I used to feel the same urgent Apocalyptic CERTAINTY some here feel

[eclipsenow]

The only thing that is future is the Second Coming.

That sounds like Amillennialism - welcome to the club.

The claim that the tribulation comes first has brought on all this hysteria.

We're in it now - and have been for 2000 years.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I was raised up in an Amil system, but upon further study recognized that the book of Revelation focuses on the final 3.5 years in history. This is not because it is important for us to prepare for that particular time period, but only to give us a sense of the evil character of the present age, as well as to encourage us to weather such things. We clearly agree on some things and not on others. Oh well--that's okay!

How does what you're saying line up with what John said here:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

And how does what you're saying line up with the fact that the book of Revelation was addressed to seven first century churches in the Roman province of Asia and contains messages specifically addressed to them? I'm not saying the book is all about them, but I am saying that it's not only about the final 3.5 years in history. That is clearly not true.

 

[RandyPNW]

That day has come. Most missed it. All on earth have a spiritual blindness. That one day soon part of your quote has come. It was not a guarantee, that any would recognize that day. Why would that day change how people should be prepared to meet God at any time. Physical death is a guarantee. Not necessarily living during the time Christ could return as Prince at any moment.

Well yes. We are all mortals, the Day of Salvation is here--it is only that God sends messengers to mankind in His own time and way. We cannot choose for something we don't know yet, though at the minimum we have a conscience.

But I was talking about the day when the Antichrist will be here. Though Revelation talks about it specifically, I don't believe John is trying to equip the saints throughout the NT age for just this specific trial in history! Obviously, most generations lived and never saw the Antichrist of Rev 13!

So what I'm saying is that one day a generation will indeed see that moment, though that isn't the object. Rather, the object is to inform Christians that the entire age is characterized by Antichrists and various challenges to Christians. It is also to show that one day it will come to a climax and end.

In the meantime, it is the preaching of the Gospel that completes the human conscience so that we can make informed decisions about eternity and God. That is the main object--not the actual history of the Antichrist. That is reserved only for that particular generation. And it won't likely be much different than the many Antichrists who have gone before in NT history.

 

[RandyPNW]

How does what you're saying line up with what John said here:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

And how does what you're saying line up with the fact that the book of Revelation was addressed to seven first century churches in the Roman province of Asia and contains messages specifically addressed to them? I'm not saying the book is all about them, but I am saying that it's not only about the final 3.5 years in history. That is clearly not true.

Of course I agree with that! John was asked to write, first, to the churches of his time that existed in Asia Minor. They had specific concerns, and Jesus was dealing with them. They became a kind of model for all churches throughout the NT age.

But then John is told that he had been teaching the churches of his time, and would also speak of the future, which I believe involved the 3.5 years of Antichrist. Jesus did this, I feel, because the history of the Antichrist sort of summarizes what Christians are to expect, in some way or other, throughout the present age. All ages see Antichrists of one kind or another.

One other thing I would say about it. Jesus conveyed the history of the Antichrist as an endtime 3.5 year period. But he also conveyed that this was part of a process that began in John's own time.

The 4th Beast of Daniel, in ch. 7, was, I believe, the Roman Empire. And it exists, in one form or another, throughout the NT age. It is European Civilization, which began as a pagan entity but ultimately folds back into a pagan or post-Christian entity. This is, I believe, the "great apostasy," spoken of by Paul.

Antichrist will come and reign for 3.5 years as a sort of revitalized pagan Roman Empire. It will consist of 10 states and 7 leaders, with himself being the 8th and presiding leader. It will be a Kingdom of Satan on earth.

Following this 1260 day period the world will descend into chaos, resulting in the Battle of Armageddon, apparently a world war. Cities fall in an hour, suggesting a nuclear war. But this will result in the 2nd Coming and the answer to all our prayers.

 

[Timtofly]

Well yes. We are all mortals, the Day of Salvation is here--it is only that God sends messengers to mankind in His own time and way. We cannot choose for something we don't know yet, though at the minimum we have a conscience.

But I was talking about the day when the Antichrist will be here. Though Revelation talks about it specifically, I don't believe John is trying to equip the saints throughout the NT age for just this specific trial in history! Obviously, most generations lived and never saw the Antichrist of Rev 13!

So what I'm saying is that one day a generation will indeed see that moment, though that isn't the object. Rather, the object is to inform Christians that the entire age is characterized by Antichrists and various challenges to Christians. It is also to show that one day it will come to a climax and end.

In the meantime, it is the preaching of the Gospel that completes the human conscience so that we can make informed decisions about eternity and God. That is the main object--not the actual history of the Antichrist. That is reserved only for that particular generation. And it won't likely be much different than the many Antichrists who have gone before in NT history.

The Antichrist is not mentioned once in the whole book of Revelation.

That is the error of the last 100 years. Trying to fit one in where one does not belong. Yes Revelation 7-21 are still future events. Just not as told by current ideology.

 

[keras]

The Antichrist is not mentioned once in the whole book of Revelation.

As the 'beast'.
Revelation 13:1-18
The 'beast' IS an Anti-Christ: your contention is rebutted.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Antichrist is not mentioned once in the whole book of Revelation.

That is the error of the last 100 years. Trying to fit one in where one does not belong. Yes Revelation 7-21 are still future events. Just not as told by current ideology.

Since there are many who read the same Scriptures, believe them, and yet hold a different opinion, this should cause you to admit this is not fact, acknowledged by all, but only your opinion, shared by others. Belief in an eschatological Antichrist has been believed in since the Early Church. It appears to be taught in Dan 7, and is seemingly confirmed by Paul in 2 Thes 2, by John in 1 John, and again, in Revelation 13-19.

The label "Antichrist" is not a personal name, but rather, an attribution to an entity with certain understood activities to take place. He is called the Antichrist, the Man of Lawlessness, and the Beast, among others. In Dan 7 he is called the "Little Horn."

The reason John used the term "Antichrist" is because he was speaking of his particular concern Christians have in dealing with those who oppose Christ. It was predicted, by Daniel, that the Little Horn would persecute God's People, and would apparently wish to hinder the coming of God's Kingdom, and the "Son of Man."

In using the term "Antichrist" John was speaking of the "False Christs" and "False Prophets" that Jesus said would try to mislead Jews who were to expect troubles and persecution. These false prophets were attempting to promote a false kingdom of Man, through which they could sidetrack Christians or Jews that wished to follow Christ.

The ultimate "False Christ" will be the Antichrist himself, the "Little Horn," who takes his place among 10 Horns, forming a Last Day portrait of the 4th Beast of Dan 7. This Beast, which I believe to be the Roman Empire, will ultimately collapse back into paganism, since European Civilization has long become Christian. And then it will, once again, oppose Christianity in a bloodthirsty way.

The book of Revelation is, I believe, teaching that pagan Romanism will not go away--not even after the preaching of the Gospel. Rome turned to Christianity, but is now turning back to paganism. We need to always be forewarned, in every generation we happen to find ourselves, until Christ returns. It will not be a "cakewalk."

 

[eclipsenow]

But I was talking about the day when the Antichrist will be here. Though Revelation talks about it specifically, I don't believe John is trying to equip the saints throughout the NT age for just this specific trial in history! Obviously, most generations lived and never saw the Antichrist of Rev 13!

This is what makes me ask why read Revelation as futurist?
Otherwise, what good has it been for John's generation - and every generation since across 2000 very long years of suffering and strife?

So what I'm saying is that one day a generation will indeed see that moment, though that isn't the object. Rather, the object is to inform Christians that the entire age is characterized by Antichrists and various challenges to Christians. It is also to show that one day it will come to a climax and end.

First of all, Rev 13: Weirdly - we have to go to Deuteronomy's 'Shema' - the prayer of devotion to God - to understand the mark of the beast.

Deuteronomy 6:4-8 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads."​

Then when we come to Revelation 13, we have Military power represented in the first beast and the propaganda machine for Economic power in the second beast. Now, what's with the 666? First, the Hebrew number symbolism is significant, in that 6 is the number of a man. It's the number of the day we were created on, the days of the week we work, and short of God's perfect 7. There's also another potential twist - the gematria (taking Hebrew letters as numbers) for both "BEAST" and / or "Nero Caesar" apparently both equal 666 when added up from the Hebrew.

In other words, don't bind your politics and materialism to your hands and forehead. Don't worship your leader or money. Stay true to Christ - no matter what happens. Jesus is worth it. Instead - be one of those in the very next Chapter that have their Father's name written on their foreheads! This rings far more true than some silicon chip implant. I mean, are we really going to give someone like the head of Microsoft MORE power than Jesus? Jesus died and rose again for all those who trust in him, and then Satya Nadella comes along and sticks a chip in your hand and forehead and suddenly you've lost your salvation?

I don't think so!

This video explains more - 11 minutes for the second half of Revelation - well worth it. Share at church!

Now, over to my mate Dr Greg Clarke on the AntiChrist....

John writes that “many antichrists have come”, reminding us that there has been great opposition to Christ ever since he was born (remember how Herod killed all the babies in Bethlehem trying to get to Jesus?). Throughout the whole Bible, we find characters who are ‘anti’ God’s plans—wicked men, foreign kings, false prophets and ‘the beast’ who features in Revelation 13. Even in Deuteronomy, there are warnings about the rise of prophets who lie and preach rebellion against the true God.
But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?
Probably not. There are passages in the Bible which talk about a particular being who is Christ’s foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.
The worst thing about antichrists is that they have come from within the church! The apostle John wrote that they “went out from us, but they did not really belong to us”. This is what antichrists do. They get among believers and try to deceive them, persuading them to believe lies and getting people to follow them and their deceptions rather than Jesus and his truth. They teach that Christ did not come in the flesh (1 Jn 4:1-3); they say it doesn’t matter whether you sin or not (1 Jn 1:5-10); and they neglect their Christian brothers and sisters (1 Jn 4:19-21).

According to God’s word, the antichrist might have sat next to you in the church pew. This isn’t a scene from a horror movie; quite the opposite-it is an everyday event. In this final age before Jesus returns, plenty of opponents of Jesus will arise. And they may even be in church, trying to deceive us and lead us into error. But Christians can be confident and at peace, because there will be a day when all ‘antichristness’ will be done away with.

It’s a bit of a waste of time trying to work out whether the antichrist is Boris Yeltsin, the Dalai Lama, Bill Gates or the Pope. It’s just as likely to be your granny or your next door neighbour, if they are promoting lies about our Lord.

Just make sure it isn’t you …

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. (1 John 2:24-25)
The devil you know​

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Of course I agree with that!

Oh, really? "Of course", you say? After saying "the book of Revelation focuses on the final 3.5 years in history"? Hmmm.

John was asked to write, first, to the churches of his time that existed in Asia Minor. They had specific concerns, and Jesus was dealing with them. They became a kind of model for all churches throughout the NT age.

But then John is told that he had been teaching the churches of his time, and would also speak of the future, which I believe involved the 3.5 years of Antichrist. Jesus did this, I feel, because the history of the Antichrist sort of summarizes what Christians are to expect, in some way or other, throughout the present age. All ages see Antichrists of one kind or another.

One other thing I would say about it. Jesus conveyed the history of the Antichrist as an endtime 3.5 year period. But he also conveyed that this was part of a process that began in John's own time.

The 4th Beast of Daniel, in ch. 7, was, I believe, the Roman Empire. And it exists, in one form or another, throughout the NT age. It is European Civilization, which began as a pagan entity but ultimately folds back into a pagan or post-Christian entity. This is, I believe, the "great apostasy," spoken of by Paul.

Antichrist will come and reign for 3.5 years as a sort of revitalized pagan Roman Empire. It will consist of 10 states and 7 leaders, with himself being the 8th and presiding leader. It will be a Kingdom of Satan on earth.

Following this 1260 day period the world will descend into chaos, resulting in the Battle of Armageddon, apparently a world war. Cities fall in an hour, suggesting a nuclear war. But this will result in the 2nd Coming and the answer to all our prayers.

Yeah, I disagree with almost all of that. Why would only Revelation 2 and 3 have anything to do with a time period before the last 3.5 years, but then the rest is all only about the last 3.5 years? I think it is completely ridiculous to believe that. Especially considering the fact that Christ's birth and ascension are mentioned in Revelation 12.

The entire book is about things that happened before it was written, while it was being written and then things happening from then on. For a vast majority of the book to only focus on the last 3.5 years before Christ's return just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[RandyPNW]

Oh, really? "Of course", you say? After saying "the book of Revelation focuses on the final 3.5 years in history"? Hmmm.

Yeah, I disagree with almost all of that. Why would only Revelation 2 and 3 have anything to do with a time period before the last 3.5 years, but then the rest is all only about the last 3.5 years? I think it is completely ridiculous to believe that. Especially considering the fact that Christ's birth and ascension are mentioned in Revelation 12.

The entire book is about things that happened before it was written, while it was being written and then things happening from then on. For a vast majority of the book to only focus on the last 3.5 years before Christ's return just makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe you're just losing your cool, and not really looking at what I'm saying. I'm not interested in needless repetition. I explained everything. If you still don't understand my points, let me know. It's okay to disagree.

In a nutshell, I said that presentation of the 3.5 years in the endtimes was necessary to focus the NT Church on the endgame, to direct us towards the goal of our ministry, which is the coming of Christ to destroy Antichrist.

Antichrist's history is specifically focused upon not because the NT Church would experience it directly all through history, but only because each generation of Christians would face their own Antichrists, and should know how to deal with it, and what to expect from it.

Furthermore, I said that the 4th Beast in John's day was the beginning of an age-long process that would be completed in the time of Antichrist. So what happens at the end should be understood as beginning in the Early Church and continuing throughout the age.

If you can't understand any of these points, ask. But please don't pretend that I didn't try to answer!

 

[parousia70]

As the 'beast'.
Revelation 13:1-18
The 'beast' IS an Anti-Christ: your contention is rebutted.

OK, Let's Take "the Beast" - or any personality you want - and run them through St. John's biblical test below. A "yes" for all four questions gives a positive identification as "antichrist"-- a single "no" disqualifies. Remember, it's the BIBLICAL test to discover antichrists.

BIBLICAL LITMUS TEST TO DISCOVER "ANTICHRISTS"
-- Four Questions--

#1) Has the person departed from the apostles' flocks, defecting from the true Christian faith to join "many deceivers" after first appearing to be a member?

"even now many antichrists have appeared ... THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us they would have remained with us; but they went out" (1 Jn 2:18-19)

"For many deceivers have GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD ... this is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 Jn 1:7)

"but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world ... this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world" ( 1 Jn 4:1, 3)


#2) Does this ex-church member now embrace and promote the specific heresy that makes a confession that Christ did not come in the flesh?

"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" (2 John 1:7)

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already. " (1 Jn 4:2-3)


#3) Does this ex-church member, among many others who now embrace and promote the heresy about Christ not having ever come in the flesh, also try to claim the Father without having the Son (thereby denying both, according to John's teaching: Jn 15:23; Jn 5:23; Jn 8:42)?

"This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the son Whoever denies the Son DOES NOT HAVE THE FATHER; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 Jn 2:22-23)


#4) Does this person have a vital connection to St. John, who cites his presence in his own day as a sign that the the last hour of the endtimes is come upon the world?

"just as you heard that antichrist is coming, EVEN NOW MANY ANTICHRSTS HAVE APPEARED; FROM THIS WE KNOW IT IS THE LAST HOUR. They went out from us," (1 Jn 2:18-19)


HOW'D YOU'R CANDIDATE SCORE?

Remember: A "yes" for all four questions gives a positive "antichrist" identification -- a single "no" disqualifies.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Maybe you're just losing your cool, and not really looking at what I'm saying.

I'm not losing my cool at all. I'm showing how you seem to be contradicting yourself. You went from saying that Revelation is about the last 3.5 years to agreeing with me that it isn't just about the last 3.5 years. I don't get that.

I'm not interested in needless repetition. I explained everything. If you still don't understand my points, let me know. It's okay to disagree.

In a nutshell, I said that presentation of the 3.5 years in the endtimes was necessary to focus the NT Church on the endgame, to direct us towards the goal of our ministry, which is the coming of Christ to destroy Antichrist.

Antichrist's history is specifically focused upon not because the NT Church would experience it directly all through history, but only because each generation of Christians would face their own Antichrists, and should know how to deal with it, and what to expect from it.

Furthermore, I said that the 4th Beast in John's day was the beginning of an age-long process that would be completed in the time of Antichrist. So what happens at the end should be understood as beginning in the Early Church and continuing throughout the age.

If you can't understand any of these points, ask. But please don't pretend that I didn't try to answer!

I wasn't pretending that you didn't try to answer at all. I just can't make sense of what you're saying. So be it. I don't feel like trying to figure it out right now. Thanks, anyway.

 

[RandyPNW]

I'm not losing my cool at all. I'm showing how you seem to be contradicting yourself. You went from saying that Revelation is about the last 3.5 years to agreeing with me that it isn't just about the last 3.5 years. I don't get that.

I wasn't pretending that you didn't try to answer at all. I just can't make sense of what you're saying. So be it. I don't feel like trying to figure it out right now. Thanks, anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to explain--I did feel a little tension. No matter. I'll try to put it as brief as possible, since you're losing interest. I want others to know there's an answer from my perspective.

Once again, many, many prophesied events are mentioned in the Bible that are *already fulfilled,* and yet apply to us today. They provide a model of what to do or not to do, so that we learn from history.

In the same way, I believe the book of Revelation provides a particular historical scenario in the future, the 3.5 years of Antichrist, to teach Christians in all ages how to deal with the Antichrists of their own times.

I don't see why this is confusing to you? I provided a quote from Paul where he shows that Israel was in ancient times a model for the Church today. Clearly, if John wrote about a literal 3.5 year period in the future in which an Antichrist persecutes the Church, this may instruct us today when we experience various kinds of Antichrists in our own day. Why is this confusing?

This is why we partly agree, because I agree that whatever was written in the book of Revelation would have to pertain to Christians not just at the end of the age, but also in other ages. If you are still confused, I probably can't help you. If we disagree, even though you understand my points, that's okay. Christians can disagree on some matters.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Thanks for taking the time to explain--I did feel a little tension. No matter.

LOL. It's not really a great idea to assume you can tell how a person is feeling just based on words that they typed in a forum. You don't know me at all, right? No. So, you read the situation totally wrong. But, it happens all the time on forums like this.

I'll try to put it as brief as possible, since you're losing interest. I want others to know there's an answer from my perspective.

Once again, many, many prophesied events are mentioned in the Bible that are *already fulfilled,* and yet apply to us today. They provide a model of what to do or not to do, so that we learn from history.

In the same way, I believe the book of Revelation provides a particular historical scenario in the future, the 3.5 years of Antichrist, to teach Christians in all ages how to deal with the Antichrists of their own times.

I don't see why this is confusing to you?

That's not confusing to me. I know what you're trying to say there. I just disagree with you in your understanding.

I provided a quote from Paul where he shows that Israel was in ancient times a model for the Church today. Clearly, if John wrote about a literal 3.5 year period in the future in which an Antichrist persecutes the Church, this may instruct us today when we experience various kinds of Antichrists in our own day. Why is this confusing?

This is why we partly agree, because I agree that whatever was written in the book of Revelation would have to pertain to Christians not just at the end of the age, but also in other ages. If you are still confused, I probably can't help you. If we disagree, even though you understand my points, that's okay. Christians can disagree on some matters.

Yes, we can. And we do. A lot.

 

[keras]

HOW'D YOU'R CANDIDATE SCORE?

Remember: A "yes" for all four questions gives a positive "antichrist" identification -- a single "no" disqualifies.

The four points you think an Anti-Christ must have, do not necessarily apply to every candidate.
The only definitive qualification for an AC, is that they are 'against Christ'.

Bible prophecy clearly informs us that in the end times, a man will rise up and gain world control. He will sit in the Temple and declare himself to be God. THATS a real Anti-Christ.

 

[parousia70]

The four points you think an Anti-Christ must have, do not necessarily apply to every candidate.
The only definitive qualification for an AC, is that they are 'against Christ'.

No scriptue teaches this.

In contrast, scripture does contain the COMPLETE, EXPLICIT teaching on what the antichrist of the Bible SPECIFICALLY IS.

You are certainly free to make up anything else you want and arbitrarliy slap the label 'antichrist' upon it, but anything beyond the EXPLICIT, BIBLICAL definition of antichrist that I laid out is simply not scriptural.

 

[RandyPNW]

LOL. It's not really a great idea to assume you can tell how a person is feeling just based on words that they typed in a forum. You don't know me at all, right? No. So, you read the situation totally wrong. But, it happens all the time on forums like this.

That's not confusing to me. I know what you're trying to say there. I just disagree with you in your understanding.

Yes, we can. And we do. A lot.

Actually, a person can tell a lot about a person by the words he chooses to use and by the attitude those words convey. But yes, I suppose we do disagree on...a lot.

 

[keras]

No scriptue teaches this.

In contrast, scripture does contain the COMPLETE, EXPLICIT teaching on what the antichrist of the Bible SPECIFICALLY IS.

You are certainly free to make up anything else you want and arbitrarliy slap the label 'antichrist' upon it, but anything beyond the EXPLICIT, BIBLICAL definition of antichrist that I laid out is simply not scriptural.

Well; Revelation calls the man who is against Christ and is yet to rise to a powerful position in the end times, 'the beast'.

 

[parousia70]

Well; Revelation calls the man who is against Christ and is yet to rise to a powerful position in the end times, 'the beast'.

Which is a completely separate and distinct entity from the Bible’s antichrist.

The conflation of these unique, distinct entities arises solely from later added, man-made tradition, and is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

The Beast is no more the Antichrist than Mary Magdalene is Jesus’ Mother.

 

[Douggg]

Dr Greg Clarke on the AntiChrist....

But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?
Probably not. There are passages in the Bible which talk about a particular being who is Christ’s foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person.

Dr Greg Clarke is totally wrong on the Antichrist. The spirit of Antichrist is attitude the Antichrist person will display himself when he comes.

In 2Thessalonians2:4, the person will have been the Antichrist for around three years before revealing himself as the man of sin and not the thought-to-be messiah by the Jews as King of Israel messiah.

It is not Dr Greg Clarke who don't understand what being the Antichrist entails as that person - but all of the "Dr's" in Christianity that speak on the subject. Such as Dr. Ron Rhodes, Dr. Ed Hinson, and, Dr. Mark Hitchcock. No wonder Christianity is so misled about the issue of the Antichrist.