Daniel 7 Antichrist.

[gotime]

Gotime

Personally I can’t see it being a pope, just looking through my glass darkly I can’t see that.

Doesn’t seem to have enough power, or the ability to deceive to whole world.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

But as for the religious aspects of it, I can see that, for he can comes as an angel of light and his ministers, transformed as the ministers of righteousness .

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I have been of the understanding that he comes from an extension of the Roman Empire the legs of iron. But all of the western worlds as come from Europeans.

And that makes me think he could rise from any western country or European country.

The ability to deceive to whole world, his kingdom I would think is democracy and capitalism which is sweeping the whole world, even Christians love it. And I would expect him to rise from that.

But I only see through a glass darkly

Revelation reveals another beast who rises after the fall of the Papacy in 1798, This power will supply the support that the Papacy needs to rise once more. In Rev 17 The Papacy is represented by a whore. But this whore will be sitting on another power. Revelation 12 the second beast gives power to the first beast. the first beast is the Papal Rome power. as I will show later. Rev 17 also says that 10 kings will give their power to the beast and the whore. anyway Ill get there. The Papacy has done it once and they will do it again.

 

[doulos]

The Term "antichrist" is only mentioned four times in the bible-- all in the letters of John. In each case, the term is used to portray a false teacher or deceptive power that corrupts the faith within the church.

One false assumption built on another faulty assumption does not lead one to the truth!

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall
come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Nothing in those 4 verses say that “the term is used to portray a false teacher or deceptive power that corrupts the faith within the church” In fact those 4 verses tell us there are many antichrists not just one. Antichrists are simply individuals or the spirit that inhabits those individuals that deny Christ/God. We see them all around us in today’s world, Atheist’s, Muslim’s and the list goes on and on. There have been countless antichrists since John wrote those verses. Sadly satan’s ploy has worked well, it has taken the eyes(focus) of the average Christian off the literally billions of antichrists surrounding us in today’s world and instead now has them looking over their shoulder for some boogeyman. In some cases jumping through hoops to justify slandering a group of people that believe in God and teach that Christ is the Son of God was crucified, died and was resurrected, by labeling them antichrists. Sad, how very sad!

An "antichrist" literally means "instead of Christ" or "in the place of Christ".

Tthe 4 verses quoted above show Scripture does not say that antichrist is instead of Christ. In order for one to draw that conclusion one must break the original Greek word antichristo down into two words, anti and Christo, then use mans definitions instead of the definition the only 4 verses in Scripture provide for antichrists. Wouldn’t we be better served using the definition Scripture provides rather then leaning on mans interpretation by breaking the word into two words then using mans definitions? After all per Scripture an antichrist is simply one who denies Christ but by leaning on man’s definitions that is changed to instead of Christ.

John said there were "many antichrists" within the early church (1 John

2:18) and these antichrists all had a misconception about Jesus Christ.

Actually he said they denied Christ, that is hardly a misconception.

Within Bible prophecy there is one specific "Antichrist" who is described in great detail. This power would rise after the early church in Acts, and have dramatic impact on the history of the world.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

I don’t see anything in those verses that say antichrist (or even the man of sin) would “have dramatic impact on the history of the world” Can you provide any Scriptural justification to believe the man of sin rises to power to the point that he has a dramatic impact on the world? If not then what is this belief based on? The verses about the man of sin don’t say that, the verses about antichrists don’t say that, so why do you?

Most people think the Antichrist will be a Secular political leader.

That is because they blindly follow traditionally taught doctrines that make the Word of God of none effect, even though Scripture specifically warns us not to make that mistake in Mark7:13
Mar 7:13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

But the bible is clear. The Antichrist will come from the religious world.

Actually Scripture says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us”(see1john2:19). Note this is past tense not future. Nothing in Scripture supports the belief that there is an “Antichrist” that will come from the church and rule the world.

Most of the Prophecies concerning the Antichrist are found in the book of Daniel and Revelation. The focus
of this study will be in Daniel chapter 7.

Neither the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation even mention antichrist or antichrists the term is only used 4 times in all of Scripture and all within the Epistles written by John. Let’s leave the guess work theology built on false assumptions out and keep it Scriptural!

This power rules for a "time and times and half a times" (Daniel7:25). By comparing Daniel 7:25 with Revelation 12:6,14 it is clear that this time prophecy is another way of saying 1,260 days. A "time" is one year, "times" is two years, and "half a time" is six months or as the Amplified Bible translates it, "Three and one half years". Based on the 30-day calendar used by the Ancient scriptures, three and a half years is 1,260 days.
In Bible Prophecy, a day is symbolic code for a literal year (Ezekiel 4:6). Thus 1,260 days represents 1,260 literal years. Seven times in the books of Daniel and Revelation the same time period is given, using three different phrases, to represent the length of rule for this Antichrist. This means that its rule would end in 1798. Now you may be thinking but that means it is past. you are right it is, but as we will see in further studies later on, this power will rise once more just before Jesus comes.

Is time and times and a half really three and a half times? Or do the Jewish and Hebrew scholars that believe this is a Jewish idiom representing 2 ½ times correct?
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Notice how Dan12:7 reads in some versions of the Tanach.
Dan12:7.And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.
Could our doctrines be blinding us to the fact these phrases represent 2 1/2 times?

In addition if a year in prophecy is 360 days making 3 ½ years 1260 days then why do use 365 day years to show this period was fulfilled between 538 and 1738? After all if a year in prophecy is 360 days then 1260 years would have 453600 days. But the 1260 years between 538 and 1798 had 460215 days, a difference of 6615 days which on our calendar is 18.1 years or on a 360 day calendar year would be 18.375 years.. You can’t use a 360 day year to justify saying 1260 days is 3 ½ years and then turn around and use years that are 365.25 days long to show where they are fulfilled. Your method of interpretation is inconsistent. You can’t have it both ways either a year is 360 days or it is 365.25.You can’t make a year 360 days just when it fits your doctrine but then change it 365.25 day so you can make it match your doctrine elsewhere. May I suggest looking thorugh the eyes of the prophet, to Daniel a year was 360 days and to John a year was 365.25 days, so for Daniel’s prophecies use a 360 day year and for John’s use 365.25 day year. The 1260 day prophecy was given by John so 365.25 day years should be used making 1260 days 3.44 years not 3.5 years.

clue 10 - This power would attempt to change times and law.

While I know that the commonly held false view espoused by the sda likes to point their finger at Catholicism in this case, that is incorrect. Changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday does not change the times it only changes the day one worships on, Saturday would still be Saturday and Sunday would still be Sunday, regardless of whether one honors the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday. In addition Catholicism did not change the laws. On the other hand there is a false religion inspired by THE FALSE PROPHET that not only changed the time by instituting a new calendar having 354 days which over the course of many years will change what months the different seasons occur in, there by changing time. Today’s date is 30 November 2012 but according to their calendar it is 16 Muhharram, 1434. They have also changed the law by teaching the exact opposite of the gospel, while proclaiming God has no Son. A belief that they are trying to force the world to accept, by violence, if necessary.

If, as the false view espoused by the sda is true, maybe someone from the sda can show us which of the only 4 verses that define antichrists(quoted earlier in this post) the Catholics are guilty of transgressing. Oh that’s right you can’t because instead of denying Christ like an antichrist does they teach and believe Christ is the Son of God.

While I disagree with some of the traditionally taught Catholic doctrines, that hardly justifies labeling Catholics antichrists. Isn’t it time to set this traditionally taught false sda doctrine that makes the word of God of none effect aside and start searching for the truth?

 

[gotime]

One false assumption built on another faulty assumption does not lead one to the truth!

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall
come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Nothing in those 4 verses say that “the term is used to portray a false teacher or deceptive power that corrupts the faith within the church” In fact those 4 verses tell us there are many antichrists not just one. Antichrists are simply individuals or the spirit that inhabits those individuals that deny Christ/God. We see them all around us in today’s world, Atheist’s, Muslim’s and the list goes on and on. There have been countless antichrists since John wrote those verses. Sadly satan’s ploy has worked well, it has taken the eyes(focus) of the average Christian off the literally billions of antichrists surrounding us in today’s world and instead now has them looking over their shoulder for some boogeyman. In some cases jumping through hoops to justify slandering a group of people that believe in God and teach that Christ is the Son of God was crucified, died and was resurrected, by labeling them antichrists. Sad, how very sad!


Tthe 4 verses quoted above show Scripture does not say that antichrist is instead of Christ. In order for one to draw that conclusion one must break the original Greek word antichristo down into two words, anti and Christo, then use mans definitions instead of the definition the only 4 verses in Scripture provide for antichrists. Wouldn’t we be better served using the definition Scripture provides rather then leaning on mans interpretation by breaking the word into two words then using mans definitions? After all per Scripture an antichrist is simply one who denies Christ but by leaning on man’s definitions that is changed to instead of Christ.


Actually he said they denied Christ, that is hardly a misconception.



I don’t see anything in those verses that say antichrist (or even the man of sin) would “have dramatic impact on the history of the world” Can you provide any Scriptural justification to believe the man of sin rises to power to the point that he has a dramatic impact on the world? If not then what is this belief based on? The verses about the man of sin don’t say that, the verses about antichrists don’t say that, so why do you?


That is because they blindly follow traditionally taught doctrines that make the Word of God of none effect, even though Scripture specifically warns us not to make that mistake in Mark7:13
Mar 7:13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Actually Scripture says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us”(see1john2:19). Note this is past tense not future. Nothing in Scripture supports the belief that there is an “Antichrist” that will come from the church and rule the world.


Neither the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation even mention antichrist or antichrists the term is only used 4 times in all of Scripture and all within the Epistles written by John. Let’s leave the guess work theology built on false assumptions out and keep it Scriptural!



Is time and times and a half really three and a half times? Or do the Jewish and Hebrew scholars that believe this is a Jewish idiom representing 2 ½ times correct?
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Notice how Dan12:7 reads in some versions of the Tanach.
Dan12:7.And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.
Could our doctrines be blinding us to the fact these phrases represent 2 1/2 times?

In addition if a year in prophecy is 360 days making 3 ½ years 1260 days then why do use 365 day years to show this period was fulfilled between 538 and 1738? After all if a year in prophecy is 360 days then 1260 years would have 453600 days. But the 1260 years between 538 and 1798 had 460215 days, a difference of 6615 days which on our calendar is 18.1 years or on a 360 day calendar year would be 18.375 years.. You can’t use a 360 day year to justify saying 1260 days is 3 ½ years and then turn around and use years that are 365.25 days long to show where they are fulfilled. Your method of interpretation is inconsistent. You can’t have it both ways either a year is 360 days or it is 365.25.You can’t make a year 360 days just when it fits your doctrine but then change it 365.25 day so you can make it match your doctrine elsewhere. May I suggest looking thorugh the eyes of the prophet, to Daniel a year was 360 days and to John a year was 365.25 days, so for Daniel’s prophecies use a 360 day year and for John’s use 365.25 day year. The 1260 day prophecy was given by John so 365.25 day years should be used making 1260 days 3.44 years not 3.5 years.


While I know that the commonly held false view espoused by the sda likes to point their finger at Catholicism in this case, that is incorrect. Changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday does not change the times it only changes the day one worships on, Saturday would still be Saturday and Sunday would still be Sunday, regardless of whether one honors the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday. In addition Catholicism did not change the laws. On the other hand there is a false religion inspired by THE FALSE PROPHET that not only changed the time by instituting a new calendar having 354 days which over the course of many years will change what months the different seasons occur in, there by changing time. Today’s date is 30 November 2012 but according to their calendar it is 16 Muhharram, 1434. They have also changed the law by teaching the exact opposite of the gospel, while proclaiming God has no Son. A belief that they are trying to force the world to accept, by violence, if necessary.

If, as the false view espoused by the sda is true, maybe someone from the sda can show us which of the only 4 verses that define antichrists(quoted earlier in this post) the Catholics are guilty of transgressing. Oh that’s right you can’t because instead of denying Christ like an antichrist does they teach and believe Christ is the Son of God.

While I disagree with some of the traditionally taught Catholic doctrines, that hardly justifies labeling Catholics antichrists. Isn’t it time to set this traditionally taught false sda doctrine that makes the word of God of none effect aside and start searching for the truth?

While the SDA church agrees with this stance, the teaching came from the reformation. My post speaks for itself, I feel no need to answer these questions. those who read my post are able to study for themselves and make their own informed decisions. Remember my post is not based solely on what is actually on this thread. The prophecies of Daniel chapter 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, plus Revelation all are used to come to my position plus sayings from both the new and Old Testament.

Cheers for your reply.

 

[peterT]

Neither the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation even mention antichrist or antichrists the term is only used 4 times in all of Scripture and all within the Epistles written by John. Let’s leave the guess work theology built on false assumptions out and keep it Scriptural!

You are getting caught up on a word.

You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Here are 10 antichrist kings in the book of Revelation, and you just said there was none.

RV17:11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.12And 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.14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Here is another one in the Ancient of days in the book of Daniel, and you just said there was none.

Daniel7:11I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
21I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

To be cast into the burning flame you have to be antichrist. And I would think if you made war with the saints you would have to be antichrist.

It’s not our fault that God has revealed these things unto babes and not to the wise and prudent

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.


..

 

[doulos]

And yet none of that supports the view that Scripture says antichrist is a king or world leader. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? Are or you just here to promote your futurist dogma?

 

[gotime]

BY the way If you have read chapter 7 then you will notice I have not even mentioned some things in there. Like the judgment scene. I will get to that but first I will deal with some other prophecies.

 

[peterT]

And yet none of that supports the view that Scripture says antichrist is a king or world leader. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? Are or you just here to promote your futurist dogma?

It’s like those Christians that say it’s a pre-trib coming because there is no church in revelation after chapter 3.
But the church is were two or three are gathered together, so there is plenty of the church in revelation after chapter 3.

Choke on a word but swallow a camel

 

[peterT]

And yet none of that supports the view that Scripture says antichrist is a king or world leader. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? Are or you just here to promote your futurist dogma?

It’s not me that made the mistake that there are no antichrists in the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel.

So I did add something productive to the discussion, what about you are you going to add something productive to the discussion or are you going to continue to take away?

Rv22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



..

 

[iamsoandso]

and see here i think is a valid point,,,most see that john wrote rev. after john,1st john,ect.,,,he points out that the spirit of antichrist worketh already 1john chapter 2,ch. 4 ect.,,,,but in the rev. the angel says "why do you marvel?,i will show you,,ect." so which came first?,,,in revelations john (didn't understand) this person you think is the antichrist..or else the angel wouldn't have needed to explain it. and again in the books you all say were written before Revelations,,well he understood the antichrist and explains him out in great detail.

 

[DavidF]

One false assumption built on another faulty assumption does not lead one to the truth!

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall
come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
...

If, as the false view espoused by the sda is true, maybe someone from the sda can show us which of the only 4 verses that define antichrists(quoted earlier in this post) the Catholics are guilty of transgressing. Oh that’s right you can’t because instead of denying Christ like an antichrist does they teach and believe Christ is the Son of God.

While I disagree with some of the traditionally taught Catholic doctrines, that hardly justifies labeling Catholics antichrists. Isn’t it time to set this traditionally taught false sda doctrine that makes the word of God of none effect aside and start searching for the truth?

Well... the Catholics teach Father-Son-HolyGhost. John teaches Father-Son.

Wouldn't changing from Two god-head to Three god-head (Trinity) be denying the Two god-head? Doesn't the Trinity teaching from the Catholic Church (not catholics, just the church) fit the definition of Antichrist?

He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 

[DavidF]

Revelation reveals another beast who rises after the fall of the Papacy in 1798, This power will supply the support that the Papacy needs to rise once more. In Rev 17 The Papacy is represented by a whore. But this whore will be sitting on another power. Revelation 12 the second beast gives power to the first beast. the first beast is the Papal Rome power. as I will show later. Rev 17 also says that 10 kings will give their power to the beast and the whore. anyway Ill get there. The Papacy has done it once and they will do it again.

I think the color of this beast gives it away -- scarlett/red ... Communism.