Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pope Francis, as unarguably the most leftist ever, is the most globalist ever. "Catholic" means "universal", a synonym for "global".
Globalism serves and advances the papacy's agenda like nothing else.
Thanks for recognizing the sacrifices of the historical, and all, defenders of the true faith.
so you believe from the time of Daniel,5 empires until the saints inherit the kingdom forever?
Yes that is what I see from the great Image. And we know that the Gentiles are still ruling, so the final Gentile Global Government is forming right now.
But scripture doesn't say it would be "five" kingdoms until the saints inherit the kingdom. Scripture specifically states it would be "four" kingdoms
Daniel 7:17-18 These four great beasts are four kingdoms who will arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
Daniel 2, the Great Image reveals 5 component parts - World Rulers.
Daniel 7, however reveals 4 kingdoms/Federations that come up one at a time but continue all at the same time. Remember the first three get trodden on and broken into pieces by the 4th one. Then when the fourth one is dealt with by God the other 3 continue on but without their authority.
Dan. 2 reveals the 5 world Rulers.
Dan. 7 reveals the 4 major Federations leading up to the final gentile world Ruler.
Hi,
Daniel 2 never states a "fifth kingdom". Additionally, we can use scripture to show that the there are only 4 kingdoms in the statue of Daniel. Christ very clearly states the kingdom would come during the 1st century generation. What empire existed in the 1st century? Rome, the 4th kingdom.
Mark 9:1 Then Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”
Daniel 2:44 In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed
Who do you believe are the identities of these 4 kingdoms?
So you believe the kingdoms of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are completely different?
That`s right Daniel does not say `fifth` kingdom, however it is obviously the last part.
Rome was judged as all the other world rulers have been, thus there is another World Ruler to come.
God focusses more on the last world ruler and gives us quite a lot of detail.
Now Jesus did not state that His kingdom would come in the 1st century.
I think I have already shown who I think those 4 beastly powers are. You may have missed it, so here it is -
Lion - British Empire
Eagle - America
Bear - Soviet Union
Leopard - European Union.
Terrifying beast - Islam.
I'm pretty strict on the horns being kings and not kingdoms for 2 main reasons:
1.) because scripture doesn't state the saints would inherit the kingdom after around 15 kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, 10 horn kingdoms, 1 little horn kingdom). It states there would be 4 kingdoms but the saints would inherit the kingdom forever (Daniel 7:17-18).
2.) because scripture states out of the 4th kingdom (malku) 10 kings (melek) would arise. It doesn't state 10 kingdoms (malku) would arise out of 10 kingdoms (malku) (daniel 7:24)
I'm not so sure if the early Church father's expected 10 kingDOMS after the roman empire.
1.) Jerome doesn't appear to believe there would be 10 new kingdoms after the Roman empire, but that when the Roman empire is to be destroyed, it would be partitioned between 10 kings. I read this to mean that just prior to the 4th kingdom being destroyed, it would be partitioned between 10 kings, followed by an 11th that would pluck up 3 of the 10 kings. This is would be consistent with vision in which the 4th beast is slain (rome destroyed) when the little horn is judged. He states this was the tradition of the Christian church. This doesn't appear to be the traditional historicist/futurist belief. Additionally, this interpretation is proved false by History. For Rome never had 10 kings rule over it followed by an 11th king to overthrow 3 of them just prior to its destruction.
"We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... after they have been slain, the seven other kings also will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome 347-420 AD)
2.) Cyril of Jerusalem seems to believe the same thing as jerome, that prior to Rome's destruction, it would be partitioned and ruled over by 10 kings, and after these and 11th king would rise. He states this is also in tradition of the Church's belief. This doesn't appear to be the traditional historicist or futurist belief. Additionally, this interpretation is proved false as the Roman empire never had 10 kings rule over it at the same time, followed by an 11th king just prior to its destruction.
The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters ... There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts , but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself …(Cyril of Jerusalem 313–386 AD)
3.) Tertullian seems to believe similar to what the Historicist traditionally believes, that the Roman state would be transformed into 10 new kingdoms.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. What obstacles are there but the Roman state, the rebellion of which, by being scattered into the ten kingDOMS, will introduce the Antichrist upon its own ruins?(Tertullian 160–220 AD)
4.) It's hard to tell if Hippolytus believed the 10 kings would start new kingdoms after the Roman empire or if it would be 10 kings who ruled the Roman empire.
“A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? - the kingdom which is now established ... After this, what remains, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together? And mystically by the toes of the feet he meant the kings who are to arise from among them. (Hippolytus (170–235 AD)
5.) It appears Irenaeus also holds that the Roman empire would be partitioned and ruled by 10 kings. However, it's hard to see if Irenaeus believed these would be 10 new kingdoms AFTER the roman empire or if the Roman empire remained, but just ruled by 10 kings. If it is the latter, then it was proved incorrect by history.
In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples ... concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules the earth shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel.(Irenaeus 130–202 AD).
As an Amil-Historicist, you believe it is 4 kingdoms from the time of Daniel (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) until the coming of the kingdom of God, at Christ's 1st coming. But then, the saints would possess the kingdom after around 15 kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, 10 horn kingdoms, and little horn kingdom that uproots 3 of the 10 horns), at the 2nd coming of Christ?
It is easy for parabolic language to distract us from the simple interpretation. I would argue, The interpretation of the 10 horns should be shaped on the simple interpretation of the vision: That there would FOUR kingdoms but the saints would inherit the kingdom.
Daniel 7:17-18 These four great beasts are four kingdoms who will arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
Thus, while I don't assign specific names to the 10 kingdoms, as such would only be speculation, I believe these verses (daniel 7:17-18, Daniel 7:27) already fulfilled, in that the saints inherited the kingdom around the time the 4th kingdom, which would be consistent with the NT.
Luke 21:31-32 So also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.
Who are the 11 horns, then?I'm pretty strict on the horns being kings and not kingdoms for 2 main reasons:
Who are the 11 horns, then?
CG,
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you or the historicist position, and if so, I apologize and feel free to correct me.
Daniel states that there would be FOUR kingdoms but the saints would inherit the kingdom forever
Daniel 7:17-18 These four great beasts are four kingdoms who will arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
Specifically, it would be after the judgment of the little horn, that the saints would possess the kingdom.
Daniel 7:26-27 But the court will convene, and his dominion will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’
If the 10 horns are kingdoms that came after the 4th beast (rome), then that would mean you believe the saints inherit the kingdom after 15 kingdoms (Babylon, perisa, greeks, romans, 10 horns: Byzantium, avar, lombards, franks, anglo Saxons, Britons, basques, north Africa, moors, visigoths, followed by islam as the little horn)?
Or do you believe the saints possess the kingdom around the time of the 4th kingdom as stated in Daniel 7:16-18, but this not in sequential order due to parabolic language?
Or do you believe the 4th beasts is not just rome, but all 12 kingdoms (rome + 10 horns: Byzantium, avar, lombards, franks, anglo Saxons, Britons, basques, north Africa, moors, visigoths, + islam as the little horn)??
I guess, how do you square Daniel 7:17-18, that states there would be FOUR kingdoms but the saints would possess the kingdom, with the historicist position?
I would say it's not obviously a 5th kingdom, if it was, it would say “fifth" or "another" kingdom. Additionally, the feet contain Iron, which is of the 4th kingdom.
Many empires have come and gone since the roman empire. The statue does not have enough layers to fit all the kingdoms from the time of Babylon til today.
Because that is when Christ was to come
He clearly did. Jesus very clearly and specifically stated that there were some standing in front of him that would not die before they saw the kingdom of God come with power.
Mark 9:1 Then Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”
The transfiguration was 6 days later. The transfiguration was not the coming of the Kingdom.
Too much speculation here. There are hundreds of different futuristic interpretations of the 4 beasts, why is yours the right one and everyone else's wrong?
God directs Daniel`s attention to the last part of the Great Image, the feet and toes, which are described differently than the legs. Also the word `iron` is a description of the strength of that kingdom NOT the name.
The Great Image ONLY refers to the World Rulers, as they are the ones God judges.
The word `kingdom` indicates `rule.` Thus when the disciples saw the Lord in all His glory then they saw His rulership `present with power.` (Mark 9: 1)
Why the futurist `beasts I said? Because they rule the world.
View attachment 271638
Scripture is clear that Jesus would come in his kingdom at his ascension TO the Father (luke 19:12, daniel 7:13-14), not at the transfiguration.
So you don't believe the kingdoms of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are the same?
The little horn will be leader over the fourth kingdom. The fourth kingdom is not Israel. And Israel is not the fourth kingdom.
Yet, the Anti-Christ is to be an anointed instead of and against Christ the King of Israel (Mark 15:32). Christ = Messiah = anointed. The Anti-Christ will be anointed by the false prophet as the King of Israel, coming in his own name.
The person cannot be a muslim. He cannot be a Pope. He has to be a Jew and his religion Judaism.
little horn> prince who shall come> Antichrist > revealed man of sin > beast.
Hi Marilyn,We cannot make a doctrine on one scripture. I also don`t see any scripture saying the false prophet will `anoint` the A/C. Scripture clearly tells us that the A/C is -
1. The Assyrian. (from the area od ancient Assyria - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. (Isa. 31: 8)
2. The King of the North. (same area) (Dan. 11: 40 & 41)
3. The `little horn,` from the 4th Gentile kingdom. (Dan. 7: 7, 23)
The bible does not say that any of those are the Antichrist. You (and many many other Christians) are saying it. But obviously, none of those roles are being the King of Israel. King roles, yes, but not the King of Israel, which is the AntiChrist role.1. The Assyrian. (from the area od ancient Assyria - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. (Isa. 31: 8)
2. The King of the North. (same area) (Dan. 11: 40 & 41)
3. The `little horn,` from the 4th Gentile kingdom. (Dan. 7: 7, 23)
Hi Marilyn,
It is not just one scripture. The concept of "the" messiah being the promised King of Israel is built into the fabric of Judaism, which awareness of what "the" messiah referred to was common knowledge in the day when the four gospel events were actually taking place. Much like in America if we say "the" President, everyone automatically knows it is referring to the President of the United States.
The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are determined on Daniel's people and Jerusalem. And if you talk to any religious Jew, they will tell the messiah has to be anointed the King of Israel. From those Jews, assuming they are knowledgeable about their own religion, they will tell you in their belief the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet.
In John 12:12-15, Jesus's followers were welcoming Jesus as He rode into Jerusalem, as being the King of Israel, who comes in the name of the Lord.
Nowadays, we don't live in that sort of environment, so "the" messiah function of being the King of Israel, it is something most Christians are not aware of, or give little thought to. The tendency is to think of the Antichrist to be a super evil ruler over the world right before Jesus comes.
The bible does not say that any of those are the Antichrist. You (and many many other Christians) are saying it. But obviously, none of those roles are being the King of Israel. King roles, yes, but not the King of Israel, which is the AntiChrist role.
All the preterists, historists, and futurists scenarios, people come up with, which they do not consider the role of "the" messiah (Christ) as being the King of Israel - is basically a big waste of time.
Hi Marilyn, the person has to come from the Gentile nations; and when Jesus returns, the person will be ruling the Gentile (fourth) kingdom, not as Israel's king.Hi Douggg,
Yes I believe that the Messiah is Jesus, king of Israel. However the final Global leader of the world has to be a GENTILE, for that is what the Lord is judging - Gentile World Rulership. This is in preparation for Israel ruling over the nations in the millennium.
The whole Great Image is of GENTILE World Rulership, revealing that the Gentiles do not rule righteously and thus God will set up His rulership in Israel under their Messiah, Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?