- This topic has 649 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
@t8,
Jeremiah 3:8New International Version (NIV)
8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.
Secularists are not faithful.
Colossians 3:5New International Version (NIV)
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
Why do you think Paul claimed greed was a form of idolatry?
Daniel 11:37New International Version (NIV)
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.
He sounds like a Secularist.
Good point if that is all that scripture said, but the proceeding verses actually look more like Islam.
37 “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.
38 “But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know;- no regard for the desire of woman
- honour a god of fortresses whom his fathers did not know
Islam is known for its treatment of women and strong warring culture.
You have to ask yourself why he would exalt himself above every God. Perhaps that is because as the text says, that the dragon gave the beast his authority and Satan wants to exalt himself above even the Most High.
Lastly, before you ask your next question consider what the text you quoted and its surrounding context is saying.
- He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers
- nor will he show regard for any other god
- instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know
Is this saying or implying he is a secularist? No it is not. It is simply saying that he has no regard for his culture’s pantheon, nor any other god of that time, instead he honours a god that they did not know, i.e., a new god.
The text does not say that he does not honour any god full stop.
Look at Mohammed. He preached a new god or a new version of God. He did not honour the previous gods and he certainly did not honour YHWH or any of the other gods such as Krishna from other nations. No, he honoured a new god, a new version of God. This god is a god of fortresses, god of forces, or a god of strength.
We see in scripture that Satan is the power of the air. He is the ruler of the darkness of this world and we know that Jesus came to destroy the works of this god. To bring down this god’s strongholds.
Realise that Mohammed was an antichrist. He ultimately started a religion that denies that God has a son. To date there are over 1.5 billion adherents who many worship this god 5 times a day. Further, his religion turned the area of the seven churches into a Muslim empire.
And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast;
and what is the whole earth? Is it not the same wording that was spoken of about Babylon and Rome. e.g., Rome would “devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it”, and Babylon “destroys the whole earth”.
In other words it is that known world of that time, not China, not the USA, and not a secular nation or region of the west.
@t8,
38 “But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know;
Fortresses are defense works not for offense.
I know of no god of fortresses so it sounds more symbolic.
Allah is an Arab word meaning “the God”. It was used by certain pagan Arabs to speak of a creator God. The pagans were polytheists and there is no evidence Allah they worshiped was a God of Fortresses.
Arabic Christians also worship Allah. They call him Allah the Father to differentiate him from Allah of the Muslims. It did not bother Abraham to call God God even though pagans called their high God God as well. Scripture does not tell of Abraham debating theology with those that were in error. (Wikipedia article on Allah)
Elah, a name of God used in Scripture is etymologically related to Allah. It is Aramaic. It is found in Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah. (Wikipedia article on Names of God in Judaism)
Translating Scripture in Arabic will cause any use of “the God” to be translated as Allah.
There is no evidence Allah is a god of fortresses.
@T8,
The book of Jubilees claims Arabs are decedents of Ismael and Muhammad agreed. Sounds more like heretics than pagans.
Source: Wikipedia article on Ismael and another on Muhammad.
I looked up that word fortresses (matsuwd ) and it can mean fortress, hold, snare, strong hold, castle.
e.g., The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
If you look at this page, David uses fortress alongside stronghold, so it must have a different but similar meaning.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=fortress&qs_version=NIVHowever, the word used in this word is ma`owz which means strength, strong, fortress, hold, forces, fort, rock, strengthen. It has more of a emphasis on the word strong or strength than the word ‘matsuwd’ does.
Hence in my post, I said a strong god and ‘strong warring culture’.
This same verse in the KJV and Webster’s Bible Translation says God of forces, while the Young’s Literal Translation says god of strongholds. I like the latter as it describes Satan’s works that Jesus came to destroy. Remember that the Antichrist is of the Beast or the Beast and the Beast was given the dragons seat and authority, and we know that Satan is the dragon. We are told a number of times that we can bring down the enemy’s strongholds.
Further, Paul uses the word ‘fortresses/strongholds’ in the New Testament, which he uses metaphorically to describe the spiritual battle before us:
2 Corinthians 10:3-4, NASB
Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses2 Corinthians 10:3-4, NIV
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.Here is a snippet from Pulpit Commentary on this verse:
Verse 38. – But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stores, and pleasant things. As we have said above, the last clause of the preceding verse according to the LXX. really belongs to this, “Strong nations shall be subject to him,” reading לְאמִּים עְזִּים instead of לֶךאלהּ מָעֻזִים. There is ה in the Massoretic, where י has been in the reading followed by the Septuagint. After this clause the Septuagint proceeds, “And to his place he shall move, and a god whom his fathers knew not he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones.” It is possible that נדד (nadad),” to flee or move,” was read instead of כבד (kabad),” to honour;” for though κινέω is usually active and transitive, there is no object here. Theodotion has, “And the God of Maozeim he shall honour in his place, and a god whom his father knew not he shall honour with gold, silver, and precious stones, and with offerings.” The Peshitta rendering is freer, “The mighty god he shall honour in his possession, and a god whom his fathers have not known shall he honour with gold and with silver, with precious gems and desirable things.” The Vulgate adopts the transliteration Maozim. In his estate shall he honour the god of forces.
In short kerwin, Islam is a stronghold.
The book of Jubilees claims Arabs are decedents of Ismael and Muhammad agreed.
Genesis 16:12
…The angel of the LORD said to her further, “Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction. “He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.@t8,
Then it seems you are not saying Allah is literally a god of fortresses?
Given that is correct the verse is not evidence to prove your case the Anti Christ is not a secularist.
@t8,
In short kerwin, Islam is a stronghold.
Wouldn’t any ” set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” would fit that definition.
Note: quote is a definition of religion minus the “especially” statement as dictionary.com
Islam has no theology of a any man of the past or future claiming himself to be a god, this would be blasphemy
Islam does not such things as a priesthood or pope there is never the idea of God in the flesh or on earth this is a Christian notion or even perhaps a hindu notion
bod, you cannot defend a lie with another lie.
The Trinity, Vatican, etc is as much a lie as saying that God has no son.
It should not be Christian to say that God became a man, as the scriptures say that the Word became flesh.
However, there is much false doctrine in the name of ‘Christian’, but it is Jesus Christ who is the truth. Christianity contains many interpretations of Jesus teachings, but the standard of truth itself is Jesus Christ not Christianity . There are many false traditions out there, and I prefer to stick to scripture as that is teh source of the written truth. It is not in the traditions or traditional view of men that represents truth.
People say all kinds of things about Jesus, but it is best to believe what Jesus said about himself and what he commended when others spoke about him.
Matthew 16: 13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God”.
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.” Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
I know that much of traditional Christianity and Islam have problems with the above. Islam denies that God has a son, and Trinitarians deny it subtly by saying that Jesus is God, thus the logical conclusion is that he is son of himself which is no son at all.
Is there anything you disagree with in the above verses (in red)?
Wouldn’t any ” set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” would fit that definition.
Note: quote is a definition of religion minus the “especially” statement as dictionary.com
I wouldn’t say that all were strong though. Not all sets of beliefs are like a castle and not all challenges to beliefs is like sieging a castle. Islam is 1.7 billion strong. It has political power and armies ready to fight for it’s advancement.
Then it seems you are not saying Allah is literally a god of fortresses?
I don’t know where you get that idea. It is written that way in scripture. Some translations say forces, some say fortress, others say stronghold. Try to imagine what is being conveyed here. Whatever word you take, it doesn’t rule out Islam. It could be considered a mighty fort, it uses force for advancement, it definitely a stronghold.
Given that is correct the verse is not evidence to prove your case the Anti Christ is not a secularist.
It also isn’t proof that he isn’t a Martian.
If you want to say that he is a secularist, then you need proof because it is not written. You need to show at least some inference and you have failed to do that because it turns out that he does honour a god, it just wasn’t a god that his father’s or anyone else at the time honoured.
@t8,
Aine is the Irish goddess of love. Love is he sphere of influence.
Allah is not in a like manner a god of fortresses or even forces. His domain is all things just like Yawheh.
That is literal.
So it follows you claiming Allah is a god of force/fortresses in a figurative sense.
@t8,
Daniel 11:38 is vague but the words “ but will exalt himself above them all” from verse 37 makes it sounds like he exalts himself above all gods. That includes Allah and any other literal god you care to name.
So it seems that even the “god” part in verse 38 is figurative unless he honors with mouth but his heart is far from him. I instead believe he honor the “god of fortresses/strongholds” with his heart whatever his mouth may say. He is his own god according to the words “but will exalt himself above them all”. Perhaps he is a god of fortresses.
@t8,
Genesis 16:12
…The angel of the LORD said to her further, “Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction. “He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.The book of Jubilees agrees with those verses but adds more to them. It points that in the 2 century BC there were Jews that believed Arabs were Ishmaelites. Muhammed would no arrive on the scene in the 6th Century AD, 8 centuries later with the same claim. In short the evidence points out that Islam branched of the one true faith just like Judaism did later. Islam, a corrupted version of the truth, though continues to borrow from the true faith and possible other corrupted versions.
Hi t8.
I have not been following this conversation so forgive me if I make any assumptions..
I would like to quote from http://www.arabicbible.com/for-christians/missions.html
Islam is one of the fastest growing religions on earth with 1 billion followers, yet ministry among Muslims is by far the most neglected mission field. Some reports claim that as little as one percent of the world missionary force is working among them. Over 80 percent of all Muslims have never heard the Gospel. As compelling and heartbreaking as these statistics are, we have a greater mandate: Jesus said to go to all peoples… One fifth of the world is still waiting.The Christian church has never seriously attempted to reach the hundreds of millions who are Muslims. The great missionary Samuel Zwemer stated, “One might suppose that the church thought the Great Commission did not apply to Muslims.”This is easily demonstrated by looking at some statistics concerning missions. Only one percent of the church’s entire missionary force is ministering to Muslims. This means that there is about one Christian missionary for every one million Muslims.
Sad statistics. However, Jesus is reaching out to Muslims through dreams and visions.
I think that to believe God is love… and to love our neighbor as yourself…. we can not judge our neighbor wherever they are in the world as being part of an evil “beast” simply because they were born into a religion. Therefore, calling the beast “Islam” does not seem rational, because any good person is judged in the second resurrection and given either eternal life or eternal death according to their deeds, in scripture.
I have seen Christians who believe Islam itself is the beast turn bitter toward Muslims in general.
What led you to think it a possibility Islam is the beast of Revelation? Was it because Christians were being beheaded? Did you not also consider Muslims themselves, and those of minority groups were also being beheaded? And that is by ISIS, not Islam. Most Muslims condemn what ISIS is doing.
————
It seems more fitting to me, that a strong nation and group such as NATO fits the picture of the beast more so.
Apparently, the beast has 28 parts to it.
And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.
1 Beast
10 horns
seven heads
ten diadems
= 28.NATO has 28 parts to it.
http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/
Along with NATO… Technology also fits the picture.
Ancient Hebrew has 6 as a “W”. 666 can equal WWW.
From Hebrew for Christians:
The sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called “Vav” and has the sound of “v” as in “vine.”
Note: In ancient Hebrew, “Vav” may have been pronounced “w” and is sometimes translitereated as “w”And from Wikipedia:
Waw (wāw, also vau or vav) is the sixth letter of the Northwest Semitic family of scripts, including Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic (“sixth” in abjadi order; it is 27th in modern Arabic order).
In Arabic and thus in most Semitic languages it represents the sound [w], though in some, such as Modern Hebrew, and the Indo-European Persian language, it represents [v] instead.So, considering a possible link to WWW (technology), who is more likely to use technology to the advantage of deceiving the whole world but the 28 part world power NATO.
To all……we need to be careful because assumptions can get us into trouble. If we are going to talk about the beast that came up out of the sea, we need to establish what the word sea is referring to, is it the sea of humanty, or sumething else like the league of nations . I blieve once i read the Sir Issac Newton thought it to represent the sea of humanity. Also consider the dragon was on the sand which is by the sea, it appears he himself does not come out of the sea itself, perhaps at this time he is still being contained in the bottomless pit, or perhaps he has just been released and is using his power to cause to come forth this beast from the sea of humainity.
Just speculating on my part, but it could work out that way, all of this could take place at the very end of the thousand year reign of JESUS AND THE SAINTS ON THIS EARTH. Just pryer to the comming of God the Father to execute his judgement in the earth when he brings fire down from heaven and devours the armies of gog and magog which have assembled and come against the Saints and Jesus at Jerusalem, and then he sets up the second resurection and that judgement. Just befoe he makes all thing new again. IMO
Again i am just speculating don’t really know.
Peace and love to you all…………………….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
