Revelation 17...???

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I think you read Revelation 17 wrong. The whore rides the beast empire, the 8th kingdom. Which is comprised of 10 nations, it's a caliphate. The 8th kingdom is the revived eastern leg of the Roman Empire. It's the revival of the Ottoman Empire. The antichrist receives his power from the 10 nations in 1 hour, and he himself subdues 3 of those 10, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

So the Harlot isn’t a belief system now…? And if not which part are you saying I’ve got wrong…?

And how do you know he subdues Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon…? Where are you drawing this conclusion from and how…?


- JC

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I think it is inescapable that the END TIMES global government will include all nations. 3 of the kings rebel at some point. But for a period of time, all kowtow to the Anti-Christ. Maybe someone will offer up the Scripture that makes that abundantly clear.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BO XIAN

Revelation uses symbolism, it isn't meant to be taken literally. Everything said in Revelation is impossible when taken literally.

You could dedicate the rest of your life to explaining that Revelation has nothing to do with the end times and that it was actually speaking about those days.

And all you will get is blank stares, emotional arguments and the occasional trying to appear reasonable Christian with a b.s. yet calm argument meant to convince you that Christianity is a rational belief and something about faith yada yada yada.

But not one will have made the 666 Solomon hexagram connection.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I think it is inescapable that the END TIMES global government will include all nations. 3 of the kings rebel at some point. But for a period of time, all kowtow to the Anti-Christ. Maybe someone will offer up the Scripture that makes that abundantly clear.

Why do you say that? The model from the book of Daniel is when it says "all nations" and "whole Earth" the clear implication is that it means all the nations and peoples in the grasp of the particular Empire, not the planet Earth. See Daniel 2:38-39, clearly Daniel wasn't a false prophet. And empire subdues nations, when the Bible says all the nations or all the people it means the ones controlled by the empire.

a reply to: Joecroft

3 of the title for the Man of Sin are "King of Babylon", "King of Tyre", and "The Assyrian". That's Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. Those are the three horns the little horn subdues when he rises to power initially.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
3 of the title for the Man of Sin are "King of Babylon", "King of Tyre", and "The Assyrian". That's Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. Those are the three horns the little horn subdues when he rises to power initially.

Problem is I’m not convinced that Ezekiels prophecy was meant for our modern times and future…but that it was a prophecy from the past that’s already taken place…

The King of Tyre at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy in Ezekiel 28, is believed to be referring to King Ethbaal III, (590 - c.573)

Assuming Ezekiel’s prophecy is for the King Ethbaal III, then I guess it was not such a bad bet to make. King Nebuchadnezzar occupied Jerusalem and then exiled the Jews to Babylon and then began a long and gruelling battle against Tyre. But it seems that against all the odds, Tyre, under King Ethbaal III rule, managed to withstand a long siege, lasting some 13 years, between 586 and 573 BC.


What do make of that…?


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft


No, no, no. Daniel was prophesying and clearly it went beyond that King to Satan, the power behind the throne. Just read Ezekiel 28, you can tell the Holy Spirit shifts focus to Satan. Right about verse 12 it shifts to Satan indwelling the Antichrist.

a reply to: Joecroft

Jesus was pierced by a spear…according the Gospel accounts…maybe someone made a mistake in the accounts…Although I guess the word “sword” could be meant in a more general sense…perhaps…”live by the sword, die by the sword” being a good example…

I think that's a good example as well. The sword, in my opinion, represents the empire. They use the "sword" (force) to get what they want and to conquer other lands. The Roman empire killed Jesus, so he died by their "sword" or force of will.

How and in what way are you linking the 2 mysteries together…?

From what I gather, the only times the word "mystery" is used in the entire bible is outlined HERE. If you take a look at the results of the word "mystery" it is used only in Paul's epistles, Revelation, and Daniel, and as we know Revelation mirrors Daniel in many aspects.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Paul is the only author other than Daniel/Revelation that uses the word "mystery" to describe his teachings.

There is one other reference to a mystery in Mark 4:11 and the context of that passage is that Jesus talks in parables to hide information from certain people, so a mystery is something that is meant to hide information from people. Paul's doctrine, that of a sacrificial Jesus, is a mystery that hides truth from people in my opinion. His doctrine, the church/whore, is the mystery on her forehead.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Peter also taught Jesus death was atonement for sin. Can't say that's just Paul's doctrine. Gabriel himself said the Messiah would make atonement for iniquity. That the theme throughout the Bible, the very first sin God made Adam and Even clothes from animal skins, teaching them that by shedding innocent blood they would be covered. He accepted Abel's sacrifice and rejected Cain's for the same reason, it all points to innocent blood being shed for sin.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And what does Jesus call Peter? What did Peter do at Jesus' trial? He called Peter Satan and Peter denied him 3 times.

Peter has a less than stellar track record with Jesus. Jesus didn't reinstate Peter until after he resurrected, and we should all know that someone is rotten flesh after being dead for 3 days.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Gabriel himself said the Messiah would make atonement for iniquity.

You keep saying that? Can you please cite the scripture you're referring to, exactly?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And what does Jesus call Peter? What did Peter do at Jesus' trial? He called Peter Satan and Peter denied him 3 times.

Peter has a less than stellar track record with Jesus. Jesus didn't reinstate Peter until after he resurrected, and we should all know that someone is rotten flesh after being dead for 3 days.

Well, Peter was completely transformed after the baptism of fire in Acts 2. Completely different after the Holy Ghost was residing in him. 1 Peter was written after Acts 2.

3 days?? That's easy work for God, Jesus raised Lazarus after he was dead for 4 days.

a reply to: windword

Daniel 9:24

In the Hebrew it literally says "shall make atonement for iniquity". The Hebrew word used for "reconciliation" used in the KJV is the root word for atone that Kippor comes from, as in Yom Kippor/ Day of Atonement.

a reply to: Joecroft

And WHAT LEARNED person wrote this tripe? A self appointed serf of "God"? Or some delusional idiot such as the big "Mo"? I don't BUY it. And by "buy", I mean exactly that the statement says. W H O?

Exactly how certain are you that some scribe of "god" ACTUALLY had a hand in writing this? How many THOUSANDS of years ago? And exactly HOW SURE are you that this person did not take ANY liberties with the "word"? Please...TELL ME! Or am I just supposed to say/accept "it's on FAITH alone,?" And simply accept that the "word" that was written 2000 ,(two THOUSAND) years ago and believe that absolutely NO ONE took liberties with it? As human beings TODAY we take liberties with the written word, and as such you REALLY expect me/anyone to believe, respect, and take to heart words from THAT ERA? Please...give me a reason to....
.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

1 Peter is also universally regarded as a pseudepigraphical work and was not actually written by Peter.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

1 Peter is also universally regarded as a pseudepigraphical work and was not actually written by Peter.

You're thinking of 2 Peter.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Both are regarded as pseudepigraphical. The fact that any epistle is someone claiming to be who they are not should be a red flag within itself anyways.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Both are regarded as pseudepigraphical. The fact that any epistle is someone claiming to be who they are not should be a red flag within itself anyways.

Peter was illiterate, he says right at the end of 1 Peter he used the services of Silvanus as his amanuensis. It was dictated to him to pen for him. John Mark recorded his gospel account. 2 Peter is the epistle regarded as possibly having spurious origins.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The original Greek 1 Peter implies that Silvanus was only the courier of the letter and plainly says "I (Peter) have written to you", it says nothing of Silvanus writing the letter for him, that is only an issue of translation.

But again, the fact that any epistle has spurious origins should send up a red flag immediately anyways.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

In the Hebrew it literally says "shall make atonement for iniquity".

That refers to the "people". It was something that they had to do, not something that the messiah would bear for them.