|
|
Post by Gary on Aug 11, 2017 12:20:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Aug 11, 2017 20:57:40 GMT -6
Thanks for posting a thread, Gary!
|
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Aug 12, 2017 0:47:15 GMT -6
I love the irony of our mighty warrior King also being called a little lamb--that was slain! And yet is all-powerful!
|
|
|
|
Post by sesquipedalian on Aug 12, 2017 12:00:40 GMT -6
Mulling this article over today, a thought occurred to me: what if the Beast of Revelation is actually Mohammed? I thought the article raised an interesting point with another interpretation of the resurrected beast, but the name Nimrod doesn't register as particularly historically significant to those living today. However, the name Mohammed certainly does. This would also fit precisely with the Mark of the Beast representing Allah: Fascinating, jimla! Do you have any illustration you can show us so we can picture how it looks?   And it would be ironically fitting for the world to be deceived into thinking that Christian eschatology is Muslim eschatology. Plus, the desecration of the temple would fit into the general theme of the Muslims claiming the Temple Mount. The only thing that doesn't fit is the identification of the Beast as one who "was, and is not" because at the time John was writing Revelation, Mohammed hadn't yet arrived on the scene. (I wonder if Mohammed could be the seventh king mentioned in that passage.) |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 12, 2017 13:02:59 GMT -6
Mulling this article over today, a thought occurred to me: what if the Beast of Revelation is actually Mohammed? I thought the article raised an interesting point with another interpretation of the resurrected beast, but the name Nimrod doesn't register as particularly historically significant to those living today. However, the name Mohammed certainly does. This would also fit precisely with the Mark of the Beast representing Allah: And it would be ironically fitting for the world to be deceived into thinking that Christian eschatology is Muslim eschatology. Plus, the desecration of the temple would fit into the general theme of the Muslims claiming the Temple Mount. The only thing that doesn't fit is the identification of the Beast as one who "was, and is not" because at the time John was writing Revelation, Mohammed hadn't yet arrived on the scene. (I wonder if Mohammed could be the seventh king mentioned in that passage.) One thing about that theory...the picture of how 666 is written comes from an 18th century manuscript, and is written how modern Greek looks. In John's day ot was written differently. He would have written it looking like "XlC" with a line above it IIRC. Here's the pic:  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 16:22:35 GMT -6
Mulling this article over today, a thought occurred to me: what if the Beast of Revelation is actually Mohammed? I thought the article raised an interesting point with another interpretation of the resurrected beast, but the name Nimrod doesn't register as particularly historically significant to those living today. However, the name Mohammed certainly does. This would also fit precisely with the Mark of the Beast representing Allah: And it would be ironically fitting for the world to be deceived into thinking that Christian eschatology is Muslim eschatology. Plus, the desecration of the temple would fit into the general theme of the Muslims claiming the Temple Mount. The only thing that doesn't fit is the identification of the Beast as one who "was, and is not" because at the time John was writing Revelation, Mohammed hadn't yet arrived on the scene. (I wonder if Mohammed could be the seventh king mentioned in that passage.) One thing about that theory...the picture of how 666 is written comes from an 18th century manuscript, and is written how modern Greek looks. In John's day ot was written differently. He would have written it looking like "XlC" with a line above it IIRC. Here's the pic: No all copies may not have been fateful to the origin greek text when numbers are re-written many years later with Roman Numbers not understanding the important of seeing the number in greek form. I was a doubter at first, I was not convinced until I checking using another source. translate.google.com to prove it to yourself Translate English "Six" to Greek you will see symbols similar to allah. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Aug 12, 2017 17:15:19 GMT -6
One thing about that theory...the picture of how 666 is written comes from an 18th century manuscript, and is written how modern Greek looks. In John's day ot was written differently. He would have written it looking like "XlC" with a line above it IIRC. Here's the pic: No all copies may not have been fateful to the origin greek text when numbers are re-written many years later with Roman Numbers not understanding the important of seeing the number in greek form. I was a doubter at first, I was not convinced until I checking using another source. translate.google.com to prove it to yourself Translate English "Six" to Greek you will see symbols similar to allah. Actually the picture you posted doesn't look anything like what Allah looks like in modern Arabic. Where's the chi ("X")? The manuscript I posted above says 616, my bad. This is what 666 looks lij     The closest thing is the middle character, but you have to show where all three are being used. Bottom line is that we won't be here to see if Walid Shoebat is right or not on this theory; it's possible, but who is using this now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 17:39:36 GMT -6
I will not take the the Mark of Beast (Allah) at any cost, or teach others that it is not one of the marks of the Beast.
There has many clues, Allah claims the title of the great deceiver.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 18:05:21 GMT -6
From Wounded Warriors: The Lamb Above, And The Beast Below
"Whoa. Let's revisit some ground covered earlier. Recall that the Beast is said to have been killed by the sword, but by the power of the Dragon, he comes to life again (Rev. 13:2-4, 14). Upon further investigation, the Beast is no ordinary man who is currently alive today (as of the date that this article is posted!). On the contrary, this ruler who rises in the future and thaumazoes the whole world is the stuff of legend and lore."
I believe the Beast is the Islamic Caliphate; it was killed by the sword during World War I.
"After the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Constantinople and Treaty of Versailles (1919), the position of the Ottomans was uncertain. The movement to protect or restore the Ottomans gained force after the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) which imposed the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and gave Greece a powerful position in Anatolia, to the distress of the Turks. They called for help and the movement was the result. The movement had collapsed by late 1922.
On 3 March 1924, the first President of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of Atatürk's Reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the caliphate. Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the parliament of the newly formed Turkish Republic. The title was then claimed by Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca of Hejaz, leader of the Arab Revolt, but his kingdom was defeated and annexed by ibn Saud in 1925.
A summit was convened at Cairo in 1926 to discuss the revival of the Caliphate, but most Muslim countries did not participate and no action was taken to implement the summit's resolutions."
A man named Erdoğan which the name contains all the letters of Dragon came to power in Turkey.
As Turkey’s president he held a Constitutional Referendum vote on Easter Sunday 2017 to bring back the powers of a Caliphate, so it comes to life again. Sad day for me seeing evil efforts being fulfilled on Easter Sunday.
|
|
