Who is the best candidate for the False Prophet???

Soul Winner

Ok I'm a bit bored with Boards lately so lets talk about some real juicy stuff shall we? (what am I letting myself in for with this one?? Gulp!!! :eek: )

We are taught from the book of Revelation that in the last days the man of sin or the Beast AKA the Antichrist or more literally "Substitute Christ" (the word Christ means deliverer so he’ll be a substitute or false deliverer) will be revealed and turn out to be very nasty individual indeed but it is the false prophet who makes everybody to take his mark not the man of sin himself and we know that the false prophet (Rev13:11-17) looks like a lamb (Christ like) because he has two horns but gets his message form the dragon which is none other than Satan himself.

This false prophet would have to be a pretty powerful world leader of a pretty powerful world wide organisation (Christian) in order to be able to get so many people to worship the beast and take his mark. We know it is a Christian organisation because it looks like Christ (a lamb) and as always through out history Satan is the great imitator who always comes as angel of light rather than as himself.

So we have a very powerful Christian individual who is head of a very powerful Christian institution who exercises great power and performs many wonders and miracles on the earth.

My question is who do you guys think it could possibly be if lets say here were to arrive on the scene tomorrow? And why do think that?

(To those of you who don’t believe in all this stuff it would be appreciated if you could respectfully bow out of this discussion but you are more than welcome to make a contribution providing it is relevant to the topic.)

Puck

The word "Christ" means annointed. Of course Christ is our deliverer but still, the word Christ (Christos) is the Greek translation of Messiah and means annointed.

Soul Winner

Puck wrote: »

The word "Christ" means annointed. Of course Christ is our deliverer but still, the word Christ (Christos) is the Greek translation of Messiah and means annointed.

Thank you. Yes you are correct. The Word Christ or Messiah translates from the original Hebrew word "Meshiach" which means God's "Annointed One" but annointed for what? To deliver His People.

From www.promisestoisrael.org

Meshiach
Means “anointed one”; Messiah. It is used of kings, priests, and prophets when they are anointed by God. But the one who the Jewish people believe will be the “Meshiach” will be their deliverer, who will bring Peace on the earth.


From the Johnson County Community College website

From this arises the idea of meshiach, or "messiah." Messiah means "anointed one." Originally, it is a political term which refers to the royal figure of the king who is anointed with oil at his crowning. In the king dwells the well-being and future of the nation-- her hopes, dreams, and possibilities. In post-exilic times (3rd-1st Century BCE), meshiach comes to refer to a "deliverer," i.e., one who will restore Israel and gather her people back to their homeland.

Antichrist is but a false one of those or substitute Christ.

BrianCalgary

I dont see him as necessarily being the head of a Christian organisation.

I see him as being head of an organisation that claims to have lifes answers. People get seduced into following him as a god.

That is sight number 1.

I'm at Mission Fest in Edmonton for the weekend. back on Monday.

Soul Winner

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I dont see him as necessarily being the head of a Christian organisation.

I see him as being head of an organisation that claims to have lifes answers. People get seduced into following him as a god.

That is sight number 1.

I'm at Mission Fest in Edmonton for the weekend. back on Monday.

I respect that Brian but why does it state that he looks like a lamb? Why a lamb? Could this be a clue as to what religion he comes from? He is a prophet after all and would have to come from one of the world's major religions if he's to have the power and influence outlined in the book of Revelation. My bet is he will be Christian due simply to the lamb reference.

Pompey Magnus

Lets see, the Anti Christ will fool many people and they will wear his symbol, he will reside in Jerusalem and will have an Earthly ministry of three and a half years. He will be hailed as the Jewish Messiah so he will be probably Jewish himself as they would not accept a Gentile Messiah. He will perform many great miracles and will be a great deciever which will convince many people that he is really the true Messiah. He will claim to bring peace but in actual fact there will be wars and death in his name.

How many times have I heard Christians tell me that Lucifer is extremely cunning and the great deciever of humans, could it be possible, just possible, that he has been fooling billions of people into believing he was the son of God and getting them to turn away from the Old Testament, this would be surely be just the thing he would be trying to do? Surely it would be irresponsible for any believer in Yahweh to not at least consider the idea that Lucifer might have been at work.

Nerin

How many times have I heard Christians tell me that Lucifer is extremely cunning and the great deciever of humans, could it be possible, just possible, that he has been fooling billions of people into believing he was the son of God and getting them to turn away from the Old Testament, this would be surely be just the thing he would be trying to do.

shhhhhh!!!
youre giving it away!

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How many times have I heard Christians tell me that Lucifer is extremely cunning and the great deciever of humans, could it be possible, just possible, that he has been fooling billions of people into believing he was the son of God and getting them to turn away from the Old Testament, this would be surely be just the thing he would be trying to do? Surely it would be irresponsible for any believer in Yahweh to not at least consider the idea that Lucifer might have been at work.

My Lord the ignorance is rife. Turning billions away from the Old Testament? Gentile nations would not have even known about the Old Testament if it wasn't for the arrival of Christianity onto the stage of history, so how could it have been possible for them to be turned away from it? And let us assume that Christianity had not arrived can you seriously envisage billions worldwide adhering to the Jewish Torah when they would have to be Jewish by race for it to apply to them in the first place? Even the first New Testament Christians who were Jews by the way were tentative about even preaching the Gospel to Gentiles let alone the Old Testament Law. Me thinks you need a drawing board to go back to DM :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

nerin wrote: »

shhhhhh!!!
youre giving it away!

I'm sorry Nerin but no he's not.

mossieh

Soul Winner wrote: »

My Lord the ignorance is rife. ... Me thinks you need a drawing board to go back to DM :rolleyes:

You really do like to get your digs in Soulwinner don't you?

Please note that Puck was able to correct your mistake in this thread without calling you ignorant, you might want to learn from that. It is possible to disagree with someone without insulting them you know. You might win more souls that way.

PDN

I think it's impossible to know since the person will only be revealed at that time. It is perfectly possible for someone to go from being a nobody to the highest of positions in a very short space of time (which of us had heard of Barack Obama 5 years ago?) so the people that Revelation refers to may well be unheard of. In fact, i would think it highly likely that they haven't even been born yet.

Soul Winner

mossieh wrote: »

You really do like to get your digs in Soulwinner don't you?

Please note that Puck was able to correct your mistake in this thread without calling you ignorant, you might want to learn from that. It is possible to disagree with someone without insulting them you know. You might win more souls that way.

I'm sorry, I do apologise. But Puck didn't come off like he was getting a look down his nose type kick out of showing were I was not entirely accurate, where as DM's post had an air of smugness about it so I responded in kind as I do in all my post (respond in kind that is not in smugness per se). And if you look at my response to DM you will notice that I did put a smiley after it which adds and air of humour also. Plus I'm not out here trying to win souls. Only God can do that.

Ok correction taken now can we get back on topic please?

salfriz

Why didn't i see it before..it's pope benedict! and in cohoots with his fellow country men no doubt. He even has the tall hat to hide the horns!..I,ve contacted George Bush who,s agreed to have saddam hussein freed and bring Benedict back to America for trial and crucifiction..Hurrah..we're saved!

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Plus I'm not out here trying to win souls. Only God can do that.

Might want to change your name then?

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Might want to change your name then?

Well who knows I might just get one in my sojourn here

Soul Winner

salfriz wrote: »

Why didn't i see it before..it's pope benedict! and in cohoots with his fellow country men no doubt. He even has the tall hat to hide the horns!..I,ve contacted George Bush who,s agreed to have saddam hussein freed and bring Benedict back to America for trial and crucifiction..Hurrah..we're saved!

Hey come on this is serious

salfriz

ah just kiddin with ya..cheers for reply on family post yesterday..it was helpful.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sorry, I do apologise. But Puck didn't come off like he was getting a look down his nose type kick out of showing were I was not entirely accurate, where as DM's post had an air of smugness about it so I responded in kind as I do in all my post (respond in kind that is not in smugness per se). And if you look at my response to DM you will notice that I did put a smiley after it which adds and air of humour also. Plus I'm not out here trying to win souls. Only God can do that.

It was a fair response to a mostly tongue-in-cheek suggestion by me. I don't believe anyone was, is, or will be the anti Christ as I don't believe there was a Christ in the first place for him to be anti to. I think the Book of Revelations, from which Christians get so much of their wild ideas about this figure, was written by a raving lunatic living in cave on the island Patmos who was out of his mind on psilocybin mushrooms, which the island of Patmos just happens to be crawling with.

According to early respected Christians such as St Denis of Alexandria and the presbyter of the early Roman church Caius the book of revelations was in fact written by a Gnostic heretic called Cerinthus who falsely claimed that the book was written by John in order to give his insane dreams more support. Cerinthus followed and promoted a Gnostic-Ebionite heresy which prophecised a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth following Armageddon, as a follower of the Ebionite tradition he would have believed in a literal battle between good and evil in which Christ's second coming sees him defeat a real figure in the shape of the anti-Christ. Does this sound familiar?

The Apocalypse was addressed to the Christian community in the city of Laodicea, interestingly however the council of Laodicea rejected the Apocalypse as being part of the Christian canon. In other words the Christians in the city rejected what could have amounted to a jewel in their crown because they recognised the book for what it really was. They realised that it was not a genuine orthodox Christian piece but rather a gnostic heresy. As the memory of Cerinthus and his Gnostic sect faded so too did the obvious heretical basis for his writings and finally thanks in large in part to the efforts of one Sulpicius Severus the decision of council after council was overturned and this bizaare gnostic text was added to the orthodox canon.

Christians today who use the Book of Revelations as a piece of genuine Christian prophecy are unaware that they could well be promoting gnosticism and heretical teachings.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

According to early respected Christians such as St Denis of Alexandria and the presbyter of the early Roman church Caius the book of revelations was in fact written by a Gnostic heretic called Cerinthus who falsely claimed that the book was written by John in order to give his insane dreams more support.

Actually Dionysius of Alexandria (I'm presuming that is who you mean) stated that there were some people who ascribed the authorship to Cerinthus. Dionysius himself never stated that he agreed with them.

Caius may or may not qualifiy as an "early respected Christian". Caius was attacked by Hippolytus as being a heretic who did indeed ascribe authorship of revelation to Cerinthus. This may, or may not, be the same person as a Gaius (different forms of the same name), who wrote a Dialogue, on copy of which is a scribbled note by a man called Photius claiming that Gaius was a Presbyter of Rome and "Bishop to the Gentiles".

Either ways Papias, who lived at least 50 years before Caius or Gaius, asserted that the apostle John was the author of Revelation.

Cerinthus followed and promoted a Gnostic-Ebionite heresy which prophecised a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth following Armageddon, as a follower of the Ebionite tradition he would have believed in a literal battle between good and evil in which Christ's second coming sees him defeat a real figure in the shape of the anti-Christ. Does this sound familiar?

If Cerinthus had read Revelation then we should expect his teachings to sound somewhat familiar.

The Apocalypse was addressed to the Christian community in the city of Laodicea, interestingly however the council of Laodicea rejected the Apocalypse as being part of the Christian canon. In other words the Christians in the city rejected what could have amounted to a jewel in their crown because they recognised the book for what it really was.

Please stop spouting unhistorical nonsense. The Council of Laodicea was a gathering of 30 clerics gathered from different parts of Asia minor. It did not represent the views of "the Christians in the city". You might as well argue that the "Lisbon Treaty" represents the views of the inhabitants of the Portuguese capital towards the European Union.

BTW, even if they had a say in the matter, it is unlikely that the Laodiceans who want a "jewel in their crown" that described them as being naked, blind, and in danger of being vomited out of God's mouth because of their lukewarmness.

Nerin

gnosticism and heretical teachings.

not many christians know that gnosticism had some great teachings,and its sad how they were thrown out by the early church. studying current christian theology, i'd say that gnostic teachings would be most helpful in interpreting the religion.

CaptainNemo

Agree, Gnosticism is extremely interesting.

Pope Benedict is clearly some form of evil being. Just look at his eyes. He looks like Hannibal Lecter. I think it's hilarious watching him trying to look all saintly and kind after his enpopification, it's like watching Gordon Brown trying to exude charisma and charm on TV.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Actually Dionysius of Alexandria (I'm presuming that is who you mean) stated that there were some people who ascribed the authorship to Cerinthus. Dionysius himself never stated that he agreed with them.

According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, St Dionysius (I used the French translation Denis but as with Gaius/Caius they are one in the same) was a firm opponent of the supporters of a coming millenial rule of Christ on Earth, He may not have said in so many words that Cerinthus wrote Revelations but one can infer from his attitude that he did not agree with its addition to the canon. That said from reading what he wrote he seems to also suggest that he did believe the authorship to be that of Cerinthus, albiet not saying so explicitly.

Caius may or may not qualifiy as an "early respected Christian". Caius was attacked by Hippolytus as being a heretic who did indeed ascribe authorship of revelation to Cerinthus.

You get into a circular argument when you try to discredit Caius as a heretic and therefore discrediting his suggestion that Revelations was a forgery when when the very heresy he was accused of by Hippolytus was that he objected to Revelations.

This may, or may not, be the same person as a Gaius (different forms of the same name), who wrote a Dialogue, on copy of which is a scribbled note by a man called Photius claiming that Gaius was a Presbyter of Rome and "Bishop to the Gentiles".

Ah, so you are happy enough to draw doubts on the authorship of works which you disagree with, but at the same time hold unswerving conviction that St John the apostle did in fact write the Apocalypse. Double standards perchance? There is more evidence for Caius being the presbyter of Rome than there is for John being the author of Revelations.

From the collection of data relating to this character it seems very likely that the "heretic" Caius was the same Gaius, presbyter of Rome

Either ways Papias, who lived at least 50 years before Caius or Gaius, asserted that the apostle John was the author of Revelation.

As you were willing to attempt to discredit Caius as a heretic it should also be mentioned that Papias was someone descibed by Eusebius as "a man of small mental capacity" and a promoter of strange parables and myths. That he accepted Revelations as being authentic is not strange when you consider that he was an active proponent of the millenial rule of Christ on Earth.

If Cerinthus had read Revelation then we should expect his teachings to sound somewhat familiar.

Why should we? It is not as if it is particularly well written or in any way close to any of the other Christian writings, so if you claim Revelations to be the original source of the message of a 1000 year reign of Christ why should we expect someone to base their sect on it just because they read it? The only way I would expect someone to actively use Revelations to support their sect is if they already had an existing cult predicting a coming millenial reign by Jesus. If this was the case then the likely assumption is that the author of Revelations based his writings on the gnostic sect who in turn supported their teachings on Revelations, which was based on their teachings etc etc etc.

Please stop spouting unhistorical nonsense. The Council of Laodicea was a gathering of 30 clerics gathered from different parts of Asia minor. It did not represent the views of "the Christians in the city". You might as well argue that the "Lisbon Treaty" represents the views of the inhabitants of the Portuguese capital towards the European Union.

BTW, even if they had a say in the matter, it is unlikely that the Laodiceans who want a "jewel in their crown" that described them as being naked, blind, and in danger of being vomited out of God's mouth because of their lukewarmness.

So if the decision had been down to the citizens of Laodicea it is possible to concieve of a reason why they would wish Revelations ommitted as they were portrayed in a bad light, but as the Christian community in the city had little or no influence over the final canon determined by the council then this explanation for its ommission is invalid and the decision was based instead on an unbiased debate by church clergy from the wider region?

Run_to_da_hills

CaptainNemo wrote: »

Agree, Gnosticism is extremely interesting.

Pope Benedict is clearly some form of evil being. Just look at his eyes. He looks like Hannibal Lecter. I think it's hilarious watching him trying to look all saintly and kind after his enpopification, it's like watching Gordon Brown trying to exude charisma and charm on TV.

I dont think so, Benedict has put his foot in it once too often to upset other Christian denominations and religions. Apart from this he is not exactly physically appealing



I would say someone more like John Paul 2nd would have been a better candidate. He well loved and respected through out the world and had a fantastic following from both Christians and non Christians. He was probably one of the greatest religious leaders of modern times.

AlJazeera sums up the difference between Benedict and John Paul 2nd in a very good cartoon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H28X9uA9KiQ

Nerin

I dont think so, Benedict has put his foot in it once too often to upset other Christian denominations and religions.

all joking aside,i dont think physical appearance should come into it, although he was unlucky that not only does he have a knack of pi$$in people off, he also scares small children.
i would have thought even the leader of such a large group would be at least "told off" for annoying other people the way he does.

even reading his book jesus of nazareth, whether he meant to or not,some of the things he writes can get under the skin of even the most forgiving person of another faith.

Húrin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Lets see, the Anti Christ will fool many people and they will wear his symbol, he will reside in Jerusalem and will have an Earthly ministry of three and a half years.

How can there be an anti-Christ without a genuine Christ?

Pompey Magnus

Húrin wrote: »

How can there be an anti-Christ without a genuine Christ?

There cant be, as I don't believe there was a Christ (at least in the christian sense) I don't believe there will be an anti Christ. My suggestion was simply a tongue in cheek comment.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, St Dionysius (I used the French translation Denis but as with Gaius/Caius they are one in the same) was a firm opponent of the supporters of a coming millenial rule of Christ on Earth, He may not have said in so many words that Cerinthus wrote Revelations but one can infer from his attitude that he did not agree with its addition to the canon. That said from reading what he wrote he seems to also suggest that he did believe the authorship to be that of Cerinthus, albiet not saying so explicitly.

That is not true. Dionysius certainly disagreed with some of the literal interpretations of Revelation, but he explicitly stated that he would not reject the book. He also believed that the book was written by a holy person named John (but not the apostle John), not by Cerinthus. Let's allow Dionysius to speak for himself:

I, however, would not dare reject the book, since many brethren hold it in esteem, but since my intellect cannot judge it properly, I hold that its interpretation is a wondrous mystery. I do not understand it, but I suspect that the words have a deeper meaning. Putting more reliance on faith than on reason, I have concuded that they are too high for my comprehension. I do not reject what I have failed to understand, but am rather puzzled that I failed to understand.


That, therefore, he was named John and that this book is by a John - some holy, inspired writer - I will not deny. But I do not agree that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel according to John and the general epistle. From the character of each and on the style and format of [Revelation], I conclude that the author is not the same. For the Evangelist nowhere names himself in either the Gospel or Epistle in either the first or third persons, whereas the author of Revelation announces himself at the very beginning: "The revelation of Jesus Christ which he ... sent by his angel to his servant John."

Dionysius in (Eusebius, H.E.7.25)

Dionysius' view that the author of Revelation was another John, rather than one of the twelve apostles, has been shared by many. The Catholic Encyclopedia supports this view. It should be noted that nowhere in the text does the Book of Revelation claim to be written by the author of the Fourth Gospel.

You get into a circular argument when you try to discredit Caius as a heretic and therefore discrediting his suggestion that Revelations was a forgery when when the very heresy he was accused of by Hippolytus was that he objected to Revelations.

I am not trying to discredit him as a heretic. I am simply giving a quick overview of what we know about this Caius, or Gaius (who may be the same person or may be two seperate individuals. Gaius, like John, was a common name). I also noted he was called "Bishop of the Gentiles" - does that mean I was trying to boost him up :rolleyes: I don't see labels attached by man, be they 'heretic' or 'bishop', as adding to or detracting from the credibility of the guy.

Ah, so you are happy enough to draw doubts on the authorship of works which you disagree with, but at the same time hold unswerving conviction that St John the apostle did in fact write the Apocalypse. Double standards perchance? There is more evidence for Caius being the presbyter of Rome than there is for John being the author of Revelations.

I must have missed that post where I expressed an unswerving conviction that St John the apostle wrote Revelation. Maybe you could point it out to me?

There are a number of early Church Fathers who record that the apostle wrote Revelation (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen etc.) While they may be wrong, this certainly constitutes (in the eyes of any historian) more evidence than one note in a margin of one manuscript stating that Caius was a Presbyter of Rome.

So if the decision had been down to the citizens of Laodicea it is possible to concieve of a reason why they would wish Revelations ommitted as they were portrayed in a bad light, but as the Christian community in the city had little or no influence over the final canon determined by the council then this explanation for its ommission is invalid and the decision was based instead on an unbiased debate by church clergy from the wider region?

I don't know if you got your ingenious theory about the Laodiceans from another website (in which case you really need to be a bit more selective about where you gather information) or whether you just make these things up as you go along.

I have pointed out that the Council of Laodicea was made up of 30 clerics - almost all of whom were from outside the area. I certainly don't think their debate was unbiased - they were creatures of the Roman Emperor who had entered into an alliance between Church and State. I believe their rejection of the Book of Revelation is most easily explained by the obviously anti-government slant of much of the book. State registered puppet churches in Communist China are ordered not to preach from Revelation today for the same reason. The inhabitants of Laodicea therefore had little or no influence over the decisions of the Council.

I added the BTW to demonstrate that the Laodicean theory you advanced was doubly fallacious since the references to the Book to Laodicea are really quite insulting. It would be akin to suggesting that Jews would see The Merchant of Venice as a jewel in the crown of English literature because Shakespeare cast a Jew (Shylock) as one of the main characters. So, if the inhabitants of Laodicea had any input into the Council in their city (which they didn't) they would still be unlikely to look favourably upon the Book of Revelation.

Pompey Magnus

I don't know if you got your ingenious theory about the Laodiceans from another website (in which case you really need to be a bit more selective about where you gather information) or whether you just make these things up as you go along.

I found the theory in a essay entitled "Apocalypse" written by the great Voltaire in 1764. He finds that he cannot take the claim of men such as Iraenius and Justin seriously when they say that John wrote the book as Iraenius bases his claim on hearsay from an old man and Justin confidently cites oracles from the sybils along with making other strange claims. Clement of Alexandria only mentions an Apocalypse by St Peter and Tertullian also claimed that the reign of 1000 years was beginning to form in the night sky of Jerusalem as he wrote and that for 40 successive days the citizens of Palestine were watching this amazing event so perhaps not quite a great witness. Whether or not Voltaire is correct in these claims I don't know but what I do know is that theory is from a respected enlightened scholar and philosopher and not some nut job website.

As for your quote from St Dionysus I will conceed that he does seem to have believed John wrote the book, but I put an emphasis on "believed". It is obvious that faith has led him to that conclusion (and perhaps fear of being called a heretic) rather than through rational enquiry. I tend to take such conclusions with a pinch of salt.

All that said it doesn't really matter to me one bit whether it was written by Cerinthus or John the Apostle or any other John, it is only a interesting question. What does matter is that I consider whoever wrote it to have been a raving lunatic on mind altering substances and the evidence, a personal account of his own twisted dreams/trips, I feel strongly supports such a conclusion. It would not look out of place in the autobiography of Charles Manson.

Hivemind187

Is it too late for me to claim that I am in fact the anti-christ?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Clement of Alexandria only mentions an Apocalypse by St Peter

Actually Clement of Alexandria, speaking of the righteous man, says, ‘He shall sit among the twenty-four thrones, judging the people, as John saith in the Apocalypse.’ (Stromateis 4:4)

Whether or not Voltaire is correct in these claims I don't know but what I do know is that theory is from a respected enlightened scholar and philosopher and not some nut job website.

Voltaire? You don't think that knowledge of biblical studies, history etc. might have increased somewhat since 1774? If Voltaire claimed that Clement of Alexandria never mentioned the Apocalypse of John then he was certainly wrong - and Clement's Stromata were certainly available in Voltaire's day.

As for your quote from St Dionysus I will conceed that he does seem to have believed John wrote the book, but I put an emphasis on "believed". It is obvious that faith has led him to that conclusion (and perhaps fear of being called a heretic) rather than through rational enquiry. I tend to take such conclusions with a pinch of salt.

A pinch of salt? A few posts ago you were quoting the guy as an authority because you thought he supported your theory. Now you find out that you were wrong about that he suddenly becomes an unreliable witness.

BrianCalgary

Soul Winner wrote: »

I respect that Brian but why does it state that he looks like a lamb? Why a lamb? Could this be a clue as to what religion he comes from? He is a prophet after all and would have to come from one of the world's major religions if he's to have the power and influence outlined in the book of Revelation. My bet is he will be Christian due simply to the lamb reference.

I have a problem with the anti-Christ being a Christian, just be his/her very nature.

I could accept that the person could claim to be Christian and be head of a seemingly Christian organisation.

Soul Winner

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I have a problem with the anti-Christ being a Christian, just be his/her very nature.

I could accept that the person could claim to be Christian and be head of a seemingly Christian organisation.

I wasn't suggesting that the anti-Christ would be Christian. He will be a political leader. I was actually referring to the False Prophet who is a different kettle of fish altogether. It states that the False Prophet will cause all great and small to receive the mark of the beast (anti-Christ) but he (False Prophet) is not that particular beast. He is a different beast.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Actually Clement of Alexandria, speaking of the righteous man, says, ‘He shall sit among the twenty-four thrones, judging the people, as John saith in the Apocalypse.’ (Stromateis 4:4)

I reread Voltaires passage and as it happens I misquoted him, he actually said "In his Electra Clement of Alexandria mentions only an Apocalypse by St Peter, to which great importance was attached". It seems as if this was a seperate work which has been lost. It does seem that he was telling only a half truth in this instance but as I said before I didn't double check his claims.

PDN wrote:

A pinch of salt? A few posts ago you were quoting the guy as an authority because you thought he supported your theory. Now you find out that you were wrong about that he suddenly becomes an unreliable witness.

I was using him as an authority because he could not find any rational reason to accept Revelations as genuine, likewise I disregard his faith based reasons for accepting it as I personally don't find faith a good ground for accepting anything.

If I was in the jury when an expert witness in a court case said "I could find no reliable evidence to convict the accused, but I just get a feeling that he's guilty", I think I would tend towards aquittal.

BrianCalgary

Soul Winner wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that the anti-Christ would be Christian. He will be a political leader. I was actually referring to the False Prophet who is a different kettle of fish altogether. It states that the False Prophet will cause all great and small to receive the mark of the beast (anti-Christ) but he (False Prophet) is not that particular beast. He is a different beast.

Thanks for the clarification.

I was watching Oprah yesterday when I got home from work. Last night she did a webcast which I think was a discussion of her new book of the month which is about well this from Oprahs website:

Are You Ready to Be Awakened?
For the first time ever, you can join Oprah and Eckhart Tolle, the best-selling author of The Power of Now, as they teach A New Earth in Oprah's worldwide classroom live Monday nights on Oprah.com.

False Prophet????

hairyheretic

More likely interested in profits than prophets I would guess.

Soul Winner

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

I was watching Oprah yesterday when I got home from work. Last night she did a webcast which I think was a discussion of her new book of the month which is about well this from Oprahs website:

Are You Ready to Be Awakened?
For the first time ever, you can join Oprah and Eckhart Tolle, the best-selling author of The Power of Now, as they teach A New Earth in Oprah's worldwide classroom live Monday nights on Oprah.com.

False Prophet????

Possibly “A” false prophet but I would say certainly not "THE" false prophet of the book of Revelation. Remember he appears on the scene after anti-Christ is revealed and anti-Christ cannot be revealed until that force which restrains him is taken out of the way first (or Raptured) which said force I believe is the Church i.e. the true body of believers and trusters of Christ in the world at that time. So Eckhart and Oprah are ok on that score at least

Soul Winner

hairyheretic wrote: »

More likely interested in profits than prophets I would guess.

You could be onto something there.

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

Possibly “A” false prophet but I would say certainly not "THE" false prophet of the book of Revelation. Remember he appears on the scene after anti-Christ is revealed and anti-Christ cannot be revealed until that force which restrains him is taken out of the way first (or Raptured) which said force I believe is the Church i.e. the true body of believers and trusters of Christ in the world at that time. So Eckhart and Oprah are ok on that score at least

From Paul's opening chapter in 2 Thess. I gather that the Church will be still on Earth at the 2 Coming - so a post-Tribulation Rapture is indicated.

But I agree that a professedly Christian religious figure may be indicated for the False Prophet. Seems the ideal way to lead the apostasy from true Christianity that is indicated in the second chapter of the same book.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Nerin

LoL at my post count.
wheres RTDH with the exorcism kit

rats,my inabilty to count makes it neighbout of the beast.
although was it not changed to 616?

Soul Winner

wolfsbane wrote: »

From Paul's opening chapter in 2 Thess. I gather that the Church will be still on Earth at the 2 Coming - so a post-Tribulation Rapture is indicated.

But I agree that a professedly Christian religious figure may be indicated for the False Prophet. Seems the ideal way to lead the apostasy from true Christianity that is indicated in the second chapter of the same book.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Jesus says in John 16:33… In the world ye shall have tribulation” (the word is θλιψιν in the Greek, the process of beating wheat from chaff) but that is just general tribulation that comes from the world, the flesh and the devil. Jesus Himself got it and we are no better than the Master so we too will get that general kind of tribulation, that's what being a Christian is, battling against these forces through faith in God's Word, which said Word says we are more than conquerors through Christ. But the Tribulation "The Great Tribulation" as distinguished from all other kinds of tribulation is God's wrath poured out on the world that rejects the Salvation provided through the sacrifice of His Son. And just like Jesus on the cross they will have to suffer God's wrath on themselves.

The key verse to the book of Revelation is chapter 1 verse 19

Revelation 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen (Visions of Christ and the candlesticks etc chapter 1), and the things which are, (Churches which were present in John’s day chapters 2 and 3) and the things which shall be hereafter; (4th chapter onwards, after the Rapture of the Church not yet happened)


In this period of God pouring out His wrath (part of the things that shall be hereafter) there will be others who previously rejected Christ but who now see Him for who He is and recognise Him whom they have pierced Zechariah 12:10. These are the ones who do not take the mark of the beast and who give their lives for their faith. These are the tribulation saints that didn't go in the Rapture but will be saved out of the tribulation The Great Tribulation.

For the body of Christ to be here on earth when God pours out His wrath would be like God saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin. That the body of Christ must be struck twice. This lesson is taught in the Old Testament when Moses struck the Rock a second time instead of speaking to it as God commanded resulting in God not allowing Moses entry into the promised land no matter how much he pleaded with God.

Numbers 20:8 “Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes”

Numbers 20:11-12 “And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.”

Paul calls this Rock Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. God was teaching the lesson that Christ is struck once and once only for sin.

Which is why the body of Christ (the Church) must be taken up before God can pour out His wrath on the world. After God is done dealing with the Churches in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation you will notice that John is caught up and shown things that must take place hereafter. John is a type of the Church in the opening verse of Chapter 4 caught up with the sound of a trumpet.

“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Revelation 4:1-2

The Church is not mentioned again until Christ returns with them (His saints) behind Him to execute God’s vengeance in Chapter 19 verse 14 “And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.”

This trumpet is none other than the second trumpet to be fulfilled in the Feast (literally set time of the Lord) of the Trumpets. The first of these two trumpets was fulfilled when Christ was born. In the Jewish Feast of Trumpets two silver trumpets were blown all day long. Silver is the symbol of redemption in the Old Testament. The last of the two trumpets when it sounds will be the rapture of the church.

“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 1 Cor 15:51-52

Between those two events (Rapture of the Church and Christ coming with his saints) God is primarily dealing with the old stocks of the house of Israel and Judah but not the Church. The Church is but a wild Olive branch grafted onto the stock of Israel the natural olive tree through the work of Christ.

“For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” Romans 11:24.

God is not dealing with the wild olive branches (the Church) anymore. Their time has been fulfilled. Which leaves only the Feast of Atonement (affliction of soul) and the Feast of Tabernacles (Millennial Kingdom) to be fulfilled. The seven years (Jacob’s trouble or Daniel’s seventieth week) that follows the catching away of the saints is the fulfilment of the Feast of Atonement and Zechariah goes into great detail with regards to the Feast of Tabernacles.

Zechariah 14:16 “And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.”

Leviticus 23 outlines the feasts or set times of the Lord.

Sabbath (We rest from our works of righteousness and trust in His)
Passover (He became our Passover Lamb and death passes over us)
Unleavened Bread (This bread was hidden for 3 days and 3 nights in the OT type of death and resurrection)
First Fruits (He was the first fruits of many brethren risen from the dead)
Pentecost (The feast of harvest. 50 the number for harvest. Acts 2 is where the spirit decends on the apostles and the harvest of the Church begins. "When the day of pentecost was fully come...")
Trumpets (As described above yet to come)
Atonement (As described above yet to come)
Tabernacles (As described above yet to come)

This is but an overview of last day events but you can go much deeper than this into the Book of Revelation. And to do this you would need an understanding of God’s promises to the house of Israel in Genesis and a knowledge of the so called Lost Tribes and all the other eschatological books of the Bible to make sense of the book of Revelation and what it has to say. I don’t blame people thinking it is crazy but that is why it says that wisdom is called for and to get that you need to study God’s Word.

But getting back to the False Prophet What so called Christian leader could wield such mighty power to persuade so many to take the mark? If the restraining force (the real Church) that was holding the power of anti-Christ back is now gone, what power vacuum (some left behind power church machinery) would you fill if you were the False Prophet now that you have the leeway to do so?



Footnotes re anti-Christ:

He will be a man of peace to start with:

Daniel 11:21 "And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."

Revelation 6:2 "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."

White horse imitating Christ and a bow with no arrow meaning he will not arrive on the world stage with war.

He cannot be revealed until whatever holds him back is taken out of the way first:

2 Thes:1-4 "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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Only after John is caught up in Rev 4:1 are the Seven Seals broken and John is shown things that must be "hereafter" i.e "After" the catching away. And the first broken seal is the revealing of anti-Christ. Some people will argue that the restraining force that holds back the revealing of anti-Christ is the holy spirit but, the holy spirit is on earth during this time of tribulation when he seals the 144,000 and raises the two witnesses back to life after lying 3 days in the street Rev 11:11.

wolfsbane

Soul Winner Said:

In this period of God pouring out His wrath (part of the things that shall be hereafter) there will be others who previously rejected Christ but who now see Him for who He is and recognise Him whom they have pierced Zechariah 12:10. These are the ones who do not take the mark of the beast and who give their lives for their faith. These are the tribulation saints that didn't go in the Rapture but will be saved out of the tribulation The Great Tribulation.

For the body of Christ to be here on earth when God pours out His wrath would be like God saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin. That the body of Christ must be struck twice. This lesson is taught in the Old Testament when Moses struck the Rock a second time instead of speaking to it as God commanded resulting in God not allowing Moses entry into the promised land no matter how much he pleaded with God.

So you are saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for the sins of the ‘tribulation saints’???

Which is why the body of Christ (the Church) must be taken up before God can pour out His wrath on the world. After God is done dealing with the Churches in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation you will notice that John is caught up and shown things that must take place hereafter. John is a type of the Church in the opening verse of Chapter 4 caught up with the sound of a trumpet.
“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Revelation 4:1-2

But you are reading the Rapture into 4:1 - it says nothing about the Rapture. All it says is that John was called into heaven to hear about the future. John heard the sound of the trumpet when Christ first appeared to him on the isle, but that did not signify a rapture: 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

Between those two events (Rapture of the Church and Christ coming with his saints) God is primarily dealing with the old stocks of the house of Israel and Judah but not the Church. The Church is but a wild Olive branch grafted onto the stock of Israel the natural olive tree through the work of Christ.

“For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” Romans 11:24.

So you are saying the Jews saved in this supposed post-Rapture time are not part of the Church, not those whom Christ loved and gave Himself for?

How then are they saved?

How come Paul says the believing Gentiles and believing Jews are both grafted into the same stock?

but you can go much deeper than this into the Book of Revelation. And to do this you would need an understanding of God’s promises to the house of Israel in Genesis and a knowledge of the so called Lost Tribes and all the other eschatological books of the Bible to make sense of the book of Revelation and what it has to say. I don’t blame people thinking it is crazy but that is why it says that wisdom is called for and to get that you need to study God’s Word.

Don’t you think that a good understanding of the plain teaching on the Last Days would be a better place to start, than trying to understand the figurative books by the dimmer light of the O.T. types? I mean, such statements as Paul’s on the Day of rescue for us and wrath for the wicked as found in 2 Thess. 1; and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.No sign of a further period after Christ comes back - just the eternal state.

What knowledge of the so called Lost Tribes do you mean? Are you talking about British Israelism?

But getting back to the False Prophet What so called Christian leader could wield such mighty power to persuade so many to take the mark? If the restraining force (the real Church) that was holding the power of anti-Christ back is now gone, what power vacuum (some left behind power church machinery) would you fill if you were the False Prophet now that you have the leeway to do so?

There is a false Church already making much of one man as its infallible head. If he were to point to a Deliverer, he might persuade many.

But I don’t know if it is the one. Maybe someone from the Tele-evangelist ‘miracle-workers’? There are plenty who already swallow all their signs and lying wonders.

It is all a complex subject, but one our Lord expects us to study, pray and watch about. Good to discuss these things with you.

Soul Winner

First off sorry for not replying sooner. I was really sick all last week. Better now thank God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Soul Winner Said:

So you are saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for the sins of the ‘tribulation saints’???

No I wasn’t saying that at all. They just missed the Rapture of the Church before the revealing of anti-Christ. They will be raised at the end of the Tribulation with all the other Tribulation saints. All sins are paid for in Christ but that does not mean everyone goes in the Rapture of the Church. The Tribulation saints became saints after the Rapture because that would have been one of the events that kick started them into their faith in Christ in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are reading the Rapture into 4:1 - it says nothing about the Rapture. All it says is that John was called into heaven to hear about the future. John heard the sound of the trumpet when Christ first appeared to him on the isle, but that did not signify a rapture: 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

Rev 1:10 was not the ‘last’ trump before anti-Christ is revealed though. The last trump before anti-Christ is revealed is in Chapter 4 verse 1. John was caught up as a type of the Church being caught up. The Church is not appointed unto wrath as taught by the Old Testament type of the Rock in the wilderness. For the Church to be here during the pouring out of God’s wrath is to strike the body of Christ twice. Once was enough, hence the lifting out of the Church before the man of sin can be revealed. The revealing of the man of sin in rev 6:1 is when God’s wrath is starting to be poured out. Part of this pouring out of wrath is to reveal the man of sin, by which time the Church must be taken out of the way as it is not appointed unto wrath. Christ took the wrath of God on Himself for us. Those with faith in this work are members of His body – The Church which is not appointed unto wrath.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you are saying the Jews saved in this supposed post-Rapture time are not part of the Church, not those whom Christ loved and gave Himself for?

Yes they are but they missed the Rapture of the Church due to their lack of faith in Christ before the Rapture. Only after the catching away of the saints will their eyes be opened to what they had obviously rejected previously. They now must go through tribulation and be raised at its culmination once they hold fast to their new found testimony.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How then are they saved?

The same way everyone else gets saved. Faith in God’s Word. The difference being that now they are in the time of tribulation The Great Tribulation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How come Paul says the believing Gentiles and believing Jews are both grafted into the same stock?

Israel is the original stock. God divorced Israel and married the Church. The Church is the wild olive branch grafted onto the original trunk. Once He is finished dealing with the Church He will then take it home and turn His attention back to the original House of Israel. That's why it is also called Jacob’s trouble. God is now dealing with the original stock again after 2000 years of dealing with the Church.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don’t you think that a good understanding of the plain teaching on the Last Days would be a better place to start, than trying to understand the figurative books by the dimmer light of the O.T. types? I mean, such statements as Paul’s on the Day of rescue for us and wrath for the wicked as found in 2 Thess. 1; and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3.

I wouldn’t say that the OT books were dim lights. On the contrary, they shed much light on the last day events. Coupled with the NT books that refer to the same last day events you can paint quite a vivid picture of the outcome. Revelation states that wisdom is called for when studying these events. Other books in God’s Word must be taken into account in order to paint an accurate picture of last day events. Those who only use Revelation paint themselves into dangerous corners. Remember no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation. It must all be taken into account together like a jigsaw. One piece does not reveal the whole picture. It is vital to remember this when studying OT and NT eschatology otherwise you will end up in error as many a prophecy preacher has done over the centuries

wolfsbane wrote: »

What knowledge of the so called Lost Tribes do you mean? Are you talking about British Israelism?

Not the cult but there is a basis for the case that the Celtic tribes are none other than the Lost Tribes of Israel. Remember God divorced Israel and said that they would go to a land where they would not be known as His people and not be recipients of His mercy but in the land that they would be scattered they would become sons of the living God. Now you tell me which race of people fulfils this prophecy of Scripture? The Celts were known as barbarians (not God’s people) but in time they became the Christian nations (Sons of God) that spread the Gospel of the Son of God worldwide. Plus the Celts arrive on the stage of history in the exact same spot as where the Tribes of Israel disappeared. The area southwest of the Caucuses Mountains. Same people? My guess is yes they are or a population clash of gargantuan proportions took place. Anyway this is way way off topic and would need a new thread to discuss it properly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is a false Church already making much of one man as its infallible head. If he were to point to a Deliverer, he might persuade many.

Now you are on the same page as me in your thinking

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I don’t know if it is the one. Maybe someone from the Tele-evangelist ‘miracle-workers’? There are plenty who already swallow all their signs and lying wonders.

Too small to have global influence. You were on the right track in your previous comment.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is all a complex subject, but one our Lord expects us to study, pray and watch about. Good to discuss these things with you.

It is indeed. Likewise with you

wolfsbane

Soulwinner said:

First off sorry for not replying sooner. I was really sick all last week. Better now thank God.

Praise Him indeed. Even our afflictions further His good purpose for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Soul Winner Said:

So you are saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for the sins of the ‘tribulation saints’???

No I wasn’t saying that at all. They just missed the Rapture of the Church before the revealing of anti-Christ. They will be raised at the end of the Tribulation with all the other Tribulation saints. All sins are paid for in Christ but that does not mean everyone goes in the Rapture of the Church.

I asked because you gave as a reason the Church could not go through the Tribulation: For the body of Christ to be here on earth when God pours out His wrath would be like God saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin. That the body of Christ must be struck twice. But you admit He atoned for the sins of those who do go through the Tribulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But you are reading the Rapture into 4:1 - it says nothing about the Rapture. All it says is that John was called into heaven to hear about the future. John heard the sound of the trumpet when Christ first appeared to him on the isle, but that did not signify a rapture: 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

Rev 1:10 was not the ‘last’ trump before anti-Christ is revealed though. The last trump before anti-Christ is revealed is in Chapter 4 verse 1. John was caught up as a type of the Church being caught up.

But who says it is such a type? You read that into the text. There is nothing there that demands such an interpretation.

The Church is not appointed unto wrath

True. But it is appointed to tribulation - to the hatred and violence of sinful men.

Is that not what the Great Tribulation is? Is it not Satan's final assault on the Church, via Antichrist? The Day of Wrath, when God avenges His saints is another matter. On that Day they are rescued, not destroyed.

Our Lord Jesus spoke of the End Times in plainer language:
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for allthese things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The beginning of sorrows is not the same as God's wrath in eternal judgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you are saying the Jews saved in this supposed post-Rapture time are not part of the Church, not those whom Christ loved and gave Himself for?

Yes they are

Good to hear you say that. But how then can you say, The Church is but a wild Olive branch grafted onto the stock of Israel the natural olive tree through the work of Christ.? That says the Church and saved Israel are different entities, that come together in the stock of Israel. But the truth is quite different, as the text shows: Paul is speaking to you Gentiles (v13), and you, being a wild olive tree (v17). The Church is not the wild olive branch - only the Gentiles are.

The Church is the stock of Israel - into which believing Jews and believing Gentiles are grafted. Abraham is the Father of us all. Not concerning the flesh, but the spirit. The promises to him concerned spiritual things primarily.

Israel is the original stock. God divorced Israel and married the Church.

He did the nation after the flesh - but never believing Israel. Note: the unbelieving branches (unbelieving Israelites) were broken off from the Israel of God. It was not divorced.

The Church is the wild olive branch grafted onto the original trunk.

As above, the Church is not what is grafted in - it is the believing Gentiles who are. The Church is the Israel of God, now in its maturity. Israel in its childhood contained believer and unbeliever, under Moses' discipline. Now it contains only believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Unbelieving Jew and Gentiles, if they turn to the Lord, will be grafted in. The Jew is then returning to the position he lost by unbelief.

Once He is finished dealing with the Church He will then take it home and turn His attention back to the original House of Israel. That's why it is also called Jacob’s trouble. God is now dealing with the original stock again after 2000 years of dealing with the Church.

God deals with the nation of Israel by grafting them into the Church. That's why the Church, His sole spouse, will be here to the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Don’t you think that a good understanding of the plain teaching on the Last Days would be a better place to start, than trying to understand the figurative books by the dimmer light of the O.T. types? I mean, such statements as Paul’s on the Day of rescue for us and wrath for the wicked as found in 2 Thess. 1; and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3.

I wouldn’t say that the OT books were dim lights. On the contrary, they shed much light on the last day events. Coupled with the NT books that refer to the same last day events you can paint quite a vivid picture of the outcome.

The OT is expanded upon by the NT, the types and shadows revealed in their true gospel light. That's why it took so much to convince the Jewish church about the full entrance of the Gentiles into the promises. The Holy Spirit had to open the OT Scriptures to them.

Revelation states that wisdom is called for when studying these events. Other books in God’s Word must be taken into account in order to paint an accurate picture of last day events. Those who only use Revelation paint themselves into dangerous corners. Remember no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation. It must all be taken into account together like a jigsaw. One piece does not reveal the whole picture. It is vital to remember this when studying OT and NT eschatology otherwise you will end up in error as many a prophecy preacher has done over the centuries

Indeed so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What knowledge of the so called Lost Tribes do you mean? Are you talking about British Israelism?

Not the cult but there is a basis for the case that the Celtic tribes are none other than the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Some interesting coincidences - but for me the plain statements of the NT convince me the 10 tribes were not lost, and were part of the nation addressed by Christ and the apostles, e.g.

Luke 2:36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;

Acts 26:7 To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews.

James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
There is a false Church already making much of one man as its infallible head. If he were to point to a Deliverer, he might persuade many.

Now you are on the same page as me in your thinking

:):)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I don’t know if it is the one. Maybe someone from the Tele-evangelist ‘miracle-workers’? There are plenty who already swallow all their signs and lying wonders.

Too small to have global influence. You were on the right track in your previous comment.

But if a 'super-apostle' arrived?

Again, a wonderful subject to study with a brother.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

Soul Winner

wolfsbane wrote: »

I asked because you gave as a reason the Church could not go through the Tribulation: For the body of Christ to be here on earth when God pours out His wrath would be like God saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin. That the body of Christ must be struck twice. But you admit He atoned for the sins of those who do go through the Tribulation.

He also atoned for the sins of those who are not going to be saved. He died for everyone but that does not mean everyone gets to heaven. I don’t know who is going to get to heaven but God has guaranteed that those with faith in His Word will get there. Those with faith in His Word at the time of the Rapture are the Church will go up. Those left behind who eventually come to faith but had no faith prior to the rapture will be raised at the culmination of the tribulation period. They come to faith only after the rapture of the church takes place and the man of sin is revealed, they must now hold fast to the truth which they have received unto death if needs be.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But who says it is such a type? You read that into the text. There is nothing there that demands such an interpretation.

The key to the book of Revelation is in Rev 1.19: “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;”

The things which he has seen are in written down in Rev 1:1 to Rev 1:19. The things which are i.e. the Churches are written down in Rev 2:1 to Rev 3:22 and the things which shall be hereafter are written down in Rev 4:1 to the last verse in the last chapter. There is no other mention of the churches after chapter 3 verse 22, we only see them again when they are coming back behind Christ in Rev 19 as His bride. The Church is the bride of Christ. You must gel what it says in the book of Revelation to what Paul says in his epistles about the same events. Paul says that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the force which holds him back is taken out of the way. The rapture of the church takes place at the last trump. When you see that the start of God pouring out His wrath on this earth is in Rev 6:1 where the first seal is opened and the man of sin is revealed only then can you back track and see that John in Rev 4:1 is none other than a type of the Church caught up into Heaven which see these remaining events taking place as onlookers in Heaven not appointed unto wrath.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True. But it is appointed to tribulation - to the hatred and violence of sinful men.

Yes it is but that is not the same as tribulation from God which is always distinguished as Tribulation The Great Tribulation. This is a seven year period of God’s wrath being poured out on those who reject Christ. Many will be saved out of this period of tribulation period but they will pay with their lives to obtain it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is that not what the Great Tribulation is? Is it not Satan's final assault on the Church, via Antichrist? The Day of Wrath, when God avenges His saints is another matter. On that Day they are rescued, not destroyed.

Like I said above many will be saved in this period but will pay with their lives. God allows evil to run amok on this earth in this last seven year period of our present age. The end of which will usher in a new age. Christ’s Kingdom on Earth. During this millennial reign of Christ, Satan will be chained in the abyss only to be loosed again for a short season at its culmination. Then God makes all things new.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our Lord Jesus spoke of the End Times in plainer language:
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for allthese things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

None of that conflicts with what I’m saying though. If you read Rev 14:6 you’ll notice that it is an Angel not the Church who does this Gospel proclaiming. “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” The Church is gone before God starts pouring out His wrath. Those who recognise Christ as a result of this will be saved during this period. The Church that has proclaimed Christ up to this point are taken home and not appointed unto this particular Tribulation which is Tribulation from God Himself not Satan or the world per se although they are used to accomplish God’s purposes. God is in control of all of it, including limiting Satan and his minion’s abilities in this time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The beginning of sorrows is not the same as God's wrath in eternal judgement.

I never said it was. The beginning of sorrows is but the prelude to God’s wrath being poured out. We can know when it is close, as is the case today in the world. Famines, earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars etc. They are all happening now and every year they increase in intensity but the time of God’s wrath is not yet, but it is close because we are in the period of sorrows or labour pains.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good to hear you say that. But how then can you say, The Church is but a wild Olive branch grafted onto the stock of Israel the natural olive tree through the work of Christ.? That says the Church and saved Israel are different entities, that come together in the stock of Israel. But the truth is quite different, as the text shows: Paul is speaking to you Gentiles (v13), and you, being a wild olive tree (v17). The Church is not the wild olive branch - only the Gentiles are.

The Church is the stock of Israel - into which believing Jews and believing Gentiles are grafted. Abraham is the Father of us all. Not concerning the flesh, but the spirit. The promises to him concerned spiritual things primarily.


He did the nation after the flesh - but never believing Israel. Note: the unbelieving branches (unbelieving Israelites) were broken off from the Israel of God. It was not divorced.


As above, the Church is not what is grafted in - it is the believing Gentiles who are. The Church is the Israel of God, now in its maturity. Israel in its childhood contained believer and unbeliever, under Moses' discipline. Now it contains only believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Unbelieving Jew and Gentiles, if they turn to the Lord, will be grafted in. The Jew is then returning to the position he lost by unbelief.


God deals with the nation of Israel by grafting them into the Church. That's why the Church, His sole spouse, will be here to the end.


The OT is expanded upon by the NT, the types and shadows revealed in their true gospel light. That's why it took so much to convince the Jewish church about the full entrance of the Gentiles into the promises. The Holy Spirit had to open the OT Scriptures to them.

Some interesting coincidences - but for me the plain statements of the NT convince me the 10 tribes were not lost, and were part of the nation addressed by Christ and the apostles, e.g.

Luke 2:36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;

Acts 26:7 To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews.

James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

:):)

But the Church is primarily gentile. Gentiles literally means any nation other than the Jewish nation. Paul was Christ’s apostle to these non Jews. Matt 10:5-6 says: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Why are the gentile (non Jewish or non house of Judah) house of Israel called lost in this verse? Because God divorced Israel. Jeremiah 3:8 “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries.”

Here’s where He did it:

Hosea 1:6-11 “Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call her Lo-Ruhamah, for I will no longer show love to the house of Israel, that I should at all forgive them. Yet I will show love to the house of Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but by the LORD their God." After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. Then the LORD said, "Call him Lo-Ammi, for you are not my people, and I am not your God. "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.”

This re-uniting happens when Matt 10:5-6 is fulfilled hence Acts 16:6: “Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia”

They were to go to these lost sheep first.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if a 'super-apostle' arrived?

He’d want to be super-super apostle if he is going to come from any other church other than the biggest and most powerful church in the world today. Put yourself in Satan’s shoes, if all the church institutions in the world suddenly became void of any true church members due to the rapture and could be taken over completely by you without any resistance which one would you pick? Southern Baptist or the RCC?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, a wonderful subject to study with a brother.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

A true saying indeed. These forums are great for learning new things and reinforcing what you already believe to be true.

Kanoe

dont know if he's been nominated yet but the paul guy who fell on the road to damascus

Kanoe

the more I think about it, Jesus is certainly in the running

Soul Winner

zxy wrote: »

the more I think about it, Jesus is certainly in the running

So which is it? Paul or Jesus? Don't be shy. By all means please elaborate. You are allowed to put forth supportive arguments as to why you hold this/these views.

Kanoe

Soul Winner wrote: »

So which is it? Paul or Jesus? Don't be shy. By all means please elaborate. You are allowed to put forth supportive arguments as to why you hold this/these views.

k

We are taught from the book of Revelation that in the last days the man of sin or the Beast AKA the Antichrist or more literally "Substitute Christ" (the word Christ means deliverer so he’ll be a substitute or false deliverer) will be revealed and turn out to be very nasty individual indeed but it is the false prophet who makes everybody to take his mark not the man of sin himself and we know that the false prophet (Rev13:11-17) looks like a lamb (Christ like) because he has two horns but gets his message form the dragon which is none other than Satan himself.

the book of revelations was relevant 200 years ago. No doubt you will inform me it as relevant today, as it happens somebody is always being persecuted by somebody else whether it was Rome to the church in the first century or whether it is Bush to the Iraqi's today. Paul, as a roman, was in a position to monopolize christianity and utimately did so (intentionally or not) and today we have billions who live under the godhead given to us by "the church", as oppose to "the christ". I'm sure none of this information is new to you or anybody who has asked the same question. Regardless, I would still argue that what people have gained through their worship as RC's is still valid and doesn't negate their knowing of and relationship with the divine concept.

This false prophet would have to be a pretty powerful world leader of a pretty powerful world wide organisation (Christian) in order to be able to get so many people to worship the beast and take his mark. We know it is a Christian organisation because it looks like Christ (a lamb) and as always through out history Satan is the great imitator who always comes as angel of light rather than as himself.

and then there's Jesus. If the Christ is a concept of a divine nature then we can all claim it as it is inherantly within each of us. It should always be and always have been open and accesible to everyone and not have a name placed on its ownership. Your comment above made me consider the possibility that Jesus became a substitute for Christ.

So we have a very powerful Christian individual who is head of a very powerful Christian institution who exercises great power and performs many wonders and miracles on the earth.

My question is who do you guys think it could possibly be if lets say here were to arrive on the scene tomorrow? And why do think that?

(To those of you who don’t believe in all this stuff it would be appreciated if you could respectfully bow out of this discussion but you are more

wolfsbane

Soul Winner said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I asked because you gave as a reason the Church could not go through the Tribulation: For the body of Christ to be here on earth when God pours out His wrath would be like God saying that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin. That the body of Christ must be struck twice. But you admit He atoned for the sins of those who do go through the Tribulation.

He also atoned for the sins of those who are not going to be saved. He died for everyone but that does not mean everyone gets to heaven. I don’t know who is going to get to heaven but God has guaranteed that those with faith in His Word will get there. Those with faith in His Word at the time of the Rapture are the Church will go up. Those left behind who eventually come to faith but had no faith prior to the rapture will be raised at the culmination of the tribulation period. They come to faith only after the rapture of the church takes place and the man of sin is revealed, they must now hold fast to the truth which they have received unto death if needs be.

Doesn't answer the question: why should going through the Tribulation show that what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to atone for sin? Indeed, you are now saying He died for everyone, including all who will not only endure wrath in the Tribulation but also in hell. If that is so, then there is no reason why the Church should not go through the Tribulation.

The key to the book of Revelation is in Rev 1.19: “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;”

The things which he has seen are in written down in Rev 1:1 to Rev 1:19. The things which are i.e. the Churches are written down in Rev 2:1 to Rev 3:22 and the things which shall be hereafter are written down in Rev 4:1 to the last verse in the last chapter.

Hereafter when? After John's death? After the Church has gone to heaven? The scenes in Revelation are not sequential - they are repeated with new details or a new focus.

You must gel what it says in the book of Revelation to what Paul says in his epistles about the same events.

Indeed.

Paul says that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the force which holds him back is taken out of the way. The rapture of the church takes place at the last trump.

Indeed - the last trump. Where would that be in relation to the Seven Trumpets? Would it not be the seventh, Rev.11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

When you see that the start of God pouring out His wrath on this earth is in Rev 6:1 where the first seal is opened and the man of sin is revealed only

But is this the man of sin?

then can you back track and see that John in Rev 4:1 is none other than a type of the Church caught up into Heaven which see these remaining events taking place as onlookers in Heaven not appointed unto wrath.

So the 'Tribulation saints' are appointed to wrath?

Yes it is but that is not the same as tribulation from God which is always distinguished as Tribulation The Great Tribulation. This is a seven year period of God’s wrath being poured out on those who reject Christ. Many will be saved out of this period of tribulation period but they will pay with their lives to obtain it.

Many in the apostolic age and since have paid exactly the same price. Were they too appointed to wrath?

None of that conflicts with what I’m saying though. If you read Rev 14:6 you’ll notice that it is an Angel not the Church who does this Gospel proclaiming. “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.”

So it will literally be an angel who proclaims the gospel? Not converted Jews? Not converted Gentiles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The beginning of sorrows is not the same as God's wrath in eternal judgement.

I never said it was. The beginning of sorrows is but the prelude to God’s wrath being poured out. We can know when it is close, as is the case today in the world. Famines, earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars etc. They are all happening now and every year they increase in intensity but the time of God’s wrath is not yet, but it is close because we are in the period of sorrows or labour pains.

Our Lord then says: Matt.24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Who are the 'you' He speaks to?

But the Church is primarily gentile.

Yes, numerically, but not in origin.

Gentiles literally means any nation other than the Jewish nation. Paul was Christ’s apostle to these non Jews. Matt 10:5-6 says: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Why are the gentile (non Jewish or non house of Judah) house of Israel called lost in this verse?

Good question. The answer: because they were spiritually lost, needed to repent and have faith in their Messiah. The Jewish nation in Paul's day was composed of all the tribes of Israel. Do you think Christ was telling the disciples not to go to Judah and Benjamin, but only to the 'lost' 10 tribes? How long would it have taken them to travel to Galatia or Europe?

No, they went only throughout the land of Israel.

This re-uniting happens when Matt 10:5-6 is fulfilled hence Acts 16:6: “Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia”

They were to go to these lost sheep first.

You will note that the disciples had already obeyed Christ in His time on Earth:
Luke 9:1 Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. 2 He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3 And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.
4 “Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. 5 And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”
6 So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. That's the parallel passage to the one mentioning the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if a 'super-apostle' arrived?

He’d want to be super-super apostle if he is going to come from any other church other than the biggest and most powerful church in the world today. Put yourself in Satan’s shoes, if all the church institutions in the world suddenly became void of any true church members due to the rapture and could be taken over completely by you without any resistance which one would you pick? Southern Baptist or the RCC?

That's a strong point - even in my scenario where the real Christians are driven out of the churches and endure imprisonment and martyrdom in the Great Tribulation.