Antichrist one person?

[Willis Deal]

Antichrist: from the greek word antichristos which means 'opponent of Christ'. A pretty broad definition but John further defines the characteristics and gives two tests. Instead of using John's test you have added two qualifiers to make the verses read 'ALL antichrists come ONLY from first century congretations.' This isn't warranted by the text and is nonsensical when you consider that that there could easily have been people teaching the heresy, word for word, but they wouldn't be considered 'antichrist' because they didn't go out from the apostles. That is why in the test the emphasis is not where the teachers come from, but rather WHAT they were confessing. You've imposed an arbitrary expiration date on the passage so that by YOUR definition a second century apostate confessing the EXACT same heresy is not antichrist because they didn't confess it in the first century.

Then you claim that anyone who doesn't adhere to your imposed limitations on the passages have 'added to or taken away from' the verses.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
Instead of using John's test you have added two qualifiers to make the verses read 'ALL antichrists come ONLY from first century congretations.' This isn't warranted by the text and is nonsensical when you consider that that there could easily have been people teaching the heresy, word for word, but they wouldn't be considered 'antichrist' because they didn't go out from the apostles.

John tells them that they had heard antichrist would come (1 Jn 2:18). John then points out their emergence in his later ministry years and says "THEY WENT OUT FROM US" (1 Jn 2:19). So this is clearly what they were told to expect -- and it happened exactly as they expected. That's as clear as can be. They were told what would happen. It happened. They correctly identified it as it was taught to them. For you to suggest that something else could have signified "antichrist" in St. John's day would be to invent your own version of "antichrist" that has nothing in common with the apostles' teaching. Furthermore, antichrist cannot mean anything now that it DID NOT MEAN TO ST. JOHN.

There are none of these antichrists anywhere on the planet today. In fact, the Church's stance on the orthodox view of Christ's flesh incarnation became creedal within a couple centuries of St. John and has never changed. The Church already defeated the antichrist heresy, long time ago.

Finally, I believe you err tremendously by ignoring the time statment "It is THE LAST HOUR ... BY THIS [the emergence of antichrist] we know it is THE LAST HOUR." This antichrist that they were told would come in the endtimes DID COME, SIGNALING THE LAST HOUR OF THOSE DAYS. We are living 20 centuries beyond the final hour of the last days with its prophesied antichrist. Therefore this is a serious anachronism on your part; namely, lifting this history out of its proper historic context and trying to RE-invent it in our times arbitrarily.

 

[Debbie]

We know the WORD "antichrist" is not in Rev. but if the shoe fits, wear it. This beast does fit the description of antichrist spirit, he will be the "most dreadful" of all antichrist spirits.
As to the original question, scripture says that if he doesnt say that Jesus Christ came in the flesh..." then he could be antichrist.
You first have to define what it means to deny that Christ came in the flesh. Saying that Jesus is not God come in the flesh, is part of the spirit of antichrist.
To deny that Christ is God come in the flesh is to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

 

[Willis Deal]

I shall not continue to debate this point. Both sides have been presented and it is now up to others to decide which poster has made the most sense.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Debbie
We know the WORD "antichrist" is not in Rev. but if the shoe fits, wear it. This beast does fit the description of antichrist spirit, he will be the "most dreadful" of all antichrist spirits.
As to the original question, scripture says that if he doesnt say that Jesus Christ came in the flesh..." then he could be antichrist.
You first have to define what it means to deny that Christ came in the flesh. Saying that Jesus is not God come in the flesh, is part of the spirit of antichrist.
To deny that Christ is God come in the flesh is to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

Hi Debbie. The shoe doesn't fit. That's the whole point.

Revelation not only says nothing whatsoever about antichrist, but there is nothing in the book that even fits antichrist. St. John has written everything the bible says about antichrist, and it was a Church heresy. According to St. John, antichrist was the MANY deceivers who taught that Christ's ministry was not in a human form (2 Jn 1:7; 1Jn 4:2-3). They were churchmen who had begun inside the true Church but left the Church to embrace and teach this heresy (1 Jn 2:18-19). It had been prophesied that this would happen in the last days, and in fact it did happen in the final hour of the last days (1Jn 2:18-19). There is nothing whatsoever in Revelation that fits the bible's teaching on antichrist.

Willis Deal and others here go BEYOND the bible's teaching so as to create their own version of what antichrist was/is. However, St. John simply would not have recognized the antichrist they have created. Of course, we can truly only accept St. John's version and reject all other inventions.

 

[LyleMetsker]

Currently, I lean toward the school of thought that both Christ and the antichrist are corporate beings.

There's the body of Christ and the spirit of antichrist, both, many-membered entities.

Links to over 100 Christian message boards at:
http://KingdomGospel.com
Home of the Christian Message Board Network!

 

[GW]

Originally posted by LyleMetsker
Currently, I lean toward the school of thought that both Christ and the antichrist are corporate beings.

There's the body of Christ and the spirit of antichrist, both, many-membered entities.

Yes. Antichrist was a first century heresy made up of MANY deceivers who taught two specific false teachings:

1) Christ's ministry was not in true human flesh (2 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 4:2-3)

2) One could have covenant relations with Jehovah without having the Son (1 Jn 2:22-23; cf. John 15:23 and John 5:22-23).

There is no ONE antichrist, and antichrist certainly is not some Mr. World Ruler dude. That's The Beast (the man-beast and also the Empire Beast). The man-beast, of course, was Nero who was the world ruler of the time and whose name equalled 666 in the Hebrew gramatia.

 

[Willis Deal]

When did Nero sit in the temple of God declaring that he was God? What mark did he impose on all people? Who was his false prophet?

 

[parousia70]

One at a time:

Originally posted by Willis Deal
When did Nero sit in the temple of God declaring that he was God?

That never happened. of course the "beast" of Revelation was never prophesied to "sit in Gods temple and call himself God" was he?

 

[GW]

Hi Willis Deal. Nero is the man-beast of Revelation -- the 6-6-6 of chapter 13 and the 6th Caesar of chapter 17:10. This is not related to 2 Thess 2.

Now as to the "man of lawlessness/the son of perdition," he was being restrained from siezing control of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem at the time Paul was writing to the Thessalonians (see: 2 Thess 2:6-7). This man's lawlessness was already at work in the nation of Israel in Paul's day; only he who then restrained this anarchy continued to do so until he was taken out of the way. And then the lawless one was revealed (2 Thess 2:7-8). This, of course, took place at the Jerusalem Temple within about 10 years of Paul's writing.

The Thessalonian congregation actually knew personally who was at that time restraining the son of perdition from taking control of the Temple -- "And you know what restrains him now" (2 Thess 2:6).

So the passage has a fulfillment clearly contemporary with Paul and the 1st century Thessalonians exactly as Paul stated. That 2 thess 2 passage MUST be past in fulfillment.

 

[Wildfire]

Well, if you are looking for a name, it is my belief that the antichrist spoken of in the bible is not of present day Arafat or Bin Laden. They are terrorists, yes; but they cannot compare to Adolf Hitler, who persecuted and killed millions of jews in the worst way; by burning them alive, killing them in gas chambers, using their body parts for soap, and hair for pillows, etc. It is just disgusting what this man did. He was evil. He was an antichrist. I cannot see that (not) being in the bible, what this man did. Time has passed yes, and the world has continued on, but let us not be forgetful our recent past antichrists', because of Gods patience.
Wildfire

 

[Christi]

I was taught that Satan has had to have an antichrist ready in every generation to rise up to power, because only the Father knows the time of the rapture. Even Christ doesn't know. Satan doesn't know, either, so he has to be prepared. I don't know if that is correct or not, but if so, I would certainly guess Hitler was the one in his generation.

 

[GW]

Neither Arafat nor Bin Laden nor even Adolf Hitler can qualify as antichrists. Here is our biblical, working definition:

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist

 

[Willis Deal]

I forgot for a moment that you guys tend to isolate verses. So to satisfy your standards allow me to rephrase my questions...

1. Who was the man of sin and when did he sit in the temple of God declaring he was God?

2. What mark did Nero impose on all the people?

3. Who was the second beast with two horns of a lamb who caused all to worship Nero? When did he make fire come down from heaven?

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
I forgot for a moment that you guys tend to isolate verses. So to satisfy your standards allow me to rephrase my questions...

1. Who was the man of sin and when did he sit in the temple of God declaring he was God?

2. What mark did Nero impose on all the people?

3. Who was the second beast with two horns of a lamb who caused all to worship Nero? When did he make fire come down from heaven?

Let me get you started by reading how Nero is the man-Beast of St. John's book:

The Beast of Revelation -- IDENTIFIED!
by Kenneth Gentry
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/gentry-ken_pp_02.html

While Gentry makes the common mistake of using "antichrist" for Nero, the rest of the article is superb.

After you look over that I'll list info on the son of perdition who was being restrained at the time Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. They knew who was restraining him, and that he would continue to be restrained until the powers governing the Temple and city were removed. Then the sign occurred. It was already happening, and it all literally reached total fulfillment within 10 or so years of Paul's writing.

 

[Willis Deal]

Read the article, doesn't answer my questions.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
Read the article, doesn't answer my questions

The article makes the positive identification of the 666 man-beast and the 6th king of Revelation 17:10. On to the mark...

There are two identifiable "marks" in Revelation.

The sealing of the 144,000 jews is accomplished by a mark in the forehead in parallel fashion to the MARK of the beast in the forehead. (see Rev. 9:4 and Rev. 7:2-8 and Rev 14:1).  

[NOTE:  futurists are never consistent on this: if one is physical-literal then shouldn't both MARKS should be seen as physical-literal?  Yet just ask a futurist who is the "computer chip manufacturer" today who is producing the "Mark of God," and they have no answer.  However, they could speculate all day and night on which technology company is in cahoots with satan to produce his computer implant.  I propose that Bill Gates is working on the "Mark-of-God chip implant" for the 144,000. LOL.    ]

John didn't have computer chips in mind at all when he wrote the passage.  Rather, as in so many other parts of Revelation, he was quoting the Old Testament.  The following passages should be carefully examined when discussing "the mark on the forehead or hand" that marks people for doom or salvation:

Ez. Chapter 9  -- angels mark people for God's destruction of Jerusalem in 6th Century B.C.

Deut 6:8, Deut 11:18, Exodus 13:9  -- God's marks commanded to be upon the head and hands of his people to show their faithfulness

John's notions in his vision are related to Old Testament concepts -- not modern day conjectures that the MARK of the beast is  to be thought of as a some computer product.



CORRELATING EVENTS IN JOHN'S TIME:

William Barclay's generic comments on The Mark:

* On every contract of buying or selling there was a charagma, a seal, and on the seal the name of the emperor and the date. If the mark is connected with this, it means that those who worship the beast accept his authority. Note: this could also be the seal of ownership.

* All coinage had the head and inscription of the emperor stamped upon it, to show that it was his property [coins read: "Caesar is God"]. If the mark is connected with this, it means that those who bear it are the property of the beast.

* When a man had burned his pinch of incense to Caesar, he was given a certificate to say he had done so. The mark of the beast may be the certificate of worship which a Christian could obtain only at the cost of denying his faith.


--------------------
Enforced Emperor Worship:

The Imperial-Cult worship of the Emperor as Lord was enforced throughout the entire empire.  Roman officers governed this practice to make sure everyone was abiding by the law --  when one offered sacrifices to Caesar compliance certificates were issued that you had worshipped the Emperor.  These certificates allowed business as usual within the Roman system.  Failure to comply was an act of War against the Roman State.

-----------------------
DAVID CHILTON:

The Jewish Leaders organized economic boycotts against those who refused to submit to Caesar as Lord, the leaders of the synagogues "forbidding all dealings with the excommunicated," and going so far as to put them to death.

---------------------
6-6-6: The Number of the Existing Caesar

The Hebrew form of "Caesar Nero" is Nrwn Qsr (pronounced "Neron Kaiser").  The value of the seven Hebrew letters is 50, 200, 6, 50, 100, 60, and 200, respectively.

 

[Willis Deal]

quote GW......[NOTE: futurists are never consistent on this: if one is physical-literal then shouldn't both MARKS should be seen as physical-literal? Yet just ask a futurist who is the "computer chip manufacturer" today who is producing the "Mark of God," and they have no answer. However, they could speculate all day and night on which technology company is in cahoots with satan to produce his computer implant. I propose that Bill Gates is working on the "Mark-of-God chip implant" for the 144,000. LOL.] endquote......

off topic and certainly not a statement that I've ever made. But since one mark is given by the beast and the other mark by God then the second mark could be either physical or spiritual/symbolic. But since we are focusing on the mark of the beast then the nature of the mark of God is irrelevant unless you are going to try to prove that God's mark is spiritual/symbolic and the other is by necessity spiritual/symbolic but my simple statement above should be suffecient to discourage that viewpoint.

I look forward to your answers to my two remaining questions.

 

[GW]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
GW said......[NOTE: futurists are never consistent on this: if one is physical-literal then shouldn't both MARKS should be seen as physical-literal? Yet just ask a futurist who is the "computer chip manufacturer" today who is producing the "Mark of God," and they have no answer. However, they could speculate all day and night on which technology company is in cahoots with satan to produce his computer implant. I propose that Bill Gates is working on the "Mark-of-God chip implant" for the 144,000. LOL.]

Willis replied:
off topic and certainly not a statement that I've ever made. But since one mark is given by the beast and the other mark by God then the second mark could be either physical or spiritual/symbolic. But since we are focusing on the mark of the beast then the nature of the mark of God is irrelevant unless you are going to try to prove that God's mark is spiritual/symbolic and the other is by necessity spiritual/symbolic but my simple statement above should be suffecient to discourage that viewpoint.

I look forward to your answers to my two remaining questions.

If one should say that the mark of Rev 13 is physical/literal then one must say that the mark of Rev 14:1 is physical/literal.

In reality, St. John didn't have computer chips in mind at all when he wrote the passage. Rather, as in so many other parts of Revelation, he was quoting the Old Testament. The following passages should be carefully examined when discussing "the mark on the forehead or hand" that marks people for doom or salvation:

Ez. Chapter 9 -- angels mark people for God's destruction of Jerusalem in 6th Century B.C.

Deut 6:8, Deut 11:18, Exodus 13:9 -- God's marks commanded to be upon the head and hands of his people to show their faithfulness

John's notions in his vision are related to Old Testament concepts -- not modern day conjectures that the MARK of the beast is to be thought of as a some computer product.

 

[Wildfire]

I believe wholeheartedly, that the "mark" is spiritual; it concerns ones chosen worship. In Revelation the word <worship> is continuous with the mark, and it is something that people willingly do. (either worship what is in the world/or worship God)

We are told that the end will come as a snare to everyone on the face of the earth.

The central focus of prophecy concerns this particular passage;

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to RECIEVE a mark <in> their right hand, or <in> their foreheads:
That no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

So because a physical "mark" has not been established, many are not even concerned about this. The (I won't take the chip) idea is false; we are told to be wise about this.

Those who keep the commandments of God are those elect who are sealed.

Please read Dueteronomy 6 and 11;

Upon keeping the commandments:

*Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul, and with all thy might.
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.
And thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children, and thou shall talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shall bind them for a <sign> upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thy eyes.

*Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a <sign> upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

Also in Exodus 13;

It shall be a <sign> unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lords LAW may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt.

Jesus tells us, over and over; if you love me Keep my Commandments.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Behold, I come quickly.
Wildfire