We which are ALIVE shall be caught up together in the clouds

R. Hartano, where in 2thessalonians2 does it say the man of sin is revealed by the confirming of the covenant? What I read is he is revealed as the man of sin by the going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God. Which is to happen in the middle part of the seven years - not at the beginning.

It is not saying in 2thessalonians2 revealed that he is the Antichrist, but as the man of sin, son of perdition. In other words, he is going to show betrayal, just as Judas betrayed Jesus as was called the son of perdition.

The betrayal of the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is not until the middle part of the 7 years (week).

R. Hartono said:

Antichrist will be revealed to the blind world admiring him in the beginning of the tribulation.
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.
The world will not realize he is the devil in disguise until the AOD in the mid part of the 7 years covenant.

Click to expand...

Well, he can't be both the beast and the devil because at Jesus's return the beast is thrown into the lake of fire - while, differently, Satan is cast into the bottomless pit.

And in Revelation 13, the person rules the world for 42 months in verse Revelation 13:5 - basically the second half of the seven years.

R. Hartono said:

2 Thes 2:7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the One who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be REVEALED.

Click to expand...

Revealed as the man of sin - not at the beginning of the 7 years, but near the middle of the seven years, when he stops the daily sacrifice (Daniel 9:27) goes into the temple sits, claiming to be God. 2Thessalonians2:4.

_____________________________________________________________________________

The point I am making is that the revealing of the person as the man of sin is not at the time he confirms the covenant to begin the 7 years. So it is not mandatory that the rapture take place before the confirming of the covenant. Although it could happen before then.

It may be that the rapture happens pre-70th week (commonly called pre-trib) or may be after the 7 years begin. The only requirement is that the rapture takes place before the Day of the Lord starts, which is triggered by the person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God. Which that specific event happens in the middle part of the seven years, near the latter part of the first half, which it can only be guesstimated as when because it is not known for certain.

Douggg said:

The point I am making is that the revealing of the person as the man of sin is not at the time he confirms the covenant to begin the 7 years. So it is not mandatory that the rapture take place before the confirming of the covenant. Although it could happen before then.

It may be that the rapture happens pre-70th week (commonly called pre-trib) or may be after the 7 years begin. The only requirement is that the rapture takes place before the Day of the Lord starts, which is triggered by the person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God. Which that specific event happens in the middle part of the seven years, near the latter part of the first half, which it can only be guesstimated as when because it is not known for certain.

Click to expand...

The revealing in the scripture is not clear enough to know exactly to what extent it happens - It may mean that a politician will enter upon the world stage of the political arena and gain positive attention in some sort of running for high political office - or maybe be instated as a result of some assassination or someone dying in some way .
In this way he is in the political spotlight and the world is familiar with who he is and where he comes from ---he has revealed himself to the world as someone who can serve the people in the way the people want - so in effect he is revealed
It is commonly held that the person that confirms the 7 year covenant will be the person who will be the Antichrist that will show himself at mid week to be the beast incarnate with satanic indwelling - people who are aware of how this works will understand that the person who confirms the covenant will be the beast even though he is not showing it at the time the covenant is confirmed

duplicate post deleted

duplicate post, deleted.

Douggg said:

Well, he can't be both the beast and the devil because at Jesus's return the beast is thrown into the lake of fire - while, differently, Satan is cast into the bottomless pit.

Click to expand...

Yes he can be both brother. Remember when satan entered into Judas?

Luke 22:
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

So, it seems to me that the beast will be indwelt by satan just as Judas was indwelt by satan. Do you see it? Satan is a separate entity indwelling the man of sin who will be cast into the lake of fire. Jesus will cast satan out of tshe man of sin and cast him into the abyss. We have see Lord Jesus do this in the gospels. He did it before, He will do it again.

I think the site is slow. I have clicked post reply twice and this post has not posted.So if you see it more than once, that is what happened.

Handmaid for Jesus said:

Yes he can be both brother. Remember when satan entered into Judas?

Luke 22:
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

So, it seems to me that the beast will be indwelt by satan just as Judas was indwelt by satan. Do you see it? Satan is a separate entity indwelling the man of sin who will be cast into the lake of fire. Jesus will cast satan out of tshe man of sin and cast him into the abyss. We have see Lord Jesus do this in the gospels. He did it before, He will do it again.

Click to expand...

Yes, Satan entered Judas - to carry out the act of betrayal - which Judas was also called the son of perdition.

When the Antichrist becomes magnified in his heart that he has achieved God-hood, Satan could likewise enter him to carry out that act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God, revealing himself as the man of sin, the son of perdition. And be in him, until God has the person killed in the Ezekiel 28:1-10, and subsequently ends up in hell in Isaiah 14, Satan with him. Which is possibly why in Isaiah 14, it seems to be referring to Satan, yet also a man.

_______________________________________________________________________________

My response in my previous post was meant to refer to when the person has gone through the revealing himself as the man of sin stage - which Satan could possibly enter him for that act - has been killed and brought back to life as the beast.

As the beast, the person is not incarnated by Satan, but by some disembodied spirit currently in the bottomless pit - a way that Satan empowers him. The war in the second heaven in Revelation 12 does not take place until the two witnesses are killed by the beast in Revelation 11. So the person has become the beast - while Satan is operating separate from him, and is in the second heaven at times.

seventysevens said:

The revealing in the scripture is not clear enough to know exactly to what extent it happens - It may mean that a politician will enter upon the world stage of the political arena and gain positive attention in some sort of running for high political office - or maybe be instated as a result of some assassination or someone dying in some way .
In this way he is in the political spotlight and the world is familiar with who he is and where he comes from ---he has revealed himself to the world as someone who can serve the people in the way the people want - so in effect he is revealed

Click to expand...

I understand the rationale you are making, but it is in order to defend the pre-70th week timing as mandatory. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the rapture can happen pre-70th week (commonly called pre-trib) and hope for the translation into our heavenly bodies as soon possible. All I am pointing out is - that it is not mandatory that the rapture has to happen pre-70th week.

The revealing of the person as the man of sin, son of perdition - is not the same as being aware of who the person is as far as his identity of being the Antichrist - which as you pointed out will be known when he confirms the covenant for 7 years.

While at that time, them familiar with the bible prophecy, it will be very apparent - but trying to convince the world accordingly is a different matter and is going to be met with mockery and animosity. And some countries may label such claims as being hate speech and made to be a crime.

In 2Thessalonians2, the revealing of the person is not as being the Antichrist, but as being the man of sin, son of perdition. Tied to beginning of the Day of the Lord - which takes both those two things in in 2Thessalonians2:3-4. The great falling away - then the person committing the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God.

So, it is inappropriate to use 2Thessalonians2 as a defense of the pre-70th week, pre-7 years, timing of the doctrine. On the other hand, 2Thessalonians2 can be used as a basis that the rapture has to take place before the Antichrist person commits the Transgression of Desolation act. Sometime near the end of the first half of the 7 years.

How far before the transgression of desolation act that the rapture happens is unknown. It could be anytime between now and when it actually takes place.

R. Hartono said:

Ive seen this kind where their wounds are healed immediately after their action, remember Rev 13 the beast healed its wound

Click to expand...

The phrase "was, and is not, yet is" in Revelation 17:8b has the meaning of was alive, is not alive, yet is alive. It is just another way of saying the person will be killed and come back to life witnessed by the people of the world at the time.

It is in similitude to how the language used to describe Jesus in Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Which is - meaning alive. Which was - Jesus at his first coming. Which is to come - Jesus at His second coming.

______________________________________________________________________________

Revelation 17 should be read as 17:8a for the ancient person currently in the bottomless pit.

17:8b for the end times person which people of the earth will witness being killed and brought back to life.

The task is to try and figure out who the ancient person is. And to figure out who the end times person is.... before he reaches the stage of becoming the beast. Which will be possible when he become the little horn, leader of the EU - once it goes to the ten leader form of government.

Revelation 17 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Well I see that you jumped right into assumption mode proclaiming I said things I did not say , I made no mention of a rapture . I've read most of the posts that you and others make of the timing of the AC and such - But more simply put we know that at the end of the 70th week Jesus returns to earth , we know that the 70th week is that very last 7 years of human run government , as Jesus is King on earth and He runs the show when He comes.
The 7 year covenant begins the 70th week , we read that at the mid week the person who has confirmed the covenant will betray that covenant and becomes the beast -

Before that happens he is the Man of Sin - But now he probably is just a guy somewhere in the world who holds some unknown office in the eastern side of the planet. But he must first make an entrance onto the world scene as no one knows who he is.It seems there is no one who is already established on the world stage of politics that fits the model of the Man of Sin . but he could suddenly be found in the news of some new election taking place.

Talking about 1260 days is fruitless if you don't have the exact start date , 1260 days from today obviously won't work . The obvious thing is that when the 7 year covenant is confirmed the person confirming it will be the same person that breaks the covenant in the mid-week .
People on the internet forums get so wrapped up in trying to be the authority of how the 7 year covenant will happen and the timing and all that you lose sight that first ; the man has to appear on the world stage so that the world comes to know him as a human person just like any other politician.
This does not mandate any timing of the rapture, but does indicate that scripture is telling us that the revealing of the the AC - (you should get used to the idea that people will make reference to the AC at the beginning of the 70th week simply to ID the person - NOT because of him being the beast at that time). I notice that you choose to try to correct people if they say the beast at the start of the 70th week when they don't mean he is playing the role of the beast at the start , some people balk at the term Antichrist , People should be more willing to try to relate to what a person's message is rather than pile on them because they did not say it in the same way you would have said it .

I am merely pointing out that when the Man who accepts the position of the ruler who confirms the covenant tells us that he is the (AC/beast to be) and it is directly tied to the restrainer who is taken out of the way - which is either the Church Body of Christ or the Holy Spirit - which suggests strongly of a rapture , if the Holy Spirit is leaving then the Church has to go as well

The great falling away is either apostasy happening Now - or it is as old bible used the term "departure" ,
The Greek word literally means to "stand away" Not fall away - you can interpret it as you so desire
No one has the topic perfectly timed out and no one will
I agree the rapture can happen at any moment , but the scripture reference of the restrainer being taken out of the way has deep meaning

Douggg said:

I understand the rationale you are making, but it is in order to defend the pre-70th week timing as mandatory. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the rapture can happen pre-70th week (commonly called pre-trib) and hope for the translation into our heavenly bodies as soon possible. All I am pointing out is - that it is not mandatory that the rapture has to happen pre-70th week.

The revealing of the person as the man of sin, son of perdition - is not the same as being aware of who the person is as far as his identity of being the Antichrist - which as you pointed out will be known when he confirms the covenant for 7 years.

While at that time, them familiar with the bible prophecy, it will be very apparent - but trying to convince the world accordingly is a different matter and is going to be met with mockery and animosity. And some countries may label such claims as being hate speech and made to be a crime.

In 2Thessalonians2, the revealing of the person is not as being the Antichrist, but as being the man of sin, son of perdition. Tied to beginning of the Day of the Lord - which takes both those two things in in 2Thessalonians2:3-4. The great falling away - then the person committing the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God.

So, it is inappropriate to use 2Thessalonians2 as a defense of the pre-70th week, pre-7 years, timing of the doctrine. On the other hand, 2Thessalonians2 can be used as a basis that the rapture has to take place before the Antichrist person commits the Transgression of Desolation act. Sometime near the end of the first half of the 7 years.

How far before the transgression of desolation act that the rapture happens is unknown. It could be anytime between now and when it actually takes place.

Click to expand...

Douggg said:

The phrase "was, and is not, yet is" in Revelation 17:8b has the meaning of was alive, is not alive, yet is alive. It is just another way of saying the person will be killed and come back to life witnessed by the people of the world at the time.

Click to expand...

Or it could mean this instead. From John's POV, meaning when he was initially seeing these visions, was would mean the past, and is not would mean the present, making yet is meaning the future still.

seventysevens said:

But more simply put we know that at the end of the 70th week Jesus returns to earth , we know that the 70th week is that very last 7 years of human run government , as Jesus is King on earth and He runs the show when He comes.
The 7 year covenant begins the 70th week , we read that at the mid week the person who has confirmed the covenant will betray that covenant and becomes the beast -

Click to expand...

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Daniel's people for a period of about 7 years before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.
This was the 70th week of Daniel, during the first century.

There is no antichrist, and no "gap" in Daniel chapter 9.


Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner


.

seventysevens said:

I am merely pointing out that when the Man who accepts the position of the ruler who confirms the covenant tells us that he is the (AC/beast to be) and it is directly tied to the restrainer who is taken out of the way - which is either the Church Body of Christ or the Holy Spirit - which suggests strongly of a rapture , if the Holy Spirit is leaving then the Church has to go as well

Click to expand...

The issue is not whether 2Thessalonians2:7 suggests a rapture, but whether it suggests a pre-70th week rapture. Which considering what Paul said in the prior verses, it does not.

I am pointing out in 2Thessalonians2, it is not the confirming of the covenant is what reveals the person as the man of sin - but the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God.

You can say it is when the person confirms the covenant is when the person is revealed as the man of sin - but that is not what is being said in 2Thessalonains2.

2Thessalonians2 speaks about the Day of Christ, the Day of the Lord, when it begins, what triggers it, and not being here when it begins....as far as Christians and the rapture goes.

2 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.

3 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;

4 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.

Not when he confirms the covenant.

1Thessalonians5 does the same thing, regarding the Day of the Lord beginning, and the rapture is in 1Thessalonians5:9-11. Neither of those chapters say or indicate the Day of the Lord begins with the confirming of the covenant.

In 1Thessalonians5, the world is saying peace and safety. So the confirming of the covenant has taken place, when they are saying peace and safety. And is the reason they are saying peace and safety. The indication is that Christians will be able to discern those times - and not be taken in - indicating that Christians could still be here after the covenant has been confirmed.

DavidPT said:

Or it could mean this instead. From John's POV, meaning when he was initially seeing these visions, was would mean the past, and is not would mean the present, making yet is meaning the future still.

Click to expand...

I am not understanding what you are saying.... by "these visions". In Revelation 17:8. John himself never peered into the bottomless pit and saw the beast down there. John was told by the angel.

What John himself saw was a woman riding a beast in the wilderness all the way through verse 6. That part we know that John saw for himself.


But starting in verse 7, John was subsequently told by the angel that the beast is in the bottomless pit. The beast's status at the time. Which would have been 1st century.

Concerning Revelation 17:8b the second mention of the beast, by the angel - that is future of John's time,

17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Douggg said:

I am pointing out in 2Thessalonians2, it is not the confirming of the covenant is what reveals the person as the man of sin - but the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God..

Click to expand...

Doug , I have not said at all that the confirming the covenant is what reveals the person as the man of sin- from scriptural teaching
I spoke in a 'speaking in a generalized manner"

seventysevens said:

People on the internet forums get so wrapped up in trying to be the authority of how the 7 year covenant will happen and the timing and all that you lose sight that first ; the man has to appear on the world stage so that the world comes to know him as a human person just like any other politician.
This does not mandate any timing of the rapture

Click to expand...

For some reason you are not following an easy thing to understand and you are not really closely reading what I said

1. No one knows what That Mans name is -so in order to talk about That Man we have to apply some verbiage to That Man so that it can be understood what man is being spoken of - as we cannot call him Tom , Dick or Harry because no one would know who that would be - so we have call call Him Something for the purpose that He is identified as to who the character is for the sake of ordinary common conversations- is this understood - comprede ?

2.That MAN who confirms the 7 year covenant is the Same Man who will break/betray the covenant that That Man confirmed which That Man will order the killing of the Jews all over Judea and surrounding areas ,

Since the scriptures call That Man the antichrist/Man of Sin/ Man of Lawlessness
IT IS COMMON that people will use one of these titles to identify That Man instead of calling him That Man - this is called "speaking in general terms" it has no intent to speak to when That Man in any time frame is showing himself to be the AC or the beast - but since you have become obsessed with the topic you have lost the ability to relate in 'generalized terms' .
I made it clear that I was not making any reference to any degree of the transition That Man would make his transition from a man coming in peace to his rise to become the beast .
I went to a lengthy extent to describe how a mild mannered Clark Kent type of man somewhere in the world would enter into the public eye and thus become known to the world as a man who would be liked by the people because he showed himself to be a servant of the people and people like him and he is able to come into a powerful political position .
It makes no sense at all that he would be playing the role of the beast from day one in office and I never said of any such thing - .

I was making a reference to That Man would not come onto the public scene as the man of sin , but for the sake of conversation expressing that True Christian Believers will be able to know that the person who does confirm the covenant will know that
That Man is the one who will be the man of sin because scripture tells us that the person who does confirm the covenant is the very person who will break the covenant at mid week time ....this is being stated in the same way as if you were to pick someone up and give them a ride to the airport and you knew how to identify the person by knowing he would be wearing a giraffe costume - get it ?

seventysevens said:

Doug , I have not said at all that the confirming the covenant is what reveals the person as the man of sin- from scriptural teaching
I spoke in a 'speaking in a generalized manner"

For some reason you are not following an easy thing to understand and you are not really closely reading what I said

1. No one knows what That Mans name is -so in order to talk about That Man we have to apply some verbiage to That Man so that it can be understood what man is being spoken of - as we cannot call him Tom , Dick or Harry because no one would know who that would be - so we have call call Him Something for the purpose that He is identified as to who the character is for the sake of ordinary common conversations- is this understood - comprede ?

2.That MAN who confirms the 7 year covenant is the Same Man who will break/betray the covenant that That Man confirmed which That Man will order the killing of the Jews all over Judea and surrounding areas ,

Since the scriptures call That Man the antichrist/Man of Sin/ Man of Lawlessness
IT IS COMMON that people will use one of these titles to identify That Man instead of calling him That Man - this is called "speaking in general terms" it has no intent to speak to when That Man in any time frame is showing himself to be the AC or the beast - but since you have become obsessed with the topic you have lost the ability to relate in 'generalized terms' .
I made it clear that I was not making any reference to any degree of the transition That Man would make his transition from a man coming in peace to his rise to become the beast .
I went to a lengthy extent to describe how a mild mannered Clark Kent type of man somewhere in the world would enter into the public eye and thus become known to the world as a man who would be liked by the people because he showed himself to be a servant of the people and people like him and he is able to come into a powerful political position .
It makes no sense at all that he would be playing the role of the beast from day one in office and I never said of any such thing - .

I was making a reference to That Man would not come onto the public scene as the man of sin , but for the sake of conversation expressing that True Christian Believers will be able to know that the person who does confirm the covenant will know that
That Man is the one who will be the man of sin because scripture tells us that the person who does confirm the covenant is the very person who will break the covenant at mid week time ....this is being stated in the same way as if you were to pick someone up and give them a ride to the airport and you knew how to identify the person by knowing he would be wearing a giraffe costume - get it ?

Click to expand...

What triggers the Day of the Lord? The person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God..... or the person confirming the covenant for 7 years?

Douggg said:

What triggers the Day of the Lord? The person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God..... or the person confirming the covenant for 7 years?

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I was saying , how you are not able to understand what I said is baffling !
But I will say that the first 3.5 years of the covenant will not be good at all , it is the time when the two witnesses appear and do their work and there will be some horrendous things happening during that time , much much worse than anything the world has seen yet - though not as bad as what will happen in the last 3.5 years

seventysevens said:

That has nothing to do with what I was saying , how you are not able to understand what I said is baffling !
But I will say that the first 3.5 years of the covenant will not be good at all , it is the time when the two witnesses appear and do their work and there will be some horrendous things happening during that time , much much worse than anything the world has seen yet - though not as bad as what will happen in the last 3.5 years

Click to expand...

I understand what you said.

But what you have said is not the criteria of 2Thessalonians2 of the rapture taking place before the Day of Lord as what is mandatory, not before the confirming of the covenant.

Which is why I ask you what triggers the Day of the Lord.

The confirming of the covenant is not what triggers the Day of the Lord. What triggers the Day of the Lord is the person going into the temple sitting, claiming to be God. The rapture has to happen before the Day of the Lord begins - not before the confirming of the covenant.... so the rapture may not happen before the confirming of the covenant according to the criteria of 2thessalonians2.