Hippolytus 170-235AD, A Literal Future Antichrist A Jew, That Will Sit In A Temple In Jerus

[jgr]

I Will Stick With The Persecuted Brethren In Athanasius And Eustathius who were condemned and banished by Eusebius the "False Brethren" because they "True Brethren" opposed his Arian heresies.

2 Corinthians 11:26
In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

You seem to have missed the second half of the post:

Now balance that with some of his contributions.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hippolytus also predicted that Christ would set up the Millennium in 496 AD.

This means he was a man like us, and not a prophet of God.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/205_hippolytus_commentary-on-daniel/

.

The claim that Hyppolytus predicted that Christ would set up the millennium in 496 A.D. is completely false. That iis not what he said. It is an interpretation of the result of what he said.

 

[Biblewriter]

You have yet to provide at least one Bible scholar who agrees with your interpretation of Luke 21:24.

When you come up with at least one, let me know.

....................................................

Can you tell us how many Christians were killed during the final siege of 70 AD?
Can you tell us why this happened?

.

J. N. Darby, William Kelly, W. Trotter, Dwight Pentecost, etc. ad nauseum.

 

[Biblewriter]

Based on John 10:22, every Jew during the time of Christ knew the above to be the truth.

Jesus was telling the Jews of His time that something similar would happen during 70 AD.

The proof is found in Luke 19:41-44.

Luke 21:20-24 proves the same thing.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days" in Matthew 24:29 is when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled, at the future Second Coming of Christ.

.

No. He was saying that the Abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet had not yet happened.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hippo saw a future Antichrist that will be a Jew, that is going to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem made of stone.

Hippolytus Of Rome 170-235AD, Treatise On Christ And Antichrist, Chapter 6

6. Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand.

This was not just the doctrine of Hippolytus, but of most of the early Christian writers who touched on the subject. And there is absolutely zero way to even begin to reconcile their doctrine with the historicist notion that Popery is "the Antichrist."

 

[jgr]

This was not just the doctrine of Hippolytus, but of most of the early Christian writers who touched on the subject. And there is absolutely zero way to even begin to reconcile their doctrine with the historicist notion that Popery is "the Antichrist."

Heh Heh Hello Biblewriter.

That doctrine disappeared within the Reformation. It was held outside of the Reformation by a handful of closet papists.

 

[Biblewriter]

Heh Heh Hello Biblewriter.

That doctrine disappeared within the Reformation. It was held outside of the Reformation by a handful of closet papists.

False. It was held by A Papist by the name of Ribera, who apparently was unknown to the futurist movement until 1826. But it was held by numerous futurists previous to that date. (How many, I do not presently know.)

 

[jgr]

False. It was held by A Papist by the name of Ribera, who apparently was unknown to the futurist movement until 1826. But it was held by numerous futurists previous to that date. (How many, I do not presently know.)

It was held by no recognized Reformer.

 

[Biblewriter]

It was held by no recognized Reformer.

How is THAT supposed to even be significant?

 

[jgr]

How is THAT supposed to even be significant?

Was, and is, the Reformation significant?

 

[Biblewriter]

Was, and is, the Reformation significant?

It was, and it is. But how ANYONE interpreted a particular detail of Bible prophecy is not even significant, in regard to the question of whether or not that interpretation is correct.

I bring up the history of this concept only for the sole purpose of disproving the false claim that Fututism is based on Jesuit doctrine.

 

[jgr]

It was, and it is. But how ANYONE interpreted a particular detail of Bible prophecy is not even significant, in regard to the question of whether or not that interpretation is correct.

I bring up the history of this concept only for the sole purpose of disproving the false claim that Fututism is based on Jesuit doctrine.

If it was and is significant, then how is the prophetic doctrine that fuelled it, not significant?

 

[Biblewriter]

If it was and is significant, then how is the prophetic doctrine that fuelled it, not significant?

It is utter nonsense to even imagine that "prophetic doctrine" was even a significant part of the reason for the success of the reformation.

The foundation of the reformation was the twin doctrines of salvation by grace through faith and sola scriptura, not details of interpreting Bible prophecy.

 

[jgr]

It is utter nonsense to even imagine that "prophetic doctrine" was even a significant part of the reason for the success of the reformation.

The foundation of the reformation was the twin doctrines of salvation by grace through faith and sola scriptura, not details of interpreting Bible prophecy.

The prophetic doctrine was, of course, the identification of the papacy as antichrist.

Are you absolutely bound and determined to confirm modernist dispensationalism's abject and abominable ignorance of, and contempt for, the realities of Christian history? You're doing a superb job.

There's much more than enough counter-evidence to the utter nonsense of your statement to bury it multiple times over. But let's try to save some server space.

Here's a quote (the evidence you love) declaring the papacy to be antichrist:

“...nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197

Your turn.

Produce a quote from any single recognized Reformer declaring that the papacy is not antichrist, and/or declaring that the doctrine of the papacy as antichrist has no significance to the Reformation movement.

We'll start with that.

We're waiting.

 

[Biblewriter]

The prophetic doctrine was, of course, the identification of the papacy as antichrist.

Are you absolutely bound and determined to confirm modernist dispensationalism's abject and abominable ignorance of, and contempt for, the realities of Christian history? You're doing a superb job.

There's much more than enough counter-evidence to the utter nonsense of your statement to bury it multiple times over. But let's try to save some server space.

Here's a quote (the evidence you love) declaring the papacy to be antichrist:

“...nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197

Your turn.

Produce a quote from declaring that the papacy is not antichrist, and/or declaring that the doctrine of the papacy as antichrist has no significance to the Reformation movement.

We'll start with that.

We're waiting.

Your demand that the quotation be by "any single recognized Reformer" is inapproprite and illogical and thus is unacceptsble. I have already presented several such quotations from before 1826. So I have indeed proved my point beyond rational debate. And will not accept your bait.

 

[jgr]

Your demand that the quotation be by "any single recognized Reformer" is illogical and unacceptsble. I have already presented several such quotations from before 1826. So I have indeed proved my point beyond rational debate. And will not accept your bait.

Entirely as expected.

It wasn't closet papists who burned at the stake. It was Reformers, who realized that every declaration identifying antichrist was a potential death sentence. And for many, it was an actual death sentence.

That's as significant as it gets.

But they didn't relent.

And you are a beneficiary of their faith and sacrifice.

But until you jettison John Nelson Darby's futurized fantasies, you'll never comprehend it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Entirely as expected.

It wasn't closet papists who burned at the stake. It was Reformers, who realized that every declaration identifying antichrist was a potential death sentence. And for many, it was an actual death sentence.

That's as significant as it gets.

But they didn't relent.

And you are a beneficiary of their faith and sacrifice.

But until you jettison John Nelson Darby's futurized fantasies, you'll never comprehend it.

I have CONCLUSIVELY PROVED that the claim that this came from Darby, or from Ribera, is a lie.

 

[jgr]

I have CONCLUSIVELY PROVED that the claim that this came from Darby, or from Ribera, is a lie.

My imprecision. I should have said "dispensationalism's futurized fantasies".

 

[Biblewriter]

My imprecision. I should have said "dispensationalism's futurized fantasies".

Both Dispensationalism in general and the doctrine that the Antichrist is a specific individual that has not yet come on the scene, were clearly taught before Ribera's book was discovered by Maitland and thus became know to futurists in general, and before Darby wrote anything at all. So your entire theory is false. And as the proof of this has been presented to you, it is dishonesty on your part to continue to allege this false story.

 

[jgr]

Both Dispensationalism in general and the doctrine that the Antichrist is a specific individual that has not yet come on the scene, were clearly taught before Ribera's book was discovered by Maitland and thus became know to futurists in general, and before Darby wrote anything at all. So your entire theory is false. And as the proof of this has been presented to you, it is dishonesty on your part to continue to allege this false story.

You're apparently confusing this thread with the one about Ribera. My comments here have said nothing about the origin of dispensationalism's fantasies. You're suffering from another fantasy.