Revelation in chart form

[Quasar92]

Did you even read the book?? Page numbers to substantiate your claims? I'll give you page numbers from that same book that you cite which substantiate my claims that Scofield was a scoundrel and thief.

Scofield began courting his future second wife Hettie van Wark before the divorce was finalized and they got married only three months after it was. Joseph Canfield, The Incredible Scofield And His Book (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1988) p. 100

Cyrus Scofield had several other incidents of a downright dishonest nature after he supposedly became saved. The fact that in 1892 he began calling himself Doctor Scofield without producing any Doctorate degree from any Seminary or University is the least of his devious activities. Even the details he gave in his story of conversion are proven to be fabricated, including the time, place and other particularities, thereby placing doubt on the whole story. Canfield, op. cit., pp. 65-68

He was a self-promoter in every sense of the word, even lying about being able to comfort and calm the entire city of Belfast, Ireland with a sermon he delivered there the Sunday after the Titanic sunk. Canfield, op. cit., p.239-240

“ Cyrus I. Schofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and
shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more

to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past. The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.

Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…” Canfield, op. cit., pp. 79-80 – as taken from the files of the Kansas State Historical Society.

Question: "What does the Bible say about gossip?"

Answer: The Hebrew word translated “gossip” in the Old Testament is defined as “one who reveals secrets, one who goes about as a talebearer or scandal-monger.” A gossiper is a person who has privileged information about people and proceeds to reveal that information to those who have no business knowing it. Gossip is distinguished from sharing information in two ways:

1. Intent. Gossipers often have the goal of building themselves up by making others look bad and exalting themselves as some kind of repositories of knowledge.

2. The type of information shared. Gossipers speak of the faults and failings of others, or reveal potentially embarrassing or shameful details regarding the lives of others without their knowledge or approval. Even if they mean no harm, it is still gossip.

In the book of Romans, Paul reveals the sinful nature and lawlessness of mankind, stating how God poured out His wrath on those who rejected His laws. Because they had turned away from God's instruction and guidance, He gave them over to their sinful natures. The list of sins includes gossips and slanderers (Romans 1:29b-32). We see from this passage how serious the sin of gossip is and that it characterizes those who are under God’s wrath.

Another group who were (and still are today) known for indulging in gossip is widows. Paul cautions widows against entertaining the habit of gossip and of being idle. These women are described as “gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:12-13). Because women tend to spend a lot of time in each other's homes and work closely with other women, they hear and observe situations which can become distorted, especially when repeated over and over. Paul states that widows get into the habit of going from home to home, looking for something to occupy their idleness. Idle hands are the devil's workshop, and God cautions against allowing idleness to enter our lives. “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man [or woman] who talks too much” (Proverbs 20:19).

Women are certainly not the only ones who have been found guilty of gossip. Anyone can engage in gossip simply by repeating something heard in confidence. The book of Proverbs has a long list of verses that cover the dangers of gossip and the potential hurt that results from it. “A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue. A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret” (Proverbs 11:12-13).

The Bible tells us that “a perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends” (Proverbs 16:28). Many a friendship has been ruined over a misunderstanding that started with gossip. Those who engage in this behavior do nothing but stir up trouble and cause anger, bitterness, and pain among friends. Sadly, some people thrive on this and look for opportunities to destroy others. And when such people are confronted, they deny the allegations and answer with excuses and rationalizations. Rather than admit wrongdoing, they blame someone else or attempt to minimize the seriousness of the sin. “A fool's mouth is his undoing, and his lips are a snare to his soul. The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man's inmost parts” (Proverbs 18:7-8).

Those who guard their tongues keep themselves from calamity (Proverbs 21:23). So we must guard our tongues and refrain from the sinful act of gossip. If we surrender our natural desires to the Lord, He will help us to remain righteous. May we all follow the Bible’s teaching on gossip by keeping our mouths shut unless it is necessary and appropriate to speak.

Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

In this letter Paul was speaking to Galatians, who were from Gentile bloodlines.

However, that really does not matter because if we take your answer as the truth, you have just killed your own distinction between Israel and the Church.

You constantly claim that a person cannot be Israel and a part of the Church at the same time.

In the answer above, you just broke your own rule.

This demonstrates one of the many errors of modern Dispensational Theology.


Great Errors in Dispensational Eschatology: Pastor John Otis

.

That Paul's epistle to the Galations was speaking to Galations with a gentile bloodline is totally non-scriptural and straight out of la la land!

FYI, what I post comes directly from the Scriptures and has nothing whtever to do with your flogging dispensationalism! Capiche?!


Qyasar92

 

[Marvin Knox]

You are playing both sides of the fence which I find to be very disingenuous. You wrote that what I claimed about Schofield is due to "likely prejudice" and the "unreliability of the internet." Is that you not casting doubt about my allegations?? After all, you asked me to cite evidence for my claims to which I replied that you should make the effort to do your own research.

Oldmantook said: ↑

Are you not capable of verifying whether or not my claims of Scofield's integrity or lack thereof, are accurate or not?
Marvin said: Giving consideration to the length of time between his life and mine, the possible and even likely prejudice of those reporting on him at the time, and the unreliability of the internet as our main source at this time - I am quite capable and have done so.
There it all is. You seem to see exactly what you want to see whether it is in this thread or in the scriptures themselves as you showed in the Revelation 16 fiasco.

It is a fact the Scofield Reference Bible was largely responsible for the introduction of Darby's teachings concerning the rapture in America. Prior to this, Darby's teaching was an unknown commodity in America.

Oldmantook said: ↑

Where did I write that their position was out of the norm? I simply claimed that Scofield's character warranted further scrutiny based on the facts I presented and thus his interpretation of the "rapture" was suspect.
Like I said - their position was out of the norm. Thank you for the confirmation.

You wrote: "Yes - I am. Who says I'm not? Provide references please so I can take them to task."
You requested that I provide you with my references so that you can take them to task.
Definition of take someone to task:

1. • 1.
     reprimand or criticize someone severely for a fault or mistake.
     synonyms: rebuke, reprimand, reprove, reproach, remonstrate with, upbraid, scold, berate, castigate, lecture, censure, criticize, admonish, chide, chasten, arraign;

I wrote about taking to task someone who accused me of something I never said. I did not comment on taking Darby and Schofield to task. Neither did I say anything about taking to task those who are critical of them.

Again - you see what you want to see and not what I actually say. Either that or you are being purposefully obtuse (i.e. lying).

So you have no problem following and adhering to the teachings of a liar and thief? It should at least give you pause to reexamine your beliefs based on bad fruit produced by this man. Your choice.

I do not "follow" or "adhere" to the teachings of Darby and Schofield. We just hold some of the same positions. There is a world of difference.

We don't base our theology on the character of other theologians. The whole idea is ridiculous. We base our theology on what we find in the scriptures. If, in between sins, a scoundrel happened to find the same things as we have found it doesn't invalidate our findings.

I do not reject the findings of Schofield simply because he appears to have been a sinner. If I did that I would have to reject the findings of most theologians including myself (as ridiculous as that would be).

My previous post documents such references. Jesus quoted in Revelation says what he says. If you choose to disregard his words and believe otherwise - your choice.

I don't discount what Jesus said in Revelation. Rather I discount your insistence that He said things He did not say.

Like I wrote - you play both sides of the fence. You ask me to prove my references and you will take them to task which means you disagree with my claims regarding Scofield. Yet, you claim you don't disagree with me that Scofield had poor character. Make up your mind Marvin.

I said nothing about taking your references to task. I said that I would take those who claim I said something I did not say to task. It now appears that you are the only one misrepresenting what I have said.

Who said Megiddo is in the immediate offing? Jesus stated he's coming as a thief. THEN they gathered...Armageddon. Then is a connective word which joins these two verses and indicates sequence and proximity of time. Armageddon takes place at the end of the tribulation.

Jesus stated that He is coming like a thief some 2000 year ago now.

There is not sequence and proximity of time betwden what He said 2000 years ago and the battle of Armageddon which will take place in the end times.

Again - you see what you want to see. In this case what you see is clearly wrong.

The verse clearly does not state: Then the saints were raptured...before the tribulation.

Nor did I say that it did.

Please show me where I said that and I will recant it or defend it. Of course, we know by now that it is only you saying that I have said certain things and not actual words written by me.

Please stop lying about what I have said.

You accuse me of slandering Scofield so your true colors have finally manifested Marvin? Apparently you don't believe Scofield lacked integrity since you believe I've slandered him.

You seem to be mistaken about my use of the verb form of the word slander.

It means to malign, vilify, or defame a person.

It does not necessarily imply that your charges are false.

1. Malign suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying.

2. Vilify implies attempting to destroy a reputation by open and direct abuse.

3. Defame stresses injury to one's reputation.

You have indeed purposefully maligned, vilified and defamed Schofield.

And this - in the mistaken assumption that his being of less than stellar character makes his theological findings invalid and, by extension. the findings of anyone who happens to have found the same things he did in the scriptures are also invalid.

All of us have sinned since becoming Christians. Some have sinned more than others. That does not make the studies we accomplished in our times of holy living invalid.

The whole idea is even more ridiculous than your illogical assumptions concerning the Revelation 16 passage.

P.S. Concerning what the Lord said in that passage and elsewhere:

("Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape." 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)

You really see those people on earth in Revelation 16 as saying "peace and safety"? I see them suffering everything but those things.

I see them suffering loathsome and malignant sores, living with a sea and rivers and springs which had become blood and in which everything was dead, a sun which scorches men as with fire, gnawing their tongues in pain, nations being drawn to battle by demons, and the greatest earthquakes in the history of the earth - not "peace and safety" as the Lord says will be taking place when He comes like a thief in the night.

I see peace and safety at the time of the (pre-wrath of God) rapture of the church just as the scriptures (and Darby and Schofield and Dallas Seminary and I) teach.

What Bible are you reading anyway? Or is it just that you are reading the Word of God with preconceived notions through anti-Darby/Schofield tinted glasses?

Good bye for sure on this thread now. You have misrepresented what I have said once too often for my taste - besides that your theological train has most definitely jumped the track.

 

[Revealing Times]

While I won't spare the time to go through everything in the OP charts (and I may not agree with every conclusion in them) - I must say here that the entire "Darby started this heresy" charge is absolutely ridiculous.

The merits of the various positions should be debated on their own without people resorting to this kind of cop out crutch.

I have come to the point in time where if a see Darby mentioned I do not take the person serious at all, if someone keeps making that asinine argument over and over I block them or ignore them because as I see it they are not even trying to have a logical discussion on realities.

They think its a "grand argument" but it only diminishes them in reality.

 

[Revealing Times]

Oh brother... the study of the crowns on the heads and horns, the difference between Chapters 12, 13, 17 is very important to understand.

There is ZERO difference as I have explained to you many time there Mr. Douggg, the only difference is on who is being spoken of hence the CROWNS signifies that point of emphasis in each chapter, I will do this again so as to enlighten those those to my point, I am not doing this for you because I doubt you will receive it anyway, but since I mentioned it I don't want to leave anyone hanging as pertaining to my understandings/point of view here.

Rev. 13 is about the Anti-Christ who also becomes a BEAST when he Conquers Jerusalem, hes STILL ANTI-CHRIST by the way !! Just because he becomes the Beast doesn't mean he changes his stripes so to speak, but until he conquers Jerusalem ha CAN NOT be the Beast.

BEAST is the SUBJECT below: Thus the Crowns on the 10 Horns showing who he has power over in this World.

Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,(Signifies the Beasts Power is over the Kings) and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

So the Beast here is a MAN who rules over the 10 Kings, and Rev. 17 tells us this is a fact as we see later on........Rev. 17: 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. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


The DRAGON or Satan is the SUBJECT in Rev. chapter 12 thus the CROWNS are on the Earthly Kingdoms he stated in Luke ch. 4 that he had power over.

Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

This is Jesus/John letting us now that Satan is the Subject here and his trying to eradicate the Woman (Israel) and his trying to kill the Baby Jesus before he could grow up to be the King of kings. Thus this chapter is showing he used his Kingdoms to come against two things here, the Roman Beast who wielded power via king Herod in trying to kill baby Jesus and the Anti-Christ/Little Horn Beast that Satan tries to wipe out Israel with in the End Times, but the Woman is of course protected by God.

So that is why Rev. 12 has the Seven Crowns on Seven Heads, Satan is over the Seven Heads, the Beast is ONE of those Heads. The Figurative Beast is the exact same being. Its the Seven Kingdoms over Israel via Israels whole History. The 10 Kings however are under the Seventh Beast.

As per Rev. 17, the reason there are no CROWNS on the heads or horns is because this is about the Harlot, who is ALL FALSE RELIGION, and she is not over anything or any worldly Kingdoms.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour (Signifies Religious Entity), and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

So the WOMAN rides the Beast, this chapter is about the Harlot Woman being JUDGED.

Thus the CROWNS Mr Douggg signify points of emphasis of each chapter.

 

[Douggg]

Rev. 13 is about the Anti-Christ who also becomes a BEAST when he Conquers Jerusalem, hes STILL ANTI-CHRIST by the way !!

When Barack Obama became the President of the United States, was he still the Senator from Illinois?

The Antichrist is the person as the King of Israel (illegitimate).

The beast is the person as the 8th King of the fourth empire.

 

[Douggg]

BEAST is the SUBJECT below: Thus the Crowns on the 10 Horns showing who he has power over in this World.

With how many months left in the 7 years?

Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

This is Jesus/John letting us know that Satan is the Subject here and his trying to eradicate the Woman (Israel) and his trying to kill Baby Jesus before he could grow up to be the King of kings. Thus this chapter is showing he used his Kingdoms to come against two things here, the Roman Beast who wielded power via king Herod in trying to kill baby Jesus and the Anti-Christ/Little Horn Beast that Satan tries to wipe out Israel with in the End Times, but the Woman is protected by God.

If the 7 crowns are upon the 7 heads signifies the Roman empire in Chapter 12 as ruling at the time of Jesus, then why aren't there 7 crowns on the 7 heads in Chapter 17, since the Roman Empire was in power at the time of John - the same Roman Empire that was ruling as the time of Jesus?

 

[Revealing Times]

When Barack Obama became the President of the United States, was he still the Senator from Illinois?

The Antichrist is the person as the King of Israel (illegitimate).

The beast is the person as the 8th King of the fourth empire.

That is totally different AND YOU KNOW IT.........

If Barack Obama was Anti-Israel as a U.S. Senator and became the President he would still be Anti-Israel. (WHICH HE OF COURSE WAS)

Only you Mr Douggg are saying the Anti-Christ name is a formal title, NO ONE ELSE I know says this.

So being a Senator is a formal title, being ANT-SOMETHING is not. As a matter of fact he is the European President and thus when he becomes the BEAST he will remain the E.U. President.

The Anti-Christ is never the King of Israel, I HAVE PROVED THIS UMPTEEN TIMES.

The Beast is not of the Fourth Empire, that empire suffered the Mortal Wound. He is raised out of the SAME FOOTPRINT as the Fourth Beast, Europe. And he is born in Greece of Turkish parents or grandparents.

The 8th King is a Demonic entity.

 

[Revealing Times]

With how many months left in the 7 years?

When does he come to power Mr Douggg? At the Midway point like I have been telling you, hence there is 42 Months from his reign unto the Second Coming.

If the 7 crowns are upon the 7 heads signifies the Roman empire in Chapter 12 as ruling at the time of Jesus, then why aren't there 7 crowns on the 7 heads in Chapter 17, since the Roman Empire was in power at the time of John - the same Roman Empire that was ruling as the time of Jesus?

Because this chapter it not about the BEAST (Man) or Satan and whom they are OVER !! Its about a Harlot being Judged and she has NO PART OF ANY POWER over any of the Figurative Beast(s).

Its just told that she RIDES HIS BACK....The Religious Harlot is a part of the Beast, but not the Government part, hence NO POWER, hence no Crowns.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Rev. 13 is about the Anti-Christ who also becomes a BEAST when he Conquers Jerusalem, hes STILL ANTI-CHRIST by the way !!

Rev 13:1-5
[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
[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.

God did not say that the beast is a little horn, the man of sin, or the antichrist. You need to find what is God's definition of the beast in Scripture first.

Just because he becomes the Beast doesn't mean he changes his stripes so to speak, but until he conquers Jerusalem ha CAN NOT be the Beast.

That is man-made interpretation. Nowhere in Revelation 13 mention the beast taking over the physical city of Jerusalem. It is because of your misapplication of 2nd Thess 2:1-3 where you think the man of sin is the beast himself where God has not said.

Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,(Signifies the Beasts Power is over the Kings) and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Incorrect. According to Scripture, the horn signifies power. The crown signifies rule. And no the beast is not a human ruler. The beast is a body of the dragon making up of people with spirit of antichrist.

So the Beast here is a MAN who rules over the 10 Kings

Again, nowhere in Scripture that God has defined the beast as a single man.

Rev. 17: 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. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

The horn in Scripture signify power. The number ten signifies fullness of whatever in view. So God is talking about the false prophets and christs having fullness of power to rule in the church which they have given their kingdom (church) unto the beast. Nothing to do with physical nations, empires, kings, and presidents.

The DRAGON or Satan is the SUBJECT in Rev. chapter 12 thus the CROWNS are on the Earthly Kingdoms he stated in Luke ch. 4 that he had power over.

Rev. 12:3

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Okay, the Dragon [drakon], meaning a serpent of sight (as if something to gaze or wonder after) is symbolic of Satan (verse 9 confirms this). Heads in scripture are symbolic of authority. The seven heads we read are seven kingdoms. Seven because it represents the totality of His rule. The numbers 7, 70, 700, or 7000 often illustrate the totality of whatever is in view. We can see this for example in the 7 days making up the week. It's the totality or completeness of the days therein. For example, after 7 days, the week is complete! That is the totality of the week.

These 7 heads of the dragon illustrate the totality of satan's authority throughout time, and the seven crowns again emphasize his rule during that time. Satan is the prince of this world and crowns are what goes on the heads of princes or rulers of kingdoms. And Horns in the Bible symbolize power. for example,

Mica 4:13

• "Arise and thresh O daughter of Zion, for i will make thy Horn iron, and i will make thy hoofs brass, and thou shalt beat in pieces many people.."

Daniel 8:7

• "and I saw him come close unto the ram and he was moved with Choler against him, and smote the Ram and brake his two horns, and there was no power in the ram to stand.."

This verse tells us that the Horns were the Symbolism of His power, and when the horns were broken, he had no more Power. See? That is God's definition! Horns=Power and Strength. Even in our day an animal's power and strength are often symbolized by his horn. The 10 horns of the Dragon symbolize Satan's power and strength as he rules in the latter time that these 10 kings come in the future. The 10 horns identify "that" time of Satan's power. It's commented on in Revelation chapter 17 verse 10. There it tells us that this power to "RULE" had not come yet (when Revelation was written), but they would rule with power for a short time near the End of the world (1 hour to judge the Harlot per Revelation 17). This power of the dragon would not come until near the end of the world when he will come out of the bottomelss pit and his power will only last a short season. The number 10 symbolizes the fullness of this time of power (within the totality of Satan's rule).

And so this third verse is a symbolic picture of that Serpent of sight Satan, as he has authority to rule throughout time (7), and as he is given the fullness of power to rule (10) for a short period of time near the end of the world.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I have come to the point in time where if a see Darby mentioned I do not take the person serious at all, if someone keeps making that asinine argument over and over I block them or ignore them because as I see it they are not even trying to have a logical discussion on realities. They think its a "grand argument" but it only diminishes them in reality.

Just because a position concerning an understanding of end time events wasn't studied in earnest before a certain person (Darby and Schofield) brought it to light - doesn't mean that that position might not be correct.

The logic which says that it must be incorrect if it was not widely studied before a certain point in time is so ridiculous as to not even be worthy of the time it takes to refute the notion (as you indicate above).

When some people can't refute the message itself - they shoot the messenger. It's the old principle of ad hominem.

In the case of the posts of "Oldmantook" it is the personal or abusive form of ad hominem - which alleges bad character for veracity, or bad moral character generally in order to undermine a position he is unable to refute by scripture alone.

 

[Revealing Times]

Just because a position concerning an understanding of end time events wasn't studied in earnest before a certain person (Darby and Schofield) brought it to light - doesn't mean that that position might not be correct.

The logic which says that it must be incorrect if it was not widely studied before a certain point in time is so ridiculous as to not even be worthy of the time it takes to refute the notion (as you indicate above).

When some people can't refute the message itself - they shoot the messenger. It's the old principle of ad hominem.

In the case of the posts of "Oldmantook" it is the personal or abusive form of ad hominem - which alleges bad character for veracity, or bad moral character generally in order to undermine a position he is unable to refute by scripture alone.

Well they like to parrot other peoples thoughts, I love to dig for myself. We all know Paul spoke of the Rapture, so whatever they say is discounted by that fact. Its such a silly argument, its like debating a kid 2 + 2 is 4 but they keep saying its 5, I just have to let it go and assume one day it might come to them in a breeze.

 

[Douggg]

Because this chapter it not about the BEAST (Man) or Satan and whom they are OVER !! Its about a Harlot being Judged and she has NO PART OF ANY POWER over any of the Figurative Beast(s).

Its just told that she RIDES HIS BACK....The Religious Harlot is a part of the Beast, but not the Government part, hence NO POWER, hence no Crowns.

The heads are upon the scarlet colored beast in Revelation 17. Not on the woman. The crowns are pertinent to the beast. Which if those heads had crowns at the time of Jesus in Revelation 12, they should also have crowns in Revelation 17, as the Roman Empire was in power when Jesus was born and when John was given Revelation. ......if your interpretation and understanding of the crowns were correct.

But your interpretation is not correct.

 

[Douggg]

That is totally different AND YOU KNOW IT.........

If Barack Obama was Anti-Israel as a U.S. Senator and became the President he would still be Anti-Israel. (WHICH HE OF COURSE WAS)

The answer to the question I asked is of course, no. Because being Senator is a completely different function from being President.

Only you Mr Douggg are saying the Anti-Christ name is a formal title, NO ONE ELSE I know says this.

I never said the Antichrist's "name" is a formal title.

The King of Israel is a title. Do you know of anyone saying "Christ the King of Israel" ? The problem is that you are not associating the term "the Christ" as being the promised person descended from King David to be the King of Israel to lead the Jews and the world into the messianic age of peace and safety.

So being a Senator is a formal title, being ANT-SOMETHING is not. As a matter of fact he is the European President and thus when he becomes the BEAST he will remain the E.U. President.

The Anti-Christ is never the King of Israel, I HAVE PROVED THIS UMPTEEN TIMES.

The bible does not call the person the beast when he first becomes the leader of the EU. The bible says little horn. The little horns is the 7th king of the fourth empire.

The beast is the 8th king of the fourth empire.

The Beast is not of the Fourth Empire, that empire suffered the Mortal Wound. He is raised out of the SAME FOOTPRINT as the Fourth Beast, Europe. And he is born in Greece of Turkish parents or grandparents.

The 8th King is a Demonic entity.

The beast, the king, will be the 8th king of the fourth empire, which that empire is associated with Rome, in Revelation 17:9-11.

 

[seventysevens]

Strange but predictable. No definition of what distinguishes a Jew. How much DNA?

Israeli descendants have been returning back to Israeli for each of the periods of diaspora long before DNA was ever discovered - the study of ancestry roots has been around much longer , people who hold to extremely tight set of boundaries of who not to marry outside their belief system has been most prominent , DNA is only been of recent times - people know their own heritage of their families when it has a highly held purpose - in modern day it has become more relaxed in modern cultures but still many hold to it very tight
DNA is not really important nor relevant regarding this matter

 

[jgr]

DNA is not really important nor relevant regarding this matter

The Jewish community itself believes otherwise. (Re)read the articles I posted previously. They in fact welcome and applaud genetic dispersion, as they consider it a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. Genetically, "Israel in us all" would be considered the ultimate achievement.

God, of course, has His own criteria. And you are correct. To Him, "DNA is not really important nor relevant regarding this matter". It is in fact completely unimportant and irrelevant to Him.

His criteria are faith and obedience, and nothing else.

 

[seventysevens]

My reference to DNA is simply that it was not even heard of let alone understand that such a thing could exist to ID a person heritage that way , for thousands of years people knew their heritage without even knowing that DNA existed , surely in modern 21st century times people will say it is important - but during the early periods of diaspora people knew their heritage without DNA testing as there was no DNA testing that existed but they knew whether or not they were true descendants of Israel
It was Gods command to Israel to Not marry outside of Israelite people ,

Samson was not to be with women he was with as the same was with David - then there is the matter of when the Gentile church being grafted into the Israeli family it was being discussed if the Gentile church should follow the same rules and laws that the Israeli people did -some said they should some said they need not to and it was decided that the Gentiles who accepted Jesus as messiah did not have to be compelled to follow all the commands and rules and regulations that were placed on Israelite 's just because they accepted Jesus as messiah - simply because the Gentiles are not Jewish or Israeli bloodline and DNA was not even a thought during those days but yet they knew their heritage . Without very extensive writing - at this point in time to understand some prophetic writings it is important to understand that before Jesus returns there is a distinction between Israel and the church- Body of Christ - but after Jesus returns it will no longer be relevant - in some ways now it is relevant and yet in some ways it is not relevant -but to understand some things it is important- but due to how long it takes to explain it I will not get it to that long of description

The Jewish community itself believes otherwise. (Re)read the articles I posted previously. They in fact welcome and applaud genetic dispersion, as they consider it a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. Genetically, "Israel in us all" would be considered the ultimate achievement.

God, of course, has His own criteria. And you are correct. To Him, "DNA is not really important nor relevant regarding this matter". It is in fact completely unimportant and irrelevant to Him.

His criteria are faith and obedience, and nothing else.

 

[Revealing Times]

The heads are upon the scarlet colored beast in Revelation 17. Not on the woman. The crowns are pertinent to the beast. Which if those heads had crowns at the time of Jesus in Revelation 12, they should also have crowns in Revelation 17, as the Roman Empire was in power when Jesus was born and when John was given Revelation. ......if your interpretation and understanding of the crowns were correct.

But your interpretation is not correct.

Its NOT RELEVANT the SUBJECT of the chapter is the HARLOT.

1. Rev. 12 SUBJECT = Dragon/Satan thus the Crowns are on the Head.
2. Rev. 13 SUBJECT = Beast/Little Horn thus the Crowns are on the Horns.
3. Rev. 17 SUBJECT = Harlot/False Religion thus the Crowns are not to be found.

It is not pertinent who the heads are upon, there are NO CROWNS because the Harlot is not a Governmental power. The Beast is and the Dragon is, Satan told Jesus in Luke 4 that all the Kingdoms were his to do as he pleased with !! Thus the heads with Crowns depiction is the Dragon. The Horns with Crowns depiction is of course the Beast/A Man.

The Harlot is All False Religion and has no part in Governmental powers, thus there are no Crowns. The point is Rev. 17 is about the Harlot, thus its not trying to show WHO THE POWER was in the Chapter. Its about the HARLOT being Judged.

Its the SAME BEAST's you just use some awkward understanding to confuse the situation brother.

And yes, my understanding is correct.

 

[Revealing Times]

The answer to the question I asked is of course, no. Because being Senator is a completely different function from being President.

No, the answer to the question is exactly as I stated, you can't box me in with an asinine question brother. Nice try, but kind of confusing, I do not know why you keep up the charade. And like I stated, your question is OFF because being the Anti-Christ is NOT A TITLE, thus your question therefore is a rather benign type argument, harmless, but yet confusing..

I never said the Antichrist's "name" is a formal title.

The King of Israel is a title. Do you know of anyone saying "Christ the King of Israel" ? The problem is that you are not associating the term "the Christ" as being the promised person descended from King David to be the King of Israel to lead the Jews and the world into the messianic age of peace and safety.

And you have yet to prove the Anti-Christ will be the King of Israel and never will because its nowhere in the Scriptures. Now you think that is what happens, but I have proven its not what happens by the these very scriptures of God I believe in. That's all that matters to me, SCRIPTURES.

The bible does not call the person the beast when he first becomes the leader of the EU. The bible says little horn. The little horns is the 7th king of the fourth empire.

The beast is the 8th king of the fourth empire.

The 8th King has ZERO to do with anything, hes a DEMON SPIRIT....You do understand DEMON SPIRITS do not have a life form on earth right Mr. Douggg? His name is Apollyon.

The Beast is the E.U. President that Conquers Israel, he is the Little Horn or 5th Beast of Daniel chapter 7. Daniel 7:11 calls him a BEAST, he is not of the Fourth Beast but arises out of the Fourth Beasts Territory. The Bible tells you its a different Beast but too many off you don't listent to the words in depth.

Rev. 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.

He is called THE OTHER...Meaning a different Beast !!

Dan. 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom (First Beast of Rome) upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first(Hes the 2nd Beast of Rome), and he shall subdue three kings

The Little Horn Conquering Jerusalem is what HEALS the Mortal Wound.

The beast, the king, will be the 8th king of the fourth empire, which that empire is associated with Rome, in Revelation 17:9-11.

The 8th King is a Demon, repeating it doesn;t change the facts.

 

[Douggg]

Its NOT RELEVANT the SUBJECT of the chapter is the HARLOT.

1. Rev. 12 SUBJECT = Dragon/Satan thus the Crowns are on the Head.
2. Rev. 13 SUBJECT = Beast/Little Horn thus the Crowns are on the Horns.
3. Rev. 17 SUBJECT = Harlot/False Religion thus the Crowns are not to be found.

The horns and heads are not on the harlot.

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.
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.


For the Heads

Rev. 12 - crowns on the heads.
Rev. 13 - no crowns on the heads, one headed mortally wounded but recovered
Rev 17 - no crown on the heads.

For the Horns

Rev 12 - no crowns on the horns
Rev 13 - crowns on the horns
Rev 17 - no crowns on the horns