The Rapture

David Kent said:

There is nothing in that to support what you said earlier.

Click to expand...

David, you have to be more specific. I can't guess what you are talking about. I gave the exact verses out of Daniel 8 regarding the little horn.

The little horn will be the prince who shall come - from the north and west - into the middle east and the pleasant land Israel. He is of the Roman Empire people. In the end times, the EU.

He will also be a Jew by virtue of his mother being a Jew. The Jewish people will believe they are on doorstep of the messianic age following Gog/Magog (100% verifiable because of the two feasts in Ezekiel 39, the second of which is the Armageddon feast and Jesus speaking in verse 21).

In that environment, they will think the little horn person is their messiah and the false prophet will anoint him the King of Israel - who comes in his own name, God did not send him to be their king - and that is when and what makes him the Antichrist.

Playing the part of King of Israel, he will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant that the promised land has been given to the children of Israel as theirs forever - as required by Moses to be done on the 7 years shmita cycle, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Douggg said:

The coming Antichrist has to be and will be a Jew.

Them who John was saying that there were already many antichrists - going out from "us" that is the church, as you say, of all peoples, nationality's - John was likening them to the coming Antichrist because they were exhibiting the same traits. John was calling them therefore antichrists - not that they were the actual coming Antichrist.

Click to expand...

I cannot see why you state that Antichrist has to be a Jew. From the scriptures Antichrist comes from the ten kingdoms that overthrew Rome in the fifth century (the ten horns) That he is head of the Roman empire is plain. Five kings of the Romans had fallen at the time Revelation was written, one was, at that time The Emperors. One was to come, the Christian Emperors, and then the eighth who is the beast that was and is not (The Roman ruler) and yet is. That is the papacy. He is of the seven but different.
Christ is head of the Church, Antichrist is head of the Antichurch.

Douggg said:

David, you have to be more specific. I can't guess what you are talking about. I gave the exact verses out of Daniel 8 regarding the little horn.

The little horn will be the prince who shall come - from the north and west - into the middle east and the pleasant land Israel. He is of the Roman Empire people. In the end times, the EU.

He will also be a Jew by virtue of his mother being a Jew. The Jewish people will believe they are on doorstep of the messianic age following Gog/Magog (100% verifiable because of the two feasts in Ezekiel 39, the second of which is the Armageddon feast and Jesus speaking in verse 21).

In that environment, they will think the little horn person is their messiah and the false prophet will anoint him the King of Israel - who comes in his own name, God did not send him to be their king - and that is when and what makes him the Antichrist.

Playing the part of King of Israel, he will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant that the promised land has been given to the children of Israel as theirs forever - as required by Moses to be done on the 7 years shmita cycle, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Click to expand...

The prince who was to come, did come and his people did destroy the temple. He was a Roman and is people who destroyed were the Roman armies, and they are those that Daniel in Ch 11 said that it was the Romans who would be the AoD.

Jesus was the one who confirmed the covenant with the Jews.

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

• Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

David Kent said:

I cannot see why you state that Antichrist has to be a Jew. From the scriptures Antichrist comes from the ten kingdoms that overthrew Rome in the fifth century (the ten horns) That he is head of the Roman empire is plain. Five kings of the Romans had fallen at the time Revelation was written, one was, at that time The Emperors. One was to come, the Christian Emperors, and then the eighth who is the beast that was and is not (The Roman ruler) and yet is. That is the papacy. He is of the seven but different.
Christ is head of the Church, Antichrist is head of the Antichurch.

Click to expand...

David, okay the Pope is a bad guy and has done a lot of bad things for eons. A lot of his doctrines are self empowering plus incorporate wrong teachings. And could be considered a false prophet according to the biblical standard.

But the Pope is not and cannot be the Antichrist. The Pope cannot be the beast, either, The beast will be the King of the Roman Empire, the fourth Kingdom.

Here is the problem in these exchanges, which I think is a matter of communicating some concepts that I don't think I am getting across.

It is almost universal, that everyone refers to the arch villain of the end times and apocalypse as the Antichrist - in error - for all occasions.

The person is the Antichrist only for when he is occupying being in the role the King of Israel. He functions as the Antichrist only in relation to Israel. Israel is not the fourth empire. Israel is not the Roman Empire. Israel was occupied by the Romans.

Differently, the person when he is the little horn, the beast, the 7th and 8th king, it is as King of the Roman Empire, the fourth kingdom. In the end times, the end times version of the Roman Empire is the EU. It is not an exact clone of the historic Roman Empire. I know that. But it is the Kingdom that has emerged in the end times fulfilling the prophecy.
____________________________________________________________
To be in the Antichrist role - to be in that role of being the King of Israel, the person has to be a Jew, because only a Jew can be the King of Israel. The person can only be a Jew, if his mother is a Jew. That's what the Jews go by.

On a different track, being the King of the Roman Empire before and after his stint as the Antichrist King of Israel - the same person has to be descended from the Julio-Claudian line of Caesars.

The ten kings are ten kings of the fourth empire - nothing to do with kings of Israel, right?

Those ten kings will be ten leaders of the EU. The little horn will be leader over them, as King of the Roman Empire in the end times, descended from the Julio-Claudian family of Kings.

Try to think of the arch villain as:

Antichrist - as relative to Israel
little horn, 7th and 8th king, beast - as relative to the fourth empire, the Roman Empire, the EU
_______________________________________________________
David, allow me to interject here on the Pope...

Antichrist - as relative to Israel. The pope can't be King of Israel. Wrong ethnicity, wrong religion
_______________________________________________________

Most of Revelation, just about all of it, when it talks about the person, it is when the person is King of the Roman Empire, fourth kingdom, in the end times. Not for when he is the Antichrist, King of Israel.

Anti in front of Christ means instead of and against - Christ, Jesus the rightful Christ the rightful King of Israel.

Mark 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

David Kent said:

The prince who was to come, did come and his people did destroy the temple. He was a Roman and is people who destroyed were the Roman armies, and they are those that Daniel in Ch 11 said that it was the Romans who would be the AoD.

Click to expand...

David, when you take away the prince who shall come from being the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years - there is no reason for him being in the text. He has no function in the text of Daniel 9.

The same with "of the people". The only reason that "of the people" is there is to help in identifying the prince who would come - and confirm the covenant, then in the middle of the week violate it.

David Kent said:

Jesus was the one who confirmed the covenant with the Jews.

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

• Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say for 7 years, does it?

Here is the for 7 years that the person will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant, which the daily sacrifice will be started again and then stopped in the middle of the week.

Moses was making his last big speech as the Israelites were about to cross over the Jordan to possess the promised land...

Deuteronomy 31:
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, [David, Moses set up that seven year cycle requirement right there]

11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. [David, I have talked to the Jews about the place of God's choosing. They told me the temple mount]

12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

David, the confirming of the covenant for 7 years, it is a big speech of remembrance, confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant that God gave them the promised land of Israel as theirs forever. It will be made by the Antichrist from the temple mount following Gog/Magog.
,

Douggg said:

David, when you take away the prince who shall come from being the one who confirms the covenant for 7 years - there is no reason for him being in the text. He has no function in the text of Daniel 9.

The same with "of the people". The only reason that "of the people" is there is to help identifying the prince who would come and confirm the covenant, then in the middle of the week violate it.

Click to expand...

You completely overlook the fact that the Prince is not the subject of that verse. His people are. so let us look at it like this.
(The people of the prince who is to come) the Roman armies will, etc. And he, Messiah the prince will confirm the covenant with many, the Jews for one week.

The "he" cannot refer to the prince as he is not the subject, his people are.

David Kent said:

You completely overlook the fact that the Prince is not the subject of that verse.

Click to expand...

The people are emphasized as the ones who destroy the temple and city - because the prince who shall come was not to be of that era, but end times.

It says the people of the prince who shall come - because now looking back at history, knowing it was the Romans, that we can make the connection as the prince being the little horn of the end times.

David Kent said:

No it is you that is flat out wrong.

In Matthew 23, Jesus told the Pharisees that there house was left desolate, and that all those things would all come on that generation. On leaving the temple, the disciples were amazed at that and drew his attention to the great stones, some 25 metres long, How could that be? they said. Jesus said "Not one stone would be left upon another.", They asked what would be the sign for it, and when would that happen, He said the sign was when they saw the abomination of desolation stand where it should no, that is when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke). The time was to be before that current generation passed away.

All fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Great Tribulation spoken about by Jesus has Not happened - you have no clue at all - you have no idea about it - not wasting anymore time with you - believe whatever you wish

Douggg said:

The time period of the little horn is specified. The daily sacrifice will be started, then stopped, the temple desolated, the temple cleansed of the little horn, within a specified 2300 day period. At the time of the end.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Click to expand...

The passage corresponds to the historical events and the 2300 day duration associated with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

There is no prince identified in the passage as being the little horn, thus no correlation with Daniel 9:24-27.

The end is not the end of time, but of the indignation i.e. of the indignities committed by Antiochus:
Daniel 8:19
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

Douggg said:

The little horn is time of the end. Time of the end is characterized in Daniel 12 as when men run to and fro, and knowledge increased. By virtue of the computer and internet.

Click to expand...

The time of the end of the little horn in Daniel 8 refers to the end of Antiochus' indignities.

Douggg said:

You wrote that the messiah's people are the Jews and the Romans. The prince who shall come's people are the Romans, not the messiah's.

Click to expand...

Messiah was the prince who came. His people to accomplish His judgment and destruction were the Romans and the Jews.


It is conclusively evident that there is no correlation between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9.

jgr said:

The passage corresponds to the historical events and the 2300 day duration associated with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

There is no prince identified in the passage, thus no correlation with Daniel 9:24-27.

The end is not the end of time, but of the indignation i.e. of the indignities committed by Antiochus:
Daniel 8:19
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.



The time of the end of the little horn in Daniel 8 refers to the end of Antiochus' indignities.



Messiah was the prince who came. His people to accomplish His judgment and destruction were the Romans and the Jews.


It is conclusively evident that there is no correlation between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9.

Click to expand...

It is not Antiochus who is the little horn. The little horn person it says in Daniel 8 will stand up against Jesus, which the beast in Revelation will do.

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Which in 2Thessalonians2:8 the person meets his end when Jesus returns, but not by hand.

2Thessalonians2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Douggg said:

The little horn person it says in Daniel 8 will stand up against Jesus

Click to expand...

Which is what Antiochus did.

Douggg said:

Which in 2Thessalonians2:8 the person meets his end when Jesus returns, but not by hand.

2Thessalonians2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Click to expand...

No correlation between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Daniel 8. Two different individuals at two different times.

jgr said:

Which is what Antiochus did.

Click to expand...

Antiochus didn't even stand up to the senior Roman representative...


from wikepedia.....
In 168 BC, a Roman Consul named Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a circular line in the sand around King Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire, then said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" – implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus wisely decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.

The time of the end of the little horn in Daniel 8 refers to the end of Antiochus' indignities.

Click to expand...

That's like saying the end of the indignities is the end of the indignities - meaningless.

The time of the end is the end of the age.

Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Daniel 8
Daniel 9
Daniel 11
Daniel 12

All end with Jesus's return.

Douggg said:

Antiochus didn't even stand up to the senior Roman representative...


from wikepedia.....
In 168 BC, a Roman Consul named Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a circular line in the sand around King Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire, then said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" – implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus wisely decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.



That's like saying the end of the indignities is the end of the indignities - meaningless.

The time of the end is the end of the age.

Click to expand...

Didn't prevent him standing up to God.

He did ultimately pay the price.

jgr said:

Didn't prevent him standing up to God.

He did ultimately pay the price.

Click to expand...

Antiochus didn't stand up to God. Antiochus is a minor figure in the history of the world. His kingdom was not that big.

Differently, the little horn who becomes the beast in Revelation will lead the armies of the world to try and fight Jesus - the Prince of Princes, who Jesus will be visible to the entire world at that time, in heaven before the throne of God.

Douggg said:

Antiochus didn't stand up to God. Antiochus is a minor figure in the history of the world. His kingdom was not that big.

Click to expand...

Daniel 8 says he did. But ultimately and predictably, he failed.

Douggg said:

Differently, the little horn who becomes the beast in Revelation will lead the armies of the world to try and fight Jesus - the Prince of Princes, who Jesus will be visible to the entire world at that time, in heaven before the throne of God.

Click to expand...

Not in Daniel 9:24-27.

jgr said:

Daniel 8 says he did. But ultimately and predictably, he failed.

Click to expand...

Daniel 8 is not talking about Antiochus. It is talking about a time of the end person. Antiochus is small potatoes compared to the little horn person.

Antiochus and his kingdom could not stand up to the Romans. He could much less think about standing up to the Prince of Princes.

Not in Daniel 9:24-27.

Click to expand...

In Daniel 9:24, it says...

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

There is violence on Jerusalem and on Daniel's people Israel. So everlasting righteousness has not been brought in, and will not be brought in until Jesus returns, completing the 70 weeks, and He rules the nations with a rod of iron.

David Kent said:

You should not use modern versions to support your prophetic interpretations as these version as are often biased by modern teachings. Use a bible translation from before 1820.

Click to expand...

The NIV New Testament used the Alexandrian Greek texts while the 1611 KJV used the Majority Texts; that's where the two versions most often differ. The reading in the NIV of the Daniel 9 passage is actually more accurate from the Massoretic texts.

Douggg said:

Daniel 8 is not talking about Antiochus. It is talking about a time of the end person. Antiochus is small potatoes compared to the little horn person.

Antiochus and his kingdom could not stand up to the Romans. He could much less think about standing up to the Prince of Princes.

Click to expand...

Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus. The OT has various examples of individuals far less consequential than Antiochus who stood up to God and paid the ultimate price. Korah and his followers are a typical example. Antiochus is but another such example.

Douggg said:

In Daniel 9:24, it says...

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

There is violence on Jerusalem and on Daniel's people Israel. So everlasting righteousness has not been brought in, and will not be brought in until Jesus returns, completing the 70 weeks, and He rules the nations with a rod of iron.

Click to expand...

Everything enumerated in Daniel 9:24 was perfectly and completely fulfilled by Christ at Calvary.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Daniel was one of those prophets.

Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Ephesians 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Ephesians 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth)

Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;


Everlasting righteousness has been available without limit since Calvary. Those who don't have it are still in their sin. Those who have it are the children of God.

jgr said:

Daniel 8 is talking about Antiochus. The OT has various examples of individuals far less consequential than Antiochus who stood up to God and paid the ultimate price. Korah and his followers are a typical example. Antiochus is but another such example.

Click to expand...

What do you think the armies in Revelation 16 are going to try and do?

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

No-one has ever gathered their armies to fight Jesus.

Psalms 2:

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Antiochus never lead an army to fight Jesus. Antiochus was afraid to fight the Romans.