ChristiansUnite Forums

Keep watch all.

This is the same European Union that refused to incorporate any mention of Europe's Christian heritage in its recently drafted Consitution.


Mount Athos' Special Status Under Scrutiny


STRASBOURG, France, SEPT. 9, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The European Parliament is considering revising the centuries-old special status enjoyed by the monastic community of Mount Athos in Greece.

The Parliament's plenary session approved a report giving the green light for the revision of the status of the peninsula of northern Greece inhabited solely by monks.

The Greek Orthodox Church, in its latest Ecclesia Report, announced that "the plenary session of the Euro-Parliament passed a proposal-report prepared by French Euro-deputy Fode Sylla concerning the EU Fundamental Rights situation for 2002, which includes, among others, a reference to the special status enjoyed by the monastic community of Mount Athos, in northern Greece."

According to the Euro-deputies, the controversial point is that the isles of Athos do not allow entry to women. The Euro-deputies see this prohibition as an infringement on women's human rights, so they asked the Greek government to revise the prohibition.

The Sylla report received only negative votes by the deputies of the Greek Socialist government. If the proposal goes forward, it might face a second vote.

The Greek government and the Orthodox Church defend the situation of the status of the monastic community because of its 1,000-year link with the country's traditions, values, symbols and religious faith.
ZE03090906

Can we say the "Antichrist's kingdom"?

What scripture tells us of an king  antichrist?

What scripture tells us of an antichrist with a kingdom?

*sigh* If you would like to get into a Revelation interpretation debate, go right ahead.  That dead horse has been kicked so much on this site that we'll simply be beating on the bone fragments that are left.

Obviously, I believe that the ten (are they heads or horns) in the book of Revelation are ten European Union countries that will unite under the AntiChrist.

A Revelation interpretation debate?   NOPE   just show me the scriptural backing for your beliefs.   Scritural referance to 'antichrist' are only found in the little books of John but  we wont go there  i guess * sigh*

I told you why I believe that.  It's not like I'm alone on this theory.  Read up on it...you have many authors to choose from.  Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, CH Spurgeon, CW Criswell...it goes on and on.

Yup lots of writers to agree with.


I wonder why the Apostle John didn't pen the words of GOD the way Tim Lahaye, Haggee,  Hal, Scofield etc. read them.


Hey Mr 5020  we dont have to agree   :P

Well, clearly John wasn't speaking in a literal sense, so it must figuratively mean something.  I've presented why I believe my view.  You haven't even presented your view.  Unless you have some sort of argument (farbeit a valid one), can you shut up already.

I am sorry you wish to be rude. :'( Trust in the writing of the guys I'll trust  the scrtiptures.  

Look Reba, you said:

I replied:
I didn't quote the reference at the time because I didn't know it, but obviously I was referring to a verse in the book of Revelation.  Since I have time to look it up now, you can see Revelation 13:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+13:1&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) for the exact verse.

Then after telling you why I believed what I do, you said:

Now that is what I had just done, so I got frustrated, but instead of showing it, I said you could just research it.  You then made another "brilliant comment":

Now this is pretty easy.  John spoke Greek.  Tim LaHaye doesn't.  See why their words might be different.  Now, obviously as I said before, when John wrote the book of Revelation, he was not speaking in literal terms, but figurative terms.  Now, you keep insisting I'm wrong, but you never give any evidence that I'm wrong, nor give me any other valid alternative.

Care to show me the post  where i said  Mr. 5020 your wrong?

Rev 13:1
13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
KJV

  Where in this verse does it say  'the antichrist is a king'?

Oh Reba, everytime there is an interesting theological debate, you jump on someone. If you have a revelation, why don't you share it instead of picking apart a sentence or two.

Here is your scripture:
Revelation 16:10, 11
And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,  And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

I read the verse just fine and again it does not say antichrist. Post all the verses you wish they do not say antichrist. Yes i know ther is a translation out there that does but which it is i can not  rememeber.

Only place in scripture antichrist is used is in the little books of John. To say other wise is to add to the scripture. Do we allow ourselfs to alter the WORD of GOD to fit our interpations? or do we read what GOD wrote?

It is to bad it is considered "jumping on someone" to expect a theologoical discussion to be scriptural.  Had GOD wanted John to use the same verbage in Revelations as in the other books he penned he would have dont ya think?


Sorry i do not have a flare for  writing. I tend to be direct and simple if you do not care for my style dont read my posts.

Might I enquire which ten of the fifteen existing or future member states you are refering to?

As to the 'Christian heritage'  might I ask why you feel that they should mention religion at all in what is after all a political institution? The heritage of Europe is one of division and often warfare, often fueled by (or in many cases caused by) religious difference. Remember, most of the development of the different strands of Christianity was fought out in Europe.

Please remember that the EU is expanding and will soon include non Christian nations such as Turkey as well as only nominally Christian countries such as the UK.

There used to be an expression (do you have it in the US?) "Never talk about religion or politics (at the dinner table)" There is a well established belief in much of the EU that you should not "mix religion and politics".

Hello by the way.  ;D

Yes we have that expression in the US.  But this is a Christian web and religion is not what we believe in, it is LIfe, in Christ.  We expect a secular government one day, pretending to represent religion as well.

By the way,
The ten are not from the EU. Acts chapter 2 tells you who they are.  Everything to do with Bible prophecy and the 7 heads and ten horns is revealed in the Bible.  Western Europe is not where it is at, though everyone seems to be on that page.  Eastern leg of the Roman Empire, take a look at that.

Welcome VNB. Jump right in!

This just gets more interesting...

Europarliament Rejects Reference to "Judeo-Christian" Roots
British Conservatives Join Opposition to Proposal

STRASBOURG, France, SEPT. 25, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The European Parliament's plenary assembly rejected any reference to the continent's "Judeo-Christian" roots in the draft text of the European Constitution.

The proposal was rejected Wednesday by a vote of 283 to 211. The vote sought to clarify Parliament's position in view of next week's intergovernmental conference in Rome that will approve the draft of the Constitution.

The proposal in Parliament was presented by the European Popular Party (EPP), which called for a "particular reference" in the text to the "Judeo-Christian" roots of Europe, without proposing a specific formulation of the request.

Another amendment presented by the European Union of Nations (EUN), which called for the "express recognition of the legacy of Christianity inscribed in the history and cultural identity of Europe," met with the same result.

Although the EPP has a majority in the European Parliament, it did not obtain the consensus of the majority. It had the support of the EUN, but even within the EPP, members such as the British Conservatives and others, did not support it.

Those voting against the proposal included the European Socialist Party and other minority groups, as well as 30 independent deputies.

"We knew that these were the numbers, but we could not exempt ourselves from the responsibility to present forcefully the position in which we firmly believe," EPP spokeswoman Katrin Ruhrmann said.

EPP President Hans-Gert Pöttering lamented the rejection of the amendment, but explained that the preamble of the draft Constitution presented by the European Convention makes reference to the continent's religious patrimony. And Article 51 of the draft recognizes the status of churches and communities which share a common faith, he said.

Ruhrmann said that the last word now rests with the governments of the European Union. "If they wish, they have the possibility to modify the draft Constitution in the sense we desire," she said.
ZE03092511

Anti-christ's kingdom I tell you!!!!!! ;D

Again i ask  'What scriptures tell us there is a antichrist king?'

"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."  (1 John 2:18, Empasis mine)

"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."  (1 John 4:3, Emphasis mine)

"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds."  (Revelation 16:10-11, Emphasis mine)

And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds."  (Revelation 16:10-11, Emphasis mine)




I do not see antichrist in that scripture do you?

1JN 2:18 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.
1JN 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1JN 4:3 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.
2JN 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist

Yup there they are , and not a kingdom in the crowd. Thanks

Let's see now shall we.  Anti-Christ would be against Christ would it not?  So then, the supreme of all anti-christs would be who Reba?  Are your horse blinders on that tight?

Saved,


Why is it OK for some folks to change or add to  the WORD? Why not read and see what is written? Why not say beast  when the scripture says beast?  Where to does the  SCRITPURE give a kingdom or "supremeness" to any antichrist? I truly believe GOD chose the words to be written in His Word, and  if i asked you "Saved ya think God chose the words for scripture?" you wourld answer  "YES!" so  why change em? Changing as langauge changes is not the same as what has happened  with the phrase 'antichrist' much doctrine has been developed over that phrase.  I guess 'Saved' i am like the guy who quits smoking then  'preaches' the strongest at others  :P  

C'mon Reba, I am a literalist like you claim to be.  But part of being a literalist is knowing when the author is not speaking literally.  The slain Lamb is not a baa-baa wooly lamb, is it.  It is the person of Jesus Christ.  And obviously, the beast is not just some lochness monster that came out, and made an image of itself and forced all to worship it.  It has to be a human.

1 John 2:18
18 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.
KJV
1 John 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
KJV
1 John 4:3
3 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.
KJV
2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV

Where is the metaphor?

Surely you paid attention enough to my post to realize that I used the word "beast" in it.  So obviously, you're not even in the right book of the Bible.

Mr.5020 this is the post you quoted from me. It is about antichrist, in response to other statments about antichrists try again.

P.S.
 we agree about the Dixie chicks :)

Let's try this again.  Sometimes I wonder if you act ignorant just to frustrate me.

I said: "C'mon Reba, I am a literalist like you claim to be.  But part of being a literalist is knowing when the author is not speaking literally.  The slain Lamb is not a baa-baa wooly lamb, is it.  It is the person of Jesus Christ.  And obviously, the beast is not just some lochness monster that came out, and made an image of itself and forced all to worship it.  It has to be a human."

This was in response to you saying, "Why is it OK for some folks to change or add to  the WORD? Why not read and see what is written? Why not say beast  when the scripture says beast?"

Then you responded with scripture from 1 John that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  You need to learn how to debate.  So, do you have an actual response to what I said?

No doubt i could learn a lot about debating but you could learn a bit about just plane being nice and not rude.  

Why do you respond to my ignorant posts?

You see!  Still, nothing about the thread.  Look, Reba, I enjoy debating with you.  You appear to be the only person on this forum that has opposing eschatological views than I (I hear Hitch does, but I haven't seen him in a while).  Anyways, my apology for being frustrated, but at least I told you I was frustrated and why, right?  ;D

Have you found such a scripture yet? You and i both know you cant.

I may not know how to debate but i have learned, when someone wont answer a stright forward question most often it is because they dont like the answer. I quote post often because some guys  'edit' them later. So MR 5020 i am learning.

Yes i think we have some opposing views. As i am a recovering dispy.  :P



The quote at the top ^ is on topic care to answer?

I guess I have to quote myself.  As if I didn't answer this question already, but here we go:

You'll remember that from reply #20, which is unedited.  So, I guess we're starting over.

WILL REBA CONTINOUSLY CHANGE THE SUBJECT LIKE LAST TIME...FIND OUT LATER....SAME TIME SAME CHANNEL

 



Show me the antichrist 'king' from SCRIPTURE. Does Rev 16 say antichrist? a simple yes or no ?

Yes...using symbolic language.  If it is not the antichrist, what is it, Reba?  I honestly can't wait to hear this.

Rev 16:10
10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
KJV


I know you think i am ignorant but i am honest. I will answer you stright up something you  still dont have the 'guts ' to do.

Sitting here just looking at Rev 16:10 i would say it is/was the beast.

Now it is your turn. Go ahead rewrite the scripture surly you know more then John or GOD? God's inspired words need your correction?
 
I think Mr.5020 you might think i am looking deeper into this than i am. I am simple. ( stop lol  ;D ) All i have asked is for a simple direct reading of the  word of  GOD.  Your are a young man build all your theologies on what the scriptures says not how man has twisted and turned it for years, and they will mature with you. Dont waist years learning mans plan for GOD learn HIS plan for you.


You should not be rude to your elders i have a grandchild about your age. Try using your superior intellect not your kid mouth.


The scriptures say what they say and Rev 16 does not say antichrist. Scripture does not hold to a SINGLE person to be and antichrist king or what ever. ( note i did not say an individual can not be antichrist)  When we get this antichrist thing settled,  we can discuss   the phrase  when used in this fashion "The Great Tribulation" is not scriptural.

I already know you are with hitch in being amilenialist and all (which is just plain silly) but do tell.  If the beast was, what was it?  If it hasn't been what is the beast?

Now somebody else asks the question you've been avoiding.  I'll wait for you to answer Saved before I reply to your "I'm older than you thus I'm wiser" post.

Saved ,you have not answered my  simple questions.  A bit of shocking news  Saved  are you ready  i am not amillenialist.

  (added a bit later) Sorry this answer was not complete when i first responed Saved,  We all use labels so the best fit into a label, for me, would be postmill.


mr5020,

 You twist my words and are a rude kid. I have tried to be light hearted  towards you. No where did i  imply i was wiser than you, just older. I guess i should have  ‘reported’ you when you  first wrote “ shut up”.

You have both jumped  at me  but you will not answer to the words of the scripture. The small personal attacks  are just silly attempts at diversion. You guys posted , way back, i asked a couple questions when they are answered  to my satisfaction i will respond  to  your beast question Saved.

Mr. 5020 I hope this is the last of your rudeness no more smiles from me.

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not you post smilies.  All I've asked you to do is answer a question (the same quested Saved asked you).  Either you don't have an answer, or you're just pointlessly avoiding it.  Which is it?  

The only question I know you've asked me is "Show me verses that say there is an antichrist king?"  I posted 3 verses, which you said one of which was not referring to the antichrist.  Since then, 2 people have asked you (15 posts ago), and all you have done is posted about how we "attacked" you.  BTW, there is a difference between being rude and being straightfoward.  The only rudeness I've shown was in my "shut up" post, but that was only because I could see I had a "let me play ignorant" person going against me, and I was desperately trying to get you to make a point.  I still am.  

We are eagerly awaiting your answer to the question:  If the beast is not the antichrist, what is it?

And just for you ---> :)

You do the same to me as you do to scripture so i am in good company. You  might try reading what is written. Mrs Clinton will be running for office. Bet a job as a spin doctor might be a perfect job for you.

17 posts...still waiting

I'm really serious reba, who or what is the beast.  If it was, what was it?  If it wasn't what will it be?

You've gotten your answer you just don't seem to like it.  Your answer to this question is rather vital though.  Please do respond, else there is no point in continuing.  You seemed to be buddies with hitch so I assumed.  Sorry 'bout that.

Saved are you telling me you  have a scripture that says the antichrsit is a king  with a kingdom?  Please note the date on the  quote.

I answered you once about the beast question. I will here again because i dont think  i have made myself clear.  My point  has simply been ,  this  simple,  the scriptures  say what they say.   Only in the little books of John do we read of antichrist and there not as a single person. No king   no kingdom witten in  john. It is this simple.   WHAT is written?
Understanding that  the beast can be antichrist does not make the beast THEE antichrist according to scripture. A lot of doctrine has been developed using the word 'antichrist' and using it in a way the scripture does not. I was being a  bit flipent when posts back i said 'the beast is the beast.' I have not said i know nor have i tried to lay a foundation as to who, what,  etc the beast is in this thread. my point has been what do the scriptures say.  When John writes of antichrists i do not see metaphors in Gods word.


I have found Hitch is in agreement wiht me or viseversa  on many points of escotology.

I am not going to correct the spelling  tonight. We have been on the go.  A friend of 25 years has had liver transplant surgery and we have been at the hospital a few days.  The marical of GOD can show up through doctors or  " out of the blue" I will say  Thank you LORD !  A son  donated a part of his liver to his mom on 10/1/03 and both are  out of ICU! PTL

I'll pray for your friend.

2nd, that's my quote, not Saved's.

3rd, we've both answered yes 100 times.  If you can't prove us wrong, stop trying.

Saved you tell me i have my answer and that i just dont like the answer but i have not read such a scripture. . .

So i posted the question i asked again


One last time do you know of a scripture or a passage that says  there will be    THEE antichrist and that he will have a kingdom ? We both know the only place God saw fit to use the word 'antichrist' is in the little books of John.

Saved i am sure you must think i am trying to be difficult i am not i am at least as serious  in my questions as you are in the ones you ask.

no problem I just think you might be confusing mr 5020 with me occationally.

I'm not real into eschotology much at all really.  I don't find it "pertinent" in doing my first and foremost duty.  Witnessing to the lost, and as many other things as I can do.  That's why I don't get all heated about it.

If ever there was someone who would be ANTI Christ or against, opposed, not with christ, that would be satan.  Do you really think the "spirit" of anti-christ is anything other than satan?  I don't know where you are coming from on this.  There are many "words" people use that are not "in the bible" but mean the same thing, or some up a thought better.

Trinity is not in scripture once and only cults seem to be against it.  Are you against the use ofthe word trinity?  I find it nothing more than semantics, but that's just me.

So this beast that will be worshipped is obviously not some physical monster but a person.  This person will embody all that is the devil or satan, or even "that old serpent the devil".  This person will be "the" anti-christ.

You don't have to agree with me.  That's fine, just stop using the I don't see that in scripture.  To some of us it couldn't be more obvious.

To me it's just liike when I read "let us make man...."  I didn't get all crazy and think there was some sort of grande group of people saying that.  I knew it was the "trinity"  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons yet one.  I also don't go off talking about when it says replenish the earth meaning there was a creation before.  There is no word "plenish" so I find that thought ridiculous but again, that's just me.

It really doesn't matter to me when the LORD is coming back.  He said he'd e back, and gave no time for a good reason.  If we knew we may slack until the time where upon us.  It's just human nature to do so.  We've been givin a charge and we need to fulfill it.  Anything less would be foolishness.  I feel sorry for the people that get all caught up in it.

Mr.5020  sorta answers for you sometimes but i will read closer

 Agreed spreading the gospel is foremost.

 I have been trying to explain  ‘where i am coming from’ but i am not good with words. On ‘spirit of antichrist’ i think we agree.

Going back to creation the scripts say ‘us’. All through scripture  we see three’s . Abe saw 3 (Gen 18:2)  As did John  (1John 5:7)


This person will be "a" anti-christ   ;)

Would you stop using “ I don't see that in scripture”  about something that was on your heart? I surly hope not

 We agree

 Saved we really agree here. I too feel sorry, so i tend to belabor the points. So much  junk has been  written and sold that is not scriptural it makes me crazy.



Thanks for  taking the time to explain yourself.