The official doctrine of the Antichrist / king / leader in the end

[Laodicea]

Maybe according to the way you interpret Scripture but if one applies sound hermeneutic principles to their studies they will find that almost all you believe is future has been unfolding right before our eyes for the last 2000 years or so. If you want to believe in the boogie man aka “the Antichrist go right ahead just be careful that you don’t get so busy looking over your shoulder for him you fail to recognize the beast(Islam) is ready to pounce and wants your head. Remember prophecy does not tell us what isn't there but what is and none of the verses that tell us about antichrist say he is an endtime leader or that there is only one in the end. Can you show us a verse that says antichrist is a king in the end times? No you can't, because not a single verse that tells us about antichrists says he is an end time world leader or that there is only one.

Be blessed my friend may God bless our studies.

1 John 4:3
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Antichrist in this verse is in the singular, it was already in the world in John's time. How can Islam be antichrist when they were not around at this time? Islam did not turn up until hundreds of years later.

 

[doulos]

1 John 4:3
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Antichrist in this verse is in the singular, it was already in the world in John's time. How can Islam be antichrist when they were not around at this time? Islam did not turn up until hundreds of years later.

One of the amin tenemants of the Islamic faith is that God has no Son. Doesn't Scripture tell us all who deny the Son are antichrist?
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.
Are you saying that one who denies God has a Son is not antichrist? What difference does it make if Islam existed or not at the time the verses were written? Anyone who denies (regardless of time or location) that God has a Son (muslims, atheists etc.... and the list goes on) is an antichrist or 1John2:22 would be in error. The Scriptures are not in error but those whose views contradict Scripture are in error. We don't change the Scritpures to match our doctrines but we should change our doctrines to match the Scriptures.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

what do we know of the "antichrist" or man of sin, whatever you call him?

1. he is a prince
2. His people (rome) destroyed the holy city and temple in 70 AD
3. He will confirm a covenant wiht many for one week (7 years)
4. He will break his covenant by commiting the abomination.
5. He will be the son of perdition (satan will enter and personally control him, as he did Judas)
6. he will make war with the woman (isreal) but will not be able to touch her, so he turns to the womans offspring (the church)

Islam fits non of these characteristics.

yes it is the spirit of antichrist, yes it should be avoided. But no, we should not fear her for she is not the "prince who is to come"

 

[IMINJC]

eternally-greatful


Very good post!

 

[1Christianwarrior316]

what do we know of the "antichrist" or man of sin, whatever you call him?

1. he is a prince
2. His people (rome) destroyed the holy city and temple in 70 AD
3. He will confirm a covenant wiht many for one week (7 years)
4. He will break his covenant by commiting the abomination.
5. He will be the son of perdition (satan will enter and personally control him, as he did Judas)
6. he will make war with the woman (isreal) but will not be able to touch her, so he turns to the womans offspring (the church)

Islam fits non of these characteristics.

yes it is the spirit of antichrist, yes it should be avoided. But no, we should not fear her for she is not the "prince who is to come"

Why do you think the antichrist or the man of sin is and endtime world leader?
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 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
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.
In the above verses that define what antichrist is, show me where it says antichrist is an endtime world leader.

2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Is the man of sin described as an endtime world leader in the above verses?

Are you basing your understanding by man's precepts or what the Word of God says?

In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Why do you think the antichrist or the man of sin is and endtime world leader?

Because scripture tells us this.

Daniel is told he is a world leader who commits the abomination.

Jesus tells us when we see the abomination of desolation. run

John tells us he and the false prophet will be cast to hell at the return of Christ, so he must be at the end.

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 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
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.
In the above verses that define what antichrist is, show me where it says antichrist is an endtime world leader.

You defines many antichrists. Not the last one, or the "man of sin" who in himself is An ANTICHRIST. who not only denies Christ, but claims to be Christ himself.

2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Is the man of sin described as an endtime world leader in the above verses?

You mean the same man who is destroyed at the return of Christ. Who is this "man of sin"

who is revealed?

Are you basing your understanding by man's precepts or what the Word of God says?

In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316

By the word of God, taken as a whole, with many prophesies and many passages.

 

[Laodicea]

One of the amin tenemants of the Islamic faith is that God has no Son. Doesn't Scripture tell us all who deny the Son are antichrist?
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.
Are you saying that one who denies God has a Son is not antichrist? What difference does it make if Islam existed or not at the time the verses were written? Anyone who denies (regardless of time or location) that God has a Son (muslims, atheists etc.... and the list goes on) is an antichrist or 1John2:22 would be in error. The Scriptures are not in error but those whose views contradict Scripture are in error. We don't change the Scritpures to match our doctrines but we should change our doctrines to match the Scriptures.

Islam may have some teachings of antichrist But, they are not that antichrist who John is referring to as already in the world.
1 John 4:3
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[doulos]

he and his false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire alive by the Angel's of the Lord. The writer refers to this person in 1JN 2:18as (The antichrist)...

Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone
My friend I believe you are confusing the beast which is a kingdom with a he that is an antichrist. Remember God’s inspired Word tells us that beasts are kingdoms.
Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And history proves this to be true. Daniel’s lion beast was Babylon, the bear was Medo-Persia and the leopard was Greece.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;…….
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
If God/Word does not change and a beast was a kingdom in Daniel it will still be a kingdom in Rev. Can you show us where God/Word changed the definition of a beast in prophetic language between Daniel and Revelation? If not then shouldn’t we use the definition for beasts that the unchanging God/Word provides and history proves to be true?

Notice the writer does not say here that "You have heard that the spirit which is antichrist is to come".... It CLEARLY states that....".... and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come...Singular....and then to make it even more clear that he was referring to one individual he says the following...even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
You are mistaken when you say that antichrist is a spirit and nothing else. The Bible does not say that.

My friend if you think that is what I am saying you have misunderstood my view. Yes there are many antichrists and each and every one of them is an antichrist that is inhabited by the spirit of antichrist.
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 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.
Let me ask you a few questions. If the singular spirit of antichrist (note the word spirit was added by translators) from 1John 4:3 is not the same singular antichrist John was referring to in 1 John2:18, then why can’t you or anybody else show us where in Scripture they heard the one from 1John4:3 should come? Why did John say “this is that spirit of antichrist; whereof ye have heard that it should come” if it is not the one they “heard shall come” from 1John2:18?

 

[doulos]

Because scripture tells us this.

Daniel is told he is a world leader who commits the abomination.

Interesting, can you provide Scriptural proof that Daniel was told about the man of sin? The only time I have seen the term man of sin used is in 2Th. In addition doesn’t Daniel tell us the abomination is setup? Doesn’t Christ tell us the abomination is an it that is standing? Does commits mean the same as set up? Wouldn’t an it that is set up and standing be something physical that we could see? Wouldn’t something that someone commits be some type of action?

Jesus tells us when we see the abomination of desolation. Run

Jesus tells those who are in Judaea to flee. I don’t know about you but I am not in Judaea.
Mat 24:15 - 16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

John tells us he and the false prophet will be cast to hell at the return of Christ, so he must be at the end.

Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone
My friend I believe you are confusing the beast which is a kingdom with the man of sin (an individual that has allowed Satan entry like Judas did)
Remember God’s inspired Word tells us that beasts are kingdoms.
Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And history proves this to be true. Daniel’s lion beast was Babylon, the bear was Medo-Persia and the leopard was Greece.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;…….
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
If God/Word does not change and a beast was a kingdom in Daniel it will still be a kingdom in Rev. Can you show us where God/Word changed the definition of a beast in prophetic language between Daniel and Revelation? If not then shouldn’t we use the definition for beasts that the unchanging God/Word provides and history proves to be true?

You defines many antichrists. Not the last one, or the "man of sin" who in himself is An ANTICHRIST. who not only denies Christ, but claims to be Christ himself.

Which of the following 4 verses (the only verses In Scripture that use the term antichrist or antichrist) tells us there is a ;ast antichrist and he is the man of sin?
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.

 

[doulos]

Islam may have some teachings of antichrist But, they are not that antichrist who John is referring to as already in the world.
1 John 4:3
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The spirit of antichrist that was already in the world when John wrote the verss is the same spirit of antichrist that inhabits all antichrists regardless of their position on the time liene. Now can you show us which one of the 4 veres in Scripturethat define antichrists the Catholics are guilty of transgressing? No, you can't, but even if you could, wouldn't the reasoning you are using in order to argue against muslims being antichrist also apply to Catholics? Were they in the world when John wrote those verses? No just like Islam they did not come until later.

 

[Laodicea]

The spirit of antichrist that was already in the world when John wrote the verss is the same spirit of antichrist that inhabits all antichrists regardless of their position on the time liene. Now can you show us which one of the 4 veres in Scripturethat define antichrists the Catholics are guilty of transgressing? No, you can't, but even if you could, wouldn't the reasoning you are using in order to argue against muslims being antichrist also apply to Catholics? Were they in the world when John wrote those verses? No just like Islam they did not come until later.

It looks like you are trying to change the truth, Islam is not that antichrist that John was referring to as already in the world. It is referring to someone else. You will not accept the fact that there are antichrists even though people show you. Your mind is set on Islam.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Interesting, can you provide Scriptural proof that Daniel was told about the man of sin? The only time I have seen the term man of sin used is in 2Th. In addition doesn’t Daniel tell us the abomination is setup? Doesn’t Christ tell us the abomination is an it that is standing? Does commits mean the same as set up? Wouldn’t an it that is set up and standing be something physical that we could see? Wouldn’t something that someone commits be some type of action?

Daniel is told the prince who is to come will commit the abomination which makes desolate.

Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place.

again, antiochus epiphanes (the little horn) did this pre christ, he sacrificed a pig in the inner sanctuary, He did the abomination, the idol or unclean things was the abomination which could be seen.

you have to realise the difference.

Jesus tells those who are in Judaea to flee. I don’t know about you but I am not in Judaea.
Mat 24:15 - 16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

thats because he was not talking to you, he was talking to Isreal, who were again occupying her land who see the abomination in the future temple.

Rev tells us the man goes after the woman, But god protects her as she is in the mountains. The woman is the nation of Isreal, So the man goes after her offspring. Who would be Christians. Isreal at this point has not yet repented. It is the suffering which they go through which causes them to repent, as God opens her eyes.

Rev 19:20

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone

My friend I believe you are confusing the beast which is a kingdom with the man of sin (an individual that has allowed Satan entry like Judas did)
Remember God’s inspired Word tells us that beasts are kingdoms.
Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And history proves this to be true. Daniel’s lion beast was Babylon, the bear was Medo-Persia and the leopard was Greece.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;…….
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
If God/Word does not change and a beast was a kingdom in Daniel it will still be a kingdom in Rev. Can you show us where God/Word changed the definition of a beast in prophetic language between Daniel and Revelation? If not then shouldn’t we use the definition for beasts that the unchanging God/Word provides and history proves to be true?

Any kingdom is run by a king. Nebachadnezar was the king of the first empire. etc etc..

Again, look at daniel. God does not cast a whole kingdom into hell. he casts the prince of that kingdom, who had rule.

Which of the following 4 verses (the only verses In Scripture that use the term antichrist or antichrist) tells us there is a ;ast antichrist and he is the man of sin?
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.

Niether. because these verses are not talking of the man of sin, who is a future prince of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary (rome) will will confirm a covenant with many (this has to be a king, not a kingdom) then break his covenant by commiting the abomination?

 

[doulos]

Laodicea;689331]It looks like you are trying to change the truth, Islam is not that antichrist that John was referring to as already in the world. It is referring to someone else. You will not accept the fact that there are antichrists even though people show you. Your mind is set on Islam.

Granted Islam was not in existence when John wrote the verse that said the spirit of antichrist was already in the world. But it really makes no difference as all antichrists past, present and futures are inhabited by that spirit of antichrist that was already in the world. I do accept that there are many antichrists, Muslims Atheists, etc…. and the list goes on. What I do not accept is your man made definitions of antichrists that condemns Catholics when Catholics do not 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.
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.

Can you show us which of the above verses Catholics are guilty of transgressing? No you can’t because they are not guilty of transgressing any of those verses. If you choose to condemn Catholics and say they are antichrists it is your decision, but I would suggest you consider that by doing so you are doing exactly what Christ warned against in Mark7:13.

On the other hand when I say a muslim is an antichrist because they deny God has a Son I can actually show a verse that proves those who deny the Son are antichrists.
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.
Denying God has a Son would be denying the Son so yes all muslims are antichrist per Scripture!

 

[doulos]

Daniel is told the prince who is to come will commit the abomination which makes desolate.

Are you saying that the prince to come from Daniel is the man of sin? Where is your proof? How can you prove that interpretation is correct? Nothing in the book of Daniel says the abomination is commited. Let’s look at what the verses actually say.
Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
That verse does not say commits, it says set up. Commits and set up are not the same thing.
Dan 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
While it is true that these verses tell us the people of the prince destroys the city and sanctuary it does not say he commits an abomination. Destroying the city and the sanctuary may be an act that is committed but that is not the same as setting some thing up. Nor does it prove that the people of the prince is the man of sin. Besides as we can see from these verse the overspreading of abominations does not occur until after the Sanctuary is destroyed by the people of the prince. So once again I ask where is your proof that the people of the prince is the man of sin and that he commits the abomination in the temple? How can the abomination of desolation be an act that is committed in the temple when the temple is destroyed before the abomination is set up?

Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place.

And if you go to Jerusalem will you see anything standing in the holy place that could be construed as an abomination?

again, antiochus epiphanes (the little horn) did this pre christ, he sacrificed a pig in the inner sanctuary, He did the abomination, the idol or unclean things was the abomination which could be seen.

As you said this was done “pre Christ” but yet when Christ spoke the abomination was still a future event from when Christ was here so this can not be the abomination Christ was referring to or that Daniel was speaking of. If it was then why did Christ describe something that was past tense as a future event?

thats because he was not talking to you, he was talking to Isreal,

That right, but in post 46 of this thread you said “Jesus tells us when we see the abomination of desolation. run” Was this just a typo and you really did not mean us?

[quote] who were again occupying her land who see the abomination in the future temple. [/quote]
Dan 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
As we can see from the above verses the Sanctuary (temple) and city are destroyed before the overspreading of abominations take place. Christ tells us that the abomination is in a holy place. If the sanctuary is destroyed before the abomination is set up then it must be another holy place. Is the city of Jerusalem a place? Is it holy? Sure it is.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
So wouldn’t an abomination standing on the temple mount be standing in a holy place? Sure it would.

Any kingdom is run by a king. Nebachadnezar was the king of the first empire. etc etc..

Was Nebuchadnezzar the lion or was Babylon the lion? And yet when John tells us about the final 8th beast/kingdom we see that there are 8 beasts but only 7 kings.
Rev 17:10-11 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not
yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was,
and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Interesting 7 kings but 8 beasts looks like we are short one king!

Again, look at daniel. God does not cast a whole kingdom into hell. he casts the prince of that kingdom, who had rule.

People are the kingdoms. Kingdoms come and go because the people come and go if it were about the land mass Babylon would still be Babylon so yes an entire kingdom can be thrown into the lake of fire.

Niether. because these verses are not talking of the man of sin, who is a future prince of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary (rome) will will confirm a covenant with many (this has to be a king, not a kingdom) then break his covenant by commiting the abomination?

Per your interpretation, which you have yet to prove to be true.

 

[feedm3]

If People would stop trying to force a difference between the antichrist and "spirit of the antichrist" it would clear up alot of confusion.

The antichrist and spirit of are the same. it is any doctrine that denies the Resurrection and Christ as the messiah. It was already in the world in John's time and continues until now. We see it all the time, evolution, teachings of Islam, even some of the modern Jews that hold Christ is not the Messiah to come.

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.

I John 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.

People like Hal Lindsey, Jack whatever, all those who like to keep people watching for a person that is not coming. Focus on living in accrodance with the will of God and salvation, the rest of this is just the out of control imagination of men.

I John 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.

there is no difference in Spirit of antichrist and antichrist. John used "spirit" to denote the person, the person is the spirit of antichrist because of his belief and doctrine.

Look at the beginning of the passage "every SPIRIT that confesses not Jesus.." Every spirit meaning anyone, so the same that spirit(person) is the spirit(person) of the antichrist.

II John 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.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Are you saying that the prince to come from Daniel is the man of sin? Where is your proof? How can you prove that interpretation is correct? Nothing in the book of Daniel says the abomination is commited. Let’s look at what the verses actually say.
Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
That verse does not say commits, it says set up. Commits and set up are not the same thing.

Wow, a play on words. so we should not see it for what it is?

As I showed before, An abomination which makes desolate is an idol, or something considered unclean which is set up in the holy place. Someone commits this abomination by "setting up" the idol where it should not be, This idol, desecrates the holy place.

so we are left with 2 questions.
1. When is it set up.
2. Who is the one who sets it up? which is answered in the next part of your post.

Dan 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

When does it occur?

Halfway through a one week (7 year) covenant is confirmed by this future prince of the people of Rome.

Who does it?

In the middle of the week, HE shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. And HE shall set up the abomination which makes IT desolate,

How? By setting up an Idol or unclean thing in the Holy Place. How do we know it is in the Holy Place? Jesus said it would be.

While it is true that these verses tell us the people of the prince destroys the city and sanctuary it does not say he commits an abomination.

You need to re-read what even you posted.

HE caused sacrifice to cease, HE makes the holy place desolate by setting up the abomination.

It says quite plainly HE does it. so what am I missing?

Destroying the city and the sanctuary may be an act that is committed but that is not the same as setting some thing up.

I never said it was. I said it shows who this person is. He is the prince who is to come, His people destroy the city and sanctuary.

Nor does it prove that the people of the prince is the man of sin.

I have no clue what your talking about. No one has claimed the people are the man of sin. this makes no sense whatever.

Besides as we can see from these verse the overspreading of abominations does not occur until after the Sanctuary is destroyed by the people of the prince.

Again, I have no clue what your getting at, You just said exactly what I have been saying since day one. do what is your disagreement?

So once again I ask where is your proof that the people of the prince is the man of sin and that he commits the abomination in the temple?

No one has claimed the people is the man, Where are you getting this?

The man comes out of the people, you have it backwards. And I just proved HE confirms a 7 week covenant, HE breaks his own covenant in the middle, HE stops sacrifice, And HE sets up the abomination. What more proof do you want?

How can the abomination of desolation be an act that is committed in the temple when the temple is destroyed before the abomination is set up?

it is easy, if you read what happens AFTER the destruction of the temple.

The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

From the time of the destruction, until the other events. There shall be a flood, which will occure until the END of WAR desolations are determined (remember, jesus said there will be wars and rumors of wars, but the END is not yet. The end of these war desolation have yet to be determined, even as we speak today.

then what happens?


27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,

1. He, The prince who is to come, Confirms some covenant for 1 week. Has not happened yet. Which gives ample time for a temple of some type to be rebuilt, in fact, there are plans to do such a thing today,
2. In the middle of the week (3.5 years) He stopps sacrifice and offering, he sets up the abomination which makes desolate. And then time goes on and things happen.



Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

After the abomination, something is consumned and poured out on the desoate (wicked) Jesus said immediately after, there will be great tribulation such as has never been seen before.. Daniel is told in chapter 12 of a time of great trouble such as never has been seen before. At the end, Christ returns. it is then that the consummation of Gods wrath is finished being poured on the desolate, the man of sin and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire etc etc.

And if you go to Jerusalem will you see anything standing in the holy place that could be construed as an abomination?

I don't have to see it. some will see it, and the word will be spread. heck, for all we know, a news camera will witness it and it will be all over the the, this is the time the man of sin declares himself to be the messaih of the world is it not? With todays technology, he could show the world what he did.

as you said this was done “pre Christ” but yet when Christ spoke the abomination was still a future event from when Christ was here so this can not be the abomination Christ was referring to or that Daniel was speaking of. If it was then why did Christ describe something that was past tense as a future event?

Antiochus epihanes did not commit the abomination jesu sspoke of. He commited one earlier. we can look at what he did to see what an abomination looks like.

That right, but in post 46 of this thread you said “Jesus tells us when we see the abomination of desolation. run” Was this just a typo and you really did not mean us?

yes, it would be, I should have said he told them to run. The disciples were jews, they assumed at this time I am sure they would stay in jerusalem and the church they were going to be built would be run from there (it was until 70 AD to be honest)

Dan 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
As we can see from the above verses the Sanctuary (temple) and city are destroyed before the overspreading of abominations take place. Christ tells us that the abomination is in a holy place. If the sanctuary is destroyed before the abomination is set up then it must be another holy place. Is the city of Jerusalem a place? Is it holy? Sure it is.

Yet NO Jew would have considered the city the Holy Place. This would not make sense. A jew sacrifices in the temple. If there is no temple, there is no sacrifice and offering according to jewish tradition.

I never stated they were following God, they were not ( or will not be when this happens)

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
So wouldn’t an abomination standing on the temple mount be standing in a holy place? Sure it would.

I have no clue what version you are using,

2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

The court is outside the temple. The temple, the court and the city have been given to the hands of the gentiles.

The temple is there, the abomination sits inside the temple.

Was Nebuchadnezzar the lion or was

Babylon the lion? And yet when John tells us about the final 8th beast/kingdom we see that there are 8 beasts but only 7 kings.

Rev 17:10-11 And there are seven kings: five a fallen, and one is, and the other is not
yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was,
and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Interesting 7 kings but 8 beasts looks like we are short one king!


People are the kingdoms. Kingdoms come and go because the people come and go if it were about the land mass Babylon would still be Babylon so yes an entire kingdom can be thrown into the lake of fire.

A kingdom is dead without a leader. Babylon is nothing without Nebuchadnezzar. Who makes the laws? who makes sure these laws are carried out?

A prince (ruler) stops sacrifice, He sets up the abomination, He declares himself messiah. A false prophet causes the world to worship him, not it.

Per your interpretation, which you have yet to prove to be true.

I think I have proved it quite well. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point

 

[IMINJC]

DOULOS


YOU SAID: Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And history proves this to be true. Daniel’s lion beast was Babylon, the bear was Medo-Persia and the leopard was Greece.

Kingdoms have "KINGS"...No KING No KINGDOM. Ever read about the KING of your Kingdom?

MATTHEW 24:15
15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’[c] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

YOU SAID: My friend if you think that is what I am saying you have misunderstood my view. Yes there are many antichrists and each and every one of them is an antichrist that is inhabited by the spirit of antichrist.

And the one that is spoken of in 1 John is still on his way.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
So wouldn’t an abomination standing on the temple mount be standing in a holy place? Sure it would.

Got it. In the greek the word is exothen. here is the defenition

ἔξωθεν, adv., (fr. ἔξω, opp. to ἔσωθεν fr. ἔσω; cf. ἄνωθεν, πόρρωθε&#957, from without, outward, [cf. W. 472 (440)];
1. adverbially: (outwardly), Mt. 23:27 sq.; Mk. 7:18; 2 Co. 7:5; τὸ ἔξωθεν, the outside, the exterior,


Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (226). New York: Harper & Brothers.

ἔξωθεν, Adv. (ἔξ&#969 from without, Trag., Plat., etc.:—c. gen., ἔξ. δόμων from without the house, Eur.
II. = ἔξω, Hdt., Plat., etc.; οἱ ἔξωθεν foreigners, Hdt.; τὰ ἔξωθεν matters outside the house,


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (277). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

2033 ἔξωθεν (exōthen): prep. (never compounded with verbs)or adv. of place; ≡ DBLHebr 2575; Str 1855—1. LN 84.15 from outside (Mk 7:18); 2. LN 83.20 outside, apart from (Rev 14:20); 3. LN 83.21 the outside of, a surface or object (Mt 23:25, 27; Lk 11:39, 40); 4. LN 11.10 ὁ ἔξωθεν (ho exōthen), outsider, one not in a group (1Ti 3:7+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

as we can see. You used an old english translation. Saying something is without somethin in old english, means it is outside of the temple.

Thats why we should not use the KJV, no one speaks that language today. so we can easily confuse what is rely said and mistranslate, as you did.

 

[doulos]

Kingdoms have "KINGS"...No KING No KINGDOM. Ever read about the KING of your Kingdom?

Maybe you should try telling John that.
Rev 17:10-11 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not
yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Isn’t it interesting that the first seven beasts/ kingdoms have kings but the final eighth beast/kingdom has no king.

And the one that is spoken of in 1 John is still on his way

I think I’ll take John’s word on it.
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 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.
If you choose to ignore what John told us so you can stand by your doctrine that is certainly your choice. Be blessed and may God bless your studies!

"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

“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 expectation they are reserved. Therefore they are told us before, that, when they do come to pass, we may believe”. - Matthew Henry

 

[doulos]

Got it. In the greek the word is exothen. here is the defenition

ἔξωθεν, adv., (fr. ἔξω, opp. to ἔσωθεν fr. ἔσω; cf. ἄνωθεν, πόρρωθε&#957, from without, outward, [cf. W. 472 (440)];
1. adverbially: (outwardly), Mt. 23:27 sq.; Mk. 7:18; 2 Co. 7:5; τὸ ἔξωθεν, the outside, the exterior,


Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (226). New York: Harper & Brothers.

ἔξωθεν, Adv. (ἔξ&#969 from without, Trag., Plat., etc.:—c. gen., ἔξ. δόμων from without the house, Eur.
II. = ἔξω, Hdt., Plat., etc.; οἱ ἔξωθεν foreigners, Hdt.; τὰ ἔξωθεν matters outside the house,


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (277). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

2033 ἔξωθεν (exōthen): prep. (never compounded with verbs)or adv. of place; ≡ DBLHebr 2575; Str 1855—1. LN 84.15 from outside (Mk 7:18); 2. LN 83.20 outside, apart from (Rev 14:20); 3. LN 83.21 the outside of, a surface or object (Mt 23:25, 27; Lk 11:39, 40); 4. LN 11.10 ὁ ἔξωθεν (ho exōthen), outsider, one not in a group (1Ti 3:7+)

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). OakHarbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

as we can see. You used an old english translation. Saying something is without somethin in old english, means it is outside of the temple.

Thats why we should not use the KJV, no one speaks that language today. so we can easily confuse what is rely said and mistranslate, as you did.

Now you are accusing me of mistranslating, what a joke. I fully understand that the court is not in the temple but I think you totally missed the point I was making. Rev11:2 tells us that Jerusalem is a holy city. A city is a place. So an abomination standing on the temple mount (which is in Jerusalem) is standing in a holy place.

Didn’t you say in an earlier post it was in the temple? See post # 52
( http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/40441-official-doctrine-antichrist-king-leader-end-3.html#post689341 )
“who see the abomination in the future temple.”
Or how about post#56 ( http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-antichrist-king-leader-end-3.html#post689753 )
“The temple is there, the abomination sits inside the temple.”
Now let’s look at Dan9:26-27 again and look at the order of events.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel tells us the city and the sanctuary are destroyed before the abomination. If the sanctuary (temple) is destroyed before the abomination it cannot be in the temple. So it makes perfect sense that with Jerusalem being a holy city which is a place an abomination standing on the temple mount is an abomination standing in a holy place.

In addition the events of 70 AD while horrific did not destroy the city or leave it desolate. The Christians went unharmed and even the Jews survived in numbers large enough that the Romans came back in 132-135 and whacked another 650,000 or so Jews. And let’s not forget that in the olivette discourse we are told:
Mat 24:21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
If the events of70AD were the fulfillment then there would be no greater tribulation after that, it could never be more desolate then it was after those events. Yet approximately 550 - 600 years later when the muslims hit Jerusalem they did destroy the city and left it more desolate then any other time in Jerusalem’s history leaving it’s population as low as 550 people while under Islamic control. Turning Jerusalem into a literal desert waste land (even the trees were cut down). While the events of 70AD were horrific they pale in comparison.

No point arguing about it I have thoroughly studied the futurist doctrine and reject it. Can you honestly say you have thoroughly studied the doctrine I hold? If not, why not set your doctrinal filter aside and examine it in light of what Scripture says and history proves.
Read about it HERE
Be blessed my friend.