Anyone else have a unique eschatology?

[dwb001]

I haven't claimed it yet. But I also don't claim to be a modern Christian "prophet." We already have a glut of such individuals, especially in the U.S.

Neither have I. Why are you bringing up stuff no one is mentioning?

But who knows? Maybe my interpretation about the meaning of 666 is correct. Maybe it's not. Maybe my Pre-mill view of Eschatology is wrong; but then again only the Lord knows. Maybe I'm getting some things in Eschatology right. Either way, the more important thing to me is to rationally and prayerfully fellowship with other Trinitarian Christians around the world as .... we all move through God's History.

So your interpretation is possibly wrong... why did you do that then? Why did you mot just go with Gods words?

Books on a shelf are written and put out into the world for reference..........................get this!.............................by Real Christian People ™, just like you and me. But instead of simply spieling on a public forum, they spiel in a book they've written.

Long ago. That may be a good thing or maybe a bad thing. I see it as a bad thing. Behold God is doing something new... so old manna gets moldy. Stick to fresh manna.

Obviously God does. I agree. And neither you nor I are God.

Agreed

Then why have your additional concern about whether the rest of us not only have our own "unique eschatology," but also as to whether or not we're "willing to change our minds" about it.

To weed out the stubborn and moribund.

I get it, though. You just want to be heard and listened to. Well, on some level, we all do.

I want to see if actual discussion is possible or if it is just name calling and denial on this site.

Please don't assume a person's motives. Ask questions or you are just showing your own bias.

 

[Douggg]

Interesting way to look at it... it sure does not read that way to me though.

Revelation 17 - first century, no crowns on either the heads, nor horns. Their completed fulfillment to be in the end times.

Revelation 12 - 7 years to go in Revelation 12:6-17, crowns on the seven heads (meaning king 7 has come to power, completing the prophecy of the 7 kings), no crowns on the ten horns (because the king 7 has not become king 8, the beast king)

Revelation 13 - 42 months to go in Revelation 13:5, no crowns of the seven heads, one head mortally wounded but come back to life (meaning the prophecy of the 7 kings over, one of the heads - king 7 - has been mortally wounded, but come back to life as the beast king, king 8), crowns on the ten horns (because the ten kings rule with the beast king for one hour, having given their kingdom over to him)

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

These verses in Revelation 17

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space (the 42 months of Revelation 13:5).

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

kings 1-5, of the Julio-Claudian bloodline.
Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius

king 6 (ruling as the time of John)
Nero

king 7 and 8
leader over a group ten EU leaders - the little horn
dictator over the EU - the beast-king

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

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

The little horn person will be a Jew and somewhere in his bloodline descended from the Julio-Claudians, either that or he takes the title of Caesar in his final role as the beast-king

Here is the path on his way to his demise....

as the little horn (king 7), then as the prince who shall come, then as the Antichrist, then as the revealed man of sin, then as the beast king (king 8).

 

[dwb001]

You have proposed that the words are so plain that no interpretation is needed. I'll throw you a bone....

What is the sign of Jonah?

You do understand the question, right? You understand the words-- "Sign of Jonah" -- so what is it? Your premise is that when the words are plain and understood, no interpretation is required so explain.

I mean.... I'll postulate that this is the sign of Jonah..... prove me wrong.

View attachment 338004

Where is the phrase "sign of Jonah" in Revelation?

I am only speaking about Revelation not the entire Bible. Maybe you missed that part of the conversation.

 

[dwb001]

Revelation 17 - first century, no crowns on either the heads, nor horns. Their completed fulfillment to be in the end times.

Revelation 12 - 7 years to go in Revelation 12:6-17, crowns on the seven heads (meaning king 7 has come to power, completing the prophecy of the 7 kings), no crowns on the ten horns (because the king 7 has not become king 8, the beast king)

Revelation 13 - 42 months to go in Revelation 13:5, no crowns of the seven heads, one head mortally wounded but come back to life (meaning the prophecy of the 7 kings over, one of the heads - king 7 - has been mortally wounded, but come back to life as the beast king, king 8), crowns on the ten horns (because the ten kings rule with the beast king for one hour, having given their kingdom over to him)

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

These verses in Revelation 17

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

kings 1-5, of the Julio-Claudian bloodline.
Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius

king 6 (ruling as the time of John
Nero

king 7 and 8
leader over a group ten EU leaders - the little horn
dictator over the EU - the beast-king

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

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

The little horn person will be a Jew and somewhere in his bloodline descended from the Julio-Claudians, either that or take the title of Caesar in his final role as the beast-king

Here is the path on his way to his demise....

as the little horn, then as the prince who shall come, then as the Antichrist, then as the revealed man of sin, then as the beast king.


View attachment 338005

I don't read long posts. And all your info does not even address my post.

I said it doesn't read that way to me.
I see nothing in your post that addresses the way the passages read. And your ideas do not appear to be unique so why even post that here even we are talking about unique eschatology?

 

[Douggg]

I don't read long posts. And all your info does not even address my post.

I said it doesn't read that way to me.
I see nothing in your post that addresses the way the passages read. And your ideas do not appear to be unique so why even post that here even we are talking about unique eschatology?

"I said it doesn't read that way to me."

So, I responded with the verses from Revelation 17, for the basis. But you decided not to even read?

"And your ideas do not appear to be unique so why even post that here even we are talking about unique eschatology?"

Since you did not read my post, how do you know ? Do you know of anyone else, such as end times bible prophecy commentators like on You Tube, have the same detailed path of the person destruction ? I would say my position is unique, compared to many others.

For example, go watch as many you tube videos as you want regarding the subject matter of the Antichrist. They will all say the same thing, because they have been conditioned, that the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is a peace treaty.

But it is not a peace treaty, instead the Mt. Sinai covenant, confirmed as required by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

And also none of the You Tubers say that to become the Antichrist the person has to be anointed the King of Israel. Which, because he will be anointed the King of Israel, it will be incumbent upon him by the requirement of Moses to oversee the reading of the law to the nation of Israel from the temple mount - which the reading of the law to the nation of Israel, from the place of God's choosing is Moses's prescribed method to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant..

 

[dwb001]

Since you did not read my post, how do you know ?

it is called skimming... and recognizing stale ideas.

Do you know of anyone else, such as end times bible prophecy commentators like on You Tube, have the same detailed path of the person destruction ?

That sentence did not make sense.

I would say my position is unique, compared to many others.

Your position may be... your eschatology not so much.

Go watch as many you tube videos as you want regarding the subject matter of the Antichrist. They will all say the same thing, because they have been conditioned, that the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is a peace treaty.

That would be why i don't listen to those peddling yesterday's manna.

But is not a peace treaty, instead the Mt. Sinai covenant, confirmed as required by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Neet idea.

And also none of the You Tubers say that to become the Antichrist the person has to be anointed the King of Israel. Which, because he will be anointed the King of Israel, it will be incumbent upon him by the requirement of Moses to oversee the reading of the law to the nation of Israel from the temple mount.

Why could the antichrist not be the son of god? We have one of those walking around right now.

 

[Mr E]

Where is the phrase "sign of Jonah" in Revelation?

I am only speaking about Revelation not the entire Bible. Maybe you missed that part of the conversation.

I'm having trouble determining if you are dull or obtuse. I'll give you some benefit of the doubt and consider you to be mostly just obstinate and set the reason for that aside. Maybe you just need coffee.

Jesus was the one who mentioned the sign of Jonah. When doing so, he pointed to a time of coming judgment. Since the book of Revelation is his testimony and revelation of that time (when the men of Ninevah along with the Queen of the South would rise up) of judgment.
ummmm..... it's kind of what the whole book is about.

 

[dwb001]

I'm having trouble determining if you are dull or obtuse. I'll give you some benefit of the doubt and consider you to be mostly just obstinate and set the reason for that aside. Maybe you just need coffee.

Jesus was the one who mentioned the sign of Jonah. When doing so, he pointed to a time of coming judgment. Since the book of Revelation is his testimony and revelation of that time (when the men of Ninevah along with the Queen of the South would rise up) of judgment.
ummmm..... it's kind of what the whole book is about.

Irrelevant.

My claims of no interpretation needed is only for the book of Revelation.

 

[Douggg]

That sentence did not make sense.

I wrote the person's path on his way to his destruction is ...

as the little horn (king 7), then as the prince who shall come, then as the Antichrist, then as the revealed man of sin, then as the beast king (king 8).

I also furnished a graphic I made.

If you go to You Tube and listen to the many so-called experts on end time bible prophecy, you will find they all say the same thing - that the Antichrist is called by many names in the bible.

But they are wrong! It is not by many names, but by different roles he will go through. As an analogy, the President of the United States is not another name for Senator of the United States. Those are two completely different roles.

And in the analogy, if it happens to be the same person, like JFK, he is not simultaneously in those two roles, but as a progression from one role to the next.

The same will be for the person who becomes the little horn, then the Antichrist, then the beast-king.

 

[dwb001]

I wrote the person's path on his way to his destruction is ...

as the little horn (king 7), then as the

prince who shall come, then as the Antichrist, then as the revealed man of sin, then as the beast king (king 8).

I also furnish a graphic I made.

If you go to You Tube and listen to the many so-called experts on end time bible prophecy, you will find they all say the same thing - that the Antichrist is called by many names in the bible.

But they are wrong ! Is is not by many names, but by different roles he will go through. As an analogy, the President of the United States is not another name for Senator of the United States. Those are two completely different roles.

Yeah... you don't sound very open minded. Thanks for playing.

And your above little rant does not clarify the sentence that was not structured correctly.

 

[Douggg]

Why could the antichrist not be the son of god? We have one of those walking around right now.

Please, be more specific.

 

[dwb001]

Please, be more specific.

About what? There is a current son of god walking the Earth right now.

Look it up.

 

[Douggg]

About what? There is a current son of god walking the Earth right now.

Look it up.

About your statement "There is a current son of god walking the Earth right now."

Be more specific. Who, precisely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Neither have I. Why are you bringing up stuff no one is mentioning?

I'm attempting to anticipate and cover my logical bases, ahead of time.

That's what we philosophers do.

So your interpretation is possibly wrong... why did you do that then? Why did you mot just go with Gods words?

Being "possibly wrong" and actually being wrong are two different epistemic states. One is not the same as the other.

So, I have nothing to admit yet if I don't KNOW that I'm wrong.

Long ago. That may be a good thing or maybe a bad thing. I see it as a bad thing. Behold God is doing something new... so old manna gets moldy. Stick to fresh manna.

I hate to say it but I've heard this line of insinuated denial way too many times. It's also a form of equivocation on your part since I'm not dealing in "old manna."

To weed out the stubborn and moribund.

That's not a straighforward way to "weed things out." Moreover, no one has recognized that you have the authority or the knowledge to "weed things out." I could be wronga bout that: maybe you do have the authority and knowledge the rest of us don't have? But it almost sounds like you're wanting to show your right MORE THAN that you want to fellowship with other Christians.

I want to see if actual discussion is possible or if it is just name calling and denial on this site.

We're having a discussion right now, and you don't see me callingyou names. As for denial, you and I haven't gotten far enough in our discussion for me to outright "deny" your viewpoint about eschatology. It so happens to be, though, that I can't affirm at present either. But where eschatology is the center of attention in a dialogue, all of that is par for the course.

Please don't assume a person's motives. Ask questions or you are just showing your own bias.

The act of asking questions doesn't necessarily indicate that a person isn't showing any bias. Even questions can be selective.

 

[dwb001]

About your statement "There is a current son of god walking the Earth right now."

Be more specific.

To be specific... there is a person(human male) that is currently alive and well known... that is a son of god and has a direct claim to the Davidic throne.

 

[Douggg]

To be specific... there is a person(human male) that is currently alive and well known... that is a son of god and has a direct claim to the Davidic throne.

That is not specific. Who are you referring to ?

 

[dwb001]

I'm attempting to anticipate and cove my logical bases, ahead of time.

That's what we philosophers do.

That just muddies the water. Please stick to what is being discussed instead of jumping to conclusions.

Being "possibly wrong" and actually being wrong are two different epistemic states. One is not the same as the other.

Close to the same.

So, I have nothing to admit yet if I don't KNOW that I'm wrong.

If you do not know that you are wrong... then you may still be wrong.

I hate to say it but I've heard this line of insinuated denial way too many times. It's also a form of equivocation on your part since I'm not dealing in "old manna."

You may enjoy it but it smells like maggoty manna to me.

That's not a straighforward way to "weed things out." Moreover, no one has recognized that you have the authority or the knowledge to "weed things out." I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you're wanting to show your right MORE THAN that you want to fellowship with other Christians.

Never said it was straightforward.
I made the post to see what people would say... so that I could do the weeding.
You want to do some weeding start your own thread.
I do not know if I am right.

We're having a discussion right now, and you don't see me callingyou names. As for denial, you and I haven't gotten far enough in our discussion for me to outright "deny" your viewpoint about eschatology. It so happens to be, though, that I can't affirm at present either. But where eschatology is the center of attention in a dialogue, all of that is par for the course.

I don't understand what you are saying.

The act of asking questions doesn't necessarily indicate that a person isn't showing any bias. Even questions can be selective.

Of course... and that is what I am doing. But I didn't say showing "any bias"... please don't misrepresent my words... it just isn't honest.

 

[dwb001]

That is not specific. Who are you referring to ?

Who do you think I am referring to?
And it is more specific... you just don't like my answer.
Please do some homework.
Or show me that you care about the answer rather than just trying to find a gotcha moment.

 

[Douggg]

Who do you think I am referring to?
And it is more specific... you just don't like my answer.
Please do some homework.
Or show me that you care about the answer rather than just trying to find a gotcha moment.

I don't know who you are referring to. You are the one who made the statement. It is up to you to be specific. Name the person.

 

[dwb001]

I don't know who you are referring to. You are the one who made the statement. It is up to you to be specific. Name the person.

You have not shown me that you are serious.