How to identify the AC in the book of Revelation using the book of Daniel!

[Douggg]

No person is ten kingdoms within 7 mountains. The beast is an empire. The person is the second beast. Exactly as we find in Daniel 7. You get Daniel 7 right, but somehow you can't see the same thing in Rev 13.

When you go to the second derivation of the text - that is where you go wrong.

First derivative:
The ten horns are ten kings.

Second derivative (adding to the text, changing the meaning):
the ten kings are ten kingdoms.

The ten horns are ten kings - not ten kingdoms.
__________________________________________________________

The beast coming out of the sea in Revelation 13 - just like in Daniel 7 is a kingdom. And just like in Daniel 7 the beast is also a king.

The later passages in the bible following Daniel7, add more and more information about the little horn person. When it gets to Revelation, the information about the person has been completed.

So you can't take Daniel 7 and equate it directly with the beast in Revelation.

 

[ewq1938]

When you go to the second derivation of the text - that is where you go wrong.

First derivative:
The ten horns are ten kings.

Second derivative (adding to the text, changing the meaning):
the ten kings are ten kingdoms.

The ten horns are ten kings - not ten kingdoms.

Kings have kingdoms. Allow me to show you the ten kings also have kingdoms:

ev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

The beast coming out of the sea in Revelation 13 - just like in Daniel 7 is a kingdom. And just like in Daniel 7 the beast is also a king.

Yes a king comes after the beast kingdom and that king is always the little horn and the false prophet. Those are the same king who rules over the beast kingdom. In Rev 13, you insert another person that does not exist and that the text does not speak of. That's the issue here.

So you can't take Daniel 7 and equate it directly with the beast in Revelation.

If we don't, we get the error of a second person the text does not speak on in either book.

In both books, there is one beast kingdom, and one king that controls it. There is no second in command in either book. There is the first beast in both, and someone else called little horn in Daniel, and FP in Rev.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


Jesus was a true Christ and a true prophet so one person can be both Christ and a prophet. The Antichrist will also claim to be Christ but be a false christ, and he will be a false prophet as well. Here Jesus warns that in the end times there will be "great signs and wonders". Compare that to what is said about the false prophet of Rev 13:

Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


"he doeth great wonders" "miracles which he had power to do"


In the end times, during the tribulation, Jesus said false christs and false prophets "shall shew great signs and wonders" and Revelation says about the false prophet, "he doeth great wonders" "miracles which he had power to do".

Jesus was speaking of the false prophet of Revelation as being an Antichrist which makes him The Antichrist.

Jesus = lamb of God

false Christ = lamb of dragon

 

[Erik Nelson]

Daniel 8, speaks of the "REBELLION that causes Desolation" in the temple. Interpreted as the Desolation of the temple during the days of Antiochus in the second century BC.

Offer that informs our understanding of the "ABOMINATION of Desolation" in Daniel 9, arguably Titus's destruction of the temple in the first century AD. The choice of language would imply some more extreme rebellion?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Daniel 9:26-27
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary... In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Daniel 7:24-25
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

Daniel 12
“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. [= REVELATION 12] And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever...

it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed...

And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

 

[Douggg]

Kings have kingdoms. Allow me to show you the ten kings also have kingdoms:

ev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

How do those verses show that the ten kings have kingdoms, plural, when it says their kingdom singular in the text?

Yes a king comes after the beast kingdom and that king is always the little horn and the false prophet. Those are the same king who rules over the beast kingdom. In Rev 13, you insert another person that does not exist and that the text does not speak of. That's the issue here.

It is one person who becomes the beast. It is the same person but in a different roles throughout his time.

In order of his progression, to his demise...

1. little horn (7th king, Revelation 17:10, of the Roman Empire)
2. prince who shall come (transitional role to becoming the Antichrist)
3. the Antichrist, King of Israel, for a while, anointed king by the false prophet
4. the revealed man of sin (transitional role to becoming the beast)
5. the beast (8th king, Revelation 17:11, of the Roman Empire)

Of the seven heads on the beast, the little horn person is the one head mortally wounded - i.e. killed - and when that head is healed, it is him coming back to life as the beast person. Everyone (except the saints) worships the beast person, for that reason.

The false prophet, a different person, has the world make an image, which will be a statue, of the first beast.
_______________________________________________________________________________

If we don't, we get the error of a second person the text does not speak on in either book.

In both books, there is one beast kingdom, and one king that controls it. There is no second in command in either book. There is the first beast in both, and someone else called little horn in Daniel, and FP in Rev.

The Daniel 7 beast is not an identical repeat in Revelation.

Daniel 7:
1. 10 horns
2. a little horn
3. one head, which had great iron teeth.

Revelation 13
1. 10 horns
2. 7 heads
a. one of which is mortally wounded
b. and comes back to life
3. has a body of a leopard, a mouth of a lion, feet of a bear

I can tell you an easy way to keep things straight. Envision the one head on the Daniel 7 beast as a large head.

Likewise, envision the mortally wounded head, but healed head in Revelation 13, as a large head. And the other six heads as smaller heads.

 

[tranquil]

Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Here a ten horned beast arises and after it rises the little horn who takes control of this ten horned kingdom.


Who do you think the little horn is in Revelation? The same guy that arises AFTER the ten horned beast rises up.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Same beast Daniel described but with the added 7 heads.


Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.


And here comes the little horn just like it is in Daniel.

Daniel - ten horned beast arises, little horn comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast.

Revelation - ten horned beast arises, false prophet comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast.

Neither book uses the term "Antichrist" but we know that same person is found in both books under a different name. Isn't it clear that the little horn and FP are the AC?

Same "players" and same order of appearance.

little horn = false prophet = antichrist.

the beast from the sea is given a mouth Revelation 13:5 = Daniel 7:20 little horn's blaspheming mouth

the beast from the earth (false prophet) is given a mouth/ speaks like a dragon Revelation 13:11

the image of the 1st beast is given a mouth - Revelation 13:15

the false prophet says to worship the 'mortally head wounded individual'

2 separate people: Apollyon & Abaddon // Death & Hades // man of sin & son of perdition

the 'beast from the sea' is led by the mortally head wounded individual

the beast from the earth says to worship the mortally head wounded individual

this mortally head wounded individual is the 'worthless shepherd' of Zechariah 11:15-17

15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.

17 “Woe to my worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm
and his right eye!
Let his arm be wholly withered,
his right eye utterly blinded!”
​

 

[Erik Nelson]

The Daniel 7 beast is not an identical repeat in Revelation.

Daniel 7:
1. 10 horns
2. a little horn
3. one head, which had great iron teeth.

Revelation 13
1. 10 horns
2. 7 heads
a. one of which is mortally wounded
b. and comes back to life
3. has a body of a leopard, a mouth of a lion, feet of a bear

I can tell you an easy way to keep things straight. Envision the one head on the Daniel 7 beast as a large head.

Likewise, envision the mortally wounded head, but healed head in Revelation 13, as a large head. And the other six heads as smaller heads.

can harmonize the accounts:

"all of the above"
"everybody's right"

10 horns, 7 heads, iron teeth, chimera body, etc.

 

[Douggg]

Daniel 8, speaks of the "REBELLION that causes Desolation" in the temple. Interpreted as the Desolation of the temple during the days of Antiochus in the second century BC.

Offer that informs our understanding of the "ABOMINATION of Desolation" in Daniel 9, arguably Titus's destruction of the temple in the first century AD. The choice of language would imply some more extreme rebellion?

Erik, what translation are you reading from?

 

[david shelby]

david, the term antichrist is not found anywhere in the Tanach, old testament in Christian language. It is a new testament term.

Its less than that, i.e. more narrow. Its a Johanine term for anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah. It doesn't refer to one coming bad guy. Its by conflating this term with Paul's "man of sin" that this absurd concept of a singular central "antichrist" was invented. If you want to identify someone talked about in Daniel with Paul's "man of sin" it would be less problematic than first conflating John's plural antichrist with Paul's "man of sin" and then identifying that as being in Daniel.

Being the "prince who shall come" gives information about how the person "becomes" the Antichrist.

This is just silly. The prince destroyed the temple and thus is clearly Titus.

It goes back to the little horn person in Daniel 8:9, who heads to the middle east, toward Israel with a strong army.

I don't believe Daniel 8 has to do with the same thing as Daniel 9.

The two main roles are:

(1) being the king of the Roman Empire in the end times, the EU. (as the little horn, and beast)
(2) being the king of Israel for a while. (as the Antichrist)

This is fringe speculation.

 

[Douggg]

the 'beast from the sea' is led by the mortally head wounded individual

the beast from the earth says to worship the mortally head wounded individual

I agree with this.

2 separate people: Apollyon & Abaddon // Death & Hades // man of sin & son of perdition

I am guessing you are making a comparison. But I don't think that is a good comparison because the man of sin also called the son of perdition is the same person, not 2 separate people.

 

[Douggg]

Its less than that, i.e. more narrow. Its a Johanine term for anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah. It doesn't refer to one coming bad guy. Its by conflating this term with Paul's "man of sin" that this absurd concept of a singular central "antichrist" was invented. If you want to identify someone talked about in Daniel with Paul's "man of sin" it would be less problematic than first conflating John's plural antichrist with Paul's "man of sin" and then identifying that as being in Daniel.

In 1John2, John was referring to people who were leaving Christianity. He was not speaking about people who had not yet come to belief that Jesus is the messiah. But about people who were Christians, but departed belief in Jesus. There is some more about such persons in Hebrew 6:4-6

John likened those people to the coming Antichrist, by calling them antichrists. A modern day example is on You Tube, an individual who once was a Christian pastor, but who left Christianity to become a Muslim and well known promoter of Israel, denying the deity of Jesus. You can look up videos the person posts, Yusuf Estes.

Here's the verse that John was talking about Christians who left Christianity.

1John2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

You can also read about these kind of persons in Luke 8:13-14.
_______________________________________________________________________________
david, it is not just man of sin in 2Thessalonians2:3-4. But the revealed man of sin, son of perdition.

The person when he commits the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God, does so when he has been in the role of being the King of Israel, the Antichrist, for around 3 years. The Jews during that time thinking he is the messiah and that they are living in the early stages of the messianic age of peace and safety. The reason for them saying "peace and safety" in 1Thessalonians5.

It will come as a great shock to them, and they will immediately disown the person. The act of betrayal to the Jews and the Mt. Sinai covenant, is in similitude to Judas betraying Jesus. Which Judas was likewise called the son of perdition. (I am not saying the person is Judas, btw).

______________________________________________________________________________

There can only be one actual coming Antichrist. Because the person has to be anointed the King of Israel in order to become the Antichrist.

Are you aware that there have only be 3 kings over united Israel ? And that each of them were anointed King by a prophet?

Saul and David, by Samuel. Solomon, by Nathan.

Which for that reason, the Jews (Judaism) expect the messiah to be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet... as they have told me.

Since they anticipate Elijah to come before the beginning of the messianic age, it would make sense that the known prophet to anoint the messiah would be Elijah.

Which points to the false prophet in Revelation 13, which it would appear to claim to be Elijah. But really is not. And it will be the false prophet who anoints the person as the King of Israel, making the person the Antichrist.

 

[Douggg]

This is just silly. The prince destroyed the temple and thus is clearly Titus.

Where is the prince who shall come - coming from? From the text of the bible.

Daniel 7, Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11 are about the same person. It is not Titus.

 

[david shelby]

Where is the prince who shall come - coming from?

From Rome. Because he's Titus.

 

[Douggg]

From Rome. Because he's Titus.

Where is Rome in relation to Jerusalem?

Daniel 9 in no way is referring to Titus because Titus has no function in Daniel 9 to even be mentioned. He did not confirm the covenant for 7 years. He did not violate the covenant in the middle part of the 7 years.

It does not say the prince who shall come is the leader of the army who destroys the city and sanctuary.

 

[david shelby]

Which for that reason, the Jews (Judaism) expect the messiah to be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet... as they have told me.

I don't believe there is going to be a fake Jewish messiah who will rebuild the temple and all that. After all, most Jews have given up believing in a messiah. The Reform movement says the Jews themselves as a corporate whole are the messiah and there is no personal messiah. Most of the rest are either saying that the Tanakh actually contains no prophecies about a messiah and that the rabbis made the whole concept of the messiah up to begin with; Or, they believe the messiah already came, and died in 1994, but either will or already did rise from the dead: That is, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Inasmuch as most Jews now believe this guy, who is dead, is the messiah, and inasmuch as I don't believe he's resurrected nor will resurrect, I don't think he's gonna be building the temple, so I don't think there's a coming future messianic claimant for the Jews who will do really anything. I think that as a new sort of "christianity" centered around this guy (who some of them are now saying is not distinct from God) emerges from Judaism in the modern day, its going to eventually separate out as a separate religion (like Christianity did), and it will have a massive effect on those Jews who remain Jews, such that the rest of the Jews are going to end up dropping the tenant of belief in a messiah altogether to distance themselves from this stuff. After two religions that worship a messiah as God develop out of Judaism, I think the Jews drop the concept of messiah for good.

 

[david shelby]

Where is Rome in relation to Jerusalem?

Daniel 9 in no way is referring to Titus because Titus has no function in Daniel 9 to even be mentioned. He did not confirm the covenant for 7 years. He did not violate the covenant in the middle part of the 7 years.

It does not say the prince who shall come is the leader of the army who destroys the city and sanctuary.

If you take the position that the messiah in Daniel 9 is Jesus, the 7 years would be the 3 years of his ministry and first 3 or 4 years of the church, and the "he" who is the subject of the "confirming" would be the messiah, not "the prince to come." It also would then be the messiah who would cut off the burnt offering and such in the middle (after the first 3 years) because they would be cut off validity-wise by Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice. Also, the phrase "and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator" would refer to the animal sacrifices that continued between Jesus' death and the final destruction of the temple.

If the anointed one in Daniel 9 were the rebellion's high priest, the war obviously didn't last only 1 year. If we said the war lasted 7 years, and in the middle the sacrifices ceased because of the chaos or because of how Rome had the city surrounded and they couldn't bring the sacrificial animals in, or something. I think it could be made to work.

Either way, there is no reason to transfer it to modern times as if its not fulfilled yet.

 

[Douggg]

I don't believe there is going to be a fake Jewish messiah who will rebuild the temple and all that. After all, most Jews have given up believe in a messiah. The Reform movement says the Jews themselves as a corporate whole are the messiah and there is no personal messiah. Most of the rest are either saying that the Tanakh actually contains no prophecies about a messiah and that the rabbis made the whole concept of the messiah up to begin with; Or, they believe the messiah already came, and died in 1994, but either will or already did rise from the dead: That is, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Inasmuch as most Jews now believe this guy, who is dead, is the messiah, and inasmuch as I don't believe he's resurrected nor will resurrect, I don't think he's gonna be building the temple, so I don't think there's a coming future messianic claimant for the Jews who will do really anything. I think that as a new sort of "christianity" centered around this guy emerged from Judaism in the modern day, its going to eventually separate out as a separate religion, and it will have a massive effect on those Jews who remain Jews, such that the rest of the Jews are going to end up dropping the tenant of belief in a messiah altogether to distance themselves from this stuff.

You are missing the whole concept of what it means to be the Antichrist. The concept is based on someone else being the Christ - "intead of and against" - that's what the prefix means - Jesus the true Christ. Which the Christ is a greek derivative meaning the messiah, the special anointed to be the King of Israel.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.


The Jews, Judaism, reject that Jesus is the messiah. They are looking for another.

I would recommend that you go to Judaism 101.org to learn what the Jews believe about the mashiach, messiah.
Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah

Learn about what they expect. Because it plays into why they will think the prince who shall come is their messiah. Which also connects to the little horn person in Daniel 8:9 coming from north and west of Israel. And who destroys many by peace in Daniel 8:25.

But if you are not educated about the concept of the Antichrist, and also what the Jews, Judaism, believe and expect, then you cannot make the connections.

 

[Douggg]

If you take the position that the messiah in Daniel 9 is Jesus, the 7 years would be the 3 years of his ministry and first 3 or 4 years of the church, and the "he" who is the subject of the "confirming" would be the messiah, not "the prince to come." It also would then be the messiah who would cut off the burnt offering and such in the middle (after the first 3 years) because they would be cut off validity-wise by Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice. Also, the phrase "and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator" would refer to the animal sacrifices that continued between Jesus' death and the final destruction of the temple.

If the anointed one in Daniel 9 were the rebellion's high priest, the war obviously didn't last only 1 year. If we said the war lasted 7 years, and in the middle the sacrifices ceased because of the chaos or because of how Rome had the city surrounded and they couldn't bring the sacrificial animals in, or something. I think it could be made to work.

Either way, there is no reason to transfer it to modern times as if its not fulfilled yet.

Does Jesus have anything to do with the completion of the 70 weeks in your view?

 

[david shelby]

You are missing the whole concept of what it means to be the Antichrist. The concept is based on someone else being the Christ - "intead of and against" - that's what the prefix means - Jesus the true Christ. Which the Christ is a greek derivative meaning the messiah, the special anointed to be the King of Israel.

Only John uses the term, and he doesn't use it that way. Rather, the concept of a false Christ is just called that, like when Jesus says in Matthew 24:25 "For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray" -- notice how many will coming claiming to be Christ or Messiah, not just one central big bad. So the modern "antichrist" notion is completely false, and is a misuse of the scriptural term antichrist, which John clearly defines:

2 John 1:7 (NRSV)
"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!"

So antichrist means there are many antichrists (deniers that Jesus had flesh), not one big bad false messianic claimant.