Check out some similar questions!

mary79 · Aug 9, 2009, 07:49 PM

Can anyone point me to the verse and/or verses in the bible that says there will be a peace treaty with Israel right before the antichrist rises. I remember studying it and even read the verse. It's been so long. Supposedly the peace treaty with Israel is the sign that the antichrist is rising. I believe it was in the old testament. But heard it's in the new as well.

Wondergirl · Aug 9, 2009, 08:00 PM

You probably are thinking of Rev. 13:5-7 --

Prophecy Truths -- Proof for an End-times 7 Year Period

arcura · Aug 9, 2009, 11:04 PM

Wondergirl,
Thanks much for posting that.
It is very interesting.
I will need to do some studying about it when I have time.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

galveston · Aug 11, 2009, 01:55 PM

Also here. Read the context too.

Dan 9:27
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(KJV)

arcura · Aug 11, 2009, 09:59 PM

galveston,
Thanks for posting that.
Fred

mary79 · Aug 16, 2009, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by arcura

Wondergirl,
Thanks much for posting that.
It is very interesting.
I will need to do some studying about it when I have time.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Your welcome

arcura · Aug 16, 2009, 10:45 PM

Mary7,
Thanks.
Fred

HeadStrongBoy · Feb 7, 2011, 11:06 PM

Quoting mary79:

before the antichrist rises.

The study of the end times is quite complex. And there are many interpretations available. But I have learned one thing that may be helpful. 1 John 4:3 says:"And this is that [spirit] of antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world."

The preceding quote indicates that antichrist is a spirit, not a man. Further evidence that he is a spirit is that only a spirit being can remain alive for about 2000 years. No man can live that long. The above verse says that he was already in the world at the time that John wrote the verse. And if he is alive in our time, he must have been alive all that time. No human could do that. The antichrist is none other than Satan.

dwashbur · Feb 7, 2011, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy

Quoting mary79:

The study of the end times is quite complex. And there are many interpretations available. But I have learned one thing that may be helpful. 1 John 4:3 says:"And this is that [spirit] of antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world."

The preceding quote indicates that antichrist is a spirit, not a man. Further evidence that he is a spirit is that only a spirit being can remain alive for about 2000 years. No man can live that long. The above verse says that he was already in the world at the time that John wrote the verse. And if he is alive in our time, he must have been alive all that time. No human could do that. The antichrist is none other than Satan.

It's even more complex than that. 1 John 2:18 says there are many antichrists. Putting this with your verse, it would seem that "antichrist" is not a person, but an attitude or condition of heart. I would agree that it's driven by Satan, but it seems to be a mindset that lives in anyone who opposes Christ. See also 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 7.

Egad, are we almost agreeing on something here?? ;)

classyT · Feb 8, 2011, 06:21 AM

Dave,

The spirit of ANTIchrist IS in the world and has been. But there IS going to be a real man of sin, the son of perdition. A man that is going to cause the whole world to worship him. I know you know this verse but for grins I will post it. Paul speaks of a real MAN.

Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." — 2 Thess. 2:3.
He hasn't been revealed yet, but I believe he is alive and well. I know, I know... you think it was NERO.

galveston · Feb 8, 2011, 09:50 AM

What you say is true; Satan is certainly anti-Christ, and his spirit has been here all along. However, the Satanic conspiracy will culminate in two mortal men.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Satan will not be sent to the Lake of Fire until after the Millennium, and this verse is plainly talking about mortal men. Only men and angels can be put into the Lake of Fire; not an office or spirit.

Hope this helps.

classyT · Feb 8, 2011, 10:50 AM

Galveston,

Well I thought it helped! Thought that was a good point but good luck convincing Headstrong! :)

dwashbur · Feb 8, 2011, 04:36 PM

Part of the problem is terminology. In the popular culture, "Antichrist" has become synonymous with the "beast" in Revelation 13 or the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians. That's unfortunate. I tend to believe the Revelation imagery is symbolic rather than literal, which is to say I don't necessarily see some specific Nicolae-type evildoer taking over the world (everybody knows Brain is going to do that). You're wrong about one thing, Tess; I don't think Paul was referring to Nero, because as I recall Nero was already emperor, or at least in the public eye and a contender for the throne, when Paul was writing, so he was hardly yet-to-be-revealed. I do believe Revelation 13 is talking about Nero, based on the number thing. Who Paul was talking about, I have no idea. It's no wonder Peter said some of Paul's writings were "hard to understand." That's putting it mildly!

classyT · Feb 9, 2011, 06:59 AM

Dave,

I think Peter said some of the things that Paul wrote about were hard to understand because he stuggled with going back to the law. But that is just my opinon, plus Paul rebuked Peter for behaving differently around certain Jews. I think it was a law vs. grace thing. But then you know I'm a radical grace kind of gal. :)

And the reason you don't know who Paul was talking about is because he hasn't been revealed yet. But alas... he will! :)

classyT · Feb 9, 2011, 12:00 PM

P.S. Paul's writings were cake compared to Revelation. But if we compare scripture with scripture it isn't all that out there. Lotsss of what John wrote is confirmed in other books, Paul's writings and the book of Daniel to name a couple.

HeadStrongBoy · Feb 9, 2011, 12:39 PM

classyT:

Lotsss of what John wrote is confirmed in other books,

When I say "compare scripture with scripture" I'm paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 2:13. In case you didn't know.

And further, the purpose of comparing is not to determine how reliable a particular passage is by seeing how many others agree with it. Because if we believe that God Himself wrote every word, then the reliability of every word is certainly not in question.

galveston · Feb 9, 2011, 04:44 PM

John is told in Rev. 4:1 that he will be told of things to come "hereafter". Everything that he was shown had to be after that point in time. He could not be looking back to the birth of Jesus or any other event in his history.
Furthermore, Nero certainly was not cast alive into the Lake of Fire. No one else has been either, so that is still future to us. Yes, I believe that Revelation is given us to reveal things, not to confuse us. What kind of God would give information, call it prophecy, and not intend for us to understand it?

dwashbur · Feb 9, 2011, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by galveston

John is told in Rev. 4:1 that he will be told of things to come "hereafter". Everything that he was shown had to be after that point in time. He could not be looking back to the birth of Jesus or any other event in his history.
Furthermore, Nero certainly was not cast alive into the Lake of Fire. No one else has been either, so that is still future to us. Yes, I believe that Revelation is given us to reveal things, not to confuse us. What kind of God would give information, call it prophecy, and not intend for us to understand it?

That's only the case if the stuff in Revelation is literal. It's not. It's apocalyptic literature, a specific type of literature that was used frequently in NT times for various reasons. One of the big problems in interpreting it is when people look at figurative or metaphorical language and try to interpret it literally. Revelation was never meant to be understood that way. Our job is to try and figure out what the symbols meant to John, and hence what they mean for us.

HeadStrongBoy · Feb 9, 2011, 05:40 PM

galveston:

What kind of God would give information, call it prophecy, and not intend for us to understand it?

That seems like a fair question. And I presume you're implying that the Bible, which is full of prophecy, should therefore be quite straightforward to understand. Maybe so according to your way of thinking. But just a casual reading of many books like Isaiah, or Jeremiah will quickly tell you that God's meaning is anything but simple and straightforward.

HeadStrongBoy · Feb 9, 2011, 05:52 PM

dwashbur:

Our job is to try and figure out what the symbols meant to John, and hence what they mean for us.

The "job" is just a bit different than dwashbur indicates. There are segments in Revelation (and in other metaphorical books) that should be taken literally. One problem is to figure out where metaphorical language is being used, and where it is not.

Further, any meaning that the symbols used in Revelation had for John personally is completely unimportant. John was merely a scribe (or secretary) who wrote excatly what God told him to write. Our real job is to find what the meaning of the symbols is as it relates to every other part of the Bible. That's where God has hidden the clues that reveal the true meaning of all symbols used in the Bible.