I admit this is just a guess. He seems to fit the role of the King of the North found in the first part of Dan 11. Wherever he fits into scripture or if at all he is definitely setting the stage. In the near future it appears the US dollar will fall. The US, Canada, and Mexico will unite. Because of Obamacare they are going to implement the microchip injection. All I can say is don't sweat the small stuff because the world is getting ready for a bumpy ride. If you look at history blood red moons have significance. 4 are scheduled in one year starting Apr 15. Whenever Israel was slighted some sort of devastation fell on the offending nation. The US is supposedly currently going over to pick a fight with Israel. I pray we all spend less time trying to fit scripture into our hypothesis and spend more time spreading the Gospel to those we know aren't saved. I'm pretty sure we can all agree there's not much time left.
do you think obama is the antichrist?
- Thread starter Heartsearcher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
http://christianchat.com/member.php?u=188950 Holy canoli! That's a lot of information you laid out there all at once. Did you write this? May I borrow it? Nicely done. 
D
2Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
As we can see from 2Th2:3 the terms “man of sin” and “son of perdition” are interchangeable. As you have shown the only other time the term “son of perdition" was used was to describe Judas who satan had entered. So clearly we have at least two sons of perdition. Nor can we automatically assume that there is only one “man of sin” in the future because the term is used in a singular manner. In the KJV the term “man of God” is used 78 times in 73 verses in a singular fashion yet not all of those verses are talking about the same man. So just because a term is used in singular fashion does not necessarily mean there is only one.
Nothing in 2Th tells us the man of sin is a world leader, so why do you believe he is? So let’s look have a look at what he does and see if any of that suggests he is an endtime world leader. He “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped”. Now we know there are many that oppose God and place themselves above His word, any one who believes that they can do as they please regardless of God’s word is doing that. Remember “word was God” (John1:1). He also “sitteth in the temple of God” so either he is sitting in the heart of a believer (1Cor3:16-17 or 2Cor6:16) or amongst the believers (Eph2:19-21). But he does not sit in some building the Jews may or may not build and falsely labels the temple of God because God does not dwell in temples made with hands(Acts7:48 and Acts17:24). Nor does he show the world he is God he shows himself that. If this person was trying to convince the world that he is Christ or God so he could rule the world he would be trying to conviince the world, not showing himself. So in other words what the man of sin does is sit among the believer while being in open rebellion to God’s word. In an effort to keep this post from being excessively long I have tried to simplify this explanation. If you would like to see a detailed explanation that fully explains the man of sin based on sound hermeneutic principles please see Man of Sin <click
May God bless your studies!
As we can see from 2Th2:3 the terms “man of sin” and “son of perdition” are interchangeable. As you have shown the only other time the term “son of perdition" was used was to describe Judas who satan had entered. So clearly we have at least two sons of perdition. Nor can we automatically assume that there is only one “man of sin” in the future because the term is used in a singular manner. In the KJV the term “man of God” is used 78 times in 73 verses in a singular fashion yet not all of those verses are talking about the same man. So just because a term is used in singular fashion does not necessarily mean there is only one.
Nothing in 2Th tells us the man of sin is a world leader, so why do you believe he is? So let’s look have a look at what he does and see if any of that suggests he is an endtime world leader. He “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped”. Now we know there are many that oppose God and place themselves above His word, any one who believes that they can do as they please regardless of God’s word is doing that. Remember “word was God” (John1:1). He also “sitteth in the temple of God” so either he is sitting in the heart of a believer (1Cor3:16-17 or 2Cor6:16) or amongst the believers (Eph2:19-21). But he does not sit in some building the Jews may or may not build and falsely labels the temple of God because God does not dwell in temples made with hands(Acts7:48 and Acts17:24). Nor does he show the world he is God he shows himself that. If this person was trying to convince the world that he is Christ or God so he could rule the world he would be trying to conviince the world, not showing himself. So in other words what the man of sin does is sit among the believer while being in open rebellion to God’s word. In an effort to keep this post from being excessively long I have tried to simplify this explanation. If you would like to see a detailed explanation that fully explains the man of sin based on sound hermeneutic principles please see Man of Sin <click
May God bless your studies!
D
Please show the book, chapter and verse that says “It was the changing of the 10 Commandment Law of God that makes someone the Antichrist” You said it the burden of proof is on you! Here are the only 4 verses that use the term antichrist or antichrists:
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.
As we can see from the verses quoted above none of the verses telling us what antichrist is supports your view! So where does your view come from? The private interpretations of men!
2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
While it is true the Catholicism usurps Christ authority we must remember that usurping Christ’s authority is not the same as denying Christ.
Usurp
1a: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne>
b: to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>
2: to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment>
Deny
1: to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
2: to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow <deny responsibility>
3a: to give a negative answer to <denying the petitioners>
b: to refuse to grant <deny a request>
c: to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4archaic: decline
5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
If we are going to understand Scripture we must use the definitions Scripture itself provides not the private interpretaions of man! Please tell me which of the four verses in Scripture that define antichrist or antichrists theCatholics or the pope are guilty of transgressing. No long winded explanation required.
Is it 1John2:18? I don’t see anything there that fits Catholicism or the pope do you?
Is it 1John4:3? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. So obviously if they teach and believe Christ is the only begotten Son of God, was crucified, died and was resurrrected they are not guilty of transgressing this verse!
Is it 1John4:3? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach and believe that Christ is come in the flesh. So once again neither Catholicism or the pope are guilty of transgressing this verse!
Is it 2John1:7? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach and believe Christ is come in the flesh. So they are not guilty of transgressing this verse.
So clearly while Catholicism and the pope may have many doctrinal errors they do not meet Scriptures definition of antichrist or antichrists!
All fall short when it comes to keeping the commandments of God. Are you perfect? Do yo keep every commandment? If not then by your line of reasoning even you are antichrist. We know this is not the case and as a believer you are not antichrist, therefore your logic is flawed. Quit relying on the doctrines of men and start basing your belief on what Scripture actually says and then maybe you will be able to see the simple truth that there are many antichrists and what makes them antichrist is their denial of Christ/God , not an incorrect doctrine.
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.
As we can see from the verses quoted above none of the verses telling us what antichrist is supports your view! So where does your view come from? The private interpretations of men!
2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
While it is true the Catholicism usurps Christ authority we must remember that usurping Christ’s authority is not the same as denying Christ.
Usurp
1a: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne>
b: to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>
2: to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment>
Deny
1: to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
2: to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow <deny responsibility>
3a: to give a negative answer to <denying the petitioners>
b: to refuse to grant <deny a request>
c: to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4archaic: decline
5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
If we are going to understand Scripture we must use the definitions Scripture itself provides not the private interpretaions of man! Please tell me which of the four verses in Scripture that define antichrist or antichrists theCatholics or the pope are guilty of transgressing. No long winded explanation required.
Is it 1John2:18? I don’t see anything there that fits Catholicism or the pope do you?
Is it 1John4:3? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. So obviously if they teach and believe Christ is the only begotten Son of God, was crucified, died and was resurrrected they are not guilty of transgressing this verse!
Is it 1John4:3? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach and believe that Christ is come in the flesh. So once again neither Catholicism or the pope are guilty of transgressing this verse!
Is it 2John1:7? No it isn’t Catholicism and the pope teach and believe Christ is come in the flesh. So they are not guilty of transgressing this verse.
So clearly while Catholicism and the pope may have many doctrinal errors they do not meet Scriptures definition of antichrist or antichrists!
All fall short when it comes to keeping the commandments of God. Are you perfect? Do yo keep every commandment? If not then by your line of reasoning even you are antichrist. We know this is not the case and as a believer you are not antichrist, therefore your logic is flawed. Quit relying on the doctrines of men and start basing your belief on what Scripture actually says and then maybe you will be able to see the simple truth that there are many antichrists and what makes them antichrist is their denial of Christ/God , not an incorrect doctrine.
D
Nothing more then Catholic bashing guess work theology. We are to base our belief on what Scripture says not man. As my earlier post which was based on sound hermeneutic principles demonstrates antichrists are simply those who deny Christ and there are many. Not a single verse in Scripture says antichrist is an endtime world leader. Isn’t it time you set this Catholic bashing guess work theology aside and start basing your beliefs on what Scripture actually says?
D
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.
Please show us which one of the only 4 verses in Scripture (quoted above for your convenience) says antichrist is other then? As we can see none of the verses defining antichrist or antichrists supports your view.
Scipture does not say antichrist is an “other than”. If we are to understand antichrist or antichrists we must base our understanding on the definition God Himself provided in Scripture. The other then or against definitions are man made definitions. Man made definitions are private interpretations.
Sorry I just can’t waste an hour and a half watching a you tube video by some man that bases his definition of antichrist on man’s definition instead of basing his belief on the definition given in the inspired word of God.
As you are led friend, as you are led!
C
Well then, I suppose that (according to you, at least) all of the Protestant Reformers were "Catholic Bashers" and that they didn't know how to interpret the Scriptures correctly, since they all said that the Pope was the Antichrist. And common sense would tell us that IF someone identifies WHO the Antichrist is, they are going to have to be a SOMEBODY basher, are they not? Whether they are an Obama basher, a Pope basher or whatever. Because all is not roses and light, SOMEBODY has to be the Antichrist. Also apparently you don't know the difference between the spirit of antichrist and THE ANTICHRIST when it comes to the Scriptures.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated o­n the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow o­n Rome." Taken from J. H. Merle D'aubigne's History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.Based o­n prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.
John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): "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." Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.
John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.
Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "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." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): 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 (II Thess. 2)." The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "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 exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God." Taken from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "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... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.
A Great Cloud of Witnesses: "Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist." Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated o­n the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow o­n Rome." Taken from J. H. Merle D'aubigne's History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.Based o­n prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.
John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): "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." Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.
John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.
Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "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." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): 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 (II Thess. 2)." The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "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 exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God." Taken from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "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... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.
A Great Cloud of Witnesses: "Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist." Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.
Last edited:
D
Claudia T I have used Scripture to demonstrate to you the only 4 verses that use the term antichrist or antichrists does not say that antichrist is an end time world leader. You on the other hand have quoted the doctrines of men to support your position. Should we believe the doctrines of men or the Scriptures?
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. KJV
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. KJV
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. KJV
(remember the word spirit italicised in 1John4:3 was added by the translators, it was not in the original text)
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already 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. KJV
I say antichrist or antichrists are those who deny Christ and the verses above clearly prove this to be correct. You say “The Antichrist” is the pope. Please show us which one of the only 4 verses in Scripture (quoted above for your convenience) that defines antichrist is referring to the pope. If you can’t then why should we believe you instead of what Scripture says?
Is the pope the antichrist they hear shall come in 1John2:18? No it isn’t John told us who that was in 1John 4:3 when he said “this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world.” That can not be the pope as Catholicism did not even exist when John wrote those verses and as the verse states antichrist was already in the world then!
Is the pope the antichrist that denieth Jesus is the Christ from 1John2:22? No he isn’t the pope does not deny Jesus is the Christ, nor does he deny the Father and the Son!
Is the pope the antichrist from 1John4:3? No he isn’t that antichrist was in the world at that time, yet Catholicism did not even exist yet so that antichrist can't be the pope!
Is the pope the antichrist from 1John2:7 “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”? No it isn’t the pope does confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Can you use Scripture to prove your point or must you resort to the doctrines of men? Should we believe Scripture or the doctrines of men? I’ll choose the Scriptures, and I would suggest you do the same. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you, God gave us all free will so the choice is yours to make. As you are led friend, as you are led!
Unfortunaely many were. While it is true many were incorrect in their belief concerning the pope and Catholicism, it is understandable considering that they were being severly persecuted for breaking the chains of Catholic oppression that had been going on for numerous centuries. Unfortunately while I can understand why they made this mistake it is still a mistake. We cannot allow our emotions or prejudices to cloud our judgment, to do so opens the door to incorrect interpretations. So while they may not have intentionally been bashing the Catholics due to their understandable (but still incorrect) prejudices (concerning this particular subject) they never the less were bashing them incorrectly by claiming the pope was the antichrist.
They were just men, they were not infallible. No man fully understands Scripture. None of us will correctly interpret all of Scripture until we are taken to be with the Lord and are no longer corruptible. The fact that the reformers themselves were not all in agreement concerning eschatology demonstrates that their understanding and interpretations were not 100% correct. Having said that I will say we can learn much by reading their writings, but remember it is up to us to verify what they say and see if it matches Scripture. If it does accept it, if it doesn't reject it. In this case we should reject it.
Anyone who says someone is or will be an endtime world leader or ruler known as “The Antichrist” is indeed doing nothing more then bashing as Scripture does not support that interpretaion of antichrist. Antichrists are simply those who deny Christ
There are many antichrists, muslims, atheists, etc………….. Antichrist is not an individual that rules the world but instead simply one who denies Christ and there are many just as Scripture states! Stating the truth is not bashing on the other hand bashing someone just because one blindly follows a doctrine of men that is in error is a false accusation. We are warned in Scripture not to make false accusations.
Isn’t it time you set this Catholic bashing doctrine of men aside and started basing your beliefs and doctrines on what Scripture actually says?
As you are led friend, as you are led!
PS No I am not a Catholic. Yes I recognise that Catholoicism does usurp Christs authority but that is not the same as denying that Jesus is the Christ and that He is the only begotten Son of God. Catholicism contains many doctrinal errors but we can't say they are antichrist unless they meet the Scriptural definition of antichrists!
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. KJV
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. KJV
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. KJV
(remember the word spirit italicised in 1John4:3 was added by the translators, it was not in the original text)
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already 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. KJV
I say antichrist or antichrists are those who deny Christ and the verses above clearly prove this to be correct. You say “The Antichrist” is the pope. Please show us which one of the only 4 verses in Scripture (quoted above for your convenience) that defines antichrist is referring to the pope. If you can’t then why should we believe you instead of what Scripture says?
Is the pope the antichrist they hear shall come in 1John2:18? No it isn’t John told us who that was in 1John 4:3 when he said “this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world.” That can not be the pope as Catholicism did not even exist when John wrote those verses and as the verse states antichrist was already in the world then!
Is the pope the antichrist that denieth Jesus is the Christ from 1John2:22? No he isn’t the pope does not deny Jesus is the Christ, nor does he deny the Father and the Son!
Is the pope the antichrist from 1John4:3? No he isn’t that antichrist was in the world at that time, yet Catholicism did not even exist yet so that antichrist can't be the pope!
Is the pope the antichrist from 1John2:7 “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”? No it isn’t the pope does confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Can you use Scripture to prove your point or must you resort to the doctrines of men? Should we believe Scripture or the doctrines of men? I’ll choose the Scriptures, and I would suggest you do the same. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you, God gave us all free will so the choice is yours to make. As you are led friend, as you are led!
Unfortunaely many were. While it is true many were incorrect in their belief concerning the pope and Catholicism, it is understandable considering that they were being severly persecuted for breaking the chains of Catholic oppression that had been going on for numerous centuries. Unfortunately while I can understand why they made this mistake it is still a mistake. We cannot allow our emotions or prejudices to cloud our judgment, to do so opens the door to incorrect interpretations. So while they may not have intentionally been bashing the Catholics due to their understandable (but still incorrect) prejudices (concerning this particular subject) they never the less were bashing them incorrectly by claiming the pope was the antichrist.
They were just men, they were not infallible. No man fully understands Scripture. None of us will correctly interpret all of Scripture until we are taken to be with the Lord and are no longer corruptible. The fact that the reformers themselves were not all in agreement concerning eschatology demonstrates that their understanding and interpretations were not 100% correct. Having said that I will say we can learn much by reading their writings, but remember it is up to us to verify what they say and see if it matches Scripture. If it does accept it, if it doesn't reject it. In this case we should reject it.
Anyone who says someone is or will be an endtime world leader or ruler known as “The Antichrist” is indeed doing nothing more then bashing as Scripture does not support that interpretaion of antichrist. Antichrists are simply those who deny Christ
There are many antichrists, muslims, atheists, etc………….. Antichrist is not an individual that rules the world but instead simply one who denies Christ and there are many just as Scripture states! Stating the truth is not bashing on the other hand bashing someone just because one blindly follows a doctrine of men that is in error is a false accusation. We are warned in Scripture not to make false accusations.
Isn’t it time you set this Catholic bashing doctrine of men aside and started basing your beliefs and doctrines on what Scripture actually says?
As you are led friend, as you are led!
PS No I am not a Catholic. Yes I recognise that Catholoicism does usurp Christs authority but that is not the same as denying that Jesus is the Christ and that He is the only begotten Son of God. Catholicism contains many doctrinal errors but we can't say they are antichrist unless they meet the Scriptural definition of antichrists!
Last edited by a moderator:
did you also consider these passages?
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-5)
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
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.
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
(Daniel 11:36-45)
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-5)
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
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.
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
(Daniel 11:36-45)
D
What makes you think this is referring to an endtime world leader? If this is supposedly “The antichrist” why is he called the man of sin and not “the antichrist”? If he is supposedly a world leader claiming to be Christ why does he show himself instead of the world that he is God? The man of sin has already been revealed and he isn’t some endtime ficticous boogeyman aka “The antichrist”! Man Of Sin <click
What makes you think this referring to some end time world leader. Are you saying this is the man of sin? Are you saying they are they same individual and Scripture says these two separate entitities are the ones some falsely label the Antichrist?
If you want you claim these are “the antichrist” that supposedly rules the world in the end times then the burden of proof lies on you, PROVE IT IF YOU CAN! Please provide a Scripturally sound hermeneutic study that proves your point, not guess work theology. Thanks
What makes you think this referring to some end time world leader. Are you saying this is the man of sin? Are you saying they are they same individual and Scripture says these two separate entitities are the ones some falsely label the Antichrist?
If you want you claim these are “the antichrist” that supposedly rules the world in the end times then the burden of proof lies on you, PROVE IT IF YOU CAN! Please provide a Scripturally sound hermeneutic study that proves your point, not guess work theology. Thanks
goodness, i only asked if you'd considered them. your link itself says that the apostles taught us to look to Daniel for illumination of the signs of the coming of That Day.
maybe we'd better keep reading the scripture:
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:6-12)
who is it you think "that letteth" ?
do you believe he has already been "taken out of the way" ?
maybe we'd better keep reading the scripture:
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:6-12)
who is it you think "that letteth" ?
do you believe he has already been "taken out of the way" ?
D
You know I have, this is not the first time I have referred you to that link, when discussing this subject.
Why are you resorting to making false statements about the page I linked to? The page I linked to is hermeneutically sound study of the Scriptures explaining the man of sin. Granted at the top of the web page there are other links linking to other subjects on eschatology such as the abomination of desolation. But you will not read anything on the webpage I linked to that supports your false statement about that page.
Nothing on that page says “that the apostles taught us to look to Daniel for illumination of the signs of the coming of That Day”. Even if you followed the link on that page to the page about the abomination of desolation you statement would still be false. On the page about the abomination it does speak of Christ (not the apostles ) referring us back to Daniel but if you read it, it points out the abomination of desolation is an “IT” that “STANDS” not a “HE” that “SITTETH”.
Let’s keep it honest, making false statements about the page you were referred to hurts your credibility and that my friend will not help you prove your point!
So how does this prove that the man of sin is the antichrist that many claim rules the world in the end times? Once again I must ask what verse in Scripture says “The antichrist” is an endtime world leader? If you are going to say it is some one not called “The antichrist” in Scripture you must first prove that there will be an end time world leader called antichrist. Then you must also prove that individual will rule the world in the end times. I know you are firmly entrenched in the futurists doctrine, but I must ask why? Has futurism helped or harmed Christianity? Before answering, consider how futurism has brought the Scriptures into contempt. Do you need a few examples of this? How about Harold Camping and his multiple failed predictions or Edgar C. Wisenant and his numerous failed predictions in the books 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, The final shout: Rapture report 1989, 23 reasons why a pre-tribulation rapture looks like it will occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993 and And now the earth's destruction by fire, nuclear bomb fire (predicting the end in 1994). I could list more but I think you understand the point I am getting at.
"Those things of God which are now dark and obscure will hereafter be made clear, and easy to be understood. Truth is the daughter of time. Scripture prophecies will be expounded by the accomplishment of them; therefore they are given, and for that explication they are reserved. Therefore they are told us before, that, when they do come to pass, we may believe." Matthew Henry
"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton
Isn’t it time futurist quit playing fortune teller which only brings the Scriptures into contempt when their predictions fail?
Please take the time to actually address the issues I have raised. Expecting me to address your questions while you refuse to actually answer mine results in a one sided conversation, that is nothing more then an exercise in futility as you desparately look for a reason to reject my view while you cling to an unprovable view.
Why are you resorting to making false statements about the page I linked to? The page I linked to is hermeneutically sound study of the Scriptures explaining the man of sin. Granted at the top of the web page there are other links linking to other subjects on eschatology such as the abomination of desolation. But you will not read anything on the webpage I linked to that supports your false statement about that page.
Nothing on that page says “that the apostles taught us to look to Daniel for illumination of the signs of the coming of That Day”. Even if you followed the link on that page to the page about the abomination of desolation you statement would still be false. On the page about the abomination it does speak of Christ (not the apostles ) referring us back to Daniel but if you read it, it points out the abomination of desolation is an “IT” that “STANDS” not a “HE” that “SITTETH”.
Let’s keep it honest, making false statements about the page you were referred to hurts your credibility and that my friend will not help you prove your point!
So how does this prove that the man of sin is the antichrist that many claim rules the world in the end times? Once again I must ask what verse in Scripture says “The antichrist” is an endtime world leader? If you are going to say it is some one not called “The antichrist” in Scripture you must first prove that there will be an end time world leader called antichrist. Then you must also prove that individual will rule the world in the end times. I know you are firmly entrenched in the futurists doctrine, but I must ask why? Has futurism helped or harmed Christianity? Before answering, consider how futurism has brought the Scriptures into contempt. Do you need a few examples of this? How about Harold Camping and his multiple failed predictions or Edgar C. Wisenant and his numerous failed predictions in the books 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, The final shout: Rapture report 1989, 23 reasons why a pre-tribulation rapture looks like it will occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993 and And now the earth's destruction by fire, nuclear bomb fire (predicting the end in 1994). I could list more but I think you understand the point I am getting at.
"Those things of God which are now dark and obscure will hereafter be made clear, and easy to be understood. Truth is the daughter of time. Scripture prophecies will be expounded by the accomplishment of them; therefore they are given, and for that explication they are reserved. Therefore they are told us before, that, when they do come to pass, we may believe." Matthew Henry
"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton
Isn’t it time futurist quit playing fortune teller which only brings the Scriptures into contempt when their predictions fail?
Please take the time to actually address the issues I have raised. Expecting me to address your questions while you refuse to actually answer mine results in a one sided conversation, that is nothing more then an exercise in futility as you desparately look for a reason to reject my view while you cling to an unprovable view.
from the link:
maybe i'm reading that too literally, & i need to spiritualize everything, but it seems to me that whomever wrote that meant to imply that the apostles pointed to Daniel as an authority with regards to end-time prophesy.
i perceive that you want to argue that point. does that mean you don't think Daniel prophesied about the last days?
because if he did, he's doesn't seem to be talking about a "mindset of the north" but a literal "king of the north" in chapter 11.
to my ever so unscholarly eyes.
my untrained, ignorant eyes see a striking parallel between Daniel's description of this future "king" and Paul's description of the "son of perdition."
my dim perception and imperfect understanding reads that as a personification of the "spirit of antichrist" that John wrote was already present in the world.
if it's as you say, all of this is figurative -- i don't understand who it is that restrained this "antispirit" that was still in the world restraining evil after Christ ascended, but is gone now, even while the Holy Spirit indwells His church.
now i'm a poor & uneducated gentile. if you want a PHD thesis i'm sure google can find you scores of them. i'm trying to understand what the truth of this is, so if you have it, can you help me understand who restrained, but no longer does?
or if you want to just yell and accuse some more, that's cool too.
maybe i'm reading that too literally, & i need to spiritualize everything, but it seems to me that whomever wrote that meant to imply that the apostles pointed to Daniel as an authority with regards to end-time prophesy.
i perceive that you want to argue that point. does that mean you don't think Daniel prophesied about the last days?
because if he did, he's doesn't seem to be talking about a "mindset of the north" but a literal "king of the north" in chapter 11.
to my ever so unscholarly eyes.
my untrained, ignorant eyes see a striking parallel between Daniel's description of this future "king" and Paul's description of the "son of perdition."
my dim perception and imperfect understanding reads that as a personification of the "spirit of antichrist" that John wrote was already present in the world.
if it's as you say, all of this is figurative -- i don't understand who it is that restrained this "antispirit" that was still in the world restraining evil after Christ ascended, but is gone now, even while the Holy Spirit indwells His church.
now i'm a poor & uneducated gentile. if you want a PHD thesis i'm sure google can find you scores of them. i'm trying to understand what the truth of this is, so if you have it, can you help me understand who restrained, but no longer does?
or if you want to just yell and accuse some more, that's cool too.
D
That quote is not from the page the link I provided took you to. Let’s keep it honest!
Any one can read the info at the link I provided Man of Sin <click and see what you quoted was not on that page, but on another page located @ Abomination Of Desolation <click which is a different link. 2 different links, 2 different subjects. Switching subjects in the middle of a discussion only results in confusion.
Once again let’s keep it honest! I never said “all of this is figurative”, please show us where I supposedly said that. A quote and link to the post will do. When you can’t will you admit that you have misrepresented what I said?
Once again Let’s keep it honest! Please show where I have been yelling. I have not once posted using all caps which is yelling per internet etiquette. If I did why not quote the post and provide a link.
Pointing out the fact that you are not being honest about what is said on the link I provided or being less then honest about what I said is not accusing. On the other hand it is stating a fact. How can we have a productive discussion if you cannot at least be honest about the info at a link I post or what I have said. You on the other hand are the one that is doing the accusing (falsely at that) by implying I am yelling when you say “if you want to just yell” when I haven’t yelled. Discussion with you is proving to be an exercise in futility. As you are led friend, as you are led!
Any one can read the info at the link I provided Man of Sin <click and see what you quoted was not on that page, but on another page located @ Abomination Of Desolation <click which is a different link. 2 different links, 2 different subjects. Switching subjects in the middle of a discussion only results in confusion.
Once again let’s keep it honest! I never said “all of this is figurative”, please show us where I supposedly said that. A quote and link to the post will do. When you can’t will you admit that you have misrepresented what I said?
Once again Let’s keep it honest! Please show where I have been yelling. I have not once posted using all caps which is yelling per internet etiquette. If I did why not quote the post and provide a link.
Pointing out the fact that you are not being honest about what is said on the link I provided or being less then honest about what I said is not accusing. On the other hand it is stating a fact. How can we have a productive discussion if you cannot at least be honest about the info at a link I post or what I have said. You on the other hand are the one that is doing the accusing (falsely at that) by implying I am yelling when you say “if you want to just yell” when I haven’t yelled. Discussion with you is proving to be an exercise in futility. As you are led friend, as you are led!
D
Posthuman my mistake and I must apologise after reviewing the page I linked to the quote was on that page where it explains what and where the temple of God is. But please note it was only showing that the Abomination of Desolation is not connected to the man of sin as many falsely assume. As for as the rest of my post goes it still stands.