huh. I am not sure what is more strange:

- me offering money if you can provide a Scripture verse based on pure emotion, not Scripture knowledge 
- or you accusing me of being motivated by hateful emotion when you stood to earn $2000.00 for providing just two verses, and yet you provide nothing.

The subject matter lends itself to strange fire. Since insults are being traded this thread is now locked.