How Long is an Hour?

[ewq1938]

Based on your interpretation:
-What is that beast representing ?

The first beast is explained in Rev 17 as being a government/political system that spans a large territory (likely the whole earth) and within that system are ten kings which means ten kingdoms form this entire government kinda like the united nations or the EU although this will be bigger than they. Never does scripture describe the first beast as the antichrist/single person. That comes from some bad interpretation that ignores everything written about it.

-What the -sea- is representing ?

People.

-What is the meaning of the seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns ?

See above.

-Can you find other references about that Beast in the book of Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible ?

The first beast is mentioned in various places in Rev like 17 and 19 and 20. It is also mentioned by Daniel as the 4th beast which like the first beast of Rev 13 is said to be destroyed by fire.

 

[Postvieww]

That won't help people survive a tribulation though.

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/04/is-time-speeding-up-2446594.html This is a possibility.Some believe it has already happened.

 

[Riberra]

The first beast is explained in Rev 17 as being a government/political system that spans a large territory (likely the whole earth) and within that system are ten kings which means ten kingdoms form this entire government kinda like the united nations or the EU although this will be bigger than they. Never does scripture describe the first beast as the antichrist/single person. That comes from some bad interpretation that ignores everything written about it.

Do you agree that a one world government made of ten kingdoms (10 Super Nations)administrated by 10 rulers cannot arise in one day ?

Do you agree that there will be a time span (few years) betwen its rising (Revelation 13:1) and the moment that one of its heads (leader ) will be wounded at the head as prophesied by Revelation 13:3-18


There is a plan to create this One World Government in the aftermath of a third world war...WW3/
http://nuclearsuntan.blogspot.ca/

Never does scripture describe the first beast as the antichrist/single person. That comes from some bad interpretation that ignores everything written about it

One leader/administrator of the 10 Kingdoms of the One World Government that will receive the apparent "deadly" wound at the head and who will be "miraculously" healed will be the Antichrist to which power will be given to continue with full power to reign over the Earth during 42 months.

Revelation 13:3-18 ....that will be that 42 months of the reign of the Antichrist and his One World Government that will be shortened by the coming of Jesus....Revelation 16:15

 

[ewq1938]

Do you agree that a one world government made of ten kingdoms (regional groupings)administrated by 10 rulers cannot arise in one day ?

No, I think it's possible but either way doesn't matter. It arises nontheless.

Do you agree that there will be a time span (few years) betwen its rising (Revelation 13:1) and the moment that one of its heads (leader ) will be wounded at the head Revelation 13:3-18

The heads are mountains not individuals as per Rev 17. No person receives a head wound, that is an old and bad interpretation.

One leader/administrator of the 10 Kingdoms of the One World Government that will receive the apparent "deadly" wound at the head and who will be "miraculously" healed will be the Antichrist to which power will be given to continue with full power to reign over the Earth during 42 months.

No. The Antichrist is the second beast of Rev 13 not the first.

 

[Riberra]

No, I think it's possible but either way doesn't matter. It arises nontheless.


The heads are mountains not individuals as per Rev 17. No person receives a head wound, that is an old and bad interpretation.

Lol !
Mountains cannot be healed ,mountains don't have a mouth to speak great things and blasphemies;a mountain cannot be the HIM who receive power to CONTINUE forty and two months.

Revelation 13
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

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?

5 And there was given unto HIM a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto HIM to continue forty and two months.

No. The Antichrist is the second beast of Rev 13 not the first.

The second beast is the false prophet who will make miracles in presence of the Antichrist.
Revelation 13
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, /and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed./

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

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.

 

[Biblewriter]

Any interpretation of any portion of scripture that directly contradicts any other part of scripture is necessarily wrong.

There is absolutely not even a single sentence in the entire New Testament that even suggests that the Old Testament prophecies will not be literally be fulfilled, but the New Testament does contain numerous comments that at the very least imply that they will indeed be fulfilled.

Why do we think that the Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled in a literal sense?

First, because they are the statements of a God that cannot lie. If God said that such-and such a thing was going to happen, and it will not happen, then God lied.

Second, because the promises of God are reliable. God promised a future blessing to the nation of Israel, even as He was cursing them for their rebellion and disobedience. We find this in a great number of Old Testament prophecies. If God could legitimately make such promises to one group of people, and then afterward say that He was actually speaking of a different people group, what is there to keep Him from telling us that the promises He made to us were actually about a different group of people?

Third, because those prophecies that have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally. What, for instance, could have been more inconceivable than to say that a virgin could be with child? But that is exactly happened, literally fulfilling a totally irrational prophecy. Again, every detail of Daniel 11:1-35 was fulled literally, in such fine detail that unbelievers say that its very accuracy proves that it could not have been written before these events took place.

 

[parousia70]

The Antichrist is the second beast of Rev 13 not the first.

Where does scripture teach anything of the sort about antichrist?

Please use the actual scriptural teaching on antichrist to show this.

Any scriptures that you post to support this claim that do not contain the word antchrist will be dismissed as wholly unsupportive of your claim above..

 

[parousia70]

I don't appreciate your unkind tone.

I'm sorry you perceived my tone as unkind. It's not.

Of course there will be no more dangers or fears in the presence of Jesus.

Then why did you use this example to describe how people will feel in the New H&E?:
For awhile I thought the danger would come back (there were still risks), but God kept it at bay.

Either there will be fears of danger in the New H&E or their won't.
You seem to be saying there will AND there won't... which is it?

 

[parousia70]

First, because they are the statements of a God that cannot lie. If God said that such-and such a thing was going to happen, and it will not happen, then God lied.

Revelation 3:3
3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

So, According to what you just claimed above, either Jesus came as a thief to the first century Church at Sardis, or God Lied.

 

[Postvieww]

pure nonsense god avenged the blood of the lamb, the blood of the prophets, the blood of the apostles.

where are your prophets today? (and i am not talking about your montanism looniness found in the charismatic movement)

where are your apostles today?

there are only two cities that sit on seven hills that suffer the bloodguilt of murdering apostles... rome and jerusalem... luke 11:49 identifies which one

but there is only one city that sits on seven hills that suffers the bloodguilt of murdering the prophets see matthew 23:32-36 & luke 11:50-51 & luke 13:33-34

Random person said:

where are your prophets today? (and i am not talking about your montanism looniness found in the charismatic movement)

where are your apostles today?


Where do you think they went?


1 Corin 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Eph. 4: 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


The church is still here. Saints still need perfecting. Ministry still needs working. The body of Christ still needs edifying. We are still striving to come into a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Until all of that happens I would say they are still here. Just because you may not acknowledge that fact does not change it.

 

[ewq1938]

Any scriptures that you post to support this claim that do not contain the word antchrist will be dismissed as wholly unsupportive of your claim above..

That's called the argument from silence fallacy:

An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than their presence. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid.


So, I don't need the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev to find and identify the one John called the Antichrist in his other book. Paul wrote of the AC many times but didn't use that particular name either yet he still wrote of the same person.

 

[Luke17:37]

I'm sorry you perceived my tone as unkind. It's not.



Then why did you use this example to describe how people will feel in the New H&E?:
For awhile I thought the danger would come back (there were still risks), but God kept it at bay.

Either there will be fears of danger in the New H&E or their won't.
You seem to be saying there will AND there won't... which is it?

No, I don't believe fear of danger will be in the new heavens and new earth. I was quoting from my personal example - even though God clearly protected me and I escaped the immediate threat, I believed I was still at risk and I struggled with fear. But that is because I was still on earth. For one nearly sleepless night, I was afraid. And the next day, even after I further escaped the threat, I was still a little bit afraid. After meditating on the Word and listening to my encouraging friends, I started to relax.

I'm speaking more of the healing that makes sense from a traumatic end to life - such as the beheading that many Christians will endure (even the ones right now dying at the hands of ISIS). For example, we know that rape victims need time to heal from the emotional/psychological trauma associated with their experience. Even if their perpetrator is jailed or slain, they don't just automatically bounce back.

I think if we can come to heaven crying from trauma, He will wipe away our tears and then we will be fine.

 

[ewq1938]

I think if we can come to heaven crying from trauma, He will wipe away our tears and then we will be fine.

How can anyone cry tears if they don't have a body? Certainly wiping away tears must be a metaphor for removing sadness etc so no one would ever need to cry sad tears.

 

[Luke17:37]

How can anyone cry tears if they don't have a body? Certainly wiping away tears must be a metaphor for removing sadness etc so no one would ever need to cry sad tears.

Yes, I agree we won't have a body at that point, for example if we die in the Tribulation just our souls will be in heaven. We'll have a body after the resurrection... maybe without tear ducts.

Yes, I agree that the tears would be metaphorical. Jesus will comfort us and heal any hurts we have in our hearts.

 

[parousia70]

That's called the argument from silence fallacy:

An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than their presence. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid.


So, I don't need the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev to find and identify the one John called the Antichrist in his other book. Paul wrote of the AC many times but didn't use that particular name either yet he still wrote of the same person.

The problem with that view is you are the one arguing from silence.

The reason your "trinity" argument does not apply is that, unlike the "concept" of the trinity, The Bible contains VERY EXPLICIT teaching on the nature and identity of antichrist, by name, and NOWHERE in that explicit, detailed teaching can we find ANY attributes, details, likenesses or allusions that can be BIBLICALLY applied to the Beast of John's Revelation or Paul's Man of Sin/Son of Perdition. Neither of those distinct, separate entities resemble each other OR antichrist in any way, shape or form.

If they did, you could point to the scriptural teaching that connects them, but you can't. You can only appeal to the non biblical traditions of man alone to support your claim they are one in the same individual, for the bible NOWHERE teaches anything of the sort.

You are adding to that teaching something that does not exist, thus arguing from silence.

In fact, using your same criteria, I could make the claim that Pilot is the same person as Judas and have exactly as much biblical proof of that claim that you have to claim antichrtist and beast are the same person.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't need the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev to find and identify the one John called the Antichrist in his other book. Paul wrote of the AC many times but didn't use that particular name either yet he still wrote of the same person.

The problem with that view is you are the one arguing from silence.

The reason your "trinity" argument does not apply is that, unlike the "concept" of the trinity, The Bible contains VERY EXPLICIT teaching on the nature and identity of antichrist, by name, and NOWHERE in that explicit, detailed teaching can we find ANY attributes, details, likenesses or allusions that can be BIBLICALLY applied to the Beast of John's Revelation or Paul's Man of Sin/Son of Perdition. Neither of those distinct, separate entities resemble each other OR antichrist in any way, shape or form.

If they did, you could point to the scriptural teaching that connects them, but you can't. You can only appeal to the non biblical traditions of man alone to support your claim they are one in the same individual, for the bible NOWHERE teaches anything of the sort.

You are adding to that teaching something that does not exist, thus arguing from silence.

In fact, using your same criteria, I could make the claim that Pilot is the same person as Judas and have exactly as much biblical proof of that claim that you have to claim antichrtist and beast are the same person.

 

[parousia70]

I don't need the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev to find and identify the one John called the Antichrist in his other book. Paul wrote of the AC many times but didn't use that particular name either yet he still wrote of the same person.

Neither of those statements are true or supportable with scripture.

Simply repeating your unsupportable assertion does not prove the assertion.

To prove your assertion, you would need to take a description or attribute from the explicit teaching on antichrist found in 1 & 2 John and show us how that particular description or attribute applies to Paul's Man of Sin or John's Revelation Beast, enabling you, as you said, to correctly "identify" the one called antichrist.

I understand you are asserting they are the same individual being spoken of, but you so far have been unable to provide ANY scriptural correlation.

Can you?

What "identifying" attributes of antichrist of 1st & 2nd John can you show are correctly, Biblically applied to the Beast of Revelation and/or Paul's Man of Sin?