thoughts on the Anti-Christ

[chirpy]

The hope of many who castigate the idea of a Holy God is that they will become like god.    There are people who think living forever using human knowledge is going to happen, so there is no need to worship or be subservient to a Holy God, because they will become just like a god.  Transhumanism is something currently being pursued.

If a Transhuman is produced and presented to the world as the final human product of evolution, brought about by human knowledge and no need for a god..... will the world follow that person?  Could that entity be possessed by Satan?  Could that entity demand to be worshiped and declared a god?

No, this is not sci-fi, it is real.  Research is being done now and some feel they are very close to being able to make humans immortal.

Read the WEF (World Economic Forums)  web site... they admit it is one of their goals.

What they only hint at is - only a few select will receive this upgrade to immortality and they are the ones who will rule the world. The rest will be depopulated and the remaining used as needed to provide for them.

As we await the final - anti-christ entity - we do know,  when it arrives - He/it is going to deceive the world.

 

[luigi]

On 10/9/2024 at 12:55 PM, other one said:

To have any kind of discussion, I have found over the years that everyone should have a consensus on exactly what the Antichrist is.  That word isn't used in end times prophecy in most of the books we generally use to discuss.

Correct: Everyone should have a consensus on exactly what the Antichrist is. The term Antichrist only appears in two books of the Bible--1 John and 2 John. In these two books he is described as one who denies both the Lord and the Father.

To deny both the Lord and the Father is to deny what the Lord and the Father are. The definition for the Lord and the Father are several, including being the Light of this world; Truth; and Love. The Antichrist would therefore be an entity (among other entities) who deny Illumination, Truth, and Love, and would therefore advocate for false illumination, lies, and hate for others.

 

[Dennis1209]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:13 PM, AdHoc said:

I agree, though I make no laws of publishing. "Anti" means "replacement". But scripture says many "replacement-Christs" will come. We discuss THE BEAST! Here are a few points to chew.

He is a "Prince of the People" who destroyed the second Temple - a Roman
He is the Prince of the fourth Empire of Daniel 2 - a Roman
He is previous king that reigned when John was alive - Rome reigned then
He lived and died while John was an Apostle - one of five who have fallen
He comes out of the Abyss - he is resurrected
He was, is not and will be - he will be resurrected
He was one of seven and IS the eighth - eight is the number of resurrection
He is resurrected out of time (Dan.7:25 - he should only be resurrected at the White Throne
He dos not die again - he goes living to the Lake of Fire
He is a "he" - a man
He is a "king" - a male ruler
He is opposed to, or disinterested in women - a trait of the resurrected (Lk.20:35-36)
He has three phases of his presence. 1. He is revealed. 2. He is crowned political ruler of the world for 3.5 years. 3. He is crowned religious ruler of the world for the second 3.5 years
He receives ALL Power. Nobody can defeat him. He defeats the saints (Rev.13:7) and the Two Witnesses (Rev.11)
 

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Considering anti, against, instead of, or replacing, and THE Antichrist, or THE False Prophet. How do we reconcile what Jesus is warning us about above? It is plural and sounds like many, not one or two.

This has not occurred in the last two millennia. It is not possible Christians will fall for this deception, with miraculous signs and wonders never seen before. I suspect this will occur directly after the harpazo.

What is your takeaway AdHoc?

[AdHoc]

8 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Considering anti, against, instead of, or replacing, and THE Antichrist, or THE False Prophet. How do we reconcile what Jesus is warning us about above? It is plural and sounds like many, not one or two.

This has not occurred in the last two millennia. It is not possible Christians will fall for this deception, with miraculous signs and wonders never seen before. I suspect this will occur directly after the harpazo.

What is your takeaway AdHoc?

Because Israel refused Messiah Jesus, the still look for their Messiah. This opens the door for imposters. It should not be a Church problem. We know that our Lord comes in the clouds. But there is some way-out teaching in and among our brethren, so it as become a Church problem.

"Anti" means "replacement". John uses it to describe all imposters. The correct designation for "THE" Anti-Christ is "THE Beast".

Certain brethren used Hollywood to glamorize the Beast and the Rapture. Many Christians talk of chaos when Christ comes. It is not so. He comes as a THIEF. A thief comes unexpectedly, when men are at their lowest Circadian level, and he steals something valuable. It is usually days and even months till his theft is noticed. God is not the author of confusion (1st Cor.14).

The Christians make up the greatest danger for the Beast. The Beast will not try to deceive Christians. He wants to kill them (Rev.12:17, 13:7). The deception of the Beast is for Israel. Your quote above in Matthew 24 is in an all-Jew context. From Matthew 24:1 to 31 is all Jewish - the Temple, false Christ's, the Sabbath, synagogues, Daniel, Judea and Jerusalem. "The ELECT are the Jewish Remnant promised in Romans 9 and 11.

[Dennis1209]

13 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Because Israel refused Messiah Jesus, the still look for their Messiah. This opens the door for imposters. It should not be a Church problem. We know that our Lord comes in the clouds. But there is some way-out teaching in and among our brethren, so it as become a Church problem.

"Anti" means "replacement". John uses it to describe all imposters. The correct designation for "THE" Anti-Christ is "THE Beast".

Certain brethren used Hollywood to glamorize the Beast and the Rapture. Many Christians talk of chaos when Christ comes. It is not so. He comes as a THIEF. A thief comes unexpectedly, when men are at their lowest Circadian level, and he steals something valuable. It is usually days and even months till his theft is noticed. God is not the author of confusion (1st Cor.14).

The Christians make up the greatest danger for the Beast. The Beast will not try to deceive Christians. He wants to kill them (Rev.12:17, 13:7). The deception of the Beast is for Israel. Your quote above in Matthew 24 is in an all-Jew context. From Matthew 24:1 to 31 is all Jewish - the Temple, false Christ's, the Sabbath, synagogues, Daniel, Judea and Jerusalem. "The ELECT are the Jewish Remnant promised in Romans 9 and 11.

I agree. In Matthew 24:24, Jesus talks to the nation of Israel, not the church. But that is not the main point of what I was trying to express.

Both Daniel and John talk about the Beast (Antichrist) and the False Prophet, one each, in the singular tense. Paying attention to the he, they, singular, and plural in all the following verses below is significant.

Revelation 13:11-14 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. ¹² And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. ¹³ And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, ¹⁴ And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

If I interpret correctly, in Revelation above we have two beasts, commonly thought of as the Antichrist and the False Prophet, one each, singular, not in the plural. In Matthew below, Jesus talks about more than two of them, doing miracles imitating what the Messiah did. It is not rendered, “For there shall arise a false Christ and a False Prophet. There appears to be a bunch of them exhibiting copycat signs and wonders.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The above is not a false Christ or a False Prophet, but more than one each in the grammatical sense. If you disagree with my assessment or think they are linked together, no problem; we will agree to disagree.

Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

In the verse above, Jesus switches back to the singular from the plural. What do you make of this?

[AdHoc]

8 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I agree. In Matthew 24:24, Jesus talks to the nation of Israel, not the church. But that is not the main point of what I was trying to express.

Both Daniel and John talk about the Beast (Antichrist) and the False Prophet, one each, in the singular tense. Paying attention to the he, they, singular, and plural in all the following verses below is significant.

Revelation 13:11-14 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. ¹² And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. ¹³ And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, ¹⁴ And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

If I interpret correctly, in Revelation above we have two beasts, commonly thought of as the Antichrist and the False Prophet, one each, singular, not in the plural. In Matthew below, Jesus talks about more than two of them, doing miracles imitating what the Messiah did. It is not rendered, “For there shall arise a false Christ and a False Prophet. There appears to be a bunch of them exhibiting copycat signs and wonders.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The above is not a false Christ or a False Prophet, but more than one each in the grammatical sense. If you disagree with my assessment or think they are linked together, no problem; we will agree to disagree.

Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

In the verse above, Jesus switches back to the singular from the plural. What do you make of this?

Okay. I'm not sure I understand you. My first posting on page 1 makes the Beast an individual single man. And that there will be multiple "Anti-Christ" through the centuries comes from John's letters so it must be true. So I'll briefly repeat that there were a number of men who claimed to be the Christ through the centuries. Each met his end or faded from the scene (I have not done a study of them) because death is the great leveler of kings and commoners alike. If I remember correctly they were mostly Rabbis (see Wikipedia; "List of claimants fo Messiah". Christians have put forward a number of "Anti-Christs" from Roosevelt to J. Biden. Theses can all be summarily dismissed because none are Jews. (Anti-Christ is a replacement Christ and Christ was the top Jew). Suffice to say that a number of esoterics have made claim to being Messiah. Because their miracles are mostly faked and because they get sick, old and die, their fame soon peters out. But it is an indictment on Christians who even consider a Gentile who has not died yet. John is clear that "he was, is not, and will be" (Rev.17:8).

The short of it is that the Beast will be a Gentile, will have been resurrected, will have political skills and will be able to do miracles. I hope my use of the singular in all my postings is convincing. This does not mean that history can show the inspired record to be correct because we have had men claiming to be Christ.

The role of the False Prophet is somewhat obscure. I find three reasons for "THE" False Prophet.
1. In Daniel it is predicted that the Beast will "strengthen" THE Covenant with many (of Daniel's People). Many Christian students believe that this is some sort of peace treaty. But the context tells which one it is. It is marked by the daily oblation, and broken by the cancellation of the daily oblation. There is only ONE Covenant on earth with the daily oblation. That is, the Covenant of Law of Sinai. The False Prophet comes out of LAND as opposed to the Beast who comes out of the sea. The "sea" in parable is the nations, and Israel is as "the sand of the sea shore" - the land. The False Prophet is likely to be a Jew. He would be a liaison with Rome to get the Covenant of Law negotiated.

2. The Law of Moses as given in Deuteronomy has a few "enhancements". These are there to regulate Israel once they were in their Land and not in the wilderness. What is clear from ordinances from Deuteronomy 12 to 16 is that God's House with His Name on it must be standing. That means that THE Covenant cannot be "strengthened" without a Temple. The Beast will need a Jew as Liaison and advisor - preferably one who has seed the Temple - like Judas Iscariot.

3. After 3.5 years of THE Covenant in practice, THE Beast bans the worship of Jehovah via His Law. All religions on earth will become illegal (Rev.17). The Beast - a Gentile (see my first posting on page 1) will need a serious liaison with the Jews if he is to set himself up in the Holy Place of this newly-built Temple

Much of this is confirmed in Matthew 24 with the parable of the Fig Tree. The sign given to the Church is not the Fig Tree itself, but its LEAVES. Christian eschatological students have traditionally looked at the Tree which surfaced again in 1948. But it is not the Tree we must look for but the blossoming of its LEAVES. The leaves of a Tree are its garment and a garment in parable is ones WORKS (Rev.19:7-8). Adam and Eve made garments of Fig Leaves after eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL - which can be applied to the Law (Deut.30:15 etc.).

[Charlie744]

19 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Okay. I'm not sure I understand you. My first posting on page 1 makes the Beast an individual single man. And that there will be multiple "Anti-Christ" through the centuries comes from John's letters so it must be true. So I'll briefly repeat that there were a number of men who claimed to be the Christ through the centuries. Each met his end or faded from the scene (I have not done a study of them) because death is the great leveler of kings and commoners alike. If I remember correctly they were mostly Rabbis (see Wikipedia; "List of claimants fo Messiah". Christians have put forward a number of "Anti-Christs" from Roosevelt to J. Biden. Theses can all be summarily dismissed because none are Jews. (Anti-Christ is a replacement Christ and Christ was the top Jew). Suffice to say that a number of esoterics have made claim to being Messiah. Because their miracles are mostly faked and because they get sick, old and die, their fame soon peters out. But it is an indictment on Christians who even consider a Gentile who has not died yet. John is clear that "he was, is not, and will be" (Rev.17:8).

The short of it is that the Beast will be a Gentile, will have been resurrected, will have political skills and will be able to do miracles. I hope my use of the singular in all my postings is convincing. This does not mean that history can show the inspired record to be correct because we have had men claiming to be Christ.

The role of the False Prophet is somewhat obscure. I find three reasons for "THE" False Prophet.
1. In Daniel it is predicted that the Beast will "strengthen" THE Covenant with many (of Daniel's People). Many Christian students believe that this is some sort of peace treaty. But the context tells which one it is. It is marked by the daily oblation, and broken by the cancellation of the daily oblation. There is only ONE Covenant on earth with the daily oblation. That is, the Covenant of Law of Sinai. The False Prophet comes out of LAND as opposed to the Beast who comes out of the sea. The "sea" in parable is the nations, and Israel is as "the sand of the sea shore" - the land. The False Prophet is likely to be a Jew. He would be a liaison with Rome to get the Covenant of Law negotiated.

2. The Law of Moses as given in Deuteronomy has a few "enhancements". These are there to regulate Israel once they were in their Land and not in the wilderness. What is clear from ordinances from Deuteronomy 12 to 16 is that God's House with His Name on it must be standing. That means that THE Covenant cannot be "strengthened" without a Temple. The Beast will need a Jew as Liaison and advisor - preferably one who has seed the Temple - like Judas Iscariot.

3. After 3.5 years of THE Covenant in practice, THE Beast bans the worship of Jehovah via His Law. All religions on earth will become illegal (Rev.17). The Beast - a Gentile (see my first posting on page 1) will need a serious liaison with the Jews if he is to set himself up in the Holy Place of this newly-built Temple

Much of this is confirmed in Matthew 24 with the parable of the Fig Tree. The sign given to the Church is not the Fig Tree itself, but its LEAVES. Christian eschatological students have traditionally looked at the Tree which surfaced again in 1948. But it is not the Tree we must look for but the blossoming of its LEAVES. The leaves of a Tree are its garment and a garment in parable is ones WORKS (Rev.19:7-8). Adam and Eve made garments of Fig Leaves after eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL - which can be applied to the Law (Deut.30:15 etc.).

There is a lot of interesting thoughts in the above, and they do reflect many of “today’s accepted interpretations” on this “anti- Christ.”

If you do not mind, let me make some comments regarding this anti-Christ and ask for your (anyone’s) thoughts:

1) in order to be termed “anti-Christ,” it must, obviously be something that occurs only after the cross. 
 

2) Jesus Himself said that in 1  John 2:18, many anti- Christs have come. Meaning, anyone who rejects Jesus is the Son of Man and the Messiah. They will speak and act in a manner that is against the gospel. And of course, this could be many / millions…and has been since the cross

3) But nowhere in the NT does it tell us that this “anti-Christ” IS AN SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, or a CERTAIN PERSON. I believe this term “AntiChrist” maybe found only 4 times in Peter’s writings and it speaks of “the spirit of anti-Christ.”

4) However, God does go to great lengths in identifying a SPECIFIC PERSON who will be and do many things that are against God. And he is specifically identified in Daniel 7 as the “little horn.” Within Chapter 7, God reveals the many things this one will do against His people, His saints, His church and even against Him directly. 
 

5) So who is this “little horn” and when does he surface? Doesn’t Chapter 7 tells us all about him? He is also found in Chapters 8,9 and 11. He is the one that will continue until the end (not come at the end) when he will be destroyed without human hands (God). 
 

Any thoughts on this? If we are looking for a literal “anti-Christ” person, isn’t God revealing him in Daniel for us to be able to identify him and all that he will do AGAINST God?

 

 

 

 

[AdHoc]

1 hour ago, Charlie744 said:

There is a lot of interesting thoughts in the above, and they do reflect many of “today’s accepted interpretations” on this “anti- Christ.”

If you do not mind, let me make some comments regarding this anti-Christ and ask for your (anyone’s) thoughts:

1) in order to be termed “anti-Christ,” it must, obviously be something that occurs only after the cross. 
 

2) Jesus Himself said that in 1  John 2:18, many anti- Christs have come. Meaning, anyone who rejects Jesus is the Son of Man and the Messiah. They will speak and act in a manner that is against the gospel. And of course, this could be many / millions…and has been since the cross

3) But nowhere in the NT does it tell us that this “anti-Christ” IS AN SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, or a CERTAIN PERSON. I believe this term “AntiChrist” maybe found only 4 times in Peter’s writings and it speaks of “the spirit of anti-Christ.”

4) However, God does go to great lengths in identifying a SPECIFIC PERSON who will be and do many things that are against God. And he is specifically identified in Daniel 7 as the “little horn.” Within Chapter 7, God reveals the many things this one will do against His people, His saints, His church and even against Him directly. 
 

5) So who is this “little horn” and when does he surface? Doesn’t Chapter 7 tells us all about him? He is also found in Chapters 8,9 and 11. He is the one that will continue until the end (not come at the end) when he will be destroyed without human hands (God). 
 

Any thoughts on this? If we are looking for a literal “anti-Christ” person, isn’t God revealing him in Daniel for us to be able to identify him and all that he will do AGAINST God?

 

 

 

 

Your theory  agrees with mine except for some detail. Suppose that you were a prophet just before Alexander of Greece. You made a prediction of a "Soldier of renown". Your predictions always mentioned this "Soldier" but did not name him. The students of history wold look for a specific soldier in the Greek forces and would find a dozen good soldiers. They all followed the "principles of a good soldier", were good soldiers and fought well. But you had in mind a specific General - Alexander. He would fit scripture. His principles and execution would be the same as the others, but he would excel just that bit more and be elevated to Leader of Greece. He would have the spirit of soldiering, be tough and relentless, be ruthless, be a tactician and be self denying like the rest. But he would be THE Soldier who made Greece a world power. All other soldiers followed the same principles, were soldiers and were successful. But only ONE made Greeks a world power.

Other factors play a role but are not decisive.

1. John is essentially an Apostle t the circumcision (Gal.2:7-9). He would thus write from a Jewish perspective. The Jewish perspective is that Messiah has not come yet. they would look for Him out of Bethlehem, the wilderness, Egypt and Galilee. John would not be fooled but he must mention what the Jews look for to show them their error.

2. John wrote both his letters and Revelation after the destruction of the Temple. The "Prince of the people who did this" (Dan.9:26-27) was still future.

3. John wrote to combat Gnosticism which was in its infancy. Gnosticism came after the gospel because it was the gospel that declared man so sinful and in need of a Savior. Gnosticism's savior is KNOWLEDGE. The Beast would be a military leader because Israel thought their problem was the Romans - not sin and sins.

4. One remarkable fact of John's Revelation (of Jesus) is that after Revelation 3, the Church (the Ekklesia) is not mentioned again. The reason for this is in Matthew 24 but I far it will never be embraced. Basically, when our Lord Jesus answerd the three questions of Matthew 24:3, he dealt with how it would transpire with the Jews from 24:1-31. the whole context is Jewish from the Temple through a gathering from the four winds. In 24:32 the tone changes abruptly to a parable. According to Matthew 13 parables are given so that Israel cannot comprehend and the Church can. The content also changes from events to a moral condition and thse addressed are "servants and virgins". I judge that the section 24:32 to 25:31 is the answer to the three questions in 24:3 AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CHURCH. In this section is the Lord coming as a thief and taking one and leaving one. The result of this taking one is that the HOUSE IS BROKEN UP.

If this is the case,  it is only exacerbated by the Bema judgment of the Church were SOME are found worthy to be kings of cities, and SOME are cast out into "Outer darkness", and/or cast out of the Wedding feast. The physical unity of the Body of Christ is shattered. This can be well seen in Revelation 12 where SOME are Overcomers using the blood of the Lamb and landing before the Throne, and some are fugitives "who have the testimony of Jesus Christ" who land in a wilderness.

You might ask what this all means to Matthew 24 and the "Anti.Christs". It is this; I am proposing that the rapture is a harvest as Matthew 13 says. A farmer never harvests that which is unripe. Leviticus 23 and nature both give at least three harvests. 1. the firstfruits, 2. the general harvest, and 3. the gleanings. This, added to a "Thief" coming ONLY for tat which is precious, shows a class of Christians who follow the Lamb more closely and who are 1. more effective Christians, and 2. are ripe before the others. In 2nd Thessalonians 2 we have a class of Christians who DETER and DELAY the Beast. It stands to reason the that all Anti-Christs before the Beast are hindered. But the one of 2nd Thess.2 is not.

Well... Reading what I've written must seem gibberish. I'll leave it because there are some who believe that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is CONDITIONAL. "counted worthy" (Lk.21), "the PRIZE of the upward call" (Phil.3) and "because you have ... (Rev.3), are all CONDITIONS. Let me just say that the conflicting doctrines on the Pre-Tribulation Rapture are because each Camp has it's proofs, but cannot deal with the other's proofs. A split rapture as a harvest satisfies all theories.

[Charlie744]

18 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Your theory  agrees with mine except for some detail. Suppose that you were a prophet just before Alexander of Greece. You made a prediction of a "Soldier of renown". Your predictions always mentioned this "Soldier" but did not name him. The students of history wold look for a specific soldier in the Greek forces and would find a dozen good soldiers. They all followed the "principles of a good soldier", were good soldiers and fought well. But you had in mind a specific General - Alexander. He would fit scripture. His principles and execution would be the same as the others, but he would excel just that bit more and be elevated to Leader of Greece. He would have the spirit of soldiering, be tough and relentless, be ruthless, be a tactician and be self denying like the rest. But he would be THE Soldier who made Greece a world power. All other soldiers followed the same principles, were soldiers and were successful. But only ONE made Greeks a world power.

Other factors play a role but are not decisive.

1. John is essentially an Apostle t the circumcision (Gal.2:7-9). He would thus write from a Jewish perspective. The Jewish perspective is that Messiah has not come yet. they would look for Him out of Bethlehem, the wilderness, Egypt and Galilee. John would not be fooled but he must mention what the Jews look for to show them their error.

2. John wrote both his letters and Revelation after the destruction of the Temple. The "Prince of the people who did this" (Dan.9:26-27) was still future.

3. John wrote to combat Gnosticism which was in its infancy. Gnosticism came after the gospel because it was the gospel that declared man so sinful and in need of a Savior. Gnosticism's savior is KNOWLEDGE. The Beast would be a military leader because Israel thought their problem was the Romans - not sin and sins.

4. One remarkable fact of John's Revelation (of Jesus) is that after Revelation 3, the Church (the Ekklesia) is not mentioned again. The reason for this is in Matthew 24 but I far it will never be embraced. Basically, when our Lord Jesus answerd the three questions of Matthew 24:3, he dealt with how it would transpire with the Jews from 24:1-31. the whole context is Jewish from the Temple through a gathering from the four winds. In 24:32 the tone changes abruptly to a parable. According to Matthew 13 parables are given so that Israel cannot comprehend and the Church can. The content also changes from events to a moral condition and thse addressed are "servants and virgins". I judge that the section 24:32 to 25:31 is the answer to the three questions in 24:3 AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CHURCH. In this section is the Lord coming as a thief and taking one and leaving one. The result of this taking one is that the HOUSE IS BROKEN UP.

If this is the case,  it is only exacerbated by the Bema judgment of the Church were SOME are found worthy to be kings of cities, and SOME are cast out into "Outer darkness", and/or cast out of the Wedding feast. The physical unity of the Body of Christ is shattered. This can be well seen in Revelation 12 where SOME are Overcomers using the blood of the Lamb and landing before the Throne, and some are fugitives "who have the testimony of Jesus Christ" who land in a wilderness.

You might ask what this all means to Matthew 24 and the "Anti.Christs". It is this; I am proposing that the rapture is a harvest as Matthew 13 says. A farmer never harvests that which is unripe. Leviticus 23 and nature both give at least three harvests. 1. the firstfruits, 2. the general harvest, and 3. the gleanings. This, added to a "Thief" coming ONLY for tat which is precious, shows a class of Christians who follow the Lamb more closely and who are 1. more effective Christians, and 2. are ripe before the others. In 2nd Thessalonians 2 we have a class of Christians who DETER and DELAY the Beast. It stands to reason the that all Anti-Christs before the Beast are hindered. But the one of 2nd Thess.2 is not.

Well... Reading what I've written must seem gibberish. I'll leave it because there are some who believe that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is CONDITIONAL. "counted worthy" (Lk.21), "the PRIZE of the upward call" (Phil.3) and "because you have ... (Rev.3), are all CONDITIONS. Let me just say that the conflicting doctrines on the Pre-Tribulation Rapture are because each Camp has it's proofs, but cannot deal with the other's proofs. A split rapture as a harvest satisfies all theories.

I am not sure what all of this is about.... sorry. So, who is the little horn of Daniel 7? Is this the one God is writing about who will go against Him, His saints, His people, etc.?  If so, the question then becomes when does he arrive and begin his "anti-Christ" like pracitices?

[AdHoc]

Just now, Charlie744 said:

I am not sure what all of this is about.... sorry. So, who is the little horn of Daniel 7? Is this the one God is writing about who will go against Him, His saints, His people, etc.?  If so, the question then becomes when does he arrive and begin his "anti-Christ" like pracitices?

Yeah. I tried to fit a book into a paragraph. Disregard. Let me try again;

"Anti-Christ" is an attempt to replace and simulate Christ. Many try it.

"The Beast" is ONE of the many. He is "given" to succeed.*

The Little horn of Daniel 7 is the Beast What clouds the issue s the ASSUMPTION that Rome collapses. In western thinking we attribute greatness to military prowess. But the Bible gives fame to the empire that can RULE. the issue at hand is man's RULE of the earth, sea and sky (Gen.1:26-28). In Hebrews 3 and 4, God is angry because His people could not RULE Canaan for His REST, USA is another example. With the greatest military the world has seen, it could defeat its enemy in a week. But it is unable to rule its enemy for a year. Even the Ottomans could do better than this.

In Daniel 7, what is tricky is that the fourth Empire stood and seems to have two peaks of rule. But this is the case with Rome. They conquered militarily and then, as their empire waned, they changed from armor to priest's robes. Via the Roman Church they interfere in all matters political and financial. The second peak of the same power will be the Beast.

* At Jesus' trial Israel asked for Caesar as their king. According to Daniel 4 God puts kings in their office. The Beast must be "given" power by God. It is a test to see if Israel still want Caesar. They do.