- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Is there a biblical character called the Antichrist, a beast who will rule the world in the end of days. Or is the term ‘antichrist’ simply a type of person. This video investigates what the antichrist means.
Both.
evidently, there is to be one anti christ in particular
but likewise many people are anti christ in principle
Hi
In calling the pope the “Antichrist”, the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the “Antichrist” when they wished to castigate his abuse of power. What Lutherans understood as a papal claim to unlimited authority over everything and everyone reminded them of the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 11, a passage that even prior to the Reformation had been applied to the pope as the Antichrist of the last days.[18
Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation.
Historicism is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events and identifies symbolic beings with historical persons or societies; it has been applied to the Book of Revelation by many writers. The Historicist view follows a straight line of continuous fulfillment of prophecy which starts in Daniel’s time and goes through John’s writing of the Book of Revelation all the way to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[1]
One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist were matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over the Church through Apostolic Succession, and the State through the Divine Right of Kings. When the Papacy aspires to exercise authority beyond its religious realm into civil affairs, on account of the Papal claim to be the Vicar of Christ, then the institution was fulfilling the more perilous biblical indicators of the Antichrist. Martin Luther wrote this view into the Smalcald Articles of 1537; this view was not novel and had been leveled at various popes throughout the centuries, even by Roman Catholic saints.[2] It was then widely popularized in the 16th century, via sermons, drama, books, and broadside publication.[3] The alternate methods of prophetic interpretation, Futurism and Preterism were derived from Jesuit writings, whose counter-reformation efforts were aimed at opposing this interpretation[4][5][6][7] that the Antichrist was the Papacy or the power of the Roman Catholic Church.[8]Protestant Reformers, including John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley, as well as most Protestants of the 16th–18th centuries, felt that the Early Church had been led into the Great Apostasy by the Papacy and identified the Pope with the Antichrist.[17][18] The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume Magdeburg Centuries to discredit the Catholic Church and lead other Christians to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist. So, rather than expecting a single Antichrist to rule the earth during a future Tribulation period, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers saw the Antichrist as a present feature in the world of their time, fulfilled in the Papacy.[17][19] Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Isaac Newton believed that the Papal Office (and not any one particular Pope) was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule is prophesied to last for 1,260 years.
The Church Fathers who interpreted the Biblical prophecy historistically were: Justin Martyr, who wrote about the Antichrist: “He Whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time and times and an half, is even now at the door”;[20] Irenaeus, who wrote in Against Heresies about the coming of the Antichrist: “This Antichrist shall … devastate all things … But then, the Lord will come from Heaven on the clouds … for the righteous”;[21] Tertullian, looking to the Antichrist, wrote: “He is to sit in the temple of God, and boast himself as being god. In our view, he is Antichrist as taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies; and especially by the Apostle John, who says that ‘already many false-prophets are gone out into the world’ as the fore-runners of Antichrist”;[22] Hippolytus of Rome, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, wrote: “As Daniel also says (in the words) ‘I considered the Beast, and look! There were ten horns behind it – among which shall rise another (horn), an offshoot, and shall pluck up by the roots the three (that were) before it.’ And under this, was signified none other than Antichrist”;[23][24] Athanasius of Alexandria clearly held to the historical view in his many writings, writing in The Deposition of Arius: “I addressed the letter to Arius and his fellows, exhorting them to renounce his impiety…. There have gone forth in this diocese at this time certain lawless men – enemies of Christ – teaching an apostasy which one may justly suspect and designate as a forerunner of Antichrist”;[25] Jerome wrote: “Says the apostle [Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], ‘Unless the Roman Empire should first be desolated, and antichrist proceed, Christ will not come.'” Jerome claimed that the time of the break-up of Rome, as predicted in Daniel 2, had begun even in his time.[26] He also identifies the Little horn of Daniel 7:8 and 7:24–25 which “shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law” as the Papacy.[27]
Some Franciscans had considered the Emperor Frederick II a positive Antichrist who would purify the Catholic Church from opulence, riches, and clergy.[28]
Some of the debated features of the Reformation’s Historicist interpretations reached beyond the Book of Revelation. They included the identification of:the Antichrist (1 and 2 John);
the Beast of Revelation 13;
the Man of Sin, or Man of Lawlessness, of 2 Thessalonians 2 (2:1–12);
the “Little horn” of Daniel 7 and 8;
The Abomination of desolation of Daniel 9, 11, and 12; and
the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17.
The Protestant Reformers tended to believe that the Antichrist power would be revealed so that everyone would comprehend and recognize that the Pope is the real, true Antichrist and not the vicar of Christ. Doctrinal works of literature published by the Lutherans, the Reformed Churches, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Anabaptists, and the Methodists contain references to the Pope as the Antichrist, including the Smalcald Articles, Article 4 (1537),[29] the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope written by Philip Melanchthon (1537),[30] the Westminster Confession, Article 25.6 (1646), and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Article 26.4. In 1754, John Wesley published his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, which is currently an official Doctrinal Standard of the United Methodist Church. In his notes on the Book of Revelation (chapter 13), Wesley commented: “The whole succession of Popes from Gregory VII are undoubtedly Antichrists. Yet this hinders not, but that the last Pope in this succession will be more eminently the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, adding to that of his predecessors a peculiar degree of wickedness from the bottomless pit.”[31][32]
God bless
Berean……..John Calvin , was a cold blooded murder, he had The old Spainard “Micheal Servetus, put to death by burning him with green wood, so he would suffer longer. For writing the artical “the errors of the trinity” , There is a book that gives the exact trial about him recorded in history you need to read it, CALLED “OUT OF THE FLAMES”. Then come back and tell us about the “Great reformer”, JOHN CALVIN.
And by the way, Sir Issac Newton, did not believe in the trinity at all?
Berean the Protestent churches are nothing more then, A EXTENSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? That is exactly where they came from. They share a lot the exact same teachings, as the trinity, sunday worship, the sign of the cross, the same as the Catholics do?
Berean, You need to stop spreading so much miss information .
Peace and love to you and yours Berean………gene
Proclainer…….Inorder to find out what the word “Antichrist” means , you must examine what was going on at the time John coined the term “ANTICHRIST” and who he was addressing it to. Remember this was something that was taking place in the Church of that day.
In the time of the early church there was several different groups of people, some taught different things then the Apostles , a farely large group of them were called the “Gonistic’s” , their teaching was that Jesus was, a God, sent from the ‘PLORA’ OF THE GOD’S. They argued that Jesus was God before his birth on this earth, and as a result he did not need to be “ANOINTED” with the Spirit of God , because he already was a God. They believed he was only “DESGUISED” as a human being.
They Were leading many astray from the teachings of the apostles with these false teachings, and the idea of Jesus not being a human being, but a God himself, and so thereby, did not need to be “Anointed” with the Spirit of God, because he was already a God, this is what generated the term “Anti-Christo’s” , or against the anointing , and of coarse that would also mean they were “against the “anointed one, Jesus also.
There were many then, as John said, and millions more now. There is no single human “Antichrist” that is to come, that’s all false teachings brought on by the fallen churches, they are the true “Antichrists”.
Peace and love to you and yours Proclaimer………..gene
Gene
The Papacy IS THE MOTHER OF THE APOSTATE CHURCHES AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
PROTESTANTS PROTESTED FOR A TIME AGAINST CERTAIN ABUSE AND SOME FALSE DOCTRINES, BUT NOT ALL, INCLUDING THE TRINITY AND THE DAY OF SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST.You Gene, you protest against the Trinity, BUT YOU BRING ANOTHER FALSE DOCTRINE ON THE ORIGIN OF CHRIST. YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE THAT JESUS IS OF DIVINE NATURE AND THAT HE PRE-EXISTED BEFORE HE DESCENDED ON EARTH AND MADE FLESH.
👉But made himself of no reputation, AND TOOK UPON HIM the form of a servant, and WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MENGene, What does that mean ? 👉HE MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION?
Gene, Jesus WAS GOD(John1) AND HE MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION
AND
TOOK UPON HIM the form of a servant, and WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN
Paul Say THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS CHRIST
HE WAS GOD IN THE FORM OF GOD AND HE MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION AND TOOK UPON HIM the form of a servant, and WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN .
QUITE SIMPLY!
IF HE WERE JUST A MAN, HE WOULD NEED A SAVIOR LIKE ALL MEN ON THIS EARTH, FOR ALL MEN ARE DEPRIVED FROM THE GLORY OF GOD (Rom.3:23)
👇
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;JESUS DON’T SINNED .
….the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me;(John 14:30)
Hebrews 4:15
For we have no high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses; on the contrary, he was tempted like us in all things, without committing sin.Berean……..That means Jesus was not trying to preach himself, as you false preachers do , just as he said you would, Jesus said (not me) ……“many” will come saying (or preaching ) I am the Christ, and decieve “Many”.
Jesus said (not me)……“I have gloified “YOU” (God the Father) on the earth: I have finished the workd “YOU” gave me to do.”
Jesus said (not me)…….“and now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and i come to you Holy Father; keep “THROUGH YOUR NAME” , these “YOU” have given me, that they may be one as we are. Sotell me Berean who’s name are we to be kept through, according to Jesus, (not me).
Why is God the Father hardly ever mention by you and the rest of those who believe like you here, Jesus’ whole ministery was about God the Father and His kingdom, THAT WAS WHAT HIS WHOLE MESSAGE WAS ABOUT. But you and people who believe like you , preach exclusively about Jesus, leaving the Father out of your preaching 90% of the time, but Jesus’ message was nearly 90% about , “God the Father”. Big difference between what you people teach , and what Jesus taught.
So the question still remaines, do you truly “believe” Jesus, and what he preached?, or are you to busy trying to make Jesus out to be “different” then we are? Your focuse is on the “man” Jesus but not on his message. You have made him your object of worship, so therefore he is your God. 2ths2.
peace and love to you and yours Berean………..gene
Miia…… Yes, especially so-called, “Christanity.”
Peace and love to you and you, hope all is going well with you Miia………..gene
Gene, you have a way of slipping away from answering the real questions ABOUT WHO JESUS REALLY IS.
THEN CONTINUE YOUR LITTLE GAME, IT WILL BE FOR YOUR ETERNAL DOSS.Extract from: The Papacy
Is The Antichrist
A DEMONSTRATION“By
Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. )The Term “Antichrist”
We shall not go far afield in this discussion: nor is it in the least necessary to do so. The
materials for a right decision on the question before us lie close at hand. The Apostle
John, speaking of the great apostacy to arise in Christendom, calls it the “Antichrist.”
And the Pope has taken to himself, as the name that best describes his office, the title
“Vicar of Christ.” All we shall ask as the basis of our argument are these two accepted
facts, namely, that John styles the “apostacy,” “the Antichrist,” and that the head of the
Roman system styles himself “Christ’s Vicar.”
The Papacy holds in its name the key of its meaning. We shall make use of that
key in unlocking its mystery and true character. The Papacy cannot complain though we
adopt this line of interpretation. We do nothing more than use the key it has put into our
hands.
The Apostle John, we have said, speaking of the apostacy, the coming of which
he predicts, styles it the “Antichrist.” And we have also said that the Papacy, speaking
through its representative and head, calls itself the “Vicar of Christ.” The first,
“Antichrist,” is a Greek word, the second, “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in
reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichrist translated into English is
Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist –
Antichristos. If we can establish this –and the ordinary use of the word by those to whom
the Greek was a vernacular, is decisive on the point –we shall have no difficulty in
showing that this is the meaning of the word “Antichrist,” –even a Vice-Christ. And if
so, then every time the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the
world that he is the “Antichrist.”
Moreover, this will clear our way and simplify our discussion. For, let it be
noted, if Antichrist signifies a Vice-Christ –that is, one who comes in the room of Christ
–deception, dissimulation, counterfeit, must be an essential element in his character. In
whatever persons or systems that fundamental characteristic is lacking, we fail to find the
“Antichrist,” whatever may be their general opposition to Christ and to Christianity, or
whatever other features of the Antichrist they may bear. They may have every other
characteristic by which prophecy had described this noted adversary of Christ and his
gospel, yet, lacking this fundamental one, their claim to this pre-eminently evil
distinction cannot be admitted. This enables us to dismiss summarily and at once a host
of Antichrists which have been conjured up by persons who have drawn upon their
imagination, rather than followed any sound principle of prophetic interpretation. The
cause of the papacy is served by the false glosses and mistaken interpretations of
Scripture which interpose a pseudo-antichrist betwixt it and Prophecy, which unfolds
against it so black a record, and suspends above it so terrible a doom.
We shall suppose that an atheist or an infidel has been put to the bar to answer to
a charge of being the Antichrist. He has manifested a Satanic malignity against the Gospel, and has laboured to the utmost of his power to destroy it. He has blasphemed
God, execrated Christ, and derided, vilified, and persecuted all who profess His name,
and on these grounds he has been assumed to be the Antichrist. The case is no imaginary
one. Atheists and scoffers in former ages, Voltaire and Paine in later times, Communists
and Pantheists in our own day, have all been arraigned as the Antichrist.
Well, let us suppose that one or other of these notoriously wicked personages or
systems has been put to the bar, on the charge of being the “adversary” predicted by John.
“Who are you?” says the judge. “Are you a Vice-Christ? So you make a profession of
Christianity, and under that pretext seek to undermine and destroy it? “No,” replies the
accused. “I am no counterfeit. Christ and His Gospel I hate; but I am an open enemy, I
fight under no mask.” Turning to the likeness drawn by Paul and John of Christ’s great
rival and opponent, and finding the outstanding and essential feature in the portrait absent
in the accused, the judge would be constrained to say, “I do not find the charge proven.
Go your way; you are not the Antichrist.”
Mohammedanism comes nearer than any other of the opposing systems to the
Antichrist of the Bible; yet it falls a long way short of it. Mohamet did not disavow the
mission of Jesus; on the contrary, he professed to hold Him in honour as a prophet. And
in much the same way do His followers still feel towards Christ. But Islam does not
profess to be an imitation of Christianity. Any counterfeit that can be discovered in
Mohammedanism is partial and shadowy when placed alongside the bold, sharp-cut
counterfeit of Romanism. It requires a violent stretch of imagination to accept
Mohammedanism, or, indeed, any other known ism, as a Vice-Christ. Of all systems that
ever were on the earth, or are now upon it, Romanism alone meets all the requirements of
prophecy, and exhibits all the features of the Vice-Christ; and it does so with a
completeness and a truthfulness which enable the man who permits himself to be guided
by the statements of the Word of God on the one hand, and the facts of history on the
other, to say at once, “This is the Antichrist.”
What we have said is meant to indicate the lines on which our demonstration will
proceed. We must trace the parallelism betwixt their respective chiefs, Christ and the
Pope, along the entire line of their career. In this parallelism lies the essence of
Antichristianism, and of course the strength of our argument. It is this counterfeit, so
exact and complete, which has misled the world into the belief that this is Christianity, to
the waste of ages not a few, the unsettling and overthrow of kingdoms, the stunting of the
human understanding, and the loss of millions of souls.To be continued (if God want)
Antichrist an enemy under a mask.
In order to introduce ourselves to our subject, we have taken it for granted that the
system described by Paul in the passage we have just quoted is the papacy. This is the
thing to be established. We now proceed to prove this, and provided we shall show on
good and conclusive grounds that the system depicted by Paul is the Roman apostacy,
and that this is the same system which Daniel and John have portrayed under symbolic imagery, it will follow that one who admits the Bible to be the Word of God, and that
Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, must believe that the Papacy –that is, the
Roman apostacy –is the Antichrist of Scripture.
This is not point of mere speculation. It is a question that has attendant upon it
great practical issues. This inquiry has for its object the ascertainment of the true
meaning of an important part of the Word of God, even the better half of its prophecies.
Moreover, on this question must rest the verdict we are to pronounce on that society
which calls itself “the church,” as also the revelations in which we are to stand to it. And
on it, too, must depend whether we shall abandon or whether we shall continue to occupy
the ground which we have been accustomed to regard as our divine central position in our
war with Popery; or, rather, whether we ought not to end this war, and confess that we
have been fighting all along under a mistake.
Who is Antichrist? It will help us to the right answer to this question if we shall
first determine, What is Antichrist?
Antichrist is an enemy who makes war with the Son of God. Of that there is no
doubt. But what is the form of this war, and under what character does Antichrist carry it
on? Does he wage it openly, or does he fight it under a mask? Does he take the field as
an open rebel and a declared foe, or does he come as a friendly adherent who professes to
bring support and help to the cause which, in reality, he seeks to undermine and destroy?
To determine this point, let us look at the meaning of the word Antichrist as employed in Scripture.
The reader sees that the term is a composite one, being made up of two words anti and Christ. The name is one of new formation; being compounded, it would seem, for
this very enemy, and by its etymology expressing more exactly and perfectly his
character than any older word could. The precise question now before us is this –What is
the precise sense of anti in this connection? Does it designate an enemy who says openly
and truly, “I am against Christ.” Or does it designate one who says plausibly, yet falsely,
“I am for Christ.” Which?
To determine this, let us look at the force given to this prefix by writers in both
classic literature and Holy Scripture. First, the old classic writers. By these the preposition anti is often employed to designate a substitute. This is, in fact, a very
common use of it in the classic writers. For instance, anti-basileus, he who is the locum
tenens of a king, or as we now should say viceroy: anti having in this case the force of the
English term vice. He who filled the place of consul was antihupatos, pro-counsul. He
who took the place of an absent guest at a feast was styled antideipnos. The preposition
is used in this sense of the great Substitute Himself. Christ is said to have given Himself
as an antilutron, a ransom in the stead of all. Classic usage does not require us to give
only one sense to this word, and restrict it to one who seeks openly, and by force, to seat
himself in the place of another, and by violent usurpation bring that other’s authority to
an end. We are at liberty to apply it to one who steals into the office of another under the
mask of friendship; and while professing to uphold his interest, labours to destroy them.
This leaves us free to turn to the use of the word in Scripture.
The Antichrist comes first into view in our Lord’s discourse recorded in
Matt.xxiv. 24, and Mark xiii. 22. “For false Christs (pseudoxristos) and false prophets
shall arise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the
elect.’ Our Lord does not, indeed, use the word Antichrist, but what is almost its synonym pseudo-Christ. Nevertheless, the persons whose coming He foretells are in the
line of Antichrist; they belong to the same family, and their grand characteristic is
deception. Manifestly, they are not open enemies, but pretended friends; they are “false
Christs and false prophets,” and as such are forerunners of that great Antichrist who is to
succeed them, and in whom they are to find their fuller development and final
consummation. They shall seek by “signs and wonders,” false, of course, to obscure the
glory of Christ’s true miracles, to weaken the evidence of His Messiahship arising
therefrom, and to draw men away from Him, and after themselves.
The other place in the New Testament in which reference is made to Antichrist is
the 1st and 2nd Epistles of John. The idea which John presents of the Antichrist is quite in
harmony with that of our Lord. John looks for him in the guise of a Deceiver. “Little
children,” says John (1st Epistle ii. 18), “it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists.” After this announcement of
a special and great Antichrist, to follow in the wake of those minor Antichrists that were
already arrived, and were urging their claims on the attention of the world, he comes to
look more closely at the giant who was to stand up after these dwarfs had passed away.
He notes prominently one characteristic of him, and it is his falsehood. Antichrist, says
John, is to be a liar (verse 22). “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
“St John’s words,” says Archbishop Trench, “seem to me decisive on the matter,
that resistance to, and defiance of, Christ, not the false assumption if his character and
offices, is the essential mark of Antichrist.” (Synonyms of the New Testament, by R.C.
Trench, B.D., p.120 Cambridge and London, 1854) Such is Dr Trench’s opinion; but he
gives no grounds for it, and we are unable to imagine any. We draw the exactly opposite
conclusion from the apostle’s words, even that the “false assumption of His character and
offices” is an essential mark of Antichrist. “He is a liar,” says John. But if he comes
boldly and truthfully avowing himself the enemy of Christ, how is he a liar? If he avows,
without concealment, his impious design of overthrowing Christ, with what truth can he
be spoken of as a deceiver? But such is the character plainly ascribed to him by John (2nd
epistle, verse 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.” Plainly the
exegesis, or rather supposition, of Dr Trench is inadmissible.
Dr Chalmers had no difficulty in seeing the Roman system in the “apostacy”
predicted by Paul. We find him saying in his Scripture Readings: -“Save us, O Lord,
from falling away, lest we share in the perdition that waiteth on the great apostacy. We
hold the usurpation of Rome to be evidently pointed at, and therefore let us maintain our
distance, and keep up our resolute protest against its great abominations.” (Dr Chalmers’
Sabbath Scripture Readings, vol. I., p.310. Edinburgh, 1848.)
Archbishop Trench was misled, it may be, by the strength of the term deny. “He is
Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.” But he who does not confess when he is
called to do so, denies. Such is the use of the word in these applications all through the
New Testament. Such is the use John makes of it in this very passage: -“for many
deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh.” It is clear that Antichrist, as depicted by our Lord and by His Apostle John, is to
wear a mask, and to profess one thing and act another. He is to enter the church as Judas
entered the garden –professedly to kiss his Master, but in reality to betray Him. He is to come with words of peace in his mouth but war in his heart. He is to be a counterfeit
Christ –Christ’s likeness stamped on base metal. He is to be an imitation of Christ, -a
close, clever, and astute imitation, which will deceive the world for ages, those only
excepted who, taught by the Holy Spirit, shall be able to see through the disguise and
detect the enemy under the mask of the friend.Antichrist no Atheist or Communist.
Antichrist, then, is a counterfeit. But this one mark is not alone sufficient to identify the
person on whom it is found as the great apostate. All deceit in religion is anti-Christian;
the other marks must come along with this one to warrant us to say that we have found
that pre-eminently wicked one, and that portentous combination of all evil that is to form
the Antichrist. Yet this one mark enables us to test certain theories which have been
advanced on this subject. If Antichrist must necessarily be a deceiver –a false Christ –
then no Atheist or body of Atheists can be Antichrist. No Pantheist of body of Pantheists
can be Antichrist. They are not deceivers; they are open enemies. They make war in
defiance of God and Christ, and under the protestation that there is no such person as the
Bible affirms filling the office of the world’s Mediator and Saviour. They hold the whole
affair to be an invention of priests. Antichrist dare make no such avowal. It would be
fatal to him. Were he to affirm that Christianity is a fable, and out and out imposture, he
would cut away the ground from under his own feet. He would deny the very first
postulate in his system; for there must first be a Christ before there can be an Antichrist.
And not less does this mark shut us up to the rejection of the theory which has
been advanced with much earnestness and some plausibility, that Antichrist is a political
character, or potentate, some frightfully tyrannical and portentously wicked King, who is
to arise, and for a short space devastate the world by arms. This is an altogether different
Antichrist from that Antichrist which prophecy foreshadows. He may resemble, nay,
surpass him, in open violence, but he lacks the profound dissimulation under which
Antichrist is to commit his atrocities. The rage of the mere tyrant is indiscriminately
vented upon the world at large; Antichrist’s rage is concentrated on one particular object
and cause; nor with any propriety can such a one be said to sit in the “temple of God,” the
seat on which the mock-Christ specially delights to show himself. Prophecy absolutely
refuses to see in either of these theories the altogether unique and over-topping system of
hypocrisy, blasphemy, and tyranny which it has foretold. So far we are helped in our
search. When we are able to put aside some of the false Antichrists, we come more
within sight of the true one. We turn now to the prophecy of Paul, and we shall be blind
indeed, if, after the study of it, we shall be in any doubt as to whose likeness it is that looks forth upon us from this remarkable prediction.To be continued
Berean…….why did John say there were already “MANY” antichrists existing in his day, need proof? John said this , (not me)…..1 John 2:18……Little childern , it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrists shall come; even “NOW” are there “MANY” antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time. (19)….They (the antichrists) , went out from us but they (the antichrist’s) were not of us, because if they had been of us, the would have continued with us: but that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Berean the Chatholic church did not even exist when, the apostle John made that statement.
You quote all kinds of different false teachings by others, but hardly , if ever use scriptures to support your dogmas, why is that? It is obvious by what John said the pope is not the only “antichrist”, in existence, the Roman Chatholic church never came into existence for 325 years after he wrote that , “even “NOW” are there “MANY” antihrists”.
I have quoted you exactly what John said, and you accuse me of falseifying the word , when in truth it is you and those you are always quoting that are.
If you had the Spirit of truth abiding in you, you would know these things, And would not rely on all these false teachers you are alway quoting instead of, what is “actually” written in our scriptures.
Truth is you people do not, only know what is written , you don’t believe it either, i have quoted to you (Not my words) but exactly what is written , but you fail to believe it, but would rather believe all those false teachers like you are constantly quoting here, which shows us clearly you yourself don’t understand the scriptures yourself? Sad
Peace and love to you and your Berean…….gene
Gene
I have quoted you exactly what John said, and you accuse me of falseifying the word , when in truth it is you and those you are always quoting that are.
Me
On this point, I have not accused you of anything…. IT IS ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE AND THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST THAT YOU DENY AND WHICH IS YET 100% BIBLICAL.
TO RETURN TO THE ANTICHRIST, I REALLY ADVISE YOU TO READ WHAT I HAVE POSTED, THIS WILL AVOID USELESS CHATTER.
Berean…….I have read it, and it is full of false asumptions that are not in line with our scriptures. I have posted you the “exact” scriptures that deal with who the antichrists are, right out of the mouth of John himself. The question remains, who are you going to believe John or what the person who your quoted said, you can’t have it both ways Berean.
Remember what scripture says, ” if they speak not according to these words, it’s because the “TRUTH IS NOT “IN” THEM.” Those are not my words either, Berean.
AS far as Jesus prexisting his birth on the earth as a real living being , you are right i do not believe that , but i do believe He was “prophsied ” a long time before He ever came into his real existence, by GOD through the prophets. Did he go back to a prexisting position he heald before ?, no, but he did go that position aforded him in the prophesy?, yes he did. Even with all the glory given him before he ever existed, even before the very foundations of the earth. King Cryus a servant of God also had glory with God , given him 200 years before he ever existed, a prophesied glory also.
Jesus was, and still is, a Son of (from) mankind, just as he said he was around 80 times. He is exactly what he said, ” i am the root and ofspring of David” just as scriptures say he would be. (Not me , those are not my words)
Again the question is do you people “actually” believe Jesus . If you people believe Jesus prexisted his birth then thats all you have to do is produce proof of any “activity” of him in scriptures, before his existence on this earth, and that will suffice.
Peace and love to you and your Berean……….gene
Gene
I have read it, and it is full of false asumptions that are not in line with our scriptures. I
Me
You say things but you don’t prove anything.
Tell me rather what are these hypotheses put forward by the author…Vatican News: “Queen Elizabeth was a Driving Force Behind the Excellent UK-Holy See Relations”
On September 10, 2022, Christopher Trott, the British ambassador to the Vatican, shared his thoughts on the late Queen’s legacy and her support for the strong diplomatic ties between the United Kingdom and the Vatican following her passing. The report was published by the Vatican News. Christopher Trott expressed the following:
• “I was very moved by His Holiness the Pope’s message on the passing of Her Majesty, and I think that reflects a message that she personally had invested in building our relationship and supporting the Ambassadors to the Holy See, in building a relationship with five separate Popes over the time of her reign.”
• “I think she (Queen Elizabeth II) had a huge amount of respect for each of the Popes that she met. And I think that when she met Pope Francis it was a really warm and spontaneous encounter, and there was a real expression of mutual respect which is reflected in the message that Pope Francis sent on her death. And I think that helps support the more formal state-to-state relationship I represent, because having that personal relationship, is reflected in that warmth.”
According to prophecy (Revelation 17:12, 13 and 18:3), the message embraced by the kings of the earth will be identical to the message of the Pope. The States will abide by the Pope’s instructions. Some will do it out of financial necessity, others out of convenience, and still others out of fear of defying Rome. All earthly kings and queens will bow to the Antichrist’s authority. The Bible foretells this exact scenario. All of Babylon’s children are coming together and being brought home. This includes her harlot daughters, the false prophets, the merchants, and the political leaders. Queen Elizabeth II was no exception.
As we watch our world celebrate the pomp, ceremony, and pageantry for the longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, let us not forget that the UK, under Queen Elizabeth II’s rule, has become more atheist than Christian. A recent poll says that more British people believe in ghosts than in God. It’s no secret that Britton has been shedding its Christian identity for some time now. This will always impact the morals of any society when the people turn from God-loving to godless. Progressive ideologies, godless immorality, Marxism, Romanism, ecumenism, secularism, and homosexuality have hastened the decline of a once great Protestant nation.
The Judeo-Christian values passed down to them during the Protestant Reformation have been completely rejected by the UK’s educational system today. Tragically, under Queen Elizabeth II, all this rich history has all but been eliminated. The classical Christian culture with a Protestant identity and a moral foundation has come to an end. So as the world mourns the death of Queen Elizabeth II, may they also mourn the loss of a once great kingdom.
Click to read the full story: http://adventmessenger.org/vatican-news-queen-elizabeth-was-a-driving-force-behind-the-excellent-uk-holy-see-relations/
God bless
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
