• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Who is the Antichrist?

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,666
827
Pacific NW, USA
✟170,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I in no way think my views are "unique" or "special." All I've done so far is mention that I simply don't think anyone has a "full view" all figured out.

I in no way claimed to know more than you, nor that I know that your position on biblical eschatology is utterly wrong. I said to you above that I'm already fully aware of the interpretive issues and that it is possible there could be some leading figure someday; the caveat in my thinking is simply that a leading human figure is in itself not required.
That was my whole point, that I suspected your view of Antichrist without the THE was the common belief that Antichrist may not be a singular figure, but rather, a series of figures with antichristian features. Nothing wrong with this view, but that"s what I suspected you thought about.

And so, I shared with you *why* I think Antichrist is THE Antichrist--an individual at the end of history, and not just a series of antichrists throughout history who carried like characteristics. It is because I believe the term Anti-Christ originates with Dan 7, where the Little Horn is "Anti" the coming Kingdom of the Son of Man/Christ. Thus, Anti-Christ.
Again, I didn't say there won't be. You apparently don't believe me and/or have firmly placed all your interpretive chips into one of the dozen positions available and feel the need to prove a point.

My apologies if you think I'm undermining you by telling you that I don't need your help with interpreting the Bible.
Not at all. I was just trying to let you know why I see the Antichrist is a single individual, and not just a thousand predecessors. I see no reason for you to be defensive about this?

Saying you already know all this did throw me back because you invited the conversation. Just casting away comments because "you've heard it before" relegates those comments to something you view as irrelevant to the conversation, which many others may read, as well. Others are entitled to hear the entire relevant commentary, and I do believe it was on point.

That being said, I think we've made our respective points. I do like your bringing up the issue though.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Mary Shelley, you were right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,100
11,806
Space Mountain!
✟1,393,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That was my whole point, that I suspected your view of Antichrist without the THE was the common belief that Antichrist may not be a singular figure, but rather, a series of figures with antichristian features. Nothing wrong with this view, but that"s what I suspected you thought about.
Ok.
And so, I shared with you *why* I think Antichrist is THE Antichrist--an individual at the end of history, and not just a series of antichrists throughout history who carried like characteristics. It is because I believe the term Anti-Christ originates with Dan 7, where the Little Horn is "Anti" the coming Kingdom of the Son of Man/Christ. Thus, Anti-Christ.
Ok. I see the Little Horn as a political power, and we can't say we know precisely who it is or what it is. Maybe you and I can just have common agreement that we don't think it is (or has been) Antiochus IV Epiphanes?
Not at all. I was just trying to let you know why I see the Antichrist is a single individual, and not just a thousand predecessors. I see no reason for you to be defensive about this?
I'm not really intending to be defensive about it, but I've studied these issues and I've already indicated that my interpretations trend in a different direction. I have my reasons.
Saying you already know all this did throw me back because you invited the conversation. Just casting away comments because "you've heard it before" relegates those comments to something you view as irrelevant to the conversation, which many others may read, as well. Others are entitled to hear the entire relevant commentary, and I do believe it was on point.
That's fine if you want to give your interpretation.
That being said, I think we've made our respective points. I do like your bringing up the issue though.

I appreciate your faith and I appreciate that you're of the position the "THE" needs to be emphasized. I'm not going to knock you for it or debate with you over it since I don't think the arguments can be confidently won either way.

Whatever or whomever "the" anti-christ(s) have been so far, or are, or will be, affects both of us just the same.
 
Upvote 0

Fisherking

Active Member
Oct 18, 2023
352
34
61
Alabama
✟64,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the discussion. It's always interesting. I'm just sharing my view of things.
This is how we Christians sharpen our swords, people who get angry about disagreements have to understand they firstly disappoint Christ who told us to be slow to anger, then repent before sundown when we do get angry.

10 Horns represented 10 kingdoms, which is synonymous with nations. I used the word "nations" because when you study the evolution of the 4th Kingdom, ie the Roman Empire, you see that kingdoms formed after it that in the modern age are referred to sometimes as "nations." They are nation-states that have leaders, whether called "kings" or "presidents" or "prime iministers." They are heads of state.
What most do not get in full is this final Beast will not rule the whole earth, heck the USA and New World in general is hit by the Rev. 8 Asteroid (Trumps 1-4) and thus the 1/3 on fire is more akin to a destination point. Also, the Pacific Ocean covers 1/3 of the whole worlds surface. Why does the USA allow this man to conquer anything, being the busy bodies we are? Well, we will be 1.) on fire 2.) we will see Tsunami no doubt larger than ever seen, and 3.) Fires will be burning all over.

He will not conquer Russia nor China, nor anywhere accept what Dan. 11:40-43 shows us. His only job is to kill every Jew to make God's promise null and void. People says, but....but....but in Revelation 13 it says he will conquer the whole world. Well, Dan. 2 says Greece or Alexander the Great would conquer the whole world as well as Nebuchadnezzar, but God gave us parameters and those parameters are well defined by the 7 Heads and 10 Horns and where did they all arise from? The Great [Mediterranean] Sea. So, it is speaking only about the earth/land mass around the Mediterranean Sea Region. John likewise is talking about the same thing right? I saw a Beast rise out of "THE SEA" (Mediterranean) having 7 Heads and 10 Horns or in full representing Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome....then we get the Church Age where the church who could not be overcome by Satan delivered the Mortal Wound, and Rome this great Beast became a conveyor belt of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then only after the Church is raptured will this Beast's mortal wound be healed (meaning he once again Conquers Israel and the Mediterranean Sea Region.

It is not said to be "completion," but okay. The number 10 relates to the number of toes on two feet. It relates back to Dan 2 where the Great Statue had 2 feet of iron mixed with clay.
Yes, but the 10 still represent completion with God.

Well, the number itself is interesting, but I think God views hands and feet as a set of 10. That is travelling and working, feet and hands.

I agree that the EU arose out of Old Rome, but the number it has evolved into is not related to the precise number that will form a Kingdom and what Antichrist will take over. It will be, I think, 5 major nations from W. Europe and 5 major nations from E. Europe.

Not all of the nations in the EU carried the Roman Imperial banner. So, it's much less than 27. I can't say precisely which ones they would be, but I could certainly guess!
Remember, the feet are not Clay not Iron, but Iron & Clay combined. So God is telling us this is Rome reborn but in a different way, not as the voracious beast which Rome was, but in a way where the 10 kings or horn (E.U.) FREELY GIVE THEIR POWER (by voting in Parliament) unto the Beast. So, you have many nations trying to be one nation, which of course makes it a brittle type nation, Iron is strong, but Iron mixed with clay is weak. This beasts rule will last but 3.5 years.

I don't know that he's Assyrian--he's much more likely a Jewish or Christians apostate from Europe. The "Little" refers to the fact he is an individual king as opposed to an entire kingdom.
The False Prophet is Jewish, a High Priest like unto Jason under Antiochus. As a matter of fact it hit me one day, if Antiochus is the archetype Little Horn/AC then he had to have an archetype False Prophet beside him, and he does. Jason had his pious high priest brother Onias III killed, he bribed Antiochus to get te high priest job. Then he welcomed him into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus and mandated that all Jews become Hellenized, which led to the Maccabean Revolt.

Read Isaiah chapter 10, he will be of an Old Assyrian Bloodline, Daniel 8:9 mandates he is born in Greece and Dan. 7:7-8 mandates he arises to power in the Old Roman Empires footprint.

Here is the Roman Empire 2000 some odd years ago(circa 117 AD), below that is the E.U. and the Nations they will conquer in Daniel 11:40-43

download (38).jpg


download (36).jpg


It is Rome Revived.
The Antichrist does not have a lot of names in Scriptures. I just mentioned the few I know, including the Little Horn, the Man of Sin, the Anti-Christ, and the Beast. The Beast itself is a kingdom, but he is also the king over that kingdom.
There is 33 look them up. Have a nice day, gotta go feed my cats.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,782
29,459
Pacific Northwest
✟824,764.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There have been many antichrists and there will continue to be antichrists.

I am not convinced the Bible tells us there will be a singular "THE Antichrist". I think, on some level, this has been creative eisegesis rather than good exegesis.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niels
Upvote 0

jonojim1337

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
513
118
36
Nyköping
✟43,680.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You didn't answer the question: where is the post in which I supposedly agreed with you?

The Prince of princes is a reference to God in Dan 8.25 But the Prince, or Messiah, is "cut off" in Dan 9.26. The Dan 8 reference is to Antiochus 4 and his oppositioin to God. The Dan 9 reference is to Jesus' death.

The ”antichrist” grows out of the place of the ”first king” of the goat - Greece - that was broken into four parts.

IMG_6267.jpeg


IMG_6268.jpeg


This happened at the turn of the 12th century. The Byzantine Empire was split into four successor states. The Prince that was cut off is Andronikos I Komnenos. He is briefly mentioned in Maccabees as being punished by God and having his garments divided. And elsewhere.

e0364433334f0c5121304747b8e6544a.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • e0364433334f0c5121304747b8e6544a.jpeg
    e0364433334f0c5121304747b8e6544a.jpeg
    92.5 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,666
827
Pacific NW, USA
✟170,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The ”antichrist” grows out of the place of the ”first king” of the goat - Greece - that was broken into four parts.
I read it differently. The Greece king is the 3rd in a series, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Greece king did break into 4 parts, including Syria and Egypt. It was Syria that produced Antiochus 4, who brought great trouble on Israel about 168-164 BC.

The Antichrist emerges out of the Roman king, which breaks up into 10 parts in the latter years of the NT age. He will defeat 3 of the 10 kings and then rule over all of them.
This happened at the turn of the 12th century. The Byzantine Empire was split into four successor states. The Prince that was cut off is Andronikos I Komnenos. He is briefly mentioned in Maccabees as being punished by God and having his garments divided. And elsewhere.
How can the Maccabees mention Andronikos I Komnenos? Antiochus' army was defeated by the Maccabees just after 164 BC, and Andronikos I Komnenos reigned from 1183-85! Are you saying that the Maccabees predicted details that you believe were fulfilled in Constantinople much later?
 
Upvote 0

jonojim1337

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
513
118
36
Nyköping
✟43,680.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I read it differently. The Greece king is the 3rd in a series, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Greece king did break into 4 parts, including Syria and Egypt. It was Syria that produced Antiochus 4, who brought great trouble on Israel about 168-164 BC.

The Antichrist emerges out of the Roman king, which breaks up into 10 parts in the latter years of the NT age. He will defeat 3 of the 10 kings and then rule over all of them.

But this happens in the context of the Prince of princes being cut off, which should be, the first great horn.

How can the Maccabees mention Andronikos I Komnenos? Antiochus' army was defeated by the Maccabees just after 164 BC, and Andronikos I Komnenos reigned from 1183-85! Are you saying that the Maccabees predicted details that you believe were fulfilled in Constantinople much later?

Because he does. None of the biblical books are actually that old, if you ask me. Some manuscripts might have used old parchment.

Isaiah is perhaps the oldest. But again, it’s hard to know since you can use old parchment so.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,666
827
Pacific NW, USA
✟170,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But this happens in the context of the Prince of princes being cut off, which should be, the first great horn.
I don't know where you get this? The Anointed One is cut off, and the Prince of princes is another different prophecy.

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.
Dan 8.25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes.


Dan 9 is speaking of Christ. Dan 8 is speaking of Antiochus 4 taking a stand against God.
Because he does. None of the biblical books are actually that old, if you ask me. Some manuscripts might have used old parchment.
This sounds completely irrational. You're denying the age of the Maccabees? You think they lived in the 12th century AD? And you deny the age of the biblical books? I think we're done.
Isaiah is perhaps the oldest. But again, it’s hard to know since you can use old parchment so.
If you can't accept basic history, then we have nothing to discuss.
 
Upvote 0

jonojim1337

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
513
118
36
Nyköping
✟43,680.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I don't know where you get this? The Anointed One is cut off, and the Prince of princes is another different prophecy.

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.
Dan 8.25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes.


Dan 9 is speaking of Christ. Dan 8 is speaking of Antiochus 4 taking a stand against God.
I think it’s talking about the same event.

This sounds completely irrational. You're denying the age of the Maccabees? You think they lived in the 12th century AD? And you deny the age of the biblical books? I think we're done.
It’s improbable, that an Andronikos from aristocratic family (purple garb) would die in the same manner twice.

If you can't accept basic history, then we have nothing to discuss.

It’s not basic, it’s relatively new.

IMG_6317.jpeg
 
Upvote 0