The Image Of The Beast Is......

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

whirlwind

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,286
31
0
78
An understanding was opened to me this morning. I have questioned what the "image" of end times is that we are warned against. What is the image of Daniel in our lives for we know we won't be asked to bow to a literal statue of gold, brass, etc. It is answered in Jeremiah.Jeremiah 51:17 Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
"No breath in them," meaning....the Holy Spirit is not in those that worship the image or that construct that image of deception! For, the image of the beast is....FALSEHOOD! That is the "great image" of Daniel. The image of the king of Babylon is DECEPTION, LIES, FALSEHOOD.
Revelation 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 worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.​
Note the distinction in those that were deceived into taking the mark and those that actually worshiped his image...worshiped his lies, his falsehood. Those worshipers are written of in....
11 Thessalonians 2:10-12 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​
51:18 They are vanity, the work of errors; in the time of their visitation they shall perish.51:19 The Portion of Jacob is not like them; for he is the Former of all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the LORD of hosts is His name.
What "portion of Jacob?" The elect of Israel, the man child...those from the first age that stood against the rebellion of Satan and will again stand. The man child (-ren) are the rod of his inheritance.
Revelation 2:26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of My Father.​
Why is the man child, the very elect, of end times given the "rod of his inheritance?" Because of what God uses them for....​
51:20-23 "Thou art My battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms; And with thee will I break in pieces the horse and his rider; and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his rider; With thee also will I break in pieces man and woman; and with thee will I break in pieces old and young; and with thee will I break in pieces the young man and the maid; I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.
Ten times the words "with thee" are written. The "portion of Jacob," being used are the chosen from the ten lost tribes of the house of Israel....CHRISTIANS. Their testimony, which is how they are used in this spiritual war, will "break in pieces" the false shepherd and his flock of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing, break in pieces the false husbandman, the pretender and his oxen, which are his workers of iniquity. He will use the man child to break in pieces the horse and his rider of Revelation 6....the fake christ pretending to be Jesus.​
They/we are His weapons of war!
 

josiahdefender

New Member
May 19, 2009
23
0
0
Whirlwind: Im sorry that youve interpreted the texts in Jeremiah that way. Its not that God will not use us as his soldiers and his Kings to exercise authority in the earth. But the Jeremiah text cannot be used to substantiate that view, therefore the other connecting texts do not harmonize with the Jeremiah text either. Reading the context Jer 51:20 "You are my hammer and weapon of war: with you I break nations in pieces; with you I destroy kingdoms; Jer 51:21 with you I break in pieces the horse and his rider; with you I break in pieces the chariot and the charioteer; Jer 51:22 with you I break in pieces man and woman; with you I break in pieces the old man and the youth; with you I break in pieces the young man and the young woman; Jer 51:23 with you I break in pieces the shepherd and his flock; with you I break in pieces the farmer and his team; with you I break in pieces governors and commanders. ESVThe context is speaking of Nebuchanezer the King of Babylon, some commentators suggest the Medes and Persians or Cyrus the great. The reason is because the verbs are future tense and not past. The context serving as a prophecy that the Medes will be God's destroyer of the "destroyer of nations" which was Babylon. But in either case the hammer is not the Christians. Just as a friendly suggestion, connecting phraseology to interpret scripture is partly useful. But you must grasp the historical aspect as well. In this way you will not be calling Christian's the "hammer of God" which contextually is speaking of a Pagan Nation destroying another pagan nation. The metaphors and the typologies do not match in your exegesis of the text. Josiahdefender
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
There is nothing new under the sun anothers Words many things that happened before will happen again have you ever heard of Types?If we follow the Bible as simply all history............Then how are we to ever understand much of anything ... For example Sacrafice of the OT was only a type for our one true sacrafice to come ...Christ ...So while I havent fully studied Whirlwinds Post to decide if I agree not I dont agree with the line of thought you have used to disagree with it.