Revelation 20:4-6

[Lehigh3]

by Stormcrow

One more thing: the saints on the thrones ruling with Christ comes after the fall of Jerusalem in chapters 18 and 19.

Actually no, Revelation 20 is a recapitulation chapter of a "long time" thousand years, I think we said the NASB doesn't cut it for Rev.20- the Greek is the best- even more accurate than the NKJV & KJV.

Rev.20:4-6 NKJV
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Rev.20:4-6 (Greek interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev20.pdf

 

[warfrog]

Well if taking into consideration that there are four kingdoms mentioned to Daniel and these four kindoms begun with Babylon then it only can be that the four is Babylon, Median, Persia and Greece and from Greece an little horn.

Daniel 7:23 (KJV)
23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

I know many want to group together the two kingdoms of Median and Perisa and try to place the Romans as the fourth kingdom. I believe that an error only when we read how Daniel is shown these fourth kingdom is when we fine that this little horn come out of that kingdom.

Daniel has a hard time understanding the vision in chapter 7 he then again in chapter 8 is given another vision and given again the interperation. This time with no uncertainty the fourth kingdom is Greece which was Alexander's kingdom being divided into four kingdoms. Two of these kingdoms is revealed to Daniel in chapter 11 as Ptolemies and Seleucid as kings of the north and south of which Antiochus IV ruled the Seleucid and the Little horn descibed in chapter 8 is said to come from these four kingdoms of Greece. No where is there any indication of Rome being the fourth kingdom from which this little horn comes out of.

As concering the end times we only need to read how Daniel is told that what is to befall his people in the latter days of the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia. This end time is concerning their persecution by these princes that will be given for a time to rule over them as the beast kingdoms. The ending was when the Maccabees revolted and overtook the city to clean and redicate the temple.



As you can see that Daniel and Revelation are parallel in how each one descibes one with a mouth that speaks great word against the most High and is given a time of 42 months or as Daniel time, times and half. Antiochus IV is given as a type and shadow of Titus that would come and make desolate the city and temple both only was given 42 months to bring about the desolation. In both cases where the persecution and even death of the people of God. Both descibe the end of time that ending of time is that they would have been made overcomers by their faithfulness which is clothed in white which is their righteousness. As Daniel this only take them holding out until the end which would come in 1335 days.

According to Jesus all of the things he had spoken was to come to pass in 'This' those that where in audience of Jesus that present generation. For it was that generation that he called the generation of vipers and proclaimed seven 'woes' unto them that judgment would come upon them. 'How can ye escape the damnation of hell'. How would they know to escape the sentence and judgment of death for if they did they would have repented that's what John the Baptist was preaching. Jesus said, "Verly I say unto to you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled".(Matt 23:36, 24:34 KVJ)




Really? I see that as a figure of speech which Jesus used OT language to reveal that what Caiaphus would see would be the 'power' of the son of man coming in clouds where with that speaks of judgment as Christ is given that power to judge.

This 'see' isn't with their literal eyes, but rather how Jesus said to the Pharisees that they said that they see 'understand with knowledge'. (John 9:41) These where blind leader of the blind, but on that day of the Lord all men will see 'understand' even those Pharisees/high priest Caiaphus would understand that Jesus was the Messiah, but it will be to late for their judgment/reward was in his hand.


There is no one antichrist, but many antichrists. Those that would as Jesus said proclaim themselves to the the Anointed one who will claim to deliver the people from their oppression.

As it is Josephus recorded many of these false prophets and false christ in his writtings of the War of the Jews. Chapter 5, 2

I'm not going to go into a big discussion about the first half of your post, i posted why i beleive Caiaphus can see Jesus at the right hand of the throne and that is because the souls are under the altar, thats simply why i reason that he could see Christ on the right hand of the throne.

Now regarding antiochus and titus, well i gave you several scriptural refrences all discribing an individual in the exat same way from daniel to thess to revelation in the last post, neither of those men fullfilled those prophecy standards, neither of them were worshipped as God, neither warred againts the saints and overcame them, in fact a decree was given for saints prior to the invasion of titus time for them to leave the city beforehand that they didnt get caught up in the conflict of the roman invasion within the city, nor were either ended by the return of Christ.
Neither men are shadows of anything, if they cant fullfill the prophecy they cant be shadows of it.

Now your saying all are antichrist's, and no one individual is in focus it pertains to what an antichrist's is.
Well scripture confirms scripture in all cases, so lets look at both the antichrists scripture in john and lawlessness in thessalonians:

1 John 2:18:23
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also

Look, the antichrist is coming, then John follows up with even now many antichrists have come. Why would John say an antichrist is coming and then follow it up with "even now many antichrist's have come?" that make sence to you that John is speaking of multiples the whole time? He just said "the" was coming, and then currently their are "many", doesnt make sence at all if he wasnt being singular for the first, how can a specific be coming yet many exist at his present time if he was speaking of the same thing? How can "the" be coming if "many" were already present *)

OK so lets look at the man of lawlessness and the presence of lawlessness now:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
"Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Look at that exact same concept as to what John spoke of regarding a coming antichrist and the current presence of antichrist's just as the man of lawlessness is coming yet the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, sound familiar?

Seems both men were in fact speaking of a yet to come antichrist/man of lawlessness and having to deal with at thier very current time antichrists/the working of lawlessness, in other words both actions were currently present and yet they both mention a singular coming of an individual of those workings.

So I guess for a final question i could ask you is what do you think lawlessness is? what is the N.T law? 1 John gives the answer.

 

[Lehigh3]

by Beck,

23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

I know many want to group together the two kingdoms of Median and Perisa and try to place the Romans as the fourth kingdom. I believe that an error only when we read how Daniel is shown these fourth kingdom is when we fine that this little horn come out of that kingdom.

No, I must correct you with this. The 4th beast in Dan.7 IS Rome.
Daniel's chapters are not all in chronological order. To be sure, Ch. 5 looks to the end of Belshazzar's reign, while ch.8 is given during the 3rd year of his reign. But to account for this, the book has been divided into 2 sections. The 1st a history which ends with ch.6- & the 2nd section specifically of visions & prophecies, beginning with ch.7.
We know that the 2nd empire after Babylon was Medio-Persia. In ch. 5, Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall for king Belshazzar of Babylon. In verse 28, he told him that the kingdom of Babylon had already been divided & that "your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

Next, we can interpret ch. 7. appropriately- verse by verse. As I stated before, the "11th horn" of ch. 7 is NOT the same "little horn" of ch. 8. Yes, they are both "antichrists" but in Daniels chapters- they refer to 2 different rulers from 2 separate kingdoms.
Let me , for time sake, just describe the 4 beasts interpretations.
1) we know the lion was 1st & given the heart of a man described king Nebuchanezzar or BABYLON.
2) "and behold another beast, a second like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: "arise
devour much flesh!" We know from other scripture like 2 Sam.17:8 why the peculiar properties of a "bear" are used here. But the main point is that its raised up on ONE side. Persia being the dominant side of the combined Medio- Persian kingdom.
3) The 3rd beast is "like a leopard" This is Greece under Alexander the Great. A leopard with its "bird wings" describes the man born at Pella, for after the death of his father, ruled the world in just 11 years. The leopard is a very fast moving animal- the added "wings" would denote the swiftness that no hand except God's could stop.
4) The 4th beast with the "iron teeth" breaking & tearing to pieces "all the other kingdoms before it, and it had ten horns."
Successively & historically Rome defeated Greece. The 10 horns (horns mean rulers or powers in prophecy) begin with Pompey. Not the same order as John's Roman kings also in Rev.17 (where here begins his enumeration at the later king- Julius Caesar.
But Daniel begins with the sole ruler (not called an Emperor yet)
1) Pompey
2) Julius
3) Augustus
4) Tiberius
5) Caligula
6) Claudius
7) Nero
8) Galba
9) Otho
10) Vitellius
11) Vespasian's son Titus , the "little horn."

That's all I have time to write about today. I suggest reading "Daniel, fulfilled prophecies" by Jesse E. Mills, Jr.

 

[Beck]

I'm not going to go into a big discussion about the first half of your post, i posted why i beleive Caiaphus can see Jesus at the right hand of the throne and that is because the souls are under the altar, thats simply why i reason that he could see Christ on the right hand of the throne.

No problem my friend, We'll just move on.

Now regarding antiochus and titus, well i gave you several scriptural refrences all discribing an individual in the exat same way from daniel to thess to revelation in the last post, neither of those men fullfilled those prophecy standards, neither of them were worshipped as God, neither warred againts the saints and overcame them, in fact a decree was given for saints prior to the invasion of titus time for them to leave the city beforehand that they didnt get caught up in the conflict of the roman invasion within the city, nor were either ended by the return of Christ.
Neither men are shadows of anything, if they cant fullfill the prophecy they cant be shadows of it.

Okay let me give you a little more detail. Both the Grecian emprie from which came Seleucid king Antiochus and the Roman king Titus wasn't the to a decree the persecutor's of the saints, but only a vehicle that was used. In the same manner that John described how the woman that sat on the beast. She had the blood of the saints(Rev.17:3-6). It appears that this woman is Israel those that force the people of God to worship the image of the beast. Hope that sounds familiar for that is actually what happened by Antiochus. He had many of the high
ranking officials 'high preist Onias III' killed where he could place someone that would enforce his will on the people.

This same picture can be seen by Nebuchaddnezzer in how he made an image that all was to worship, while hearing of the three Hebrew boys which was officials of Babylon. All the other officials made sure and enforced this law that all should worship the beast image. So this beast kingdom is used by the false prophet [woman sitting of the beast] to persecute the saints. This would be the same case for those that where under the Roman emprie. There were those that tryed to force the temple officials to offer up a sacrifice to Ceasar and while thoses seem to try to force the people of God to join in with the Romans a kind of 'mark' that they were agreeing with Rome. The Pharisees were one part of these that denied the Lord Jesus as the Messiah king of the Jews for they said "We have no king but Caesar". So I hope you can see how John by describing the woman that sat on the beast is describing the Pharisees/Sadducees and scribes whom used the Roman's to govern their own people.

Then when we examine the writting of Daniel and understand them to be used as typology to show the people of God what was to come. I would think they would remember becasue of the feast of Lights that was the redication of the temple after Antiochus defiled it. So this is what Jesus meant that when reading Daniel to know that when they shall see armies surround the city to know that it was time to flee. Jesus told them to watch and be ready for no man knows the day nor hour that the son of man is coming. Again what had see told them to watch for and be ready for? [The soon coming destruction of the city Luke 21:20] This is why we must understand that Daniel writtings of Anitochus and the temple defilement as a type of the antitype.

Now your saying all are antichrist's, and no one individual is in focus it pertains to what an antichrist's is.
Well scripture confirms scripture in all cases, so lets look at both the antichrists scripture in john and lawlessness in thessalonians:

1 John 2:18:23
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also

Look, the antichrist is coming, then John follows up with even now many antichrists have come. Why would John say an antichrist is coming and then follow it up with "even now many antichrist's have come?" that make sence to you that John is speaking of multiples the whole time? He just said "the" was coming, and then currently their are "many", doesnt make sence at all if he wasnt being singular for the first, how can a specific be coming yet many exist at his present time if he was speaking of the same thing? How can "the" be coming if "many" were already present *)

OK so lets look at the man of lawlessness and the presence of lawlessness now:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
"Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Look at that exact same concept as to what John spoke of regarding a coming antichrist and the current presence of antichrist's just as the man of lawlessness is coming yet the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, sound familiar?

Seems both men were in fact speaking of a yet to come antichrist/man of lawlessness and having to deal with at thier very current time antichrists/the working of lawlessness, in other words both actions were currently present and yet they both mention a singular coming of an individual of those workings.

So I guess for a final question i could ask you is what do you think lawlessness is? what is the N.T law? 1 John gives the answer.

Yes all are antichrists, all those that deined the Lord, but as to one in particular.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


Well yes there is one in particular. Paul tells the Thessalonians that do not believe this lie that that time had come, but first a falling away and then the man of sin. It should be noted that Paul had already told them this in detail before, but goes on and said that the mystery of sin already is at work, it that only he whom will be taken out of the way then that wicked one revealed.

Paul has simply said to them that the one governing them would remain until he is 'taken' out of the way. Claudius Caesar was ruling and died in 54AD or killed so to be removed that Agrippina's son Nero could become Ceasar.

 

[Beck]

by Beck,

No, I must correct you with this. The 4th beast in Dan.7 IS Rome.
Daniel's chapters are not all in chronological order. To be sure, Ch. 5 looks to the end of Belshazzar's reign, while ch.8 is given during the 3rd year of his reign. But to account for this, the book has been divided into 2 sections. The 1st a history which ends with ch.6- & the 2nd section specifically of visions & prophecies, beginning with ch.7.

We know that the 2nd empire after Babylon was Medio-Persia. In ch. 5, Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall for king Belshazzar of Babylon. In verse 28, he told him that the kingdom of Babylon had already been divided & that "your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

Well I must disagree. The kingdoms of Daruis of Median and Cyrus of Persia where the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms. Each kingdom had it's own king. Daniel speaks of these men and their kingdoms. Even thou they where the given the divided kingdom of Babylon they where infact two different kingdoms each having it's own king.

Median and Persia are distinguished as separate nations by the two horns of the ram is a point made repeatedly throughout the book of Daniel. Daniel always identifies the two nations as either the "Medes and Persians," or "Media and Persia." The fact that he viewed the two nations as separate entities is demonstrated by the statement that Belshazzar's kingdom was divided between them. After the fall of Babylon, Daniel places the city under Median rule:

But Daniel begins with the sole ruler (not called an Emperor yet)
1) Pompey
2) Julius
3) Augustus
4) Tiberius
5) Caligula
6) Claudius
7) Nero
8) Galba
9) Otho
10) Vitellius
11) Vespasian's son Titus , the "little horn."

That's all I have time to write about today. I suggest reading "Daniel, fulfilled prophecies" by Jesse E. Mills, Jr.

I don't see Daniel ever mentioning Rome nor it's Emperor. I think that comes later from John. What Daniel fortold was the defilement of the temple by Antiochus which was meant be to as a type. Clearly Antiochus IV is that little horn mentioned by Daniel.

 

[Lehigh3]

Well I must disagree. The kingdoms of Daruis of Median and Cyrus of Persia where the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms. Each kingdom had it's own king. Daniel speaks of these men and their kingdoms. Even thou they where the given the divided kingdom of Babylon they where infact two different kingdoms each having it's own king.

Median and Persia are distinguished as separate nations by the two horns of the ram is a point made repeatedly throughout the book of Daniel. Daniel always identifies the two nations as either the "Medes and Persians," or "Media and Persia." The fact that he viewed the two nations as separate entities is demonstrated by the statement that Belshazzar's kingdom was divided between them. After the fall of Babylon, Daniel places the city under Median rule:


I don't see Daniel ever mentioning Rome nor it's Emperor. I think that comes later from John. What Daniel fortold was the defilement of the temple by Antiochus which was meant be to as a type. Clearly Antiochus IV is that little horn mentioned by Daniel.

Well, are we referring to Daniel 7? Little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus E.

And it's for sure that One like the Son of man came to the Ancient of Days during the times of the Roman Empire & not the Greek! (Daniel 7:13-14)

Oh & looking at ch.8 is another place that the Medio-Persian kingdom is represented as a Ram with 2 horns. One kingdom is represented for purposes of Daniel's people & prophecy. The male Goat in ch. 8 is obviously Alexander the Great - who by the way, treated Israel gently. The story says that a high priest showed Alexander that he was in this prophecy & he was very flattered & happy about that.

Shall I go on & explain the rest of ch.8, bc I think you are just focused on Antiochus 1V? He came down from the Greek empire.

But recognize that Ch. 2, 7, 9, 10,12 of Daniel is speaking about the real end time of the Jewish nation. Not just the "end of the indignity" & of a particular ruler, Antiochus 1V.

 

[Beck]

Well, are we referring to Daniel 7? Little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus E.

Yes in both cases. I take it that Daniel didn't understand the vision and neither the first interperation. He then is given another vision (ch.8) which was again interperted and said to make him understand the vision. In chapter 8 Daniel is given much details concerning this little horn of chapter 7 the one that was to speak great word against the most high and to make war with the saints and to prevail over them. Chapter 8 gives this in detail that this little horn (v.9) shall previal over the saints and described as the stars and host of heaven of which he would cast down to the ground. If we conclude that chapter 8 is refering to Antiochus as the little horn then that was then interperation of the first vision that Daniel didn't understand. The bible sometimes give a double to reinforce the meaning, maybe this would be one case. (Genesis 41:32)

And it's for sure that One like the Son of man came to the Ancient of Days during the times of the Roman Empire & not the Greek! (Daniel 7:13-14)

I see Daniel using that language the same as when the Messiah is being used, I mean the Anointed one. There have been those [anointed] before Jesus came to be the Anointed one. If taken into context and timing of the king of Gercia [Antiochus] it may well be speaking of the Judas Maccabee [one like the son of man]that delivered them from his hand of oppression as one anointed by God.

Well, are we referring to Daniel 7? Little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus E.

Both is Antiochus

And it's for sure that One like the Son of man came to the Ancient of Days during the times of the Roman Empire & not the Greek! (Daniel 7:13-14)

Oh & looking at ch.8 is another place that the Medio-Persian kingdom is represented as a Ram with 2 horns. One kingdom is represented for purposes of Daniel's people & prophecy. The male Goat in ch. 8 is obviously Alexander the Great - who by the way, treated Israel gently. The story says that a high priest showed Alexander that he was in this prophecy & he was very flattered & happy about that.

Shall I go on & explain the rest of ch.8, bc I think you are just focused on Antiochus 1V? He came down from the Greek empire.

But recognize that Ch. 2, 7, 9, 10,12 of Daniel is speaking about the real end time of the Jewish nation. Not just the "end of the indignity" & of a particular ruler, Antiochus 1V.

So you insist that there is two little horns? Then there must be another 4 kingdoms? While I only see one little horn no matter how one tries to fit Rome into the picture. We can't have a division of Greece with a little horn and also Rome with a little horn, where is these two little horns described in chapter 7?

 

[Lehigh3]

So you insist that there is two little horns? Then there must be another 4 kingdoms? While I only see one little horn no matter how one tries to fit Rome into the picture. We can't have a division of Greece with a little horn and also Rome with a little horn, where is these two little horns described in chapter 7?

Let me ask you this, where do you see the words written in Daniel about "4 KINGDOMS" specifically? Which chapters?

Antiochus E.1V is in Dan 8 & 11. Also in O.T. Apocrypha - 1 Maccabees.

The 4 kingdoms in Daniel 2 & the 4 kingdom/beasts in Daniel 7 were Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, & Rome.

The only 4 kingdoms you speak of aren't called "kingdoms" in ch.8. They are called "horns"When Alexander died, his empire split up into 4 prominent monarchies. Two have significance to us & Daniel's holy land. Seleucus Nicator & Ptolemy Soter. Seleucus ruled Syria & parts eastward. Ptolemy ruled over Egypt. Out of Syria (a king of the north) would come Antiochus.E. 1V. - who would "cast down some of the host of heaven and stars to the ground." That meant he killed some of the holy people the Jews, at the time & caused the daily sacrifice to stop. The 2300 days were about Antiochus E. polluting the temple & it having to be cleansed that long.
The 1335 days in Dan.12 is about the end of the Jewish nation in AD70. Christ returned & fulfilled the feast days & raised the dead out of Hades to their heavenly home.

 

[Beck]

Let me ask you this, where do you see the words written in Daniel about "4 KINGDOMS" specifically? Which chapters?

I'm not sure why you ask the book of Daniel only speaks of four kingdoms upon the earth.

Daniel 7:23 (KJV)Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

The 4 kingdoms in Daniel 2 & the 4 kingdom/beasts in Daniel 7 were Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, & Rome.

The only 4 kingdoms you speak of aren't called "kingdoms" in ch.8. They are called "horns"When Alexander died, his empire split up into 4 prominent monarchies. Two have significance to us & Daniel's holy land. Seleucus Nicator & Ptolemy Soter. Seleucus ruled Syria & parts eastward. Ptolemy ruled over Egypt. Out of Syria (a king of the north) would come Antiochus.E. 1V. - who would "cast down some of the host of heaven and stars to the ground." That meant he killed some of the holy people the Jews, at the time & caused the daily sacrifice to stop. The 2300 days were about Antiochus E. polluting the temple & it having to be cleansed that long.
The 1335 days in Dan.12 is about the end of the Jewish nation in AD70. Christ returned & fulfilled the feast days & raised the dead out of Hades to their heavenly home.

Let me ask you something then, if you claim that the third kingdom of Greece is the kingdom that has this little horn where is that depicted in chapter 7 concerning the 3rd kingdom from verse 6? I don't see any mention of any little horn do you?

Why doesn't Gabriel explain to Daniel in chapter 8 about the little horn from the fourth kingdom?

Lets look at it this way then, if you consider the horns as kings of a kingdom then Nebuchaddnezzer is the 1st horn, then as the Ram depicted two horns as Darius of Media and Cyrus of Persia as the 2nd and 3rd horns, then the great horn of Alexander of the Greece as the 4th, then Antiochus IV as this little horn.

 

[Lehigh3]

I'm not sure why you ask the book of Daniel only speaks of four kingdoms upon the earth.

Daniel 7:23 (KJV)Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.




Let me ask you something then, if you claim that the third kingdom of Greece is the kingdom that has this little horn where is that depicted in chapter 7 concerning the 3rd kingdom from verse 6? I don't see any mention of any little horn do you?

Why doesn't Gabriel explain to Daniel in chapter 8 about the little horn from the fourth kingdom?

Lets look at it this way then, if you consider the horns as kings of a kingdom then Nebuchaddnezzer is the 1st horn, then as the Ram depicted two horns as Darius of Media and Cyrus of Persia as the 2nd and 3rd horns, then the great horn of Alexander of the Greece as the 4th, then Antiochus IV as this little horn.

Let's NOT look at "it this way" Why? because that is total confusion.

Forget about Daniel 8! We are talking about the end times for Israel as a nation. Not in 163 BC or earlier, but in AD70.
You will find more than likely, all scholars confirming that the 4 kingdoms of Daniel 2 are exactly like I wrote. Daniel 7 is a further development of Dan.2. & ends with the 4th kingdom on earth- the same 4th "beast." Vespasian is the Roman emperor who knocks out 3 in Dan.7. The 3 after Nero's death. Some say the 11th horn of Dan.7 is Vespasian & leave it at that. But the terminology leans to describing Titus, his son, & military commander to destroy Jerusalem. Thus the 11th horn or little horn is better known as Titus.

Again Medio-Persia is not up for debate. The kingdom was is taken as ONE. Persia NEVER became the dominant horn by WAR! Babylon was divided & given to the Medes & Persians. They were a co-op.

 

[warfrog]

No problem my friend, We'll just move on.



Okay let me give you a little more detail. Both the Grecian emprie from which came Seleucid king Antiochus and the Roman king Titus wasn't the to a decree the persecutor's of the saints, but only a vehicle that was used. In the same manner that John described how the woman that sat on the beast. She had the blood of the saints(Rev.17:3-6). It appears that this woman is Israel those that force the people of God to worship the image of the beast. Hope that sounds familiar for that is actually what happened by Antiochus. He had many of the high
ranking officials 'high preist Onias III' killed where he could place someone that would enforce his will on the people.

This same picture can be seen by Nebuchaddnezzer in how he made an image that all was to worship, while hearing of the three Hebrew boys which was officials of Babylon. All the other officials made sure and enforced this law that all should worship the beast image. So this beast kingdom is used by the false prophet [woman sitting of the beast] to persecute the saints. This would be the same case for those that where under the Roman emprie. There were those that tryed to force the temple officials to offer up a sacrifice to Ceasar and while thoses seem to try to force the people of God to join in with the Romans a kind of 'mark' that they were agreeing with Rome. The Pharisees were one part of these that denied the Lord Jesus as the Messiah king of the Jews for they said "We have no king but Caesar". So I hope you can see how John by describing the woman that sat on the beast is describing the Pharisees/Sadducees and scribes whom used the Roman's to govern their own people.

Then when we examine the writting of Daniel and understand them to be used as typology to show the people of God what was to come. I would think they would remember becasue of the feast of Lights that was the redication of the temple after Antiochus defiled it. So this is what Jesus meant that when reading Daniel to know that when they shall see armies surround the city to know that it was time to flee. Jesus told them to watch and be ready for no man knows the day nor hour that the son of man is coming. Again what had see told them to watch for and be ready for? [The soon coming destruction of the city Luke 21:20] This is why we must understand that Daniel writtings of Anitochus and the temple defilement as a type of the antitype.




Yes all are antichrists, all those that deined the Lord, but as to one in particular.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


Well yes there is one in particular. Paul tells the Thessalonians that do not believe this lie that that time had come, but first a falling away and then the man of sin. It should be noted that Paul had already told them this in detail before, but goes on and said that the mystery of sin already is at work, it that only he whom will be taken out of the way then that wicked one revealed.

Paul has simply said to them that the one governing them would remain until he is 'taken' out of the way. Claudius Caesar was ruling and died in 54AD or killed so to be removed that Agrippina's son Nero could become Ceasar.

So your saying Nero was the man of lawlessness? Whom the Lord would consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming?
So commanding a servant of his to stab him to death....that sound anything even close to that prophecy?
Not only that, Nero or rather, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, was never worshipped as God, in fact he was much hated among his own people and even considered to be the one who may have started the fires of Rome that he may rebuild it even greater.
Reread the prophecy, Nero is nowehere near capable of that fullfillment.

 

[reba]

Wern't the Caesar s considered gods?

 

[Beck]

Let's NOT look at "it this way" Why? because that is total confusion.

The confusion seems to lay in trying to make two 'little horns' one in the third kingdom of Greece as you would have it and then again in the fourth kingdom. No where is that showed to Daniel that there shall rise up two little horns that's only an assumption trying to place Rome as the fourth kingdom.

Forget about Daniel 8! We are talking about the end times for Israel as a nation. Not in 163 BC or earlier, but in AD70.

Then we should move from Daniel to the book of Revelation. I can't express it enough that Daniel is only a forshadow or an typology for the book of Revelation. Both of these books express an end of time, but it's figurative in that it represents the end of their oppression. All one has to read is chapter 10 of Daniel to see that the latter days of the end time would be concering the time of the prince of Perisa and the prince of Grecia. For Daniel was told that what shall befall his people in the latter days while the end of the vision was still days away. As we can see that Daniel had this vision while in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia and the Grecian kingdom was yet to come.(v.20)

Consider this why mention Greece but not Rome? I think understanding that principal added to that the end was at the time of the fourth kingdom was would be the Grecian. So which one do you what to discuss Daniel or Revelation?

You will find more than likely, all scholars confirming that the 4 kingdoms of Daniel 2 are exactly like I wrote. Daniel 7 is a further development of Dan.2. & ends with the 4th kingdom on earth- the same 4th "beast." Vespasian is the Roman emperor who knocks out 3 in Dan.7. The 3 after Nero's death. Some say the 11th horn of Dan.7 is Vespasian & leave it at that. But the terminology leans to describing Titus, his son, & military commander to destroy Jerusalem. Thus the 11th horn or little horn is better known as Titus.

That where trying to place Rome and it's Emperor's in Daniel's context makes for confusion. Lets try letting the book of Revelation interpert for us the era of the Roman emprie and let Daniel only fortell of it's coming by the types it gives in the four beast kingdoms.

Again Medio-Persia is not up for debate. The kingdom was is taken as ONE. Persia NEVER became the dominant horn by WAR! Babylon was divided & given to the Medes & Persians. They were a co-op.

When Belshazzer the king of Babylon was slain, Darius the Median took the kingdom.(Dan.5:30-31) Does that sound like this is as co-op? Yes the land was divided but the fact is that they were still two different kingdoms each having their own kings. If one was to count kingdoms these would follow after Babylon as the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms. As is written the Medes and Persians noting two different kingdoms. Daniel never wrote them as Median-Persia.

 

[Sinthesis]

When Belshazzer the king of Babylon was slain, Darius the Median took the kingdom.(Dan.5:30-31) Does that sound like this is as co-op? Yes the land was divided but the fact is that they were still two different kingdoms each having their own kings. If one was to count kingdoms these would follow after Babylon as the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms. As is written the Medes and Persians noting two different kingdoms. Daniel never wrote them as Median-Persia.

Research the Achaemenid Empire and your error will become apparent.

 

[Beck]

So your saying Nero was the man of lawlessness?

Yes, I do believe that is what Paul was explainning in Thessalonians. Nero fits the bill as the number of a man is to be 666 or 616, Nero fits both of these. He also fits in how the people was to worship the image of the beast. Taken into account in the book of Daniel how king Nebuchaddnezzer had a image and decreed that all worship the image would be an type of how Nero and the priest would have an offering of an sacrifice offered to Nero Caesar as if he was an Roman god. Which is in total defilement of the first commandment. This is, in principle, the kind of idolatry Revelation 13 is describing.

In summary, then, the original purpose of Revelation 13 was to show the Christians of Asia that the Roman Empire and the worship of the emperor and local deities was not of God. There was no point of compromise between this Babylon the Great and the people of God. The churches were warned that a time of persecution over these issues would befall them. The members were to stand fast in the faith of Christ, their slain Lamb, even if it led them to their death. In death or martyrdom they would witness to the fact that a greater than Caesar was alive, Jesus the Alpha and Omega. In the end, the church would win and the martyrs would reign with Christ as priests and kings.

Whom the Lord would consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming?

I don't think that to mean literally, but figurative in how the gospel the good news is as a sword as described the words of God in Rev.19:15

In a sence their own lies shall consume them and bring about death. Remember Revelation speaks of a false prophet while I take that not to be a single person, but rather a symbol of the false hood brought about by the means of which these false teachers deceived the people into worshipping this beast image. Their final consumation it the destuction of the temple and city Jerusalem the whore that is fill of the blood of the saints.

So commanding a servant of his to stab him to death....that sound anything even close to that prophecy?

If you are talking about Rev.19 then I agree. for it's not revealing the death of Nero, but the kingdom. And that ifself isn't literal word for word, but figurative. John doesn't express much about the man of sin as much as he express the kingdom of the beast. John only gives little detail concerning the man as given wisdom about his number.

In given wisdom about the woman in chapter 17 John gives us so details concerning the beast that they woman sat on, here John said that the beast of the sea has seven heads which are seven mountains. and that they are seven kings which five have fallen. Given that information the only beast kingdom to be consider would be Rome at that time. The possiblilty of Nero being the 'one is' is every high. If not then ones that come after him as Vespasian or Titus, but these does not fit the number of the man.

Not only that, Nero or rather, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, was never worshipped as God, in fact he was much hated among his own people and even considered to be the one who may have started the fires of Rome that he may rebuild it even greater.
Reread the prophecy, Nero is nowehere near capable of that fullfillment.

Remember the Jewish leader killed our Lord Jesus the king of the Jews and said they have only one king that is Caesar. The principal of the Pharisees and men of power conferred with the high priest Eleazar in a attemp to keep peace with the Romans that they where to receive these foreigners donations and to worship sacrifice offerings. The thought was if they refused to offer this sacrifice to Caesar they themselve would be forbade to offer their own oblations. This was the plot that the pharisees had to enforce the worship of Caesar. The men of power and the pharisees went to Florus and Agrippa to desired of them both that they would come and cut off [kill]those that refused to follow their plot.

 

[n2thelight]

Revelation 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Though their bodies are in the tombs and have decayed, millions of Christian brothers and sisters have lost their lives for the witness of Jesus Christ over the past two thousand years. Also receiving rewards are those that have not bowed to the Antichrist in the five month period of deception coming up shortly, nor did they take his mark through the deception, nor accepted his ways (image) in their minds.

Ezekiel 3:8, 9 tell us "our forehead" is our mind. The seal that is in our forehead is what we believe to be true in our minds. The "mark of the beast" is the knowledge you will possess in your mind. What you believe as truth will either cause you to be deceive, or prevent you from being deceived by the first (false) Christ into thinking he is the true messiah.

Revelation 20:5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

If you are saved and make a stand against the Antichrist and his deceptions, you will reign with Christ 1,000 years.

Those who did take the "mark of the beast", their souls will not, I repeat, will not have eternal spiritual life, and live again until the Millennium age is over and finished. I Corinthians 15:50-52 describes the mystery of the two bodies. The physical and spiritual bodies are two separate entities.

What are we talking about when it says "the rest of the dead"? The difference in taking part in the first resurrection or not taking part is whether, is hinged on whether or not they were deceived by the Antichrist. Remember, John has been taken in the spirit to the last day before Christ's return. Revelation 20 is talking about that specific day when the last trump sounds, and Jesus Christ our Lord is returning with His saints to earth. This verse is not addressing those who died 50, 100, or any time of any century prior to the sound of the seventh trump. It is addressing the generation (our generation) who will live in the time of the seven seals, and take Satan's mark (the mark of the beast) and give service to him. It is those who will be held in confinement in the place of the lost souls, waiting for the final judgment at the end of the millennium.

I Corinthians 15:52 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
The kingdom of God is wherever Jesus Christ is, and flesh and blood cannot exist in that kingdom. When Christ returns for the Millennium age here on earth, flesh and blood bodies will not exist.

I Corinthians 15:51 "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"

This is a mystery that Paul is going to reveal to us that had been hidden until Paul writing. This mystery concerns what happens at a particular point in time, for at that instant, there will be no more death. "Sleep" as used here, is # 2838 in the Strong's Greek Dictionary; "Koimesis, koy'-may-sis; from 2837, to put to sleep." We read in # 2837; "Koimao, Koy-mah'-o; to put to sleep, to decease, to be dead."
So a time is coming when all the people on the face of the earth will never see death in their flesh bodies again. This is the mystery that Paul is going to tell us; when this event shall take place.

I Corinthians 15:52 "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
On the first day of the Millennium age, the "Kingdom of Heaven" will be with us on earth. You cannot enter that kingdom age in a flesh body. Therefore, it is written in verse 52 that all will be changed, in the wink of an eye, and at the last trump (seventh trump). When that seventh trump sounds, everyone on earth will be changed to an incorruptible body.
That doesn't have anything to do with your soul, or its condition. Your physical body and your spiritual body (soul) have nothing to do with the condition of one another. Your soul is your inner man that will exist in your current flesh body, and either at death or at the seventh trump, will be changed and enter into a new body (spirit body) which will not be subject to the decay this flesh body is subject to.

So, to understand what will occur in the Millennium age, you must understand that instantly following the seventh trump, all flesh bodies simply do not have life. Not one person will exist in the flesh. Every person will have the same capabilities and all will have the understanding to be taught without Satan's influence.

However, only those saints of God who have died in the flesh, or who lived and stood against Satan will take part in the first resurrection. By that I mean, will have an active part with Jesus Christ in His kingdom and reign, as he rules and teaches the earth for one thousand years, and live in their immortal soul bodies.

I Corinthians 15:53 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

The word "mortal" as used here in the Greek manuscripts never applies to a physical body, but it applies to your soul. So we see our physical bodies are gone at the seventh trump, and the mortal (soul) must put on immortality. That soul becomes your existence in the Millennium age. When the time of judgment comes at the end of the Millennium, you will enter eternity with Christ, or you will cease to exist -- you will be destroyed. At that time even the memory of your existence will be eliminated. This is serious business, my friend, and you know it.
If you enter the Millennium with a mortal (liable to die) soul, by following the Antichrist in ignorance, you must be an overcomer in the Millennium, or your soul will not put on immortality, and it will die.

Revelation 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Bible Study is written by Roger Christopherson

 

[Lehigh3]

Can you imagine that that Bible study above says that if we are in flesh & blood bodies, we don't have the "kingdom of God!" or we can not possibly be "in the kingdom of God" because we are still flesh & blood?!

May he should really read & understand what Paul says in his Epistles.

Maybe he still needs to "renew his spirit mind" as Paul said 2,000 years ago to do.

What did Paul say was already happening in regards to walking in the Spirit & not living & not obeying the deeds of the flesh?

I feel for this person. It's the Spirit that gives life. Otherwise, one IS just "flesh & blood!"

I do suggest another dunk in baptismal waters & maybe the Spirit will be in charge this time!

 

[warfrog]

Can you imagine that that Bible study above says that if we are in flesh & blood bodies, we don't have the "kingdom of God!" or we can not possibly be "in the kingdom of God" because we are still flesh & blood?!

May he should really read & understand what Paul says in his Epistles.

Maybe he still needs to "renew his spirit mind" as Paul said 2,000 years ago to do.

What did Paul say was already happening in regards to walking in the Spirit & not living & not obeying the deeds of the flesh?

I feel for this person. It's the Spirit that gives life. Otherwise, one IS just "flesh & blood!"

I do suggest another dunk in baptismal waters & maybe the Spirit will be in charge this time!

You do realize it is Paul writing when He says these things, a man who is already of the kingdom of God through the blood of Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:49
"And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man"

As you speak Paul wouldnt be saying "we shall" he would already be bearing that image.
Yet more:

15:59-54

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory."

This coming from the Holy Spirit in a man who is Christ's, a saint, a man of the kingdom of God.
Yet as you say the above poster is wrong, yet this man (Paul) speaks of what will occur even as what you say has already occurred, perhaps before you judge a man you be humble in all things of the Lord.

Look at those very scriptures coming from the very man who you qoute saying "renew his spirit mind" and is also saying it will happen, it shall occur....why is Paul saying things will occur when hes already a saint through Christ and speaking through the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lehigh3]

You don't understand what Paul means when he said the living would be changed & not sleep.
Accordingly, "redemption" was already theirs in Christ, but the consummation of that redemption (salvation) was still in expectation. (Luke 21)

The change was to the living body of Christ on earth, the church, where they were raised up & seated with Christ in heavenly places, just like the dead from sheol. The "body" Paul speaks of with his seed analogy is the body of Christ on earth.

The carnal mind doesn't know the things of the Spirit. You must be born again.
Christ defeated the last enemy - death- which was sin & death- & the sting of death was from the Law. He was the Mediator of the New Covenant of grace.

You're not completed in the flesh. The natural came 1st, then the spiritual.
This doesn't happen at some fictional rapture - or even just in heaven.

It happens now. The spiritual man knows the things of the Spirit.

 

[n2thelight]

Can you imagine that that Bible study above says that if we are in flesh & blood bodies, we don't have the "kingdom of God!" or we can not possibly be "in the kingdom of God" because we are still flesh & blood?!

May he should really read & understand what Paul says in his Epistles.

Maybe he still needs to "renew his spirit mind" as Paul said 2,000 years ago to do.

What did Paul say was already happening in regards to walking in the Spirit & not living & not obeying the deeds of the flesh?

I feel for this person. It's the Spirit that gives life. Otherwise, one IS just "flesh & blood!"

I do suggest another dunk in baptismal waters & maybe the Spirit will be in charge this time!

That's not what the study says...It says flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven

1 Corinthians 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.