Rev 14:12 is addressed to those 1/3 of the nation who will survive Jacob's Trouble (aka the Great Tribulation), addressed to the people described in Zechariah 13:9

"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on My name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is My people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God."

If this is for the Church, was Christ's finished work not enough? Not addressed to the Church, as the Church has gone ahead, fulfilling the prophecy "the first will be last, and the last shall be first".

@eschatologyguy

You have missed the point. The Truth is despised by this generation, just as it was despised 2000 years ago. The people do not wish to see their sins revealed by the mirror of God’s Ten Commandments. Pride will not allow them to admit weakness and be led to the only hope of salvation, “the faith of Jesus”.

Your pre tribulation rapture theology is an interesting theory. Unfortunately, many will be lost as they wait to see the church whisked away before truly dedicating their lives to God.

@WorldSigh That point is not lost to me. But you just did two things: (1) you assume I am in error to the thousands of people in this group, and (2) you set aside the bible's clear depiction on the verse in question (Rev 14:12) as for Israel and not the Gentile Church that I put in front of you. A lot of denominations teach that we are now in the Millennium, that Jesus is already fulfilling the thousand year kingdom prophecy by ruling in our hearts, that Israel is now rejected by God and the Church has now somehow replaced the Church, and Rev 14:12 is really being addressed to their denominational church. The very same Theology as the RCC, if I might add. If we are in the Millennium, why is evil growing? Dr. John MacArthur and his students came from that Theology, but has since adjusted his views in light of better understanding of scripture. I say good for him. But why is he being severely criticised, belittled and condescended upon for this by people of similar views as you? You want open discussions on differing theologies here, then answer these issues here. This was my point in making the suggestion showing a more apt space, where questions and clarifications could be made more openly. Not "sequestering" the discussion as you saw it.

By the way, the pre-Tribulation evacuation of the Church from the coming wrath is "theory" to you because "we are not destined for wrath", Rev 3:10 and other passages that contradict your interpretation would also likely be just theory to you as well. Reformed Theology begs the question: is Theology in the bible in need of reform? Reformed Theology and the RCC have almost identical Eschatology and Israelology, and very similar Ecclesiology.

@eschatologyguy

Eschatologyguy, you and I have already had the so called replacement theology discussion to no avail. If you wish to continue it, fine. However, the point of my initial post on this thread is that people (ALL unsaved people) continue to reject God as they did 2000 years ago, because they do not wish to trust and obey Him. If you wish to make this some sort of debate concerning end time events, that is ok. However, starting such a debate was not my intention. I’m really not certain how you managed to infer that I believe we are presently in the Millennium? I do not believe that.

Again, you employ a clumsy straw man to claim that I belong to some group that is at odds with the teachings of someone named Dr John McArthur? Apparently, I am guilty by association of, in your words: “...severely criticised, belittled and condescended upon for this by people of similar views as you”? Sadly, I have never heard of Dr McArthur, nor do I have the slightest idea of what views he espouses?

I really have no idea what you are talking about in your final paragraph?

“By the way, the pre-Tribulation evacuation of the Church from the coming wrath is "theory" to you because "we are not destined for wrath", Rev 3:10 and other passages that contradict your interpretation would also likely be just theory to you as well. Reformed Theology begs the question: is Theology in the bible in need of reform? Reformed Theology and the RCC have almost identical Eschatology and Israelology, and very similar Ecclesiology.”

I’m not sure what you are charging me with here? Are you trying to infer that I am an adherent of the RCC eschatology simply because, I do not agree with your views? Yet again, this is simply not true and is another straw man from you. I stand with the reformers of the Protestant Reformation:

NICOLAUS VON AMSDORF (1483 - 1565)
“He (the antichrist) will be revealed and come to naught before the last day, so that every man shall comprehend and recognize that the pope is the real, true antichrist and not the vicar of Christ ... Therefore those who consider the pope and his bishops as Christian shepherds and bishops are deeply in error, but even more are those who believe the the Turk (ISLAM) is the antichrist. Because the Turk (ISLAM) rules outside of the church and does not sit in the holy place, nor does he seek to bear the name of Christ, but is an open antagonist of Christ and His church. This does not need to be revealed, but it is clear and evident because he persecutes Christians openly and not as the pope does, secretly under the form of Godliness." (Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Furnemliche und gewisse Zeichen, sig.A2r.,v.)

MARTIN LUTHER (1483 - 1546)
"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." (Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197)

FLACIUS (1570)
"The sixth and last reason for our separation from the pope and his followers be this; By many writings of our church, by the Divinely inspired Word, by prophecies concerning the future and by the special characteristics of the Papacy, it has been profusely and thoroughly proved that the pope with his prelates and clergy is the real true great antichrist, that his kingdom is the real Babylon, a never ceasing fountain and a mother of all abominable idolatry." (Flacius, Etliche Hochwichtige Ursachen und Grunde, warum das siche alle Christen von dem Antichrist ... absondern sollen)

GEORG NIGRINUS (1530 - 1602)
"The Jesuits claim to be sorely offended and have taken my declarations as an insult and blasphemy in branding the Papacy as the antichrist of which Daniel, Paul, Peter, John and even Christ prophesied. But this is as true as it is that Jesus is the Messiah, and I am prepared to show it even by their own definition of the word 'antichrist'." (Translated from "Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung" fol. 6v.)
"This Jesuit further contends that the Papacy cannot be antichrist because the Papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only for 3 1/2 years ... But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of YEAR-DAYS, not literal days ... The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1260 days, 1, 2, 1/2 times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year." (Translated from "Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung" fols.28v. 29r.)

JOHN CALVIN (1509 - 1564)
"Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149)

JOHN KNOX (1505 - 1572)
Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks." (John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65)

THOMAS CRANMER (1489 - 1556)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)

ROGER WILLIAMS (1603 - 1683)
Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition." (The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52)

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH (1689)
"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ." (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith)

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646) "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)

JOHN WESLEY (1703 - 1791) "... In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, p.216)

CHARLES SPURGEON (1834 - 1892)
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."
"Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray." (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome)

REV. J.A. WYLIE (1808 - 1890)
"The same line of proof which establishes that Christ is the promised Messiah, conversely applied, establishes that the Roman system is the predicted Apostacy. In the life of Christ we behold the converse of what the Antichrist must be; and in the prophecy of the Antichrist we are shown the converse of what Christ must be, and was. And when we place the Papacy between the two, and compare it with each, we find, on the one hand, that it is the perfect converse of Christ as seen in his life; and on the other, that it is the perfect image of the Antichrist, as shown in the prophecy of him. We conclude, Demonstration" )therefore, that if Jesus of Nazareth be the Christ, the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist." (J.A.Wylie, Preface to "The Papacy is the Antichrist, A Demonstration" )

@WorldSigh you base your concept on who the antichrist is by what other people in the past said about who he is, but did you consider checking out what the bible says who he is? The bible says he will be an Assyrian (Micah 5:5 and other passages) - a Middle Easterner, yes? Now is the Pope an Assyrian? You give more weight to what these people you quote had said than the specifics the bible is saying about who he is. The bible also says he will not give a darn about what women want or desire (Dan 11:37). Women want to go out alone, get an education, drive a car, vote, etc., it's a big NO for them on these things. And the current Pope is an LGBT proponent and a feminist!

The bible also states that he honors a god of forces - a god of war (Dan 11:38). Does the Pope honor a god of war? Despite RCC's many heretical doctrines and traditions, they still honor the Triune God, still believe in the deity of Christ, and still believe that He came in the flesh, was crucified and died for us, and resurrected after the third day. The bible also says the antichrist will think to change times and laws (Dan 7:25). Who wants to change the calendar? And who wants to change the laws the world over to conform to his laws? What is Islamic calendar and Shari'a law?

Wait, the Pope even shares some of the same beliefs as you! Like you he believes that God is finished with the nation of Israel, and that the church has replaced Israel in all of God's programs. If I were in your shoes, I would give more weight to what the bible is actually saying.

@eschatologyguy

Please, forgive the length of my reply. You have raised many extremely important questions that do not have sound bite sized answers. In all fairness, I felt compelled to be thorough.

Once more, you come against me with ad hominem attacks. I do not agree with your views on eschatology; however, I do not doubt your sincerity or that you base your beliefs upon your heart felt interpretation of the Bible. Why is it that in every interaction, you attempt to impugn my character and motives? Is it not possible that two men who are faithfully endeavouring to understand the Word of God may come to differing conclusions?

I agree with your contention that Islam is an antichrist. This does not mean that the Catholic Church is not the antichrist, since there is more than one. When John penned these words, neither of the political/religious systems: the Catholic Church nor Islam, existed.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” 1John 2:18

I do not base my beliefs on the opinions of men, but on a thus saith the Lord! This does not mean that I dismiss those opinions without examining them, anymore than I dismiss your views without examining them.

“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14

When you quote the Bible in support of your opinion, I go to the passage and examine it in full context. As for the Protestant reformers, there is no doubt in my mind that Martin Luther was a godly man who understood the nature of the Catholic Church better than most. Was his understanding of the Bible perfect? Probably not, however, God placed him in a position that enabled him to see the Papacy for what it was, and indeed still is today.

Concerning Micah 5:5, “And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.”

There is nothing here that indicates Micah is speaking about the antichrist.

You brought up Daniel 11:37: “...he will not give a darn about what women want or desire (Dan 11:37). Women want to go out alone, get an education, drive a car, vote”.

Let’s examine it:

“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” Daniel 11:37

Strong’s gives the definition of desire in this verse as “חֶמְדָּה chemdâh, khem-daw H2531; delight:—desire, goodly, pleasant, precious”. This may be understood as someone desiring women, as in “the love/desire of money is the root of all evil”. It may also be understood as regard for the gods of women, as the NIV translates a little more clearly, here: “He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all”.

Also, read the context with the first and third clauses: “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers”; “nor regard any god”. This verse does not translate as what woman want. Rather, it speaks of the desire for woman and for the gods that women serve. For instance, the love of food may lead to gluttony.

Compare this interpretation of Daniel 11:37 to events in the Catholic Church. In 1139 AD, the Second Lateran Council reaffirmed the edict of Pope Gregory VII by passing the first church wide command forbidding marriage and enforcing priestly celibacy.

In addition, see 1Timothy 4:1-3

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats”.

Concerning the final sentence it is interesting to note that the Second Commandment of the (Catholic) Church forbade the eating of meat other than fish on Fridays as well as for the entirety of Lent.

Finally, let’s look at the last phrase in Daniel 11:37
“...for he shall magnify himself above all.” NIV “...will exalt himself above them all”.

Pope Leo XIII said: “ We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...”

In 1512 Christopher Marcellus said this to Pope Julius II:
“Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth.”

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this:
“But to believe that our Lord God the Pope the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.”

In 1302 Pope Boniface said this in a letter to the Catholic Church:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The Catholic teaching that the infallible Pope is God has not changed as of 2021!

You are right. Daniel 11:38 states that he honors a god of forces. Although, Vatican City has no standing army, other than the Swiss Guard, she is shrewd as a serpent. Through the long history of papal tyranny, it has been the strategy of Rome to have others enforce her will. One example among many is when Bohemia accepted the teachings of the reformer Huss and later his disciple Jerome, both of whom the Pope had commanded to be burned alive at the stake, the Pope did not need to send an army, he merely declared a crusade against Bohemia. A huge army from various nations soon formed and attacked Bohemia. This has been the pattern for papal war and violence for over a thousand years. With the power to dethrone any king in Europe through excommunication, it was always a simple matter for the Pope to have those who opposed his satanic theology silenced. In addition, no one knows how many devout Christians and Jews The Holy Inquisition imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. The Catholic Church has been careful to destroy as many of its records of those horrors as possible. Foxes Book of Martyrs records one case where under the watchful eyes of the priests of The Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order), a nobleman and his wife were forced to watch their children tortured to death with hot irons one at a time. Still refusing to recant their faith, the wife had her breasts cut off and was impaled to death with a red hot iron to her genitals. The nobleman was the last to perish in agony for his faith. His genitals were burned off with hot irons. The woman’s breasts were hung on a wall as a trophy. Yes, the Catholic Church honours the god of forces, she swims in violence in all of its sickening forms! Here is a fun fact: the Jesuits (The Society of Jesus) was formed for the express purpose of destroying the Protestant Reformation. Pope Francis is the first Jesuit to hold the office in the Church’s history...

The Biblical Doctrine of The Godhead:

The three persons of the Godhead have existed throughout eternity. Although, performing different roles they are one, unified in purpose, equal in majesty and power. Therefore Christ proclaimed “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” John 14:9

The Holy See may make a show of declaring Jesus is God; however their doctrines teach otherwise.
By claiming that the Father “generates the Son” and the “Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son” the Catholic Church denies that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in fact God rather they are both somehow byproducts of the Father. By this logic, it would have been necessary for the Father to have existed before both Christ and the Holy Spirit!

The Catholic Doctrine of The Trinity:

1- “The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.
2 - The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
3 - The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations. This is why CCC 240 teaches, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father.”
4 - The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.” [catholic.com]

The Christ that the Catholic Church worships is just another created being as false as the idols of silver and gold to which they bow. They deny the existence of the One true eternal, omnipotent, Son of God.

“He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father”. 1John 2:22-23

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
1John 4:2-3

I definitely agree with you. The Antichrist will “think to change times and laws”. Daniel 7:25
You rightly say that the Muslims have their own calendar and also wish to force Sharia Law upon the world. This is true. It is also true that there have been many different calendars through the ages.
The Babylonian lunisolar calendar which began with 12 months beginning with each crescent moon,
the Hebrew 360 day calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, the Julian calendar named for the leader of Imperial Rome with 365 days divided by 12 months of varying length, and the latest incarnation of western time keeping the Gregorian calendar named after Pope Gregory XIII with 365.25 days necessitating a leap year ever fourth year.

If God has a preferred calendar wouldn’t it be the Hebrew calendar used throughout the Bible from Noah’s flood to the “seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks” prophesying the time of the Messiah’s first coming in Daniel 9:25. The kingdom of Babylon thought to change the biblical calendar more than a thousand years before there was such a thing as a Muslim. Why is there no mention of these time changes to the biblical year? Because God never commanded us to use a 360 year calendar or any other calendar. However, He did very emphatically command us to use a seven day week.

The seven day week was instituted in the very beginning, before there were Jews or Christians or even Muslims.

Genesis 1:5 after God created light:
“And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
Genesis 1:8 after God created land:
“And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
Genesis 1:13 after God created plant life:
“And the evening and the morning were the third day.”
Genesis 1:19 after God created the stars:
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”
Genesis 1:23 after God created sea life and birds:
“And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.”
Genesis 1:31 after God created land animals and Adam and Eve:
“And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
Genesis 2:2-3 God rested:
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The Seventh Day Sabbath is a memorial of God’s creation. It identifies Him as our creator. God both blessed the Seventh Day as time of rest and communion with Him, and He sanctified (to be set apart for a sacred purpose) the Seventh Day. No other day can be substituted for that which God has blessed and sanctified.

The power that would “think to change times and laws”, is the Catholic Church with a Pope at its head who claims to be “God on earth” and have the power

“ It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law.” Psalm 119:126

“Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why Do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957) p. 50

“Question: Have you any other way of proving the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the 1st day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the 7th day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”
Stephen Keenan, Catholic—Doctrinal Catechism 3rd Edition: 174

The Ten Commandments were written in stone by the finger of God Himself! Exodus 31:18

God’s Law cannot be changed! “ You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Hebrews 13:8

They define sin! “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1John 3:4

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Hallow - to make holy)
Exodus 20:8-11

There is only one Commandment that is a Command to “remember”.
Let us never forget who created us, or the Day He gave to us.

“ The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul.” Psalm 19:7

@eschatologyguy If you are breaking the Commandment of God in order to obey the commandment
of a Pope, it seems to me that you are the one who should “give more weight to what the bible is actually saying.”

God bless your search for Truth.

@WorldSigh still does not fit ALL of the biblical criteria that I quoted to you above. Does not wage wars to honor a god of war is a major one. What do you do with that criteria? What do Amillennialists do with the prophecies that have clearly not happened yet?

By the way, you might want to check your English translation. Some of your quotes do not say that in the KJV. The NIV keeps making changes to their translation as the years go by. No longer published by the Christians at Zondervan, who sold it off. Same publishing house that prints the NIV today also published The Satanic Bible a decade or so back.

"It may also be understood as regard for the gods of women"

That is utter nonsense because it doesn't make any sense. Tell me of one culture where the women had a different set of gods than the men. If there were female deities, they were worshipped by both the women and the men. The exact translation is "he shall not regard (or give importance to) the desire of women". Inserting "gods" into the passage, as "the gods of women", is nowhere to be found in the original text.

@eschatologyguy

Daniel 11:38 “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces”.

Strong’s definition of “forces” in Daniel 11:38 - “mâʻuz; from H5810; a fortified place”
The “god of forces” is the god of castles or other fortified places. Have you seen the walls and fortifications of the Papal estate? The god of fortified places is definitely honoured there.
Furthermore, “all civil governments depend on force. Here we have the picture of a religious system doing something that the fathers of Christianity did not do. It depends on force, munitions and arms to forward its ends and maintain its strength. The Papacy would unite with the state and depend on the sword and the fortresses of Caesar instead of the mighty sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.”
The Catholic Church ceased to honour the Creator and proceeded to honour the God of forces.

Your next claim is that I am an “Amillennialist”? I know that you have not apologized or even admitted your mistake in any of your other baseless straw man accusations against me. So, I do not expect anything different this time. For the record, I do not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine of a solely spiritual return of Christ. Also, I definitely believe there are many prophetic events that have not yet occurred. I do believe that we are in the last days, and that most of the final prophecies are nearing fulfillment.

I agree with your assessment of the NIV Bible. It is a biased translation. I merely quoted from it because for that particular verse the translation was slightly clearer than my preferred but still not perfect translation, the King James Version. In any case, the Bible version quoted is apparently irrelevant, since you refuse to accept the original language translations I have posted from the widely respected Strong’s Concordance. I must confess, your insistence on your interpretations being correct simply because you feel they are correct, without any source material that stands up under scrutiny has me stymied.

Regarding your final comment. I will try one last time to help you understand.

“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” Daniel 11:37

There are two possible interpretations of the “desire of women”.

Here is the context supporting the first interpretation: the first clause, refers to “the God of his fathers. The third clause immediately following “desire of women” refers to “any god”, the fourth clause refers to the subject claiming that he himself is God: “he shall magnify himself above all.” Do you see a contextual pattern here? Hint, every phrase is referring to the worship of a god.

Here is the second possible interpretation: Strong’s gives the definition of desire in this verse as “חֶמְדָּה chemdâh, khem-daw H2531; delight:—desire, goodly, pleasant, precious”. This makes the most logical sense as someone desiring women, as in the love/desire of money is the root of all evil; she is the love/desire of my life, etc,. Strong’s alternate definitions inserted into the second phrase and grammatically adjusted would read thusly:
“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the ‘delightfulness’ of women
“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the ‘goodness’ of women”.
“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the pleasantness’ of women”.
“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the preciousness’ of women”.

The ball is in your court, sir.

@WorldSigh

" I do not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine of a solely spiritual return of Christ."

So there has been changes made from what Luther or Calvin taught. That's a good step. More steps are needed. Also, if you do not subscribe to RCC doctrines, it would do well if you stopped quoting "the Catholic's Catholic," Augustine. And I'm sure you are not unaware that Luther and Calvin were heavily influenced by Augustine's writings.

"There are two possible interpretations of the “desire of women”

If you cut the phrase off from the rest of the verse, you possibly could get two interpretations. So don't cut it off. Also, what about the Pope not being an Assyrian? Not thinking to change times and laws? Etc?

The vatican's high walls is irrelevant, as it is the description of the DEITY being worshipped. Or is even that too hard for you to distinguish? The God of the RCC is the same as yours and mine, one God in three Persons, with the Son dying for our sins, being buried, and resurrected on the third day just as written in the scriptures. Its just that the RCC dumped in tons of heresies and human traditions into their mix. And you should consult a Middle Eastern Bible scholar so he can tell you about Middle Eastern idioms that you find in the bible. "Mountain" is an idiom for kingdom or government. Mountains will not bow down to Christ, but kingdoms will. "Fish" and "scales" are idioms for followers. Read Ezek 29:4 now and it will start to make sense. "I will make you fishers of men," Christ said. "Stars" are idioms for angels. "I will ascend above the stars of God," Lucifer said.

And a god of forces IS a god of war. You know, like allah is the god of jihad?

@eschatologyguy

Since, this was posted prior to my farewell address, below I will reply.

“So there has been changes made from what Luther or Calvin taught. That's a good step. More steps are needed.”
Has a childish belief that people following the Light of God out of Papal darkness should have known and accepted ALL truth, as he understands it, instantly? Ok...

Accuses me of being a Papist because I agree with the small amount of Light these godly men were given? Ok...

Arrogantly assumes that I must therefore agree with all of the Catholic dogmas from which they had not yet been freed? Ok...

Accuses me of “Quoting Augustine? No proof or context for this sentence fragment as usual, Ok...

Accuses me of “cutting the phrase off from the rest of the verse”? By carefully examining it in the light of the most accurate and literal translation tool available, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, and placing it in its proper context with the other three phrases? Ok...

Still hasn’t gotten around to reading my absolute proof with supporting Bible verses and quotes from the very lips of the Papacy bragging in its own words about “changing times and laws”? Ok...

Skipped the second half of my discussion concerning the Catholic exultation of the God of forces? Ok...

Does not think subjugating kings, constructing huge fortresses, murdering millions in holy wars, and torturing millions more to death on the rack, with fire, and beheadings for the fortunate ones is honouring the God of forces? You do realize that the God of forces is Satan not Allah, don’t you? I mean, you do know that Allah is fictional and doesn’t actually exist, while Satan is horrifyingly real? Ok...

“God of the RCC is the same as yours and mine”? Admits unity with the Catholic doctrine while accusing me of the same? Ok...

Does not acknowledge what the Catholic Church has repeatedly and openly declared for centuries, that the Pope is their God? You claim that the “God of the RCC is the same as yours”? You must have skipped that part of my posts as well? Ok...

Thinks the Catholic Trinity with its demotion of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to mere created beings is the same as the Godhead of equal and eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yet again, my words are backed up by a link verified post of the the Catholics own catechism from their own mouths. As for your claim, you provide no proof, just your unsubstantiated opinion, as usual? Ok...

Condescendingly advises me to “consult a Middle Eastern Bible scholar so he can tell you about Middle Eastern idioms”? Does not realize that I first learned the meaning of the biblical symbols, “mountain”, “fish”, and “stars” around 40 years ago? Ok...

Speaking of symbols, don’t forget that a woman in prophecy symbolizes a church.
“I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.” Jeremiah 6:2
“Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.” Revelation 21:9
You may want to reexamine the prophesy of Daniel 11:37 with this in mind?

Reiterates his thoroughly debunked Jesuit doctrine that the antichrist is a fictional Muslim moon god? I guess Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were already booked? Ok...

It looks like you didn’t bother to read much that I posted? Ok...

Well, its been entertaining watching your Jesuitical all attack, no defence, pretzel logic, one sided trolling strategy. It’s a shame you didn’t expend as much energy finding cogent sources to support your theories, as you did accusing me of invented “heresies”. It was your word choice that revealed your true allegiance.

“... the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.”

Please, feel free to message me privately when you realize the pre tribulation rapture didn’t whisk you and the rest of the “saints” away prior to the time of trouble. With the speed at which the world is spinning out of control, the truth should hit you soon.

Remember, God did not carry Noah and company away to heaven during the mighty storm that destroyed all other life on earth, but the hand of the Lord was upon them keeping them safe from the crashing tempest. He did not give Daniel a way of escape from the lion’s den, but His angel was there with him to shut the lion’s mouth. God did not keep Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, from the fire. They needed to pass through it as a witness to convert the stubborn heart of King Nebuchadnezzar. But, there was a fourth man in the heart of the fiery furnace. The King of the Universe was there with them making certain that the flames would do them no harm.

I see you and bare you no ill will. God willing, I will be here when you are ready to talk.

You will be in my prayers.

@WorldSigh As I said, if you have made changes from what was originally taught by most denominations that came out of the Reformation, then good for you. And that's supposed to be childish?

But if you have made changes from established Augustinian doctrines, , then why do you quote known Replacement Theologists and Amillennialists in answer to scripture I quoted. What did you expect me to think?

What does the bible say the spirit of the antichrist is? You seem to have missed this one as well. It is to deny the Father and the Son (1John 2:22). Tell me, does the Pope deny the Sonship of Christ? Will the Pope be upholding a ceasefire treaty "with many" (not just Israel) for seven years? Because if its a peace treaty, why limit it to 7 years? Only ONE entity practices this "limited time offer" ceasefire treaty, and they call it "Hudna". But no, you will answer back, 1John 2:22 does not really say that, or you'll just ignore it.

Tell you what, if the Pope declares the Trinity is wrong, then I'll submit that you're right. But as it is, he doesn't fit the bill.

@eschatologyguy

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Matthew 7:15-16

After considering your various passionate anti-Protestant posts, it occurred to me who you in all likelihood are...
Did the Society of Jesus assign you to social media in place of a geographical Province?
Understanding, finally that you are Jesuit employed and educated, makes it much easier to comprehend your pathological hatred for the Protestant reformers. I have attached a picture I’m certain you are familiar with. It is the statue of the co-founder of your order, Loyola, crushing Martin Luther under his heel at St. Peter’s Basilica.

It is noteworthy that in Loyola’s hand is his book, Constitution of the Jesuit Society. While, in Luther’s hand is his unauthorized translation of the Scriptures... I do hope the picture does not make you too homesick. Enjoy!

@WorldSigh in fairness to the Protestant Reformation, they did a good breakaway from the RCC's various traditions in matters of Soteriology, by making the correct take on salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. But they did not go far enough in unloading RCC traditions like infant baptism, Preterism, Amillenialism, anti-Semitism, etc. When I try to show you passages that these things contradict, I become a "pathological hater of Protestant Reformers" to you.

@eschatologyguy

I’m done offering any sort of apologetics for my views. I have followed the rules of civilized debate: followed a logical point by point format; offered cogent specifics backed by multiple sources drawn from the Bible, the Protestant Reformers, and the Catholic Churches’ own declarations of belief. Your responses have been blatantly hostile, intransigently dogmatic, insulting, and obtuse. By the way, showing off your religious vocabulary is no substitute for proving your points with a thus saith the Lord. Responding to lengthy, logical and well researched (with linked sources, as well as chapter and verse) arguments with “that’s not true!” “You still didn’t prove your point!” Is worse than meaningless. It is troll behaviour.

Incidentally, you are aware that your pre-tribulation rapture, Israeli exceptionalism, dogma was formulated and disseminated directly from the 1962 Vatican 2, right? As was the case with Vatican 1, the main purpose of the gathering was to strategize methods of destroying or at least nullifying the Protestant Reformation. The end times prophetic doctrine the Catholics devised has been wonderfully effective. The majority of Protestant denominations, in opposition to their founders, no longer consider the Catholic Church to be the Antichrist system.

Here is another picture from home, for you. This one is from the chapel of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
This is a statue of Mary standing over Luther and Huss. Beneath the figures is a book bearing the name of Calvin. On the right side, you can see a small angel destroying their unauthorized vernacular translations of the Bible.

@WorldSigh "blatantly hostile" when the people you correct with your Augustinian interpretations disagree with you. Don't get stuck with Augustine. You don't even see the irony of Luther's and Calvin's idolizing the Catholic's Catholic Augustine and at the same time being against the institution he represents. I'm with you that the RCC is chuck-full of heresies and doctrinal errors, but you cannot say that they are worshipping a God Who is not YHWH. They may have added worship or veneration (same thing) of Mary and the apostles, etc., but they have the same Trinity that we have, and they have the same gospel - albeit with additions. I don't think the "come out of her my people" passage applies primarily to the RCC. It is more likely that it applies to Islam. Aren't we hearing about Christ appearing to tens of thousands of Muslims in dreams calling them to come out? We are not hearing of Christ appearing in dreams to Catholics now, are we?

And enough with your ad hominems, about how I'm such a horrible person to have hurt your feelings because I disagree with you. That's supposed to show that the attacker no longer has an argument to stand on.

Am I judging your salvation? No. If you believe and trust Christ alone for your salvation, then you're in. If you read Isaiah 19, you'll find that Christ will even be saving the Coptic Christians in Egypt when He returns. What we are arguing about are the peripheries.

@eschatologyguy

There is nothing in you that could possibly “hurt my feelings”. LOL. That’s cute.
As for “ad hominems”, I’m not sure what you are referring to? I am merely judging your words and parochial, unsupported challenges, and responding accordingly. If that hurts your feelings, perhaps you are not ready to engage in discussion on this forum?

I have no idea what “Augustinian interpretations” are? My doctrine is from the Bible: sola scriptura! Was that one of Augustine’s “interpretations”? I have already answered your accusations against Luther and Calvin. Does this sound familiar: they were following the Light they were shown. Do you really believe you could have come out of the Catholic Darkness into the fullness of the midday sun in one step without being overwhelmed? If God revealed all Truth to you in the space of a day, and you followed all of it immediately, you must be a special guy! Congratulations, sadly most of us have to struggle one step at a time, as the Light shines on the path ahead.

Again, with the defence of the Catholic version of the Trinity! Again, I previously posted proof that they worship a different God, from their very own writings. You dismissed the clear evidence with yet another brilliant response: “you didn’t prove anything”. You respond in the same intellectually lazy manner as every troll I have ever encountered. I have nothing more to say to you on the topic. Go back and read the proofs I have already posted. The Jesuitical strategy of repeat, explain, and exhaust will not work.

I do agree, God is calling His people out of every pseudo-religious system. He has sheep among the Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, even the Catholic offshoot Charismatic non-denominational churches.
There is probably not much point in talking to you anymore, but I will give it one more try.

Do you agree that a woman in prophetic symbols indicates a church? A virgin would be a faithful church, a prostitute would be a fallen church? Almost every Protestant church on earth is descended from the Catholic (Universal) church. Although, they claim to have separated from the Mother Church, they still acknowledge her authority to change the moral Law of God, since they keep her false sabbath which the Catholics admit to changing by their own authority.

Consider: “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 17:5

@WorldSigh You keep pushing Rev 17:5 in my face as if by doing so I will get to interpret it like you do. You talk about unsupported interpretations and its you who are doing it. "Consider" does not support your interpretation that this is talking about the RCC. Try reading it in context instead. If the context doesn't add clarity, it's because your presuppositions are getting in the way. As for the rest, I think you have a short memory, and anybody who has surplus time to read this thread would understand this. Maybe you should review both our posts.

@eschatologyguy

Eschatologyguy, my Jesuit friend, “consider” means exactly what it says. It is unfortunate that you have eyes, but cannot see. Continue to interpret eschatology through the lens of Vatican 2, if you wish. The watchman upon the wall has sounded the alarm. The warning to “come out of her, my people” has been given, repeatedly. Your fate is in your own hands. I pray that you will harken to the counsel of Christ:

“Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.” Revelation 3:17-18

@eschatologyguy

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep Sunday, the first day of the week rather than the Seventh Day Sabbath specified by God in the Fourth Commandment?

@WorldSigh Now I'm a Jesuit? And I'm blind because I don't agree with your woefully outdated and erroneous interpretation? You're really a piece of work, aren't you? You have a happy life now, OK?

@eschatologyguy

You think I have “outdated interpretations”? You are correct. My beliefs are the same ones held by the disciples thousands of years ago, and rediscovered by the Godly men of the Protestant Reformation hundreds of years ago. Whereas, your end times doctrines were deliberately popularized by the Catholic Church after Vatican 2 in 1962-1965. They are definitely modern and updated.

And yes, I do believe you are a Jesuit, certainly in spirit if not in direct affiliation. You employ the debate strategies of the Society of Jesus. For example, you deny cogent arguments for which clear evidence from multiple linked sources is provided. You then, demand more proof while offering zero evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to support your dogmas. This is a Jesuit strategy designed to force an opponent to expend time and energy repeating, already justified statements.

Also, you ignore questions directed at you, for which you have no scriptural answer, while continuing to attack. This is also a Jesuit diversionary tactic. It is an effective means of causing an opponent to lose focus and force him into a defensive posture. I will give you two examples of questions I have asked, and you have completely ignored.

1 - “Are you a Protestant? If you are, what are you protesting?”

2 - “Just out of curiosity, why do you keep Sunday, the first day of the week rather than the Seventh Day Sabbath specified by God in the Fourth Commandment?”

@eschatologyguy

Incidentally, I have no doubt that the Laodicean message in Revelation applies to me, as well. I certainly do not know everything about every spiritual matter under the sun, far from it.

I am guilty of being lukewarm, thinking of myself as “rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked”.
Revelation 3:17

I hope that you will pray for my deliverance from pride and that my eyes will be opened wider with each step toward Christ, as I pray that you will humble yourself and follow the Light that shines upon you.

For my part, I harbour no ill will toward you. Though, I may dispute your doctrines passionately, it is only out of concern. I would be pleased and honoured to stand beside you in God’s Kingdom. I pray that we will be there, together one day.

No matter what disagreements we have with each other, there can be no doubt that our Lord Jesus laid down His life for both of us. I would not have that precious sacrifice be in vain.

In the end, it is the Sword of the Spirit that will lead and teach us all Truth.

For better or for worse, religion is a major pillar of every culture. This is The Culture War Group. Think of Paul on Mars Hill the centre of cultural debate in Athens! Now, that was a Culture War!
Certainly, a book titled “Revelation” should not be sequestered in a special interest group that is visited only by those who have heard it all before.

@WorldSigh Paul did not go to Mars Hill to debate. He went to Mars Hill to preach the good news. If you search the word "debate" in the NT of your KJVB, you will find it only comes out twice, and both times in a bad light.

@GORG Amen! And faithful too.

@eschatologyguy @GORG

Of course, the nature of faith is that it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrew 11:1

On the other hand, contention over faith has been a source of debate and even physical violence since Eve and the Serpent. Are you seriously claiming that Paul went to a place in Athens where the newest philosophies and religious ideas were discussed and debated, a place named for Mars, the God of War, thinking there would be no argument with the contentious polytheistic Greek intellectuals there?

@WorldSigh you quote a verse about faith and the proceed to say Paul went there to argue. He didn't. He went there to preach the Gospel. It was the people there who argued with him. The issue here is Paul's intent in going to Mars Hill. Was it to preach the good news or to argue?

@eschatologyguy

The “issue” of my original reply was that people do not listen to God any more today than they did 2000 years ago. Somehow, Mr Eschatologyguy, you found a way to twist this simple, obvious truth into another prolonged attack on my view of faith. All your arguments have done is shown that one’s view of faith is in fact a serious bone of contention. Thank you!

As Paul approached Mars (God of War) Hill on that fateful day, you can be sure that he had “put on the whole armour of God” (what is the purpose of armour?), including “the Shield of Faith” (isn’t a shield an implement of battle?) and the “Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.” See Ephesians chapter 6. A sword of words and a shield of faith, one would almost think Paul was prepared to verbally parry the inevitable attack of Satan via objections to his preaching of the good news? Isn’t that sort of interaction known as debate?

@WorldSigh the current denominational divisions that we see today is alien to the teaching we find in the bible. Holding on to some particular Theology because it was the interpretation of the founder of that particular denomination is like looking at the bible through a denominational lens, where everything viewed from outside this lens is somehow seen as wrong. No different with Talmudic Jews who view the Torah through the lens of the Talmud.

That is how you first came at me in a couple of my previous posts, correcting me with your denominational views. I don't study the writings of the post-Apostolic age "Church fathers". Their writings are NOT scripture. Any errors these people make would be transmitted on to you. It's better to stick to the scriptures. That is how the Lord would want it.

@eschatologyguy
So, you are taking some sort of revenge for perceived slights in previous threads? That doesn’t seem to be a very christian attitude.

To ignore the wisdom of those who came before us is unwise. Also, every belief I have is backed up by scripture.

@eschatologyguy

I usually follow the council given by the Word of God, and test the words of those who claim to have been blessed with a portion of wisdom and light. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

But, I guess it is best to follow your instruction. Who cares about the words of Jesus, He was just a carpenter, right? “... the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things”. John 14:26.“
What did Peter know, he was just a fisherman, right? “...ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38-39

Incidentally, it’s very kind of you to share your intimate knowledge of God. From your latest post, I gathered that you believe that the Holy Spirit is no longer speaking to His people, at least not about anything important enough to share with others. Apparently, He is still in contact with one follower, you! I mean, how else would you know with such certainty “That is how the Lord would want it”? Wait, aren’t your “writings of the post-Apostolic age”? Well, I guess I will have to follow your advice and avoid the “errors” you are attempting to “transmit” to me.

By the way, out of habit, I tested your intimate knowledge of God by comparing it with Isaiah 8:20 as the Bible instructs us to do: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Unfortunately, you only wish to obey nine of God’s Ten Commandments. Apparently, there is no light in you...

“ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:19

@WorldSigh

"From your latest post, I gathered that you believe that the Holy Spirit is no longer speaking to His people."

A hollow and false accusation against this presents.

"So, you are taking some sort of revenge for perceived slights in previous threads? That doesn’t seem to be a very christian attitude."

Revenge? Not at all. I was responding to your accusation of me making ad hominem attacks on you. So when somebody points out your errors it's unChristian? You think the people you quote and idolize had it all figured out? You are parroting the errors of people you idolize. The people you idolize were proven heretics in their patently Roman Catholic eschatology and portions of Theology. Don't you find it ironic adhering to Roman Catholic Eschatology and then attacking the Pope? Even man's free will is negated, not realizing that when God made us in His image, God's free will was part and parcel of that image. By the way, I am not saying the Pope is innocent and guiltless. All I'm saying is he's not an Assyrian and he doesn't worship a god of war. Doesn't think to change times and laws either.

And what of Calvin's murder after he became a Christian? Did any of the apostles ever murder anybody? That should have been a red flag for you.

"To ignore the wisdom of those who came before us is unwise. Also, every belief I have is backed up by scripture."

Wisdom if there is indeed wisdom. But you are parroting errors and eisegetical interpretation of scripture. Among other examples, remember this recent one?

"It may also be understood as regard for the gods of women"

What do you call twisting and adding words to passages to shoehorn personal interpretations?

"I usually follow the council given by the Word of God and test the words of those who claim to have been blessed with a portion of wisdom and light."

Usually? Make that always, especially when you barge in to "correct" somebody. But that's not even the core of the problem. The core of the problem is you "correct" others against your denominational doctrines. You would do well unlearning these denominational doctrines and studying God's word without denominational baggage.

@eschatologyguy

“ A hollow and false accusation against this presents”
Well, you have certainly proven me wrong with this momentous reply!

“Revenge? Not at all. I was responding to your accusation of me making ad hominem attacks on you.”
So, you don’t consider falsely claiming over and over and over again, in spite of my statement to the contrary, that I am following Catholic doctrine is an ad hominem attack? You accuse me of “idolizing proven heretics” in spite of the fact that I idolize no one, and this outright lie is not an ad hominem attack? Ok... So when Martin Luther exposed the Pope as the Antichrist, this was “patently Roman Catholic eschatology”? Ok...

“Don't you find it ironic adhering to Roman Catholic Eschatology and then attacking the Pope?”
So, exposing the Pope as the Antichrist is “adhering to Roman Catholic Eschatology”? If you say so...

“Even man's free will is negated, not realizing that when God made us in His image, God's free will was part and parcel of that image.”
Umm... what are you talking about?

“All I'm saying is he's not an Assyrian and he doesn't worship a god of war.”
I examined your text “proving” the antichrist is Assyrian. There was zero, nothing, zip that referred to the antichrist being Assyrian. You ignored my previous reply. This is the action of a troll.
Daniel says that the antichrist power will “honour the god of forces”. You have ignored my previous reply. This is the action of a troll.

“ Doesn't think to change times and laws either.”
Apparently, you didn’t bother to read my lengthy reply to this, supported by multiple biblical sources as well as direct quotes from the Catholic leadership admitting that they had indeed changed times and laws by their own authority which they bragged supersedes the Word of God?

I have noticed that you manifest a consistent pattern of attacking and accusing while invariably failing to support your own arguments with any viable scripture or for that matter, discernible logic. Are you perhaps, a Jesuit troll? Of course, I do not expect a straight or civil answer from you. I have endeavoured to be fair and considerate with you. Sadly, you are only interested in feeble attempts to shut me down by ignoring my well documented and biblically supported points that you have been completely unable to refute and of course with a steady barrage of personal attacks.

At this point, all that is left is to inform you of my longstanding policy. I do not feed trolls.

One final question for you in parting. Are you a Protestant? If you are, what exactly are you protesting?

I will no longer respond to any of your posts. If you continue harassing me with your unimaginative trolling and inserting your out of context accusations into my peaceable posts, you will be blocked.

Goodbye, scatologicalguy.

@WorldSigh I'll be praying for you.