The Anti-Christ to defeat all believers?

Ark~Magic · Post by **Ark~Magic** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:14 pm

I had a question regarding this subject. They say the AC will have the power to deceive and defeat even the elite, so like the Pope, evangelists, and others could be tricked. If he has that much power, though, then what would it matter if we study all this crap about Revelations? If he's that advanced, then there is no way to protect and save ourselves, appearantly.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 2:32 am

The following passages are often referred to Matthew 24:24: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible", and Mark 13:22: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible."

Note the words, "if that were possible." Yet, no doubt some (i.e., the 'they' in who you refer to) have taken these words out of contexts and simply applied them to a persona of 'the' anti-Christ. 'They' may not be right.

Kurieuo.

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:48 pm

Which is why I hold to the pre-trib view of the rapture! I think we don't realize how powerful the anti-Christ will be and I sure would want to be deceived by him.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:27 pm

Who is the "antichrist" according to the Bible? Why do you believe in such a future character?

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:02 pm

Thats definately an argument against the post trib position. We just don't realize how powerful the beast will be and thats why the rapture has to happen first and then the tribulation because it wasn't meant for us it was meant for non-Christians and especially Israel.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:52 am

waynes world wrote:Thats definately an argument against the post trib position. We just don't realize how powerful the beast will be and thats why the rapture has to happen first and then the tribulation because it wasn't meant for us it was meant for non-Christians and especially Israel.

The beast was the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:7,23). It has come and gone. The Tribulation was meant for Israel (Matthew 24:16) and it is over. It happened in the first Century, just like Jesus said it would (Matthew 24:21,34)

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:41 am

There's really nothing to back up the Beast = Nero position. You take two verses, ignore everything between them, and thus draw faulty conclusions. Also, the word translated "generation" in verse 34 can also mean "race," "nation," or "age."

...this race will not pass away...
...this nation will not pass away...
...this age will not pass away...

Taken together with Revelations, Isaiah, and the other prophetic books, the time of Nero cannot be the Tribulation of which the Bible speaks. Too much stuff simply hasn't happened(even stuff between verses 21 & 34 of Matthew 24). Especially verse 21 itself -- "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

Sure, the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jewish people was tragic, but it's hardly the worst disaster ever. That the Beast is Nero, and the Tribulation has already happened is wishful thinking at best.

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:39 am

It has to be someone from the future. It couldn't have happened in the past because if you look at the parable of the fig tree I think its in Matt 24 also the reference is to Israel becoming a nation and that didn't even happen until 1948. The Jews had to return to their homeland otherwise the wrath of God wasn't possible and thats why the plagues couldn't have happened in the past. Where's the evidence from history that there were any plagues? Or that there ever has been any tribulation?

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:17 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:There's really nothing to back up the Beast = Nero position. You take two verses, ignore everything between them, and thus draw faulty conclusions. Also, the word translated "generation" in verse 34 can also mean "race," "nation," or "age."

No it cannot. If Jesus had meant "race" or "nation", He would have used "ethnos", not "genea". Genea NEVER means race.

Two verses? The entire Book Practically points to Nero.

A.) The Beast is the 4th Kingdom (Daniel 7:7,23). Let's Count...

1.) Babylonian
2.) Medo-Persian
3.) Macedonian
4.) Roman

B.) Nero is the 6th Roman Emperor (Rev. 17:10)

1.) Julius
2.) Augustus
3.) Tiberius
4.) Caligula
5.) Claudius
6.) Nero
7.) Galba (short time - killed after 6 month in office)

C.) Nero demanded worship (Rev. 13:6).

D.) Nero made war with the saints for a period of 42 months (a few months after the Great Fire in Rome in 64 AD until his suicide in 68 AD.) - (Rev. 13:5,7)

E.) Nero killed with the sword (Paul) and was killed by the sword (He committed suicide with the help of his secretary by cutting his throat) - (Rev. 13:10).

F.) The number (Hebrew Gematria) of Nero's name is Six Hundred and Sixty Six.

Nero Caesar
Hebrew nrwn qsr

Also considering the fact that John was writing Revelation to seven first century churches (Rev. 1:4) about "things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 1:1), were "near" (Rev. 1:3), and were "about to come upon all the world" (Rev. 3:10), who else would even be a candidate? Two verses? Study the issue first, then respond.

LittleShepherd wrote:Taken together with Revelations, Isaiah, and the other prophetic books, the time of Nero cannot be the Tribulation of which the Bible speaks.

Isaiah does not mention the beast. The only other book in the Bible that mentions the beast is Daniel, and he only gives a small blurb.

LittleShepherd wrote:Too much stuff simply hasn't happened(even stuff between verses 21 & 34 of Matthew 24). Especially verse 21 itself -- "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

The Jesus was wrong in verse 34???

LittleShepherd wrote:Sure, the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jewish people was tragic, but it's hardly the worst disaster ever.

For the Jewish people, it was indeed the worst disaster. Not from a numerical perspective, but for the fact that the kingdom was taken from them and given to the church, the New Jerusalem from heaven.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:27 pm

waynes world wrote:It has to be someone from the future. It couldn't have happened in the past because if you look at the parable of the fig tree I think its in Matt 24 also the reference is to Israel becoming a nation and that didn't even happen until 1948. The Jews had to return to their homeland otherwise the wrath of God wasn't possible and thats why the plagues couldn't have happened in the past. Where's the evidence from history that there were any plagues? Or that there ever has been any tribulation?

Read a little closer Wayne. Jesus says to "learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near." (Matthew 24:32). Nothing is said about Israel becoming a nation again in 1948. In fact, the parable of the fig tree says just the opposite.

Matthew 21:18-19
"Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away."

Yes, there is a God-hating Country in the Middle East today called Israel, established by the United Nations in 1948. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bible Prophecy. (Remember, Jesus' disciples were to see these things).

Matthew 24:33
"So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!"

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:40 pm

Thats why the pre-trib has to come before the tribulation. Otherwise we who believe will be in danger of losing our salvation.

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:43 pm

I see the fig tree being Israel being a nation in 1948, so so much for the preterist view. It just doesn't fit what Jesus is talking about. Have you ever looked at the end of Matt 24 where Jesus says no one knows when the rapture will happen? If Jesus doesn't know himself there's no way in the world we can know. Plus there's no evidence from history that there ever has been any resurection. Its wishful thinking to think so, I agree.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:30 am

waynes world wrote:Thats why the pre-trib has to come before the tribulation. Otherwise we who believe will be in danger of losing our salvation.

I don't follow you here. Please expound.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:36 am

waynes world wrote:I see the fig tree being Israel being a nation in 1948, so so much for the preterist view. It just doesn't fit what Jesus is talking about. Have you ever looked at the end of Matt 24 where Jesus says no one knows when the rapture will happen? If Jesus doesn't know himself there's no way in the world we can know. Plus there's no evidence from history that there ever has been any resurection. Its wishful thinking to think so, I agree.

The fig tree has nothing to do with 1948. Jesus told his disciples "this generation", and He meant what He said. He also said that the fig tree would never bear fruit again, which eliminates Israel in 1948 as having anything to do with this prophecy.

I never said that the resurrection has taken place. I have been consistently saying that this is a future event.
And Matthew 24 makes no mention of a rapture or a resurrection.

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:19 pm

One thing you have NOT been is consistant! Everytime I disprove the preterist idea you switch to the post trib view. It would be nice if you would make up your mind one way or another. I am getting a bit frustrated over this. If you want to believe some view fine, but stick with it please? And try to respect people who disagree with you because I try to. I say the pre-trib view is the best way to understand Matt 24. And you are the only one I know who says that the fig leaf cannot be Israel becoming a nation in 1948 because all of the commentators I've seen say thats the case. They all can't be wrong.