When will Elijah the prophet appear in the world?

[Anto9us]

In one sense Elijah already came as John the Baptist - then shortly afterwards, Elijah came as himself with Moses on Mt of Transfiguration

some say he will come yet again as one of the two witnesses

maybe he has already come enough, I dunno

 

[SG9]

In one sense Elijah already came as John the Baptist - then shortly afterwards, Elijah came as himself with Moses on Mt of Transfiguration

some say he will come yet again as one of the two witnesses

maybe he has already come enough, I dunno

He couldn't be done yet, God still has a world to save. This world will not continue as it is, and the prophecy must be fulfilled so the end may come, or else we deny the second arrival and say that we do not need a Savior.

 

[Anto9us]

well he can come as many times as the Father wants him to

he never did actually die

 

[SG9]

well he can come as many times as he wants to

he never did actually die

Are you saying that Elijah can decide when to come? Or, are you saying that he has the power to come to earth when he pleases and yet there is no need for him to come again? Do you have scripture reference that I may examine for myself?

 

[Anto9us]

I am saying that he apparently had one "coming" when John the Baptist fulfilled his role as forerunner of Christ - I am saying he had another "coming" on Mt of Transfiguration; I assume he chose to come then...

I am not speculating on whether there is a "need" for him to come again

I do not know if he will be one of the two witnesses

I do not know the "requirements" of when he can come, or when he HAS to come

apparently some people thought Christ was "calling Elijah" from the cross, when it seems in reality He was quoting Psalm 22 in Aramaic

Elijah is pretty unusual - never did die - Elisha got a double portion of his spirit

Jesus said "Elijah does come, and they did with him as they desired" so He was obviously talking about John the baptizer

yet at Mt of Transfiguration Elijah comes as himself - not John

Enoch never died either, and some very early commentaries said Enoch and Elijah will be two witness - but Enoch wasn't Jewish, and the "miracles" match Moses and Elijah

 

[SG9]

I am saying that he apparently had one "coming" when John the Baptist fulfilled his role as forerunner of Christ - I am saying he had another "coming" on Mt of Transfiguration; I assume he chose to come then...

I am not speculating on whether there is a "need" for him to come again

I do not know if he will be one of the two witnesses

I do not know the "requirements" of when he can come, or when he HAS to come

apparently some people thought Christ was "calling Elijah" from the cross, when it seems in reality He was quoting Psalm 22 in Aramaic

Elijah is pretty unusual - never did die - Elisha got a double portion of his spirit

Jesus said "Elijah does come, and they did with him as they desired" so He was obviously talking about John the baptizer

yet at Mt of Transfiguration Elijah comes as himself - not John

Enoch never died either, and some very early commentaries said Enoch and Elijah will be two witness - but Enoch wasn't Jewish, and the "miracles" match Moses and Elijah

I was more concerned with your statement that Elijah can make the decision when or even not to come whenever he pleases; I thought that this would be up to the Father to choose the appointed times when Elijah would be sent, God does the sending, right? He said that He will send Elijah, He never says that Elijah comes whenever he decides to.

 

[Anto9us]

ok - I recant that Elijah can come anytime other than when the Father says

I will edit

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Are you saying that Elijah can decide when to come? Or, are you saying that he has the power to come to earth when he pleases and yet there is no need for him to come again? Do you have scripture reference that I may examine for myself?

Elijah was sent to the northern kingdom of Israel, not the Jews of Judah.

The spirit of Elijah is to unite the other kingdom with the Jews of Judah.



John the Baptist was not sent to Jews and when they showed up, he called them a brood of vipors.



Elijah, and John the Baptist prepare a highway for the return of the lost sheep of Ephraim who was exiled into the nations and became gentiles.


Elijah is to bring the hearts of the children back to the hearts of the father, his job is to make two people, one people.


Jesus came and did just that after John had prepared the way.


But then the two peoples broke apart and the brotherhood was broken, and that's why a restoration is still yet to come.

When the people who profess to believe in the God of the bible, join the Jews of Judah and have the same holy city{Jerusalem} having the same Holy days.

That the whole world will one day unite and all people keep the feast of Tabernacles.

The spirit of Elijah is in the world and it's evident at how many people you see that go back to God's roots to learn the 7 visitation days.

 

[Bible2]

Interplanner said in post 516:

If you go to Rom 3, you find the final line to be that 'the law is upheld.'

Romans 3:31 means that Christians establish the Old Covenant Mosaic law not in its letter, but in its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12).

See the first section of post 502.

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 517:

Bible2, what's the name of the 4th king, and how does he relate to the 7 heads being 7 empires in Revelation 17.? Is he the king of the 1st of the 7 empires also?

See the last section of post 501.

 

[Bible2]

HannibalFlavius said in post 518:

You prove Jesus could not have been the Messiah. and on top of that, you prove Paul to be the worst of liars.

Note that neither of those things has ever been proven, nor have they ever even been asserted in what has been presented here.

For Jesus is definitely the Messiah, the Christ (Matthew 16:16-17, John 20:31). And, for the reasons given in the 2nd section of post 515, Matthew 5:17-18 doesn't contradict the fact that on his Cross he abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6)

Also, Paul is definitely not a liar, for the basis for all of his theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That's why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other apostolic writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to believers confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There's no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful apostolic work on behalf of Jesus proves that he's not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And after his conversion, Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true believers (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17), we should never give up on any unbelievers, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, we should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls. And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they've done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or deed) in the past disqualifies them from being able now to repent and ask God's forgiveness and receive his salvation through their faith in Jesus (Colossians 1:21-22).

Also, when Paul was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, his merely acting like he also was still under it (1 Corinthians 9:20, Acts 21:26) was to maintain his credibility among those Jews, in the hope that this would give him sufficient continued access to them (cf. Acts 16:3), give him enough more time with them to where he might be able to gradually persuade them to accept his (correct) point of view (1 Corinthians 9:20) that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on Jesus' Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8).

HannibalFlavius said in post 518:

Here is what you are calling a lie, what else is the New Testament lying about?

Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law

Note that in Acts 21:24, the New Testament was simply quoting what someone said, and nothing requires that what he said was true. For the New Testament includes quotations of people who were in fact mistaken (e.g. John 7:12b, Matthew 27:63a). Also, in Acts 21:24, the original Greek word (ginosko, G1097) translated as "know" can be used in cases where people are mistaken with regard to what they "know" (John 8:52).

See the first section of post 506.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Note that neither of those things has ever been proven, nor have they ever even been asserted in what has been presented here.

For Jesus is definitely the Messiah, the Christ (Matthew 16:16-17, John 20:31). And, for the reasons given in the 2nd section of post 515, Matthew 5:17-18 doesn't contradict the fact that on his Cross he abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6)

Also, Paul is definitely not a liar, for the basis for all of his theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That's why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other apostolic writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to believers confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There's no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful apostolic work on behalf of Jesus proves that he's not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And after his conversion, Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true believers (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17), we should never give up on any unbelievers, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, we should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls. And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they've done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or deed) in the past disqualifies them from being able now to repent and ask God's forgiveness and receive his salvation through their faith in Jesus (Colossians 1:21-22).

Also, when Paul was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, his merely acting like he also was still under it (1 Corinthians 9:20, Acts 21:26) was to maintain his credibility among those Jews, in the hope that this would give him sufficient continued access to them (cf. Acts 16:3), give him enough more time with them to where he might be able to gradually persuade them to accept his (correct) point of view (1 Corinthians 9:20) that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on Jesus' Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8).



Note that in Acts 21:24, the New Testament was simply quoting what someone said, and nothing requires that what he said was true. For the New Testament includes quotations of people who were in fact mistaken (e.g. John 7:12b, Matthew 27:63a). Also, in Acts 21:24, the original Greek word (ginosko, G1097) translated as "know" can be used in cases where people are mistaken with regard to what they "know" (John 8:52).

See the first section of post 506.

Bible, I don't think you understand a bit.


You have successfully proved that Jesus was just like any man who was in sin, you have proved that he could not have possibly been the Messiah, you have proved that Paul is a two faced liar who will say anything to save his own skin.


That's what you do.


You teach a Jesus who broke the law, and taught his disciples to break the law, you teach disciples that went around teaching Jews to forsake the commandments of God.

What you are trying to prove and have proven to yourself, is that Jesus was a man in sin like any other man.



If Jesus came breaking the law, and teaching lawlessness, then he and his disciples deserve death.

Not only can't your Jesus be the Messiah, you have successfully proven to yourself that he is worthy of death by his own sin.


Whether you know it or not, that is in fact the Jesus you are presenting.

A man of great sin who couldn't have possibly been the Messiah.

 

[Bible2]

HannibalFlavius said in post 532:

If Jesus came breaking the law, and teaching lawlessness, then he and his disciples deserve death.

Regarding "breaking the law", note that it hasn't been said that Jesus or the apostles broke the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, only its letter.

See post 515.

Believers keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

HannibalFlavius said in post 532:

If Jesus came breaking the law, and teaching lawlessness, then he and his disciples deserve death.

Regarding "teaching lawlessness", note that it hasn't been said that Jesus or the apostles taught lawlessness.

See the first section of post 502 and the 2nd paragraph of post 511.

 

[precepts]

See the last section of post 501.

Which part of Dan 7:17 don't you understand? The 4 beasts are 4 kings not kingdoms. Do you refuse this fact?

Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

Dan 7:19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
Dan 7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

All these horns are kings which means the 1st horn of the 4th beast in Daniel is also the 1st horn of the ten horns in Rev 17 because they both represent the beast kingdom of Rome, so who is this king/horn?

Dan 7:24 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, and he shall subdue three kings.
---------------------
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.

Are these not the same ten horns/kings on the 4th beast in Dan 7, and on the 1st beast in Rev 17, same kingdom, same kings/horns, Rome and her 1st ten kings? Is not the 11th horn in Dan 7's 4th beast the 2nd beast in Rev 17, the false prophet?


Rev 17:10 specifically states the 7 heads are 7 hills the city of Rome sits on. You claim they also represent kingdoms because the 4 heads of the leopard {Greece} in Dan 7 represents 4 kingdoms eventhough it's not written anyway in scripture.

Since it's not written in scripture, I would have to assume the 4 heads in Dan 7 equals Alexander's four generals because the 4 horns in Dan also do, but that'a another topic for another time.

My question to you is how does the 7 heads equaling 7 kingdoms relate to the 1st king of the 4th kingdom in Dan 7 and the 1st kingdom in Rev 17? Is he the 1st king of the 1st of these 7 kingdoms or not?

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Note that neither of those things has ever been proven, nor have they ever even been asserted in what has been presented here.







Also, when Paul was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, his merely acting like he also was still under it



Note that in Acts 21:24, the New Testament was simply quoting what someone said, and nothing requires that what he said was true.
See the first section of post 506.

You show Paul to be a wicked liar, and you show that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. You show Jesus as a wicked liar and a sinner, even if you don't realize it.

You show a Jesus who could not have been the Messiah because he was a law breaker and a teacher who taught sin, instead of righteousness.


You stand with the Pharisees saying the same things that killed righteous men, and you think nothing of it.

You twist the word of God to your own belief, and you think nothing of it.


But anyone can read the truth and see very clearly what you are doing, and what you are doing is the saddest, most shameful thing, I have ever seen.

You make Paul and Jesus and the disciples out to be sinners, liars, and men worthy of death, certainly not a Messiah who came fulfilling the law.


Anyone can see how you twist the truth and lie against Jesus, and Paul and the righteous, that you try and prove wicked.

Anyone can read Acts 21 Bible, what in the world are you talking about?

Nothing has been proven?


Here is what you claim is not proven, although any child could read it and understand, you choose to act as if it didn't happen.


21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

LIARS WERE LYING ABOUT PAUL SAYING THAT HE TAUGHT THE JEWS TO FORSAKE THE TORAH.

You want to make THE OUTRAGOUS CLAIM that the LIARS WERE NOT LIARS, and now you are telling the same lies. You are saying the same thing that the liars were paid to say but you are not being paid, you speak against the Lord willingly.

You are saying the exact same things that killed Jesus and the disciples, this lie KILLED THEM, you are standing with death in this lie.


They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14


You should be ashamed of yourself, you stand with liars, and with the Pharisees who killed the Lord.

The word of God is not something you should be twisting.



SHAME!


SHAME!!

 

[Interplanner]

It is not good interp technique to take one pressured situation in Acts and make it the standard. There are a number of examples against what you are saying. And alternately, when Paul did say he was reinforcing the law (like the end of rom 3), it was not the reinforcement of Pharisee practice. The whole law is fulfilled in this, that a person care for their neighbor as themselves.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

It is not good interp technique to take one pressured situation in Acts and make it the standard. There are a number of examples against what you are saying. And alternately, when Paul did say he was reinforcing the law (like the end of rom 3), it was not the reinforcement of Pharisee practice. The whole law is fulfilled in this, that a person care for their neighbor as themselves.

What good are words when you have no Messiah?


WE can not teach a Messiah who comes breaking the law and teaching others to break the law, it is against the law.

Paul had to have two witnesses against Stephen to stone him, and liars were paid to witness telling lies.

If the lies were true, then Stephen was a law breaking and a false prophet who deserved death by the law.

The same goes with Jesus, if what {Bible2} says is true, then Jesus was deserving of death, a sinful law breaker and a false prophet.

Liars brought up charges against them all in order to show them wicked men who were deserving of death.

Is Jesus worse than a murderer?

Because if you show Jesus as a law breaker who teaches the children of Israel to forsake the laws of Moses, then you show a wicked false prophet who couldn't possibly have died for your sins or anyone else's sins.


The witnesses proved them worthy of death, IF they were telling the truth.

They were lying, and they were paid to lie.

The lies told of Jesus and his disciples is what killed them, not the truth.


The lies that Jesus, Paul, and the disciples taught Jews to forsake the Torah.


These are lies, but if they are not lies, then we are left with no Messiah who fulfilled the law, and we are left with no New Testament.


We are not discussing something that can be compromised, if people want to say that the liars were not liars, they cannot possibly do this without showing Jesus to be a sinner, was than a murderer, a false prophet, and all his followers the same.


Jesus did not break the law, and he did not ever teach people to break the law. He said himself he did not come to abolish the law, and that everyone who doesn't keep the leasts of the law and teachers others the same will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

There is still salvation, but to be the least in the kingdom is a terrible goal.



The liars were paid liars, and paid liars tell lies.


If you say the liars did not lie, you also show Jesus and his followers to be deserving of death by breaking the law.

How can you say on one hand that Jesus was sinless and on the other hand say that he is a sinful law breaker who teaches people to break the law?

Jesus said what he said about the law, that's it.


People can believe it or not.

 

[dfw69]

What good are words when you have no Messiah?


WE can not teach a Messiah who comes breaking the law and teaching others to break the law, it is against the law.

Paul had to have two witnesses against Stephen to stone him, and liars were paid to witness telling lies.

If the lies were true, then Stephen was a law breaking and a false prophet who deserved death by the law.

The same goes with Jesus, if what {Bible2} says is true, then Jesus was deserving of death, a sinful law breaker and a false prophet.

Liars brought up charges against them all in order to show them wicked men who were deserving of death.

Is Jesus worse than a murderer?

Because if you show Jesus as a law breaker who teaches the children of Israel to forsake the laws of Moses, then you show a wicked false prophet who couldn't possibly have died for your sins or anyone else's sins.


The witnesses proved them worthy of death, IF they were telling the truth.

They were lying, and they were paid to lie.

The lies told of Jesus and his disciples is what killed them, not the truth.


The lies that Jesus, Paul, and the disciples taught Jews to forsake the Torah.


These are lies, but if they are not lies, then we are left with no Messiah who fulfilled the law, and we are left with no New Testament.


We are not discussing something that can be compromised, if people want to say that the liars were not liars, they cannot possibly do this without showing Jesus to be a sinner, was than a murderer, a false prophet, and all his followers the same.


Jesus did not break the law, and he did not ever teach people to break the law. He said himself he did not come to abolish the law, and that everyone who doesn't keep the leasts of the law and teachers others the same will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

There is still salvation, but to be the least in the kingdom is a terrible goal.



The liars were paid liars, and paid liars tell lies.


If you say the liars did not lie, you also show Jesus and his followers to be deserving of death by breaking the law.

How can you say on one hand that Jesus was sinless and on the other hand say that he is a sinful law breaker who teaches people to break the law?

Jesus said what he said about the law, that's it.


People can believe it or not.

Hi bro...You listen to the law.. Do you obey the law if your wife commits adultery and you do not put her through the judgement recommend by the law?

Isnt the person a sinner who disobeys the law?...it has 2 parts... The sin committed against it..and the death penalty.... why do people who obey the law not carry out the second half?... And if they do judge and condemn according to the law.. Are they righteous in doing so?

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 534:

Which part of Dan 7:17 don't you understand? The 4 beasts are 4 kings not kingdoms.

Daniel 7:23 shows that the 4 "kings" in Daniel 7:17 are 4 "kingdoms"/empires, which is similar to Revelation 17:10, where the 7 "kings" are 7 empires, represented by the 7 heads of the beast in Revelation 17:3. It's the 10 horns of this beast which represent 10 individual human kings, who "have received no kingdom as yet" (Revelation 17:12), and who will receive power as kings only when the Antichrist, the individual-man aspect of the beast, does (Revelation 17:12b).

precepts said in post 534:

All these horns are kings which means the 1st horn of the 4th beast in Daniel is also the 1st horn of the ten horns in Rev 17 because they both represent the beast kingdom of Rome, so who is this king/horn?

See the 3rd section of post 507, and the 1st section of post 501.

precepts said in post 534:

Is not the 11th horn in Dan 7's 4th beast the 2nd beast in Rev 17, the false prophet?

Regarding "the 11th horn in Dan 7's 4th beast", when Daniel 7:24 says "And another shall rise after them", this can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

precepts said in post 534:

Is not the 11th horn in Dan 7's 4th beast the 2nd beast in Rev 17, the false prophet?

Regarding "the 2nd beast in Rev 17, the false prophet", did you mean the 2nd beast in Revelation 13? If so, the beast which comes up out of the earth (Revelation 13:11-16) indeed represents the individual man who will become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13). He could be a (secretly apostate) pope who at some point during his tenure will make a great push for peace and unity between Christianity and Islam. He could say something like: "Why do we fight each other? Are we not all the spiritual children of Abraham and of his God, the one God? Can't we lay aside our foolish, man-made differences of theology, which have done us no good at all, but only brought us hatred and violence, and unite into one religion of Abraham, one religion of peace, based on love for the one God and love for our fellow man? What's more important than this?"

He could be so skillful in elucidating what the moderate Muslims could call "the true, peaceful, loving nature of Islam", that he could be hailed by them worldwide as (in their words) "a Great Imam, come to rescue our beloved Islam from the bad reputation falsely given to it by the terrorists". In this way, a pope could come to hold high positions of power in two religions at the same time, which could be symbolized by the two horns of the False Prophet lamb (Revelation 13:11). This would be similar to how the 7 horns of the true-Jesus lamb in Revelation 5:6 could represent the true Jesus holding 7 positions of power at the same time (cf. Jesus wearing many crowns at the same time in Revelation 19:12). The False Prophet could even say that he is Jesus. (But he won't say that he's Christ, for the False Prophet and the Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ, and will deny that Christ is in the flesh: 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7.)

Once the False Prophet by his amazing miracles has brought the world under his spell (Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), including many Muslims and Christians who may not care much for scriptural dogma, but could go wild over his signs and wonders, he could begin to (in his words) "restore to the world the real message which was spoken by me (Jesus) at my first coming, and by the great prophet Mohammed, but which message became corrupted by power-hungry men when they copied and changed the early manuscripts of the Bible and the Koran". He could then gradually initiate the world into the Antichrist's Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4-6), a religion which could have existed since ancient times in some "mystery" cults, and which still exists today in the highest degree of initiation of a worldwide secret society. The False Prophet could present his miraculously calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13) as purported proof that Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist are the true God (Revelation 13:4-8, Revelation 12:9), in an inversion of how back in Old Testament times, Elijah miraculously called fire down from heaven to prove that YHWH is the true God (1 Kings 18:37-39).

--

If a (secretly apostate) pope does become the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 13:11-16, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13), adherents of Catholicism will have to decide what their ultimate source of truth is: Is it the pope and the RCC, or God and the Bible? Many adherents of Catholicism who know God and the Bible well and hold to them as their ultimate source of truth will no doubt be utterly aghast at the false doctrines of a False Prophet pope. Such adherents of Catholicism could demand that he be removed for heresy and apostasy, and that the cardinals elect a new pope. But other adherents of Catholicism, including many cardinals, bishops, and priests, could be deceived (along with most of the rest of the world) into believing the False Prophet pope's false doctrines because of his ability to perform the most amazing miracles (Revelation 13:13-14, Revelation 19:20; cf. Matthew 24:24).

And so a great schism could arise within the RCC. Compare the Akita prophecy: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops". Many adherents of Catholicism could follow the False Prophet pope, while other adherents of Catholicism could reject him and eventually even elect their own, new pope, who they could declare to be the "True pope". But this new, "True pope" could then be murdered, along with many of his followers, by the False Prophet pope's soldiers. Compare the Third Secret of Fatima: "he [the pope] was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions". Could the soldiers firing "arrows" be the Vatican's Swiss guards, whose weapons and colorful uniforms hark back to the Middle Ages?

After this slaughter, the False Prophet pope could manage to retain the papacy and full control of the Vatican, and through his (deceived) cardinals, bishops, and priests, retain full control of all RCC cathedrals, parishes, churches, etc., throughout the world. And when the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) obtains power over all nations, he and the False Prophet will make war against true, Biblical Christians (whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not) throughout the world, and will physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

It's only when the Antichrist has completely broken all the physical power of the true church (which consists of all true believers, whether they're adherents of Catholicism or not: Ephesians 4:4-6) that the future tribulation will end (Daniel 12:7b) and Jesus' 2nd coming will immediately occur, at which time he will resurrect and rapture (gather together) the church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). At his 2nd coming, Jesus will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so he/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43), for he/God won't share this glory with the church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

precepts said in post 534:

Rev 17:10 specifically states the 7 heads are 7 hills the city of Rome sits on.

See the 3rd section of post 501.

precepts said in post 534:

You claim they also represent kingdoms because the 4 heads of the leopard {Greece} in Dan 7 represents 4 kingdoms eventhough it's not written anyway in scripture.

The 4 heads of the Greek Empire (Daniel 7:6) would represent the 4 Diadochian Greek "kingdoms" which the Greek Empire broke up into after the death of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:22).

precepts said in post 534:

My question to you is how does the 7 heads equaling 7 kingdoms relate to the 1st king of the 4th kingdom in Dan 7 and the 1st kingdom in Rev 17? Is he the 1st king of the 1st of these 7 kingdoms or not?

See the last section of post 501.

 

[Bible2]

HannibalFlavius said in post 535:

You show Paul to be a wicked liar, and you show that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. You show Jesus as a wicked liar and a sinner, even if you don't realize it.

You show a Jesus who could not have been the Messiah because he was a law breaker and a teacher who taught sin, instead of righteousness

Note that Paul and Jesus aren't liars, and Jesus is the Messiah, for the reasons given in post 531.

Also, regarding Jesus being "a law breaker and a teacher who taught sin", see post 533.

HannibalFlavius said in post 535:

LIARS WERE LYING ABOUT PAUL SAYING THAT HE TAUGHT THE JEWS TO FORSAKE THE TORAH.

See the first section of post 506.

HannibalFlavius said in post 535:

They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14

Regarding Stephen in Acts 6, see the first section of post 511, and the last section of post 515.

*******

HannibalFlavius said in post 537:

Jesus did not break the law, and he did not ever teach people to break the law.

See the first section of post 515.

HannibalFlavius said in post 537:

He said himself he did not come to abolish the law, and that everyone who doesn't keep the leasts of the law and teachers others the same will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Regarding Matthew 5:17, see the 2nd section of post 515.

Regarding Matthew 5:19, see the last section of post 511.