3.5 years or 1260 years

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I was looking for a summary online of what he believed without having to read his book and was surprised by some of his sources. Does he draw heavily on Islamic writings to develop his doctrine?

I missed this. He uses plenty of Bible, especially in "Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist" and in the "Mystery Babylon: Unlocking the Bible's Greatest Prophetic Mystery" book. I haven't read entirely the Islamic Antichrist.

The Islamic sources are to demonstrate how matching is the Islamic Caliphates and their idea with that the Bible prophesied.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

But we appreciate you, your contributions to this forum are invaluable.

Thank you! I wanted to discuss my ideas which then I just gave credit to Joel because mine are in part from his, but different. I didn't expect this thread to become a scrutiny of his character and "agendas," but here we are, lol.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This turned sour real quick, lol.

You do know you are important to us? If you don’t understand that, then let me tell you, you are important. If it wasn’t for your input I wouldn’t have be introduced to certain individuals, and their teachings. You are a valuable member here. Therefore you are a blessing.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This turned sour real quick, lol.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You do know you are important to us? If you don’t understand that, then let me tell you, you are important. If it wasn’t for your input I wouldn’t have be introduced to certain individuals, and their teachings. You are a valuable member here. Therefore you are a blessing.

Exactly, a famous person once said:

Sometimes you're the bug, and sometimes you're the windshield

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Thank you! I wanted to discuss my ideas which then I just gave credit to Joel because mine are in part from his, but different. I didn't expect this thread to become a scrutiny of his character and "agendas," but here we are, lol.

My brother, that happens in the community of ideas. With Zionism in Christian eschatology, some of us notice how agenda driven it is away from Christ’s agenda. I didn’t take a knee jerk reaction and just blast away. I took the time to go over his world view, which isn’t actually Christian. But Zionistic. He makes the claims that the Arabs aren’t indigenous, but the Modern Jews are really the true indigenous people. This isn’t just bad theology, but dangerous on a much larger scale. The Bible proclaims, that God’s people are destroyed by the lack of knowledge. Medieval, Spanish Rabbis taught that the two legs of Daniel’s image were the Christians and the Arabs. That those two groups would destroy each other. Then the Rabbinical Jews would reign supreme. Eschatology was, and will continue to be used to propagate one’s agenda. There is nothing new there. But, we must be diligent to looking where we step on our journey.

Jesus is our Shepard, He leads you and you hear His voice. You love Him and He loves you. I’m fully persuaded that you will continue to move towards Him no matter how bad the winds and waves roar.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Exactly, a famous person once said:

Sometimes you're the bug, and sometimes you're the windshield

Painful truth at times.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I mentioned earlier, the Islamic Caliphates (first the Arab, then the Turkish) are already prophesied under the 5th and 6th Trumpet Judgments.

That the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is the Roman seems incontrovertible. Otherwise, the Roman Empire (which destroyed Jerusalem, which gave official sanction to the execution of Christ, and which under the Papacy persecuted the saints for literally 1260 years - exactly as prophesied - would be essentially completely missed in prophecy. I mean, from my point of view, if we have a series of prophecies, and in history we find something that answers to everything prophesied, why would we look for another?

The Sassanid Empire was established in the 3rd century AD, and lasted until the Muslim conquest of Iran/Parthia in the 7th century (part of the Trumpet Judgments and fulfilled prophecy, by the way). In fact, after reading the history of the Sassanids, I am convinced their history is already contemplated in the Revelation (but certainly not as the beast from the sea, they simply don't fit the descriptions).

Sassanid persecution of Christians was sporadic, often relaxed, and several Sassanid royal family members became Christians (Orthodox). The Sassanic Empire was not notably "different" from previous Oriental empires and kingdoms.

The Islamic Caliphates likewise do not fit the prophetic descriptions of the fourth beast in Daniel's visions or the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The Babylonian was succeeded by the Persian, the Persian by the Greek, and the Greek by the Roman. The Imperial Roman was succeeded by the little horn and the various kingdoms that arose out of the fourth empire (Rome). The Caliphate came later. What I am saying is that the successive powers in Daniel do seem to be succeeding immediately from one to the other. To suggest a 600 year gap between the Greek and the Islamic power structure just seems incongruent with the rest of the dream and visions.

While God's people may certainly have been present in the Persian area, that is not where they were centered, nor where important developments took place that affected the history of Christendom (which is essentially the same thing as "the history of mankind since the time of Christ").

"would be essentially completely missed in prophecy" -> that would be a strong point of yours. It was missed in Daniel but not in Revelation. Revelation also has some greco-roman symbolism to counter the Roman empire ideas. That being said, what I just said doesn't seem satisfactory even to me. Yet, after I put Revelation in context of the O.T. prophecies, to this point, I find the idea of the Islamic Caliphate being the beast much stronger than the European beast; but not without caveats.

The idea that the Islamic Caliphates is the beast also brings up again the question of what is the relationship of God with the modern nation of Israel, because the expected end is all these nations turning towards the land Israel currently occupies and God coming down. But also brings the idea, why do we have that question to begin with? Is the hatreds of the Islamic to modern Israel a ethnic hatred or a religious hatred? If the hatred is religious, then it is not directed just to the ethnic group but towards the God of the Torah, and the New Testament. If the Christians had that land instead, the hatred would be against them. If that's the case, then the question of the relationship between God and the modern nation of Israel is less relevant because modern Israel is then just a hate proxy towards God because they do not hate modern Israel because of their identity, but because what they represent in their mind.

I believe there is a complexity in the relationship between God and modern Israel that the anti-Zionist and the Zionist do not fully understand, and they are both taking simpler extreme positions.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

"would be essentially completely missed in prophecy" -> that would be a strong point of yours. It was missed in Daniel but not in Revelation. Revelation also has some greco-roman symbolism to counter the Roman empire ideas. That being said, what I just said doesn't seem satisfactory even to me. Yet, after I put Revelation in context of the O.T. prophecies, to this point, I find the idea of the Islamic Caliphate being the beast much stronger than the European beast; but not without caveats.

The idea that the Islamic Caliphates is the beast also brings up again the question of what is the relationship of God with the modern nation of Israel, because the expected end is all these nations turning towards the land Israel currently occupies and God coming down. But also brings the idea, why do we have that question to begin with? Is the hatreds of the Islamic to modern Israel a ethnic hatred or a religious hatred? If the hatred is religious, then it is not directed just to the ethnic group but towards the God of the Torah, and the New Testament. If the Christians had that land instead, the hatred would be against them. If that's the case, then the question of the relationship between God and the modern nation of Israel is less relevant because modern Israel is then just a hate proxy towards God because they do not hate modern Israel because of their identity, but because what they represent in their mind.

I believe there is a complexity in the relationship between God and modern Israel that the anti-Zionist and the Zionist do not fully understand, and they are both taking simpler extreme positions.

I wonder if the so call massive conversion of Jews to Christ at the end, is rather just a revival after the Islamic Caliphate remove the Jews from the land and the disappointment by them is so great that a revival acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ breaks out for some years, and many turn to the Acts 2:38 obedience. Then, Jesus returns.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I wonder if the so call massive conversion of Jews to Christ at the end, is rather just a revival after the Islamic Caliphate remove the Jews from the land and the disappointment by them is so great that a revival acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ breaks out for some years, and many turn to the Acts 2:38 obedience. Then, Jesus returns.

Sabbatai Zevi thought so.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

"would be essentially completely missed in prophecy" -> that would be a strong point of yours. It was missed in Daniel but not in Revelation. Revelation also has some greco-roman symbolism to counter the Roman empire ideas. That being said, what I just said doesn't seem satisfactory even to me. Yet, after I put Revelation in context of the O.T. prophecies, to this point, I find the idea of the Islamic Caliphate being the beast much stronger than the European beast; but not without caveats.

The idea that the Islamic Caliphates is the beast also brings up again the question of what is the relationship of God with the modern nation of Israel, because the expected end is all these nations turning towards the land Israel currently occupies and God coming down. But also brings the idea, why do we have that question to begin with? Is the hatreds of the Islamic to modern Israel a ethnic hatred or a religious hatred? If the hatred is religious, then it is not directed just to the ethnic group but towards the God of the Torah, and the New Testament. If the Christians had that land instead, the hatred would be against them. If that's the case, then the question of the relationship between God and the modern nation of Israel is less relevant because modern Israel is then just a hate proxy towards God because they do not hate modern Israel because of their identity, but because what they represent in their mind.

I believe there is a complexity in the relationship between God and modern Israel that the anti-Zionist and the Zionist do not fully understand, and they are both taking simpler extreme positions.

You do understand that Christians, Muslims, and Rabbinical Jews all dwelled in the Middle East prior to the Balfour Declaration? Modern Israel has zero to do with the Bible. Zero. If someone told you that Vietnamese Buddhists set up their own country in the Middle East and expelled the inhabitants. You would immediately see that as being wrong. But, if those same Vietnamese Buddhist converted to Rabbinical Judaism in the 16th century. Then in 1948 their descendants moved into the Middle East setting up shop. You would then acknowledge them as a Biblical return. To understand the anger isn’t just a religious one, it is a social one. Listen, Zionism isn’t Judaism. It’s a flawed paradigm to include Zionists of any ethnic background in your eschatology. Look there are no Moabites, Hittites, Jebusites, or any of the other ites. People who change the Moabites into Palestinians, or Amalakites, into Arabs. Are as incorrect as Mormons calling Lakota Sioux Lamanites. Yet, some Pentecostals are in lock step with Mormons with calling Modern day Israel the original article? All because there eschatology has to have it in order to be legitimate? Really?