The Coming Great Apostasy

[brakelite]

Yes, your line of thinking is typical of the "religious" method of analytical study, by your fleshly mind.

It is merely a comparaison of scripture with history. This is prophecy we are talking about. There is no need for some super spiritual wisdom in understanding prophecy. Just a knowledge od history and a correct understanding of the symbols, all of which are given to us in the scripture itself. Not that difficult.

Questions:
Where at any time is it stated that the rising "little horn" was OF THE 10 horns?

No where, Where did I claim it was? The scripture itself says, and after them came up another little horn...Daniel 7:8. Daniel was considering the ten horns, when he saw the eleventh, coming up among them.

Is it not true, that when Antiochus Epiphanes was rising to power, in the latter time of the 3rd Beast (Grecian Empire), the 4th beast (Roman Empire) was in it's beginning stages of formation?

So? The little horn grew out of the head of the 4th beast in Daniel 7...and out of one of the four winds in Daniel 8. In Daniel 7 the little horn refers to a power, a Roman power, because it grew from a Roman head, that developed after the appearance of the ten horns.

IOWS, while the 4th beast with 10 horns was rising,

The fourth beast in the prophetic picture may have had ten horns attached when Daniel saw it, but that doesn't mean the ten horns were already in existence at the beast's birth and rising. That makes no sense when considering that God is consistently applying natural phenomena to prophetic sybols...no beast in nature has horns grown and developed at birth. They rise later, and as history attests, those ten horns which grew out of the Roman head came up after Roman power began to fall away...and the little horn, Roman as were the other ten, came up after, but while they still ruled. The little horn in fact overcame 3 of them.

so also was the "little horn" of the 3rd beast rising among them.

You err. The third beast, Greece, had no horns but one...Alexander the Great....the first king. Greece then divided into four...depicted not as horns, but as heads. And none of those four heads, had horns. They were Ptolemy, Seluecis, Cassander and Lysimachus. Antiochus was a bsy little no-body perhaps with aspirations of greatness, but failed to meet any of the specifics of the prophecies thus must be dismissed as any candidate for being the Antichrist that rose in the latter time of the Roman empire (little horn Daniel 7) and endured to the second coming.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I think you are correct is that conclusion, however, the very fact that Judas was trying to implement this revealed his selfish motives...he, like several of the other disciples, wanted a "Place" in the kingdom, as did the Pharisees and everyone else who longed for Messiah to rout the Romans and establish Israel as an independent empire. Judas may not have been the only one (zealots eg) who thought this way, but was the only one who from a position of privilege and light, acted on those selfish impulses. "Self" was not dead. A lesson for us today. So many of us claim to have faith and a relationship with Christ, but if we are living for self, we are no better off than Judas.

It is thought that Judas and his father may have been members of the Sicarii and that their name "Iscariot" was a pseudonym derived from the group's name (Sicarii meant "dagger men"). They were a group of assassins who the Roman-Jewish historian, Josephus, said began their activities around 50 B.C. They were a splinter group off of the main Zealot groups. While the Zealots made a point of attacking the Romans, the Sicarii concentrated their murderous actions on Jews who cooperated with the Romans. They were known for slipping into the crowd in close proximity to the target--performing a disemboweling of the target (certain death in those days), and then, in order to deflect any accusations, slipping back into the crowd while expressing outrage and dismay to the Roman authorities when they showed up.

 

[Phoneman777]

Nope!
How about some factual evidence about how Antiochus Epiphanes fell short of his desire to exceed being great?
1 Mac. 6[8] Now when the king heard these words, he was astonished and sore moved: whereupon he laid him down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not befallen him as he looked for.

Hello? Just open a history book. Everybody's heard of Cyrus and Darius and Alexander the Great, but NOBODY'S heard of Antiochus the Chump except Jesuit Preterists who want him so badly to be the Little Horn.

The reason why you won't investigate Protestant Historicism is because you rather circle the intellectual wagons around your ideas rather than allow them to stand the test of scrutiny against other ideas. I've got no time for such cowardice, so believe what you want, and thank you for sharing.

 

[farouk]

It is thought that Judas and his father may have been members of the Sicarii and that their name "Iscariot" was a pseudonym derived from the group's name (Sicarii meant "dagger men"). They were a group of assassins who the Roman-Jewish historian, Josephus, said began their activities around 50 B.C. They were a splinter group off of the main Zealot groups. While the Zealots made a point of attacking the Romans, the Sicarii concentrated their murderous actions on Jews who cooperated with the Romans. They were known for slipping into the crowd in close proximity to the target--performing a disemboweling of the target (certain death in those days), and then, in order to deflect any accusations, slipping back into the crowd while expressing outrage and dismay to the Roman authorities when they showed up.

Ouch...

 

[farouk]

Do we know that Judas did work miracles of faith? There is nothing in the NT text that says that. Jesus, at one point, accuses His disciples of having faith smaller than a mustard seed when they cannot cast an evil spirit out of a boy. A betrayal does not necessarily involve "turning against" someone. We can betray our spouse with the casting of lustful eyes on another--but that does not mean that we are ready to divorce that spouse (a real turning against). Someone could merely PRETEND to be a friend to someone and then betray that "friend" as you have pointed out. I think John 6:64 is likely the final word on it. It frankly says that Jesus knew who did not believe and who would betray Him.

This is why miracles in and of themselves are no sure guide to sound doctrine.

 

[farouk]

I say, choose a respectable version that is comfortable to you and STAY with that!!
I for one, got into too much of the many versions, and finally got disgusted with it all, and went back to the KJV. I have been fine ever since. When you seek God with your whole being, the Holy Spirit in you, will not allow you to get lost.

I do love the KJV.

 

[Earburner]

It is merely a comparaison of scripture with history. This is prophecy we are talking about. There is no need for some super spiritual wisdom in understanding prophecy. Just a knowledge od history and a correct understanding of the symbols, all of which are given to us in the scripture itself. Not that difficult.

No where, Where did I claim it was? The scripture itself says, and after them came up another little horn...Daniel 7:8. Daniel was considering the ten horns, when he saw the eleventh, coming up among them.

So? The little horn grew out of the head of the 4th beast in Daniel 7...and out of one of the four winds in Daniel 8. In Daniel 7 the little horn refers to a power, a Roman power, because it grew from a Roman head, that developed after the appearance of the ten horns.

The fourth beast in the prophetic picture may have had ten horns attached when Daniel saw it, but that doesn't mean the ten horns were already in existence at the beast's birth and rising. That makes no sense when considering that God is consistently applying natural phenomena to prophetic sybols...no beast in nature has horns grown and developed at birth. They rise later, and as history attests, those ten horns which grew out of the Roman head came up after Roman power began to fall away...and the little horn, Roman as were the other ten, came up after, but while they still ruled. The little horn in fact overcame 3 of them.
You err. The third beast, Greece, had no horns but one...Alexander the Great....the first king. Greece then divided into four...depicted not as horns, but as heads. And none of those four heads, had horns. They were Ptolemy, Seluecis, Cassander and Lysimachus. Antiochus was a bsy little no-body perhaps with aspirations of greatness, but failed to meet any of the specifics of the prophecies thus must be dismissed as any candidate for being the Antichrist that rose in the latter time of the Roman empire (little horn Daniel 7) and endured to the second coming.

Don't mix the vision with the angel's interpretation! DON'T!!
Now, I am short for time at the moment, so I will only show the verse to read, with one clue. "The mighty and holy people" was Israel AT THAT TIME!
Dan. 8[19] And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.
[20] The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
[21] And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
[22] Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
[23] And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
[24] And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
The 4 horns were the "Four Generals" of Alex the Great. They were a continuation of the 3rd Beast, being also known as the "Hellenistic Kingdoms".
The little horn, A. Epiphanes rose out of the Seleucid Empire, which was one of the four.

 

[Earburner]

I do love the KJV.

Amen!!

 

[CoreIssue]

The Bible version issue would have been a NON-ISSUE if Westcott & Hort (and their cronies) had simply been honest and done their jobs with Christian integrity. They were unmasked and exposed in The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, as well as many other books and publications.

What is disappointing and amazing is that even after their hoax was exposed, later translators and scholars refused to give up their lies, and introduced their errors into all the modern versions.

The issue of lack of integrity and honesty false on the King James Version Only crowd.

 

[farouk]

The issue of lack of integrity and honesty false on the King James Version Only crowd.

I don't like KJVO. I like the KJV. (There is a difference...)

 

[Earburner]

Hello? Just open a history book. Everybody's heard of Cyrus and Darius and Alexander the Great, but NOBODY'S heard of Antiochus the Chump except Jesuit Preterists who want him so badly to be the Little Horn.

The reason why you won't investigate Protestant Historicism is because you rather circle the intellectual wagons around your ideas rather than allow them to stand the test of scrutiny against other ideas. I've got no time for such cowardice, so believe what you want, and thank you for sharing.

Cowardice?? I can go the distance on this topic and prove you and all as being upside down.
Yes, the Truth does cause one to run when they discover that their pet "religious" doctrines are being shattered to pieces. Are you brave enough to stay and find out?

 

[CoreIssue]

I don't like KJVO. I like the KJV. (There is a difference...)

Indded there is.

 

[Earburner]

It is merely a comparaison of scripture with history. This is prophecy we are talking about. There is no need for some super spiritual wisdom in understanding prophecy. Just a knowledge od history and a correct understanding of the symbols, all of which are given to us in the scripture itself. Not that difficult.

No where, Where did I claim it was? The scripture itself says, and after them came up another little horn...Daniel 7:8. Daniel was considering the ten horns, when he saw the eleventh, coming up among them.

So? The little horn grew out of the head of the 4th beast in Daniel 7...and out of one of the four winds in Daniel 8. In Daniel 7 the little horn refers to a power, a Roman power, because it grew from a Roman head, that developed after the appearance of the ten horns.

The fourth beast in the prophetic picture may have had ten horns attached when Daniel saw it, but that doesn't mean the ten horns were already in existence at the beast's birth and rising. That makes no sense when considering that God is consistently applying natural phenomena to prophetic sybols...no beast in nature has horns grown and developed at birth. They rise later, and as history attests, those ten horns which grew out of the Roman head came up after Roman power began to fall away...and the little horn, Roman as were the other ten, came up after, but while they still ruled. The little horn in fact overcame 3 of them.
You err. The third beast, Greece, had no horns but one...Alexander the Great....the first king. Greece then divided into four...depicted not as horns, but as heads. And none of those four heads, had horns. They were Ptolemy, Seluecis, Cassander and Lysimachus. Antiochus was a bsy little no-body perhaps with aspirations of greatness, but failed to meet any of the specifics of the prophecies thus must be dismissed as any candidate for being the Antichrist that rose in the latter time of the Roman empire (little horn Daniel 7) and endured to the second coming.

Yes! It is difficult, if one does NOT have the Spirit of God. All of such, are "none of His"- Rom. 8:9, and are attempting to learn and TEACH what they learn, BY their "OWN understanding" .-Prov. 3:5
.
Brakelite, it is apparent that you are serious about understanding the Lord's thoughts about His OWN words- Isa. 55:8-9.
.
Now, if you can discern the following (KJV only), you will be well able, through His Holy Spirit- John 16:13, to unravel the MESS, that ALL of the "religious butchers" of "church-ianity" have done to the Prophecies in Daniel. Here it is:
The words of Daniel himself, are His own words describing his visions. Please digest that.
.
However, the words of Gabriel, are God's words, INTERPRETING the vision.
.
Now do you perceive what I am saying?
Do you comprehend the difference?
DO NOT confuse those two aspects of the book of Daniel!! The vision and the interpretation should be read SEPARATELY, and the vision should only be a reference. It's the interpretation ONLY, that we should compare to history.
.
Unfortunately, down through the ages, all of the churches have not approached the book of Daniel correctly. That's why there are so many misconstrued doctrines about it.

 

[Earburner]

The sad situation is that almost all Christians are in a state of "double jeopardy", as was I.
.
Not only must you learn HIS Truth, you will have fight off and LET GO all of the misinformation that the "religious", scholarly learned have taught you.
.
Consider these words of the Lord in Zech. 4
[68 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might (2428), nor by power (3581), but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
IOWs, we are to learn:
NOT by the force of human mental strength,
NOT by religious authority of persuasion.
But, we are to learn BY HIS SPIRIT. Isa. 55:8-9; John 16:13.
Therefore, throw out ALL of your religiously persuaded commentaries, and any other "religiously ordained" authored books, and trust the Lord only for HIS understanding of HIS OWN words.

 

[bbyrd009]

Some have said that Judas loved Jesus but loved mammon more and thought by putting Jesus in a compromised position, His and Israel's presumed ascension to greatness would have been hastened. In the end, he demonstrated himself as one who had resisted the grace of Christ to the point that he'd gone to far and ruined himself beyond redemption.

Imo he did that when he committed suicide, but he did confess first anyway...so imo to make the symbology hold he had to die, after resisting grace, but as closet Mithraists we misinterpret that's to mean that he is now in the lake of fire rather than just dead?

Bc let us not forget that most Christians want and even have confidence that Jesus will literally "return" and wear that literal crown someday, do we not? And yes I'm aware of the arguments "for" ok, but I suggest they are specious, and they are "Judas."

 

[Earburner]

Imo he did that when he committed suicide, but he did confess first anyway...so imo to make the symbology hold he had to die, after resisting grace, but as closet Mithraists we misinterpret that's to mean that he is now in the lake of fire rather than just dead?

Bc let us not forget that most Christians want and even have confidence that Jesus will literally "return" and wear that literal crown someday, do we not? And yes I'm aware of the arguments "for" ok, but I suggest they are specious, and they are "Judas."

Confessing sins IS NOT repentance TORWARDS the Lord.
People confess their "sins" inwardly to themselves, their neighbors, and in courts of civil law every day! Shall we say that all of such are Saved of the Lord?
NO!! Repentance towards the Lord, is to recognize the need to change, by returning to Him , through faith in Jesus!
.
Judas NEVER came to the Lord's form of repentance, otherwise Jesus would have confirmed that, instead of telling us that he IS LOST!

 

[bbyrd009]

I think you are correct is that conclusion, however, the very fact that Judas was trying to implement this revealed his selfish motives...he, like several of the other disciples, wanted a "Place" in the kingdom, as did the Pharisees and everyone else who longed for Messiah to rout the Romans and establish Israel as an independent empire. Judas may not have been the only one (zealots eg) who thought this way, but was the only one who from a position of privilege and light, acted on those selfish impulses. "Self" was not dead. A lesson for us today. So many of us claim to have faith and a relationship with Christ, but if we are living for self, we are no better off than Judas.

which imo can easily be compared to someone trying to get into the kingdom of heaven by "force." And by "kingdom" there I mean Elysian Fields, iow the kingdom is not even understood

 

[Harvest 1874]

I like the KJV and find it the easiest to memorize (probably because of the antiquated language, in addition to having been written in verse form). But, I would never try to use it for studying the dense theological writings of the epistles--particularly the Paulian epistles. I wish someone would do a modern English version of the KJV. I use at least four different translations when I study a passage.

“In the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov 11:14)

I myself use the NKJV for daily reading , but other more reliable translations for serious study.

You might want to take a look at the blog post entitled, "How to Choose a Bible Translation", for more insight on this issue if you have not already.

 

[Earburner]

“In the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov 11:14)

I myself use the NKJV for daily reading , but other more reliable translations for serious study.

You might want to take a look at the blog post entitled, "How to Choose a Bible Translation", for more insight on this issue if you have not already.

I have said this before, for everyone's admonishment:
Years ago, I had an 8 translation NT Bible.
The confusion it brought to me, as a " Born again Christian", nearly ruined my faith and walk in the Lord! I literally tore those pages to pieces, so that no one else could ever read it! It upset me that bad!!
.
I was so upset with it, I recognized the damage that so many translations was doing to me and many others!
STOP!! Do not cross reference with many translations!
.
Do you want an EXAMPLE?
Right here alone, on this site, just look at the controversy, contention and confusion that the MANY bible translations are causing. It's DIVIDING "the brethren", which smacks of the will of satan.

Listen- reading and studying from different Greek Texts, reek havoc and confusion to every topic, of which are VERY connected.
So, if one GT supports a doctrine of what Hell is, and another GT supports a different view of what Hell is, those interpretations influence the many other topics of study, which can lead one down the path of a complete misunderstanding!
Ie- if you stand in the center of a large clock, and your goal is to reach the outer part of that circle to 12 Noon, then on your first step towards 12 Noon, MUST NOT be off in any degree, otherwise you will end up at some point between
10am or 2pm, which WAS NOT your desired goal.

 

[Episkopos]

The apostasy is here already. It is the apostasy concerning the faith OF Jesus Christ. What has replaced this is a belief system concerning things about Jesus....and even a human belief in Jesus for services provided. But NOT people who worship in Spirit and truth. That's what is lacking. We have built a form of godliness (the outward show)...but deny the power that transforms us into Christ-likeness, thus revealing the shallowness and emptiness of our professions. Like clouds with no rain. A hard and rigid dogmatic and religious outer shell that is empty inside. A lamp without oil.