Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Those Who Deny the Covenant of the Antichrist for Seven Years

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Exclamation Those Who Deny the Covenant of the Antichrist for Seven Years

    Re: Gakak45 - Youtube

    Quote Originally Posted by Gakak45
    I intended to make clear the seven kings were indeed rulers of their respective empires: Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Alexander the Great, and Ceasar. I failed, and only mentioned the kingdoms.
    You're just picking names out of a hat with no specificity. When John was writing he said the beast "was" and "and one is" (Rev. 17.10 indicating the king at that time was not the Antichrist, so Domitian was not the Antichrist. None of your names work with this understanding. Also, all scholars agree 666 is a number associated with the beast so we can know who he is with certainty. He is the first beast, the Antichrist. Of all the Caesars it was Nero, for Neron Kaisar in Aaramaic equals 666. At the time of John's writing in 95 AD, there were on record 5 Caesars who died horrific deaths ("five are fallen" v.10) being murdered or committed suicide. Your sixth is dead, but the sixth according to John was alive at the time of his writing.

    "The other is not yet come; and when he cometh..." (v.10). This is in the future. So is the 8th. The 8th is Nero, since the 8th is one of the five, but also of the seven because he is the culmination of all their evil and will possess the seventh who "must continue a short space" (v.10).

    As for the head wound, John merely saw one of the symbolic heads "as if wounded to death". That means it received a mortal wound, that is, the wound would have been deadly had it not been healed by some means.
    "Head wound" is very specific terminology that leaves the person probably in a coma. It is at this time this seventh who received the head wound becomes possessed by the eighth, the Antichrist.

    The verb sphazo (meaning "wounded" or "slain") is used in the perfect passive participle, clearly indicating this had already occured when John wrote it. The verb for "deadly wound" is plege, which means a deadly stroke.
    These are future events. When I say in the future someone will be wounded or slain, that is just the grammar in the way we speak. Revelation 13 are future events in the Tribulation of 7 years. This 7th man or consecutive head is a man with personality. When he survives the deadly head wound, the Antichrist possess him.

    John never describes the nature of the wound, where it was inflicted or by whom. He does say, however, the wound was inflicted by a sword. (Rev 13:14). Now the word translated "sword" is macharia in Greek. It means "a small sword, or dirk-like object".
    He is physically attacked to point of near death.

    Where do you get the idea that the Anti-Christ gets wounded in the head? The Scripture clearly states this has already happened, so that rules out the future Anti-Christ since his kingdom hasn't even begun at this point (Rev 17:8).
    It is not the Antichrist who gets wounded in the head, but the forerunner to the Antichrist. Remember, the Antichrist is the 8th in Revelation 17, not the 7th. The 7th is only here for a short while because of that deadly head wound in Rev. 13.3,14. These are clearly future events: "and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder" (Rev. 17.8). The 8th comes out of the pit by the Satan the Restrainer to possess the body of the 7th.

    Which of the six former kings, of the six former empires (Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Alexander the Great, and Ceasar--I made sure to mention them this time!) suffered such a wound? Julius Ceasar instantly comes to mind. Unfortunately, though Ceasar was stabbed repeatedly with a large dagger or sword, he ultimately died as a result. How about your guy Nero? He committed suicide by stabbing himself through the neck. Unfortunately though, like Ceasar, he did not survive.
    Put yourself in John's perspective in which he is very familiar with the Roman Empire's pursuits in his day and Nero who killed the most Christians in history. Even though Domitian was the 12th, only 5 Caesars had died horrible deaths (excluding the year of 4). It doesn't matter how they were killed, just that they were. Since Domitian is the 6th, the 7th is in the future who receives the deadly head wound.

    The description matches none of these guys, except one. You guessed it. Alexander the Great. It's well-documented, historic fact that at the town of Malli, near the Ravi River in India, Alexander was struck in the chest by a 39-inch barbed arrow, which pierced his lung and came out his neck (ouch). No one, not even his troops, not even his doctors, thought he'd survive. Yet he did. It took thirty-nine different surgical procedures to mend the damage, but it healed.
    Silly. Trying to make an arrow the same as a large knife or small sword. In war everyone probably gets hit at least once by a similar object. The 7th is in the future after the 6th at John's time.

    Also, let's talk about the Seven-Year Peace Treaty. First off, the Anti-Christ will not sign a peace treaty with anyone, much less for seven years. He will only appear on earth for the last three and a half years of the Tribulation (Rev 12:6, 14; 13:5).
    It is the forerunner, the 7th who signs the peace treaty, receives the wound, possibly a head wound, suffers a near fatal death, then Neron Kaisar possesses him.

    Secondly, this whole idea stems from the erroneous exegesis of Daniel 9:27 which reads: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Which, in prophetic lingo, refers not to a literal week (seven days), but a sabbatical week (seven years).
    In the future there will be a 7 year peace treated by the forerunner who become the Antichrist.

    To "confirm", according to the dictionary, means to "ratify, reinforce or make formally valid something that already exists".

    You can't "confirm" something that doesn't (already) exist.
    It will exist when a treaty is made prior to the 7 year Tribulation Sept. 14, 2015 to Aug. 7, 2022.

    The Anti-Christ is mentioned nowhere in this verse.

    The word "peace" is found nowhere in this verse.

    The word "treaty" is not found either.
    "The prince" (Dan. 9.26) who comes to destroy is none other than the Antichrist. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one set of 7 years" (v.27). It is the forerunner who makes the peace treaty, but when he dies and Nero inhabits his body, then desolation are poured out. Naturally before desolation is peace, just like in the time of Noah, they were "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark" (Matt. 24.38). We know peace in the middle east is the hardest thing to come by and this is the center stage. "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape" (1 Thess. 5.3).

    Nowhere does it state that the covenant is made, then broken. The words "make" and "break" are not found there either.
    You're being petty. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan. 9.27).

    Canceling Jewish sacrifices is very offensive to Israel. "Make" is the word used to make desolate.

    This verse doesn't refer to a future covenant, but to the already existing covenant between God and Abraham's seed.
    There is no 7 year covenant with Abraham's seed. How silly. It is yet in the future, because the 7th was not even born at the time of John's writing, but the 8th had died, but would come again to be brought out of the pit by Satan.

    The prophecy of the seventy weeks has nothing to do with the Anti-Christ, and everything to do with Jesus Christ. The "He" mentioned here isn't the Anti-Christ, but the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jesus, not the Anti-Christ, is the subject and focus of this prophecy (Dan 9:25).
    The first 69 weeks had to do with Jesus. There were exactly 69 sets of 7 of 360 days each which took us from Nisan 1, 444 BC, the declaration to rebuild the temple, to when the Messiah would be "cut off". Jesus entered Jerusalem on Monday, the first day inspection of the Lamb. The 4 day inspection was March. 28, 29, 30, 31. Jesus died on the cross April 1, 33 AD (Gregorian) on Friday. The 70th week has to do with a lot of things: restoring a remnant of Israel, Satan's wrath, God's wrath and the consummation of this age. In Dan. 9.26 "the people of the prince that shall come" is not the "Messiah be cut off, not for himself". Jesus doesn't make desolate, but Satan does through his Antichrist. Jesus's people are not "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Those are Satan's people and the people of the Antichrist "that shall come" (v.26).

    The preceding verses, 25 and 26, refer to Jerusalem, the Messiah, and His atoning death. Verse 26 also refers to the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans, which took place in 70 AD. The words "...the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple)" were fulfilled, in precise detail, when Titus completely destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple.
    You're confusing Jesus for the people of the Antichrist. 70 AD is verse 26, but it is not Jesus who does this, but the people of the Antichrist who is to come, that being Neron Kaisar resurrected.

    In context, when verse 27 says "...he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week", there are only two possible interpretations:

    1. That it refers to the Messiah, who's the subject of the previous two verses.

    2. That it refers to the prince (Titus) who destroyed the city and the temple.

    It's got to be one or the other.
    Both are wrong. Read carefully. It doesn't say Titus. It says the people of the prince who is to come. These are people who follow after the Antichrist who will yet come, but now they at that time tear down the Temple.

    "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." All students of Revelation know that this refers to the Romans. After the death of Christ the Jews incurred God’s severe judgment: the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary in 70 A.D. Since the term "the people" refers to the Romans, many accordingly think that the term "the prince" obviously points to the Roman prince Titus who led the Romans. But there are many reasons to refute this conclusion. Why is it that the Scripture here does not say the prince shall destroy the city but rather says the people of the prince? Although the prince must work through his people, it is still unnatural to say the people and not directly say the prince. Since the Holy Spirit mentions both the prince and the people, while nevertheless putting a primary emphasis on the people, can it be that He is implying by this that these people represent the people of that prince who is yet to come? If so, then the prince in question here is not Titus, and the people who attacked Jerusalem in the former day were in spirit and in attitude morally the people of the future prince. This prince whom Daniel prophecies about will be a world renown figure in the future, who is the Antichrist. "The prince that shall come" is therefore the Antichrist.


    Your only choices are to believe it's the Messiah that confirms the covenant, or that Titus, who devastated Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, will someday return as the Anti-Christ and make a Seven-Year Peace Treaty with Jews who, to this very day, despise him.
    Since both are not true for this passage, then the 3rd choice is the correct one, that the people of the future Antichrist destroyed the city. Titus was not murdered nor did he commit suicide. He died on of natural causes and his name does not add up to 666.

    "The covenant" refers to the (already existing) eternal covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed. This chapter begins with a reference to that covenant (Dan 9:4). The exact same word in Hebrew, beryith, is used in both verses (4 and 26). In verse 4, Daniel is not talking about a "Seven-Year Peace Treaty", but about the (Abrahamic) covenant.
    The covenant will be a brokered peace deal prior to the Tribulation starting, and commences Sept. 14, 2015 for 2,520 days to Aug. 7, 2022 when Jesus steps down on the mount of olives.

    There is no 7 year covenant in Dan. 9.4. The covenant in Dan. 9.4 is for Israel to be His chosen ones to be the center of all nations. Since there is no 7 year Abrahamic covenant we are talking about end-times: "even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (v.27). Where has in history this been fulfilled? "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy"?

    None of these things were true in Jesus' day, nor 70 AD, nor at any time in history. Not till the consummation is completed in Daniel's last seven will Jesus return to judge and reign in the millennial kingdom will this be so. Did you know God is sick in His heart because at least 10,000 people die every day from starvation and at least 50,000 die every day needlessly? Hundreds if not thousands of people are murdered and raped every day. Think about that! You need to get a conscience. Do I need to go into the 70 million killed by Mao, 40 million by Stalin and 30 million by Hitler? Do I need to mention China executes 10,000 of its people every year. Do I need to talk about nuclear bombs pointing at each other? Rev. 20.3 says the nations won't be deceived in the 1000 years; surely they are deceived now still with so much war and rumors of wars. That is no millennial peace.

    The Messiah doesn't make this covenant. He confirms the already existing one. He ratifies it
    .
    Jesus never made a 7 year covenant nor did he ratify one.

    How?

    By dying on Mount Moriah where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac 2,000 years earlier. Abraham prophesied that God would provide Himself a lamb for the sacrifice and even called the place Yahwe Jireh (God will provide) (Gen 22:8,14). Jesus was the Lamb God provided, to confirm His covenant with Abraham and his Seed, just like Abraham predicted, just like Daniel predicted (Gen 22:8-14, Jn 1:29). Since the Messiah is Abraham's Seed, only the Messiah is qualified to confirm such covenant.

    This is Paul's teaching in the New Testament:

    "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal 3:16-17)
    This is a covenant, but it is not a 7 year covenant. You're barking up the wrong tree.

    The Anti-Christ never was, nor will he ever be, Abraham's Seed. Therefore, there's no way he can confirm the (Abrahamic) covenant. It's the Messiah who caused the (animal) sacrifice and oblation (grain offering) to cease. God no longer accepts such sacrifices and offerings, since the ultimate sacrifice for sin, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, already offered Himself as the final, eternal, all-sufficient sacrifice to confirm the eternal covenant God made with Abraham (Heb 9:12, 10:14).
    Nobody is saying Abraham is confirming a covenant with Antichrist. You're confusing covenants. Jesus did not destroy the Temple, the people of future Antichrist did it. Even Titus is a follower of the Antichrist of our future.

    The Messiah is the one who caused the animal sacrifices to cease, but you are confusing the Old Testament sacrifices with what Israel will due once they rebuild their Temple soon. This Temple will be built (2 Thess. 2.4, Rev. 11.2, Matt. 24.15).

    "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" (Matt. 24.15). Jesus is not an abomination. "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24.21). The holocaust against the Jews in WWI & WWII were far worse than what happened in 70 AD. You are worshiping the Antichrist because you accuse Jesus of destroying the Temple in 70 AD.

    Jesus did atone for the sins of the world, so there is no more need for sacrifices, since Jesus is the once-for-all sacrifice. When the sacrifices occur during the Tribulation, God never sanctioned them.

    It's only the Messiah's precious Blood that can confirm His Covenant. It's only His Blood that forever washes away our sins. Praise His Holy Name!
    Yes and it is never a 7 year peace deal. It is for forever. When Jesus entered Jerusalem, he never made a peace deal for 7 years and then broke it. How silly.

    There's nothing in the entire Bible about a "Seven-Year Peace Treaty". Don't bother to look for one because there won't be one.
    Since the covenant in Dan. 9.26-27 definitely can't be to do with Jesus since Jesus does not destroy the Temple in 70 AD, then it is none other than that peace treaty you are so against. The evil nature of this "prince" can't be Jesus. The covenant is uncovered when peace abounds.

    "And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (v.27a Darby). The preceding verse tells us of the destructive actions of Antichrist; this next verse continues to speak of his action. The last seven is divided into two halves. At the beginning of the last seven, the Antichrist will confirm a covenant with many. This covenant is not the Old Covenant which God singularly covenanted with His people, for the use of the indefinite article "a" here proves it. The phrase "the many" with the use of the definite article "the" refers to a special group of people — even the Jews. So that this covenant will be a political pact between the Jews and the Antichrist. The duration of the pact is to be seven years, but in the middle of this term of years Antichrist will break it. This is the meaning of the words, "he shall think to change the times and the law," found in chapter 7 and verse 25. Here we may see the similarity disclosed between this prince and the little horn mentioned in chapter 7.

    In the midst of these seven years in question, Antichrist shall break the covenant, and thus the rest of this period of the seven (that is to say, three years and a half) shall be in his hand. During these three and a half years he shall also wear out the saints (7.25). And during the same three and a half years, this little horn will attempt to change time and season, and cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. At the present moment the Jews have neither sacrifice nor oblation; but in the future these will be restored. We now have seen the beginning of the return of the Jews to Palestine and have also heard of their desire to restore these things. The end is truly near.

    Why will the Antichrist cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease? Because at that time he will speak blasphemously against God (see ch. 7). Since sacrifice and oblation are offered to God, he will naturally forbid them. "And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end" (v.27b). "The wing of abominations" speaks of idols. In the temple of God the wings of the cherubim covered the ark. Yet Antichrist shall enter God’s temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thess. 2), thus having the wings of abominations. Due to this idolatry, God will permit desolations to extend for three and a half years until the end of the seventy sevens. "And that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate" (v.27c). The desolate is Jerusalem. As the end of the seventy sevens approaches, the nations shall gather to attack Jerusalem. Then shall the Lord fight for her (Zech. 14.1-6). And so shall the word of Daniel 9.24 be fulfilled.

    This portion of scripture glorifies God and exalts His faithfulness, and yet you would ascribe the prophecy to the Anti-Christ?

    What was it you said about checks and balances again?
    There is no glory "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan. 9.27). Nor does God get glory in "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" (v.26).

    Do you realize you worship Satan? For when Antichrist reigns you are free to accept him since you won't think of him as the Antichrist, because you deny the 7 year peace treaty even when it happens, even when 1/3 of the people of the earth killed (Rev. 9.18) and 200 million military units congregate in the middle east (v.16).

    Hope this helps.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by Gakak45
    You're desperately trying to make scripture include certain myths that have been popularized, as of late, within the End Times prophecy circle.
    Almost all the early church fathers are were chiliasts another name for premillennial or dispensational.

    John does NOT say the Anti-Christ receives a head wound. Is the Anti-Christ a seven-headed man? No! They are symbolic of the seven kings (five of which are dead, one is living, one has yet to come). John saw one of these seven kings as having received a mortal wound, yet his deadly wound was healed. This is past tense. Again, of the six kings (five previous, one current in John's time) the only one who can claim this distinction is Alexander. By the way, I love how you just gloss over this fact in order to cling to the head wound myth that has become so prevalent.
    A head wound is suggested because of the likelihood of a coma. One was living at the time of John's writing who was Domitian the 6th. The mortal wound was in the future to happen to the 7th. The word “fallen” in 17.10 carries with it the idea of violent death (see 2 Sam. 1.19,25,27). All seven kings do indeed meet with violent death: Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero—these five kings all assumed deity for themselves; they called for their people to worship them as gods; and all five died unnaturally, either by being murdered or by committing suicide. Put yourself in John's shoes. There he is. He knows of the Caesars. Only 5 died by being being murdered or by suicide (excluding the year of 4). The culmination was the Neronian persecutions.

    As for the Seven-Year Peace Treaty, I've said all I can say about this. It simply does not and WILL NOT exist. As with the head wound, you have misconstrued and twisted scriptures to fit a popularized myth regarding the End Times. Perhaps it's also because you think Daniel 9:27 refers to the Abomination Desolation. It doesn't. The abominations (note: plural, not one but many) in Daniel 9:27 that caused the second temple to be destroyed, and its site to remain desolate to this day, are the very same abominations that infuriated Christ and caused Him to throw the moneychangers out the place. You know, the "den of thieves". (Mat 21:13, Mk 11:17, Lk19:46). The word used for abominations is the plural form: shikkutzim. As I stated in the previous message, verse 27 refers to Jesus confirming the Abrahamic Convenant, in the middle of the 69th week, and caused a Sabbath (shabath) of sacrifices. He made sacrifices stop (or rest) because God no longer accepts those.
    The peace treaty could be any time, but its commencement would be Sept. 14, 2015 and runs to Aug. 7, 2022. Daniel 9.27 does refer to the abomination of desolation.Why will the Antichrist cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease? Because at that time he will speak blasphemously against God (see ch. 7). Since sacrifice and oblation are offered to God, he will naturally forbid them. "And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end" (v.27b). "The wing of abominations" speaks of idols. In the temple of God the wings of the cherubim covered the ark. Yet Antichrist shall enter God’s temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thess. 2), thus having the wings of abominations. Due to this idolatry, God will permit desolations to extend for three and a half years until the end of the seventy sevens. "And that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate" (v.27c). The desolate is Jerusalem. As the end of the seventy sevens approaches, the nations shall gather to attack Jerusalem. Then shall the Lord fight for her (Zech. 14.1-6). And so shall the word of Daniel 9.24 be fulfilled. Dan. 9.24 was certainly not fulfilled at 70 AD. There is no Abrahamic covenant for 7 years. As soon a the 69th seven was completed Jesus was the 4 day inspected Lamb then He was sacrificed. The 69th seven wasn't split in two, it was the 70th seven that was split in two when the sacrifices ceased. Jesus died right after the 69th seven. That's really cute how you try to shift the three and half years back. But the Scriptures are clear about the seventieth seven: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan. 9.27). This covenant occurs after the 7 sets of 7 and the 62 sevens: "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself" (9.26). It doesn't say He shall be cut off in the 70th week, but after the 62 weeks. After Jesus is cut off, Daniel talks about the people of the Antichrist who is to come who will destroy the Temple in 70 AD. Antichrist has yet to come, but they are certainly his people.

    In Daniel 9:26, the prince is indeed Titus, son of Ceasar Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and it's temple in 70 AD (as predicted by Gabriel). And yes, of course he had people. The 10th Roman Legion under his command totally destroyed the temple and virtually leveled the city to the ground. This guy has come and gone. This prophecy has been FULFILLED. Gabriel predicted that Jersusalem and the temple would be rebuilt (they were) then once again destroyed (they were). He predicted that, from the edict to rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah, there would be sixty-nine sabbatical "weeks" (483 years). After the 483 years, in the middle of the final week (three and a half years later), the Messiah would be killed. Then (after the Messiah's death) the prince would come and destroy the city and the temple.
    You're not reading Dan. 9.26 properly. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." It doesn't say in the middle of the 69th week, but is after the 69th week (7+62). The reason you have to do violence to the Scriptures is because there is no 7 year covenant by Jesus.

    We may here perceive just how Satan uses man. Antichrist is only a man; but by his obeying Satan he is given devilish power to rule over nations. Though his actual coming is still in the future, nonetheless even in 70 A.D. the Romans had already become Antichrist’s people! For they had his spirit. Today we see the many turmoils among the nations. Satan is actually manipulating at the back. He gives power to this person and to that, using many in the political arena as his puppets to disturb the world. The last person he is to use will be the Antichrist. We can even now discern that the spirit of Antichrist is already working everywhere. The most revealing character of the Antichrist is his lawlessness (2 Thess. 2). If we open our eyes to the affairs of this age, we shall know how rampant lawlessness has become. At every level of society there are lawless people. In every profession, the lawless form the majority. It seems as though there is but a thin line between people and the outbreak of lawlessness. Once one yields to lawlessness, that one is forever caught.

    Nero's name is 666 not Titus. Moreover, the Antichrist is one of the 5 fallen we have already seen. Titus did not fall, he died of natural causes.From the time of the decree concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the moment of the coming of the Anointed One, there were to be four hundred eighty-three years. Now that the sixty-nine sevens have already passed and the Anointed One (Christ) has also come, what is left is the last seven. As soon as the last seven is fulfilled the children of Israel will receive the fullness of blessing of Daniel 9.24. However, within the seven years of the death of Christ, was there any day which could have been deemed as a time when transgression was finished for the children of Israel and upon Jerusalem? No, not even a single day. And have there not been over nineteen hundred more years since the time of Christ and still no end of transgression? Hence, it is quite evident that the seventieth seven did not follow immediately after the sixty-nine sevens.

    Why is it that this one seven has not been fulfilled and that the children of Israel have not yet received the full blessing? Because "after the threescore and two weeks [the sixty-two sevens mentioned above] shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing." Christ has died, and consequently the children of Israel did not receive the blessing. It was because they would not receive Him with willing hearts but crucified Him instead, and therefore punishment came upon them. "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (v.26). When the Jews insisted on killing the Lord Jesus, they openly declared: "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matt. 27.25). Naturally God is treating them according to their own word by temporarily rejecting them and showing grace towards the Gentiles. But after the number of the Gentiles has been fulfilled, He will give grace once again to the children of Israel. And at that time, this last seven shall be fulfilled. As soon as the last seven is over, God will deliver the children of Israel according to promise (Dan. 9.24).


    "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." All students of Revelation know that this refers to the Romans. After the death of Christ the Jews incurred God’s severe judgment: the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary in 70 A.D. Since the term "the people" refers to the Romans, many accordingly think that the term "the prince" obviously points to the Roman prince Titus who led the Romans. But there are many reasons to refute this conclusion. Why is it that the Scripture here does not say the prince shall destroy the city but rather says the people of the prince? Although the prince must work through his people, it is still unnatural to say the people and not directly say the prince. Since the Holy Spirit mentions both the prince and the people, while nevertheless putting a primary emphasis on the people, can it be that He is implying by this that these people represent the people of that prince who is yet to come? If so, then the prince in question here is not Titus, and the people who attacked Jerusalem in the former day were in spirit and in attitude morally the people of the future prince. This prince whom Daniel prophecies about will be a world renown figure in the future, who is the Antichrist. "The prince that shall come" is therefore the Antichrist.

    "The end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (v.26). "The end" here is not the end of the city nor of the sanctuary. According to correct grammatical construction, "the end thereof" should be connected to the phrase "the prince that shall come." The fulfillment did not come at the time of Titus but is yet to come in the future. The people of the prince who shall come shall destroy this city and the sanctuary, but "the end thereof" (that is to say, the end of the prince)* shall come as a flood. We know that this superman is soon to come, and the world will have no peace. But thank God, we shall be gone before the Antichrist arrives.

    *
    The Revised Standard Version (1952) recognizes this construction of the verse, as follows: ". . . and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. His end shall come with a flood . . ." (9.26 mg.).—Translator

    "And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (v.27a Darby). The preceding verse tells us of the destructive actions of Antichrist; this next verse continues to speak of his action. The last seven is divided into two halves. At the beginning of the last seven, the Antichrist will confirm a covenant with many. This covenant is not the Old Covenant which God singularly covenanted with His people, for the use of the indefinite article "a" here proves it. The phrase "the many" with the use of the definite article "the" refers to a special group of people — even the Jews. So that this covenant will be a political pact between the Jews and the Antichrist. The duration of the pact is to be seven years, but in the middle of this term of years Antichrist will break it. This is the meaning of the words, "he shall think to change the times and the law," found in chapter 7 and verse 25. Here we may see the similarity disclosed between this prince and the little horn mentioned in chapter 7.

    In the midst of these seven years in question, Antichrist shall break the covenant, and thus the rest of this period of the seven (that is to say, three years and a half) shall be in his hand. During these three and a half years he shall also wear out the saints (7.25). And during the same three and a half years, this little horn will attempt to change time and season, and cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. At the present moment the Jews have neither sacrifice nor oblation; but in the future these will be restored. We now have seen the beginning of the return of the Jews to Palestine and have also heard of their desire to restore these things. The end is truly near.

    Daniel 9.27 comes after what happened in 70 AD (v.26): "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Obviously Israel is not desolate now so it is yet in the future.

    Everything happened, in exact sequence:

    -Jesus began His public ministry in the fall of 29 AD. He died for our sins and rose from the dead, three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 AD.

    -Some thirty-seven years later Prince Titus and his goon squad (the Roman 10th Legion) razed the temple and city, reducing them to rubble.

    All these things have passed. They're history!
    Titus is not called a Prince. He is a Roman Caesar. But the Antichrist is called a prince, possible Prince William who in 2015 will be crowned King William the V (I AM VI VI VI).

    It is true these things are history as prophesied in Dan. 9.26 not verse 27 which involves a covenant for seven years. Remember, Jesus already died in verse 26 and the Temple is already destroyed in verse 26. Now comes verse 27.

    If you want to talk about the Abomination Desolation of the Anti-Christ, look no further than Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. Those two passages, right there, have yet to pass. They are what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 24: 15-21. When they see the Abomination (singular, as in one time) of Desolation, they are to run! The word used for Abomination in these two passages is shikkutz, the singular form.
    "Overspreading of abominations" (Dan. 9.27) is because he replaces the wings of the Cheribum with his own presence, making himself out to be God in the Temple. With the conclusion of verse 27 is the conclusion of verse 24 but who can say these have happened yet? Who can say today, "even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (v.27) has occurred? Who can say, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

    No covenant of 7 years was created by Jesus, no mention of it all halfway through the 69th seven. None whatsoever. You've forced it, and if it belongs there then God's word should say something about it. Clearly you are reading into the text that which is not there. Your motivation is likely subterranean. Your decrepit morals don't sense these evils are still going on today.

    The Anti-Christ will conquer Jerusalem (Zch 14:1-2) and sit in the third temple. Here he will claim to be God. (2 Thes 2:4). He will place an abomination (idol) of himself in the third (yet to be built) temple.

    In Daniel 9:26 "the prince" destroys Jerusalem and the temple. If this is supposed to be the Anti-Christ, and if this were referring to him placing the (single) Abomination Desolation Jesus spoke of, please tell me how he could place it in a temple he just destroyed! It makes no sense.
    Dan. 9.26 says the people of the prince not the prince. Your questions are false ones because you start with the premise of the prince being Titus or that the prince is even present. He is not. He is "the prince that shall come" (v.26) after the Temple is destroyed, sometime later, when the Great Tribulation occurs.

    I don't claim to know everything about Biblical prophecy. All I'm doing is following what's in the scriptures. The Holy Spirit deserves all the glory for this. I want none of it. I'm just a messenger. It is you who is adding stuff, twisting, and misapprehending the Word to make it fit to a set of myths that have become too commonplace in the End Times prophecy debate.
    You are totally misreading the Scriptures, for we have no record of a 7 year covenant with Jesus, but you just force into the weeks. That will never do. And clearly Dan. 9.24 was not fulfilled in 70 AD either nor the "consummation" (v.27). The only things that were fulfilled is Jesus was cut off after 69 weeks and the Temple was destroyed by the people of the Antichrist who is to come one day. After that took place, then that very same Antichrist will make a covenant for one week at the end of this age at the "consummation". 70 AD was no consummation. Israel will rebuild the Temple soon.

    Titus doesn't bring an end of sin and transgressions, nor a consummation. Titus is certainly not one of the five fallen, nor does he have the number of the beast. He died a natural death. You are a messenger of Satan. You've taken a myth for yourself because you have a subterranean motivation. Titus never made a covenant for one week and then broke it, but the Antichrist will. When that covenant occurs for 7 years, you will sluff it off and thus, be deceived. Many will be deceived in end-times, and you are one of them that is lost.

    Also, be very careful in your judgment of people.

    "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (Jn 7:24)

    Calling me unsaved and a worshipper of Satan is crossing a line. You are NOT God. You do not know what is in my heart or what my motives are. If I be wrong, then simply call me for what I am: ignorant, misguided, and/or deceived.

    I could have just as easily made the same tremendous claims (unsaved, devil worshipper) about you, but I did not.
    You need to be careful not to judge people falsely as judging you falsely, when you are wrong, through my response I trust you have seen. You are not saved, because you will deny the covenant is a covenant by the Antichrist and embrace it so as to be deceived. Don't accuse people of claiming to be God, for how is that righteous judgment? You are not wrong because you are merely ignorant, misguided and deceived, but because your spirit is dead to God and you worship a false Christ.

    You did not do the same to me because you could sense the authority.

    Ask yourself one vital question. After the Messiah is cut off and the Temple destroyed in 70 AD, what follows but the climax of his terrible deeds in verse 27, so what are you doing tacking verse 27 onto what already happened in 70 AD in verse 26?

    First the people of the prince destroy the Temple, then when the prince actually arrives on the scene, he will make himself out to be God in the Temple. John wrote Revelation 95 AD not 70 AD. I've got about 33 reasons for this,

    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Aids_to_Revelation.htm

    Titus is not the Antichrist because John says the current one who "is not" the Antichrist referring to Domitian. Even if he wrote it at 70 AD, he could not be referring to Titus because Titus also would be "is not" the Antichrist. Hence, the people of the prince are the Romans who are the followers of the Antichrist to come.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Gakak45,

    The second half of the little book in Revelation 10 hasn't been opened yet just as Daniel's prophecy is still sealed.

    You are not born-again. You're looking for some way to exalt yourself instead of accepting the plain truth in Daniel.

    After the events in verse 26 we find some new events take place as yet at some future date after 70 AD.

    Stop wasting your time with this stuff since you are not even born-again. You can't interpret spiritual truths without the Spirit.

    Repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated then accept the 7 year peace treaty for while people are marrying and giving in marriage and all seems peaceful and they are rejoicing then comes the flood at the end, desolations, and then all these things in Dan. 9.24 will be reached.

    Today, over 10,000 people die per day from starvation and 50,000 die per day needlessly. If that's your idea of Dan. 24 or Rev. 20.3, God help you!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Post Conflating the 69th Week with the 70th Week

    Quote Originally Posted by Gakak45
    There is no seven year peace treaty. Daniel's 70 weeks are about the Jesus Christ the Messiah. He is the main focus of this narrative, not the Anti-Christ. It is not about some fabled peace treaty but rather the confirmation of God's covenant with Abraham.
    Daniel's 70th seven is a 7 year peace treaty (each half is 1260 days) - a covenant of seven years. While people as a result are saying all is peaceful, the Antichrist breaks the covenant in middle when he will "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9.27).

    The passage in 9.24-27 is not talking about just Jesus nor is it talking about just the Antichrist. It is talking about both: "Messiah" and "the people of the prince [the Antichrist] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (v.26) in 70 AD, as well as, at the end of this age cause "the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (v.27) so that "Seventy sets of seven of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place" (v.24). The holy place, the Temple, was not anointed in 70 AD, but will be when Jesus steps down on the mount of olives. Praise the Lord!

    I would suggest to you that your conscience is seared like a hot iron, insensitive and dead to God, because you have no conscience to sense these past two thousand years there has not been an "end of sin" (50,000 people die per day due to sin), "finish the transgression" (Israel is sinning rejecting God), "atone for iniquity" (this is not the atonement of the cross, but reconciliation of all things), "everlasting righteous" (Jesus reigning on earth in Person), "seal both vision and prophet (Israel a nation again, Tribulation, first rapture according to readiness, and so forth), anoint "a" "most holy place" (the Temple from where Jesus will reign). Amen!

    The 70 weeks in question DO NOT refer to the future Tribulation. In fact, more than half of it has already happened. 69 1/2 weeks have been fulfilled, leaving only half a week (3 1/2 years) remaining.
    The first half has not taken place yet as it is connected time-wise with the second half. Jesus never made a covenant for 7 years. The first half of the 7 years is the first four trumpets. The 2nd half is the last 3 trumpets or 3 woes. What occurs before the trumpets of the Tribulation (because it is loud), is the first rapture according to readiness (Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9). Nor has the great earthquake, H3 Solar eclipse and Total Lunar Tetrad (Rev. 6.12) occurred yet either, thus we have a fully 7 years of the Tribulation from Sept. 14, 2015 Feast of Trumpets through 2,520 days to Aug. 7, 2022 Tisha B'Av, Sunday when Jesus steps down on the mount of olives (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7, Rev. 19.11-16).

    If it's after the 69th week, that means his death had to happen during the 70th week.
    That's illogical. The 70th week as all one unit occurs at the consummation with commences with the first rapture "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9). You're not making sense. The 69 sevens are from Nisan 1, 444 BC to March 28, 33 AD (Monday) in the Gregorian calendar. This the end of the 69 weeks. Then the 4 day inspection of the Lamb takes place from March 28-31. Jesus died 4 days after the first day inspection of the Lamb on April 1, 33 AD (Friday), but nobody teaches this is the first 4 days of the 70th. There was not three and a half years found after Jesus died nor in 70 AD. Just like the other sets of seven are very precise, we can nail down precisely Daniel's last seven.

    There is nothing in Daniel 9 that says a covenant was made midway through the 69th week, none whatsoever. The covenant is the 70th week, hence the events after verse 26.

    Therefore Jesus is the one who caused the "sacrifice and oblation to cease" in the "middle" of the week.
    Jesus replaced the animal sacrifices as the once-for-all sacrifice, but He did not cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease since the Jews kept on doing it and will do so again when the Temple is built again even in the years leading up to it. Thus, the Jews are still in transgression. Your conscience can't sense this and the evil that permeates this condition in the world of iniquity and sin. Therein lies the problem with your heart.

    Jesus' ministry took up the first 3 1/2 years of the 70th week. At the end thereof, He died on the cross for your sins and mine, then rose from the dead.
    I think you are confusing yourself, because before you said Jesus' ministry took up the last three and a half years of the 69th week, but now you say it took up the first three and a half years of the 70th week. I've show you why His ministry could not have been the last half of the 69th week, but His ministry did not take up the first half of the 70th week either, since Jesus was "cut off" (Dan. 9.25) 4 days after the 69th week, and Jesus did not minister for three and a half years after He entered Jerusalem or died on the cross. It's really silly what you are trying to do, because then then Jesus would have died on the cross on the 4th day of the 70th week instead of as you say at the midpoint of the 7 years.

    Do you see what you are doing? You are conflating and overlapping the last half of the 69th week with the 1st half of the 70th week. Satan is the author of confusion and you are following in his footsteps. Shameful!

    I'm tired of arguing about Titus with you too. I never said he was the Anti-Christ. He was the prince who razed the city and the temple. This has been proven and yes, it's accruate to identify him as a prince, for that's what he was at the time. He didn't become a king himself until later on. This prophecy has come and gone.
    You're wrong about Titus also, because when John said "is not" and "one is" (Rev. 17.8,10,11) he was referring to Domitian at the time of John's writing in 95 AD. I have supplied to you his writing during 95 AD not 70 AD.

    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Aids_to_Revelation.htm

    Titus is not mentioned in Dan. 9.27 so who cares if he was around at the time. We've gone over this already that it is a very strange way to speak to refer to a Roman Caesar as a prince, and John should have mentioned Titus by name or at least used some other terminology instead of "people of the prince". "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dan. 9.26) which occurred in 70 AD. Then "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (v.27). Where did Titus confirm a covenant with people for 7 years? Where did Jesus confirm a covenant with people for 7 years after Jesus died? Ridiculous nonsense. You are so deceived and deluded. Satan has you in his hands.

    "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." All students of Revelation know that this refers to the Romans. After the death of Christ the Jews incurred God’s severe judgment: the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary in 70 A.D. Since the term "the people" refers to the Romans, many accordingly think that the term "the prince" obviously points to the Roman prince Titus who led the Romans. But there are many reasons to refute this conclusion. Why is it that the Scripture here does not say the prince shall destroy the city but rather says the people of the prince? Although the prince must work through his people, it is still unnatural to say the people and not directly say the prince. Since the Holy Spirit mentions both the prince and the people, while nevertheless putting a primary emphasis on the people, can it be that He is implying by this that these people represent the people of that prince who is yet to come? If so, then the prince in question here is not Titus, and the people who attacked Jerusalem in the former day were in spirit and in attitude morally the people of the future prince. This prince whom Daniel prophecies about will be a world renown figure in the future, who is the Antichrist. "The prince that shall come" is therefore the Antichrist.

    "The end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (v.26). "The end" here is not the end of the city nor of the sanctuary. According to correct grammatical construction, "the end thereof" should be connected to the phrase "the prince that shall come." The fulfillment did not come at the time of Titus but is yet to come in the future. The people of the prince who shall come shall destroy this city and the sanctuary, but "the end thereof" (that is to say, the end of the prince)* shall come as a flood. We know that this superman is soon to come, and the world will have no peace. But thank God, we shall be gone before the Antichrist arrives.

    * The Revised Standard Version (1952) recognizes this construction of the verse, as follows: ". . . and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. His end shall come with a flood . . ." (9.26 mg.).—Translator

    Speaking of Anti-Christ, your theory on Nero as the Anti-Christ doesn't hold up. First off, the 7 kings in Revelation chapter 17, are LITERAL kings, not forms of government.
    That's right, they are 7 historical kings and not princes by the way. The Antichrist will be a prince, e.g. perhaps Prince William who will be crowned King William V (I AM VI VI VI) in 2015 and bypass Prince Charles as king because William has more marketability for the Royal Family. The first 5 Caesars who died horrific deaths, not by natural causes, were Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. Since the Antichrist comes from one of the five (Rev. 17.10-11), and only Nero has the number of the beast, 666, in Aramaic as Neron Kaisar then this is no issue at all for learned Christians. But you should know better, and because you don't, you are not my brother in Christ and probably never will be. That makes me sad.

    Nero is the most evil man in history towards Christians. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Nero.htm

    The 10 kings are different than the 7 kings. The 10 kings are contemporary in our day, whereas the 6 kings are historical and related to John's day, something close to his understand which would be of the Roman government. The 7th king is the forerunner to the Antichrist who is with us for a short while, then the 8th who is the Antichrist inhabits his body because the forerunner receives likely a deadly head wound.

    "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are also seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth" (Rev. 17.10). The woman is the Roman Church and sits on the 7 hilled city which is Rome. This is the European Union. What's going to happen is when the Antichrist as one of the 10 kings takes over, he will replace 3 of the 10 kings so there is 7 kings. These 7 kings are responsible to administer the mark of the beast over 7 regions of the world. As Rome has seven hills the earth has 7 pillars of regions as it were.

    Secondly, regarding the "five who have fallen". In the Bible, the word fallen is "epesan" in Greek which means..."to fall". Simple as that. No violent death is implied.
    The word in Greek is not "epsesan" but "pipsto" to be removed from power by death, evilly, and to be thrust down as if with a spear.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G4098&t=KJV

    The word “fallen” in 17.10 carries with it the idea of violent death (see 2 Sam. 1.19,25,27).

    "
    The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (2 Sam. 1.19,25,27).

    All seven kings do indeed meet with violent death: Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero—these five kings all assumed deity for themselves; they called for their people to worship them as gods; and all five died unnaturally, either by being murdered or by committing suicide
    .

    Domitian was the sixth one. He was present during the time of John. He too deified himself, and was later murdered.


    Also you forgot a king: Augustus. He succeeded Ceasar. Had to forget him to make Nero fit, huh?
    Augustus died on natural causes. I was waiting for you to bring this up to corner you like you are wild dog. "August 19, 14 AD Natural causes."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors

    You misspelled Caesar.

    No matter how you try to spin it, the 7th king IS the Anti-Christ.
    No matter how you spin it, the Antichrist can't be the 7th king, but the 8th. There can't be an Antichrist after the Antichrist. The Antichrist is the 8th.

    The forerunner is only for a short space: "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space" because of a deadly wound (Rev. 17.10). At the time of John's writing we are told then comes the Antichrist at some future date who is the 8th: "And the beast that was [Nero], and is not [not Nero but Domitian], even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition" (Rev. 17.11). Nero is the "eighth". He is of the seven because the 5 are of the seven and the Antichrist is the culmination of the evil of all seven as well, and he possesses the body of the 7th, but do not think that Prince William as the 7th is the Antichrist. Rather, the Antichrist Nero possesses his body when someone tries to kill King William V.

    And you want to come at me with a lecture about Biblical interpretation AND question my salvation?
    I contacted you because I realized you were not born-again, so the Holy Spirit wanted me to help lead you to Christ, first by showing you how you are misreading who the Antichrist is, how you have conflated the 69th and 70th weeks, and by showing you that you worship a false Christ for Jesus never made a 7 year covenant for His crucifixion.

    Guess which lake you're dangerously close to treading in, by the way.
    A Christian can't lose salvation. I am a Christian. Since you think a Christian can tread close enough to lose salvation, realize this is salvation by works, for no man can keep himself saved or lose salvation once-saved-always-saved. John said those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). You are not about to lose your salvation; rather, you were never born-again to begin with.

    Also, did you know that Paul thought the rapture was going to be in his time?
    Paul never taught that, but we are told to live as though He could return any time.

    Would Paul enlist himself among this class of people who are alive and are left in 1 Thess. 4.14-18? Not at all. He uses the word “we” only because he is speaking at that moment of writing, and the proof of this is that since Paul no longer lives today, he cannot be numbered among those who are left on earth. Why accuse Paul of sinning?

    So did John, who said back in the first century AD that the time for the prophecies in his Book of Revelation were near.
    Nearness is a matter of perspective. From God's perspective it's just 2 days, for a day equals a thousand years. When we look back in time a million years from now, we will think that way to. It will seem like only 2 days. Don't think he meant that Jesus would return in his lifetime. He was making no such claim at all. It's interesting all the new false teachings you keep revealing about yourself that you harbor.

    Uh oh. If you're gonna throw rocks at me, guess you best start chucking stones at these two "great men" of God. According to you, that's proof enough that they're unsaved and probably Satan worshippers in disguise.
    You've just sinned bearing false witness against them. Sinning bearing false witness against them doesn't constitute a valid argument. God hates that sin.

    I'll leave you with one last thing, Mr. Pharisee: remember that God will measure YOU with the same yardstick you use to measure others.
    The Pharisees are going to Hell, so you are accusing me and the saints day and night (Rev. 12.10) because you are not even saved. Remember, God won't judge me for the judgment coming upon you. Moreover, I don't possess your false teachings, so why would I be judged for your sins? Funny.

    My advice to you is repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated and though shalt be saved. With a new life, a quickened spirit, God's Spirit will slowly begin to work in you to show you the error of your ways.

    You're trying to understand God's word from the standpoint of a false tare trying to look like the saved wheat. You're not actually regenerated.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2017, 10:09 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2015, 10:59 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 07:52 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 04:17 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 02:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •