followerofjesus Posted February 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 31 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,013 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/08/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 3, 2007 No I honestly want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
followerofjesus Posted February 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 31 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,013 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/08/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 3, 2007 the anthichrist is within humanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Of course on a message board one can only post so much scripture, and there are time constraints. I am usually multi-tasking. However the scriptures I posted can be looked up by anyone who chooses to see for themselves. A good Bible search engine can be used to compare the scriptures in Revelation about the "great city" with instances throughout scripture that Jerusalem is called the "great city" ......by Christ himself no less. Just using the term "great city" is not sufficient enough of a comparison. For one thing, the Bible calls Ninevah and Gibeon by the term "great city" The term is not used again until Revelation and is also used to refer to Jerusalem, Babylon and the New Jerusalem. You are making more out of the phrase than is there. I also do not find Jesus referring to Jerusalem as the "great city." The faulty logic being applied here, is that there can only be one "great city," or that the term must needs be applied to one place. That simply does not follow. Each usage of the term has to be judged by what the author had in view, and not just fits our modern theological postion. When making comparisons, you have to use genuine parallels, otherwise the comparisons are invalid. There is no contextual argument that is sufficient to justify saying that Babylon in Revelation 17 is Jerusalem. One of the most obvious reason is found in verse 18. It refers to Babylon as a city that reigned over all the kings/nations of the earth. That has never been true about Israel in history, and there is nothing in Bible prophecy that suggests that the current city of Jerusalem will ever achieve that level of importance. Even today, Israel is ostracized, and is the object of contempt. There is no reasonable scenario that could be offered that any thinking person would accept, that would ever allow Jerusalem to gain sovereignty over the entire world. No reasonable Bible exegete could EVER accept v. 18 as speaking of Jerusalem; at least no one who is willing to be honest about the text. It is simply not a valid interpretation. One of the networks that carry Hagee's program is TBN. TBN has a large viewing audience. TBN also promotes the need for the building of the temple. We know that a lot of people follow and believe that they hear on TBN. I am also a member of another message board which is very large and is dispensational. The belief of the board owners is that we should support the building of the temple and most of their members agree. Stating that you believe the temple is not of God is enough to invite flaming from most of the members and to receive a warning from the mods. Well a lot gets blamed on "dispensationalism." Not every one who supports the rebuilding of the Temple is dispensational. Dispensationalists believe it will happlen, but they don't necessarily support it. I would suggest that instead of being a parrot and just mindlessly repeating what other people say about dispesnationalism, you should actually learn something about it. See the thing is you use the term "many" or the term "a lot" and those are relative terms. The truth when you get the big picture is that those who support Israel are minority. It is mostly in evangelical circles and even then, not all evangelicals support Israel. Taken as a whole, you can pretty limit support of Israel as being primarily found among conservative Baptist and Pentacostal Churches. My concern is that when the distinction is not made between the majority of Chrisians who support Israel vs. those who go beyond that and start supporting the building of the temple, the conclusion that is drawn that those who support Israel also support the building of the temple, which is basically not true. As for TBN, their support for anythnig "Israel" is merely token in fashion. Anything connected to this coming Temple is just sensationalism, and nothing more. Granted, it is wrong for ANY reason, but they really do not spend any appreciable time on the issue. TBN sees Israel as an albatross around their neck that they would be more than happy to get rid of since the pro-Israel position threatens their ability to start up new stations in the Arab/Muslim world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I came to my conclusions about Jerusalem being mystery Babylon through my own study. Frankly I was astonished when I realized what scripture was saying about mystery Babylon when I compared scripture to scripture. Since others are posting links to sites supporting their views I did a google to see if anyone else out there might have come to the same conclusion as I. I found that indeed there were. Here is one link. I have not looked over the entire site, but the page I am linking to references some of the same verses I have used on this thread. http://www.lookup.org/mysterybabylon.htm Yes, and that site only reinforces what I said earlier about the rules of comparing Scripture to Scripture. It is just a matter grabbing on phrase and ignoring the intent of the author to advance what one wants to believe. There is no meaningful hermeneutic connection between the comparisons made. People tend to ignore the rules of literary analysis when ti comes to the Bible, for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusisGod2 Posted February 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,065 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1958 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Where does the Bible say the antichrist is a specific individual? The word antichrist is used only 4 times in scripture. It is referred to as a spirit or anyone who does not have Christ. The latter could apply to your next door neighbor or the checkout girl at the grocery store. Cyrus desecrated/destroyed the temple in 70AD. First of all it was Nero and not Cyrus. Your post and understanding of these events are very 7th Day stuff Concerning the antichrist, I believe that the scriptures clearly do point out that it is an individual, although it also points out that there are many even now, John specifically points to one 1 John 2:18 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. He uses antchrist that shall come in a singular form and then refers to the fact that there are many already and this is how we know we are in the end times. The death and resurrection of Christ was the beginning of the end. The book of Daniel points to an individual as well. I would also like to point out a few scriptures that you have used to try to back your position. [b]Matthew 24:21 For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. This great tribulation that Jesus speaks of is still yet to come and in fact is knocking on the door. Jesus says that there has not been such great tribulation since the beginning nor shall their be after. In 70 Ad they didn't have anything near the weaponry capable of causing the destruction we can today. I also notice that many of the 7th day teachings try and fit parts of Revelation into thier mix concerning the destruction of the temple. Most scholars agree that the book of Revelation was written around 95 AD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 FresnoJoe, This statement of dire warning dear brother really confuses me. What is the danger" All views still are all about Jesus! The danger lies in the mindset that if you are still here, you are not yet in tribulation and there is not yet the revelation of the Antichrist. If you are still here, Armegddon is still 7 years away when it could be days away. And if you believe that the demonic duo will have global economic, political, and religious control, you are yet even more misled. One's enthusiasm to fervently serve Christ is diminished if they do not think they will be here during tribulation. What difference is it to me to know who The Antichrist is? To my knowledge, the Bible does not tell me that I should have anything to do with him? Do you know sometime special from the Holy Bible that I need to know about this warfare? It's not so much who he is that's the issue. It's understanding the truth about the prophecies that are coming down. I think major bible scholars who taught the revived Roman empire global economic, political, and religious system of the demonic duo have misled millions. There are many biblical references that urge us to be on the ball when we see the signs occur. Sadly, many are missing the signs. You may not have anything to do with the Antichrist other than be the unfortunate experience of falling victim to a terror attack committed by one of his little Islamic harlots. I don't see anywhere in The Book that either The Church nor The Tribulation Saints will have anything to do with The Antichrist? Except for lost heads that is. Lost heads for sure. That's the Islamic way. Just the other day they were protesting in the streets in Europe with signs "behead those who insult Islam". The jihadist and wars and atrocities to come will soon authenticate Islam as Babylon the Great and jihadist as the whore... But how many will believe it? How many will see it? How many will remain in denial? The only thing I see is the overwhelming need to show Jesus to the world because the time is incredibility short and eternity is really, really long! And you will be here to show the power and love of Christ during the tribulation while prophecy is being fulfilled before us. We are told to endure tribulation in the verses just before the rapture passages. And God will cause no accidents and kill innocent people when he takes us home. Only on TV. "Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest." (Luke 10:2) "Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time." (Colossians 4:5) Amen and amen! Rev. Thank you Dear Brother! Your succinct answer is a big help to my understanding of your position and your fellowship is an even bigger joy! "But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the LORD." (Psalms 115:1) Anytime the rapture is set, I know His timing is perfect! "Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come." (Psalms 192:13) Come Quickly Lord Jesus, Come Quickly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusisGod2 Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,065 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1958 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Where does the Bible say the antichrist is a specific individual? The word antichrist is used only 4 times in scripture. It is referred to as a spirit or anyone who does not have Christ. The latter could apply to your next door neighbor or the checkout girl at the grocery store. Cyrus desecrated/destroyed the temple in 70AD. First of all it was Nero and not Cyrus. Your post and understanding of these events are very 7th Day stuff First of all it was Titus not nero. i admit i get Titus and Cyrus confused with each other. \http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_JerusalemThe Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 was a decisive event in the First Jewish-Roman War, followed by the fall of Masada in 73. The Roman army, led by later Emperor Titus, with Tiberius Julius Alexander as his second-in-command, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by Jewish rebels in 66. #Destruction_of_Jerusalem OOOOOOOOOOOOps! My mistake, Nero was the one who led the persecutions but he did die before It was Titus destroyed the temple. Anyway it wasnt Cyrus on which we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest angel a Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Turmoil, I am reading what you believe and am NOT HERE TO CRITICIZE, i find it very interesting. i only hope that you will not allow this attack to offend you. We are all in the same boat whether we agree or not. (i am now speaking to everyone.)some of us may believe that the LORD mas revealed to us truths of the future, we will have to wait to see as it is manifested. In the meantime we have to strive for unity and save our criticisms for something, say hereseies. i hope that we will all keep our hearts, that our Love will not grow cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest angel a Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Thank you my bretheren that exort and correct in Grace and Truth. i also know that i will be here during the tribulation, and i also have promises from our LORD that He will sustain , lead, and deliver me and my bretheren. i thank my GOD that there is truth being proclaimed, that maybe one may be saved, in seeking the truth for themselvesand recieving a love of the TRUTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest angel a Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 i apologize for any confusion concerning my first text. i am unskilled in computer in's and out's,i hope to become more proficent if you will just bear with me. i was refering to the ongoing conversation about the absurdity of Saddam being the anti-christ. hope this may clarify my remark,that i was in noway refering to any of the immediate texters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts