Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That was the point the image had life. It was now a beast.

The false prophet miraculously "coming to life" would not prevent the image from becoming a beast itself.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
How can you divorce verse 14 from verse 15?
You said they could not be duped by technology. They were duped by Satan's manipulation of technology. Satan was the "it" that duped the people. Just because you are not convinced seems to be a good thing. Do you want to be duped by technology or Satan? I should hope not.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Most Pre-Tribbers have the church raptured before the AC arises.

It's not an (image) that is captured and thrown (alive) in to the Lake of Fire. I just can't understand your interpretation
The Second Coming and return of Christ happens before Revelation 13.

This image is Satan’s beast "messianic" answer to both the Adam condition and sin. It is supposed to be the end of human labor.

How would any government transfer human labor from humanity to another form, peacefully? Even Satan thinks the thought itself will count. This image is a beast for the majority of the 42 months, before the battle of Armageddon. It will be traveling around just like any other being with Satan and the FP. It may even be allowed to "take out" a few of the locust army, for special "effects" to prove it's ability to protect instead of harm humanity. How is it supposed to manifest the ability to save the world is not told.

Revelation 13 says this happens after the saints are defeated in verse 7. Christ and the 144k are not even present, until they return at Armageddon. The sounding of the 7th Trumpet brings Satan and the FP into the narrative. There were already 6 Trumpets and 7 Thunders before any FP, Satan, or image.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Of course you do not address your fallacy of using the word (it). I believe you're this first person that I've heard that doesn't believe the Beast of Revelation Rev 13, the man of sin 2nd Thess, and the AC in this passage are not the same. I do understand why you must believe that way for your eschatology to work. I feel I'm in good company to believe they're the same. Who does believe they're different men ? Could you supply some references please ?
I don't accept it. It is the FP. I do not accept that it already happened in the 1st century.

There is only 1 human in Revelation 3. It is the FP and comes out of both Daniel's beast and the "wonder" is that humans link this current religious/political human to one of Daniel's former beast, particularly the one who also "had" an abomination of desolation. This current FP will also have an image made which will also come to life and be a false messiah. The other beast is Satan.

Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 is still talking about the relationship between Satan and this FP from Daniel's prophecy. Satan is the lawless one still alive since Daniel's time, 2500 years. No man can live that long. The FP is "brought back" and the relationship continues, after the Second Coming. Satan is being revealed, it is no longer a hidden fact. Denying this point will not prevent it. It is already out there.

7 For already this separating from Torah is at work secretly, but it will be secretly only until he who is restraining is out of the way.
8 Then the one who embodies separation from Torah will be revealed, the one whom the Lord Yeshua will slay with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the glory of his coming.

The full effect is not until the church leaves with the Holy Spirit. The main reason the Second Coming is first.

Then Satan will be revealed, but to the church. Paul does not describe the whole world. They would not understand any way.

The false conclusion is that Satan is destroyed immediately at the Second Coming. That is not a correct view. Even at the battle of Armageddon, this is the reference, Satan is still alive, but bound for another 1000 years, then again destroyed by fire from God in heaven, not a coming of Christ. Paul only mentions the battle of Armageddon event.

After the Second Coming after the 7th Trumpet starts, then:

9 When this man who avoids Torah comes (the FP), the Adversary (Satan) will give him the power to work all kinds of false miracles, signs and wonders.
10 He will enable him to deceive, in all kinds of wicked ways, those who are headed for destruction because they would not receive the love of the truth that could have saved them.
11 This is why God is causing them to go astray, so that they will believe the Lie.
12 The result will be that all who have not believed the truth, but have taken their pleasure in wickedness, will be condemned.

This is then Revelation 13:3-7

3 One of the heads of the beast appeared to have received a fatal wound, but its fatal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed after the beast (FP) in amazement.
4 They worshipped the dragon (Satan), because he had given his authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying,

“Who is like the beast?
Who can fight against it?”

5 It was given a mouth speaking arrogant blasphemies; and it was given authority to act for forty-two months.
6 So it opened its mouth in blasphemies against God to insult his name and his Sh’khinah, and those living in heaven; 7 it was allowed to make war on God’s holy people and to defeat them; and it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

Paul is in agreement with John that Satan gives power and authority to the FP, and the second time in history this has happened.

Daniel 11:36-37

36 “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt himself and consider himself greater than any god, and he will utter monstrous blasphemies against the God of gods. He will prosper only until the period of wrath is over, for what has been determined must take place.
37 He will show no respect for the gods his ancestors worshipped, or for the god women worship — he won’t show respect for any god, because he will consider himself greater than all of them.
38 But instead, he will honor the god of strongholds; with gold, silver, precious stones and other costly things he will honor a god unknown to his ancestors.
39 He will deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god (Satan). He will confer honor on those he acknowledges, causing them to rule over many and distributing land as a reward.

It was already fulfilled once and Jesus told those who listened then, they already understood what he was talking about. Matthew 24:15

15 “So when you see the abomination that causes devastation spoken about through the prophet Dani’el standing in the Holy Place” (let the reader understand the allusion)
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why would he? That point would not change reality.
How could it have been potentially the last hour in the first century?
What made the first century a potential time for its fulfillment in your view?

You have no authority to say this is the last hour, John did.
Was he wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
That was the point the image had life. It was now a beast.

The false prophet miraculously "coming to life" would not prevent the image from becoming a beast itself.
The text never does indicate that the image "became a beast".

It is the people of the world who actually make the image (a statue). The image is inert (i.e. lifeless) - until the false prophet then by a miracle will give life to the image in V.15.

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.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

__________________________________________________________________________
(Note: little horn>Antichrist>beast is a mini-timeline )


1. the the mortally wounded/healed head on the first beast (coming out of the sea) = little horn>Antichrist>beast

2. the second beast (coming out of the earth) = the false prophet

3. the image (after it comes to life) = incarnated by Satan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Revelation 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

1. out of the mouth of the beast (coming out of the sea) = little horn>Antichrist>beast

2. out of the mouth of the false prophet (the beast coming out of the earth)

3. out of the mouth of the dragon (incarnating the image)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Revelation 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?

1. the dragon (Satan) incarnting the image of the beast, the image that comes to life.

2. the beast (coming out of the sea) = little horn>Antichrist>beast

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

1. the beast (coming out of the sea) = little/horn>Antichrist>beast

2. the beast (coming out of the earth) = the false prophet


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Revelation 20:

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

1. Satan - who will be exposed on the temple mount the day that Jesus returns, as the brightness of Jesus's coming melts away the outer facade of the statue image, turning it to ashes. Ezekiel 28:18.



upload_2020-12-31_2-45-43.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Berean Tim

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2017
577
207
67
Houston TX
✟145,630.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sure I did. I equated it to the fallacy of claiming John teaches that antichrist is a singular man, when He doesn't.
We're either Both in the right to do so, or we're both wrong.
I'm content acquiescing the point that IT is not in the original Greek.
It does not effect my eschatology at all.

In contrast, if you acquiesce the point that John Never even once teaches that antichrist is a singular human man, your eschatology falls flat.



A lot of people don't believe the Bible is even true.
If you wish to measure the correctness of your doctrine by who has the greater number, those who believe it vs. those who don't, you'll have to toss Christianity away, as it is not the majority position among humanity.



Here's a great History of the genesis and evolution of the belief about antichrist throughout Church History.
The Untold Truth Of The Antichrist
The "conventional wisdom" pendulum has swung back and forth a few times in the last 2000 years between a "THE antichrist" figure and a "multiple antichrists".

The challenge, in fact, is to find even ONE ECF or theologian in the first 1000 years of Church History, besides Polycarp, who even wrote about Antichrist, much less believed and taught that it was a single Human Man. Polycarp was the only one who even comes close, and from your question, you seem to indicate that a view held by only person in the Church should not be entertained as true and correct, right? especially if found that only one person over a period of 1000 years of Church History held it, huh? But, for 1000 years, Polycarp was it, and he really only quoted Johns epistle warning of multiple antichrists. (Polycarp, To the Philippians 7.1)

Finally, in 950 AD, Adso of Montier-en-Der, a French monk, was commissioned by Queen Gerberga to expound upon to her what this antichrist was...

From the article:
It wasn't until 950 A.D., almost a thousand years after Jesus died, that someone wrote down just who exactly this Antichrist guy was going to be. According to PBS, Queen Gerberga (sometimes "Gerbera") of France asked the monk Adso of Montier-en-Der for clarification on details about the Antichrist because the Bible sure didn't have specifics and neither did other church writings. So this one random monk got to make up whatever he wanted, and it went as viral as something could for the Middle Ages. The letter he wrote the queen was updated by other people who threw in their own ideas, but for hundreds of years, what Adso said about the Antichrist was, for lack of a better term, gospel.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says Queen Gerberga was worried she was living in the last days and wanted to know what to be on the lookout for. "Little Book on the Antichrist" was written in a popular style of the day, following the life of a saint, or in this case, an antisaint.

Adso believed the Antichrist wouldn't show up until the end of the Holy Roman Empire. He'd be born a Jew in Babylon, and the devil would make him the most wicked guy ever. But he would look a lot like the second coming of Christ: going to Jerusalem to minister, performing miracles, and rebuilding the Temple. Everyone would follow him, but he would persecute Christians for three and a half years. Fortunately, real Jesus would come along and kill him.


Sound familiar?

The article continues:
After Adso, the medieval idea of the Antichrist was mostly set, but the monk Joachim Of Fiore came along in the 1100s and had his own stuff to add. According to the journal article "Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore," this guy was obsessed with the idea of the Antichrist. It was basically all he could talk about. He became famous in his own lifetime for being the go-to person for prophecies about the Antichrist.

Other than John of Patmos (author of Revelation), Joachim was probably the most important apocalyptic thinker ever. The Encyclopedia Britannica says he saw the End Times being right around the corner. But there wasn't going to be just one Antichrist according to Joachim, but a whole bunch of them over time. Some already lived, like Nero, Muhammad, and Saladin. They were Antichrist more generally, but there would be one finally really bad Antichrist signaling the beginning of the end. In Revelation, a guy named Gog shows up to battle Christians. Joachim tied the final Antichrist to Gog, using that name, and after 1,000 years, Revelation and the Antichrist were finally connected.


Luther was next to champion the idea of a single THE antichrist, when he tied it to the Pope, but a single "The Antichrist" soon fell out of favor again for several hundred years afterward after Luther's Belief that He was living in the end times, failed to materialize...

It wasn't until about 1900 that we can trace our current proclivity toward the THE antichrist idea to, oddly, Nietzsche.

From the article again:
After Martin Luther, people basically stopped thinking about the Antichrist being a single bad guy for hundreds of years. "The" Antichrist became a thing of the past, and something being Antichrist, that is, against Christianity, was in vogue. According to The Gospel Coalition, it wasn't until about 1900 that "the" returned to the Antichrist. These days, it's so common to speak of "the" Antichrist that older documents that only refer to Antichrist sometimes have "the" inserted in brackets in front of it, as if the original author made some kind of silly mistake leaving it out. But usually they didn't. They meant exactly what they wrote, that Antichrist was a concept, not a person in need of the definite article.

So what changed? Weirdly, Nietzsche might be largely responsible for the switch from Antichrist back to "the" Antichrist. In 1895, he published a very anti-Christian book called The Antichrist, and it entered popular vernacular. By the 1970s, Christians had fully accepted the Antichrist as an individual again.

So there ya go.
As I have been saying, The Idea of a Singular future to us world ruler/despot/tyrant called "the antichrist" demonstrably traces its roots to Post Biblical, man made Tradition, and not to any explicit scriptural or apostolic teaching.
Just a short reply as you gave me a lot to look up and study.

Your challenge - The challenge, in fact, is to find even ONE ECF or theologian in the first 1000 years of Church History, besides Polycarp, who even wrote about Antichrist"

This is just plain wrong, just off the top of my head I know of two others. Hippolytus and Irenaeus
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-There will be another temple built in order for the time of the end prophecy of the little horn>Antichrist>beast and the 2300 days in Daniel 8 to take place.
Who will build it and why would it be something Paul would call the temple of God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Who will build it and why would it be something Paul would call the temple of God?
Israel will build it. It will be called the temple of God because Israel will intend it to be for the worship and praise of the God of Israel, and Israel will intend it for them to observe the ordinances given to them under the Mt. Sinai covenant.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a short reply as you gave me a lot to look up and study.

Your challenge - The challenge, in fact, is to find even ONE ECF or theologian in the first 1000 years of Church History, besides Polycarp, who even wrote about Antichrist"

This is just plain wrong, just off the top of my head I know of two others. Hippolytus and Irenaeus
Cool. So you have found 2 people in 1000 years holding the view.
Sounds like That settles it then.
If two people hold the view, it must be true and correct. I guess you win.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nothing any more special then than now, since it is still the last hour.
No.

I see. So your contention is that the term “the last hour“ really is meaningless.
It has no discernible meaning from a timing standpoint at all?

One question. What do you suppose Jesus meant by “near” in Matthew 24:33?
Same thing John meant by “the last hour”?
An Indiscernible amount of time that could stretch millennia? As in “near to God”?
Jesus is God after all, it would make sense he would always use the term near in the “near to God” sense, right?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Israel will build it. It will be called the temple of God because Israel will intend it to be for the worship and praise of the God of Israel, and Israel will intend it for them to observe the ordinances given to them under the Mt. Sinai covenant.
You're talking about people who reject Christ building a temple to observe ordinances of a covenant that was made obsolete by Christ's sacrifice to establish the new covenant long ago. It would be a meaningless temple. Paul would not have called such a temple "the temple of God".
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Jipsah
Upvote 0

Berean Tim

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2017
577
207
67
Houston TX
✟145,630.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Cool. So you have found 2 people in 1000 years holding the view.
Sounds like That settles it then.
If two people hold the view, it must be true and correct. I guess you win.
You and your sources had zero ! I just started on this and it was obvious you were wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You're talking about people who reject Christ building a temple to observe ordinances of a covenant that was made obsolete by Christ's sacrifice to establish the new covenant long ago. It would be a meaningless temple. Paul would not have called such a temple "the temple of God".
You are trying to rationalize your eschatology position.

The disciples did not consider it "meaningless", and Paul is the one who called it the temple of God in referral to the man of sin revealing himself..

After the disciples minds were opened to understand the gospel in Luke 24:40-44 - did they just stop going to the temple to worship God ?

No they did not. The temple did not lose it's status for the disciples as a place of worship and praise of God.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

Berean Tim

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2017
577
207
67
Houston TX
✟145,630.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are trying to rationalize your eschatology position.

The disciples did not consider it "meaningless", and Paul is the one who called it the temple of God in referral to the man of sin revealing himself..

After the disciples minds were opened to understand the gospel in Luke 24:40-44 - did they just stop going to the temple to worship God ?

No they did not. The temple did not lose it's status for the disciples as a place of worship and praise of God.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Paul was expecting the "day of the Lord" with the Temple still standing
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are trying to rationalize your eschatology position.

The disciples did not consider it "meaningless", and Paul is the one who called it the temple of God in referral to the man of sin revealing himself..
But, you are not even saying he was referring to that temple. You are saying he was referring to a temple that hasn't even been built. Where is your proof that this as yet unbuilt temple is something he would call "the temple of God"?

After the disciples minds were opened to understand the gospel in Luke 24:40-44 - did they just stop going to the temple to worship God ?

No they did not. The temple did not lose it's status for the disciples as a place of worship and praise of God.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
As I pointed out before, it was no longer used in the way it was designed to be used by God, which was as a place to meet with the high priest and as a place for animal sacrifices to be performed and so on. It was no longer the temple of God in that sense at that point.

Also, why would you ignore that Paul referred to the corporate body of Christ as the temple of God in other scripture?
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,675
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,675
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Im, sure that Donald Trump could dream up a way of making his image speak to his worshipers. We live in a high tech age. ;)
They've had talking images at Disneyland since the early 60s.
 
Upvote 0