Rev. 20:4, No Mention of Physical Earthly Reign

[ewq1938]

And again, Nothing, nada, ZERO teaching that this person is properly, biblically identified as antichrist.

Try proving the second beast is not the Antichrist. I have already proven both exist at the same time period which highly suggests they are one in the same. Rev does not speak of two individuals. Only the false prophet can be the Antichrist mentioned elsewhere.

 

[redleghunter]

No, because I have a document called the US constitution that explicitly teaches that both labels apply to the office of president.

In contrast you have no such Biblical document that explicitly applies both antichrist and beast to the same person. You have invented the connection out of thin air, and have no scripture to back it up. Scripture indeed knows nothing about it.

On the contrary, St John Gives us EVERYTHING we need to be able to correctly identify antichrtist in 1 & 2 John. Everything.



Nope. Nothing about antichrist there.



No it isn't. You have shown ZERO scriptural teaching to connect Pauls Man of Sin to antichtist of 1 & 2 John.




And again, Nothing, nada, ZERO teaching that this person is properly, biblically identified as antichrist.

I find it telling that in your attempt to identify antichrist for us, you have used exactly ZERO of the scriptures that teach explicitly about what antichrist is.

Why is that?

And what other doctrines do you attempt teach about by refusing to use the explicit scriptural teaching on?

Do you attempt to teach salvation by grace through faith by refusing to cite any scriptures that explicitly teach about salvation by grace through faith?

Do you attempt to teach about Baptism by refusing cite any explicit scriptural teaching on Baptism?

Why then, would you attempt to teach about antichrist by refusing to cite any explicit scriptural teaching on antichrist?

You are Catholic by your profile. Would you take Irenaeus to task for linking the beast of Revelation to anti Christ?

Link below is to
Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 30)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm

 

[redleghunter]

The contempt is forever as I already said. Nothing here supports eternal life in hell fire.

Seems we tried to spilt hairs.

Matthew 25 should clear this up a bit:

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,d]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (NKJV)

Unless there is a translation different you ate looking at.

If so the various lexicon possibilities are the following:

αἰώνιοςaiṓnios, ahee-o'-nee-os; from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):—eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).


https://www.blueletterbible.org/mgnt/mat/25/1/t_conc_954046

 

[iamlamad]

Try proving the second beast is not the Antichrist. I have already proven both exist at the same time period which highly suggests they are one in the same. Rev does not speak of two individuals. Only the false prophet can be the Antichrist mentioned elsewhere.

Why not the FIRST beast? That seems to be what most believe.

 

[parousia70]

Try proving the second beast is not the Antichrist.

You are asking me to prove a negative?

The onus is not on me to prove who antichtist isn't (even though I easily can), the onus is on you to prove antichrist is who you claim it is, and so far you have done no such thing.

I have already proven both exist at the same time period

No, you have not.

St John, in contrast, tells us exactly the time period of antichrist in the world:

this is the spirit of antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world" ( 1 John 4:3)

which highly suggests they are one in the same.

Actually it suggests no such thing, but do you build your doctrines on "high suggestions" often?

Rev does not speak of two individuals. Only the false prophet can be the Antichrist mentioned elsewhere.

Again, you have used exactly ZERO scriptures that teach explicitly on antichrist to prove your doctrine on who antichrist is.
Why is that you continue to avoid them?

 

[parousia70]

You are Catholic by your profile. Would you take Irenaeus to task for linking the beast of Revelation to anti Christ?

Link below is to
Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 30)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm

Absolutely.
I take Irenaeus to task on a whole host of things he was mistaken about.

For example, He taught Jesus lived to be 50 years old. Do you believe he was right about that?

 

[parousia70]

One thing we know for sure: the Antichrist will DENY the FATHER and SON. Which religion today does that so emphatically?

Lets see....
Christianity? Nope.
Buddhism? maybe..I'm not sure.
Hinduism?, again, possibly. But I don't know much about Hinduism so I'm not sure.
Atheism?... well yes but it's not really a religion...
Islam? ... Well, Islam affirms that Jesus is the Christ (e.g. Koran 4:157, Koran 4:171), while Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). And Islam affirms that Christ came in the flesh, while Antichrist (like the Gnostics) denies that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7). And Islam affirms that the God of the Bible (YHWH) is the true God.
So, nope Can't be Islam.

Judaism?....Ding Ding Ding!!
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son DOES NOT HAVE THE FATHER EITHER; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

[parousia70]

By all means, ENLIGHTEN us!

With Pleasure.

We are all ears.

Hahaha... I doubt that, but here goes:

Below is a fool-proof, 4-question litmus test that you can use to "test for antichrists" from the safety and comforts of your own home. Try it -- it works!

Instructions: Take any person you want and run them through St. John's biblical test below. A "yes" for all four questions gives a positive identification -- 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 SCORE?​

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

 

[parousia70]

Nothing here supports eternal life in hell fire.

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev 20:10

 

[Viren]

Revelation 20:4 means that people who have overcome the carnal mind which is Satan by the Revelation of Christ have been beheaded (lost their carnal mind) and now Christ reigns in them. 1000 signifies God and nothing else. 1 stands for God followed by three zeros signifying nothing. Numbers in the Bible refer to Spiritual things.

The judgement began with God's household 2000 years ago according to 1 Peter 4:17. This is a spiritual event for each individual.

1 Peter 4:17

"For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

 

[iamlamad]

Lets see....
Christianity? Nope.
Buddhism? maybe..I'm not sure.
Hinduism?, again, possibly. But I don't know much about Hinduism so I'm not sure.
Atheism?... well yes but it's not really a religion...
Islam? ... Well, Islam affirms that Jesus is the Christ (e.g. Koran 4:157, Koran 4:171), while Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). And Islam affirms that Christ came in the flesh, while Antichrist (like the Gnostics) denies that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7). And Islam affirms that the God of the Bible (YHWH) is the true God.
So, nope Can't be Islam.

Judaism?....Ding Ding Ding!!
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son DOES NOT HAVE THE FATHER EITHER; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Not so fast. I will agree though, that Judaism for the present is very antichrist. Thanks for pointing that out. But I doubt the Beast of Revelation will come out of Judaism.

They say, ‘God has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Whould you say of God what you know not?
—Qur’an 10:68

Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is.
—Qur’an 19:35

Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!
—Qur’an 19:88

Say: ‘How then can you be so bewitched?’ We have revealed to them the truth, but they are liars all.
Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods!
—Qur’an 23:91

He (exalted be the glory of our Lord!) has taken no wife, nor has He begotten any children. The Blaspheming One among us has uttered a wanton falsehood against God, although we had supposed no man or jinee could tell of Him what is untrue.
—Qur'an 72:3

Now, what does John tell us?
1 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.

In ever verse shown above, Islam DENIES that God had a son. Of course they also deny the trinity.
They deny that Jesus is the Anointed one of God, the "Christ."

"Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah," (4:171, Yusif Ali)

"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116, Yusif Ali)"

So Islam denies that Jesus is the Christ also.

Without a doubt, Islam is Antichrist.

 

[jerry kelso]

Revelation 16-19 are past history. So is Zechariah 14. They concerned the 70th week of Daniel from 3/2 A.D. to 70 A.D. and they spiritually portrayed the destruction of Jerusalem, its inhabitants, and its temple; and the rejoicing in heaven after it was finished. "Coming" means "judgment." 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is prophesying Jesus' second/final coming to earth.



A thousand years is symbolic for the time period between Jesus' first coming and His second/final coming.



The beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire in 67-70 A.D. The devil/Satan will not be thrown there until Jesus' second coming.

We will agree to disagree.

jan001,

1. Revelation 16-19 past? No! Why? The tribulation is not about the jews alone. 70 A.D. was about the jews alone in reference to their destruction by Rome and not the gathering of the nations. Zechariah 14 shows this in verse 2 which you think is past. Why do you miss this? Because you fail to understand the connection with the restitution of all things with the jews coming back into covenant and not destruction.
70 A.D. was a prophecy of Jesus on Jerusalem and the temple and its destruction because Israel rejected the Messiah and the new covenant.

2. Revelation 16 are the 7 vials which is on the beast kingdom worshippers after the 1st resurrection in Revelation 20 of the martyrs only. It is known as the WRATH OF GOD. It ends up on the fields of Armageddon and not in the city itself of Jerusalem.

3. Revelation 17 is about the Mystery Babylon which deals with the religious system who the 10 horns hate and they kill in the middle of the tribulation from the antichrist who comes up among the 10 horns through the old grecian empire area which covers literal Babylon.

4. This deals with most likely Rome going apostate unless the Vatican moves elsewhere. The whole 10 horn scenario is in Daniel and has nothing to do with Israel alone in 70 A.D. It is a straw man by the RCC to prove all this happened back then and remove Israel from their covenant blessings.

5. Revelation 18 is about literal babylon of which Israel is told to come out of in Jeremiah who was defeated by the Medes and the Persians. There are possibilities of other countries and that is debatable but it could not have happened in 70 A.D. because it is not connected with the full destruction of Israel.

2. Daniel's 70th week is still future and is known as the time of Jacob's trouble (Daniel 12:1-2; Matthew 24:21). This has never happened and is also connected with the end times in the tribulation and the jews and not 70 A.D. Also, the new covenant has not been given to the nation of Israel yet and it is still future. Jeremiah 31:32-33. This is the same as in Hebrews 8:7-13. It could not have happened at 70 A.D. because it never came to fruition because they rejected Christ and he had already prophesied in his days. The new testament itself in Jesus blood still happened but not for the nation of Israel especially in 70 A.D. because they were destroyed as a nation. Paul was after Calvary and was still concerned about his fellow people and their receiving the covenants as the head of the nations and the new covenant because they have to have a holy heart before they can literally rule with Christ in the kingdom. 1948 wasn't it and still isn't because they are still backslidden and many of them are atheists. You are wrong again.

3. Rejoicing in heaven wasn't happening after 70 A.D. and the destruction of the elect nation. That is ridiculous.

4. Coming being judgement as in the 2nd coming will be judgement on the kingdoms of the world. The jews will suffer judgement at the hands of the Antichrist and God will purge Israel of 2/3 so the 1/3 can come through the refining power of tribulation. But the purging of Israel comes out in victory which didn't happen in 70 A.D.

5. The 1000 years not being literal and is for this time today is nothing short of ridiculous. This is a straw man and wrong hermeneutic of the RCC to keep Israel out of the picture and put themselves in their place disguised by the RCC being the only church and the false doctrine of Peter's apostolic succession.
It is a fact that at the battle of Armageddon the beast and the false prophet are killed and thrown into the lake of fire at that time (Revelation 19:20).

6. Satan is thrown in the bottomless pit at this time because it is in the context of the martyrs who are resurrected before the 7 vials (Revelation 15:1-2; 16:1-2).

7. Satan is put in the pit so he won't deceive the nations for this specific time. This is not happening now and is a ball face lie by the RCC.

8. The time of the gentiles will not happen until Christ takes the Kingdoms of the world (Revelation 11:15) in the end of the tribulation when the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13) takes place. There will be no absent of the devil deceiving the nations then.

9. The Kingdom of peace in the KoH, the true 1000 years that is literal will be the time of no deceiving by the enemy. It has to happen before he can be loosed for a season. The reason you don't believe this is because you spiritualize the 1000 years.

10. There is no problem equating 1000 years to God for it will be a long time but in fulfillment to the context it is in earthly years and that is a fact you can't dispute.

11. The 1000 years is associated with the martyrs who will rule and reign which is future from their resurrection and there will be a literal 1000 years until the 2nd resurrection which is known as the 2nd death.
Satan loosed from the pit, the rebellion and the 1000 years between the 2 resurrections are all connected and haven't happened today and will not be in the midst of the tribulation but after the end of the tribulation to go into the new kingdom which will be God all in all (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). This has to happen in the period of the 1000 years in order for the son to give over the kingdom back to God the father who gave him the kingdom to begin with. The 1000 years is literal and on earthly time.

12. There is no scripture that implies or plainly says that the beast and the false prophet were even around in 70 A.D. That is a fabrication once again of the RCC. The beast and the false prophet concerns the whole world which is already populated fully and connected not 70 A.D. 70 A.D. was the Roman Empire which was only the civilized world which didn't include the whole world geographically on the earth. It is a straw man of the RCC in the past.

Your agree to disagree is just disagreeing and stating your position. If it is just stating a position one can read history and find that out. Jerry kelso

 

[iamlamad]

Revelation 20:4 means that people who have overcome the carnal mind which is Satan by the Revelation of Christ have been beheaded (lost their carnal mind) and now Christ reigns in them. 1000 signifies God and nothing else. 1 stands for God followed by three zeros signifying nothing. Numbers in the Bible refer to Spiritual things.

The judgement began with God's household 2000 years ago according to 1 Peter 4:17. This is a spiritual event for each individual.

1 Peter 4:17

"For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

Why are you here attempting to teach drivel? Ever use a dictionary?

be·head
bəˈhed/
verb
verb: behead; 3rd person present: beheads; past tense: beheaded; past participle: beheaded; gerund or present participle: beheading
cut off the head of (someone), typically as a form of execution.
"public beheadings"
synonyms: decapitate, cut/chop/lop someone's head off, guillotine
"King Charles I was beheaded in 1649"

You don't have to say, "it means..." when what it means is SO CLEAR a dictionary would clear it up for anyone who has never heard the word.

Here is some GREAT advice:

If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.

Nonsense is what your post is. "Behead" makes perfect sense as it is written. Everyone who reads it (except perhaps you) knows exactly what is meant, for nothing in this verse is symbolic.

If you need more help, just type "behead" into google and then hit images.

What is so difficult about "1000 years?" Does it make sense as written? Is there any hint that it would be symbolic? Of course there is not, the meaning is EXACTLY what it says. Did you never read of God's 7000 year plan?

The idea that God has a 7,000 year plan is not a new one. In fact, it has been around for many centuries. The Epistle of Barnabas taught it in the first century A.D. by stating that “in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished . . . This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” (Epistle of Barnabas, XV verses 4-6) Irenaeus taught it in the second century, Commodianus in the third century, and in the fourth century Lactantius wrote that “the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years . . . at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years…” (The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter 70)​

http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/gods7000yearplan.html

When the Holy Spirit inspired John to write "one thousand years" you don't need to try and correct it! He meant exactly what He wrote!

 

[ewq1938]

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev 20:10

At best this might support that these three are alive forever but the beast is not a person but a governmental system and cannot experience literal torment anyways. Plus, scripture uses intentional exaggerations so it may not be literal:

Isa 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
Isa 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
Isa 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

This is an intentional exaggeration and should be understood in that way just as Rev 20:10 should be.

Another example:

Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.


Not literally forever of course. It simply means "a long time", ie: the rest of his life, an intentional exaggeration.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodom and Gomorrha is not still burning therefore this eternal fire does not imply the target burns forever but this fire exists eternally whether it has something to burn or not and since God is a consuming fire it makes sense that it is eternal because God is eternal. Remember that this fire isn't actual fire. The word fire is used because it's the closest way for us to have any chance to understand the destructive nature and result of this "fire".


And look at how many scriptures refute the idea of eternal life in hell fire:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4.

"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Revelation 2:11

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:14,15.

"The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved." Psalm 75:3.

"Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more." Psalm 104:35.

"Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be." Psalm 59:13.

"The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy." Psalm 145:20

"When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever: Psalm 92:7

"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Malachi 4:1

"And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed." Isaiah 1:28

"Enter ye in at the straight gate: for wide is the fate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat." Matthew 7:13

"I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found." Psalm 37:35,36

He isn't found! Not "put into hell to be tormented for eternity". Scripture clearly shows the wicked being destroyed.

The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23), which is also called the second death (Rev 20), and that judgement (also called damnation) is written to be eternal/everlasting (Mark 3:29, Hebrews 6:2).

 

[ewq1938]

You are asking me to prove a negative?

Only to you. The rest of use know the Antichrist is someone who is important within the tribulation period. All we need to do is go to all scriptures describing that period and identify who the Antichrist is.

The onus is not on me to prove who antichtist isn't (even though I easily can), the onus is on you to prove antichrist is who you claim it is, and so far you have done no such thing.

I have actually.

St John, in contrast, tells us exactly the time period of antichrist in the world:

No, it says the SPIRIT of the Antichrist not the Antichrist defacto.

Actually it suggests no such thing, but do you build your doctrines on "high suggestions" often?

When needed, of course.

Again, you have used exactly ZERO scriptures that teach explicitly on antichrist to prove your doctrine on who antichrist is.

I have more than you do. You haven't tried to show us who the Antichrist is and his role in the tribulation.

Why is that you continue to avoid them?

Nothing is avoided.

 

[parousia70]

Only to you. The rest of use know the Antichrist is someone who is important within the tribulation period.

So far you have offered only Speculation and opinion to support this claim.

All we need to do is go to all scriptures describing that period and identify who the Antichrist is.

Which again, you have used a grand total of ZERO scriptures that explicitly teach about antichrist. Not even one. That alone speaks volumes about the credibility of your view.

I have actually.

You have done no such thing. All you have offered is speculation and opinion based on the traditions of men alone.

No, it says the SPIRIT of the Antichrist not the Antichrist defacto.

Show us where scripture teaches the difference between the two.

I have more than you do.

No, you have provided ZERO scriptures that teach explicitly about antichrist, while I have provided ALL 4 of them. There are only 4 of them... Shocking you are so challenged by them that you are going through such great pains to avoid using them to prove your point.

You haven't tried to show us who the Antichrist is and his role in the tribulation.

I have provided a fool proof test using the entire biblical teaching on antichrist that you can run any suspected individual through. It will provide 100% accurate identification of any antichrist.

Use it.

Nothing is avoided.

And black is white, up is down....

 

[Viren]

Why are you here attempting to teach drivel? Ever use a dictionary?

be·head
bəˈhed/
verb
verb: behead; 3rd person present: beheads; past tense: beheaded; past participle: beheaded; gerund or present participle: beheading
cut off the head of (someone), typically as a form of execution.
"public beheadings"
synonyms: decapitate, cut/chop/lop someone's head off, guillotine
"King Charles I was beheaded in 1649"

You don't have to say, "it means..." when what it means is SO CLEAR a dictionary would clear it up for anyone who has never heard the word.

Here is some GREAT advice:

If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.

Nonsense is what your post is. "Behead" makes perfect sense as it is written. Everyone who reads it (except perhaps you) knows exactly what is meant, for nothing in this verse is symbolic.

If you need more help, just type "behead" into google and then hit images.

What is so difficult about "1000 years?" Does it make sense as written? Is there any hint that it would be symbolic? Of course there is not, the meaning is EXACTLY what it says. Did you never read of God's 7000 year plan?

The idea that God has a 7,000 year plan is not a new one. In fact, it has been around for many centuries. The Epistle of Barnabas taught it in the first century A.D. by stating that “in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished . . . This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” (Epistle of Barnabas, XV verses 4-6) Irenaeus taught it in the second century, Commodianus in the third century, and in the fourth century Lactantius wrote that “the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years . . . at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years…” (The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter 70)​

http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/gods7000yearplan.html

When the Holy Spirit inspired John to write "one thousand years" you don't need to try and correct it! He meant exactly what He wrote!

At the beginning of Revelation John stated that "blessed is the one who hears this revelation and takes it to heart because the time is near." So I take John at his word when he says for people taking this message to heart the time is indeed near just like it was for Christ's servants 2000 years ago.

 

[ewq1938]

So far you have offered only Speculation and opinion to support this claim.

Placing the Antichrist in the same tribulation time as the false prophet exists is not speculation. The fact is there is only one evil individual specifically mentioned in the Tribulation of Rev 13. It is logical to believe the same person John called Antichrist is the same one he is told is called the false prophet. I know of no scholars that do not believe the Antichrist is in Rev under a different name or description.

Which again, you have used a grand total of ZERO scriptures that explicitly teach about antichrist. Not even one. That alone speaks volumes about the credibility of your view.

Bah. That is an empty and meaningless accusation. It is an argument from silence to require the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev in order to prove that same individual is indeed mentioned there. You can reply but I am done going around in circles. Please declare yourself victor in the argument so you can celebrate a false victory

No, you have provided ZERO scriptures that teach explicitly about antichrist, while I have provided ALL 4 of them. There are only 4 of them... Shocking you are so challenged by them that you are going through such great pains to avoid using them to prove your point.

When I say Antichrist, I am referring to 1Jn_2:18 where it says Antichrist SHALL COME, and that there are other Antichrist's currently present. The SHALL COME proves a certain AC will come in the future. It is common knowledge that same person is found in various scriptures under different names.

 

[ewq1938]

At the beginning of Revelation John stated that "blessed is the one who hears this revelation and takes it to heart because the time is near." So I take John at his word when he says for people taking this message to heart the time is indeed near just like it was for Christ's servants 2000 years ago.

At hand can means figuratively close as well:

G1451
ἐγγύς
eggus
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time)

 

[parousia70]

Placing the Antichrist in the same tribulation time as the false prophet exists is not speculation. The fact is there is only one evil individual specifically mentioned in the Tribulation of Rev 13. It is logical to believe the same person John called Antichrist is the same one he is told is called the false prophet. I know of no scholars that do not believe the Antichrist is in Rev under a different name or description.

So the opinions of fallible men outside of scripture are what you hold as authoritative above the actual scriptural teaching on antichrist.
Precisely my point.

Bah. That is an empty and meaningless accusation. It is an argument from silence to require the exact word "Antichrist" to be found in Rev in order to prove that same individual is indeed mentioned there.

Rather, you have created a doctrine from silence, applying the term antichrist to something or someone scripture does not.

When I say Antichrist, I am referring to 1Jn_2:18 where it says Antichrist SHALL COME, and that there are other Antichrist's currently present. The SHALL COME proves a certain AC will come in the future.

If you would let scripture interpret scripture, instead of speculation and assumption to suit your previously held opinion, You would see that St John makes it perfectly clear what that "antichrist that shall come" is:
1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist, which you have heard shall come, and is now already in the world.

The Antichrist that shall come of scripture is a spirit of heresy affecting many. Antichrist of scripture is not a single end time despot.

It is common knowledge that same person is found in various scriptures under different names.

Bah.. And it's common knowledge among Jews that Jesus is not the son of God..

Stick with scripture friend. Abandon the unscriptural "common knowledge" of fallible men.