left behind forum

Post Reply New Topic

tim lahaye and jerry jenkins are both verygodly men some people actually belive thay george w. busch is the antichrist. i think that is plain wrong but you never know who it might be i mean the antichrist could be your best friend for all you know

Actually this was not in reference to the final "Antichrist" or as Daniel puts it "the man of sin".

Antichrist is never a reference to Daniel's "the man of sin." The New Testament refers to the man of sin as the dragon who gave power to the Beast. The Beast is not a future figure, but the Roman Empire of the first century.

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rome was also called "Septimonium," meaning the city that sits on seven mountains.

Rev 17:10 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.

Julius Ceasar was the first Emperor of Rome. After his assassination, he was succeeded by Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, then Claudius. After Rome's first five kings had fallen, Nero took the throne and began the tribulation as prophecied by the scriptures. It was at this time that John was banished to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the final prophecy. After Nero committed suicide, Galba took the throne, but died only six months later. Hence, he continued a short pace.

I disagree. Preterism is in error. What about the massive amounts of prophecies that did not come to pass during that time? When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky? When was Jerusalem removed from being the burdensome stone, and if it was, why did it now return to that status? Preterists take the dangerous step of spiritualizing all passages of Scripture that relate to the nation of Israel, and claim that these refer to the church, the "New Israel." Spiritualization of Scripture is a dangerous trap to be caught in. Also to address your point, the dragon in Revalation is Satan, while the Beast is the Man of Sin aka, Antichrist. Also in your second part of your post you alter the subject in the middle of the post. You say that Nero died and was succeeded by Galba, although a reading of the passage from Scripture clearly indicates that the last king, when he comes, will fall and then continue a short while longer (i.e. die and be demonically resurrected). You change it so that he dies and is replace by a completely different personage when Scripture indicates the same individual.

No, the verse clearly says that it's an entirely different king altogether. Demons can't ressurect people, only Christ can. I don't know about 100-pound hailstones, but it would help a lot if you used scripture. Anyway, Jerusalem was removed in AD 70, and Christ never said it would return.

If Jerusalem was removed in 70 AD, why then is it still a "burdensome stone"? Also, how would you reconcile the "New Jerusalem" passages in Revelation? And I disagree with your interpretation of the verse stating that that is a different king. It is quite obviously the same. Nero could not have begun the Tribulation, as his depredations were limited to Rome, not a global scale as is clearly predicted in the Bible.

Nothing to see here folks....Move along