Daniel 11:37, The Future Antichrist Will Be A Jew/Hebrew In Decent

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

GodMyFortress

Active member
May 9, 2021
432
60
28
#81
Daniel 11:37 actually says: "He shall pay no attention to the gods [’ĕ·lō·hê, plural] of his fathers. . ." To me this suggests a pagan background.
I think gods being referred to is the gods mentioned in Psalm 82.

That Psalm refers to the unrighteous and unjust Judges what were given the authority of God. The judges of Israel. The Psalm also points out they will die like any man any prince.

This Psalm is mentioned in John Ch 10 by Jesus, Jesus is referring to the people he’s rebuking as the unrighteous judges.
 

Rondonmon

Senior Member
May 13, 2016
1,288
176
63
#82
It's NOR RELEVANT whether his father's god was Allah or God, the only thing that is relevant is he is an Atheist, the reason being (if people could think) is, both Christians (worldwide) and the God of Abraham is the EXACT SAME God. So, trying to DEDUCE he's a Jews from that text is a big ole FAIL.

Of course, it just takes minor logic to understand this, and some people are short on their "minor strings", so to speak.

The main thing is understanding the rest of the bible, he's a Gentile king like the other 6, hes born in Greece, and hes an Assyrian by bloodline. Dan. 11:37 just points to him being an ATHEIST.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#83
It's NOR RELEVANT whether his father's god was Allah or God, the only thing that is relevant is he is an Atheist, the reason being (if people could think) is, both Christians (worldwide) and the God of Abraham is the EXACT SAME God. So, trying to DEDUCE he's a Jews from that text is a big ole FAIL.

Of course, it just takes minor logic to understand this, and some people are short on their "minor strings", so to speak.

The main thing is understanding the rest of the bible, he's a Gentile king like the other 6, hes born in Greece, and hes an Assyrian by bloodline. Dan. 11:37 just points to him being an ATHEIST.
He will be a Jew/Hebrew just as the scripture teaches, his ancestors worshipped the true Hebrew (God Of His Fathers)
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#84
Of all the messengers, who is greater than Jesus? None. That's why he is Michael, the Arch Angel.
And that is why Jesus is not a messenger...He is the Message/Word.
But, perhaps you are working on the assumption that Jesus isn't a messenger at all. If that's the case, what is the point of the scriptures?
To reveal God's Message in written form
I understand Michael the Arch Angel to be the Lord Jesus because by definition alone (definition of arch angel) it identifies the Lord Jesus.
Calling Him Michael the Archangel only confuses the reader into thinking He is actually the same angel as described in Jude, when Scripture never gives Him the name Michael. Hello?, His name is Jesus, not Michael.

Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully man or do you side with the Jehovah Witnesses who also say Jesus is the Archangel Michael?
 

Rondonmon

Senior Member
May 13, 2016
1,288
176
63
#85
He will be a Jew/Hebrew just as the scripture teaches, his ancestors worshipped the true Hebrew (God Of His Fathers)
And I proved your thesis to be founded on unsound principles. The same God of the Christians is the God of Abraham, so that proves your thesis to be utterly uninformed and frankly, something a 3rd grader could deduce as being unsound logic. Yet you don't let up, 100 miles an hour ONWARD, even though I just proved it unsound because you probably have Christians in every nation on the whole earth as we speak. So the God of his fathers could be God or it could be Allah. But what doesn't change is he has to be an Assyrian by bloodline, and he has to be born in Greece, and he has to come to power out of the Fourth Beast (Europe).

You are not hip to Eschatology brother.
 

GodMyFortress

Active member
May 9, 2021
432
60
28
#86
And I proved your thesis to be founded on unsound principles. The same God of the Christians is the God of Abraham, so that proves your thesis to be utterly uninformed and frankly, something a 3rd grader could deduce as being unsound logic. Yet you don't let up, 100 miles an hour ONWARD, even though I just proved it unsound because you probably have Christians in every nation on the whole earth as we speak. So the God of his fathers could be God or it could be Allah. But what doesn't change is he has to be an Assyrian by bloodline, and he has to be born in Greece, and he has to come to power out of the Fourth Beast (Europe).

You are not hip to Eschatology brother.
I tried telling him that in Post 52 & 56. He didn’t agree then either. He’s made up his mind it seems.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,678
113
#87
He will be a Jew/Hebrew just as the scripture teaches, his ancestors worshipped the true Hebrew (God Of His Fathers)
Makes sense. And the true Hebrew God is the God of Israel. Meaning that it's a prophecy about someone who is ethnically Jewish because his fathers (ancestors) would be Jews worshipping God. Not really sure how this is even debatable.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#88
And I proved your thesis to be founded on unsound principles. The same God of the Christians is the God of Abraham, so that proves your thesis to be utterly uninformed and frankly, something a 3rd grader could deduce as being unsound logic. Yet you don't let up, 100 miles an hour ONWARD, even though I just proved it unsound because you probably have Christians in every nation on the whole earth as we speak. So the God of his fathers could be God or it could be Allah. But what doesn't change is he has to be an Assyrian by bloodline, and he has to be born in Greece, and he has to come to power out of the Fourth Beast (Europe).

You are not hip to Eschatology brother.
Judaism is currently looking for their Messiah, AKA The Antichrist, to come from the lineage of King David, they are devoted to pedigree in genealogy just like the Mormons

The Jews aren't going to accept a Syrian or Christian in lineage as their Messiah, historical enemies of Judaism, and it dosent fulfill the historical Old Testament prophecies, it's that simple

The future Antichrist of Daniel will be a Jew/Hebrew in decent
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,647
13,124
113
#89
I understand Michael the Arch Angel to be the Lord Jesus because by definition alone (definition of arch angel) it identifies the Lord Jesus.
Daniel identifies Michael as the angel assigned over Israel - and I take this to imply that the angel in Luke 2 who announces Christ's birth to the shepherds to be Michael.

The birth of Christ is sometimes called Michaelmas, and His being formed in Mary's womb called Gabrielmas.

If Michael is announcing to the shepherds Christ has been born he cannot be the same person as Christ.
There is also that Michael and his angels fought a war in heaven threw Satan out, but Christ could destroy Him with a single word - so they aren't the same.
 

Nebuchadnezzer

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2019
1,134
205
63
#90
Thanks for the honest response. Then do believe Catholics think he is Jesus Christ?
They follow the commandments of the pope.
Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments. John 14:15.
The question I pose to you is this: Are the commandments of the pope the commandments of Jesus?

------------------------------
Here are some of the decrees from the First Vatican Council as reference.
  1. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
    • he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
    • in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
    • The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
    • nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
    • they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
  2. So, then,
    • if anyone says that
      • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
        • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
        • not only in matters of
          • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
          • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
      • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
      • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
    • let him be anathema.
 
Apr 26, 2021
495
151
43
#91
Daniel identifies Michael as the angel assigned over Israel - and I take this to imply that the angel in Luke 2 who announces Christ's birth to the shepherds to be Michael.

The birth of Christ is sometimes called Michaelmas, and His being formed in Mary's womb called Gabrielmas.

If Michael is announcing to the shepherds Christ has been born he cannot be the same person as Christ.
There is also that Michael and his angels fought a war in heaven threw Satan out, but Christ could destroy Him with a single word - so they aren't the same.
That is what gets into the complex nature of the triune God. Michael and the angels threw out Satan, but Christ refrained from destroying him until the time appointed.

"Michael" is another name describing Jesus. So is God. If Jesus is God, how can God announce his own birth? Jesus the son is born. Does that mean he didn't still exist as God? That he wasn't still a part of the God head? Is anything impossible for God, even announcing his own message of his own birth?

I get your logic, but again, I fall back on the same thing: The definition of arch angel alone identifies Michael the Arch Angel as Jesus. There is no other messenger higher than Jesus.
 
Apr 26, 2021
495
151
43
#92
The Bible teaches that Jesus is God and is in a place where He is higher than the angels and is worshipped by angels. Definitely no case to make that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Hebrews 1:1-8

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
You're working under the assumption that Jesus is not a messenger then. Is he head honcho of all creation which includes angels? Yes. Michael, the Arch Angel which is Jesus is head honcho over the angels. So there is no conflict there. Is Jesus the only messenger (angel?) No. So there's no conflict with there being subordinate angels.

If, Michael the Arch Angel is NOT Jesus, then Michael COULD NOT be the Arch Angel. He'd be just another angel under the Lord Jesus.

Because Jesus is THE WORD, Jesus is the CHIEF MESSENGER that identifies him as Michael, the Arch Angel. Otherwise, "arch angel" has no meaning. The purpose of the designation of arch angel is to identify Jesus Christ is the chief messenger because Jesus IS THE WORD.
 

Rondonmon

Senior Member
May 13, 2016
1,288
176
63
#93
Judaism is currently looking for their Messiah, AKA The Antichrist, to come from the lineage of King David, they are devoted to pedigree in genealogy just like the Mormons
And the ones who are LOOKING/SEEKING find Jesus BEFORE the Anti-Christ ever enters Jerusalem, have you ever pondered on that? The 1/3 accept Jesus as their Messiah BEFORE the 1260 event or Day of the Lord.

Zechariah 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

NOTICE: the very next verse is the Day of the Lor!!

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Jerusalem is CONQUERED by the Anti-Christ ABOVE, below Jesus conquers the Anti-Christ and his minions at Armageddon..

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

We don't get full-blown play-by-play timelines with Prophecy, even Daniel chapter 11 is spread out over 2500 years. But, we see that at least 1/3 of the Jews REPENT FIRST, then the DOTL comes shortly thereafter.

As per the 2/3, look around you, the majority of Americans are Atheists, all the kids are brainwashed, thus the 2/3 Jews are not looking for any god, they think there is no God, period. John 5:43 is not about modern times, that as fulfilled in 70 AD, the Pharisees were the ones who did not accept Jesus thus they are the ones the prophecy is about, not someone 2000 some odd years later.

The Jews aren't going to accept a Syrian or Christian in lineage as their Messiah, historical enemies of Judaism, and it dosent fulfill the historical Old Testament prophecies, it's that simple
Agreed, but your miscue is you think they accept ANY Messiah, the 1/3 receive Jesus, the 2/3 who are deceived are mostly Atheist types, they aren't looking for any God !! They are worldly types. You take John 5:43 and you think it's about Jews today, no, it was about the Pharisees, 2000 years ago. They alone are who that prophetic utterance was about THEY rejected Jesus and THEY (Jesus says YE) then tried to bring forth Political Saviors (which is what they thought the Christ was) to save them from what they clearly saw as the Fourth Beast between 65 AD to 70 AD, as Rome's heavy hand got worse and worse.

The AGREEMENTS with the Anti-Christ are mere Accords with other Nations via Europe, then this man comes to power and TWISTS ARMS (Think of Obama and the way he TWISTED ARMS in the same light, Israel had AGREEMENTS with the United States, but Obama came in and all of the sudden, things CHANGED INSTANTLY !! It's not about a Godly Agreement (Covenant simply means agreement). It's an agreement between Europe, and MANY NATIONS, not just Israel. He conquers (Dan. 11:40-43) the whole region save for the Petra/Bozrah area. Yo fatal flaw is you anticipate Israel accepts a Messiah, thus he has to Be Jewish, well the 1/3 indeed accept a Jewish Messiah, bit its Jesus Christ, the 2/3 are WORLDLY TYPES, they mostly don't believe in God, OR they are the Judaism types who will rebel and be killed swiftly once this man tries to get them to worship him as God. The others probably just see him as an egotistical fool because they don't believe in any God.

The future Antichrist of Daniel will be a Jew/Hebrew in decent
Hes an Assyrian, the bible tells us that. Hes born in Greece, the bible tells us that, he comes to power in Europe, the bible tells us that.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,678
113
#94
You're working under the assumption that Jesus is not a messenger then. Is he head honcho of all creation which includes angels? Yes. Michael, the Arch Angel which is Jesus is head honcho over the angels. So there is no conflict there. Is Jesus the only messenger (angel?) No. So there's no conflict with there being subordinate angels.

If, Michael the Arch Angel is NOT Jesus, then Michael COULD NOT be the Arch Angel. He'd be just another angel under the Lord Jesus.

Because Jesus is THE WORD, Jesus is the CHIEF MESSENGER that identifies him as Michael, the Arch Angel. Otherwise, "arch angel" has no meaning. The purpose of the designation of arch angel is to identify Jesus Christ is the chief messenger because Jesus IS THE WORD.
Hebrews 1 says Jesus, the Son, is not an angelinc being, but, instead, is God. Do you believe Jesus is God?
 

GodMyFortress

Active member
May 9, 2021
432
60
28
#95
They follow the commandments of the pope.
Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments. John 14:15.
The question I pose to you is this: Are the commandments of the pope the commandments of Jesus?

------------------------------
Here are some of the decrees from the First Vatican Council as reference.
  1. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
    • he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
    • in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
    • The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
    • nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
    • they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
  2. So, then,
    • if anyone says that
      • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
        • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
        • not only in matters of
          • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
          • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
      • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
      • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
    • let him be anathema.
Let me just say this...
When Jesus created a universal Church, he knew he was leaving this Earth and that it would need human leadership that had authority to bind and loose in order to keep that Church together and make decisions in his absence. So he gave Peter the keys to heaven and it has been passed in succession ever since.

The Eastern Orthodox are the same way on a smaller scale. If you go to a Russian Orthodox Church anywhere on Earth, the buck stops with the Patriarch of Russia. It’s the same with the others. So we are hardly unique.

Catholics are the largest most unified groups of Christians on Earth because every Catholic Church isn’t part of the Catholic Chuch unless they are in direct communion with the church in Rome. I thank God for that.

I don’t recognize any difference between what Christ wants from me and what Christ’s Church wants from me. The Church is the Bride of Christ as the Bible says.
 
Apr 26, 2021
495
151
43
#96
Hebrews 1 says Jesus, the Son, is not an angelinc being, but, instead, is God. Do you believe Jesus is God?
The only thing we really know about angels is that they're powerful ministering spirits and that they too are in obedience to God's commandments, which happen to be Jesus, the Lord's Word. Another indication that Jesus is Michael, the Arch Angel.

Angel = messenger, representative

Michael = "Who is like God."

Second, do you deny the Lord Jesus is a messenger or representative? If your answer is yes, then we have no more to talk about.
If your answer is no, then you have to start examining what your resistance is to Jesus being referred to as "Michael."
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,416
12,900
113
#97
The anti Christ cannot be a Pope.
Correct. There are a huge number of reasons why this is false. So when some realized how false this is they changed it to "the papacy" (which is still incorrect).

The Antichrist must be a renegade Jew, since he must present himself to Orthodox Jews as Messiah. They are waiting for Messiah, since they rejected the true Messiah. To the world, he will be the miracle-worker who rivals Christ. And since God will send strong delusion, the world will be deceived.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,678
113
#98
The only thing we really know about angels is that they're powerful ministering spirits and that they too are in obedience to God's commandments, which happen to be Jesus, the Lord's Word. Another indication that Jesus is Michael, the Arch Angel.

Angel = messenger, representative

Michael = "Who is like God."

Second, do you deny the Lord Jesus is a messenger or representative? If your answer is yes, then we have no more to talk about.
If your answer is no, then you have to start examining what your resistance is to Jesus being referred to as "Michael."
I'm not trying to play word games. If by messenger you mean Jesus is Someone with a message then yes I agree.

But according to Hebrews 1 and many other verses, Jesus is much more than a messenger, but rather God Himself and is not an angel.

I reject that Jesus (the Son, the Word) is an archangel known as Michael. The Son of God is an integral part of the Godhead. Where does Michael fit into the Godhead?

I'm sticking with Hebrews 1. Slam dunk.

What verses are you sticking with that says Jesus is Michael the archangel? Enlighten me.
 

GodMyFortress

Active member
May 9, 2021
432
60
28
#99
The only thing we really know about angels is that they're powerful ministering spirits and that they too are in obedience to God's commandments, which happen to be Jesus, the Lord's Word. Another indication that Jesus is Michael, the Arch Angel.

Angel = messenger, representative

Michael = "Who is like God."

Second, do you deny the Lord Jesus is a messenger or representative? If your answer is yes, then we have no more to talk about.
If your answer is no, then you have to start examining what your resistance is to Jesus being referred to as "Michael."
Does it not bother you that the belief that Michael is Jesus was never articulated by any Christian for over 1,870 years after Christ’s death? You can’t honestly believe that it would take that long for the Billions of Christians throughout history to come to that conclusion if that is indeed the truth?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,647
13,124
113
That is what gets into the complex nature of the triune God. Michael and the angels threw out Satan, but Christ refrained from destroying him until the time appointed.

"Michael" is another name describing Jesus. So is God. If Jesus is God, how can God announce his own birth? Jesus the son is born. Does that mean he didn't still exist as God? That he wasn't still a part of the God head? Is anything impossible for God, even announcing his own message of his own birth?

I get your logic, but again, I fall back on the same thing: The definition of arch angel alone identifies Michael the Arch Angel as Jesus. There is no other messenger higher than Jesus.
ok, so, you believe Michael is more or less another name for Christ? pointing to things like 1 Thessalonians 4:16m that He will return with "the voice of an archangel" ?

and i get how you're saying Luke 2 is solved - the same way John 17 is, because God fully dwells in Jesus, but Jesus is praying to God there - the answer is partially in that He is doing this, as His whole earthly ministry, for our benefit - to be heard and seen as a witness and an example to us, and partially in His triune nature; we are seeing His mercy & His justice communing, just like the smoking lamp & burning furnace in Genesis 15.

iirc the JW's believe Michael & Christ are not the same, but they think that Michael switched places with Christ at the cross, so that it was Michael who died there, not Christ, because they say, a god cannot die, but an angel can - and they call Christ 'a god' not the God in the flesh ((re-writing John 1)). so they say it was Christ who re-entered the body of Jesus at the resurrection after leaving Him and being temporarily replaced by Michael.


so, you're not JW, right? ;)