ENP(I) Theory Holes

(heavily moderated)

ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Mon May 17, 2010 3:02 am

Hi All,

As we approach the Midpoint of the ENP(I), I was wondering if those who believe that this theory is wrong will point out the holes in this theory. I would also like to know if those who are proponents of this theory would point out the holes; if any, that they see as well.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Mon May 17, 2010 9:42 pm

The ENP being the covenant confirmed is based on several assumptions. The AC coming out of the EU or a RRE is based on the assumption that the 10 toes (not described as 10 toes in the passage) of the metal statue in Dan 2 ( the legs and feet associated with Rome) are the 10 horns of of the AC's kingdom in Dan 7 and Rev 17, which is not necessarily true, one has to make an assumption.

Also the RRE theroy is based on determining the identity of the ruler of the 'people of the ruler who will come' of Dan 9, the people being the Romans, but it is not clear if the scripture is referring to Titus as the ruler, the one who was to become emperor, or the AC as the ruler who was/is to come, one has to make an assumption which may or may not be correct.

So the AC who confirms the covenant coming out of the EU is based on an assumption which may or may not be true.

Also scripture (Dan, Rev, 2 Thess 2) repeatedly refers to a temple/holy place/sanctuary being in place and sacrifices being performed at the midpoint in which the AC stops the sacrifice and in which he sets up an AOD. Those who hold to the ENP theory attempt to define the holy place as anything but a rebuilt temple as a rebuilt temple would have to be in place now with sacrifices being performed for the ENP theory to be the covenant. The temple being rebuilt and sacrifices being re-instituted in the next month would appear to be highly unlikely. For the ENP to be true the scripture cannot be taken at face value in regards to the references to the rebuilt temple and re-institued sacrifices, which would then give more importance to a theory rather than the straightforward interpretation of scripture.

For the ENP theory to be true the present time would be closing in on the midpoint of the 70th week, which does not appear to be the case. Where is the temple, where are the sacrifices, where is the man whom men will worship, the man who is given authority over every tribe, nation and language? Where is 1 world government, 1 world currency, 1 world religion? Where is the FP? (Where is Solana?) Although we can see much of this coming in the future, it is not here yet and it does not appear that this will arrive within the next month or 2, which would have to be the case if the ENP theory were true.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Tue May 18, 2010 4:39 am

Hi 1whowaits,

Thanks for your response. You have pointed out, what you believe are a few "holes" or "assumptions" in the ENP(I) theory, now let me point out a few assumptions that you have made:

1whowaits wrote:The ENP being the covenant confirmed is based on several assumptions.


First, you begin by making the assumption that those who believe the ENP(I) theory is the actual "covenant confirmed." Let me correct you. The ENP(I) is not the "Covenant with the Many" that Daniel 9:27 speaks of. The "Covenant with the Many" that most of us who are watching this theory unfold, is the 1995 Barcelona Process - which was literally a Covenant with Many Nations; to include Israel. The ENP(I) "strengthens" or "confirms" the Barcelona Process for a period of 7 years, and this is why this has raised so much attention among some Watchers.

1whowaits wrote:Also scripture (Dan, Rev, 2 Thess 2) repeatedly refers to a temple/holy place/sanctuary being in place and sacrifices being performed at the midpoint in which the AC stops the sacrifice and in which he sets up an AOD


This is another assumption that you make. First of all you assume that "sacrifices are being performed"; and are literally being carried out. The requirement of Daniel 9:27 is that the coming AC "put an end"; "cause"; "bring an end" or to "put a stop" to sacrifice and offering, (from various Translations). This cessation of sacrifice and offering can certainly be completed through some enactment of law, as there are Jews who currently still perform these acts - yet there is no Temple in place. Second, you also assume that a Temple is needed to complete the AOD; and that it is the AC who "sets" the AOD up. Let me refer you to Daniel 11:31:

"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation."

1whowaits wrote:Those who hold to the ENP theory attempt to define the holy place as anything but a rebuilt temple as a rebuilt temple would have to be in place now with sacrifices being performed for the ENP theory to be the covenant.


Please prove with Scripture that the requirement for the "holy place" is a Temple.

1whowaits wrote: For the ENP to be true the scripture cannot be taken at face value in regards to the references to the rebuilt temple and re-institued sacrifices, which would then give more importance to a theory rather than the straightforward interpretation of scripture.


This is yet again another assumption that you are making, and that based on your interpretation ALONE. Again, when I read Daniel 9:27 which speaks of the cessation of sacrifice and grain offering, I read absolutely no where that there is a "re-instituted" ritual of some sort that is occurring. Nor does looking at the Facts, and applying them; which can be supported with Scripture, negate the revelance of Scripture.

1whowaits wrote:Where is 1 world government, 1 world currency, 1 world religion?


Now, these aforementioned questions actually lead me to the meat of the point I would like to make. You assume that there will be a one world government - let me remind you that there will be Nations that fight against the AC. You assume that there will be a one world currency - I see nothing in Scripture that mentions that. You further assume that there will be a one world religion - if one were to view the AOC in it's progressive state (which is the closest thing to a so-called religion that we have); the only thing that the AOC is attempting to accomplish as far as a one world religion is concerned; is to rule out religious fundamentalism - and that is to say that no "one" religion has a monopoly on the absolute truth.

So in closing, although the ENP(I) appears to have a lot of areas that need answers; it is based on Facts; and those Facts can be subsequently supported by Scripture. Many have been led to have preconceived ideas, or thoughts on how the way things "have to be" in order to be true, or "fulfilled." Or the fact that "this" or "that" isn't in place. When I see the reasoning's of why there are those that automatically rule this theory out - I am reminded of how the Jews did not recognize the "time of their visitation", and Jesus was plainly living before them.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Jericho on Tue May 18, 2010 6:25 am

Now, these aforementioned questions actually lead me to the meat of the point I would like to make. You assume that there will be a one world government - let me remind you that there will be Nations that fight against the AC.


Wouldn't it be possible to have a world government and still have civil wars? Much like America's Civil War was one nation that fought against itself. Now take that analogy and apply it to a larger scale.

We see nations that fight against the AC before he comes to full power and right near the end where it starts to fall apart. In-between that time tho he has uncontested power. Who can make war with the Beast?

My biggest problem with the ENP is where are the two witnesses? Now maybe the ENP will be reaffirmed by the AC at a later time, but currently I don't see us approaching the mid-point of the tribulation.
Last edited by Jericho on Tue May 18, 2010 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Wickus on Tue May 18, 2010 6:49 am

The two witnesses is not a problem as they only have a ministry for 3.5 years, the same time as the AC rules. They need only appear when the AC is revealed. There is no Scriptural support (that I am aware of) that says the witnesses has to be on the scene before the AC is revealed.

My only problem with the ENP is time. I can not argue with anyone saying that there is no time left for JS to come back to power and for the other loose pieces to fall into place. Although I am still firmly watching and, the likelihood for this theory being true is getting smaller with every passing day. But things can happen fast...
Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Wickus
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby JayCee on Tue May 18, 2010 8:44 am

I think that when things start to look more and more unlikely from a human point of view, and it gets to the eleventh hour (or even two seconds to midnight) that's when God reveals His plans, the curtain goes up, and everything goes into action, and His Word is proved yet again - spectacularly! So much so that it has His mark all over it.

It is impossible with man, but with God nothing is impossible.

The ENP(I)/JS theory does look convincing to me, but frail because of my own human fragility of looking through spectacles of unbelief = could it really be that we are here, now?
User avatar
JayCee
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:17 am
Location: U.K

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Tue May 18, 2010 3:31 pm

Hi SwordofGideon,

You have made a few statements that I would like to comment on.

SwordofGideon wrote:Wouldn't it be possible to have a world government and still have civil wars? Much like America's Civil War was one nation that fought against itself. Now take that analogy and apply it to a larger scale.


America's Civil War is really not a good example, as it was a divided Nation at that time. Even Scripture mentions that any kingdom that is divided against itself will not stand. Matthew 12:25-26 reads:

25) And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

26) "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

SwordofGideon wrote:We see nations that fight against the AC before he comes to full power and right near the end where it starts to fall apart. In-between that time tho he has uncontested power. Who can make war with the Beast?


If the AC is not in "full power", how can the Nations actually come against him? Not all Nations will succumb to the authority of the AC, Scripture is clear on that. Daniel 11:40-45 reads:

40) "At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through.

41) "He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon.

42) "Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape.

43) "But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels.

44) "But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many.

45) "He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

Now I ask, where is a "one world government" in the aforementioned scenario?


SwordofGideon wrote:My biggest problem with the ENP is where are the two witnesses?


Let's get to the Midpoint first, then this would qualify as a valid question.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Tue May 18, 2010 4:01 pm

Wickus wrote:My only problem with the ENP is time. I can not argue with anyone saying that there is no time left for JS to come back to power and for the other loose pieces to fall into place.


Hi Wickus, :mrgreen:

Right now we who are watching the ENP(I) theory know that if the theory has any merit to it at all, then Javier Solana would be the candidate as the Antichrist. In reading your statement, I would like to ask you if you have considered 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8?

2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 reads:

1) Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2) not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3) Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5) Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6) And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7) For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.


We see in verse 7 that the "secret power" of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now hold it back will "continue to do so" till he is "taken out of the way". Then the "lawless one will be revealed".

So I ask......who sets the timeframe, parameters, and any other variables in which the AC is to appear on the Scene? Things certainly may not appear as we think they may - and not to mention, we haven't reached the Midpoint yet. I feel that often time we get too caught up in the way that man thinks and views things - which can be a mistake.

In closing, I just can't shake all of the overwhelming evidence, the roadsigns, and the overall timing of the entire World's situation to say at this point - that just because it appears as if we are running out of time; that this theory is wrong. It's really hard to believe that we just may be living in the last 7 years, but then again I am reminded of how Scripture portrays how the days will be, right before the Return of Christ. We are told to Watch for a reason.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Tue May 18, 2010 5:28 pm

If you count the empires starting with Egypt as number one (implied when Daniel & John was shown their visions) Rome would be number 4 in the statue but number 6 in History. So Rome can not be the 7th. The problem is the beast empire will devour the whole earth, so it is a composite and Rome can be a part of it.

As for the ENPI, I'll be patient we only have 14 days or so till we find out.


david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Jericho on Tue May 18, 2010 5:46 pm

Hello Mr Baldy

America's Civil War is really not a good example, as it was a divided Nation at that time. Even Scripture mentions that any kingdom that is divided against itself will not stand. Matthew 12:25-26 reads:

25) And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

26) "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?


I admit The American Civil War is not the best example. My point, however, is that even a world with a common government can become divided. And I agree with you that a kingdom divided will not stand and I think we see that happen near the end of the AC's reign as it starts to fall apart.

If the AC is not in "full power", how can the Nations actually come against him? Not all Nations will succumb to the authority of the AC, Scripture is clear on that. Daniel 11:40-45 reads:


The only nation that I will agree that does not succumb to the AC is Israel.

40) "At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through.


Here the king of the South and king of the North come against him and and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. The NIV version says "He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood." Another words he conquers them so if they did not succumb to him before they do now.

41) "He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon.


Okay Edom, Moab, and Ammon are rescued. Ammon we know is Jordon and as near as I can tell Edom and Moab are also in the vicinity. I've heard others say because of this Jordon will not fall to the AC. I have a different theory. I believe Israel will gain a least a portion of Jordon in a future war (Psalms 83 maybe?) just like it gained territory from the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war. I believe Israel will enlarge her borders, so Edom, Moab, and Ammon are all territories that Israel could be occupying at that time.

42) "Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape.


Egypt is conquered.

43) "But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels.

44) "But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many.


Again the only nation that I see not falling to the AC is Israel, the rest of the world either submits or is conquered. Only near the end of the tribulation does his coalition start falling apart. It doesn't mean those nations were not on-board with his global government beforehand.
Last edited by Jericho on Tue May 18, 2010 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Tue May 18, 2010 9:37 pm

Mr Baldy, from the outset, the ENP theory always had an expiration date. If the conditions described in scripture were not in place or occurring at the midpoint of the 7 years, the theory would be disproved. We are now approaching that midpoint and the conditions described in scripture have not been met at this time.

You limit your perspective to Dan 9 but the scripture has much more to say about the conditions at the midpoint of the week. Rev 13 states that the AC will have authority for 42 months over 'every tribe, people, language and nation'. Having authority over every nation would fulfill the definiton of 1 world government under the AC. Nations may rebel, they may be conquered, but for 42 months, the latter half of the 70th week, the AC has authority over all nations.

The midpoint of the ENP is almost here, where is the one who will have authority over all nations for 42 months? This is not even close, it is not reasonable to assume that this will take place in the next 2 weeks.

Rev 13 also states that the whole world follows the beast and that men worship the beast and Satan and the image of the beast. This would fulfill the definition of 1 world religion, anyone who does not worship is killed. Where is this religion now?

Rev 13 also states that the FP will force 'everyone' to receive a mark so that 'no one' can buy or sell unless they have the mark. This would fulfill the definition of 1 world currency or system of commerce, no one can engage in any transaction without the mark, without the mark any currency is worthless. Where is this mark that everyone will be forced to take?

Rev 11 states that there will be a temple called the 'Temple of God' with and altar and worshippers within it. If there is an altar and worshippers within the temple of God then the logical conclusion would be that sacrifices will be offered in that temple. And scripture repeatedly states that sacrifices and offerings will be stopped, not only in Dan 9, but in Dan 8, 11, 12. And Dan 9 places the stopping of the sacrifices and offerings at the midpoint as does Dan 12, meaning that sacrifices were occurring prior to the midpoint. And the sacrifices and offerings described in Dan 8, 11 and 12 are referred to as the 'continual' offerings, which is not what is taking place in Israel now, the few offerings in Israel at this time can not be considered the 'continual' offering, and no reasonable Jew would consider sacrifices and offerings as being reinstated at this point.

So where are the offerings and sacrifices, described as the 'continual', that are supposed to be taking place in Israel at the time of the midpoint?

Again Rev 11 states that there wil be a temple of God with worshippers in it during the time of the end. Paul states in 2 Thess 2 that the AC will set himself up in 'God's temple', scripture indicates that there will be a temple of God in place during the time of the AC. Any temple that the AC built would never be called the 'temple of God' by scripture, so the temple of God would have to be in place prior to the AC seting himself up as god in God's temple, there will be a literal temple in place by the midpoint of the 70th week.

And the presence of a temple is confirmed by Dan 8 which describes a sanctuary and the stopping of sacrifices, by Dan 11 which describes a temple and the forces of the AC, controlled by the AC himself, abolishing the daily sacrifice in the temple.

So when Jesus speaks in Matt 24 of an abomination in the 'holy place', spoken of by Daniel, the logical conclusion based on the evidence of several scriptures that demonstrate the presence of a temple in which sacrifices are taking place, would be that the 'holy place' is the temple spoken of by Daniel repeatedly.

Where is the temple spoken of in Daniel, Matt 24, 2 Thess 2, and Rev 11? If this is the midpoint the temple should be present now, where is it?

Based on the facts of scripture regarding what occurs at the midpoint of the 70th week, the ENP theory currently fails on every count, unless something changes dramatically in the next 2 weeks. The theory is therefore disproved, unless a temple and sacrifices suddenly appear, unless an indivdual suddenly has authority over all nations for 42 months, unless the world then worships this individual, unless the mark is at least in the process of being instituted, unless all these aspects are in place or at least in the process of being instituted the theory is proved invalid, as the midpoint of the ENP is almost here.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Wed May 19, 2010 5:07 am

1whowaits,

Your rebuttal is based on the very same assumptions that you made in your original comments to this thread. You have assumed a great deal, and the Midpoint of the ENP(I) hasn't even arrived yet. You use terms like "logical conclusion"; and "reasonable conclusion" to apply what you feel in your own thinking is true. Well, I don't use "logical conclusions" when it comes down to interpreting Scripture.

When viewing this theory, I have considered the "Facts" that have been supported with the evidence that has manifested itself in the geopolitical events that have been occurring in the World.

Now I will comment on some of the things that you have "repeated"; but have not proven, as they are your assumptions, and pure speculation - and that based on your thinking alone.

1whowaits wrote:Mr Baldy, from the outset, the ENP theory always had an expiration date.


1whowaits, even the 70 week itself has a expiration date - and that being a 7 year time frame given by Scripture; and this particular ENP(I) has a 7 year period. So I don't understand your point.

1whowaits wrote: We are now approaching that midpoint and the conditions described in scripture have not been met at this time.


What "conditions" are required as we approach the Midpoint? Are you again "assuming" that things have to be set in your way of viewing? There are no requirements. There are things that will happen, but there are no preconditions given by Scripture. If you have "Facts" then support them with Scripture - and please don't give anymore "logical conclusions".


1whowaits wrote:You limit your perspective to Dan 9 but the scripture has much more to say about the conditions at the midpoint of the week. Rev 13 states that the AC will have authority for 42 months over 'every tribe, people, language and nation'. Having authority over every nation would fulfill the definition of 1 world government under the AC. Nations may rebel, they may be conquered, but for 42 months, the latter half of the 70th week, the AC has authority over all nations.


1whowaits, if you have ever read anything that I have posted, you certainly would see that I use all Scripture that supports what I believe about the ENP(I) theory. I see again, you have used the "coined" phrase "one world government". This is not a requirement supported by Scripture; nor will you find it in Scripture. Yet another assumption.

1whowaits wrote:The midpoint of the ENP is almost here, where is the one who will have authority over all nations for 42 months? This is not even close, it is not reasonable to assume that this will take place in the next 2 weeks.


Since you have assumed that I have "limited" myself to Daniel 9 alone; why don't you turn the pages of your bible to 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8, which reads:

6) And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

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) Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming

The aforementioned passages of Scripture clearly state that the Antichrist will be revealed in his time. So because things don't appear to be occurring as you see them, doesn't necessarily mean that they won't happen.

1whowaits wrote:Rev 13 also states that the whole world follows the beast and that men worship the beast and Satan and the image of the beast. This would fulfill the definition of 1 world religion, anyone who does not worship is killed. Where is this religion now?


This question is an oxymoron. At it's very core it "appears" (to use one of your favorite sayings :mrgreen: ) to be derived from preconceived from the ideas of men who were attempting to support their End Time eschatological beliefs. Let me say that the coming Antichrist will be a man of War. Scripture is very clear on that. Men will worship him because they want to eat, maintain a certain standard of living, maintain jobs, etc.....I see absolutely no indicator whatsoever that this worship is indicative of a "one world religion". Revelation 13 requires "outside of the box" thinking; as it is very symbolic and cannot be limited to the thinking of those who want to support a particular ideology, as it relates to their very own views.

1whowaits wrote:Rev 13 also states that the FP will force 'everyone' to receive a mark so that 'no one' can buy or sell unless they have the mark. This would fulfill the definition of 1 world currency or system of commerce, no one can engage in any transaction without the mark, without the mark any currency is worthless. Where is this mark that everyone will be forced to take?


**Yawn**; yet again another HUGE assumption. Where pray tell, in Scripture is there any evidence given that there will be a "one world currency"? Where is this line of thinking coming from? :dunno: Where in Revelation 13 is there a time limit provided on exactly when the Mark will be required? I mean is the at the very beginning of the 3.5 years that the AC reigns, or is it towards the end? Can u please provide Scripture?

1whowaits wrote:So where are the offerings and sacrifices, described as the 'continual', that are supposed to be taking place in Israel at the time of the midpoint?


1whowaits, in your attempt to describe what you view as happening towards the midpoint, I think that you are making the mistake of describing what Antiochus IV Epiphanes had already completed, in comparison to what the coming Antichrist will have performed as the Midpoint has passed. Again, you assume that "continual" animal sacrifices have to be performed - then you attempt to disqualify what I have previously stated; in that the requirement of Daniel 9:27 can be met by an enactment of Law, or enforcing the current ENP(I) animal rights laws - as it applies to the Jews who perform animal sacrifices to this very day. You have provided no evidence that this way of thinking on my part can be disqualified. The only requirement is that the Antichrist "stop" the animal sacrifices, and grain offering - this could be done by a variety of ways; so let's not limit ourselves.

1whowaits wrote:So when Jesus speaks in Matt 24 of an abomination in the 'holy place', spoken of by Daniel, the logical conclusion based on the evidence of several scriptures that demonstrate the presence of a temple in which sacrifices are taking place, would be that the 'holy place' is the temple spoken of by Daniel repeatedly.


Let me remind you that Jesus never mentions a Temple in Matthew 25:15. He refers to the AOD occurring in the "Holy Place", and this is followed by "let the reader understand". So again, let's not draw any conclusions on this by making "logical conclusions" - as this would be YET another ASSUMPTION on your part. The Jury is still out on this, and will be until the event has officially occurred.

1whowaits wrote:The theory is therefore disproved, unless a temple and sacrifices suddenly appear, unless an individual suddenly has authority over all nations for 42 months, unless the world then worships this individual, unless the mark is at least in the process of being instituted, unless all these aspects are in place or at least in the process of being instituted the theory is proved invalid, as the midpoint of the ENP is almost here.


In closing, this is where your "logic" has failed you. You have wrongfully assumed that all these things have to be in place prior to the inauguration of the Antichrist - I don't see that line of thinking as being supported with Scripture. The events mentioned that will happen are progressive, and will occur at it's proper time - this is to include the 42 months in which the Antichrist is given power to rule and reign.

When I began this thread, I was looking for ideas that anyone had to disqualify this theory. Most want to throw it out because it doesn't fit their idea of the way things should or will happen; some don't want to face the fact that we could be living in the final years; some because it's because they have things that they want to do, and they're not ready to give up this life; and some because they know sincerely that they will have to suffer. Nevertheless, the Midpoint hasn't reached here yet. There is just a little over a month - give or take a few days. Things have a way of happening, and changing very very fast - so at this point, I haven't found any reason to rule it out.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Wed May 19, 2010 9:44 am

Do you guys brawl all over the board where ever you go? Looks like much personal offense is hurting belief. You both are putting a lot of energy into it...

With much love

david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Wed May 19, 2010 11:06 am

david wrote:Do you guys brawl all over the board where ever you go? Looks like much personal offense is hurting belief


You know david, I really think that it's sad when one views a good debate - which is done with passion, and love; can be considered a brawl. None of this should be considered a personal attack. It should be, and always has been to my understanding information that edifies the Body of Christ.

If there are those who can't put forth some passion in their discussions, then I would have to wonder if what they say is actually from the heart. No I don't want a "sugar-coated"; "feel good"; "watered down" so that you won't hurt my feelings, reply from anyone.

I don't need my ears tickled. I need the Truth!
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Wed May 19, 2010 12:51 pm

Mr Baldy wrote:
david wrote:Do you guys brawl all over the board where ever you go? Looks like much personal offense is hurting belief


You know david, I really think that it's sad when one views a good debate - which is done with passion, and love; can be considered a brawl. None of this should be considered a personal attack. It should be, and always has been to my understanding information that edifies the Body of Christ.

If there are those who can't put forth some passion in their discussions, then I would have to wonder if what they say is actually from the heart. No I don't want a "sugar-coated"; "feel good"; "watered down" so that you won't hurt my feelings, reply from anyone.

I don't need my ears tickled. I need the Truth!


Opps, I did not realize I was in the debate thread, put the gloves back on... (That' what I get for using the "active post" link.)

I agree with what Mr Baldy said:

Let me remind you that Jesus never mentions a Temple in Matthew 25:15. He refers to the AOD occurring in the "Holy Place", and this is followed by "let the reader understand". So again, let's not draw any conclusions on this by making "logical conclusions" - as this would be YET another ASSUMPTION on your part. The Jury is still out on this, and will be until the event has officially occurred.


(There hows that for a sugar coated suck up?)

I agree, it dose not even have to be the temple mount, just a Holy Place. It might be a holy place for a religion not related to Judaism or Christianity. I suspect the Dome of the Rock or Al Aqsa Mosque to be the "Holy Place". Remember this ground was sacred when no temple existed, when Moses stood staring at the Burning Bush. God told him to remove his shoes, for he was on sacred ground. Its the ground where" X marks the spot" that is Holy. Another structure could be standing to qualify the word "in".

On the other hand sacrifice is taking place and has been taking place at the Temple Mount. It started back in 1968 when the Temple Mount was captured and Jews were allowed once again to pray at the Wailing wall. What might happen if the "daily" prayers were caused to cease?

REASON # 2 ENPI may not be it. The Nation or ruling beast Kingdom will devour or cover the whole earth. It comes out of the Sea, many waters (people) water covers most of the earth. The beast comprises of Seven heads, nation/empires, 10 Rulers from out of the many people or nations "Water" that covers the earth. The ENPI is solely a European-MED treaty not a treaty of a global world dominating power. Europe can't even rule it's own nation states let alone the world.

Now I'm not completely ruling out the ENPI, it is still possible, maybe it could be fulfilled under a "single" horn nation. Yes that's right at this time the EU is only a single horn and it's horn/head number 6 (what is left of the Roman Empire that has yes rebuilt). But then all the heads 1-7 and with their horns are present in a composite World Beast Empire. When the rock struck the statue it smashed all the Kingdoms, as far back as Bablyon (the Loin) anyway. The beast is a composite driven by the dragon, and this beast is a Lion-Leopard and Bear not "Europa. If anything she is the woman that rides the beast, the Ottoman Empire/Islam the 7th Kingdom. We see here on the EU coins, she holds the seat of the RCC. We all see it, the coming clash between east and west, but we are not sure how to reconcile it. Maybe there will be no clash, yet at first. Maybe we will all be assimilated in to a global world with a veil covering the religion behind it.

The word of God and his Prophecy is not for anyone to pretend to be Prophets but so that God will be given the glory. (Not directed at anyone here! Comment in general.) I have no problem with interpreting or coming up with theories. It's a matter of keeping it in perspective and remaining humble, understanding that it all will not come out as I think it should. Although much is understood in a vague and quasi way. I believe we will definitely know fulfillment when we see it, at least I pray we do.


david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Hisown on Wed May 19, 2010 1:51 pm

Not to distract from one amazing thread :mrgreen: can't play with the big boys either but wanted to express my gratitude for the love, edification and exhortation in this thread.
:hugs2:

Mr Baldy : Let me say that the coming Antichrist will be a man of War. Scripture is very clear on that.


:a3:

Is it possible that once AC is " indwelt " ( when satan is completely cast out of heaven ) that Lucifer ( evil personified in the flesh ) will stop at nothing knowing his time is short. Could this be what it takes to cause those whose names and not written in the Lambs book of life ( before ) the foundation to " revere " him ?

Satan still has access to the throne until now (as the "accuser") but once the" appointed -time" comes that the Lord has ordained, he has lost that " privilege". He is not able to move beyond what the Lord has purposed and will be revealed only at the time ordained by the Lord- period.

Reminds me of one of the most profound scriptures that the Lord has affirmed since '07.

Hab 2:3 For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

Destruction - a destroying wind?

Is 14:16-17

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?


The midway point is important, but am personally waiting for the 9th of AV ( at the ) 1.290 day point. Maybe only because it fits all the scripture affirmations and dots that were connected in my own quiet time before the Lord. :bag:



Mr Baldy :
Men will worship him because they want to eat, maintain a certain standard of living, maintain jobs, etc.....I see absolutely no indicator whatsoever that this worship is indicative of a "one world religion"


:a3:


And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Rev 17:17
Hisown
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:12 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Wed May 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Mr. Baldy, i am not sure you realize the timing problem with the ENP and what scripture states about the 70th week.

Dan 9 states that certain things will be accomplished by the end of the 70 weeks, including the end of vision and prophecy, which could only be fulfilled when Jesus returns to the earth and fulfills prophecy. The conclusion would be that by the end of the 70 weeks Jesus will have returned and prophecy will no longer be needed, the 70 weeks end with Jesus' return at armageddon.

Dan 9 states also that the AC will confirm the covenant for one 7, put an end to sacrifice at the middle of the 7, and later will come to his end. As the AC comes to his end at armageddon, it does appear that the 70th week ends at armageddon and Jesus' return. So as the AC comes to his end at the end of the 70th week, whatever the AC does will end at armageddon and the end of the week.

If the ENP is the strengthened covenant for 1 seven, the 7 years ends at armageddon, as the 70th week ends at armageddon. And whatever the AC does must end by the end of the ENP, the end of the 70th week.

Rev 13 states that the AC has authority for 42 months, and that he has authority over 'every tribe, people, language and nation', the AC has authority over all nations for 42 months. As 7 years consists of 84 months, 42 months would then 3.5 years. The 42 months or 3.5 years of the authority of the AC must end at the end of the 70th week, the 42 months must end at end of the ENP if the theory is correct.


That would mean that the 42 months of the authority of the AC over the nations would end at the end of the ENP, it cannot be extended, and the authority of the AC over the nations would have to begin 42 months or 3.5 years earlier, which would be within the next month.

For the ENP to be the confirming of the covenant, the 7 year period of Dan 9, the 42 months of the authority of the AC over the nations must begin within the next month, not sometime later as you suggest. The scripture is clear, the end of the AC is at the end of the 7 years, for the AC to have authority for 42 months, which the scripture clearly states, that authority must begin within a few weeks at most. If the authority of the AC over the nations does not begin at that time, the ENP theory is kaput, it would not be consistent with the clear timeline of scripture.

This is what i mean be the 'expiration date' for the ENP, the scripture is clear that the authority of the AC must begin at the midpoint, and that midpoint is a month away if the ENP is the 'seven'. And at this time it is not plausible that any individual will have authority over the nations in the next month.

And the scripture also states that the one who confirms the covenant, is the one who stops the sacrifice, and is the one who comes to his end. The one who confirmed the covenant was Solana, was it not? Is there another who confirmed the ENP? If Solana is the one who confirmed the covenant, then it is Solana who must have authority over all nations within the month.

Pretty big bill for a retired guy to fill is it not?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Wed May 19, 2010 8:37 pm

Mr. B, as far as 1 world religion, the AC proclaims himself god over every god, men worship the AC, anyone who does not worship the image of the beast is killed, and christians are warred against, doesn't look like the AC leaves room for any other religon but his own.

Also according to Dan 7 the saints are handed over to the AC for 3.5 years, if the ENP theory is true then the handing over of christians to the AC begins in 1 month, the 3.5 years must begin now to fulfill the prophecy, if the ENP theory is true.

Also the taking of the mark is dicussed in the context of the worship of the AC and his image. It appears that the AC calling himself god is part of the AOD, and the AOD occurs at the middle of the week, or next month of the ENP is true. When the AC proclaims himself god over all other gods and sets up an image that must be worshipped on penalty of death, which would appear to occur at or around the time of the AOD, the taking of the mark cannot be far behind. Which would then mean no economic transactions can be performed without the mark in the near future, if the ENP theory were indeed true.

Based on scripture, the ENP theory is no longer plausible.

But that does not mean that recommendation 666 will not have future significance.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Wed May 19, 2010 9:04 pm

1whowaits wrote:Mr. Baldy, i am not sure you realize the timing problem with the ENP and what scripture states about the 70th week.

Dan 9 states that certain things will be accomplished by the end of the 70 weeks, including the end of vision and prophecy, which could only be fulfilled when Jesus returns to the earth and fulfills prophecy. The conclusion would be that by the end of the 70 weeks Jesus will have returned and prophecy will no longer be needed, the 70 weeks end with Jesus' return at armageddon.

Dan 9 states also that the AC will confirm the covenant for one 7, put an end to sacrifice at the middle of the 7, and later will come to his end. As the AC comes to his end at armageddon, it does appear that the 70th week ends at armageddon and Jesus' return. So as the AC comes to his end at the end of the 70th week, whatever the AC does will end at armageddon and the end of the week.

If the ENP is the strengthened covenant for 1 seven, the 7 years ends at armageddon, as the 70th week ends at armageddon. And whatever the AC does must end by the end of the ENP, the end of the 70th week.

Rev 13 states that the AC has authority for 42 months, and that he has authority over 'every tribe, people, language and nation', the AC has authority over all nations for 42 months. As 7 years consists of 84 months, 42 months would then 3.5 years. The 42 months or 3.5 years of the authority of the AC must end at the end of the 70th week, the 42 months must end at end of the ENP if the theory is correct.


That would mean that the 42 months of the authority of the AC over the nations would end at the end of the ENP, it cannot be extended, and the authority of the AC over the nations would have to begin 42 months or 3.5 years earlier, which would be within the next month.

For the ENP to be the confirming of the covenant, the 7 year period of Dan 9, the 42 months of the authority of the AC over the nations must begin within the next month, not sometime later as you suggest. The scripture is clear, the end of the AC is at the end of the 7 years, for the AC to have authority for 42 months, which the scripture clearly states, that authority must begin within a few weeks at most. If the authority of the AC over the nations does not begin at that time, the ENP theory is kaput, it would not be consistent with the clear timeline of scripture.

This is what i mean be the 'expiration date' for the ENP, the scripture is clear that the authority of the AC must begin at the midpoint, and that midpoint is a month away if the ENP is the 'seven'. And at this time it is not plausible that any individual will have authority over the nations in the next month.

And the scripture also states that the one who confirms the covenant, is the one who stops the sacrifice, and is the one who comes to his end. The one who confirmed the covenant was Solana, was it not? Is there another who confirmed the ENP? If Solana is the one who confirmed the covenant, then it is Solana who must have authority over all nations within the month.

Pretty big bill for a retired guy to fill is it not?


I Would especially be interested in hearing from Mr. Baldy as well on this question.

Read Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 below for the first time.

Note: There are no paragraphs in the Tanak like we have in our English translations today. This is how Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 is written in the Tanak. I left some translation punctuations in that are not found in the Tanak, see if you can find them.


Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.


Now read it again and ask yourself who is "he". How would modern English with proper grammar (which I'm terrible at) answer this question?

Here is the same passage as it is written in the Tanak.

אחרי השׁבעים שׁשׁים ושׁנים יכרת משׁיח ואין לו והעיר והקדשׁ ישׁחית עם נגיד הבא וקצו בשׁטף ועד קץ מלחמה נחרצת שׁממות׃ והגביר ברית לרבים שׁבוע אחד וחצי השׁבוע ישׁבית זבח ומנחה ועל כנף שׁקוצים משׁמם ועד־כלה ונחרצה תתך על־שׁמם׃


See, no paragraphs.


david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Wed May 19, 2010 9:45 pm

david wrote:...
Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.


Now read it again and ask yourself who is "he". How would modern English with proper grammar (which I'm terrible at) answer this question?
...


hi David,

This is exactly what I can't move past every time I read these verses. Especially because the word for "prince" in v. 25 is the exact same word used in v.27 . You should have included v.25.

The pronoun should refer back to the "prince," and in v.25 the "prince" is the Messiah. That's how I would read it, if I had never been exposed to "end-times prophecy" teachings.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=54286&p=472905#p472882

in Christ,
&

ps. I'm not saying that's how it should be understood - only that it's how I would read it if I was just reading the text without preconceptions.
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby eschologizer on Wed May 19, 2010 10:11 pm

Just food for thought.

I agree the words "prince" used twice seem to be used as if they could applying to messiah. However, in that case, then the people of the messiah would have had to destroy the temple. And we know from history that the Jews did not destroy the temple, the Romans did.

Just thought id mention that.

Although it is confusing, I believe the end time prophecy interpretation of that passage seems to be preferrable in my opinion, as no one has ever actually made a covenant for 7 years in the 1st century that we know of. Also, his people and his holy city still commit much sin to this day. The passage says that by the end of the 70 weeks that would be the case that for his people and his holy city it would "put an end to sin" and "bring in everlasting righteousness" and "finish transgresssion". (daniel 9:24). We know that Israel today has turned from God so I would personally say that this is still not the case yet, which would make the 70th week eschatological.

I agree, the use of the word "prince" in those contexts has made me look at the passage more than once and see how it reads, because the use of that word is very confusing.

Just figured I'd throw that out there. Not trying to be overly disagreeable or trying to derail anything, just passing by. :grin:

Peace,

Eschologizer
"for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

http://www.euprophecynews.com/
eschologizer
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:39 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Thu May 20, 2010 9:11 am

ampersand wrote:
david wrote:...
Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.


Now read it again and ask yourself who is "he". How would modern English with proper grammar (which I'm terrible at) answer this question?
...


hi David,

This is exactly what I can't move past every time I read these verses. Especially because the word for "prince" in v. 25 is the exact same word used in v.27 . You should have included v.25.

The pronoun should refer back to the "prince," and in v.25 the "prince" is the Messiah. That's how I would read it, if I had never been exposed to "end-times prophecy" teachings.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=54286&p=472905#p472882

in Christ,
&

ps. I'm not saying that's how it should be understood - only that it's how I would read it if I was just reading the text without preconceptions.



& Hi there,

That's a good point. So O looked over vs. 25, and I still come to the same conclusion.

I read your link, and although difficult I would have to admit Benny had a good point and that is the way I would read it. "He" refers to the prince (lower case p) of the people that will come... By late the late 60s the Jew were rebelling, the insurrection reached a fever with the arrival of the people of the prince in 67 AD and the prophecy was completed by 70 AD..

Bible scholars at least from what I can see, put a capitol "P" for Messiah the Prince and a lower case "p" for prince of the people.

A contrast is drawn between our Messiah the True Prince and the anti-prince or destroyer. Christ although was cut off ascended, Antiouchous tore down. Titus was a proto Antiochus Epiphanes.

It has always bothered me that out of the blue we are suppose to assign "...And he will make a covenant with the many.. to mean a future coming anti-chirst." That's not the was the bible was intended to be read. And that is my point. This error has lead many to look for a new covenant based on seven years to be broken mid way.

Do I know for certain that Titus made a covenant with Jerusalem in 67 AD, no I don't know history did not record that but the dates match and the description of the temple and the abomination being set up does. This is the conclusion Issac Newton had drawn.

Don't get me wrong here, I do think fulfilled prophecies from the past can be a foreshadow of what is to come. Like with Antiochus Epiphanes whom was a proto type of Titus. The next one may look similar but different. Third time is a charm...

Darn I just realized I missed counting the Seleucid Empire empire for the number of Beast kingdoms doubt.... There possibly goes another theory.... It never ends does it.

david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Fri May 21, 2010 2:24 am

1whowaits wrote:Mr. Baldy, i am not sure you realize the timing problem with the ENP and what scripture states about the 70th week.


1whowaits,

I have read your comments. The biggest mistake that I believe you make, is you err in thinking that everything has to be in place, when the AC, who is only given 3.5 years to reign takes control. If you are thinking that way, I can certainly understand how you come to your very wrong conclusion about this theory.

Let's look at Scripture, and use it as our reference.

Let me begin with saying, yes, I do believe that the ENP(I) is the prophesised confirming instrument, of the "Covenant with the Many" and is currently being conducted, or carried out. The AC will come to power according to Scripture. There are no indicators provided by Scripture that state that the AC will immediately control the entire World - nor are there any indicators that state that Mark of the Beast will be immediately implemented. This will be a progression. "Authority to act" or "Power to continue" will be granted to the coming AC for 42 months, or 3.5 years. This is his allotted time. Revelation 13:7 states that he was given authority to make war with the saints, and to overcome them, but I ask at what point is this given? It clearly has to come in after he is granted the authority to carry out such an act.

The coming AC will not step on to the World scene and immediately usher in the Mark of the Beast, make war with the Saints, and begin wars or aggressions towards other Nations - as he is prophesised to do; and that all on day one. There will be a progression. Just like he won't be this unknown god-like mystical character who has the answers to all the Worlds problems. We will either know who he is, or have some sort of educated idea - as Revelation 13:5 states that he is given "authority to act" or "power to continue"; which means he would have to have had some sort of affiliation with Government, or Politics at some point.

1whowaits wrote:Mr. B, as far as 1 world religion, the AC proclaims himself god over every god, men worship the AC, anyone who does not worship the image of the beast is killed, and christians are warred against, doesn't look like the AC leaves room for any other religon but his own.


1whowaits, please show me in Scripture where "the AC proclaims himself god over every god". This is another huge mistake people make, and an assumption for you to state that he is coming in on a platform of Religion. The coming AC will "display" himself as God; "proclaim" himself to be God, by sitting in the seat as God, and "show" himself as God, by again taking the seat of God in the Temple. But to state that he will "proclaim to be God", as many state is NOT Scriptural. He will do things to inflate his own ego, and show himself to be God - but no where in Scripture do I read where he will proclaim to be God Himself; as many believe, and you have indicated.

In closing, I would like to ask you, and others who believe that the coming AC will be anything more than a mere Politician - with an inflated EGO, who is given "Authority to Act" for 3.5 years, and wages war throughout the Earth - to please provide Scripture to support your theory. Because my theory is that this man will not come on the scene and immediately control things, be this god-like creature who will solve the Worlds problems; and/or immediately usher in his Mark so that he controls the entire Earth. On the contrary, this man will be nothing more than a lying Politician working behind the power of Satan, who wages war and havoc throughout the Earth, and will require a Mark of of some sort; and at some point during his 3.5 year reign - in order that you can eat. The World will have progressed to be in such chaos, that this man will be the one who will be given the reigns to pull it back together - however, on a Satanic platform. He will meet his doom at Armageddon.

Let's not read into Scripture, Revelation in particular - and make it this "fairy-tale" like story that sells fictional books on the platform of sensationalism.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Douggg on Fri May 21, 2010 2:46 am

Hisown wrote:Is it possible that once AC is " indwelt " ( when satan is completely cast out of heaven ) that Lucifer ( evil personified in the flesh ) will stop at nothing knowing his time is short. Could this be what it takes to cause those whose names and not written in the Lambs book of life ( before ) the foundation to " revere " him ?

Satan still has access to the throne until now (as the "accuser") but once the" appointed -time" comes that the Lord has ordained, he has lost that " privilege". He is not able to move beyond what the Lord has purposed and will be revealed only at the time ordained by the Lord- period.


It is not likely that Satan will indwell the AC because the AC will be cast in the lake of fire in Revelation 19. Differently, Satan will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, where he will be released from near the end of the thousand years and then likewise cast into the lake of fire, where the AC and FP are.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


imo, the AC will become the beast when he is indwelt by some demon currently in the bottomless pit. We don't know who is being held captive in the bottomless pit, but from Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not;, indicates that the person was alive before John's time but "is not" meaning dead when John recorded revelation. Considering that the nephilim were biological offspring of angels and human women - who when they died became disembodied spirits, which are the demons....it could be, although a pretty far out theory, that Satan could have had a literal nephilim son, who's nature was like that of his father, who is the one in the bottomless pit, who someday could indwell the AC.

Anyway, all of this is off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it more, then probably should open a new thread.

Doug L.
User avatar
Douggg
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Fri May 21, 2010 2:57 am

david wrote:I Would especially be interested in hearing from Mr. Baldy as well on this question.

Read Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 below for the first time.

Note: There are no paragraphs in the Tanak like we have in our English translations today. This is how Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 is written in the Tanak. I left some translation punctuations in that are not found in the Tanak, see if you can find them.

Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.

Now read it again and ask yourself who is "he". How would modern English with proper grammar (which I'm terrible at) answer this question?


Hi david,

If you believe that the "he" is Jesus in the aforementioned passages of Scripture, then I would like to ask you two questions:

1) Who were the people of the ruler who was to come that destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

2) What 7 year "covenant with many" did Jesus confirm?

I believe that the answer to these two questions, should leave absolutely no doubt - to whom the "he" actually is.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Douggg on Fri May 21, 2010 3:18 am

Mr Baldy wrote:In closing, I would like to ask you, and others who believe that the coming AC will be anything more than a mere Politician - with an inflated EGO, who is given "Authority to Act" for 3.5 years, and wages war throughout the Earth - to please provide Scripture to support your theory. Because my theory is that this man will not come on the scene and immediately control things, be this god-like creature who will solve the Worlds problems; and/or immediately usher in his Mark so that he controls the entire Earth. On the contrary, this man will be nothing more than a lying Politician working behind the power of Satan, who wages war and havoc throughout the Earth, and will require a Mark of of some sort; and at some point during his 3.5 year reign - in order that you can eat. The World will have progressed to be in such chaos, that this man will be the one who will be given the reigns to pull it back together - however, on a Satanic platform. He will meet his doom at Armageddon.


If I might comment. The AC will eventually be worshiped as god, because he goes into the temple to show that he is god. Which the act itself is a claim to be god. There will be an image of him made that everyone will be required to worship.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

And in some these verses, it indicates that he AC himself will be worshiped.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Doug L.
User avatar
Douggg
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:27 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Fri May 21, 2010 9:00 am

Mr Baldy wrote:
david wrote:I Would especially be interested in hearing from Mr. Baldy as well on this question.

Read Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 below for the first time.

Note: There are no paragraphs in the Tanak like we have in our English translations today. This is how Daniel 9:26 to 9:27 is written in the Tanak. I left some translation punctuations in that are not found in the Tanak, see if you can find them.

Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.

Now read it again and ask yourself who is "he". How would modern English with proper grammar (which I'm terrible at) answer this question?


Hi david,

If you believe that the "he" is Jesus in the aforementioned passages of Scripture, then I would like to ask you two questions:

1) Who were the people of the ruler who was to come that destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

2) What 7 year "covenant with many" did Jesus confirm?

I believe that the answer to these two questions, should leave absolutely no doubt - to whom the "he" actually is.



I'm not sure where you can up with that assumption. (Read my reply to &, I really think you completely misunderstand what I am saying.) When read properly,this particular passage is a reference to Titus. The Tanank has no paragraphs or added punctuations, "he" refers to Titus, not Solana or anyone else. Someone else sugested it to be Jesus. To clarify here I do believe there is a coming A/C. Titus and Antiochus IV Epiphanes would appear to be a foreshadowing images of a an A/C event yet to come.

david
Last edited by david on Sat May 22, 2010 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Fri May 21, 2010 8:19 pm

Douggg wrote:If I might comment. The AC will eventually be worshiped as god, because he goes into the temple to show that he is god. Which the act itself is a claim to be god. There will be an image of him made that everyone will be required to worship.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Douggg, honestly, do you really believe that the aforementioned verse of Scripture is literal?

There isn't a single man on this planet, or even Satan himself that has the power to literally give life to an inanimate object and make it speak.

For those that take this passage of Scriptural literal, (in my humble opinion) this would be yet another example of how Scripture gets "sensationalized" to fit a particular End Time ideology.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby eschologizer on Fri May 21, 2010 8:31 pm

Just passing by, but I would personally assume that the image is indeed literal. Because it would be hard to determine what it is symbolic for. Also, it is indeed feasible in my opinion.

The reason is this. When we think of a man bringing an image to life, we think of something supernatural. (Like someone making a statue somehow talk and breathe). It is very true we do not have any idea how the fulfillment of this prophecy will look like exactly. However, it must be noted that it says the false prophet does powerful signs and wonders, even bringing fire from heaven. Nevertheless, it never says that bringing the image to life would be supernatural.

We bring images that talk and speak to life everyday. If I go turn on the "Tonight Show," Jay Leno's image would come to life and start speaking. I personally suppose that the image itself doesn't even have to be a hologram (as some suppose). Just an image that comes to life. This could take the form of even a very large TV screen, like what is in Times Square. The antichrist could demand that everyone worship the image of himself from a remote location. I am not saying it is going to happen this way, I am just saying that I personally think, in my humble opinion, that the image coming to life is indeed literal and that is one very feasible way for that to happen.

I think of all the places in the Bible, Revelation 13 has to describe the most "technological" scenario of them all. (See also, the mark of the beast, which very well also may relate to technology as they have technology for this type of thing).

I am not trying to be overly disagreeable, I am just trying to bring points to the discussion that may be of interest to all the parties involved.

I have not read all of the posts here yet, but I also noticed that someone is using the Tanak. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but if that is the modern version of Jewish scriptures, those have shown to be conclusively altered so as to not reflect Jesus, especially his deity (see Isaiah 9 and others). I am not sure that is what you are using and I apologize if that is not, but I just wanted to point out the dangers of using a modern Jewish translation, as it has been shown to have been deliberately corrupted by Rabbis. I did not know this until recently, but I saw it explained to me and I was rather surprised that they would do this.

Mr. Baldy, I think you have a very valid point regarding the speed of end time events and the revealing of the AC. The whole concept presented in 2 Thessalonians 2 seems to indicate that evil cannot have its full sway when this "Restrainer" is in the way. I have often wondered, as demons are fallen angels and since certain kinds of angels can destroy entire cities, why don't demons run around generally harassing Christians, or even killing them in their sleep or knocking them over for fun. Also, it raises the issue as to why they would wait until the end times to do false miracles all over the place, as it seems that would provide a very convincing reason to worship satan from a unbeliever viewers standpoint. I think that it is very likely that Satan will move incredibly fast and take full advantage of unrestrained lawlessness and set up the Antichrist in the temple. He seems to do this rather quickly. Like, I don't get the idea that lawlessness becomes unrestrained, Satan waits ten years, then the Antichrist is revealed. It seems to be a rather quick thing. So, the way I see it, supposing that lawlessness went unrestrained tomorrow (for sake of argument) Satan wouldn't waste any time demon possessing unbelieving politicians, generally deceiving politicians to agree to things they wouldn't otherwise do, starting wars, starting massive persecutions all of a sudden, and so on.

Not to mention, doing counterfeit signs and wonders, which could rally people to support someone and their decisions in a very very very short period of time and worship them as a god.

I apologize I have not been more active in the discussion, I however, am glad it is indeed taking place because it is an important issue and I find it edifying to skim through the comments made.


Peace,

Eschologizer
"for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

http://www.euprophecynews.com/
eschologizer
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:39 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Jericho on Fri May 21, 2010 9:06 pm

Mr Baldy wrote:
Douggg wrote:If I might comment. The AC will eventually be worshiped as god, because he goes into the temple to show that he is god. Which the act itself is a claim to be god. There will be an image of him made that everyone will be required to worship.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Douggg, honestly, do you really believe that the aforementioned verse of Scripture is literal?

There isn't a single man on this planet, or even Satan himself that has the power to literally give life to an inanimate object and make it speak.

For those that take this passage of Scriptural literal, (in my humble opinion) this would be yet another example of how Scripture gets "sensationalized" to fit a particular End Time ideology.


If I may ask, what is your interpretation of what the Image of the Beast is?
Formerly SwordOfGideon
User avatar
Jericho
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 am
Location: Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Fri May 21, 2010 9:55 pm

Mr Baldy wrote:
Douggg wrote:If I might comment. The AC will eventually be worshiped as god, because he goes into the temple to show that he is god. Which the act itself is a claim to be god. There will be an image of him made that everyone will be required to worship.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Douggg, honestly, do you really believe that the aforementioned verse of Scripture is literal?

There isn't a single man on this planet, or even Satan himself that has the power to literally give life to an inanimate object and make it speak.

...


In the words of our Eschologizer, "just passing by" and noticed your post. Your point is indeed accurate, however it does not disqualify the idea that this image may literally speak, because when you closely examine this verse and the one preceding it, you will notice that the 2nd beast of Rev 13 is given power to do certain things:

And it deceives those dwelling on the earth, because of the signs which were given to it to do before the beast, saying to those dwelling on the earth to make an image to the beast who has the wound of the sword, and lived.
And was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.


This 2nd beast is a passive recipient of certain "abilities". Now, I am not making any claims about what the image is, and whence the 2nd beast derives these abilities, but from the way it is written it certainly seems to me that the 2nd beast does indeed have power to give a spirit to the image to cause it to speak.

I can't yet make heads or tails of what it means, but there seems to be a "flow" of abilities from some "source":

source -> ability to perform signs and give a spirit (2nd beast) -> ability to speak (image)

So there is quite a bit of the supernatural involved, and I wouldn't so quickly disqualify the idea that this "icon" can literally, audibly speak.

IMO,
&

ps. btw, I don't think this discussion of the image points to any kind of 'hole' in the ENP(I) theory, which is the topic of the thread. Just wanted to be clear on that.
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat May 22, 2010 4:56 am

eschologizer wrote: If I go turn on the "Tonight Show," Jay Leno's image would come to life and start speaking. I personally suppose that the image itself doesn't even have to be a hologram (as some suppose). Just an image that comes to life. This could take the form of even a very large TV screen, like what is in Times Square.


eschologizer, this is "probably" the best example that I've seen given, that may be what the image of the beast may mean.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat May 22, 2010 5:18 am

ampersand wrote:Now, I am not making any claims about what the image is, and whence the 2nd beast derives these abilities, but from the way it is written it certainly seems to me that the 2nd beast does indeed have power to give a spirit to the image to cause it to speak.


Hi ampersand, and SordofGideon,

Let me also state that I have no claims to know what Revelation 13:14-15 means when it speaks of the False Prophet giving life to the image of the Beast.

The most logical reasoning that I believe is very much in line with Scripture, that I've seen so far, is the example that eschologizer has given.

No created "being" has the power to "breathe" life into anything - this includes Satan himself. I've read so much sensationalism - as it relates to End Time Prophecy; and have witnessed so many get "caught up" into this sort of thinking, that I believe it leaves them open for deception. This sort of thinking concerns me, and I will do my best to speak out against any form of sensationalism, as I believe it is destructive and very dangerous.


ampersand wrote:ps. btw, I don't think this discussion of the image points to any kind of 'hole' in the ENP(I) theory, which is the topic of the thread. Just wanted to be clear on that.


I believe that it relates to the topic. Often times we drift away from the topic, as other ideas that relate to the subject come up and are discussed. It all often still edifies the Body of Christ - so I personally don't have a problem with it at all. It very often leads to other threads being started, and continues dialogue - which is great, and the purpose of this forum.

So........... :itsgood:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Sat May 22, 2010 8:55 am

Mr Baldy wrote:...
The most logical reasoning that I believe is very much in line with Scripture, that I've seen so far, is the example that eschologizer has given.

No created "being" has the power to "breathe" life into anything - this includes Satan himself.
...

Mr. Baldy, two admirable aspects of your posts have been (1) you remind us not to put God in a box and (2) you want Scriptural support for everything. It seems that in this one area, you have failed at both. You are free to take the most logical approach to Revelation 13. (I also used to think that the image will most likely be some kind of TV image, etc.) HOWEVER, it states that to the 2nd beast "was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast." If one is a Scriptural purist, s/he will believe that an actual spirit is given to an actual image. This is sensational because it is supernatural, but then, isn't the rest of Scripture also quite sensational?

However, I can (sort of) appreciate the position that the phrase "to give a spirit" may be understood simply as "animate". You haven't stated this, but I believe that that would have to be your position to disqualify any other theory. It would be an assumption, however. For myself, I believe every word of Scripture is important and meaningful, and in this case, baffling as it may be, I believe the text -- that a spirit will be given to the previously made image of the beast, causing the image to speak. (I highlighted "causing", because in the text, the image's ability to speak is a direct effect of it receiving a spirit.)

Another thought comes to mind. If the image is some kind of cinematic wonder, then the power to animate it is not exclusive to the 2nd beast. It seems that at that point, anyone could "give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak." This may/may not be true, but it is indefensible on the basis of Rev. 13. Another (minor) snag in the "television theory" is that the image must exist prior to its reception of the spirit. In a TV, that would require a (long) pause, then "poof!" a "spirit" is given to the image and it starts speaking. I'm having a hard time seeing this as the "most logical reasoning" w.r.t. the image.


Mr Baldy wrote:...
I believe that it relates to the topic. Often times we drift away from the topic, as other ideas that relate to the subject come up and are discussed. It all often still edifies the Body of Christ - so I personally don't have a problem with it at all. It very often leads to other threads being started, and continues dialogue - which is great, and the purpose of this forum....


I agree 100%. My statement was not meant to lament that we had gotten off track, but to clarify that my discussion of the image of the beast doesn't mean that I think it is related to the veracity of the ENP(I) theory.

in Christ,
&
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat May 22, 2010 1:03 pm

ampersand wrote: HOWEVER, it states that to the 2nd beast "was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast." If one is a Scriptural purist, s/he will believe that an actual spirit is given to an actual image. This is sensational because it is supernatural, but then, isn't the rest of Scripture also quite sensational?


Hi ampersand,

Let me first state that, I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation. Even if one is a so-called "Scriptural purist", not having the ability to "think outside the box" limits that person's ability to properly discern the very nature in which the message of Scripture is attempting to deliver. Also, to compare sensationalism to the supernatural; and further relate them as they were one in the same, is very dangerous, and further discredits the very power of the Living Word. Let's be very, very careful with that. The Word of God has absolutely nothing to do with sensationalism at all. This is the very reason why I speak out against it, as it leads to deception.

ampersand wrote: I believe every word of Scripture is important and meaningful, and in this case, baffling as it may be, I believe the text -- that a spirit will be given to the previously made image of the beast, causing the image to speak. (I highlighted "causing", because in the text, the image's ability to speak is a direct effect of it receiving a spirit.)


I have no idea which translation of Scripture you are using when you mention that a "spirit" will be given to the image of the beast causing the image to speak. But nevertheless, I will refer back to the example that eschologizer had given - which again, I believe is the best example that I've seen given concerning this matter. If one were to turn on a television set, and see "Jay Leno" speaking; this would be the image of Jay Leno that you are viewing; you have further caused him to speak by simply turning on to that particular station. In the same light, you can cause him not to speak by turning the image off. So again, let's not sensationalize this.

ampersand wrote:Another thought comes to mind. If the image is some kind of cinematic wonder, then the power to animate it is not exclusive to the 2nd beast. It seems that at that point, anyone could "give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak."


It amazes me that you initially highlight the word cause; and further use it to clarify your explanation that it is a "spirit" given that is actually causing the image of the beast to speak. Then you state that "if the image is some kind of cinematic wonder" then anyone could "give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak". I must say ampersand.......you were almost there. Again, I don't know what interpretation of Scripture that you are using - as this term "spirit" given to the image of the beast, is new to me; nevertheless you have failed to "think outside of the box". Let me explain....

First lest look at Revelation 13:15:

"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."

One could simply cause something to happen, and not be directly involved. Indirectly, the False Prophet, (or 2nd Beast) could fulfill Revelation 13:15 by causing a World Wide television broadcast, or video footage of the Antichrist to be shown. This example wold fulfill Scripture in a more natural way, without all the sensational hype.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Sat May 22, 2010 3:26 pm

Mr Baldy, I gave it some thought, and I think that our discussion of sensationalism is irrelevant to this exchange. It really is. In my reply below, facts are green, opinions/interpretations are blue:

1. Contrary to your assessment, I have not made the supernatural and the sensational "one and the same". Something sensational is NOT necessarily supernatural, but something supernatural is sensational. That latter observation is the one I was using when I stated that "it is sensational because it is supernatural."
2. To sensationalize something and to observe that something is sensational are two different things.
I make the observation that when Jesus turned water to wine - that was sensational. When Jesus fed the thousands - that was sensational. When the 2nd beast gives a spirit to the image - that will be sensational (IF it is supernatural). If I was to sensationalize these events, however, I would be guilty of sensationalism, as I would be using creative license to embellish the account to make it sensational. I am not sensationalizing Rev 13 - merely observing that it is inherently sensational because of the supernatural elements written therein.
3. Finally, whether something is sensational or not depends on the viewer's/hearer's emotional response, and because of this subjectivity it is (almost) irrelevant to a discussion of what the text says. Let's focus on what the text says, not on how it makes people (including us) feel.

Feel free to respond to my clarification of sensationalism/sensationalizing/sensational, but I think it's very low on the priority list when seeking understanding of God's Word.

As for the requirement for "outside the box" thinking -- this is also subjective. It seems we have placed each other in a box and claimed that we are outside of it :lol: , so I'm just going to drop this "hermeneutical requirement" as well. :grin:

Let's just discuss what the text says, and the possibilities that it presents.

-------------------------------------------

Now, what does the text say, why do you question the use of "spirit", and why do you question the causative relationship between the image's reception of the spirit and its ability to speak ?

Stephanus' 1550 TR, Rev. 13:15 wrote:καὶ (and) ἐδόθη (was given) αὐτῷ (to it) δοῦναι (to give) πνεῦμα (a spirit) τῇ εἰκόνι (to the image) τοῦ θηρίου (of the beast) ἵνα (so that - indicating purpose/result) καὶ (even) λαλήσῃ (might talk) ἡ εἰκὼν (the image) τοῦ θηρίου (of the beast) καὶ (and) ποιήσῃ (might make/cause) ὅσοι (whosoever) ἂν μὴ προσκυνήσωσιν (might not worship) τὴν εἰκόνα (the image) τοῦ θηρίου (of the beast) ἵνα (so that) ἀποκτανθῶσιν (they might be killed)

I have inserted the American English equivalents for all of the words/phrases used. In my opinion, the best (read: most literal) translation of this verse is Jay P. Green's translation (LITV), but you are welcome to examine other translations:
http://crosswire.org/study/parallelstud ... &key=Rev13
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... JV#vrsn/15
Mr Baldy wrote:Let me first state that, I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation. ... I don't know what interpretation of Scripture that you are using - as this term "spirit" given to the image of the beast, is new to me ...

Just to be clear, I am not using an "interpretation of Scripture" but a "translation of Scripture" that renders πνεῦμα in its most literal form ("spirit") and leaves the interpretation up to the reader. More on this later.

Notice several things from the text:
1. The 2nd beast is given to give a spirit to the image. This does not violate your (and my) position that no one has power to give spirits (or "life" if you will): the 2nd beast is a passive recipient of this ability for the purpose of giving a spirit to the image.

2. The effect of the endowment of the spirit is that the image speaks. There is a strong causal relationship in the text between these events.

YOU MAY BE RIGHT that the image is a cinematic image, but IMO, that position can only be defended if "to give a spirit" is an idiom that means "to animate" in this case. I am not convinced that this is true. Is that the position that you are taking w.r.t. to this statement in Rev 13:15?

Thanks, Mr. B!

in Christ,
&


ps. All I meant with this statement:
Another thought comes to mind. If the image is some kind of cinematic wonder, then the power to animate it is not exclusive to the 2nd beast. It seems that at that point, anyone could "give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak."

was that if the "image of the beast" is a TV image, and if "to give a spirit" means "to animate", then anyone can fulfill Rev13:15 once the first beast is on the scene, just by turning on the tellie as in Eschologizer's example.
Last edited by ampersand on Sat May 22, 2010 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Sat May 22, 2010 6:27 pm

Mr B, you appear to be saying that if an event described in prophetic scripture is attributed to a supernatural cause, it is then sensationalism, and as it is sensationalism the supernatural interpretation is then invalid. That view would be contrary to scripture which describes many supernatural events not as sensationalism but evidence of a spirit world beyond the natural world, and evidence of the existence of God Himself.

The passage you appear to have missed in which the AC proclaims himself as god is Dan 11- 'The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and say unheard of things against the God of gods....nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.'

This is basically restated in 2 Thess 2- 'He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God'.

The AC will clearly exalt himself over God and by doing so he would be claiming divinity, he is stating that he is over God Himself, and he does proclaim himself to be god in God's temple, not real subtle about it is he?

And according to scripture there will be supernatural power to support him. Paul states that the AC's coming will be accompanied by 'the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.' Counterfeit miracles can still have a supernatural basis, and as Satan's power is involved there will be supernatural power supporting the AC.

Dan 11 indicates that ths AC will 'honor a god of fortresses, a god unknown to his fathers he will honor...he will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god...' There are no god's that have power that could help the AC, the only beings that exist that could help the AC conquer fortresses would be those from the spirit world, the fallen angels. And their power is great, 1 angel can kill 100,000 men in 1 night, and that power is supernatural, it goes beyond the natural forces of this world.

And Rev 13 does state that Satan gives the AC his power- 'The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.' Satan is called the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, he can give the kingdoms of the world to whom he will, and he gives his power and authority to the AC, and that power is supernatural power and it is great.

Many do not stop to contemplate the implications of what the scripture describes about the interaction of the spirit world on earth during the latter half of the 70th week. Satan gives his power to a man, possibly through possesion, but a man weilds great supernatural power. Satan, likely the god of forces of Dan 11, uses his power in the physical world to help the AC conquer men, spiritual forces of evil are involved directly, physically in war and conquest. The people will say 'Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?' as Rev 13 states.

This would be a unique occurance, we have no evidence of the forces of evil becoming directly and physically involved in warfare, their power would be overwhelming. The physical interaction of the spirit world with the natural world during the 70th week is further indicated in Rev 9 when demonic beings come from the abyss and torture men who do not have God's mark. This has never occurred in the past, the forces of evil have been restrained, but it appears that they will be unleashed.

And Rev 12 does confirm that there is a change in conditions around the midpoint of the week, there is war in heaven and Satan and his angels are cast down to earth, implying that they are confined to earth. It does not appear that the war has ended, it has just changed venues, the war will continue on earth, with dire implications for humanity- 'woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows his time is short.'

The direct interaction between the forces of the spirit world and men will be a major part of the latter half of the 70th week. The conditions will be dire, they will not be sensational, they will be the darkest days mankind has ever known, which Jesus stated in Matt 24- 'For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now- and never to be equalled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive.'

The supernatural involvement of the spirit world in the latter half of the 70th week is not sensationalism, it is a fact from scripture. The latter half of the 70th week leading into armageddon is the battle of the ages, the forces of God and the foces of evil come into direct conflict, there has been no equal to this in the past, not will there be ever again.

And if the ENP is the fulfillment of the 70th week, the AC receives Satan's power in 2 weeks, the power and authority to rule all the nations for 42 months starts in 2 weeks and Satan has likely already been cast down to earth. Will the retired guy be up to such a task? doubtful- is he still on vacation?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Sat May 22, 2010 6:37 pm

Mr. Baldy I am still waiting to hear your answer. I want to hear whom YOU say "He" is according to the passage in Dan. 9:26-27 as written below. I know what I think and I answered your question to my question. I am waiting to hear what ye say man.

MJKV
Dan 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off but not for Himself and the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary and the end of it shall be with the flood and ruins are determined until the end shall be war and "he" shall confirm a covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations even until the end and that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator.


With much Love Brother,

david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat May 22, 2010 11:14 pm

ampersand wrote:Feel free to respond to my clarification of sensationalism/sensationalizing/sensational, but I think it's very low on the priority list when seeking understanding of God's Word.


Hi ampersand,

You have explained very well your clarification of sensationalism, so I won't go there - at least not yet :lol: , as you further mention this:

ampersand wrote:Just to be clear, I am not using an "interpretation of Scripture" but a "translation of Scripture" that renders πνεῦμα in its most literal form ("spirit") and leaves the interpretation up to the reader. More on this later.


When you have completed what it is that you have "more" to relate on, then we will continue this debate. There are some comments that you have made, that I will definately come back to.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat May 22, 2010 11:53 pm

1whowaits wrote:Mr B, you appear to be saying that if an event described in prophetic scripture is attributed to a supernatural cause, it is then sensationalism, and as it is sensationalism the supernatural interpretation is then invalid. That view would be contrary to scripture which describes many supernatural events not as sensationalism but evidence of a spirit world beyond the natural world, and evidence of the existence of God Himself.


1whowaits, Thanks for pointing this out. Now I will clairify what I was attempting to communicate.

For the record, I by no means want to attribute anything that is described in Prophetic Scripture in the supernatural as sensationalism - (as some things are of God; and some of Satan) that is of course, unless it is related to a bunch of hocus-pocus absolute nonsense. Now, let me qualify that statement.....

For one to believe that some sort of statue will be erected, and a mere man - '"satanic posessed" or not; will have the ability to '"breathe" life, (literally) or "give life" (literally); to this same man made statue, is a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense. This is sensationalism, and the very thought of it in itself is of Satanic orgin - (IMHO).

1whowaits wrote:The passage you appear to have missed in which the AC proclaims himself as god is Dan 11- 'The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and say unheard of things against the God of gods....nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.


1whowaits, I have not missed this particular passage of Scripture. As a matter of fact, it's very interpretation that many give it - is a pet peeve that I have.

Many want to say that the coming AC will "declare" himself God; "claim" to be God; "say" that he is God; "demand to be worshiped" as God.....etc. I read that absolutely no where in Scripture, nor is it written in the aforementioned passage of Scripture that you have provided. The coming AC will do, say, and have a very inflated EGO - all in the name of "exhalting" himself above God; but this is not to say that he is coming on a platform as God. The man will do these things, because he doesn't know or respect God Almighty. He will further carry out these acts, because he will be working behind the power of Satan. Again, I see the coming AC as a man of War, a Murderer of Believers, and a lying Politician. Now this is in no way an attempt to take way the power of Satan that he will be working behind - I just don't sensationalize it to make it sound like some kind of Science Fiction, Abracadabra, make a statue speak nonsense.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Sat May 22, 2010 11:54 pm

Wow this post has gotten off track...
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sun May 23, 2010 12:12 am

david wrote:Mr. Baldy I am still waiting to hear your answer. I want to hear whom YOU say "He" is according to the passage in Dan. 9:26-27 as written below. I know what I think and I answered your question to my question. I am waiting to hear what ye say man.


Hi david,

You have previously posted this:

david wrote:Do I know for certain that Titus made a covenant with Jerusalem in 67 AD, no I don't know history did not record that but the dates match and the description of the temple and the abomination being set up does. This is the conclusion Issac Newton had drawn.

Don't get me wrong here, I do think fulfilled prophecies from the past can be a foreshadow of what is to come. Like with Antiochus Epiphanes whom was a proto type of Titus. The next one may look similar but different. Third time is a charm...


I believe that we agree to a certain extent - in that the aformentioned information that you have posted is along the same lines that I understand history to have happened; as it relates to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Now to answer your question.....The "he" in Daniel 9:27 is none other but the coming AC himself. I believe that the natural reading of this particular passage of Scripture leads to no one else. Titus, to my understanding never made a "Covenant" with Jerusalem - his Army just destroyed it.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Sun May 23, 2010 9:52 am

Mr Baldy wrote:...
ampersand wrote:Just to be clear, I am not using an "interpretation of Scripture" but a "translation of Scripture" that renders πνεῦμα in its most literal form ("spirit") and leaves the interpretation up to the reader. More on this later.

When you have completed what it is that you have "more" to relate on, then we will continue this debate. There are some comments that you have made, that I will definately come back to.

Sorry Mr Baldy, the "more on this later" is a mistake on my part. What follows that statement is the "more" that I had in mind at that time :grin: . (I was going to include some other intervening discussion between "more on this later" and "notice some things from the text", but decided to leave it out.)

My main point/question at this time is the highlighted one. I apologize for being unclear.

in Christ!
&
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Sun May 23, 2010 10:19 am

Mr Baldy wrote:...
1whowaits wrote:The passage you appear to have missed in which the AC proclaims himself as god is Dan 11- 'The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and say unheard of things against the God of gods....nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.


1whowaits, I have not missed this particular passage of Scripture. As a matter of fact, it's very interpretation that many give it - is a pet peeve that I have.

Many want to say that the coming AC will "declare" himself God; "claim" to be God; "say" that he is God; "demand to be worshiped" as God.....etc. I read that absolutely no where in Scripture, nor is it written in the aforementioned passage of Scripture that you have provided. The coming AC will do, say, and have a very inflated EGO - all in the name of "exhalting" himself above God; but this is not to say that he is coming on a platform as God.


I agree 100%, Mr Baldy. There are no prophesied direct "claims of deity" in Scripture w.r.t. whom many call "The Antichrist".

&
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby 1whowaits on Sun May 23, 2010 11:18 am

Mr B, so when 2 Thess 2:4 clearly states that the AC will proclaim or show himself to be God (deity or God is the translation), in your opinion he is not really calling himself god, even though the passage states that he will do this. Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 and Rev 13 indicate that the AC will set himself over all gods, proclaim himself to be God or deity in God's temple, and he will be worshipped by men. As he sets himself over all gods and calls himself god would he not then require that he be worshipped as god? As he does claim to be god, being worshipped as anything else would deny his own claim of divinity.

The desire to 'be God' has been Satan's all along- 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God...I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' Isa 14 As Satan gives the AC his power and throne and authority the AC is merely acting out Satan's own desires, the AC is the glove over the hand of Satan.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby Mr Baldy on Sun May 23, 2010 12:09 pm

1whowaits wrote:Mr B, so when 2 Thess 2:4 clearly states that the AC will proclaim or show himself to be God (deity or God is the translation), in your opinion he is not really calling himself god, even though the passage states that he will do this.


1whowaits,

Let's do take a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:4:

"He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." - NIV

"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." - NKJV

"who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." - NASB

The aforementioned are 3 different translations of Scripture. Based on my reading on previous posts that you have made, I believe that you prefer the NIV, (I personally like the NASB). Nevertheless, please show me in any of these translations where the AC either "calls himself God" or "claims to be God".

The aforementioned translations are metaphoric language. They use the comparison "as" God. Even in the NIV translation, the metaphoric language used is the comparison that the AC sets himself up in God's temple, (which is an act for God alone) - this "action" is the proclamation that he is carrying out is "as" if he is God; and "exalting" himself as God - not that he is actually proclaiming to be God by any sort of verbal means.

This nonsense about the AC declaring himself to be God, coming in on a platform that he will "claim" to be the Messiah, one World Religion, he will bring in "False Peace"; is all unscriptural, and can lead to deception.

I have said this before, and I will say it again without fear of contradiction..... The coming AC will be a man of WAR. He will not claim to be the "Messiah", he will destroy many, the World will NOT be in a One World Religion type status - as a matter of fact; the World as we know it, will be in chaos. The love of many will "wax cold". If the days were not shortened,"no flesh" would be saved. Famines, Earthquakes, Pestilences, Deception, False Christs, and Wars will continue to the end. Now show me where a One World Religion comes in, or show me where the AC will "claim" to be God.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby watching on Sun May 23, 2010 2:50 pm

Hi Mr. Baldy,

The biggest hole that I see in the ENPi theory is that it presumes that prophecy is only meant to be understood by a few internet surfers.

Because there is no other way, that a normal Bible believing Christian would know anything about the ENPi or Javier Solana.

I'm guessing that, even, most people living in Europe have never heard of him, let alone anything about the ENPi.
User avatar
watching
 
Posts: 1997
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby mark s on Sun May 23, 2010 8:03 pm

When Jesus was born, it was just a few shepherds, and some magi.

Just sayin' . . .
ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται
. . . saying to her Jesus, I AM the resurrection and the life, the one believing into Me even dying shall live . . .
User avatar
mark s
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 12819
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby ampersand on Sun May 23, 2010 8:10 pm

mark s wrote:When Jesus was born, it was just a few shepherds, and some magi.
...

...and Anna & Simeon knew exactly who He was when they saw the 8-day-old Baby in the temple.
ampersand
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 am

Re: ENP(I) Theory Holes

Postby david on Sun May 23, 2010 8:18 pm

ampersand wrote:
mark s wrote:When Jesus was born, it was just a few shepherds, and some magi.
...

...and Anna & Simeon knew exactly who He was when they saw the 8-day-old Baby in the temple.


The Magi knew also, even before they got there, and Herod too and the soldiers and... maybe the whole town by that time. Typically 99% of prophecy is understood only after it comes to pass.

(Disclaimer: This is a not a promotional comment in support of the ENPI and
in no certain terms is an endorsement there of. :grin: )


david
User avatar
david
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:34 pm

Next

Return to Prophecy Debate Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests