antiChrist to pretend to be Messiah returned

[zeke37]

Sorry? What's a "partial preterist"?

someone who believes that most of scripture is already fulfilled....back in the 1st century....and the difference between a partial and full, is that a partial still believes that Christ is going to return to earth at the very end....a full does not...believes it is all over then, and Christ is not physically returning to the earth....to them most is symbolic

What I'm saying is the 3rd millenium since Christ's birth has begun.

OK...

It is roughly 2007, after all. In fact, the Ethiopians just celebrated the year 2000 in September. (THey were keeping their own count of the years since Christ) So, whether it is 2000 years or 2007 years since the birth of Christ, the Bible makes it clear that Christ will return on the morning of the 3rd day both in Exodus 19, the Good Samaritan parable and other places.

(He did... 3 days after He was crucified)

SO, by all accounts, it is officially the morning of the 3rd day or the beginning of the 3rd millenium since Christ came to earth.

OK

As far as the New Jerusalem coming to earth, that happens at the end of the 1000 years when there is no more death after the Great White Throne judgment.

to each their own...

Look up! He's coming!

Yep, after the fake one who must come first....we are to be watchmen, for we know the enemy comes to deceive....

in His service
c

 

[garry2]

Yep, after the fake one who must come first....we are to be watchmen, for we know the enemy comes to deceive....

I keep watch for the real Christ.
I won't be here when the false comes, but most will be, they are already watchman for the devil.

 

[Zadok7000]

I keep watch for the real Christ.
I won't be here when the false comes, but most will be, they are already watchman for the devil.

There's no reason to watch for the True Christ if He will show up "at any moment" and snatch you away. Think about it...

 

[garry2]

There's no reason to watch for the True Christ if He will show up "at any moment" and snatch you away. Think about it...

No need to think about it, we are commanded to watch for Christ.
Matthew 24:42
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Matthew 25:13
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Mark 13:34
For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
Mark 13:37
And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
Here next is the command to watch, and the catching up to Him.
Luke 21:36
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
Revelation 3:3
Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

 

[shuntmama]

Revelation 13:18
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


The AntiChrist comes first,666,

Our Lord and savior Comes at the Last Trump, 777,


Those that wait upon the Lord shall be saved.

Love in Christ, sarah

 

[prisca1]

I keep watch for the real Christ.
I won't be here when the false comes, but most will be, they are already watchman for the devil.

19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

"I go to prepare a place for you".....
If you had a virgin bride and when you returned, she had a suckling child at her breast, does that sound like a faithful wife to you?
20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

You know of anybody that harvests in the winter or works on the sabbath?
What it's saying here is, don't be harvest out of season! Watch & wait, not fly away! Because anti-christ comes first!


40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Taken by whom, taken by what? Taken by the deviecer of course! A/C
You need to stick to the subject and you will see that anti-christ is the subject!

41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Again, taken by whom? Taken by what?
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

He didn't say to fly, he said to watch because the subject and object is A/C.

Funny how even so called Pastors cannot seem to stick to the subject and mislead there flock right into the lap of A/C.
You need to take another look there my friend and stop listening to the 'traditions of men.' What some guy told you how it's gonna come down.

You've got the 6th trumpt, you've got the 7th trumpt. Go take a look at the book of Revelations and you can see that it is simple math. 6 describes satan/A/C and 7 is the return of Christ. Can people count??? 6 comes before 7.
Can preachers that teach that stuff even count? I dont know if I'de want to listen to someone that claims to know God's word that cannot even count. Sounds to me like your just taking his word for it.

Prove it to yourself in God's word and do what pleases him and not what pleases some man.

2 Thess.2:3 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;
(satan,a/c)

Satans M.O..........to decieve! But we consider him an 'abomiation'! The abominator of desolators.


A falling away FIRST! FIRST! FIRST!

Good hunting and Father bless you,
Prisca1

 

[levehaxy]

Testing...

 

[levehaxy]

no no no

its like this see
1rapture
2economy colaps
3antichrist saves the world
4antichrist killes the world
51000years peace
6armagedon
7judgment day

 

[prisca1]

no no no

its like this see
1rapture
2economy colaps
3antichrist saves the world
4antichrist killes the world
51000years peace
6armagedon
7judgment day

I do not appreciate your language or your attitude

 

[garry2]

another of the fly away doctrine.

 

[garry2]

Revelation 13:18
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


The AntiChrist comes first,666,

Our Lord and savior Comes at the Last Trump, 777,


Those that wait upon the Lord shall be saved.

Love in Christ, sarah

I agree with Revelation 13:18 that the beast is a man.
Some continue to say no the beast is satan.

 

[zeke37]

Do you believe that Satan will be cast down to earth?

 

[zeke37]

Satan is a fallen angel, and angels are sometimes refered to as men...in fact they are called the sons of God in Gen 6....

they are thought of as men and called men with Lot in Gen19,

The name Michael means "man of God"

antiChrist = 2nd Beast of Rev13 = son of Perdition of = man of sin = false prophet = that old Serpent = king of tyre = the lawless one = Abaddon = Apollyon = the devil = Lucifer = Satan ...and many other names.

 

[garry2]

double post

 

[garry2]

some angels are called sons of God, that does not mean they are man, they are not, they are angels.

the man of sin is not the devil but the beast and as the title implies he is a man.

the false prophet is not satan, he is a religious man who gives power to the man-beast, and satan supports them too.

 

[garry2]

19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

"I go to prepare a place for you".....
If you had a virgin bride and when you returned, she had a suckling child at her breast, does that sound like a faithful wife to you?
20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

You know of anybody that harvests in the winter or works on the sabbath?
What it's saying here is, don't be harvest out of season! Watch & wait, not fly away! Because anti-christ comes first!


40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Taken by whom, taken by what? Taken by the deviecer of course! A/C

You need to stick to the subject and you will see that anti-christ is the subject!

41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Again, taken by whom? Taken by what?
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

He didn't say to fly, he said to watch because the subject and object is A/C.

Funny how even so called Pastors cannot seem to stick to the subject and mislead there flock right into the lap of A/C.

You need to take another look there my friend and stop listening to the 'traditions of men.' What some guy told you how it's gonna come down.

You've got the 6th trumpt, you've got the 7th trumpt. Go take a look at the book of Revelations and you can see that it is simple math. 6 describes satan/A/C and 7 is the return of Christ. Can people count??? 6 comes before 7.
Can preachers that teach that stuff even count? I dont know if I'de want to listen to someone that claims to know God's word that cannot even count.

Sounds to me like your just taking his word for it.

whose?

Prove it to yourself in God's word and do what pleases him and not what pleases some man.

2 Thess.2:3 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;
(satan,a/c)

Satans M.O..........to decieve! But we consider him an 'abomiation'! The abominator of desolators.


A falling away FIRST! FIRST! FIRST!

Good hunting and Father bless you,
Prisca1

I know you addressed this to me, but it is certinally not about me.

 

[Biblewriter]

With all the conflicting messages about this subject, what's a body to do?

First, I wish to remind all here that only about two months ago, both zeke37 and zadok7000 refused to reveal their denominational ties. The only reason for such action that I can imagine would be that they are connected with a group that is not generally considered orthodox. It now appears that they have been joined by a third member of this mystery group. I most certainly judge several things each of them has posted as hetrodox.

But be that as it may, They stick fast to their theory that most Christians will be deceived by the Antichrist. If you define a Christian simply as someone who says they are a Christian, I agree with them. But if you define a Christian as someone who is a real Christian, as opposed to just professing the name, they could not be more wrong. They correctly point out that all but the elect will be deceived. (Matthew 24:24) But the Greek word transliterated elect is eklektos. Romans 8:33, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1-2, 1 Peter 2:9, and Revelation 17:14 all show that in the Bible this term refers to all who have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, all true Christians.

There can be no question that Jen is correct in pointing out that in Revelation 13, we see two distinct beasts rise up. The first one we recognize as the Roman power because it has seven heads and ten horns. But the two z's, as garry2 calls them are correct in pointing out that the second one has two horns like a lamb (Remember the lamb of God?) but speaks like a dragon. (Remember that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan?) So we recognize the second beast as the Antichrist, or the false Christ.

Jen correctly points out that the worthless shepherd is wounded in the eye and in the arm, but has missed several details about him. First, he is raised up "in the land." He is worthless because he "leaves the flock." (Zechariah 11:17) We see this again in the missing shepherd of Zechariah 10:2, in the missing king of Micah 4:9, and the fainthearted king of Jeremiah 4:9. Thus we see that this worthless shepherd is in the land of Judea, which is now (incorrectly, as far as Biblical terms go) called Israel.

But this is not the only detail Jen missed. (I say Jen because she is the one who pointed it out here, not because it is her mistake. This is a very common misconception. Actually, I admire Jen greatly, both as to her ideas and her attitude.) She equates the beast's deadly wound with the worthless shepherd's wounds. But there are two problems with this idea. First, a wound in the eye and one in the arm are not deadly wounds. There would be nothing remarkable about such wounds being healed. And second, we are specifically told that the worthless shepherd's wounds will not be healed. His arm shall completely wither and his eye shall be totally blinded.

But these details only confirm Jen's general thesis, that these two beasts are two distinct individuals. The Roman one is plainly the one elsewhere called "the Beast." But the other one is the Antichrist, and is the Jewish ruler, the false Messiah, who reigns in Israel.

One of the two z's thought garry2 was splitting hairs when he said that the Antichrist will say he is God, but will not say he is Jesus. But this is not splitting hairs. If he said he was Jesus returned, he would be recognizing Jesus as the true Messiah. This he will not do. He will maintain the current Jewish lie that Jesus was an imposter. He will claim to be the true Messiah, as opposed to Jesus, who he will claim was a false Messiah. We see this in Jesus' words in John 5:43, I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

We see this also in Isaiah 57:7Upon a lofty and high mountain hast thou set thy bed: even thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice. 8Behind the doors also and the posts hast thou set up thy remembrance: for thou hast discovered thyself to another than me, and art gone up; thou hast enlarged thy bed, and made thee a covenant with them; thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it. 9And thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell.

Here the Lord accuses Israel of adultery in going up to the bed of "the king." That is, the false king of Israel, the Antichrist.

(And of course, the fact that I say it makes it correct. Right?)

 

[prisca1]

[qoute](And of course, the fact that I say it makes it correct. Right?)

Claiming to be a christian is not anything to be ashamed of. These fellows you speek of speek the truth. We've seen your type come and go more then once and the 'distain' towards us in a 'nice way'.

"You will be hated of all nations for my names sake."

Go ahead and teach what you want to....it will be on your head and not ours.

To accuse us of being unorthadox is just that. Accusing. You have obviously never taken the time to look up the scriptures or you would not even be saying such a thing 'in a nice way'.
Garry, you are taking my words and using them against me.

[qoute]
Taken by whom, taken by what? Taken by the deviecer of course! A/C

Quote:
You need to stick to the subject and you will see that anti-christ is the subject!
WHAT DO YOU THINK A/C MEANS? Dont tell me to stick to the subject when I was, dear.

You keep saying 'some guy' 'some man' 'traditions of men' and turning this around.

Let me ask you a question? Do you go to church???
I dont. Nope!
"Ooooh No, she get's on here and she doesn't even go to church? Oh no"?!!!!
So dont sit there and tell me I'am listening to 'some man' I dont listen to YOU MEN.
I have all of the manuscripts I need right here at home.
All the study tools any scholar probably has in his Library and the same information one would utilized to become one.
Accusing people is not of God either. So just go ahead. I can take it.
Sorry but I refuse to 'GO TO CHURCH' and pad your pocket book, dude.
I'am on a fixed income fella's and I cant afford to give you my money. You'll have to find some other sucker to and poor widows mite to to talk them out of cause this ones too smart for that.

So tell me men....who do you say is anti-christ? Simple question.
Who do you believe comes first? And document please.

Now the 'serpent' was more subtil then any 'beast' of the field the Lord God made.
'beast' translates 'an entity with a soul.' Okay?

He never passed through the womb. So tell me men, are you AT ALL familiar with satan's M.O.? How does he operate and tell me where the very detailed 'profile' of satan is in the Bible.
Where in the Bible (revelations) does it say he's 'worthless' I mean is that in the manuscripts?

When you consider all of the names that satan/anti-christ uses, you have to start making titles up?
Why dont you go back and become familiar with titles satan/anti-christ is already refered to and study them real good and look up all of the definitions and then you might be a little more careful before you go around trying to make a mockery of people when you in fact show your own ignorance.
No one has asked you what church you go to? Why is that so important to you or what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Are you concerned that if they are not a member of YOUR church that they are somehow in error?
Or is it just pride that you have to go around 'accusing' people without cause.
Where in the book of revelations does it say his 'eye' and his 'arm' are wounded?
I know it says is 'his head was wounded and that his deadly wound was healed'.
Why do you have to go around insulting the Catholics to make your point anyway?
There are alot of good Catholics Mr. Accuser!!! I dont really appreciate your imperialistic tone there 'friend'.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

With all the conflicting messages about this subject, what's a body to do?

First, I wish to remind all here that only about two months ago, both zeke37 and zadok7000 refused to reveal their denominational ties. The only reason for such action that I can imagine would be that they are connected with a group that is not generally considered orthodox. It now appears that they have been joined by a third member of this mystery group. I most certainly judge several things each of them has posted as hetrodox.

But be that as it may, They stick fast to their theory that most Christians will be deceived by the Antichrist. If you define a Christian simply as someone who says they are a Christian, I agree with them. But if you define a Christian as someone who is a real Christian, as opposed to just professing the name, they could not be more wrong. They correctly point out that all but the elect will be deceived. (Matthew 24:24) But the Greek word transliterated elect is eklektos. Romans 8:33, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1-2, 1 Peter 2:9, and Revelation 17:14 all show that in the Bible this term refers to all who have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is, all true Christians.

There can be no question that Jen is correct in pointing out that in Revelation 13, we see two distinct beasts rise up. The first one we recognize as the Roman power because it has seven heads and ten horns. But the two z's, as garry2 calls them are correct in pointing out that the second one has two horns like a lamb (Remember the lamb of God?) but speaks like a dragon. (Remember that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan?) So we recognize the second beast as the Antichrist, or the false Christ.

Jen correctly points out that the worthless shepherd is wounded in the eye and in the arm, but has missed several details about him. First, he is raised up "in the land." He is worthless because he "leaves the flock." (Zechariah 11:17) We see this again in the missing shepherd of Zechariah 10:2, in the missing king of Micah 4:9, and the fainthearted king of Jeremiah 4:9. Thus we see that this worthless shepherd is in the land of Judea, which is now (incorrectly, as far as Biblical terms go) called Israel.

But this is not the only detail Jen missed. (I say Jen because she is the one who pointed it out here, not because it is her mistake. This is a very common misconception. Actually, I admire Jen greatly, both as to her ideas and her attitude.) She equates the beast's deadly wound with the worthless shepherd's wounds. But there are two problems with this idea. First, a wound in the eye and one in the arm are not deadly wounds. There would be nothing remarkable about such wounds being healed. And second, we are specifically told that the worthless shepherd's wounds will not be healed. His arm shall completely wither and his eye shall be totally blinded.

But these details only confirm Jen's general thesis, that these two beasts are two distinct individuals. The Roman one is plainly the one elsewhere called "the Beast." But the other one is the Antichrist, and is the Jewish ruler, the false Messiah, who reigns in Israel.

One of the two z's thought garry2 was splitting hairs when he said that the Antichrist will say he is God, but will not say he is Jesus. But this is not splitting hairs. If he said he was Jesus returned, he would be recognizing Jesus as the true Messiah. This he will not do. He will maintain the current Jewish lie that Jesus was an imposter. He will claim to be the true Messiah, as opposed to Jesus, who he will claim was a false Messiah. We see this in Jesus' words in John 5:43, I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

We see this also in Isaiah 57:7Upon a lofty and high mountain hast thou set thy bed: even thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice. 8Behind the doors also and the posts hast thou set up thy remembrance: for thou hast discovered thyself to another than me, and art gone up; thou hast enlarged thy bed, and made thee a covenant with them; thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it. 9And thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell.

Here the Lord accuses Israel of adultery in going up to the bed of "the king." That is, the false king of Israel, the Antichrist.

(And of course, the fact that I say it makes it correct. Right?)

Thanks for the kind words, Biblewriter.

About the wounds of the worthless shepherd in comparison to the beast...

Zec 11:17"Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! May his arm be completely withered, his right eye totally blinded!"

Rev 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.

Rev 13:12 He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
Rev 13:13 And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.
Rev 13:14 Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.




Anyone who survives a fatal wound would likely have lasting marks or effects. It says the guy is wounded by the sword in both Isaiah and Revelation...could be gun shot or bomb of some kind to leave him blinded in one eye and lose the use of his arm. Also, for the false prophet to take over and make people worship the "mouth" of the beast with the wounds (and his image) leads me to suspect that the guy is crippled and unable to lead in the same way.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks for the kind words, Biblewriter.

Anyone who survives a fatal wound would likely have lasting marks or effects. It says the guy is wounded by the sword in both Isaiah and Revelation...could be gun shot or bomb of some kind to leave him blinded in one eye and lose the use of his arm. Also, for the false prophet to take over and make people worship the "mouth" of the beast with the wounds (and his image) leads me to suspect that the guy is crippled and unable to lead in the same way.

I understand your thinking. I clearly recognize that it is the "standard" approach to this question. My point is that, in addition to the difference in the statements about the healing of the wounds, The Antichrist is presented in the scriptures I cited as being the king of revived Judah, which is now called Israel; whereas the beast is presented as the king of the revived Roman empire.

Although my approach is unpopular today, it was the interpretation of the "original" (modern) dispensational writers, J. N. Darby and William Kelly. And that, plus two and a half dollars or so, will get you a cup of coffee at one of the fancy coffee houses. In other words, it is interesting, but of zero probative value.