Pre-wrath timeline

[MarkT]

The book of Revelation reveals!

It actually explains OT imagery set in figurative speech.

Now I can see the real basis for your different manner of interpretation Mr. Baldy.

[Douggg]

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Douggg, we must remember that the Book of Revelation is symbolic. Do you honestly think that we will have 3 literal unclean spirits coming out of the mouths of a dragon, beast, and a false prophet? What I believe is that the Beast Kingdom has a mouth - and is synonymous with the coming Antichrist; in that it is the source which sets up the stage for him to take control, or has mouth to set forth the standards that will cause him to rise to power; Satan the dragon has a mouth, and the Antichrist has a mouth; in that he in person is still a man; however he is working behind the power of Satan - all 3 are in unison, and is the source in which I believe that this symbolic message means.

No, I do not think that there are going to be 3 visible literal frog-like spirits, but I do think that the mouth part refers to literal mouths.

btw, Jesus said, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

This is how I view it.

one mouth - the Antichrist beast (a man)
one mouth - the False Prophet (a man)
one mouth - the dragon, Satan (an angel) (the AOD speaking image of the Antichrist)

In your view, given that you believe the false prophet to be the Antichrist, how do you associate the mouths?

one mouth - ?
one mouth - the False Prophet (the Antichrist, a man)
one mouth - the dragon, Satan (an angel)


Doug

[Exit40]

It is interesting that in Revelation the false prophet is mentioned only three times, while the beast is mentioned 35 times, including it's image. One has to wonder, with everything going on during this period of time the false prophet only has a couple things to do.

God Bless

David

[Mr Baldy]

In your view, given that you believe the false prophet to be the Antichrist, how do you associate the mouths?

I've mentioned this. I guess I have to mention it again. The book of Revelation is symbolic.

Now, let me break it down to you in perhaps a way that I can better relay what my interpretation is:

The 3 mouths are symbolic using figurative language to describe what John is attempting to communicate. This is acutally the Antichrist working behind the power of Satan in the Beast Empire - all of which will be cast into the lake of fire.

[Mr Baldy]

The book of Revelation reveals!

Yes....it "reveals" indeed. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[MarkT]

The book of Revelation is symbolic.

I don't think so. You do. Your statement does not impose a fact upon the matter nor closes the subject for once and for all. you have provided an opinion. So did I. I don't think you're right; you don't think I'm right.

So now that nothing is settled, all that is actually provided is that I am better able to understand how you come up with the interpretations which are so far apart from mine that each of us thinks the other is totally off the mark.

It comes down to the very basics of commentary: how we read the Bible. Thanks for sharing.

[MarkT]

The book of Revelation reveals!

Yes....it "reveals" indeed. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yes, Jesus through the Father reveals to John what will happen in the end-times.

In doing so, events are placed within certain constructs, Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls, and figurative speech dating from OT times is revealed to be quite literal and physical in the world.

[Douggg]

In your view, given that you believe the false prophet to be the Antichrist, how do you associate the mouths?

I've mentioned this. I guess I have to mention it again. The book of Revelation is symbolic.

Now, let me break it down to you in perhaps a way that I can better relay what my interpretation is:

The 3 mouths are symbolic using figurative language to describe what John is attempting to communicate. This is acutally the Antichrist working behind the power of Satan in the Beast Empire - all of which will be cast into the lake of fire.

Let's look at the specific purpose of what those three unclean spirits coming:

1. out of the mouth of the dragon,
2. and out of the mouth of the beast,
3. and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

...do.

14. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, (imo, the Antichrist beast (man) and the False Prophet (man) and the dragon (Satan, the AOD living speaking image of the beast) are able to instruct demons to perform deceptive miracles ....)

which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, (.... before the kings of the earth. Why?)

to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (So they have a specific purpose - to "gather").

19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, "gathered" together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Since the three unclean frog like spirits represent the spirit of devils..... imo, that implies an entire legion(s) of demons, which follow instructions given by the Antichrist beast (a man), the false prophet (a man), the dragon (Satan).

From what you are saying, the instructions come from the false prophet (the Antichrist) - with him speaking for the beast (kingdom) and having the power of Satan. The problem with that interpretation, there should have been only one mouth in the verse. And I read three unclean spirits, out of three individual mouths, with one mouth assigned specifically to the beast; one mouth assigned specifically to the false prophet; and one mouth specifically to Satan. But in your interpretation, I conclude there would be one mouth - that of the false prophet (the Antichrist in your view).

I am arguing the point, not the person.


Doug

[Douggg]

The book of Revelation reveals!

Yes....it "reveals" indeed. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

To me, the Revelation (the revealing) of Jesus Christ is the power and glory that God has bestowed unto him, that he will be revealed in that great glory to the world when He returns, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That's what the book of Revelation is about, the events leading up to that great day.

Doug

[Mr Baldy]

From what you are saying, the instructions come from the false prophet (the Antichrist) - with him speaking for the beast (kingdom) and having the power of Satan. The problem with that interpretation, there should have been only one mouth in the verse. And I read three unclean spirits, out of three individual mouths, with one mouth assigned specifically to the beast; one mouth assigned specifically to the false prophet; and one mouth specifically to Satan. But in your interpretation, I conclude there would be one mouth - that of the false prophet (the Antichrist in your view). I am arguing the point, not the person.

I see your point Douggg - now let me quote myself on what I stated:

The 3 mouths are symbolic using figurative language to describe what John is attempting to communicate. This is acutally the Antichrist working behind the power of Satan in the Beast Empire - all of which will be cast into the lake of fire.

Let me start by saying that I believe wholeheartedly that the Book of Revelation uses symbolism to illustrate certain points by figurative language. I say this because I believe that the 1st Beast that rises from the sea is a Nation - and if so, then it really can't have a literal mouth. Let's take the EU for an example. I believe that it could be the 1st Beast; and through it's mouth the unclean spirits come forth, in that it is creating a Satanic Empire for the actual Beast, or Antichrist to come to power. The unclean spirits that come from the mouth of dragon - which I believe is Satan himself; is the symbolic illustration used to describe what Satan is actually doing - meaning it is not a literal mouth, as he is a spirit and is invisible. The literal mouth comes from who the Bible is describing as the "false prophet", who I believe is non other than the coming Antichrist. He will have a literal mouth, and through him the invisible Satan will carryout his mission.

Using the example that you have provided, you believe that Satan speaks through the mouth of the image; (at the A0D); and the other two mouths are a False Prophet, and the Antichrist. Douggg, in all honesty.......well I frankly find it hard to believe that a literal image will come to life and speak. I'm sorry, but this really sounds like some sort of hocus pocus, fairy-tale type nonsense, that someone who is trying to sell an idea to, at the expense of those who are naive. Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sort of like believing that the coming Antichrist will be shot in the head, or receive some other use of deadly force to the head - then "literally" die and come back to life, being incarnated by Satan. Well, I have to be blunt about this and say that I know of no man, that "literally" came back to life without the aide or assistance of God Himself. Satan doesn't have the power to resurrect anyone.

In closing....... I am glad that you have stated that it's about arguing the point - and not the person. I have very tough skin, and sometimes I have come across as if I am directing my comments towards the person - trust me, I never want to come across that way - but I have often taken it for granted that other have skin as tough as mine. So I am with you about it being about the topic, and not the person. I must say that I do love it when someone is passionate about what they believe in. Even in the case with Mark T; aka Teleiosis. I love that he is passionate about what he believes in - however, I don't necessarily agree with his delivery. He often comes across as being so "as a matter of factive"; or if he has the "only way" of understanding things, and he gets defensive when somone challenges him on some of the things that he posts. I hope that I have not come across this way.

[Douggg]

From what you are saying, the instructions come from the false prophet (the Antichrist) - with him speaking for the beast (kingdom) and having the power of Satan. The problem with that interpretation, there should have been only one mouth in the verse. And I read three unclean spirits, out of three individual mouths, with one mouth assigned specifically to the beast; one mouth assigned specifically to the false prophet; and one mouth specifically to Satan. But in your interpretation, I conclude there would be one mouth - that of the false prophet (the Antichrist in your view). I am arguing the point, not the person.

I see your point Douggg - now let me quote myself on what I stated:

The 3 mouths are symbolic using figurative language to describe what John is attempting to communicate. This is acutally the Antichrist working behind the power of Satan in the Beast Empire - all of which will be cast into the lake of fire.

Let me start by saying that I believe wholeheartedly that the Book of Revelation uses symbolism to illustrate certain points by figurative language. I say this because I believe that the 1st Beast that rises from the sea is a Nation - and if so, then it really can't have a literal mouth.

You are basing your interpretation of the mouth being literal or not in Revelation 16, upon the premise that 1st Beast represents only a Nation (Kingdom), rather than letting the verse in Revelation 16 show that is a mistaken view.

I agree that a Kingdom does not have a literal mouth. But in Revelation 13, there is language that indicates the mouth is not literal when referring to the beast being a Kingdom. In Revelation 13, because the 1st Beast is also a Kingdom - in verses 2, it says as the mouth of a lion. However, when it speaks of the beast in Revelation 13, verses 5-6, representing a man, it does not use "as" or "like" metaphoric language.

2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. (no "as" or "like" metaphoric language in those verses because it is a literal mouth of a literal man)

Likewise, In Revelation 16, it does not say "as the mouths" of anything. Therefore, the mouths part is literal since it is not "like" or "as", although the frogs part, "like frogs", is metaphoric.

13And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Let's take the EU for an example. I believe that it could be the 1st Beast; and through it's mouth the unclean spirits come forth, in that it is creating a Satanic Empire for the actual Beast, or Antichrist to come to power.

Did you notice that the unclean spirits are the spirits of devils? And that in Revelation 16 - those devils have a specific purpose - to "gather". While I agree with you that the EU is very close to being the final ten king Kingdom, what you are saying, imo, is overlooking the specific purpose of the devils in Revelation 16 is to "gather" the nations to battle at Armageddon. This convincing of the kings of the earth takes place at the time of the 6th vial, near the end of the 7 years.

You are indicating that the unclean spirits purpose is to create a Satanic Empire for the Antichrist (false prophet in your view) to come to power. But that doesn't match the timing of Revelation 16, the sixth vial, or the purpose of the devils. The Antichrist beast will be near the end of his 42 months in Revelation 16, not at the beginning of his emergence.

The unclean spirits that come from the mouth of dragon - which I believe is Satan himself; is the symbolic illustration used to describe what Satan is actually doing - meaning it is not a literal mouth, as he is a spirit and is invisible. The literal mouth comes from who the Bible is describing as the "false prophet", who I believe is non other than the coming Antichrist. He will have a literal mouth, and through him the invisible Satan will carryout his mission.

It is devils, plural, in the passage.

Using the example that you have provided, you believe that Satan speaks through the mouth of the image; (at the A0D); and the other two mouths are a False Prophet, and the Antichrist. Douggg, in all honesty.......well I frankly find it hard to believe that a literal image will come to life and speak. I'm sorry, but this really sounds like some sort of hocus pocus, fairy-tale type nonsense, that someone who is trying to sell an idea to, at the expense of those who are naive.

Do you believe that Moses's rod when it was cast down to the ground turned into a literal snake? And that the two rods of pharaoh's magicians turned into literal snakes? Fairy-tale or not? I can speculate one way that pharoah's majicians accomplished the mimicking feat - dimension to dimension travel. If they were deep into the occult of the fallen angels. Those snakes could have been moved from one dimension to another.

Did God form man from the literal dust or not?

Of course, that the image of the beast coming alive is going to be beyond belief, possible it would appear to the world only by the power of God. That's how the world is going to be deceived.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sort of like believing that the coming Antichrist will be shot in the head, or receive some other use of deadly force to the head - then "literally" die and come back to life, being incarnated by Satan. Well, I have to be blunt about this and say that I know of no man, that "literally" came back to life without the aide or assistance of God Himself. Satan doesn't have the power to resurrect anyone.

Do you believe that demons that Jesus cast out of people - incarnated, possessed them? The beast in the bottomless pit is a demon, a disembodied spirit of some ancient individual. It will not be Satan who incarnates the slain and recovered Antichrist man, but that disembodied spirit of some ancient individual.

Satan doesn't resurrect the Antichrist man, God does. It is in Isaiah 14. 19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

The Antichrist man is not going to remain buried, but cast alive into the lake of Fire.

Doug

[Jay Ross]

In your view, given that you believe the false prophet to be the Antichrist, how do you associate the mouths?

I've mentioned this. I guess I have to mention it again. The book of Revelation is symbolic.

Now, let me break it down to you in perhaps a way that I can better relay what my interpretation is:

The 3 mouths are symbolic using figurative language to describe what John is attempting to communicate. This is acutally the Antichrist working behind the power of Satan in the Beast Empire - all of which will be cast into the lake of fire.

Let's look at the specific purpose of what those three unclean spirits coming:

1. out of the mouth of the dragon,
2. and out of the mouth of the beast,
3. and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

...do.

14. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, (imo, the Antichrist beast (man) and the False Prophet (man) and the dragon (Satan, the AOD living speaking image of the beast) are able to instruct demons to perform deceptive miracles ....)

which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, (.... before the kings of the earth. Why?)

to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (So they have a specific purpose - to "gather").

19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, "gathered" together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

......................

Doug

Oh how this thread has continued with symbolism back and forth without resolution so let us ask the following question to focus the argument onto a specific point that has been raised in the conversation just a little way back,

What could the "three frogs" from the day of John represent today? What objects today have the look of a "frog" in silhouette? What objects today symbolically can leap great distances like a "frog?"

These three symbolic "frogs" have they made an entrance today into our history and if so when?

If they have already made an entry into this present time, what signs and wonders did they do?

If they have already worked their signs and wonders to bring the world into unity so that the nations of the world will assemble their armies at Amrageddon, what is the timeframe from when the three frog like spirits appear to the whole world and when they assemble at Armageddon?

Let us go back a verse or two and ask what is meant by the River Euphrates drying up? How does the river Euphrates drying up enable the three frog like spirits to go forth to do signs and wonders etc?

When has this begun/will this begin? What is the time frame when it will be finished?

Shalom

Jay

[MarkT]

The Euphrates was Babylon's greatest strength during a siege because they had water and it became their greatest weakness when it was dammed up; the Persians literally walked in under the walls.

In military terms, the Euphrates then becomes the Kingdom of the North's greatest strength which "dries up" with God's help. Such a strength might be the "flow" of information which acts as a force multiplier.

[Jay Ross]

The Euphrates was Babylon's greatest strength during a siege because they had water and it became their greatest weakness when it was dammed up; the Persians literally walked in under the walls.

In military terms, the Euphrates then becomes the Kingdom of the North's greatest strength which "dries up" with God's help. Such a strength might be the "flow" of information which acts as a force multiplier.

Mark, your statements are perfectly correct but IMHO are missing the mark of answering the questions posed by a country mile concerning the symbology associated with the River Euphrates. Could the river be associated with the worship that was carried out at Babal?

Just a simple question, or is it?

Shalom

Jay Ross

[Mr Baldy]

Satan doesn't resurrect the Antichrist man, God does. It is in Isaiah 14.

Dougg....I'm going to post Isaiah 14:19-20 as you seem to quote - for those who are following this thread to view; just in case they missed this very important way of how you derive at your conclusions.

Your interpretation of God resurrecting the Antichrist to perform the works of Satan is a very poor translation of Scripture in my opinion. Isaiah 14 has absolutely nothing to do with a resurrection, but the demise of Satan himself. I have read nothing in Scripture that would even hint that God is responsible for resurrecting the Antichrist.

And you make this statement:

The Antichrist man is not going to remain buried, but cast alive into the lake of Fire.

So, now my question is if the "Antichrist man" is cast alive into the Lake of Fire - and as you have previously stated, Satan "incarnates" him when he physically dies, at the head wound - then what happens to Satan if he is indwelling this man at the time of Christ's Return? We know that at this point he ("Antichrist man") is cast into the Lake of Fire. I mean isn't Satan bound for 1,000 years at some point? And at what point is the "Antichrist man" initially buried?

Houston, I think we have a problem.......

God isn't going to resurrect this man for the purpose of Satan indwelling in him. That makes no sense.

Nevertheless, I'm going to start at verse 12 in Isaiah 14, so that the readers get the full gist of what is going on:

12) "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13) You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; 14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' 15) But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. 16) Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17)who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?' 18) All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; 19) but you are cast out, away from your grave, like a loathed branch, clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a dead body trampled underfoot. 20) You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people.

Now, how you got the fact that the "Antichrist man" is resurrected by God in the aforementioned Scriptures is beyond me.

[Douggg]

So, now my question is if the "Antichrist man" is cast alive into the Lake of Fire - and as you have previously stated, Satan "incarnates" him when he physically dies, at the head wound - then what happens to Satan if he is indwelling this man at the time of Christ's Return? We know that at this point he ("Antichrist man") is cast into the Lake of Fire. I mean isn't Satan bound for 1,000 years at some point? And at what point is the "Antichrist man" initially buried?

You missed what I wrote in my previous post. I don't believe that Satan incarnates the Antichrist man. Here's what I
wrote. "It will not be Satan who incarnates the slain and recovered Antichrist man, but that disembodied spirit of some ancient individual." My view is that the ancient individual is Nimrod.

Doug

[MarkT]

The river dries up... how that can happen literally has a host of possibilities one of which I gave you Jay, but it says nothing about ancient worship - just preparing a way for the King of the East: China.

One would have to assume a cause and effect relationship between preparing a way for China to the manifestation of the three evil spirits leaving their host to bring more Kings to Armageddon; it isn't in the text.

[Jay Ross]

MarkT

When Islam was established, all other forms of idol worship associated with the Tower of Babel disappeared as if the flow of the river that was watering them i.e. the River Euphrates, had dried up and was replaced by a sea of people that inhabited a dry river bed. The Oral Tradition of Israel suggests that the place that the dragon (Satan) domiciled was on the eastern side of the River Euphrates along with the beast and the false prophet who are referred to as kings living on the eastern side of the river Euphrates and their army of 200,000,000 will be an army of Islamic souls who have joined themselves to these three kings who will trample over all the people to reach Jerusalem but before they enter Jerusalem they will be stopped in the valley at Armageddon and God's wrath will be poured out on them as he demonstrates His power alone with His forgiveness when he reconciles Himself with the House of Israel and Judah and establishes them as a nation, His nation, in one day.

Oh this is simply unacceptable because you must only take the Bible literally as there is no symbology used in its text and nor should we refer to any other "religious" text that the House of Israel and the House of Judah may also have to refer to.

Oh now I am confused because both is not allowed but why not? :but but but:

Shalom

Jay

[MarkT]

Oh, I see how this game is played. If I offer up a literal interpretation I am dictating, but if you offer up a figurative interpretation yours is automatically superior and my interpretation is wrong because somehow I am all or a sudden imposing my opinion as the only way.

I still think the King of the South is the Muslim Brotherhood and the King of the East is still China.

[Mr Baldy]

So, now my question is if the "Antichrist man" is cast alive into the Lake of Fire - and as you have previously stated, Satan "incarnates" him when he physically dies, at the head wound - then what happens to Satan if he is indwelling this man at the time of Christ's Return? We know that at this point he ("Antichrist man") is cast into the Lake of Fire. I mean isn't Satan bound for 1,000 years at some point? And at what point is the "Antichrist man" initially buried?

You missed what I wrote in my previous post. I don't believe that Satan incarnates the Antichrist man. Here's what I
wrote. "It will not be Satan who incarnates the slain and recovered Antichrist man, but that disembodied spirit of some ancient individual." My view is that the ancient individual is Nimrod.

Doug

Doug, I find it absolutely amazing that you believe a man - already living; has to have another man - currently dead to "incarnate" him; in his alleged death, in order for the work of Satan to be carried out. NOT only that..... you believe that it will be God Himself who resurrects him.

Not only does this not make sense, it cannot be supported with Scripture.

This would mean that "Nimrod" - in your thinking, would have to be ressurrected from the grave; having not stood before God in Judgement, and embody a dead man, who has been identified as the Antichrist. What happens to this dead man? Are they both cast "alive" into the lake of fire? Or does Nimrod's spirit become disembodied again, at the Return of Christ - return to the pits of hell, to await judgement; or does the dead man receive his spirit again so that he may be cast "alive" into the Lake of Fire?

Last question..... Why would God have to resurrect any dead man, from the pits of hell, in order to embody another dead man; which would in essence also resurrect him - just so that the work of Satan can be carried out?

Last I read in Scripture, it stated that the coming Antichrist will be working behind the power of Satan. I have read absolutely nowhere that he is resurrected by God, or that his body is incarnated by some dead man from the past.

Nothing against you Doug, but these fairy tale, make believe like stories have really gotten out of control. It begins with things that cannot be support with Scripture, like: 1) A 7 year tribulaton period; 2) That the coming Antichrist will bring in World Peace; 3) That the coming Antichrist will be shot in the head, or receive some sort of fatal head wound, and come back to life; 4) That the Church will be in Heaven 7 years prior to the tribulation period......I mean I can go on and on.

Truth of the matter is Jesus Himself has said that if we belong to Him, we WILL suffer persecution. He also said that at His Return folk will be carrying on just as they did in the days of Noah - then the flood came, can basically caught them by unawares. So some of these fairy tale like stories are just too way out of line - at least for me. If they were ever actually carried out to fruition, then I believe that the majority of the World would know that His Return is near - Scripture seems to indicate the exact opposite. The lost World won't have a clue.

[Douggg]

So, now my question is if the "Antichrist man" is cast alive into the Lake of Fire - and as you have previously stated, Satan "incarnates" him when he physically dies, at the head wound - then what happens to Satan if he is indwelling this man at the time of Christ's Return? We know that at this point he ("Antichrist man") is cast into the Lake of Fire. I mean isn't Satan bound for 1,000 years at some point? And at what point is the "Antichrist man" initially buried?

You missed what I wrote in my previous post. I don't believe that Satan incarnates the Antichrist man. Here's what I
wrote. "It will not be Satan who incarnates the slain and recovered Antichrist man, but that disembodied spirit of some ancient individual." My view is that the ancient individual is Nimrod.

Doug

Doug, I find it absolutely amazing that you believe a man - already living; has to have another man - currently dead to "incarnate" him; in his alleged death, in order for the work of Satan to be carried out. NOT only that..... you believe that it will be God Himself who resurrects him.

Not only does this not make sense, it cannot be supported with Scripture.

This would mean that "Nimrod" - in your thinking, would have to be ressurrected from the grave; having not stood before God in Judgement, and embody a dead man, who has been identified as the Antichrist. What happens to this dead man? Are they both cast "alive" into the lake of fire? Or does Nimrod's spirit become disembodied again, at the Return of Christ - return to the pits of hell, to await judgement; or does the dead man receive his spirit again so that he may be cast "alive" into the Lake of Fire?

Regarding the incarnaton of the Antichrist man, I do not think that Nimrod or anyone else from the past will be resurrected bodily from the grave. As I wrote in my previous post, it is the disembodied spirit of Nimrod (imo) that will ascend out of the bottomless pit to incarnate the slain/recovered Antichrist man. So it is just the spirit of Nimrod, not his former body, that is involved. Demons, for example, can be considered to be the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim. Nimrod's father was Cush. So he could not be a Nephilim on his father's side, but perhaps on his mother's side.


Nor do I think that the Antichrist will be a re-incarnation of some past person. Re-incarnation, which is different than incarnation, is the concept that people die and come back for another lifetime. In other words, their spirit re-enters the world born as a little baby and new person... only to grow up, live, and die.... and then the process is repeated over and over. So I don't think that Nimrod's spirit (or Adopt Hitler another train of thought) will re-enter the world as a little baby and grow up to become the Antichrist.

Last question..... Why would God have to resurrect any dead man, from the pits of hell, in order to embody another dead man; which would in essence also resurrect him - just so that the work of Satan can be carried out?

Again, I don't think that God is going to "resurrect" any dead man from the past in association with the incarnation of the Antichrist man.

I think that the disembodied spirit of some ancient dead person will be allowed to ascend out of the bottomless pit, to incarnate the Antichrist man of our generation.

The bottomless pit, as I understand it, is not the place where unsaved humans go when they die. The question is - where is the bottomless pit? I believe it is in hell, separating the two sides.

In the story of Lazarus and the rich man that Jesus told, there was a great chasm separating the two. That great chasm could be the bottomless pit. In Isaiah 14, the "man" (being a man in the text means that it is not referring to Satan) who made the nations tremble and shakes kingdoms will be brought down to the sides of the pit. It could be that does not mean like the sides of a hole, but when he goes into hell, in hell he finds himself at the edge (side of) of the (bottomless) pit... the great chasm which separated Lazarus and the rich man.

The bottomless pit is where the beast presently is. Therfore, one possibility is when the Antichrist man is cast out of the grave, the beast (spirit of Nimrod imo) ascends out of the bottomless pit, the edge of the pit, where the slain Antichrist man finds himself in hell, to incarnate him at that time. So the Antichrist man, of gifted abilities, thought to be King Messiah before he goes into the temple and declares that he is God, and killed for doing so... in his come back to life state, takes on the personality of Nimrod to unite the world against God - to overthrow God.

Who else can it be who casts the person's body out of the grave in Isaiah 14, other than God? You may have a problem with God kicking the Antichrist man's body from the grave, but it is God who created both the Antichrist man and Satan to begin with. In the book of Job, God allowed Job's children to be killed, as Satan carried out his attempts to get Job to curse God. So we don't know what is going on in the background of the big picture of God's action to cast the Antichrist man's body out of the grave.

Last I read in Scripture, it stated that the coming Antichrist will be working behind the power of Satan. I have read absolutely nowhere that he is resurrected by God, or that his body is incarnated by some dead man from the past.

That the Antichrist gets his power from Satan is unarguable. So we don't have to go over that point.

That the Antichrist man and the spirit of a long dead ancient person are involved - is directly found in Revelation 17:8.

But it is a "conclusion" that the spirit of the long dead person will incarnate the Antichrist man.... because the key word - incarnation - is not found in the text anywhere.

Here is Revelation 17:8 and my analysis.

8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

That verse must be broke down into two parts to understand it. Part 1 is about the ancient individual who died and is presently in the bottomeless pit. Part 2 is about the end times Antichrist man who will be mortally wound and makes a miraculous recovery.

Part 1 - The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

The beast is the ancient person, who "was" - meaning he was alive. And "is not" - meaning that he has died. In the future, it says that he shall ascend out of the bottomless pit. So that is where he is right now. Of course, his physical body is long disingrated, so it is his dis-embodied spirit in the bottomless pit.

Since the bible indicates that the bottomless pit is a place reserved for demons and fallen angels - the beast would most likely have been a Nephilim. Regarding Nimrod, it says in Genesis 10 that Nimrod began to become a "gibbor"
which means mighty one and also giant. In Genesis 6:4, the giants were the "Nephilim". In other words, beginning to become a "gibbor" could mean Nimrod's nephilim personality was coming forth. The personality of the Nephilim was that of the fallen angels who fathered them, their minds were constantly on evil. Noah was said to be perfect in his generation. It appears as Noah's gene pool had not been affected by the Nephilim contagion spread throughout the human race.

Even after the flood, the Nephilim were present. So either the fallen angels were at it again, or the Nephilim genes continued through the wives of Noah's sons.

In Genesis 10:9, Nimrod is said to be a might hunter before the Lord. "before" certainly cannot mean a time element, but in the presence of or in the face of - God. 9:He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

What would God care that Nimrod was a mighty hunter, as in hunter of animals? It doesn't make sense, imo. In the epic of Gilgamesh, which is alleged to be a story legend about Nimrod, Gilgamesh who was a giant who sought to hunt down and kill the person who sent the flood. Which would line up with Nimrod being a mighty hunter in the face of God - in other words, he was a giant, a man of renown, that was against God. In the Epic, God is misrepresented and personified as the evil Huwawa. In his quest to hunt down and kill Huwawa, if Gilgamesh failed, he figured he would be famous for trying - making a name for himself.

Likewise, in the bible, the people of Babel built the tower as it says as it says in Genesis - "let us make a name less we be scattered" across the earth. One conclusion is that the world was building the tower in a unified effort to get above another flood if it was sent. This was done because Nimrod, Gilgamesh in the Epic, had convinced them that Huwawa was their enemy. Similar to how Satan lied about God in the garden of Eden. Which all makes sense of why "Mystery Babylon the Great" is a key part in Revelation.

There is another thread about Nimrod "the first Antichrist" that has a link in the first post that goes into detail, which is worth a read.

So, I am thinking it is Nimrod who was and is not....in Part 1 of Revelation 17:8. Continuing to Part 2 of Revelation 17:8....

and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

First notice it does not say anything about the person in this Part, himself ascending out of the bottomless pit. This is the end times Antichrist man, who is born in our generation - who will be killed and comes back to life. He is called the beast because when he come back to life - he will have been incarnated by the spirit of the ancient person in Part 1, now in the bottomless pit ascends to incarnate him to go into perdition - the lake of fire.

Now look at the comparison of Part 1 and Part 2, and you can see the two individuals involved.

Part 1 - was and is not. Presently in the bottomless pit. Someday will ascend out of the bottomless pit.
Part 2 - was, is not, yet is. The end times Antichrist man. Not in the bottomless pit. The people of his generation will witness him being killed - was, is not. And coming back alive - yet is.

The only alternatives to there being two individuals involved are reincarnation - which doesn't match the description of the beast ascending from the bottomless pit. Or some ancient person, who was mortally wounded, like Caesar for example, stepping out of his tomb a fully developed adult into our generation.

Nothing against you Doug, but these fairy tale, make believe like stories have really gotten out of control. It begins with things that cannot be support with Scripture, like: 1) A 7 year tribulaton period; 2) That the coming Antichrist will bring in World Peace; 3) That the coming Antichrist will be shot in the head, or receive some sort of fatal head wound, and come back to life; 4) That the Church will be in Heaven 7 years prior to the tribulation period......I mean I can go on and on.

This is just a comment, not an argument. There is a tendency to extend what has been experienced in the past into the future. Anything prophesied outside of that paradigm can make a person feel uncomfortable with its believability. But leaning not to our own understanding, what is prophesied in the bible begins and ends with God.

Truth of the matter is Jesus Himself has said that if we belong to Him, we WILL suffer persecution. He also said that at His Return folk will be carrying on just as they did in the days of Noah - then the flood came, can basically caught them by unawares. So some of these fairy tale like stories are just too way out of line - at least for me. If they were ever actually carried out to fruition, then I believe that the majority of the World would know that His Return is near - Scripture seems to indicate the exact opposite. The lost World won't have a clue.

To the lost world, the prophecies in the bible of the end times events are too far out. So they don't believe them. I don't know that it is even that simple. A lot of it is that they are unaware. Or they don't care to look into it because they don't have a relationship with God.

Doug

[Mr Baldy]

Again, I don't think that God is going to "resurrect" any dead man from the past in association with the incarnation of the Antichrist man.

Well, let me show you where you wrote this:

Satan doesn't resurrect the Antichrist man, God does.

I think we need to understand what the meaning of resurrection is. Because I clearly see your point - however you are definately contradicting yourself. What I believe is that you are attempting to do is convolute the issue at hand. The point is we have a "dead man". At some point this same "dead man" will have his body made alive - that is a resurrection Douggg, and this is whether it is by a spirit from the past or not. To resurrect means to be made "alive". And again, you have not answered what happens to this dead man.

Then you write this:

I think that the disembodied spirit of some ancient dead person will be allowed to ascend out of the bottomless pit, to incarnate the Antichrist man of our generation.

This is where the contradiction comes in. You say that God resurrects the Antichrist man, but then you go on to say that the "disembodied spirit" of some ancient dead person will incarnate the Antichrist man. So do we have a resurrection by God Himself of an evil man, or is this act of "embodiment" just simply allowed? I mean is there a switch of spirits? Better yet, please answer why it would be necessary for the spirit of some ancient dead person to "incarnate" (as you put it) - the body of a dead man? Again, isn't the Antichrist cast "alive" into the Lake of Fire at the Return of Christ? And, you have not answered the question of what happens to this dead man? Where does his spirit go, if his body is taken over by this "Nimrod" of a person?

You also mention this:

But it is a "conclusion" that the spirit of the long dead person will incarnate the Antichrist man.... because the key word - incarnation - is not found in the text anywhere.

Then Douggg, my question to you would be: then why use such a word? Revelation 22:18-19 gives a specific warning about adding to and taking awary from the Words of what is written.

Revelation 22:18-19 - reads in the:

New King James Version (NKJV)

"A Warning"

"18) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

8)The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

This could also be referring to a Kingdom. Have you considered that?

So in closing, I'll leave you with something that you have mentioned:

But leaning not to our own understanding, what is prophesied in the bible begins and ends with God.

[Douggg]

Again, I don't think that God is going to "resurrect" any dead man from the past in association with the incarnation of the Antichrist man.

Well, let me show you where you wrote this:

Satan doesn't resurrect the Antichrist man, God does.

Please read through my whole post before starting a response.

You are misunderstanding me. As to who is going to incarnate the Antichrist, regarding any dead man from the past, I was referring to the ancient person who's disembodied spirit is now in the bottomless pit - God is not going to resurrect his body. It is just the spirit of that person involved.

The Antichrist man, the end times person, who certainly is alive right now, when he is killed and goes into hell, God is going to resurrect his body.

I think we need to understand what the meaning of resurrection is. Because I clearly see your point - however you are definately contradicting yourself.

I am definitely not contradicting myself. But you are definitely misunderstanding me.

What I believe is that you are attempting to do is convolute the issue at hand.

No, I am not convoluting the issue. There is going to be the spirit of an ancient person, long dead, who is going to ascend out of the bottomless pit and incarnate the resurrected Antichrist man. The ancient person I believe is Nimrod. Nimrod is NOT going to be resurrected in association with the Antichrist. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

The point is we have a "dead man". At some point this same "dead man" will have his body made alive - that is a resurrection Douggg, and this is whether it is by a spirit from the past or not. To resurrect means to be made "alive". And again, you have not answered what happens to this dead man.

To resurrect means to make one's "body" alive again.

When you die is that the end of you? No, it is not. Because right now you are a spirit being with a body. Have you ever thought of yourself like that?

When the Antichrist man dies and is subsequently cast out of the grave - he as a spirit being rejoins with his resurrected body.... just like he was before he was killed. The only difference is that he will be incarnated by the spirit being of some ancient individual, as well.

The spirit being of the ancient individual, assuming that he had some nephilim blood in him, is a demon. A demon is a spirit being of a deceased Nephilim. Demons are either in the pit or roaming the earth looking for someone to incarnate - possess. When a demon possesses a person, the person can be either tormented and/or takes on the personality of the demon who acts out through that person.

In the case of the resurrected Antichrist man, who will be incarnated by the spirit of Nimrod (a demon), the Antichrist will have the personality of Nimrod. I could be wrong that it is not Nimrod but some other person. But whoever it is, right now his spirit being is in the bottomless pit.

Then you write this:

I think that the disembodied spirit of some ancient dead person will be allowed to ascend out of the bottomless pit, to incarnate the Antichrist man of our generation.

This is where the contradiction comes in. You say that God resurrects the Antichrist man, but then you go on to say that the "disembodied spirit" of some ancient dead person will incarnate the Antichrist man. So do we have a resurrection by God Himself of an evil man, or is this act of "embodiment" just simply allowed? I mean is there a switch of spirits?

I see where you are misunderstanding me. The Antichrist man, when resurrected, will retain his own spirit being - the same one he is before he dies. .....Now think a person being possessed by a demon. That is essentially what is going to happen, but the time that he gets possessed is at the moment he is resurrected.

There are other cases of demon possessed men in the new testament, but with them we aren't told or given a clue of when they became possessed. In the case of the Antichrist man, we have enough information that the possession will be at the time of his resurrection. He goes from being the Antichrist man, to becoming the Antichrist beast.

Better yet, please answer why it would be necessary for the spirit of some ancient dead person to "incarnate" (as you put it) - the body of a dead man? Again, isn't the Antichrist cast "alive" into the Lake of Fire at the Return of Christ? And, you have not answered the question of what happens to this dead man? Where does his spirit go, if his body is taken over by this "Nimrod" of a person?

Well, the Antichrist man incarnated by the demon will be cast alive into the lake of fire - which given that his resurrected body will be mortal just like Lazurus's resurrected body (remember Jesus resurrecting Lazurus?) was mortal - his body is going to quickly disenigrate. So the spirit being of the Antichrist man and the spirit being of the beast currently in the bottomless pit will both be in the lake of fire.

You also mention this:

But it is a "conclusion" that the spirit of the long dead person will incarnate the Antichrist man.... because the key word - incarnation - is not found in the text anywhere.

Then Douggg, my question to you would be: then why use such a word? Revelation 22:18-19 gives a specific warning about adding to and taking awary from the Words of what is written. .....

I cut your quote short....because it is depressing.

Sigh.... Mr. Baldy, this kind of stuff coming from you is getting really old. I seen where you recently went on one of your accusative attacks to David in another thread. And you have been doing it to me off and on for a long time, as well.

Please....just argue the point and not be pointing fingers at me. The word "incarnation" is not in the text and I said so. Quit acting like I said it was. Don't be pointing fingers that I am changing the text - when I say outright that it is not in the text. I said it was a "conclusion". Just argue the point, if you have other conclusions.

Doug

[Mr Baldy]

Just argue the point

That's exactly what I have been doing. The point is that you are missing a "key" element in your theory, that you either don't want to address, or you have no answer for the point that I have being trying to make.

The point is, that you are referring to a "dead" persons spirit from the past who will "incarnate" the coming Antichrist. You speak of this "dead person" from that past - in your example "Nimrod"; as if he never had a body, like a pre-creation spirit being (angel), and he will have the power to embody a person who becomes dead (by your own eschatology, saying it's the Antichrist man) - as if Nimrod won't have to someday stand before God.

Your comparisons are equivalent to saying that Nimrod is a "demon" who never had a body. Or if it's some other dead person from the past, they would also be equivalent to a demon. Spirit beings don't have bodies. Some dead person from the past will have had a body - therefore they will be resurrected in their own body, and not be the incarnation of someone else. After all Scripture says that all men must stand before God and give account for his soul. (Romans 14:12)

Here is what you say:

When the Antichrist man dies and is subsequently cast out of the grave - he as a spirit being rejoins with his resurrected body.... just like he was before he was killed. The only difference is that he will be incarnated by the spirit being of some ancient individual, as well.

and this:

The Antichrist man, when resurrected, will retain his own spirit being - the same one he is before he dies. .....Now think a person being possessed by a demon. That is essentially what is going to happen, but the time that he gets possessed is at the moment he is resurrected.

This is where I believe that you make your error. You are attempting to put two dead people's spirit into one body. Again, any dead person from the past had a body at one time. Spirit beings or demons don't have bodies - never have, they weren't created that way. Your contradiction comes in where you mentioned that it was the body of the Antichrist that God will resurrect, and then is "incarnated" by the spirit of some dead person from the past - who also once had a body - but you had failed to mention what happend to the spirit of the Antichrist. In your aforementioned statements, you now say that "both" spirits will enbody this same Antichrist. Well, I believe that this is unscriptural. Scripture states that the coming Antichrist will be working behind the power of Satan - not some disembodied "spirit" from the past.

In closing, I have never attacked you - I have attacked, and/or challenged what you have written, after all this is a debate. There is a difference between "demons"; and those who have died in the past - and the difference is that demons don't have physical bodies that will be resurrected. Dead people from the past cannot possess or incarnate people. Demons can possess people, while they are alive - I believe, as you have mentioned that the New Testament gives examples of this occurring.

I asked you what would be the point in God resurrecting the body of the Antichrist, only for a "dead persons" spirit of the pass to incarnate it - and that it made no sense. You have now responded with saying that it will be "BOTH" spirits in this one body - well, I think that I have made my point in saying that it's unscriptural.

[Douggg]

Just argue the point

That's exactly what I have been doing. The point is that you are missing a "key" element in your theory, that you either don't want to address, or you have no answer for the point that I have being trying to make.

I welcome any counterpoint to any argument I make. I realize that you are trying to make some points to show mistakes in my view that would render it incorrect. What I see is that you have some fundamental misunderstanding regarding of who the demons were before they became demons. The demons before they became demons were Nephilim - the offspring of the fallen angels and earth women. When the offspring died, they became the demons. There is nothing in the bible that indicates the Nephilim will be resurrected. If Nimrod was a Nephilim, then he is not going to be resurrected - regardless.

The point is, that you are referring to a "dead" persons spirit from the past who will "incarnate" the coming Antichrist. You speak of this "dead person" from that past - in your example "Nimrod"; as if he never had a body, like a pre-creation spirit being (angel), and he will have the power to embody a person who becomes dead (by your own eschatology, saying it's the Antichrist man) - as if Nimrod won't have to someday stand before God.

Nimrod had a body. But if he were a Nephilim, there is no resurrection for him.

You argue that Nimrod has to someday stand before God - well, what about your Antichrist interpretation - the false prophet? He is cast alive into the lake of fire.

If Nimrod was transforming into a Nephilim, that is becoming a gibor, the nephilim genes emerging, then Nimrod when he died became a demon. Demons (former Nephilim) are not resurrected, as far as I can tell from the bible.

The Antichrist man - who I say is the first beast of Revelation 13, and who you say if the second beast of Revelation 13, is going to be cast alive into the lake of fire whether he is the first beast or the second beast - so as a man he is not going to stand before God at the great white throne judgment, because he will already have been judged.... the first of men to be done so. Since both the first beast and the second beast both are cast alive into the lake of fire - where is the resurrection of your False Prophet Antichrist to stand before God? The False Prophet is not resurrected. He is cast alive into the lake of fire.

Your comparisons are equivalent to saying that Nimrod is a "demon" who never had a body. Or if it's some other dead person from the past, they would also be equivalent to a demon. Spirit beings don't have bodies. Some dead person from the past will have had a body - therefore they will be resurrected in their own body, and not be the incarnation of someone else. After all Scripture says that all men must stand before God and give account for his soul. (Romans 14:12)

Again, the demons before they became demons were Nephilim, the offspring of fallen angels and earth women.

To say that spirit beings don't have bodies - that has to be qualified and taken within context of how it is being used in the discussion. You and I, for example, are spirit beings that have a flesh and blood body. That's what we are. Who we are, that is what identifies you as being uniquely you, and me as me - is our souls.

Jesus was (is) a spirit being, but not a created spirit being like you and I. He was (is) God.

Here is what you say:

When the Antichrist man dies and is subsequently cast out of the grave - he as a spirit being rejoins with his resurrected body.... just like he was before he was killed. The only difference is that he will be incarnated by the spirit being of some ancient individual, as well.

and this:

The Antichrist man, when resurrected, will retain his own spirit being - the same one he is before he dies. .....Now think a person being possessed by a demon. That is essentially what is going to happen, but the time that he gets possessed is at the moment he is resurrected.

This is where I believe that you make your error. You are attempting to put two dead people's spirit into one body.

There is a difference between the disembodied spirit of a Nephilim who dies - which is a demon - and the disembodied spirit of a man when he dies. The bodies of men will be resurrected to eternal life or eternal damnation. There is no indication that the Nephilim will be resurrected to any kind of body.

You have a problem with me saying that "one" demon will possess the body of a man - but what about "legion" who possessed the wild man that Jesus cast out the 1000 demons possessing that man?

Again, any dead person from the past had a body at one time. Spirit beings or demons don't have bodies - never have, they weren't created that way.

The angels were created with the bodies they have - which is different from our bodies. Man was created from the dust of the earth. The demons, on the other hand, were not created as demons - but were the offspring of the fallen angels and earth women - Nephilim, before they became demons. When the Nephilim dies, he becomes the demon. Why do you think they are always looking for a body to possess?

Your contradiction comes in where you mentioned that it was the body of the Antichrist that God will resurrect, and then is "incarnated" by the spirit of some dead person from the past - who also once had a body - but you had failed to mention what happend to the spirit of the Antichrist.

No, I didn't fail to mention what happens to the spirit of the Antichrist man. The resurrection comparison of the Antichrist man will be similar to that of Lazarus, John 11:43-44. When Jesus said "Lazurus come forth" from the grave, it was Lazarus's former body and his spirit. The same will be for the Antichrist man, but it will be for disdain, not for love, that the Antichrist man is resurrected.

Why do you think Jesus chose "Lazarus" in the story of the rich man and Lazarus ? Where was Martha's brother's spirit during those four days he was dead?

In the story of Lazarus on the rich man, they were both in hell, but on opposite sides separated by the great chasm... which I believe is the bottomless pit. If that is correct, that is where Nimrod's disembodied spirit is right now, if he were a Nephilim. When Jesus raised Lazarus, Martha's brother, Lazarus's spirit came out of hell to reunite with his resurrected body (not same as the incorruptible bodies of the glorious resurrection of 1thess4:15-18) that was done to show that Jesus is the resurrection.

So why do you have a big problem with the spirit of the slain Antichrist's man coming out of hell and his body resurrected, if the same happened to Lazarus? And why do you have a problem with one demon possessing a man - when legion was a thousand demons possessing a man?

In your aforementioned statements, you now say that "both" spirits will enbody this same Antichrist. Well, I believe that this is unscriptural. Scripture states that the coming Antichrist will be working behind the power of Satan - not some disembodied "spirit" from the past.

You are twisting what I have been saying. Nephilim were men, but not pure men, they were a hybrid - part human, part fallen angel. Among men who could carry on the pure seed of humans, Noah was the only one left.

After the flood there were still Nephilim, so their DNA, or whatever of the Nephilim gene, had to be passed on either from Noah's sons, or their wives.... or the fallen angels picked up where they left off before the flood. We don't know for certain.

In closing, I have never attacked you - I have attacked, and/or challenged what you have written, after all this is a debate. There is a difference between "demons"; and those who have died in the past - and the difference is that demons don't have physical bodies that will be resurrected. Dead people from the past cannot possess or incarnate people. Demons can possess people, while they are alive - I believe, as you have mentioned that the New Testament gives examples of this occurring.

I have never said that demons are going to be resurrected. Your mistake is that you don't consider who the demons were before they became demons.

I asked you what would be the point in God resurrecting the body of the Antichrist, only for a "dead persons" spirit of the pass to incarnate it - and that it made no sense. You have now responded with saying that it will be "BOTH" spirits in this one body - well, I think that I have made my point in saying that it's unscriptural.

The spirit of the ancient dead person in the bottomless pit, called the beast in Revelation 17:8, suggests that said person was a Nephilim because the pit is where demons and certain fallen angels are imprisoned - which you are not grasping that Nephilims become the demons when they (the Nephilim) dies. Nephilim were men, but not pure men because their DNA, genes, or whatever, was the result of cross breeding of the fallen angels with earth women. There are theories that this was done intentionally by Satan and his angels - to stop God's plan to redeem man from the fall through the seed of the woman by tainting all of mankind such that no pure human would be left.

Doug

[Mr Baldy]

Douggg,

Honestly we have serious theological differences. I believe that you are grasping at straws, as the term Nephilim is a man made term, and not even mentioned in the Bible. Therefore anything that is supported by the theory of them being the off spring of fallen angels is totally ridiculous, and yet another "hocus pocus" fairy tale type theory in my opinion. There is not one shred of evidence (from Scripture that is), that will support the fact that Angels took on bodies to have sex with mortal women. And I don't care if they were fallen angels - it's a theory. Furthermore, if that were the case, we would have evidence of that even today. Half man half angel - go figure. Sounds like mythological nonsense to me.

I don't believe in Nephilim - therefore this debate is fruitless.

[Douggg]

Douggg,

Honestly we have serious theological differences. I believe that you are grasping at straws, as the term Nephilim is a man made term, and not even mentioned in the Bible. Therefore anything that is supported by the theory of them being the off spring of fallen angels is totally ridiculous, and yet another "hocus pocus" fairy tale type theory in my opinion. There is not one shred of evidence (from Scripture that is), that will support the fact that Angels took on bodies to have sex with mortal women. And I don't care if they were fallen angels - it's a theory. Furthermore, if that were the case, we would have evidence of that even today. Half man half angel - go figure. Sounds like mythological nonsense to me.

I don't believe in Nephilim - therefore this debate is fruitless.

Was Goliath a fairy tale? He was a giant who had 6 fingers. Is that ordinary? Or perhaps he was genetically different?

Who do you think were the giants in the land of Cannaan which that first children of Israel refused to go into the land to possess it?

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

The word for giants - 05303 // lypn // n@phiyl // nef-eel' // or
// lpn // n@phil // nef-eel' // or (plural)
// Mylpn // meant.... 1) giants, the Nephilim

btw, you did not answer why your Antichrist interpretation - the False Prophet - does not stand before God to be judged (and in a resurrected body) and Nimrod (assuming that he is the beast person in the bottomless pit) does have to.

Doug