Pope and Anti-Christ

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 hours ago, John81 said:

Thank you for the explanation. At the moment I don't see it as such but I will look into this idea more closely and see where it leads.

Brother John,

I certainly appreciate your willingness to consider the matter more closely.  I would simply add that my change in position began with this foundational question -- Does the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream or the prophecy of Daniel's vision at all indicate that the fourth great kingdom will have some break in its existence between its beginning and its destruction at the Second Coming of Christ?

(Note: If anyone is able to show that this is indicated, I would certainly request a presentation of the Biblical evidence.)

Edited February 20, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[John81]

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother John,

I certainly appreciate your willingness to consider the matter more closely.  I would simply add that my change in position began with this foundational question -- Does the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream or the prophecy of Daniel's vision at all indicate that the fourth great kingdom will have some break in its existence between its beginning and its destruction at the Second Coming of Christ?

(Note: If anyone is able to show that this is indicated, I would certainly request a presentation of the Biblical evidence.)

Thank you for this clear reference point. I will use this as a starting point and see where it leads.

[Alan]

54 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the "ten kings" (as represented by the ten toes of the image and the ten horns of the fourth beast) are actually a part of the fourth great kingdom, not a part of a fifth kingdom that will overthrow the fourth great kingdom.

2.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the fourth great kingdom will be overthrown, not by some other kingdom of mankind, but by the kingdom of God that will come down of heaven.

Thus the "10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Romans Empire" would not appear at all to be a fulfillment of these prophetic utterances.

Furthermore, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth specifically is holding back the power of iniquity.  From my understanding of God's Holy Word, I would contend that the ONLY power that is capable of holding back the forces of iniquity in this world is the divine power of the triune Godhead.  Thus the One who withholdeth would be an individual member of the Godhead, or One who is directly empowered by the Godhead.  So then, with all due respect to the early believers of the 2nd and 3rd century, the government of the Roman Empire would not all appear to be a legitimate candidate for this position.  In addition, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth is presented in the singular as a single individual, not as government full of individuals, or as a succession of individuals.

 

Amen and amen! The secular history already taken place "the 10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Roman Empire," that some suppose if the fulfillment of Daniel's forth kingdom is in error and that fulfillment will take place during the 7 Year Tribulation Period.

[Invicta]

18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

1.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the "ten kings" (as represented by the ten toes of the image and the ten horns of the fourth beast) are actually a part of the fourth great kingdom, not a part of a fifth kingdom that will overthrow the fourth great kingdom.

2.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the fourth great kingdom will be overthrown, not by some other kingdom of mankind, but by the kingdom of God that will come down of heaven.

Thus the "10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Romans Empire" would not appear at all to be a fulfillment of these prophetic utterances.

Furthermore, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth specifically is holding back the power of iniquity.  From my understanding of God's Holy Word, I would contend that the ONLY power that is capable of holding back the forces of iniquity in this world is the divine power of the triune Godhead.  Thus the One who withholdeth would be an individual member of the Godhead, or One who is directly empowered by the Godhead.  So then, with all due respect to the early believers of the 2nd and 3rd century, the government of the Roman Empire would not at all appear to be a legitimate candidate for this position.  In addition, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth is presented in the singular as a single individual, not as a government full of individuals, or as a succession of individuals.

Finally, throughout the New Testament "the man of sin," the "antichrist," is also presented as a singular individual, not as a succession of individuals.  Therefore, the succession of the popes would not appear at all to be a fulfillment for this position.

Indeed, I shall continue to contend that the Roman Catholic Church, along with its succession of popish leadership, is the continuing extension of the Roman Empire in its "iron-mixed-with-clay" form, but not the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the singular "man of sin" that is to be revealed after the One who withholdeth is "taken out of the way."

Brother Scott.

Good explanation

But the Papacy was still working in the background, gradually advancing his claims.and when the empire was removed he used forged documents such as the Donation of Constantine, and the false Decretals of Peter to build their empire,  The first was supposed to show that Constantine donated his empire to the pope.  The second purported to say that Peter named the popes as his successor.  

They early church indeed thought that the man of sin would be an individual who would follow on the removal of the empire but would rule for a short period and then would be the "end of all things" (Tertullian).  But they could not see the great apostacy, or falling away which would last for centuries.  The Roman Church is the greatest falling away or apostacy of all time.However if you look at Daniel 2:38  Nebuchsdnezzar it told that he is the head of gold, but head also included Belshazzar and others.  It was in fact a dynasty or kingdom.  The others were mentioned as Kingdoms, including the last, the Roman.  As the Roman empire was to continue till the image fell, it must have a head at present and I maintain that that head is the papacy, and while he may have less power now, probably the clay part, in the past he had more power than any of the emperors did claiming all power ove secular and spritual life. He claimed fi kingdom included earth, hell and heaven/   The emperors allowed worship of whatever god w anybody wished as long as they were willing to pour our a drink offering to Caesar, which Polycarp refused to do. If we turn to chapter 7:6 wesee that that beast, the Greeks, had four heads representing the four generals that succeeded Alexander, we come across them again in 8:8 where they are four horns.  These were four dynasties which lasted for various  lengths of time.  The last of these was the Egyptian dynasty and the last of the Pharaohs was Cleopatra who was defeated by Augustus, then the Roman dynasty was fully established.  

If these kings or kingdoms were all dynasties, there is no reason why the last manifestation of the kingdom should not be.  As you say the  image doesn't have a break or fall, so it must have a head, and |I maintain that head is the papacy.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Invicta

[Pastor Scott Markle]

3 minutes ago, Invicta said:

If these kings or kingdoms were all dynasties, there is no reason why the last manifestation of the kingdom should not be.  As you say the  image doesn't fall, so it must have a head, and |I maintain that head is the papacy.

Brother David,

I am in full agreement that the papacy is the "dynasty" succession of "kingly" leadership over the "iron-mixed-with-clay" form of the Roman Empire.  On the other hand, I would NOT agree that this succession of popish leadership would fulfill the New Testament prophecies concerning the "man [singular] of sin" (who is commonly called the "antichrist").  I would contend that this singular "man of sin" ("antichrist") is yet to come, and that he will proceed forth as a "prince" (political leader in some fashion) out of the continuation of the Roman Empire, that I contend is the Roman Catholic Church governmental authority. 

Now, I recognize that I would apply a number of prophetic passage concerning this "man of sin" unto an individual future leader, but that you would apply them unto the present succession of the papacy.  I also recognize that I would view the "prince that shall come" of Daniel 9:26 and the "he" of Daniel 9:27 unto this same "man of sin," but that you would not.

[Invicta]

3 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

I am in full agreement that the papacy is the "dynasty" succession of "kingly" leadership over the "iron-mixed-with-clay" form of the Roman Empire.  On the other hand, I would NOT agree that this succession of popish leadership would fulfill the New Testament prophecies concerning the "man [singular] of sin" (who is commonly called the "antichrist").  I would contend that this singular "man of sin" ("antichrist") is yet to come, and that he will proceed forth as a "prince" (political leader in some fashion) out of the continuation of the Roman Empire, that I contend is the Roman Catholic Church governmental authority. 

Now, I recognize that I would apply a number of prophetic passage concerning this "man of sin" unto an individual future leader, but that you would apply them unto the present succession of the papacy.  I also recognize that I would view the "prince that shall come" of Daniel 9:26 and the "he" of Daniel 9:27 unto this same "man of sin," but that you would not.

Brother Scott.  Thanks for your reply.  I understand your view but I don't agree with it.  I intend to post more on Daniel 7 later, but I am now an old man and as I think I said earlier, I have not been at all well for the last two of three weeks so if I get around to it it may be a while..Things are taking me longer to do.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Brother Scott.  Thanks for your reply.  I understand your view but I don't agree with it.  I intend to post more on Daniel 7 later, but I am now an old man and as I think I said earlier, I have not been at all well for the last two of three weeks so if I get around to it it may be a while..Things are taking me longer to do.

Brother David,

The conversation thus far has been cordial, and I appreciate it.  As far as your health, I will be praying for the Lord's grace to be upon you, that you might be restored to better health.  As far as the comments on Daniel 7, I will look forward to them (although I certainly cannot promise that I will not have disagreement with some of it, even as you have mentioned some disagreement with what I have presented).

[John81]

New Hampshire: State Representative Reportedly Says 'Pope Is the Anti-Christ'

 

Rep. Susan DeLemus reportedly responded to a comment on her Facebook page about Pope Francis' remarks towards Donald Trump, saying, "The Pope is the anti-Christ. Do your research."

[Invicta]

Ian Paisly heckled the pope in the European parliament, calling him Antichrist.  He was beaten and thrown out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlbmIMbKZa4