@Duran
You attempt to conflate various apocalyptic passages—primarily from Daniel, Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians—into a single, unified eschatological narrative. However, this approach results in several interpretive errors, including misreading the texts, conflating distinct figures and events, and failing to consider the broader biblical and theological contexts of these passages.
The assertion that the "dashing to pieces" of the power of the holy people aligns directly with the 42 months of Revelation 13 is speculative and ignores the context of Daniel. Daniel 12:7 speaks about the persecution and suffering of God’s people, which will culminate in the fulfillment of God’s purposes. The phrase "time, times, and half a time" often symbolizes a period of intense trial (cf. Daniel 7:25). However, there is no indication that this must correspond exactly to the 42 months in Revelation 13. The contexts of Daniel and Revelation are different: Daniel addresses the plight of the Jewish people under oppressive regimes, while Revelation deals with the Church's trials in the face of global opposition. The phrase "dashing to pieces" symbolizes the oppression and apparent defeat of God’s people, not necessarily their literal destruction. In apocalyptic literature, such imagery often conveys the testing and purification of the faithful. The focus is not on a rigid timeline but on God’s sovereignty in bringing His plans to completion.
The claim that the 42 months of Revelation 13 specifically describe the tribulation of the "chosen ones" and the "great crowd" (GC) under the 8th King is an oversimplification. In Revelation 13:5, 7, 10 the 42 months symbolize a period during which the beast exercises authority and persecutes the saints. However, Revelation uses symbolic language to depict spiritual realities, not to present a precise chronological framework. The focus is on the endurance and faithfulness of believers, not on establishing a specific geopolitical timeline. The MOTB is a symbol of allegiance to the beast's system, contrasting with the seal of God on His faithful. Revelation does not equate the MOTB with an explicit "apostasy" led by the Man of Lawlessness (MOL). The two concepts are distinct: the MOTB reflects allegiance to the beast, while apostasy (in 2 Thessalonians 2) refers to a falling away from faith.
The argument that the MOL and the 8th King are the same figure lacks textual support and misreads the relevant passages. The MOL (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12) is described as a figure who exalts himself above all gods and takes a seat in God’s temple, symbolizing spiritual rebellion and deception. This figure operates within the realm of false religion and apostasy, leading many astray. Paul’s focus is on a spiritual rebellion rather than a geopolitical power like the 8th King. The 8th King (Revelation 17) symbolizes a collective manifestation of earthly powers in opposition to God’s kingdom. It is tied to the beast and the harlot Babylon, representing a global system of rebellion rather than a single individual. While both the MOL and the 8th King oppose God, their roles and contexts differ. The MOL is linked to spiritual deception within the Church (a falling away), whereas the 8th King represents global political and economic oppression. Equating them oversimplifies the complexity of apocalyptic symbolism.
The argument that apostasy refers exclusively to supporting the 8th King and taking the MOTB is inconsistent with the biblical use of the term. Paul uses "apostasy" in 2 Thessalonians 2 to describe a deliberate departure from true faith, instigated by the MOL’s deception. This is not equivalent to taking the MOTB in Revelation, which is a mark of allegiance to the beast's global power. The Bible does not equate the apostasy described in 2 Thessalonians with the MOTB or support for the 8th King. Apostasy involves rejecting God’s truth, whereas the MOTB signifies submission to worldly systems. These are related concepts but not identical.
The claim that the primary basis for judgment is whether one supports or rejects the 8th King oversimplifies Revelation’s eschatology. Revelation 14:6-10 emphasize the eternal gospel and the consequences of worshiping the beast and receiving its mark. However, Revelation’s broader message is about allegiance to God versus allegiance to worldly powers. Judgment is based on faithfulness to God, not merely opposition to the 8th King. In Revelation 19:20-21 the destruction of the beast and its followers reflects God’s ultimate triumph over evil. However, Revelation also describes the final judgment of all humanity (cf. Revelation 20:11-15), which encompasses more than allegiance to the beast.
The claim that Jesus, as the stone in Daniel 2, destroys the 8th King conflates distinct eschatological images. In Daniel 2:34-35 the stone represents God’s eternal kingdom, which triumphs over all earthly kingdoms symbolized by the statue. While Revelation also speaks of Christ’s victory over worldly powers, the imagery of Daniel 2 is not directly tied to the 8th King. The stone crushing the statue signifies the ultimate supremacy of God’s kingdom over all human authority. This is a broader theological truth, not limited to a specific event or figure like the 8th King.
The idea that God’s people must endure tribulation under the 8th King conflates symbolic and literal interpretations of Revelation. Revelation depicts God’s people as those who remain faithful in the face of persecution (cf. Revelation 7:9-14; 14:4-5). The "great tribulation" is a symbol of spiritual testing, not necessarily a literal period under a specific geopolitical regime. Revelation’s judgment scenes (e.g., Revelation 20:11-15) emphasize God’s justice over all humanity, not just those associated with the 8th King. Faithfulness to God, not rejection of a single geopolitical power, is the primary criterion.
In conclusion, your interpretation conflates and misrepresents distinct apocalyptic figures, symbols, and events. The MOL, 8th King, and KOTN are not the same entity, nor are their actions identical. Apostasy, the MOTB, and God’s judgment are broader theological concepts that cannot be reduced to opposition to a single figure or system. A faithful reading of these passages requires attention to their historical, literary, and theological contexts, avoiding speculative and forced connections.