The Assyrian

[zeke37]

No problem....

I connect the son of Perdition with Satan himself, as we are explicitly told that both of these names go into perdition...and we know that Satan is cast here for a short time "defacto"..and that he is not in his heavenly holding place anylonger, accusing the brethren...

 

[get it right]

perdition means destruction state of ruin, hell, satan is the destroyer, the son of perdition is someone just like him, the beast for one, judas iscariot for another.

john 17.12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

[zeke37]

the 2nd beast in Rev13....verse11, is an individual....who is Satan cast to earth for a short season....also called the false prophet (not that you agree)...this si the one and only son of Perdition...same guy as 2Thes2's son of Perdition


judas is not the son of Perdition..... God never says that he is.

However, we are told just who does go into perdition....Satan does.....


Judas repented, and tried to even stop what was going to happen to Christ. (potters field)

Satan does not repent...he is the one that goes into perdition...Rev12,17,20

make your own mind up....

 

[get it right]

the 2nd beast in Rev13....verse11, is an individual....who is Satan cast to earth for a short season....also called the false prophet (not that you agree)...this si the one and only son of Perdition...same guy as 2Thes2's son of Perdition

the false prophet is not satan, beast and false prophet are thrown into lof 1000 years before satan is.
the son of perdition in 2 thess 2 is the first beast not the false prophet.
the false prophet does miracles in support of the first beast, satan gives them both their power.


judas is not the son of Perdition..... God never says that he is.

he certinally did john 17.12

However, we are told just who does go into perdition....Satan does.....

many go into perdition
2 peter 3.7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Judas repented, and tried to even stop what was going to happen to Christ. (potters field)

somethings cannot be repented of, betraying christ is one.
esau could not repent.
hebrews 12.17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Satan does not repent...he is the one that goes into perdition...Rev12,17,20

many go into perdition, 2 peter 3.7

make your own mind up....

there is no need to, god has said it very clearly.
since you cannot or will not see it, i will explain it, even though it is very plain and clear.

john 17.12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

while jesus was with his apostles in the world, he kept them in the fathers name, and none of the apostles is lost, except one, judas iscariot who jesus called the son of perdition.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #53 of this thread:

You are rolling all the end-time "bad guys" into one and calling this
conglomerate "the Antichrist.'

Greetings.

Note that the five separate major bad guys in the coming tribulation
can't be rolled into one. For the Antichrist (the beast) isn't the same
bad guy as the False Prophet of the Antichrist (Revelation 19:20).
And these two bad guys aren't the same as the dragon Satan
(Revelation 16:13, Revelation 13:4). And none of these three
different bad guys are the same as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish false
Messiah whom the Antichrist will defeat (Daniel 11:22) and then
"cut" a seven-year treaty with (Daniel 11:23a, 9:26a, 27a). And
none of these four different bad guys are the same as the Iraqi
Baathist General who could defeat Israel and Egypt (Daniel 11:15-17;
in verse 17, the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is
"bath") even before the Antichrist arises on the world scene
(Daniel 11:21-45).

Biblewriter posted in message #53 of this thread:

There is not even one scripture that says that the Antichrist will
attack Jerusalem even once, much less three times.

There is not even one scripture that says that "the Antichrist" will
do anything. But he goes by many other names in scripture than the
common name of the Antichrist. He is the "vile person" who at the
beginning of his career on the world stage (shortly after the
beginning of the tribulation) will attack Jerusalem and defeat the
ultra-Orthodox Jews who by that time will be ruling there along with
their false Messiah (Daniel 11:21-22). He will then make a seven-
year treaty with them (Daniel 11:23a, 9:26a, 27a), permitting them
to keep their temple (which they will have built on the Temple
Mount) and perform their Mosaic sacrifices for at least seven more
years, so long as they give up the outer court of the temple to the
Muslims (Revelation 11:2a) so that the Muslims can rebuild the Al
Aqsa Mosque (which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have destroyed)
and resume worship on the Temple Mount. But in the midst of the
seven years, mid-tribulation, the Antichrist will break the treaty
(Daniel 9:27b), attack Jerusalem a second time, attack the temple,
stop the sacrifices, and sit in the temple and proclaim himself God
(Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Then, at
the very end of the tribulation, right before the second coming, the
Antichrist will attack Jerusalem a third time (Daniel 11:45,
Zechariah 14:2-5).

Biblewriter posted in message #53 of this thread:

Neither is there even one scripture that says the Roman "beast" will
attack Jerusalem.

The Antichrist (the beast) doesn't have to be Roman. He could be an
Arab, from Tyre, Lebanon (Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4).
He has to come from a country the territory of which used to be part
of one of the four Diadochian kingdoms which succeeded the Greek
Empire of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:8-9,21-25). So he will probably
come from the Middle East. But as the little horn he has to come from
a country which is diverse from the ten major endtime countries the
territory of which used to be part of the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:24).
The Roman empire included not only Western Europe, but also the
Middle East and North Africa. So the ten major endtime countries the
territory of which used to be part of the Roman Empire could be the
U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and
Algeria. The three of the ten nations which the Antichrist will first
gain control of (Daniel 7:24) could be Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, which
by that time could have been placed together into a Baathist
confederation by an Iraqi Baathist General after he defeated Israel
and Egypt (Daniel 11:15-17).

Biblewriter posted in message #53 of this thread:

The only end-time individuals that are specifically mentioned as
attacking Jerusalem are "the Assyrian" and "the king of the north."
There is not even a partial clause of scripture to justify calling either
of these individuals "the Antichrist.'

Again, no scripture contains even a partial clause calling anyone
"the Antichrist", so that's a false requirement. Micah 5:5b refers
to the Antichrist as the "Assyrian" attacking Jerusalem right before
the second coming of Jesus (Micah 5:4-5a, cf. Zechariah 14:2-5,
Revelation 19:19-21), just as Daniel 11:40,45 refers to the Antichrist
as the "king of the north" attacking Jerusalem right before the
second coming of Jesus (Daniel 12:2, cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22-23).

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #54 of this thread:

What is far more to the point is that it has never been proved that
the Antichrist will do any of these things.

Note that is has been proven that the endtime ruler commonly called
the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem three separate times
(Daniel 11:22,31,45).

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #55 of this thread:

It has never been proven that Sennecherib fulfilled any portion of
Isaiah 10.

Note that it has been proven that Sennacherib could have fulfilled
all of Isaiah 10:5-34 during his invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters
36-37. Sennacherib is an Assyrian (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 36:1) who
defeated Judah (Isaiah 10:6, Isaiah 36:1). He made awful boasts
(Isaiah 10:9-11, Isaiah 36:19-20). His forces were ultimately
obliterated by God (Isaiah 10:12b,16-19,24-27,33-34, Isaiah 37:36).
After that a remant of Jews returned to God wholeheartedly (Isaiah
10:20-23, Isaiah 37:31-32).

Biblewriter posted in message #55 of this thread:

I have already presented extensive evidence in thei very thread that
isaiah 10 is not talking about Sennecherib.

Note that no evidence has been given that requires that Isaiah
10:5-34 wasn't prophesying Sennacherib's invasion of Judah,
subsequently fulfilled in Isaiah chapters 36-37.

Biblewriter posted in message #55 of this thread:

I have already presented scriptural proof that the Lord specifically
said that Sennecherib would not come before Jerusalem.

But to repeat, I will quote the entire passage from Isaiah 19:20-34

Assuming that one meant Isaiah 37:21-35 (which was what was
quoted), note that nothing in Isaiah 37:21-35 would forbid
Sennacherib from stopping some distance north of Jerusalem, at the
hill of Nob, and merely shaking his fist at Jerusalem from afar (Isaiah
10:32). Nothing in Isaiah 10:5-34 contradicts anything in Isaiah
37:21-35, just as nothing in Isaiah 10:5-34 contradicts anything in
Isaiah chapters 36-37. Both Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah chapters
36-37 can refer to Sennacherib's invasion of Judah.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #60 of this thread:

for God to name one, the son of Perdition....in 2Thes2...and then
teach us just who it is that goes into perdition in Rev12, 17 and
20....is not coincidence...

Greetings.

The human who is commonly called the Antichrist will become the
son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3b) when Satan enters fully into
him, just as the human Judas became the son of perdition (John
17:12, cf. Matthew 26:24) when Satan entered fully into him (Luke
22:3). After Satan is cast down to the earth mid-tribulation
(Revelation 12:9-14), he will give all of his power to the human who
is the Antichrist, the beast (Revelation 13:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
The human who is the Antichrist (the beast) will be cast into the
lake of fire 1000 years before Satan is cast into the lake of fire
(Revelation 19:20-20:10), just as another human who is the False
Prophet of the Antichrist will be cast into the lake of fire 1000 years
before Satan is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20-20:10).
Satan, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet are three separate
persons with three separate mouths (Revelation 16:13).

 

[kotel]

Greetings.

The human who is commonly called the Antichrist will become the
son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3b) when Satan enters fully into
him, just as the human Judas became the son of perdition (John
17:12, cf. Matthew 26:24) when Satan entered fully into him (Luke
22:3). After Satan is cast down to the earth mid-tribulation
(Revelation 12:9-14), he will give all of his power to the human who
is the Antichrist, the beast (Revelation 13:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
The human who is the Antichrist (the beast) will be cast into the
lake of fire 1000 years before Satan is cast into the lake of fire
(Revelation 19:20-20:10), just as another human who is the False
Prophet of the Antichrist will be cast into the lake of fire 1000 years
before Satan is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20-20:10).
Satan, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet are three separate
persons with three separate mouths (Revelation 16:13).

Looking good Bible2. The only thing I’d change is “mid tribulation” to “mid-week”

I would like you to reexamine Isaiah 10 and keep in mind a duel fulfillment in the historical Sennacherib and the future Antichrist.

10:5-8
These verses could apply to either one, with emphasis on the AC because he invades Israel to “take the spoil, and to take the prey” or “to seize loot and snatch plunder” which is what Gog does in Eze. 38:23.

He conducts war “to destroy and cut off nations not a few” or “to put an end to many nations” which is what Gog does, Eze. 38:23.

8-11
These verses apply to Sennacherib who conquered many cities including Damascus. This cannot be the AC because Damascus is the city where the AC comes from, there’s no need of him to conquer his own city.

12-27
Notice these prophecies are fulfilled "in that day,” the day of the Lord.
NIV
20 “In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob,…………….”
KJB
20 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel,……………..”

NIV
27 “In that day their burden will be lifted from your shoulders,……………”
KJB
27 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away……….”

“In that day” is the future day of the Lord.

Verse 12
When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion he will punish the king of Assyria. This will not happen until the Lord returns to establish is kingdom on earth, the Millennium.

Verse 16
A wasting disease will be sent on Assyria’s warriors is the disease mentioned in Zec 14:12.

Verse 20
His people will truly rely on the Lord. This did not happen after Sennacherib’s conquest of Israel, it will when Christ returns to set up his kingdom.

Verse 25
God’s anger against his people shall not cease until Israel is restored in the Millennium.

Verses 28-32
This section applies to Sennacherib.

Verses 33-34
Back to the future again and God’s wrath.

 

[JDS]

There can be no doubt that the Antichrist will go into perdition, that is, hell. But that does not make him Satan himself.

I believe that the Antichrist will be the last human ruler of Judah, which is now called Israel, and that he is the false prophet of Revelation.

I just went back and read all you had to say about the Assyrian and it was very interesting and made good sense. I had not considered him as a separate person from the Man of Sin (I think that is the case you are making) and it does bring up some questions for me. For instance, is he a subject of prophecy in the Revelation. Does he have a symbol?

 

[Biblewriter]

I just went back and read all you had to say about the Assyrian and it was very interesting and made good sense. I had not considered him as a separate person from the Man of Sin (I think that is the case you are making) and it does bring up some questions for me. For instance, is he a subject of prophecy in the Revelation. Does he have a symbol?

Actually, I do not see him directly in the Revelation. I tend to think (and this is off hand, not deeply considered) that the reason for this is that the Revelation deals mainly with the gentile nations and the Assyrian is the one used of God to punish Judah for its final rebellion.

 

[JDS]

Actually, I do not see him directly in the Revelation. I tend to think (and this is off hand, not deeply considered) that the reason for this is that the Revelation deals mainly with the gentile nations and the Assyrian is the one used of God to punish Judah for its final rebellion.

It appears that the man of sin is the world ruler in Re 13, at least in the last 42 months. Where is this established do you think? Obviously, if the King of the North is this powerful, world rulership would be disputed.

I am asking this for understanding because I think you have made strong points with the Assyrian.

 

[kotel]

It appears that the man of sin is the world ruler in Re 13, at least in the last 42 months. Where is this established do you think? Obviously, if the King of the North is this powerful, world rulership would be disputed.

The Assyrian is the king of the north is the man of sin is Gog is the 1st beast in Rev. 13. You cannot have two world rulers in the time of the end.

 

[JDS]

The Assyrian is the king of the north is the man of sin is Gog is the 1st beast in Rev. 13. You cannot have two world rulers in the time of the end.

Actually your sentence structure is too confusing for me to grasp your point but I am interested in what biblewriter has to say about this. I don't think he has made the point that the Assyrian is a world ruler but certainly he is powerful enough that he would have to be subjugated by someone who dained to be the world ruler, wouldn't he? The man in Re 13 seems to be a world ruler.

Re 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

I am interested in time frames and how these things work out in time.

 

[kotel]

Actually your sentence structure is too confusing for me to grasp your point

I am interested in time frames and how these things work out in time.

The world ruler is identified by all those names I listed, the Antichrist has different names attributed to him.

Biblewriter has made a strong case for the Assyrian as the world ruler in his previous posts in this thread. I agree with him 100%. This might help:
The Antichrist: His Place of Origin

Are you looking for the future time frame for Daniel’s 70th week?

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter has made a strong case for the Assyrian as the world ruler in his previous posts in this thread. I agree with him 100%.

You have wholly misunderstood what I have written about the Assyrian.

I see him as one of five distinct evil characters explicitly discussed in end time prophecy. These five characters are "the beast," who is the ruler of the revived Roman Empire, (whom I also see as "the prince that shall come" and the "little horn" that comes up on the beast's head) "the king," who is the ruler of revived Judah (which is now called Israel), (whom I also see as "the man of sin" and "the false prophet") "the Assyrian," who is the ruler of revived Assyria, (whom I also see as "the king of the north," the male goat's "little horn" and "the one who makes desolate") "the king of the south," who is the end time ruler of Egypt, and "Gog," who is the end time ruler of Russia.

None of these characters ever becomes the ruler of the entire world. The scriptures that are interpreted to mean this indeed seem to say so when we read them in English. But when the Greek is considered, it becomes plain that this conclusion is questionable at best, even if no other scripture is considered. And other scriptures plainly show that this conclusion is incorrect.

I see "the Assyrian" being allowed to successfully attack and destroy Judah because of their sin in allowing "the man of sin" to sit "as God, in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." For it is "because of transgressions" that the male goat's "little horn" comes. (Daniel 8:12) It is when this is done that the Lord told them to flee to the desert. The speed of his advance is explicitly defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.

 

[kotel]

biblewriter

"the Assyrian," who is the ruler of revived Assyria, (whom I also see as "the king of the north," the male goat's "little horn" and "the one who makes desolate"

This is what I meant to convey what we agree on, we don’t disagree wholly on who the Antichrist is. I missed or forgot that you said he will not become ruler of the whole world.

The first beast in Rev 13 is the Antichrist who is “given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation” (7). He will be given authority over the whole world but only have nominal rule over all people and direct rule over the his nation and the ten horns. Would you agree with this assessment?

JDS
For instance, is he a subject of prophecy in the Revelation. Does he have a symbol?

Symbol of the Antichrist in Revelation is given in 13:2

“”The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.”

The dominate feature of this beast is he comes from the Grecian Empire (leopard). Checking Daniel’s prophecies on the horns, the little horn comes from the Seleucid division of Alexander’s divided empire after his death. The area where the Seleucid division was is now Syria, the nation of the Antichrist.

Syria was also part of the Medo-Persia Empire (bear) and the Babylon Empire before it (lion). Syria was also part of the Roman Empire as evident by its iron teeth (Dn 7:7b).

 

[JDS]

Well, the study of the Assyrian is a very interesting topic and I am going to try to give some time to it. I noticed he had a prophetic connection to Lebanon.

Eze 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

I understand the symbolism of trees in scripture. This was directed to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who is the king of the south. Do you have any insight on this prophecy?

Eze 31:2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

I am going to make an observation about this text in Ez 31 that may or may not be relevant to our understanding of the Assyrian in end time prophecy. If we believe God addresses Satan through men he controls, then Ez 31 must be an instance where he is doing it.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

I do have a fair understanding of the doctrine of Satan and I think I know how God is going to deal with him in the end times, but that is a subject for a different thread. The point is here that the king of Egypt is like the Assyrian and there is a connection made with the Assyrian to both Lebanon and Eden, the garden of God, and by extension, to all nations of the world.

 

[LightHorseman]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.

To begin a discussion of this individual, I would like to direct attention to Micah 5:5-6:

"And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

The preceeding verses plainly show that the man called "this man" is out Lord Jesus. But who is the one called "the Assyrian"? There can be no question whatsoever that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, for when the ancient Assyrian kings invaded Israel and Judah, there was no power at all to resist them, much less "seven shepherds, and eight principal men." And Israel has never invaded Assyria.

Biblewriter

Assyria no longer exists as a country. What geographic location, or border, woul Israel need to invade for you to consider this prophecy fullfilled?

Just... you know... ancient Assyria included a great deal of territory, including all of modern Israel, and some places modern Israel has attacked, and been attacked by.

 

[Biblewriter]

Assyria no longer exists as a country. What geographic location, or border, woul Israel need to invade for you to consider this prophecy fullfilled?

Just... you know... ancient Assyria included a great deal of territory, including all of modern Israel, and some places modern Israel has attacked, and been attacked by.

No, the Assyrian Empire included these regions. But Assyria did not. Assyria itself was the northern portion of present day Iraq. Many people living near present day Mosul, in Iraq, still refer to themselves as "Assyrians." This modern city, which, by the way, is a center of the insurgency in Iraq, is less than three miles from the ruins of the ancient Assyrian capitol, Nineveh.