The first horseman of the Apocalypse

[Zao is life]

The first horseman is absolutely the antichrist, the counterfeit Christ.

He has a bow, and wears just one crown.

Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

Jesus on the white horse has many crowns, not just one, and He uses a sword, not a bow.

That's in Revelation 19

In Revelation 14:14 Jesus is crowned with only one crown - a stéphanos (crown of honor). In this passage His appearance is in the form of the Son of man (Whom, as we know, has been given a name above all names),

but in Revelation 19:19 He is crowned with MANY diádēma. In this passage He is returning as King of (all) kings and Lord of (all) Lords (see Revelation 19:16).

The antichrist comes before Jesus but the gospel is still going out when the Antichrist appears. The language is apocalyptic. They are not real horses. They are describing events.

 

[Zao is life]

It's not a matter of my opinions, or what words I use to express them. I look at what the Bible itself teaches, and the words God used.

In this case . . . you are saying, this one who goes out conquering, and to conquer, that this means the Gospel going forth. So I ask . . . Does the Bible in fact speak that way?

I know you speak that way. You seem suprised I don't. But does God speak that way? I don't know where.



Not playing at all. I don't really do that.

Much love!

Are the horses real horses, do you think?

 

[marks]

Are the horses real horses, do you think?

Changing the subject are we?

 

[marks]

In Revelation 14:14 Jesus is crowned with only one crown - a stéphanos (crown of honor). In this passage His appearance is in the form of the Son of man (Whom, as we know, has been given a name above all names),

Rather, the victor's wreath.

 

[Zao is life]

Rather, the victor's wreath.

It's an honor, is it not?

You're starting to grasp at straws when you start arguing over semantics.

 

[marks]

It's an honor, is it not?

You're starting to grasp at straws when you start arguing over semantics.

The point is, I'm going to continue with the Biblical language, and the actual meanings of the words, and yes, you bring in a good reminder. This formally deteriorated to arguments over the meanings of words, which is where it becomes unprofitable.

So, we should shelve this for now.

If you want to say I'm tucking tail and running, feel free, I couldn't care less. I just call 'em as I see 'em, let the chips land where they may.

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

The point is, I'm going to continue with the Biblical language, and the actual meanings of the words, and yes, you bring in a good reminder. This formally deteriorated to arguments over the meanings of words, which is where it becomes unprofitable.

So, we should shelve this for now.

If you want to say I'm tucking tail and running, feel free, I couldn't care less. I just call 'em as I see 'em, let the chips land where they may.

Much love!

It's fine. You're upset because I'm not agreeing with your arguments about this or your logic producing those arguments. I get it.

I needed to go myself already, but I stayed to be polite to you.

 

[marks]

It's fine. You're upset because I'm not agreeing with your arguments about this or your logic producing those arguments. I get it.

I needed to go myself already, but I stayed to be polite to you.

I'm not upset. But this isn't moving in a good direction, so I'm bowing out. No need to manufacture some kind of emotional drama.

Have a terrific weekend!

Much love!

 

[marks]

All four horsemen show conditions hostile to man.

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

Changing the subject are we?

No, but it's quite obvious you think they are real horses with real riders. You're obviously forgetting that it's apocalyptic language symbolizing events. The Antichrist (or the beast) will probably be the power that causes the events symbolized by the red horse. But it's not a real horse, so the rider isn't riding a symbolic horse. It won't carry him. But since it's apocalyptic language and it symbolizes the events, we only need to understand the power behind those events.

Are you saying it's Christ taking peace from the earth?

 

[Curtis]

That's in Revelation 19

In Revelation 14:14 Jesus is crowned with only one crown - a stéphanos (crown of honor). In this passage His appearance is in the form of the Son of man (Whom, as we know, has been given a name above all names),

but in Revelation 19:19 He is crowned with MANY diádēma. In this passage He is returning as King of (all) kings and Lord of (all) Lords (see Revelation 19:16).

The antichrist comes before Jesus but the gospel is still going out when the Antichrist appears. The language is apocalyptic. They are not real horses. They are describing events.

Revelation 14 is irrelevant.

In revelation 14 He’s riding on a cloud, not on the white horse.

In comparing the accounts of someone riding a white horse, the first rider has one crown and a bow.

The second rider has many crowns and a sword and His identity is clearly stated as being Jesus

Two different riders.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not upset. But this isn't moving in a good direction, so I'm bowing out. No need to manufacture some kind of emotional drama.

Have a terrific weekend!

Much love!

You too. Have a good weekend. "Emotional drama"? It existed in your olwn head only, (news to me), so I'm glad you've decided to abandon manufacturing the emotional drama.

 

[marks]

No, but it's quite obvious you think they are real horses with real riders.

It was a vision.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You too. Have a good weekend. "Emotional drama"? It existed in your olwn head only, (news to me), so I'm glad you've decided to abandon manufacturing the emotional drama.

I'm sorry, you were the one spinning out a tale of how I'm getting all upset.

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 14 is irrelevant.

In revelation 14 He’s riding on a cloud, not on the white horse.

In comparing the accounts of someone riding a white horse, the first rider has one crown and a bow.

The second rider has many crowns and a sword and His identity is clearly stated as being Jesus

Two different riders.

The "second rider" has no crown/s. If you're comparing the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19 with the rider of the horse in the first seal, then you're making a mistake, because the rider of the white horse in the 1st seal is the gospel, not Christ Himself, though He is the power behind it, whereas the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19 is clearly speaking of Christ Himself returning Himself.

 

[marks]

It's fine. You're upset because

Ad hominem, turning the argument away from the topic, and to the person.

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

Ad hominem, turning the argument away from the topic, and to the person.

Much love!

Good night marks. Enjoy the weekend. That's not said from anger or hostility. Go now. You've been trying to get away for the last half hour and as you said, we're stuck in this conversation. It's obvious we don't and won't agree.

 

[Curtis]

The "second rider" has no crown/s. If you're comparing the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19 with the rider of the horse in the first seal, then you're making a mistake, because the rider of the white horse in the 1st seal is the gospel, not Christ Himself, though He is the power behind it, whereas the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19 is clearly speaking of Christ Himself returning Himself.

Thats absolutely bogus.

The gospel was going forth long before the tribulation and seals of judgment being opened

David Guzik agrees with me:

Behold, a white horse: Some - perhaps they take their interpretive clues more from cowboy movies than from the Bible - believe the rider on the white horse is Jesus. Jesus does return on a white horse in Rev 19:11-16. But this is a satanic dictator who imitates Jesus.

i. He rules (a crown was given); he rules with a bow, not a sword; and he exercises dominion over the earth (went out conquering and to conquer). But the results of his rule, as described in the following verses, show this is not the reign of Jesus.

ii. “The whole context and character of these seals absolutely forbid our thinking of this rider being the Lord Jesus, as so many affirm. His reign shall not bring war, famine, and strife in its train.” (Jennings)

iii. Here we reach an interpretive crossroads of the Book of Revelation. You can tell much about how a person understands this book and God’s prophetic plan by seeing how they understand this first rider. Those who think Revelation is mostly a book of history believe that this rider is Jesus, the apostles, or the Roman emperors. Those who believe that this is a prophetic passage, yet to be fulfilled, often account this rider to be the antichrist.

d. He went out conquering and to conquer: This final satanic dictator over men will be the more terrible than all previous dictators were. He will rule over men as a false Messiah, and lead man in organized rebellion against God, in the pattern of Nimrod, his first predecessor. He is the one often called the antichrist.

 

[marks]

There is another aspect to the conversation . . . when are/were the seals opened? Have they been opened? If so, when?

And should we expect to see consistency within these four horsemen? Do they have common purpose? Rather, are they sent by God with a common purpose for each?

Much love!

 

[marks]

iii. Here we reach an interpretive crossroads of the Book of Revelation. You can tell much about how a person understands this book and God’s prophetic plan by seeing how they understand this first rider. Those who think Revelation is mostly a book of history believe that this rider is Jesus, the apostles, or the Roman emperors. Those who believe that this is a prophetic passage, yet to be fulfilled, often account this rider to be the antichrist.

I find this to be very true in many cases. That how someone sees a certain aspect of Scripture will as often as not depend on how they view other parts. And how freely they are willing to "reinterpret" words outside of their normal use and meaning.

Much love!