Daniel 11:37, The Future Antichrist Will Be A Jew/Hebrew In Decent

[DeanM]

I see the c

It appears you're having a hard time dealing with the truth of Gods words below

(Little Horn) or Antichrist Of Daniel Will Be A Jew/Hebrew, His Ancestry Worshipped The True Hebrew (God Of His Fathers)

Daniel 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Examples (God Of His Fathers)

2 Kings 21:22KJV
22 And he forsook the Lord God of his fathers, and walked not in the way of the Lord.

2 Chronicles 28:25KJV
25 And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the Lord God of his fathers.

Yes he will come from Israel. Possibly from the yribe of Dan.

 

[Truth7t7]

I see the c

Yes he will come from Israel. Possibly from the yribe of Dan.

My guess will be Judah, because Judaism is looking for the lineage of King David for their future Messiah, AKA The Antichrist?

 

[DeanM]

My guess will be Judah, because Judaism is looking for the lineage of King David for their future Messiah, AKA The Antichrist?

I was thinking og Gen. 49:17.

 

[Truth7t7]

I understand deflection when I see it. I've answered several questions and not one person will answer my one simple question.

Why Do You Run From The Simple Question?

Direct Question: Do you believe in a literal place of torment upon death for the wicked "Hell"?

 

[crossnote]

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 8 ¶ Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. (Jud 1:6, 9)

On this Michael/Jesus thing, would anyone like to volunteer who Jude is referring to (in red), Michael or Jesus?...

 

[posthuman]

Why Do You Run From The Simple Question?

because y'all have badgered and attacked her for a couple days, so she's basically had it up to here and doesn't think you're doing anything but laying a trap with your question so you can call her a heretic. put yourself in her position


((and i do the same dang thing, i even do it to you -- i'm a lot meaner to people than i ought to be, go a lot further than i need to, and get all high and mighty when i'm sure i'm right and someone else is off the rails -- we're supposed to be gentle and loving. i'm personally convicted about my own failures in that and trying really hard to walk in the light on things like this))

 

[Mem]

This points to the antichrist.

This points to Amon who was not the antichrist. There were worse kings in Judah.

This points to Ahaz, a wicked king but not even a type of the antichrist.

Why not use someone like Nimrod? A true globalist...

I believe Nimrod the Gentile makes a better type of the AC than your theory it is a Jew.

I agree, especially since there is a conspicuous absence of the title "Lord" in Daniel 11:37 compared to 2Kings 21:22 and 2Chronicles 28:25.

There a gay prime minister within the EU that has acquire nine 'crowns' so far.

 

[posthuman]

My guess will be Judah, because Judaism is looking for the lineage of King David for their future Messiah, AKA The Antichrist?

that's a fair guess

what about Dan - the tribe idolatry entered through?
or Benjamin, who defended the sons of Belial?

 

[GodMyFortress]

because y'all have badgered and attacked her for a couple days, so she's basically had it up to here and doesn't think you're doing anything but laying a trap with your question so you can call her a heretic. put yourself in her position


((and i do the same dang thing, i even do it to you -- i'm a lot meaner to people than i ought to be, go a lot further than i need to, and get all high and mighty when i'm sure i'm right and someone else is off the rails -- we're supposed to be gentle and loving. i'm personally convicted about my own failures in that and trying really hard to walk in the light on things like this))

If you believe in the Nicene Creed, then you understand why what she is saying about God is blasphemy. God does not need to take the form of an angel to accomplish anything. If he took the form of an Angel, then the Nicene creed is false because that would mean the their we four persons instead of three.

 

[posthuman]

If you believe in the Nicene Creed, then you understand why what she is saying about God is blasphemy. God does not need to take the form of an angel to accomplish anything. If he took the form of an Angel, then the Nicene creed is false because that would mean the their we four persons instead of three.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And The Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”​

So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”​

And he said, “Here I am.”​

(Exodus 3:1-4 nkjv)​

​

note that The Angel of the LORD = I AM THAT I AM
Moses sees Him, but "no one has seen the Father"

so who is this, in the burning bush?



it's Christ.




so, before He was born as a man, i do not have any issue with The Son taking the form of an angel ((messenger)).
where i think this issue gets sticky is in places like Jude as @crossnote astutely brought up and in time post-incarnation.
yet even speaking of time, we have to remember that God is outside of time. He's not bound by it in the way that we are, neither are His thoughts restricted in time as ours are. time is one of the pillars of creation - it's a created thing, it's a basic stochastic part of the physical universe. so i have to concede that if Christ has appeared as The Angel of the LORD in the past there's nothing preventing Him from revealing Himself in this way again. it's not as though He has 'changed' by taking on the form of a man.

in that sense i don't think things like Exodus 3 ((or some interpretations of certain parts of Revelation)) are contrary to the Nicene creed -- where i am not really thinking i totally agree with Mmse. Orphaned is that Michael is necessarily Christ just because he takes the role of Christ -- Crossnote points out a conundrum for that view, and where i'm at on this interpretation right now ((and it's a really interesting one, IMO)) is that Michael acts as a type, which doesn't make him equal to Christ, but an amazing picture of Christ.

 

[posthuman]

that whole conversation is kind of a subset of the conversation we'd need to have if we asked basic questions like,
'how many angels were deceived but Satan vs. how many are fallen? is it the same number? were any angels deceived by Satan but not fallen? is there salvation and redemption for angels?'

 

[crossnote]

Hebrews 1:5-7 ESV
[5] For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? [6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." [7] Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."

Say what one will, there just isn’t a one to one correspondence between Jesus and the ArchAngel Michael.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And The Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”​

So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”​

And he said, “Here I am.”​

(Exodus 3:1-4 nkjv)​

​

note that The Angel of the LORD = I AM THAT I AM
Moses sees Him, but "no one has seen the Father"

so who is this, in the burning bush?



it's Christ.




so, before He was born as a man, i do not have any issue with The Son taking the form of an angel ((messenger)).
where i think this issue gets sticky is in places like Jude as @crossnote astutely brought up and in time post-incarnation.
yet even speaking of time, we have to remember that God is outside of time. He's not bound by it in the way that we are, neither are His thoughts restricted in time as ours are. time is one of the pillars of creation - it's a created thing, it's a basic stochastic part of the physical universe. so i have to concede that if Christ has appeared as The Angel of the LORD in the past there's nothing preventing Him from revealing Himself in this way again. it's not as though He has 'changed' by taking on the form of a man.

in that sense i don't think things like Exodus 3 ((or some interpretations of certain parts of Revelation)) are contrary to the Nicene creed -- where i am not really thinking i totally agree with Mmse. Orphaned is that Michael is necessarily Christ just because he takes the role of Christ -- Crossnote points out a conundrum for that view, and where i'm at on this interpretation right now ((and it's a really interesting one, IMO)) is that Michael acts as a type, which doesn't make him equal to Christ, but an amazing picture of Christ.

It’s really simple man, the Nicene Creed cannot be true if an Angel is also God. I believe in the Nicene Creed, but you’ve entered into being a non-Trinitarian with that belief you are entertaining. I just want to make sure you understand that.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Tell me then,
And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
(Rev 13:1-2)

[...]
How is he like a leopard, bear, and lion? (These are usual significations of ruling nations).

Right.

Daniel 7:2-7 -

--[four great beasts came up from the sea--v.3]

--"The first was like a lion" v.4

--"second, like to a bear" v.5

--"another, like a leopard" v.6


--[and behold a fourth beast--v.7--diverse from all the others]








[... note also Daniel 2:35[45]'s wording (about the "stone was cut without hands" (v.34) that "smote the IMAGE" [i.e. the STATUE of the dream]), "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together..." (that's far-future... at END of the [7] trib yrs)]

 

[crossnote]

Right.

Daniel 7:2-7 -

--[four great beasts came up from the sea--v.3]

--"The first was like a lion" v.4

--"second, like to a bear" v.5

--"another, like a leopard" v.6


--[and behold a fourth beast--v.7--diverse from all the others]








[... note also Daniel 2:35[45]'s wording (about the "stone was cut without hands" (v.34) that "smote the IMAGE" [i.e. the STATUE of the dream]), "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together..." (that's far-future... at END of the [7] trib yrs)]

So the AC in Rev 13 looks like a blend of what went before.

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
(Rev 13:1-2)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So the AC in Rev 13 looks like a blend of what went before.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I understand it.




[and the phrase "the TIMES of the Gentiles" Lk21:24 [comp. Rev11:2] (which started in 606/605bc--think: Neb's dream/statue/image... with Neb as "head of gold") refers to "Gentile domination over Israel" (... which is DISTINCT from the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles BE COME IN [G1525]")]

 

[crossnote]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I understand it.

Hardly Jewish. lol

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Hardly Jewish. lol

Right.

That's what I had tried to also explain in my Post #2045 (pg 103) of a different thread, on May 2 (where the thread had been heading in the direction of [some] saying he will definitely be "Jewish"):

https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4547026




Yup. (I disagree with the idea that he will definitely be "Jewish" )

 

[Rondonmon]

Don’t forget the character attack, and the bearing false witness when all else fails to take the focus off them

Hes not honest in his debate, when he says he's been had he hits the DISAGREE BUTTON and runs and hides.

The attacks don't bother me, it just proves a guy has lost in a debate. I have like 30 rounds in a boxing match on him and hes punch dunk, so he runs and hides. No one on here can reply to me where I can't reply in-depth and give a counterpoint, but then again, I don't have all these ideas that are way off the beaten path. He even believes he's right on the Rapture, of course, he's not, the noble is clear, but it was DARBY you know, LOL.

 

[Rondonmon]

I believe that there are many places in the old testament where Christ appeared in the form of "The Angel of the LORD" and interacted with people.

I can put some examples and discuss them if need be.

They are in fact proofs that He is God

No, he always appeared as something other than an Angel. The Man in Linen with two Angels in Daniel 12. Hes the Rock the Jews followed in the Desert according to Paul, he's the Rock that is cut from the Mountain that is cast into the Statue in Dan. 2. He is spoken of as SALVATION (which in Hebrew is Yeshua) in the Old Testament.